Confusing Stability and Security

Welcome back. Been quite a while hasn't it? No need to worry, the NSA hasn't taken me down yet loyal readers.

Speaking of the NSA, that's something I wanted to talk about. It should come as no surprise to you all that I'm rather supportive of Edward Snowden and his efforts for a more transparent (and therefore hopefully much less powerful) government. After all, this is guns,beer, and FREEDOM. But instead of looking at the NSA or the government surveillance programs themselves, I think it's more important to look deeper. To look at our nature as human beings. I think this would give a far greater insight into why, especially as of late, we are having all these conflicts of interests between freedom and so called 'security'.

Now I say so called 'security' instead of regular security (thought there is a great overlap here) because in these instances the primary goal isn't actually being safe, but FEELING safe. That's one reason why the TSA spends so much time dealing with airports, but sea ports receive almost no attention. Not many people deal with commerce shipping, so they don't notice the gaping holes in our security there. But people fly thousands of miles every day, and so very overt changes are made.

So we can gather that REAL security isn't the issue. So what is then? The concept of STABILITY. The FEELING of being more secure makes you more likely to go about your daily business. And we know this is true. Humans are creatures of habit aren't we? We love to fall into patterns of predictability and normalcy. We want, generally speaking, to tend towards order. But the problem is is that freedom isn't orderly. It is inherently chaotic and destabilizing.

While I was between writing this, I saw a George Carlin about this very subject. And in it he points out exactly what I'm stating now; that most of these 'security measures' are designed to make people FEEL safe. And I can understand why. People are creatures of habit, and we form these habits because we feel secure in doing so. I mean, if we actively thought that there was a chance we'd die in some way going to get milk and cheese, we'd be a lot more reluctant to do so. It's self preservation. But it's all an illusion. We face death no matter where we are, or what we do. We can NEVER eliminate the risk.

Now if we really think about it, we know this. So we try to mitigate risk. But at a societal level this is much much harder, because it involves an incalculable number of variables because it deals with people. And people are, sadly, often irrational and unpredictable. So ultimately risk mitigation becomes a very personal factor. It's not something that can be done well at a national level.

So where am I going with this? Well the point I'm trying to get to is that because we cannot eliminate risk and because it's so difficult to mitigate at a national/societal level, we should therefore push on the side of freedom. Yes, it comes with more risk and potential for instability, but it allows people to better face their own personal risks in a way that suits them best. It allows them to succeed (or fail) as individuals, rather than as mass segments. ESPECIALLY when we see that the 'threats' we're all told to be so afraid of are unlikely at best. 

Trimming the Fat

Ok. Merry holidays, and happy feast of madness and all that jazz. Holidays are over, and it's a new year. It'd be timely to speak about certain current events, but I said I would finish the Manifesto before anything else and I'll be damned if I don't. So, to recap where we are, I've reformed both houses of Congress and the presidency. But now on to the nitty gritty of what departments we need to keep, and what ones we need to get rid of, as well as some executive powers that would be changed. Like I said in the beginning, this is a revolution; plenty of things are going to change.

First things first, we need to reduce the Cabinet. I know it's popular to say this or that department of cabinet isn't needed, and in some cases that's true. First and foremost, the Department of Homeland Security. They need to go. Next, the Department of Veteran Affairs. It's a important department, no question, but it should be merged with the Department of Defense (which means the DoD can stay). This will make it easier to keep track of information that needs to be shared between departments right now and increase efficiency, something the current VA isn't exactly good with. Health and Human services would also be merged with Housing and Urban development.

Ok, so that's about it for the cabinet that's being eliminated or merged. Now onto the downsizing. Justice will have several agencies removed, namely the DEA and ATF. Education will be downsized and focus more on promoting states to follow certain guide lines and areas of education rather than having a direct hand in the matter.

While we're at it, might as well specify what should be cut from the military. All overseas bases except Diego Garcia should be shut down and sold off as surplus. In fact, we should surplus off everything we don't use or have an interest in using. Great way to boost revenues. Active duty Army gets cut down to a lean 250,000 over 12 years, with 750,000 as active reserves. Air Force can get rid of the F-35 disaster and drop about 25% of their combat air craft total. The Navy would receive the fewest cuts, but still I'd chop off 3 whole carrier groups and put another into reserve status. The Marine Corps would be dropped to about 75,000 active duty with another 175,000 as active reserves.

These are the big sweeping cuts that should be made. Obviously there is a great deal more when one delves into the minutia of it all, and plenty more to cut from everything. But even just ONE of these changes would show serious interest in a better, leaner, more efficient government.

NOTE: I apologize for the lateness of this update, I've very busy and not the least bit burnt out on writing and creating. I've decided to take a different approach to the rest of the manifesto. In short, updates will now be a mix of whatever I feel like writing about again.

A Special Post on Our Rights

Tomorrow, January 19th 2013, is, for those in America (or abroad and concerned) that do not know, Gun Rights Appreciation Day. I wanted to finish up at least my ideas about reforming the executive branch before veering off course (again) but the current climate simply will not allow it.

I could spend this time talking about how we got to where we are, and why this struggle for gun rights is incredibly important (far more so than most know), but I won't. Instead I would ask that for those that support ALL rights, not just gun rights, contact your elected officials tomorrow. Email, phone call, letters, and if possible arranged meetings, should all be employed to remind the people that we put into office that they ARE accountable for their actions. Their careers depend on us.

I'm going to admit I've been burned out as of late. I'm tired. For those readers who aren't members themselves, in addition to running the greatest website ever made, I'm also an admin at a political message board. And I'm simply tired of dealing with the vast majority of fools that infest every facet of the internet. People who willfully and gleefully ignore facts, reason, and logic. They prefer instead to argue based solely on emotion and feelings, which as anyone who's read GBF before knows, I am firmly against.

So bearing this in mind, that I am tired, that this constant fight weights heavily on me, so much that it makes even my fingers seem burdened by lead, I say we must not give in to the temptation to cloister ourselves and simply attempt to weather this storm as we have in the past. We MUST fight on. The war for our rights, ALL our rights as Americans and as human beings, will not be won by the sunshine soldier and the summer patriot. And more than anything else, this is a fight we must win.

That is all for now. Be sure to contact your reps. I know I will.

And then there were two...

Alright, with a nice healthy break after the legislative changes, it's time to get on to the executive.

The office of president is, or at least WAS, supposed to be an office of limited power domestically. But two presidents, Lincoln and FDR, fundamentally changed that. It couldn't be helped I suppose. Both came about in times of extraordinary crisis and turmoil. And it's typical of people to want to rally behind a strong decisive and autocratic leader during those times. I could speculate that it goes back to our tribal days, but since I'm not an anthropologist, I can't say with any certainty. What I can say though is that power, once given, is very difficult to take away.

Today we have a presidency that is often termed as the most powerful position in the world. There is a great degree of truth in that. Our president has, theoretically, the power to destroy the entire planet. But on a much more practical level the president, and the offices under the president, have the power to do all of the following things;

Kill American citizens without trial
Kill non-American citizens by remote control
Indefinitely detain both American citizens and non-Americans without trial or appeal
Enter your home without warrant
Trace/tap your phones without warrant
Frame you for crimes without fear of punishment

There are far more exercises of power that the president has, but these are some of the most egregious violations. Congress isn't absolved from blame in these instance either, as many times Congress has abdicated its own power to that of the executive. Declarations of war and the non-defensive use of military force is a power reserved for Congress alone and yet so often do presidents ignore the Congress that it doesn't even illicit a response.

Bearing all this in mind, what I propose doesn't seem that radical. In fact it may be rather benign after the shock of such an idea wears off. But I propose it none the less; Instead of one president we should have two. Equal in nearly all power (with one exception I'll get to in a minute). The office of vice president was supposed to fill this slot by being the runner up in the presidential elections. Of course it then changed to allow the president to choose his or her own running mate. The office of vice president was supposed to be a check on presidential power, to force the executive to cooperate on issues. So in that sense I am simply reviving an old idea.

Of course those who are familiar with Roman history know this sounds exactly like the consulships of the republican era, and to a great degree that's intended. No one man should have the degree of power our current presidents do. By limiting both the powers of office and the ability of one man to abuse those powers with a equal who is of different political insight, we can therefore reduce the power of the president and return it where it belongs; to the legislature.

There are practical considerations for this change as well. For example, with twice as many chief executives, twice as many tasks can be accomplished in same amount of time. Half as likely for an assassination to be devastating to our government.

Now, for practical purposes, there would not be two presidents elected at the same time. Our presidential elections would take place every 4 years like normal, but each person elected would serve a term of 8 years. 4 years as the junior, and 4 years as the senior.

Now the next limitation shouldn't be a surprise, given that I am a huge opponent of the two party system. The candidates submitted each year CANNOT be from the same party as the senior president. This will keep one party from being dominant in the executive branch.  And because it will obviously require at least two candidates (who cannot be from the same party), this will encourage the growth of other parties, or the destruction of the party system for executives completely. Already Representatives from the HoR would not likely make it to the office of president, as they were elected by lottery. Senators would only be eligible if they had not served their allotment of terms. This increases the pool of individuals to pick a president from, allowing for greater democracy.

"But what of the Cabinet?" Well, aside from the offices I'd eliminate (more on those later), the cabinet would be nominated by the senior president, who will have had experience prior with members of the previous senior cabinet. This will give the new senior president good insight into both compromise and cooperation, and help them determine the characteristics that are best suited to cabinet members. The people would, hopefully, choose a president that can accomplish the goals the public wants while at the same time working and compromising with the current establishment. In short it makes change slower and more deliberate, allowing reason, evidence, and logic to cool emotions, and hopefully force the voting masses to be more deliberate and thoughtful when they cast their ballot.

As far as powers of office being divided, the presidents could block each other via vetos, though only one signature would be required for a law to pass. Other nominations for non-cabinet positions would be handled the same way, where both presidents would select candidates and the legislature would confirm or deny them as they do now. The use of military force beyond our own national borders, would require explicit orders from both presidents in order to be constitutionally valid. Presidents would not be able to testify against one another in impeachment cases, save for cases of treason.

So to wrap this up, we would have two presidents. Every 4 years we would elect 1 for a single 8 year term. After the 1st 4 years, the sitting president would move from junior to senior. With the exception of cabinet appointments, both presidents would be equal in power and responsibility. Neither of the presidents would be of the same party affiliation. Beyond this, and the requirement for natural born citizenship, there would be no other qualification to run for the office.

Senatorial Selection

This is part 2 in the massive multi-part update that holds in it the secrets to keeping and revitalizing our great republic. Last time, for those that did not read, I discussed the House of Representatives and how they should be chosen by a lottery. This update we will be focusing on the Senate.

Now if you're anything like me, and chances are you're not, you'd be a big fan of ancient Roman history. Watching the decline of the Roman Republic I can see a lot of those elements within our own American Republic. And the greatest embodiment of republican virtue was, and should be, the Senate. Now unlike the Romans we do not determine senators based on birth or social class. We do it by democracy. And in this, unlike the House, I have no problem. The Senate shouldn't necessarily be a representation of the people but be a body to represent the whole of the nation. The people and the nation itself do not always share the same interests, which is part of the reason for distinction between the two houses. The Senate is also supposed to be a more enlightened, impassioned body of legislature, where cooler heads reside.

The problem with the Senate arises however, where much like the House, it has essentially become a social class of its own. This promotes two equally bad qualities in senators; legislative stagnation where senators are relatively the same across the board and seek only to maintain their opulent lifestyles, and to combat this, it increases radicalism in new candidates seeking to differentiate themselves from the incumbent they run against. Simply put, power stays in too few hands for too long. This is never good for a modern government. But to combat this I do not propose a radical new system of democracy. No, what I propose is much more mundane and established; term limits.

The basic system of senatorial elections is, for the most part fine. But with term limits it forces new people into the system, which decrease incentives for senators to promote a self sustaining power system. After all, Senators are going to be back in the civilian system after a period of time, it's unlikely they're going to support a opulent lifestyle that they won't get to enjoy for very long.

Keep in mind, I think a large portion of senators aren't the problem. The problem is the party system. It subverts actual change to the APPEARANCE of TRYING to change or accomplish something. Senators are forced to rely on the party to continue to be reelected, and as such they aren't going to try and dynamically change things if the situation calls for it. Which means we as a nation stagnate. Ensuring that senators only have 2 possible reelections to worry about, weakens party controls but it frees senators up to worry about things other than themselves. 

But what should the limits be? Well, to be it's fairly simple. No more than 3 terms of 6 years apiece (grand total of 18 years) with no more than 2 consecutive terms to be served. In simple terms it means that any senator cannot serve more than 18 years in a life time with at least 6 years of a break somewhere between terms.

Now, this won't have the drastic change on the Senate that the lottery would have on the House, and in truth it's not supposed to. The goal is to keep the Senate from becoming a social club for its members and increase the pool of people who have experience in government. The only radical change I'm suggesting is that the vice president, who presides over the Senate, would be a new position; one that is not tied to political parties. The sole duty would be leading the Senate and casting tie votes. This ties in with my suggestions for Presidential changes but I won't give those away until the next update.

To me the Senate should be the primary means of governing our nation. Not the House, even though it is a more direct representative of the people, nor the President, because that is an office more for representing our nation to other nations. Which means we need to promote the best and brightest to the senatorial ranks and we need to keep forcing the best and brightest into it. Let someone younger, hungrier, more driven, into the ranks.

2-4-23-38-46

The numbers in the title, for those unaware, were the winning numbers to the largest lottery jackpot in American history, a grand total of over $650,000,000. That's a lot of money, even after taxes. But what if there were a lottery that gave away something even grander? And what if they gave it away every few years. The same immense prize every 4 years or so? Sounds pretty crazy to say the least right? And I haven't even mentioned what the prize is. Because what could be a bigger prize than $650,000,000? A billion? A trillion? No, the prize I'm talking about isn't money at all. It's power.

This being an election year, we as Americans are being inundated with ads from political parties and PACs and super PACs and telemarketers and special interests and every other manner of cog in the vast political machine that we have in this country. And maybe it's just me, but it seems we're getting more....disenchanted with it. Now it might be easy to understand. Democracy is a relatively new thing for most of the world but it's here as our nation itself. We've always been a form of democracy. Or at least styled ourselves as such. I'll get to why I say 'styled' in a moment but let's focus on the disenchantment of elections in America. I think we're becoming more disenchanted with elections because we're losing our faith in the ability of elections to really change things. More and more national politics is taking on the role of being one side with two slight variations. I've talked before about elections based on two choices with very littler variation before and this is in the same vein. Because we are so entrenched in a 'two party' system, the parties themselves have been drawing closer and closer together. Sure they might differ on an issue here or there, but by an large they're the same group. Which means that significant change cannot occur. It's no longer built into the system. And if you cannot change things in an election, well how is that really a democracy?

We call ourselves a democracy because we are under the impression that each election brings about choices. But when the choices you're given have the same net effect, it isn't choice at all. Instead democracy should be about the ability of the governed to affect the government. And the easiest way to do that is to get elected. And we all know that the chances of any particular person trying to enter the system against an incumbent are essentially nonexistent. So then how are we to change things? Well I'm glad you asked, because that's the grand prize I was talking about. The Lottery.

The House of Representatives is supposed to be the legislative body that represents the whole of the people. To me it would seem best if the representatives came from that body. And the best way to get new people into the House is a lottery for office. The rules would be simple. You have to be a citizen of at least 5 years in your district, and you have to have filed a tax return in the year prior to the election. We could still even include direct democracy in the process by selecting four eligible candidates from each district, and having them campaign against each other 3-5 months prior to election day. Now in my version of things the term of a House Representative is extended from 2 years to 4 years, so they have a bit more time to settle into things and get used to working as a public servant, but otherwise the position would be the same as today.

What advantages does my system have? Well first and foremost it breaks the power of special interests in elections. No smart business would invest very much into someone who they don't have time to build a relationship with, whose position itself is based primarily on luck, and who won't be holding the position for more than one term. It also would remove the pressure of reelection from the minds of House Representatives. If their position is determined based on luck, then they have no incentive to worry about maintaining it. Instead they can focus their efforts on getting things done. Additionally, because the political makeup of the House would be changing so massively (in theory) every 4 years, you wouldn't have safe votes. And House Representatives would actually have to compromise and cooperate with one another to get something accomplished. Possibly even with people the disagree with on a number of issues. A shocking concept to be sure. Plus there is the added advantage of people who best represent the demographic of the district would most likely be selected in the lottery drawing. Now a good number of districts would need their lines redrawn, because years of gerrymandering has made them far from logical or practical, but the lottery would do away with that too. No point in redistricting to maintain power for one party when the lottery leaves it all up to luck and chance.

Now some might say that this is a pretty severe and arbitrary change. Well, yes it is severe, but its hardly arbitrary. We already use a similar concept for jury duty. And we have a similar concept again for the selective service. We often view the draft as a duty to the state, but why should we not view public office in the same way? Something that some are chosen for, at random, for a term to help serve their country. Same concept. And because of this, it is my hope and belief that we would affect actual cultural change in our country. We would be far more critical of politicians and the political process, because after all, we might have to be a part of it in a couple years. It would, hopefully, drive us to be better citizens in general.

There are of course disadvantages to this system as well. The largest being the possibility of a bad representative being chosen at random. That's certainly cause for concern, don't get me wrong, but we've survived avowed racists, the technologically challenged, the religiously guided, the war mongerers, and a whole slew of other undesirables as representatives, and they had the benefit of being able to be elected again and again and again. With the lottery the longest any district would have to suffer under a bad representative is 1 term. Still a flaw yes, but a mitigated one.

There is also the flaw that people entering office would be inexperienced in a great number of things. This sounds bad, but it's again not as much a problem as one might think. Public officials of the olden days were expected to be the best of us, the most fit to lead based on their merits and their intelligence. But the world was, and this is a very simplistic statement, a smaller place. 200 years ago House Representatives did not need to know the benefits and problems associated with nuclear waste or the reclamation of such waste. They didn't need to concern themselves with 300,000,000 people, or terrorists from across the Atlantic, or copyright protection on the internet. It was easier to be informed and experienced because there was less to be concerned about. We don't have that luxury today and it's a problem that we expect our elected officials to be THAT much smarter than we are. A little smarter, yes. But the information of the world is far too vast for any one government body to be even passingly familiar with all of it. That's where special interests come in. I'll discuss them more later though, as I'm certain that this is the limit of what most of my readers want to hear.

So with that thought in mind, here are the cliff notes. We should embrace the idea of a real democracy where the governed stand a legitimate chance of changing the system and being able to participate in it. To that end the House of Representatives should be determined by a lottery for candidates for each district, so that they may better represent the district as a whole, and to help foster a change in the way we as Americans view the political system. Additionally it would improve our democracy because it would put greater power in the hands of the people.

In my next update I'll move on to the OTHER body in our national legislature; the Senate.

Should I join?

Perhaps it's the circles I run in these days (or type in as the case may be) but I notice a lot of people in my generation are thinking of military service. Now, being that I'm not an immortal, I don't know if this is historically unique here in America. I DO know that since 9/11 military pride and enlistments have been higher than before. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but many people fail to remember a couple crucial points;
#1.Recruiters are there to fill quotas. They WILL lie to you. That's their job.
#2. Service life is not for everyone.

Now, I'm not knocking the military. It did great things for me as a person. But I joined with a sense of altruism in the beginning and knew that it would suck, many others in my generation did/do not. So if you read this and are considering the military, ask one very important question;

WHY?

Is it because you were a poor student or don't have college prospects? That will not make the military, which is increasingly looking for better educated people, a good option. It also is a good indicator (though certainly not universal) that you have a problem with certain authority. That will absolutely be a detriment to you in the military.

Or is it perhaps because you want good benefits/the G.I. Bill. While the new G.I. Bill is probably the greatest benefit anyone in this country can get, the others are not so good. VA medical care is poor in most areas. You will almost certainly be physically older (I.E. more worn and injured), and mental health may deteriorate as well (PTSD for example).

But what about the job market? Well, think of it this way. If you are having trouble finding a job now, how will you fair when you are 4 years older, have no college education, and no real transferable skills. The last part isn't universal and there are several military skills that are highly desirable in the current job market, but by and large it isn't transferable or isn't skilled labor. You WILL have to get out of the military at some point, whether after 4 years or 30. It will happen. And honestly with the huge group of returning vets we have today, saying you served honorably is worth at most a handshake when you go for a job interview. It looks nice, but it means little. Companies want someone with skills.

I'm saying all of this because so many of my fellow vets are unaware of the outside world until it comes and bites them square in the ass. At least 25% of the people I EASed with are trying to get back in. They got out and were unprepared for reality.

Now, with all that being said, there are upsides to service. You will experience things that very few other people will. You will, if you let yourself, learn about other people from our very vast and diverse country. You will make friends that you never would have made anywhere else and some of them will be the best friends you could possibly have. People that you would love unconditionally and fight and die for if needed. You will, if you do your service honorably, live for the rest of your life knowing that you have a reason to be proud of yourself. And you might get some sweet tattoos too.

But all of these are intangible things. They won't make the rest of your life easier. Indeed, in some instances it will make your life much harder. You have to go in knowing WHY you want to, and knowing that it most likely will suck. And whatever you do, if you enlist, get an education. A valuable skill or trade. Something to show for your time.

Well, that's the end of my rant.

A generation at war

With all the buzz about the election and gays this and mass shootings that (more on the latter later), I've been thinking more about the state of war we as a nation are in. Historically this is a unique time for us. We've been at war and afraid for 12 years now. That's an entire generation of children born into war, and knowing about it for 12 years. It's around 12 that I started to become politically conscious, and I imagine many others are becoming aware of government and politics as well. And for them, they've never known peace. They haven't personally experienced a time when you could fly without the fear of having a hand in your ass. They never knew a world where police have the power to tap your phones based solely on your interests in islam or firearms or anything that someone in power might see as dangerous. They've lived like that their entire lives and such things are now NORMAL to them. And my generation isn't much better off. Our whole adult lives have been consumed by the same. While we may remember a different childhood, our transition to adulthood has cemented these ideas, that are patently against the founding ideas of our nations.

So before I close I just wanted to say, when you go to vote, make it a vote that you can tell your children about. Make it one where they have the chance to grow up and live in a world where war and fear aren't the prevailing ideologies.

Voting for the candidate I want is never wasted

I was reading around, as I so often do, and noticed this article. While I'm not a fan of copy+paste arguments, it makes several very salient points that I don't think I could say better myself.

he most frequent objection to voting for a third party candidate is the "wasted vote" argument -- the idea that if you vote for someone who will not win, then your vote does not count.

Merely suggest that a friend or family member consider voting for a third party candidate and you will often hear the statement, "I don't want to waste my vote."

Before delving into the extent of the wasted vote myth, some other myths must be addressed first:

Myth #1: Third party candidates are never elected.

Ross Perot out-polled George Bush in Maine in 1992 and out-polled Bill Clinton in Utah in 1992. Perot polled
Minor parties won gubernatorial elections in Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, and Minnesota during the 1990s, and Lincoln Chafee was elected as an Independent to Rhode Island's governorship in 2010. In the 1990s, Independents were elected to Congress in Missouri, Vermont and Virginia. In the 2000s, Independents were elected to Congress in Connecticut and Vermont.

Independents are elected to state legislatures in almost every election cycle. Former Miami Mayor Manny Diaz and current New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg were both elected as Independents.

The dominant party in Mexico between 1929 and 2000 lost the presidential election there in 2000.

New things are constantly happening in the world of politics. Overwhelming evidence suggests that voters not affiliated with either major party will decide the 2012 presidential race.

http://chelm.freeyellow.com/wastedvote.html

There is more to the article, but this should give you the jist of its points. Voting for the candidate that actually supports what you support is never wasting a vote. If the only measure of import for voting was whether a candidate/ballot initiative won or not, then most everyones vote is wasted.  If you reward a shitty candidate with your vote, why would you be surprised when another shitty candidate comes around? You've proven that you're not basing your vote on what you want but what you think will win. That's what gamblers do, and any serious gambler will tell you they lose a lot more than they win.

On Libya

I know it may be a tad late to get in on the whole "Libya" thing, but it's on my mind and I felt it would be a good thing to discuss.

I want to start off by saying that I fully support my brothers and sisters of Libya in their efforts to free themselves from tyranny. What route they'll choose now that Ghaddafi is gone I cannot say, and ultimately it's none of my concern. It's their choice to make, and they're free to make it. I hope that they continue down the road to freedom, but it's their choice now.

But before it was their choice, there was the matter of the rebellion, and most important to what I'm talking about, was international aid to the rebels. It's probably the biggest and only thing I supported Obama on was aiding the Libyan freedom fighters. Now that's not to say I support America (or any other nation) attempting to overthrow governments overtly or covertly, but if a legitimate opposition that shares our values of freedom and democracy appears and is actively engaged in fighting and ASKS for our help, I feel it is our national duty to oblige, at least in some way.

Personally, I would not have deployed troops or naval vessels. That's beyond our duty. But supplying them with aid, such as food, medical supplies, arms, and military training/advising, is perfectly legitimate. I also support Abraham Lincoln brigades, but it's highly doubtful those will ever be seen again.

Drugs, drugs, drugs

It's become pretty popular, especially among members of my generation, to be for the legalization of marijuana. Unlike most people in the movement though, I have never tried it. Never been inclined to and unless there is a drastic change in my disposition towards it, I'll probably die saying the same. So I don't support the legalization of weed because I want to get high. I support it because I support all freedom, even if it does not directly benefit me.

But I don't stop with just pot. I want it all legal. Shrooms, coke, LSD, K, you name it, it should be legal to use, possess, buy, and sell (with the right commercial license). Now I KNOW most people aren't cool with the this proposition, I can hear it now "You want HEROIN to be sold at grocery stores? That's crazy!". Maybe so, which is probably why grocery stores wouldn't sell it. But ultimately it comes down to that most essential, unquantifiable principle of America and Libertarianism. Freedom. If I want to shoot up, smoke a jay, do a line, or light up a cigar, that's a choice that starts, and ultimately ends with me. The law certainly won't stop me, because we wouldn't have people doing drugs now if it did.

But what about the after effects? Certain drugs might make people do illegal things right? Well yes, they might. Like driving a car through someones house into a childs room. Happened to a good friend of mine (I.E. someone drove into his house, luckily no one was hurt). The drug of choice? DUST OFF! Plain, fucking, over the counter cleaning products. You don't see a war on those do you? Why? Because that'd be dumb. Criminalizing misuse I can understand, because when you do something stupid that is harmful to others (you can do whatever you want to yourself), that's an essential infringement of THEIR rights. But in the end, prohibiting people from anything that might hurt others ultimately hurts everyone. It infringes on freedom first and foremost, and secondly, those who are inclined to be stupid, will be stupid. We've been stupid for around 100,000 years, I doubt a new law will cure that. And the only way to FIX stupidity, it to learn from it.

One special note before I close, and that deals with taxes. I know it's fashionable to say "regulate it and tax it" when dealing with pot, and I will be the first to say "go fuck yourself". Why should pot, or alcohol, or tobacco, or anything else that might be bad for you, be taxed specially? We already have a tax for items, it's the sales tax. Anything else is government trying to get its hands where it doesn't belong. Tax an item too much, and guess what? You'll get two things. First you'll get people doing illegal work arounds, like smuggling. And then you'll get people making new laws for this and that and every other exception under the sun so that actually trying to run thing effectively will be impossible. Instead of finding new ways to make money, the government ought to tighten its belt like the people it supposedly represents. But that's a rant for another day.

Capital Punishment

This may be surprising, coming from a man who spends more on guns than on his car, but I'm absolutely against the death penalty. That's not to say that I hold the life of a convicted murder in any particular esteem, I simply don't feel that the government has the legitimate power to decide who does and does not have a right to live. Add on to that, it allows emotion to permeate in our justice system, with families of victims craving revenge. That's not what our legal system is about. Justice needs to be cold and emotionless, so that it can be even and fair.

I won't get into the details with regards to the governments use of deadly force (it's far too nuanced for a primarily ideological discussion), but in essence the primary difference between police shooting someone and a prison executing someone is that the police are acting in defense, not in punishment (brutality and corruption not withstanding). In short, once someone is arrested, they should no longer be a danger to anyone, so what is the reason to kill them?

Term Limits

It's an idea whose time has long past come. In my mind, the largest problem facing our political system today is career politicians who serve for multiple decades. It serves no interest other than self interest to maintain a place in office so long, as it makes it far more difficult for new, younger members to enter the political arena. Those that do nationally are almost universally stepping up from statewide elections, and they from local or county political systems. How much democracy can one have if the choices are only those that have spent their entire lives in politics?

My solution isn't a perfect one, I'll be the first to admit. But it's far better than the current system. I propose a maximum of 12 years total for all national level politicians. That means you could be a House member up to 6 times, a Senator twice, or the President twice with some change. If nothing else, it'd get more people involved in the political system. And honestly that's the reason why current politicians won't go for it. It'd challenge their free ride. It'd force them to work, because even if they did nothing, they'd only be able to do that nationally for a decade.

Being a Veteran

I'll be the first to say it. Just being a military veteran does not give you a license to be an asshole. As a veteran myself, I would know.

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for veterans and the sacrifices, large and small, that we've made in our lives. But that's the key word; SACRIFICE. We willingly gave up something, and because it was entirely our choice, we cannot use our status as veterans as some sort of carte blanche to try and get away with something that would otherwise be unacceptable.

And most especially, because the sacrifices we've made are ultimately for the freedoms our nation protects, we have to respect it when people exercise those freedoms in ways we might not personally agree with. The best example of this is the Westboro Baptist Church. Anyone who hasn't lived under a rock for the past decade at least has heard of them. They're the small group of religious activists who regularly picket funerals of veterans, saying that their death punishment from God was due to our nations acceptance of homosexuality.

I can tell you right now that there isn't a single point in their message I agree with, but when I swore in and officially became a Marine, my oath was to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". That means that I didn't just risk my life, and give up my own personal freedoms, just to defend the rights of people that I like or agree with. Every time the WBC protests a funeral, their actions make me feel that the sacrifice was worth it. Because they CAN protest, they CAN have radical religious views, and in a beautiful display of cosmic irony, they OWE it in part to veterans who were the epitome of whatever they dislike.

That's the greatest part of freedom; when someone expresses it in ways that make you wish they hadn't. That's how you know that you still have freedom to begin with.

Micro-Brews and Third parties

God I hate election years, especially presidential election years. It seems that ever since Regan was in the White House, our presidential elections have turned into mass marketing style over substance campaigns. Every election cycle the political advertisements become more and more like beer advertisements (and I'm not talking about Sam Adams).

Each candidate will brand themselves, as bold, leader-like, and radically different from each other. But compare their voting records, the plans they propose, cabinet nominations and sometimes even direct quotes and the story changes, just like with BMC beer (Bud, Miller, Coors). You can ask anyone what their favorite is, and they'll swear up and down they can separate it from the others. And if they have their eyes open, they can. But put a blind fold on them and watch the hilarity ensue. 9 times out of 10, they can't tell the difference. And the same holds true for your big party political candidates these days.

And just like big brewed beer, big party politicians rarely deliver on all their marketing hype. They'll do just enough to get you drunk and have you keep on buying (or voting) for them as long as they can. Now if that's all you want in a beer (or leader), fine. You're a free person and if you feel comfortable with the average and the plain that's entirely up to you. But don't sit there and extoll these supposed virtues and differences when you're one blindfold away for a different label for the same product.

Despite all this however, I'm optimistic about the future, both for beer and national politics. As my generation comes to age, a good portion of us aren't settling for mediocrity in our products. It's this reason that made the Boston Beer Company (the Sam Adams brewers) the largest brewery in America, with the tried and true Yuengling as the 2nd. And the political spectrum is changing too. Presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, Ross Perot, Gary Johnson, and Ralph Nader are becoming more and more popular. Whether you agree with them or not, I'm not hear to say, but you can't argue they're anything but different from the typical political spectrum. This is what the new America wants, what MY America wants. And I think it's about damn time too.