Category: politics

Privacy Schmivacy

Privacy Schmivacy

By |

There’s been much furor recently over President Bush’s allegedly illegal wiretaps without a court order.  My brother has even voiced his concerns over the issue.  Though it is likely to get me flaid, I just have to say that I can’t find the energy to get worked up over it.  Sure, there’s probably a reason for concern, but there’s not a camera in my bedroom, nor are they tapping everyone (that we know of, right? ;), so I just can’t summon the moral outrage to pick up a pitch fork and torch and demand impeachment.  No scratch that, censure.  No, wait…

One could easily argue (and probably will) the slippery slope, and, despite that that is considered a logic fallacy by people smarter than I, there’s probably some truth there.  Still, I just can’t do it.  For me, there are issues far more important than the Chief Executive ordering the FBI to wiretap known and/or suspected terrorists.  With millions of babies being slaughtered each year before they ever take a breath (and some just before they do) and homosexual activists trying to tear apart a foundational element of civilizations since the beginning of time, just to name two big ones, I don’t see why eavesdropping on criminals should be a high priority for me.  If you want to debate the issue, to gain a legal clarity and punish those broke the law (if any did), that’s fine.  I just feel compelled to donate my miniscule efforts to what I see as a far important fight.

The Wall of Separation Canard

The Wall of Separation Canard

By |

One of the greatest canards in modern public life, in my opinion, is the alleged "wall of separation" between church and state. The idea is that The Framers wanted a government devoid of any religion at all. I think history adequately shows, though, that that’s not the case. What they wanted, rather, was a religion without a state government. That is to say, they didn’t want any one religion to gain the official backing of the government of the land and then be forced upon the populace, as was the case in England.

Everyone now and then, like this case, we see this faulty idea of separation applied at the local level. I think the people that do this are either uninformed with regards to the Constitution, or are being intentionally disingenuous. While these people bow at the altar of the First Amendment, they gloss over the 10th Amendment, which states that any powers not expressly granted to the Federal government are reserved for the states and the people. So how is this relevant to the South Carolina case? The First Amendment says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Note the emphasis I added. "Congress shall make no law…" Now, couple that with the Tenth Amendment, and I think you can make a case that the First Amendment does not apply to local governments. If a municipality, acting according to the dictates of its constituents, decide that they wish to acknowledge Jesus Christ in their town hall meetings, I think the Constitution grants them that right. The same goes for Allah, Buddha, or whatever religious figure one might choose. What we have in this case is the tyranny of the minority, where a single person was able to assert her will and overrule what is apparently (from the lack of widespread support of the plaintiff) the will of the local community. If you add in a Supreme Court that seems to have forgotten the Constitution they’ve sworn to interpret and uphold, and you have the federal trampling of states’ rights. Just one more in a long line.

Gambling for Education

Gambling for Education

By |

Here is a letter I mailed to The Daily Oklahoman concerning the upcoming vote regarding Governor Henry’s Gambling for Education proposition:

Oklahoma voters are being bombarded with commercials admonishing us to vote for SQ 705 and 706 to create a state lottery. According to these spots, this lottery will save our schools, hopefully much better than liquor by the drink and parimutuel gambling. What they don’t tell you is the impact the lottery will have on the local economy. For every dollar spent on the lottery, that’s one less dollar that goes to a local retailer, which pays for such things as salaries and health benefits. For every dollar spent on the lottery in Oklahoma City, that’s 3.875 cents that doesn’t go to the city in sales tax, which pays for such things as policemen, firemen, etc. It’s also 4.5 cents that the state loses in sales tax, which supports a myriad of state programs. A vote for the lottery may be a vote for funding education, but it’s also a vote against funding our local retailers, and our police and fire departments.