Almost Classical

I realize there might be good reasons for universities to host "student government" organizations. I'm sure there was a time when these groups dealt with serious issues, especially if they questioned wasteful spending and demanded quality professors, facilities, et cetera. However, we now have student organizations galore, many of which have no academic value and others that merely serve to segregate students. At my ideal university, absolutely no student funds (tuition or "fees") would be used for any organization with a religious affiliation. None. If these organizations want to form, on their own, and do their own fundraising, fine. They can also pay "facilities fees" for meetings on campus that might require staff (moving chairs, emptying trash after, and such things all require labor and cost money). We don't need (and I don't really want) Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelic, Jewish, or Muslim organizations receiving any support fr...

I realize having a dedicated “political” blog is a risk, since some people are bound to be offended. However, there are things that need to be said by as many people as possible. We need to speak up in the name of freedom. We need to defend true liberalism. This is a response to the “Nanny State” mentality that tries so hard to protect us from all risks. This first post is merely to relaunch this blog. Much more will follow when I have the time. I did relocate some older posts and have now reposted them to this site. I am not going to repost all older blog entries, though.

A lot has happened in the last few months, and even now I don’t find myself particularly motivated to write on most of the events. Instead, I like to see patterns and comment on those large, inescapable patterns politicians and the public would rather ignore. Islamic radicals have been a “pattern” since the start of the religion. I don’t mean that every Islamic individual or even Islamic nation has been a problem, but I do mean that Islam seems to have a fair number of radical believers unwilling to enter the modern world. I’m tired of the excuse that Christianity was “just as bad” in some way. I’m not a Christian, and I’m not about to defend any religion or Colonialism, but I also don’t think we should be comparing a current problem to the sins of humanity over the last six thousand or more years. Yes, the Crusades were terrible — but the Muslim nations won! Yes, the Ottoman Empire fell and European powers sliced up the Middle East, but Arab leaders sided with Hitler; not exactly ...

What makes a “conservative” or a “liberal?” I haven't a clue. What I do know is that each one trusts government to solve problems — what differs is which problems they thing government should solve. While I believe government should never give tax breaks to entice a business to relocate, someone else might believe in using eminent domain to replace homes with Wal-Mart Super Centers. While I might think government should conduct scientific research, someone else might claim private industry is better suited for everything. (DARPA’s little network being what we are using to exchange e-mail makes my point. And if you think industry solves everything, look at how long HDTV is taking to appear in the U.S.) Our perceptions of power and how it should be used are what is interesting. What we think is a “moral” role for government varies so much that no matter who or what is in power, half the society will be disappointed and even offended.

With the end of the recent Supreme Court term and some of its more ludicrous decisions, I thought it was time to reread the Bill of Rights to see if I missed something the Court was able to see. After carefully reading the document, which is elegant in its simplicity, I don't think I'm the one confused. How could nine highly-educated lawyers twist such simple words? Because they can rely on previous ignorant and/or stupid rulings to justify not ruling based on the words in the document. Amendment IV In the last few years, the US Patriot Act and other well-intentioned but misguided laws were passed to protect us from terrorists foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, many of these laws have been upheld by a court system unwilling to enforce the Fourth Amendment: Amendment [IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable caus...

I know politicians omit and embellish facts. I know court is not about "the whole truth" but rather only those facts a judge and the lawyers decide to present -- and as they see fit to present them. I know the press is not "truthful" but whatever facts and statements the reporters can squeeze into limited space and time, as influenced by biases. I know texts are never "the truth" nor is my reading of them likely a complete appreciation for what was written. "A well-regulated militia..." reads the Second Amendment. Does anyone know what "regulated" means? It's not what most people assume it means. "Regular" meant well-prepared, or well-equipped. Hence, a "regular" army is better than a "guard" on-call. Regulated does not mean "governed" in all instances, just as "run" does not always mean something people in track meets do. "Regulated" can mean "well-prepared" or...

As I understand it, the "federal" system in most countries has a lot of power -- such as a national sales tax, national education system, national health care, national law enforcement, national regulations (versus national "minumums" in the United States), and so on. For example, the GST or VAT is a national sales tax used for national programs. The United States could not have such a tax without a change to our Constitution, which requires approval of three-fourths of the states. (Switzerland has an "easier" two-thirds requirement for national referendums on Constitutional matters.) It was a long battle just to have a federal income tax in the United States. Even today, people debate if the Amendment was passed properly. I also believe a teaching certificate is good nation-wide in most countries. In the United States, my California credential was accepted by two states, as long as I took some additional courses. California accepts no other states...