In the state where I live currently (Washington) we have a process whereby citizens can directly offer up legislation to be voted on by the population at large. A number of signatures are required to get said measures on the ballot, and my limited understanding of the process seems to indicate that it isn't just a walk in the park - so we only see a handful of such 'initiatives' up for voting each election. Some in the past, and even this season, are ones I supported - requiring 2/3rd majorities of our legislature in order to pass new taxes, for example. However, there are a few which I just voted on today which were so convoluted that I'm not sure what will happen if they are passed into law.
Of these, a couple in particular were complicated enough that there were parts I agreed with and others which I very much did not. For example, two - yes, two similar initiatives are up at the same time - were focused on reforming the way our state handles 'hard liquor'. I like that they both wanted to do away with having the State Liquor Board directly warehouse and sell such drinks, which seems like something the government has no business being involved in. However, they then both also would have gotten rid of various laws about the sales of liquor which seemed pretty complex. Some, like those affecting where sales could happen, didn't really bother me - but then others removed taxes, and some seemed to open up changes which would allow bigger beer companies to come in and push out smaller, local breweries.
I'm not into drinking, so that doesn't hit me directly like some of my friends and co-workers, but I do like small and local companies over national conglomerates in a lot of other areas. This dichotomy makes me wish there were actually several smaller initiatives for each of these topics, so I could split my votes up based on how I think / feel. The more I think about it, I bet this problem extends far beyond just the initiative process: most laws these days are long and complex affairs, and likely even the best are saddled with clauses and add-ons which bring unwanted things. Kind of the opposite of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'; maybe one could say 'letting in the fleas with the dog'. I suppose those in power probably don't want changes made, but I would *love* to be able to restrict each law to a small amount of text or some other way of limiting scope to specific issues, rather than having to enact huge bundles of rules just to get one good law in place.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Burning the Qur'an
There is currently a bit of a controversy about a church in Florida that is going to hold "International Burn a Qur'an Day" on the ninth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center - this coming Saturday, 9/11/10. A lot of folks are calling for the church to cancel their event, which they describe as a protest against radical Islam, so I wanted to weigh in with both my opinion and what I think is the more interesting story behind this controversy.
To start off, let me say that this sounds like a very un-Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44), and this does not sound like a good way to show love. However, with that said, they certainly have the right, under US law, to burn any book they want. Folks have burned the Bible in protests in the past, and while I don't like it they have the right to do so.
Most folks, at least here in the US, seem to agree that technically these folks have a right to do what they are doing. The argument I have heard voiced a lot is that it is in poor taste, with which I agree, and that it is going to put our troops overseas in danger of attack from Muslims who are angry over the burning of their holy book.
I agree that it is likely that if this goes forward some attacks will be carried out against Americans, both military and civilians, who are residing in Muslim countries... but that is *not* because these people are burning some books. It is because many Muslims, particularly the more radical among them, see murder as a fitting reaction to someone burning copies of a book that is important to them - even though it isn't their own property or even happening in their region, and the folks they will likely target are no more responsible for the burning than I am responsible for folks who have burned Bibles or crosses here in the US.
That is what I see as the principle problem here: the over-reaction of many Islamic people the world over. Do they have the right to voice their opinion, and protest against the Qur'an burning? Yes - and many are already doing so! In fact, many are burning US flags. That is their right, just as these folks have the right to burn some books. However, if they go a step further and start hurting or killing folks then it isn't the book-burning that has gone wrong, it is the folks doing the killing!
Why should we have to tell someone here in the US that they shouldn't do something which they have a legal right to do because someone else might react in an illegal, immoral, and murderous way? That sounds to me like cowering before terrorism. Do I think those supposed Christians in Florida should burn Qur'ans? No - again, it isn't a very Christ-like thing to do. However, I think they have the right to do as they want under the law and I will not hold them responsible in the least for any reactions by overzealous Muslims. If Muslims want the world to see that their religion is peaceful, as many of them claim, then they need to call on their own adherents to react in a non-violent manner to the Qur'an burning. I guess we'll see on Saturday, and in the days following, what the true nature of Islam is...
To start off, let me say that this sounds like a very un-Christian thing to do. The Bible tells us to "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:44), and this does not sound like a good way to show love. However, with that said, they certainly have the right, under US law, to burn any book they want. Folks have burned the Bible in protests in the past, and while I don't like it they have the right to do so.
Most folks, at least here in the US, seem to agree that technically these folks have a right to do what they are doing. The argument I have heard voiced a lot is that it is in poor taste, with which I agree, and that it is going to put our troops overseas in danger of attack from Muslims who are angry over the burning of their holy book.
I agree that it is likely that if this goes forward some attacks will be carried out against Americans, both military and civilians, who are residing in Muslim countries... but that is *not* because these people are burning some books. It is because many Muslims, particularly the more radical among them, see murder as a fitting reaction to someone burning copies of a book that is important to them - even though it isn't their own property or even happening in their region, and the folks they will likely target are no more responsible for the burning than I am responsible for folks who have burned Bibles or crosses here in the US.
That is what I see as the principle problem here: the over-reaction of many Islamic people the world over. Do they have the right to voice their opinion, and protest against the Qur'an burning? Yes - and many are already doing so! In fact, many are burning US flags. That is their right, just as these folks have the right to burn some books. However, if they go a step further and start hurting or killing folks then it isn't the book-burning that has gone wrong, it is the folks doing the killing!
Why should we have to tell someone here in the US that they shouldn't do something which they have a legal right to do because someone else might react in an illegal, immoral, and murderous way? That sounds to me like cowering before terrorism. Do I think those supposed Christians in Florida should burn Qur'ans? No - again, it isn't a very Christ-like thing to do. However, I think they have the right to do as they want under the law and I will not hold them responsible in the least for any reactions by overzealous Muslims. If Muslims want the world to see that their religion is peaceful, as many of them claim, then they need to call on their own adherents to react in a non-violent manner to the Qur'an burning. I guess we'll see on Saturday, and in the days following, what the true nature of Islam is...
Monday, May 17, 2010
Five Steps to Fixing American Politics
In no particular order:
- Single Term Limits - If a politician has no hope of being re-elected then hopefully his attention will go toward fulfilling the needs / desires of those who elected him, rather than pandering to lobbyists or getting distracted by the next election. I could see going to a setup where politicians could return after a certain number of years off, or perhaps where they could work up through positions but never run for the same one again (representative -> senator -> governor, for example, but never able to have more than one term in each category).
- Instant Run-off Elections - Moving to a system where we could have multiple candidates without it being a detriment to any given group of people, and where recounts could be eliminated, would be a great improvement. Check out this website for more info.
- Transparent Voting - I know it is taboo to suggest this in the US, but I think all voting should be made public. This would allow independent verification of results, rather than needing to trust whoever is in power and in charge of the election process. Imagine each of us being able to visit a website and see that they did indeed record our votes correctly, rather than just assuming that there were no 'hanging chads' or not-quite-filled bubbles that got miscounted.
- Limited Number of Laws - Institute a limit to how many laws can be on the books, and require that for any new law passed after that number is reached an old one must be removed. Done properly this would help ensure that the lists of laws don't get out of hand, and would force clean-up of out-dated laws that otherwise just sit on the books.
- Legally Require a Balanced Budget - Make it a requirement that each year's budget cannot exceed the income of the previous year, in order to help avoid budget overruns and debt. Using a past year as the budget limit helps avoid over-estimation of the current year's expected intake. There could also be provision for exceeding the budget in time of war, but only contingent on an actual declaration of war (not simply a presidential action or other use of military forces).
I'm sure there are other good ideas out there too, and many of the best (including some on this list) would require a major overhaul of our existing laws and such. Given how far into the red we are going, though - both monetarily and socially - I think that is overdue. Revolution 2.0 anyone?
- Single Term Limits - If a politician has no hope of being re-elected then hopefully his attention will go toward fulfilling the needs / desires of those who elected him, rather than pandering to lobbyists or getting distracted by the next election. I could see going to a setup where politicians could return after a certain number of years off, or perhaps where they could work up through positions but never run for the same one again (representative -> senator -> governor, for example, but never able to have more than one term in each category).
- Instant Run-off Elections - Moving to a system where we could have multiple candidates without it being a detriment to any given group of people, and where recounts could be eliminated, would be a great improvement. Check out this website for more info.
- Transparent Voting - I know it is taboo to suggest this in the US, but I think all voting should be made public. This would allow independent verification of results, rather than needing to trust whoever is in power and in charge of the election process. Imagine each of us being able to visit a website and see that they did indeed record our votes correctly, rather than just assuming that there were no 'hanging chads' or not-quite-filled bubbles that got miscounted.
- Limited Number of Laws - Institute a limit to how many laws can be on the books, and require that for any new law passed after that number is reached an old one must be removed. Done properly this would help ensure that the lists of laws don't get out of hand, and would force clean-up of out-dated laws that otherwise just sit on the books.
- Legally Require a Balanced Budget - Make it a requirement that each year's budget cannot exceed the income of the previous year, in order to help avoid budget overruns and debt. Using a past year as the budget limit helps avoid over-estimation of the current year's expected intake. There could also be provision for exceeding the budget in time of war, but only contingent on an actual declaration of war (not simply a presidential action or other use of military forces).
I'm sure there are other good ideas out there too, and many of the best (including some on this list) would require a major overhaul of our existing laws and such. Given how far into the red we are going, though - both monetarily and socially - I think that is overdue. Revolution 2.0 anyone?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
