Freedom of Speech

Most of my regular readers will know that I'm pro-military and generally in favor of the "War on Terror". I take a lot of pride in realizing that not everybody is in favor of it. Some people don't like war period, others don't like the way it's being run, and others just have a hard-on for anything anti-George W. Bush.

And that's fine with me.

Of all things in the Constitution, the part I cherish the most is the 1st Amendment. If not for this amendment, our country wouldn't be what it is today, nor would anyone be able to have blogs, etc.

I try not to be overly critical when someone expresses their freedom of speech when it comes to ideas and opinions I don't like. I try my best to take a deep breath and say "it's going to be ok". It's because of this, that I'm not going to slam the owner of this website. His name(supposedly) is Michael Crook has he is decidedly anti-military. Not just anti-Bush or anti-war in Iraq. The man hates soldiers, refers to them as scumbags, leeches, etc. He openly rejoices when soldiers are killed and proudly displays pictures of them on his website.

The man is truly misguided, but I won't get into the name calling that some military members are using on his website. In fact, I won't even post a comment on his website. Being a member of the U.S. Military is something to be proud of in my opinion. It's not a job for everyone, and having an all volunteer force makes it the greatest military in the world. They make sacrifices that others aren't willing to make. This is my opinion, and you may not agree. Certainly Mr. Crook doesn't agree. What we do agree on, is that freedom of speech should be protected, no matter how much you disagree with what you hear.

Abortion

If there is any one political topic sure to polarize a group of people, it's got to be abortion.

For once I'm not going to offer a specific solution here, because try as I may, I haven't come up with an answer over the last 6 years or so that I think would work. I will however, offer my opinion on the matter.

I'll start of by saying I'm not in favor of abortion for the most part. Sure, there are instances where most people feel it's appropriate such as a situation like rape. Others will include incest and the life of the mother in that clause, but I won't and I'll get to that in a bit.

The hardest part about abortion is there are so many dynamics to consider. Some are against it because of religious beliefs, but sometimes I find that a little hypocritical. You're against abortion because the church says it's wrong, but I bet you use condoms so you don't get pregnant right? Others want to debate when life begins. Well, I guess my feeling is that life begins when the heart beats. That's my personal opinion though.

Others will argue for women's body-women's choice. Well, ok.. but if it's your body and your choice, should it be a man's choice not to pay child support if you choose to keep the child? Sexual reproduction isn't something you do by yourself so why should you get sole choice on whether to abort or not? That aspect doesn't really seem fair.

As I mentioned earlier, some who aren't in favor of abortion are willing to grant exemptions for incest and the life of the mother. Surely those seem like good reasons, and I'm aware that when people say incest, they mean men who rape children, but I don't think two 20 something siblings should be able to abort simply because they are related, and I don't think expectant mothers should be granted an automatic pass simply because their life may be in danger if they knew the risk before becoming pregnant.

To sum up my opinion on abortion, I think it should be a matter of personal responsibility, just like numerous other issues around the world. That's why I offer no particular solution. Try as we might, it's darn near impossible to force responsibility on people who aren't willing. When I hear about women getting abortions, particularly people I know, it sort of makes me sad. Not so much for the unborn baby, as it does for the lack of personal responsibility on the part of the woman and the man involved. I'd like to see as few abortions as possible performed, and I don't just say that as a sound bite to kowtow to the pro-choice folks out there. I really believe it. I'd like to see as many options considered as possible before aborting a baby to include adoption, but there are already so many kids living in foster homes waiting for the chance that it's not a strong argument.

I don't think increased and innovative ways to teach sexual education or handing out condoms with the kid's milk at school is the answer either. It seems as if our generation is determined to shrug off responsibility for it's actions. Until couples are willing to take responsibility for their actions debating the abortion issue is a lot like a dog chasing it's tail.

Death Penalty

The Death Penalty is another hot topic around the country. Personally, I'm in favor of it. Detractors will point to DNA evidence that has gotten people released from prison and death row, which is great although I'm willing to bet more people have been rightfully convicted than wrongly executed.

Sentencing someone to death is certainly not a matter to be taken lightly, but I think we do a pretty good job with it. Someone who kills without remorse and will never be released from prison has very few redeeming qualities in my book, and after all appeals are used, and the evidence is quite clear, I see no reason to keep feeding them.

The arguement can be made that there are some inappropriate usage of the death penalty. I tend to agree to a certain point. I think it should only be used on murderers, child rapists and crimes along that level. Execution of mentally diminished folks is one I'm on the fence about. It does seem a little like putting a dog down or something like that, but then I've got to ask: Does that fact that they are mentally retarded mean they didn't actually do the crime? Well, yeah.. they did the crime, but they didn't know what they were doing! Ok, but does that mean they won't do it again?

Social Security

It's such a paradox these days. It certainly is a "social" program in that everyone contributes for the greater good.. but there isn't much "security" to it these days. The ironic thing about it, is that it was created mainly as a counter to people's mistrust of the stockmarket, following the great crash of 1929, and now President Bush wants to make personal investment a cornerstone of a newer, better Social Security program.

If you ever hear a politician speak publicly of a "Social Security Lock Box" or "Trust Fund", immediately throw the nearest brick through your TV, even it's a cool plasma or bigscreen. There is not a "trust fund" or "lock box". If there ever was, all it would be filled with is I.O.U.'s. Our congressman and senators continue to rob this money to pay for other things that they want. I'm actually in favor of the concept of personal investments, but I don't think the President has found a good way to bridge the gap and that will ultimately prove him unsuccessful in his efforts. Even Republicans are publicly saying they will support tabling the idea for now, and that's big considering the Bush Administration's ability over the last 5 years to have people toe the line.

Social Security is definitely broke, and there are really only two ways to fix it: Fund it more by increasing taxes, or find a way for personal investments to work.

Given those two choices, I say we try the second way first.

Budgets and spending

It irks me when I hear a member of congress complaining that their favorite program is being forced to take a budget cut, but when you crunch the numbers the program got an 8% increase in funding last year, and is scheduled to get a 5% increase this year. If you listen closely you'll hear them whining about such and such program is getting a 3% decrease in funding in the new budget. Now, I'm not sure where these folks went to school, but where I come from, that is not a 3% loss, it's a 5% gain in funding. There is nothing in our constitution that says a program must receive more money year over year. In fact, there is a lot of waste and unnecessary funding being handed out each year, which leads to my next problem:

Less Is Best. As our system is currently set up (or at least currently run) members of congress gain prestige and support from their constituents by packing as much pork as they can onto a spending bill with pet projects for back home. Federal funding bills should be created as lean as possible to provide as much left over money as possible to be sent back to each state. I'm a state's rights kind of guy and I'd rather see my elected officials stripping as much junk off of a proposed bill so that they could provide more money for my state to be used as we see fit.

Basically, I feel that my opinion on government spending can be summed up like this: Who knows how to spend my money better than me? Fund what you have to at the federal level, take anything left over and give it to the states to fund what they have to, and if there is anything left, save it for the next year. I don't really want the money back. All around our country people are encouraged to save money for the future, so why not the government? Saving money now will help us in times of need, such as our current war on terrorism and the Social Security fiasco... But those are topics for another time.

Taxes

The whole taxation process leaves a lot to be desired. It's entirely too complex with too many loopholes. I'm completely in favor of everyone paying their fare share in taxes, and I don't necessarily agree that people should be able to get out of paying their share because their income is too low.

The easiest way to fix the problem is to migrate to a flat tax system. This would eliminate a lot of the problems we face in regards to taxes and it would eliminate a lot of verbal pollution and doublespeak on Capitol Hill. Just to pick a number out of the air, let's say we had a flat tax system and everyone contributed 15%. That means the person flipping burgers for minimum wage would contribute 15% of his or her income to the tax rolls, but so would the CEO who works on a 2 million dollar per year salary. It's the only fair way to do things.

The Judicial Process

One of the things I've found irritating is the hold up on judicial appointments. Currently the Democratic Party is doing everything it can to prevent President Bush's judicial appointments from getting an up or down vote in the Senate.

This isn't a problem exclusive to Democrats, as Republicans used the same tactics when President Clinton was in office. Sen. Majority Leader Frist(R-TN) is leading the fight to end this nonsense. Currently 60 votes are needed in order to end a filibuster and send a nominee to the floor for a vote. What Sen. Frist would like to do is seek an internal ruling within the Senate saying that filibusters are not allowed on judicial nominees. All he needs in order to get a favorable ruling is a simple majority, which he would be able to get. This would eliminate the filibusters and allow candidates to find out if they will or will not be confirmed.

I think this is a fair way to do things. When a person is elected President of the United States, they are elected to set public policy. The public assumes when they elect someone to the Presidency that they will set the tone for wide range of subjects including the economy, foreign policy and judges. A person shouldn't have to wait 4 or more years to find out if they will be confirmed or not. This is plain silly. If the minority party feels threatened by a particular judge, it is there responsibility to try and persuade members of the majority party to vote against the nomination-not hold it up for years.

The last couple of paragraphs lead me into another related problem I have with judges. I was thinking about making this a separate post, but I think I can keep it short. Judges are a part of the checks and balances system created by the constitution. However, they should not legislate from the bench. It's their job to interpret state and federal constitutions and make a ruling, not make a ruling because of how they personally feel about an issue brought before them. I also do not agree with Rep. Tom Delay's(R-TX) recent comments in regards to the Shaivo mess, saying about judges: "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." It's not the responsibility of congress to punish judges for handing down rulings that they don't like. Congress needs to create laws that are within our constitution that will offset rulings that they don't like. It is also their job to impeach judges who are not upholding their duties, but it isn't their job to seek revenge.

A little about me

If I was forced to make a choice on party affiliation, I'd have to pick the Republican Party. There are a lot of things I don't agree with, but the GOP probably comes the closest at this point than any other political party. Just because I'm conservative doesn't mean I drink the George Bush Kool-Aid with no questions asked. I hope that my posts will shed further light into this.