Not enough to add
I would like to have something intelligent and thoughtful and groundbreaking to say about Inustice Roberts, our soon to be Supreme Court Injustice replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. I'm pretty sure it's all been said before, though. My biggest feeling is just dissapointment. Injustice O'Connor was a moderate conservative, whatever the hell that means. Her differing views from the straight party line of either of our two useless political parties was conforting though. She actually seemed to take time to have an opinion, instead of just parroting whatever her friends and associates agree on. Our esteemed Executive Moron could have at least tried to pretend that he would like to preserve what little goodness exists within our current system of government, but he obviously has no desire for that.
With all three branches of the government soon to be under republican control, there will be no room for any sort of democracy, the system we love to pretend that we believe in. One person, one vote, which has never truly existed in our system will become even farther from the truth. It will go even further down the path of $100 million, one vote. Corporations and lobbyists are spending money on supporting the nomination of Injustice Roberts than has ever before been seen in the judical branch. They've taken the battleground of monetary warfare to the last branch of the government. After all, when you've got the senators and representatives and presidents in your pocket, why not the judges? Make sure that those rulings will go your way. Unsurprisingly enough, in his short career as a judge, Injustice Roberts has clearly shown his support of the corporation over the individual, so they have good reason to spend some cash. It'll come back tenfold. At your and my expense. Typical. At least we're being consistent with the downslide of our two party, one ideal monopoly.
For me, I'll continue to do my best to be free of either party, of any party in general. I would like to have a say in what happens on every issue, instead of sort of pretending to have a say in which slimeball gets to go to capitol hill and take the corporations money to vote to screw me. Will it happen? I sure as hell don't know.
Judicial Activism
I'm a little conflicted on this subject. On one hand, a judges job is to determine if an action is against the law, or in the case of the Supreme Court, if a law is unconstitutional or not. This is supposed to be set on precedent. But what if the precedent is wrong? Take civil rights. From the beginning you were only afforded the full protection of the laws if you were a white male landowner. Other than that you were maybe a citizen, maybe a sharecropper and maybe a slave (the two sometimes being very similar). Throughout our country's history, one group of people have run the show. The government is supposed to be checks and balances. However, it is far from it, when, especially like we have now, the three branches all have the same interests at heart. We cannot expect fair and impartial rulings from a group of white, old men about laws set down by rich, white old men and signed by a rich, white president.
There are other people than just rich, white men within the judicial system, but they don't always truly represent their respective people. Janice R. Brown, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, for example; these people don't at all stand by the principles and driving beliefs of their backgrounds. They're sellouts, plain and simple. They sold out for power. Not only that, but they undercut the little pieces of progress that have been made by their peoples. When an African-American female judege is anti civil rights, and anti women's rights, there's something wrong with that. They make the people that are fighting for further rights seem outlandish and extreme. When it is these (not all of the minorities in power positions are like this, please don't misunderstand me) people who are extremely backwards.
Our system needs some serious reworking, people. I'm up for it. I think the ideas are out there for judical reform, among other things, those ideas just need to be spread among the general public. It doesn't matter what you believe in, we should have a unifying thread of justice for all. People need to have a check within the government that protects them. The judges need to uphold a set of fair laws, not bicker and dither over an outdated and flawed set of rules written by men who had their own interests at heart, and not the common man's. Our system has merit, in theory. But it needs work. Serious work.
Show Me The Money!!
What's wrong with the political parties? Well, I don't think that there are two parties, just 1.05 political parties. 95% of the time, they agree, with all of the bickering and dissent coming on that last 5%. Well, it's maybe a little more than that, however, the things that I believe in and would like to see happening, aren't covered at all. Why? Well, both parties are full of rich, white men, with a few exceptions for appearance's sake. The token minorities, if you will. I am not attacking those people, they have earned their way, they just don't have the equal footing to represent the people that they should. I don't think that there should be some sort of affirmative action in congress (hey...Maybe I do, I'll get back to you on that), I just think that the people's interests are not being watched over. Well then, who's interests are the government looking out for? Whoever pays.
It's not who pays their salaries though, which I think is what upsets me the most. We have a government that is paid on taxpayers money, votes its own raises, and doesn't really give a rat's ass about the actual taxpayers. Unless you're a BIG taxpayer. In which case, they will be more than happy to accept your campaign financing money and vote however the hell you want them too. And since, according to our courts, a corporation is a person, they call a lot of the shots. I know that Rs are typically associated with being pro-business, anti-regulation, but Ds are often just as bad. They're getting the same money, from the same corporations to help steer law in a favorable direction. I think one of the most dishonest jobs of all time is that of a professional corporate lobbyist. Not so much dishonest, I guess, as just blatantly wrong-minded. There's an area in the capitol building, where the lobbyists sit and watch what's going on. Do you know what everyone refers to it as? The owner's box. I don't care if that's intended to be a joke, because I don't see it as one.
You want to fix the government? No more campaign donations. Set up a public fund to help out candidates (who more often than not, are very wealthy to begin with). Let the taxpayers vote on how much to pay the government employees, not the employees themselves. I sure as hell don't get to vote on how much I get paid. Start paying the lawmakers as much as the lowest federal employee. If I can survive just north of the poverty level, so can they. Or even better, pay them minimum wage. Which is what, $6 or 7 an hour? Well, it is if you listen to the RW political commentators (a la Rush Limbaugh). Try $5.15. Of course, that's way too much to pay a employee with no real skills, like a fast food restaurant (who receive subsidies since they are "educating their workers," among other things--have you ever worked at a McD's? If you can work a microwave, then you're already trained). So let's move the jobs overseas. Grrr...I'm going to stop on this subject for the time being, it can be it's own blog or twenty.
Anyway, back to the jackasses on capitol hill. Do you know much our esteemed CinC, 'lil Dub makes?
$400k. His puppeteer, DC,
$208,100. All the senators and all the congressmen,
$162,100. Oh, they have an important job? I work 12 hours a day in direct support of the so called Operation Iraqi Freedom, how much to I make?
$17,474.40. I'm not just a schlub doing paperwork either, I'm a weather forecaster with more education in weather than it takes to get a bachelor's degree in meteorology. I don't think that the men in the pretty suits should be making any more than I do. How about teachers, do they get paid enough? They do an important job. Lot's of people with important jobs don't make 6 figures. Why not? Because we don't get to vote our raises.
To come back to my original point, you and I pay the salaries of all the elected officials. They sure don't act like it, though. I think it's time to change that. What was the supposed cry of the revolution? "No taxation without representation!" I don't feel particularly represented, do you?
Affiliation, Aschmiliation
The first question that comes to mind for me when someone says they are going to have a political is discussion is: "What are they?" I'm actually a little disappointed in myself, however. Because if you ask me that question, I don't have an answer for you. That's not the disappointment, I'm glad that I don't have an answer. I'm disappointed that I want to know someone else's political affiliation. I don't think it matters.
There is a lot of talk with the issues of bipartisan bickering in the government and congress especially. Too many politicians are identifying more with whatever the hard party line is, instead of what their constituents want, or what their conscience should dictate. Votes are being cast along straight party lines for no real reason other than allegiance to the majority of the party. Within the parties there are so many different ideas, different views, things that are not getting expressed or discussed as they should because someone is a D or R. I don't really care if you're blue or red or anything of the sort. I want to know what you think. And that can't be answered with "I'm a democrat," etc...That doesn't answer my question. There are lots of examples where people have a little label that they are supposed to fit. Pro-life for instance. That would imply as respect for life, possibly an opposition to killing. But apparently it only applies to unborn children. You believe in killing anybody else, if you're the typical pro-life, right? Whatever, that particular subject can be its own blog (and probably will be). Suffice it to say that I don't buy into labeling, be it beliefs, affiliation or whatever. Explain what you believe, don't hide behind a label.
The map above, since I've avoided it so far is an attempt to show true voting patterns, not the ridiculous red or blue states we see show much. Now you see where the candidates were favored more specifically. I just thought it was an interesting little piece of info. The real cherry is when you look at a cartogram of the election results. This site will show you what I mean (and actually explain a cartogram, I'm too lazy):
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
Again you ask, what am I? Well, you'll have to keep reading, because I won't give you a label, I'm going to attempt to explain what I believe. So then you'll really know. I hope.
What's that mean?
That is the question. Of course, google takes the real fun out of making people find things out, but I'm going make you do it anyway. The title could lend itself well to a religiously oriented blog, but that's not going to be the focus here. I'm sure that religion will be discussed, but in the frame of its impact on politics. Of course, right now, that makes it a pretty big target. Politics will be the main deal here, however.
For now, I leave you with one thought in regard to the title. I can only hope that Daniel would be as correct now as he was then, if these words were said again today about a different man. Belshazzar paid for his actions, let's hold his modern counterparts responsible for theirs.
