Category: politics

233 years and counting

As of tomorrow, this nation has managed to remain (mostly) free of tyranny for 233 years. This is a remarkable feat. Given how fast the world has changed in the last century, it is even more remarkable. What we experience and take for granted now is nothing like what we had even ten years ago, much less fifty or a hundred.

But here we are. And many of us – especially those who consider themselves conservative or libertarian – are worried. In the last six months under President Obama we have seen incredible expansion of government power, spending, and influence in private business. The headlines seem ripped from an Orwellian or Randian novel – government takeovers of big business, closing down political enemies, while the best and brightest withdraw to avoid increasingly harsh taxes and penalties. This too, is nothing like we have seen – in the history of the country. And historically, we see that it is inevitable that every free country will eventually fall to tyranny. So we wonder – will these latest changes be the last straw? How much longer can we hold out?

I say, it doesn’t matter. For as long as there’s a shred of hope, we have to fight on for what we believe and for freedom in this country. Without that attitude being held by our forefathers, these would still be American colonies. And we must realize that though they may take a new form, the challenges we face are really nothing new.  As Solomon said, “there is nothing new under the sun.” And as was recently pointed out to me, the real issues are often masked by politics – what we are struggling against is not (merely) a different set of politics; it is a different set of worldviews. These worldviews are what gave us the mess we’re in now – Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are just symptoms.

Politics flows from the worldview of the culture – not the other way around. And so if you want to change politics, you will be much more assured of victory by changing the culture spawning the politicians than trying to convince the existing politicians to change their stripes. Changing the culture seems to be a daunting task, but it’s not as hard as you might think – every customer you greet, every corporate meeting, every church dinner and game night is a chance to influence those around you. Culture is nothing more than the views and interests of the people who create it – and by influencing those people, one at a time, you influence the culture as a whole. It was not until culture changed that politicians addressed the issues of slavery, of civil rights, of abortion, and most recently gay marriage.

Every shift in culture puts pressure on the government to react in order to hold on to the power that it has – so it is there that we will fight the battles. It is there that the war for this nation will be won or lost – in the hearts and minds of every American.

So now it’s your play. Ball’s in your court. What are you going to do? Who are you going to influence?

SCOTUS reverses Sotomayor’s racism case

CNN just reported they reversed the decision, and sided with the firefighters. Thank God, justice won this time.

Here’s the full text of the decision (PDF).  Wonder if this will have any effect on Sotomayor’s confirmation, what with her constantly getting called out as being full of crap by the court she’s supposed to be joining.

On the Prop 8 decision

The court upheld the ban, as they should have. They didn’t invalidate the marriages  made before Prop 8 went into effect, which is an interesting position to take, but not unexpected. The biggest issue I see here is that now they have two separate “classes” of homosexual people in California – those who got married, and those who cannot – which will inevitably cause legal battles down the road.

The text of Prop 8 is as follows:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.”

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The phrasing of this seems to invalidate the marriages made during that interim, and that to uphold the proposition they would have to cease to recognize the marriages made even before Prop 8 was passed. This, at least in my eyes, would be the correct and consistent legal interpretation. As it is, by upholding the propositon going forward but saying they will recognize the marriages already on the books, the California Supremes have set themselves up for a steady stream of litigation from both sides seeking to push the decision off the fence.

Edit: Here’s the full decision, PDF warning. I haven’t read the whole thing yet as it’s 185 (!) pages, but the gist of why they chose to go this route seems to be that since it did not explicitly apply retroactively, then they will not invalidate those made before the prop went into effect. Seems a rather weasely way to get past the issue, but, there you go.