The Government Shutdown

Its been a long time since my last post, but college and grades demand my attention. However, this issue is so severe that even they must be put aside for a few moments so that I can put my thoughts on this issue out into the world.

The government has shut down multiple times in the past, but never to this degree. Some functions were cut, but negotiations continued and the lives of many Americans went on relatively unchecked. However, with this current shutdown, the government is not only greatly inconveniencing many Americans, but additionally it is depriving a significant number of their main means of income. By shutting down national forests, parks, trails, and even certain beaches and stretches of ocean, the government is removing revenue and work from those in the tourist business, as, with no tourists around due to the shutdown, their businesses are empty. These people will not receive compensation from the government, and many may lose their jobs and/or businesses as a result.

Additionally, with some of the shut down locations, it actually costs more to keep them shut down than open. A prime example of this would be the shutdown of Florida and Biscayne Bays. They have been made off limits to the charter boats and fishermen who make their living there, as somehow the ocean itself has become "federal property." To keep the docks, waters, and general area free from the fishermen who live there, extra park servicemen had to be called in and the costs are running up to triple what they normally are to keep the bay open. Not only is this gross misspending, but it is a gross over-stepping of national and international law. Per the laws of the United States and the United Nations, the United States of America has the right to natural resources found in the waters off its coast, but cannot prevent the passage of any ships that are not hostile through the waters off its coast without due process.

It leads one to question: from whence does the current administration get its power? What is the purpose of the shutdown, apart from what is akin to a presidential and senatorial hissy-fit?

The answers are, of course, not pleasing to hear. The shut-down is nothing more than a temper tantrum, one which the Democrats are trying to pin on the Republicans for their refusal to raise the debt ceiling and fund the recent health care reform. The government is getting its power to shut down areas which it previously couldn't from thin air, and its power is cemented in the fact that few are challenging it. Content to sit back and let this all play out, the American people are unwittingly granting the government further power and control over their lives, a move which I, for one, believe we will come to regret in the near future. It is only as a people that we can secure our future, and thus we should peacefully resist the shutdown and show the government that this force and control will not be tolerated.

The Truth About SB1 (SB5)

SB1 (originally SB5) has been called the "Abortion Bill", the "Pro Life Bill", and a "trampling of women's rights". Its been hailed by the pro-life advocates and booed by the pro-choice advocates, but often without knowledge of what the bill truly does. 

SB1 is not truly pro-life or pro-choice in its wording. While the intent was obviously pro-life, the bill itself really is not. It requires abortion clinics to upgrade their facilities and services and bans abortions after 20 weeks, no more. It does not actively shut down clinics nor does it truly infringe upon a woman's ability to get an abortion. Many clinics that would get shut down right now have over a year to comply with the bill, ample time to gather the money to upgrade. 

Additionally, the rules set down are by no means new. Europe, which is often hailed as more liberal and progressive than America, has restrictions that are often even more restrictive than SB1's. In many countries in Europe, abortions must be performed in hospital grade clinics and abortions are banned after 15 or even 10 weeks. 

Thus, at its core, SB1 is not truly pro-life or anti-abortion. It is merely an exercise in the state's right to limit and control abortion, per the guidelines established in Roe vs. Wade. 

On Republics

A republic is NOT a democracy. In a democracy, the people vote directly on laws. For countries with large and diverse populations, democracy is all but impossible. Thus, another form of popular government is needed.

Republics, also called representative democracies (there are actually differences between two, however, discussion of those is reserved for a dedicated politics class), are a solution for countries with large bodies of people. In a republic, the people elect other people to represent them, who then make and vote upon laws. If your representative does not act how you wish, you vote against them the next elective term. However, if the majority of the people in your district like the actions of the representative, then consider yourself outvoted, and live with the fact that the democracy of elections has left you the minority.

America, believe it or not, is a Republic. The states in the union are Republics. There is no democracy in America, as such a system would not work with the large populace. Americans are called to live in and act in a Republic, and any claims that a process is not democratic or honoring democracy are unfounded, as America should NOT support democracy, because it is not one. 

On the Filibuster

"Today's events show that democracy is still alive in America!" ~ unknown pro-choice supporter.

Today's (and yesterday's) events do not show that democracy is "still" alive in America. Why? America is not a democracy, and it never was. America is, and has always been, a republic. This means that the people do not directly vote on laws, nay, they elect representatives to vote for them. So, when a mob of people decides to take it upon themselves to disturb and disrupt Senate proceedings through rowdy and, on occasion, violent behavior, is that what America stands for? No. Do mob mentality, insane noise, hostility to Senate staff, and pointless chants that do nothing but disturb the peace promote democracy? No. These are not American values, they are the workings of a mass of people, most of whom are not even entirely sure what they're protesting, or why.

Thus, today's events do not show that democracy is "still" alive in America. They did not even awaken and enliven democracy in America. Instead, they have weakened the state of the republic and threatened the peace. A riot team and an immense staff of state troopers were required to keep the peace last night and early this morning at the Texas Capitol, with a few arrests made for unruly behavior. Eventually, the crowd became so bad and so loud that the gallery above the senate floor was forced to be vacated. The damage from the crowd had already been done, however, as the noise had invalidated the vote and run the time limit down on the special session, causing the bill to fall through. This is not democracy, this is simple, rote mob mentality. It is something the Founding Fathers tried wholeheartedly to avoid, and something that may spell the downfall of yet another republic if it continues unchecked.

On SB 5

As the last day of Texas Special Session draws to a close, Senator Wendy Davis has stood up to filibuster Senate Bill 5, the Texas Senate bill on regulating abortion. The bill attempts to restrict the ability of Texas women to have an abortion, ostensibly because certain abortion clinics are unsafe for such procedures, but the reality is is that the Senate has a large majority of pro-life senators, who wish for nothing more than abortion to be completely outlawed, as would I.

The arguments against the bill, however, demonstrate a very particular problem of the American social and political sphere. The arguments are all about "me", "my choice", and "what I want". With American society, and indeed, that of the whole world, focusing so heavily on themselves, the want for the good of others has been declining seriously. This manifests itself in the abortion debate, where the "inconvenience" of another, sentient, living, human has become "too great" for women to handle. To answer this, they simply kill the defenseless life within them, reasoning that if it can't protest in its own defense, it obviously must be permissible to kill it. The slaughter of the defenseless and innocent is, indeed, one of the greatest moral wrongs by the morals of most societies, but the society of the world has come to accept the killing of the unborn. This "culture of death" must cease, and it is up to the legislature of the state of Texas to blaze the path, as no other legislatures dare.

Watching You

The police state watches, waits, and arrests. It has secret laws and secret police, ones that spy on the populace and punish dissension. Big Brother from Orwell's 1984 did much of the same.

Today, Americans are monitored in their every digital step. What they say, what they do, where they go, everything is being tracked. While the government has neither the means, the manpower, nor (currently) the will to monitor each and every American, the path has not only been blazed, but the ground broken and foundation poured. The question is not if, but when the government will start to fully monitor the people.

Additionally, political dissidents are already being (indirectly) punished by the government. The recently exposed IRS scandal showed that Tea Party groups were being targeted and refused their rightful tax breaks. With health care now also under the purview of the IRS, how long will it take for certain political undesirables to be refused welfare, thus indirectly killing, maiming, or financially destroying them?

For those who pay attention to such goings on, the future is indeed a scary place. It is the duty of all Americans to recognize, address, and spread knowledge of these threats to freedom and our country. The future, while it may look bleak, is far from set in stone. It will take a dedicated effort to change the course of government, but, if freedom truly is still of value in this country, we can do it.

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither." ~ Benjamin Franklin

On Proposition 200

Today, the US Supreme Court shot down Arizona's Proposition 200, which requires voters to provide proof of citizenship before voting, claiming that Federal Law "precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself." However, the US Constitution specifically grants the States the power to decide who votes, and it also gives them the power to decide where, when, and how said voting is to occur. So, when did "Federal Law" become a higher authority than the Constitution itself, which is the sole source of the power of Federal Law?

Additionally, the Supreme Court claimed that Arizona's Proposition 200 was harmful to minorities and the elderly. How, exactly, does asking one to provide proof of citizenship "oppress" minorities or the elderly? Proof of age is required to buy alcohol, yet this does not infringe upon minority or elderly rights to buy beer. A driver's license is required to drive a car, yet this does not infringe upon minority or elderly rights to self-transportation. How then, exactly, does asking for proof of citizenship infringe upon minority or elderly voting rights? Or, as before, is this not a power play, aimed to manipulate minorities and allow non-citizens to vote, thus skewing the polls?

The Redistricting Debate

As the Texas Senate special session drags on, the redistricting debate seems to repeat itself, looping around to address the same issue over and over again: minority voting rights. The left claims that the new map oppresses minorities, while the right claims that it does not. However, is minority rights the real issue here, or is something else taking place?

The left claims that minorities need special districts in order to secure equality and prevent oppression. However, does not gerrymandering districts to include almost exclusively minorities err toward minority tyranny, an event against which James Madison warned in the Federalist Papers? Additionally, is it not odd that this party, the one that cries "racism!" at the slightest provocation, is demanding special treatment based on, of all things, a racial basis? Is that not racism also?

Indeed, if racism were truly to be avoided, districts would be drawn without any regard to race or creed. However, that will never be the case, as both parties wish to seize power for themselves. Race and minority rights are not really the issue for the senators and legislators drafting the bill, instead, it is about power and which groups can be manipulated to vote for whom.