The Electoral College of the United States of America is an enemy to common sense sharing company with other enemies such as Daylight Saving Time.
Here is the summary given for the Electoral College from Wikipedia.
"Presidential electors are selected on a state-by-state basis, as determined by the laws of each state. Each state currently uses its statewide popular vote on election day to appoint electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. actually choose electors for their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These presidential electors in turn cast electoral votes for those two offices. Even though the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, the national popular vote is not the basis for electing a President or Vice President."
This is the point where you read this 50 times, waste 30 minutes, and still don't understand why in the world an election would be administered this way...
Wait, wait...it gets better!
"Except in the few closely fought swing states, it does not matter how many people turn out to vote. The Electoral College eliminates any advantage to a political party or campaign for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states. If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere. Individuals would similarly have a strong incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly."
What? Encourage participation nationwide instead of only doing so in swing states? That makes absolutely no sense at all...right? Who wants everyone to feel that their vote actually could make a difference in a presidential election? Apparently not the United States of America.
To be clear, I personally have never voted to determine who the President of The United States of America would be. What I have done is vote for an Elector who then votes to decide who the President will be for me; good thing I register and vote. Since I do not live in a swing state it really makes no difference if I vote or not since a presidential election will virtually never be decided by the Electors that I go out and vote for on election day! You have to love that and admit that it makes total sense.
Even in the rare event that my state's (AZ) Electors would decide a presidential election, the Elector(s) that I vote for to then vote in a presidential election in my behalf could potentially be a Faithless Elector(s), meaning that Elector would not represent my will anyway. If that is the case (it hardly ever is...but it is possible) then my meaningless vote in Arizona would be utterly meaningless or categorized by some other adjective that is synonymous with meaningless.
So, cheers to the Electoral College that we use to determine who the President of The United States of America is, but you can only raise your glass if you live in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, or North Carolina (recent swing states).
If you want to join my common sense party we can propose that we all go get in line, cast our votes, have them counted, and then see who gets the most votes and call them the winner.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
RIP Common Sense
Since I can't say it better myself, I am just going to repeat it as I read it.
"Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm:
Life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.
Common sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults are in charge not children)
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of an 8 year old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student, but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims,
Common sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common sense finally gave up the will to live, after a women failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common sense was preceded in death, by his parents, truth and trust
- His wife, discretion
- His daughter, Responsibility
- His son, reason.
- He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers
- I know my rights
- I want my rights
- I want it now
- I’m a victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on if not, join the majority and do nothing."
Amen!
"Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:
Knowing when to come in out of the rain; why the early bird gets the worm:
Life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.
Common sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults are in charge not children)
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of an 8 year old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate, teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch, and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student, but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims,
Common sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.
Common sense finally gave up the will to live, after a women failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common sense was preceded in death, by his parents, truth and trust
- His wife, discretion
- His daughter, Responsibility
- His son, reason.
- He is survived by his 4 stepbrothers
- I know my rights
- I want my rights
- I want it now
- I’m a victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on if not, join the majority and do nothing."
Amen!
Monday, May 18, 2009
Auotmaker Bailout & Executive Compensation = Layoffs - Plain & Simple
I am going to follow the age old KISS rule regarding this particular post - Keep It Simple Stupid.
There is more than enough proof out there to back up this claim, let's take a look.
Recently General Motors Corporation announced that it will close plants, dealerships, and various other facilities resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs. Really?!
This particular issue is one that I cannot simply take in stride. I have to call BS on this or in the case of this blog and its spirit, CS (Common Sense).
In 2008 GM CEO Rick Wagoner (GM lost over $30 billion in 2008) was paid roughly $15 million dollars. In addition, the 4 highest paid GM executives under Wagoner were paid roughly $25 million dollars. The grand total for the 5 highest paid executives at GM in 2008 rounds out to nearly $40 million dollars.
Now, I could crunch the heck out of these numbers with a Wall Street level of proficiency, making what I would be presenting as difficult to understand as the documentation many of us receive from our IRA or 401K provider, but again...let's stick to KISS on this one and some good old dumb guy math.
In 2007 the median annual household income in The United States of America was estimated at around $50,000.00. Using that basic figure it is pretty simple to see that had the 5 GM executives referenced above took a pay cut down to $250,000.00 per year each, GM could have avoided cutting the jobs of nearly 800 average American workers. I know, I know...not a world beater, but it is 800 jobs that there was absolutely no good reason to cut. If an executive cannot live off a $250,000.00/year salary...you get the point.
Now, just throw in the estimated $15 billion that GM borrowed from the same people it is now laying off, and we can deduct that GM could have kept about 300,000 average Americans working in 2009...oh, plus the 800 or so that could have been saved by GM executives living the poor life at a mere $250,000.00 per year. In other words, only about $21,000 per month.
I am aware that all of the very intelligent economists reading this blog post are probably thinking, wow...this guy doesn't understand big business or financing. There are so many other factors to consider etc. etc. Keep telling yourself that as long as it makes you feel better. $15 billion is enough to payroll nearly every GM employee on earth if not all of them for 1 year. That said, they just had to break even on their overhead expenditures, and with a roughly $38 million dollar savings on executive pay...they should have been able to limp by until GM could recreate its image and product lines. It isn't brain surgery, it is just simple common sense.
On top of all the job cuts that automakers like GM and Chrysler DID NOT have to make because they could have dramatically cut executive compensation at all levels across the board and worked smarter, now we finally get the best news of all. Chrysler will not be paying back the tax payers who apparently loaned Chrysler money so it could afford all of the administrative costs it would incur by firing them. According to recent news, we shouldn't be surprised to see GM follow Chrysler's lead. In fact it appears GM is trying to keep pace with Chrysler layoffs at this point, as if it is a race to see who can inflict the most unnecessary damage.
Look, you won't find a more ardent supporter of capitalism and free trade than me, but we have collectively tossed common sense out of the window with regards to our markets, trade, and capitalism in general. If the average American family were to operate their household in the way that our government (both parties) has done in recent history, or as our automakers have done recently...then that family would be destitute.
It begs the question, what is the difference between working for a large U.S. automaker and being robbed at gun point? At least a thug criminal has to stand in front of you and face you before he/she robs you blind. Apparently large U.S. automakers are only required to fly via private jet to our nations capital, collect American Tax Payer Dollars, retire with a golden parachute, and then fire you via certified mail that your tax dollars paid for.
As a plug for my previous post titled Government - The Anti-Society...you have to love the government that rules you in place of serving you!
I am not sure that all the GM and Chrysler employees being affected by this nonsense were ever asked to sign or approve the multi billion dollar checks their ex-employers (severely overpaid executives) were being handed that were funded by their tax dollars. No, instead they were made to believe via the media and government press machine that those tax dollars HAD TO BE GIVEN to GM and Chrysler. The average American just didn't know enough about the complexities of it all, so each needed to trust the government. After all, it is clear the government knew exactly what it was doing?!
Please feel free to read into this that I am saying in this instance the government ruled the tax payers, but did little to serve them.
There is more than enough proof out there to back up this claim, let's take a look.
Recently General Motors Corporation announced that it will close plants, dealerships, and various other facilities resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs. Really?!
This particular issue is one that I cannot simply take in stride. I have to call BS on this or in the case of this blog and its spirit, CS (Common Sense).
In 2008 GM CEO Rick Wagoner (GM lost over $30 billion in 2008) was paid roughly $15 million dollars. In addition, the 4 highest paid GM executives under Wagoner were paid roughly $25 million dollars. The grand total for the 5 highest paid executives at GM in 2008 rounds out to nearly $40 million dollars.
Now, I could crunch the heck out of these numbers with a Wall Street level of proficiency, making what I would be presenting as difficult to understand as the documentation many of us receive from our IRA or 401K provider, but again...let's stick to KISS on this one and some good old dumb guy math.
In 2007 the median annual household income in The United States of America was estimated at around $50,000.00. Using that basic figure it is pretty simple to see that had the 5 GM executives referenced above took a pay cut down to $250,000.00 per year each, GM could have avoided cutting the jobs of nearly 800 average American workers. I know, I know...not a world beater, but it is 800 jobs that there was absolutely no good reason to cut. If an executive cannot live off a $250,000.00/year salary...you get the point.
Now, just throw in the estimated $15 billion that GM borrowed from the same people it is now laying off, and we can deduct that GM could have kept about 300,000 average Americans working in 2009...oh, plus the 800 or so that could have been saved by GM executives living the poor life at a mere $250,000.00 per year. In other words, only about $21,000 per month.
I am aware that all of the very intelligent economists reading this blog post are probably thinking, wow...this guy doesn't understand big business or financing. There are so many other factors to consider etc. etc. Keep telling yourself that as long as it makes you feel better. $15 billion is enough to payroll nearly every GM employee on earth if not all of them for 1 year. That said, they just had to break even on their overhead expenditures, and with a roughly $38 million dollar savings on executive pay...they should have been able to limp by until GM could recreate its image and product lines. It isn't brain surgery, it is just simple common sense.
On top of all the job cuts that automakers like GM and Chrysler DID NOT have to make because they could have dramatically cut executive compensation at all levels across the board and worked smarter, now we finally get the best news of all. Chrysler will not be paying back the tax payers who apparently loaned Chrysler money so it could afford all of the administrative costs it would incur by firing them. According to recent news, we shouldn't be surprised to see GM follow Chrysler's lead. In fact it appears GM is trying to keep pace with Chrysler layoffs at this point, as if it is a race to see who can inflict the most unnecessary damage.
Look, you won't find a more ardent supporter of capitalism and free trade than me, but we have collectively tossed common sense out of the window with regards to our markets, trade, and capitalism in general. If the average American family were to operate their household in the way that our government (both parties) has done in recent history, or as our automakers have done recently...then that family would be destitute.
It begs the question, what is the difference between working for a large U.S. automaker and being robbed at gun point? At least a thug criminal has to stand in front of you and face you before he/she robs you blind. Apparently large U.S. automakers are only required to fly via private jet to our nations capital, collect American Tax Payer Dollars, retire with a golden parachute, and then fire you via certified mail that your tax dollars paid for.
As a plug for my previous post titled Government - The Anti-Society...you have to love the government that rules you in place of serving you!
I am not sure that all the GM and Chrysler employees being affected by this nonsense were ever asked to sign or approve the multi billion dollar checks their ex-employers (severely overpaid executives) were being handed that were funded by their tax dollars. No, instead they were made to believe via the media and government press machine that those tax dollars HAD TO BE GIVEN to GM and Chrysler. The average American just didn't know enough about the complexities of it all, so each needed to trust the government. After all, it is clear the government knew exactly what it was doing?!
Please feel free to read into this that I am saying in this instance the government ruled the tax payers, but did little to serve them.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Government - The Anti-Society
The following is an excerpt from a pamphlet published in 1776 by Thomas Paine titled Common Sense.
"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.
But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue encreasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered..."
I also quote Thomas Paine in the following, as I can't preface my comments with anything better.
"In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day."
The Constitution of the United States of America is made up of 7 articles and occupies only a few pieces of paper when printed. Including an associated bill or rights and all of its amendments it could easily be printed and kept in a basic children's school notebook in any filing cabinet, anywhere.
Thomas Paine said, "Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world".
I believe that The U.S. Constitution in its original form defined a government capable of upholding moral virtue via an exemplary government structure designed to only do what it was required to do while allowing the citizens of the United States of America and their inherent moral virtue to do everything else required to make the country the greatest on earth. It was designed to be a government that could foster the moral virtue that existed when society was formed by pilgrims in North America, and protect it and administer it on a large scale to be enjoyed by all people participating in that society, which became The United States of America, the greatest nation on earth.
I find Thomas Paine's words prophetic however, and unfortunately so.
It is clear that regardless of political party rule, the Federal and State Governments of The United States of America are undoubtedly growing larger and more far reaching in their roles than at any point in the nations history. By doing so I believe they rob our society of the ability to govern itself via moral virtue, which is the founding governing influence by which all societies are successfully founded. It seems as though our current implementation of government is successfully aiding to force a wedge between the foundation of our society (moral virtue) and the blueprint for our government (The United States Constitution).
I am going to use the following example of how this has happened over time, Separation of Church and State.
It is generally accepted among many United States Citizens that Separation of Church and State is an ideal included in or defined specifically by The Constitution of the United States of America; this is incorrect. The wording in The U.S. Constitution states, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
It was not until 1802 via a letter written by Thomas Jefferson that the term was used. It has since been referenced in decisions handed down from The Supreme Court of the U.S.
In no way was church or faith ever meant to be abolished from state. It was clear that The United States of America would not be a country where one man or woman could enforce a religious affiliation upon all of its citizens. Freedom to worship God however one pleased was VERY important to many of the founding fathers of The United States of America and as such...they protected it.
How then did the commonly held belief that church must be strictly separated from state come about? The answer...government.
Just as church and state have been separated to a large degree by government, so will the backbone of our society (moral virtue) be stripped away from each of us the more we depend on our government to rule us, instead of serve us.
The United States of America is supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The more that it turns into a government that rules the people the more it will choke out the original society and moral virtue that The United States of America was founded upon. At that point, it will cease to be the greatest country on earth, but instead will be...just another country on earth.
"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him to quit his work, and every different want would call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune, would be death; for, though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.
Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.
But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continue encreasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number: and that the ELECTED might never form to themselves an interest separate from the ELECTORS, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often: because as the ELECTED might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the ELECTORS in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this, (not on the unmeaning name of king,) depends the STRENGTH OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE HAPPINESS OF THE GOVERNED.
Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government, viz. Freedom and security. And however our eyes may be dazzled with show, or our ears deceived by sound; however prejudice may warp our wills, or interest darken our understanding, the simple voice of nature and reason will say, 'tis right.
I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered..."
I also quote Thomas Paine in the following, as I can't preface my comments with anything better.
"In the following pages I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense: and have no other preliminaries to settle with the reader, than that he will divest himself of prejudice and prepossession, and suffer his reason and his feelings to determine for themselves that he will put on, or rather that he will not put off, the true character of a man, and generously enlarge his views beyond the present day."
The Constitution of the United States of America is made up of 7 articles and occupies only a few pieces of paper when printed. Including an associated bill or rights and all of its amendments it could easily be printed and kept in a basic children's school notebook in any filing cabinet, anywhere.
Thomas Paine said, "Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world".
I believe that The U.S. Constitution in its original form defined a government capable of upholding moral virtue via an exemplary government structure designed to only do what it was required to do while allowing the citizens of the United States of America and their inherent moral virtue to do everything else required to make the country the greatest on earth. It was designed to be a government that could foster the moral virtue that existed when society was formed by pilgrims in North America, and protect it and administer it on a large scale to be enjoyed by all people participating in that society, which became The United States of America, the greatest nation on earth.
I find Thomas Paine's words prophetic however, and unfortunately so.
It is clear that regardless of political party rule, the Federal and State Governments of The United States of America are undoubtedly growing larger and more far reaching in their roles than at any point in the nations history. By doing so I believe they rob our society of the ability to govern itself via moral virtue, which is the founding governing influence by which all societies are successfully founded. It seems as though our current implementation of government is successfully aiding to force a wedge between the foundation of our society (moral virtue) and the blueprint for our government (The United States Constitution).
I am going to use the following example of how this has happened over time, Separation of Church and State.
It is generally accepted among many United States Citizens that Separation of Church and State is an ideal included in or defined specifically by The Constitution of the United States of America; this is incorrect. The wording in The U.S. Constitution states, "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...".
It was not until 1802 via a letter written by Thomas Jefferson that the term was used. It has since been referenced in decisions handed down from The Supreme Court of the U.S.
In no way was church or faith ever meant to be abolished from state. It was clear that The United States of America would not be a country where one man or woman could enforce a religious affiliation upon all of its citizens. Freedom to worship God however one pleased was VERY important to many of the founding fathers of The United States of America and as such...they protected it.
How then did the commonly held belief that church must be strictly separated from state come about? The answer...government.
Just as church and state have been separated to a large degree by government, so will the backbone of our society (moral virtue) be stripped away from each of us the more we depend on our government to rule us, instead of serve us.
The United States of America is supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The more that it turns into a government that rules the people the more it will choke out the original society and moral virtue that The United States of America was founded upon. At that point, it will cease to be the greatest country on earth, but instead will be...just another country on earth.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Common Sense - The Dictionary Definition
The dictionary definition of the term common sense is as follows:
Common Sense
–noun
Sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said once that Common Sense is "genius dressed in its working clothes".
Perhaps, for our day and time Will Rogers described it best saying, "common sense ain't common".
Amen Will Rogers, AMEN!
This blog is going to be dedicated to discussing many examples of the severe lack of Common Sense or principled thought and action displayed by many citizens in the United States of America, including those having positions in the U.S. Federal Government, State Governments, and Local Governments.
It will also be used to discuss how the U.S. Media (all forms) routinely tramples Common Sense beneath its feet to ensure fiscal prosperity.
I hope it can inspire people to stop outsmarting themselves and enable them to adhere to the dictates of their own conscience in place of having their conscience molded by those around them in positions of wealth and power and their associated agendas.
I hope you like it. If not, I am sure I will hear about it!
Common Sense
–noun
Sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said once that Common Sense is "genius dressed in its working clothes".
Perhaps, for our day and time Will Rogers described it best saying, "common sense ain't common".
Amen Will Rogers, AMEN!
This blog is going to be dedicated to discussing many examples of the severe lack of Common Sense or principled thought and action displayed by many citizens in the United States of America, including those having positions in the U.S. Federal Government, State Governments, and Local Governments.
It will also be used to discuss how the U.S. Media (all forms) routinely tramples Common Sense beneath its feet to ensure fiscal prosperity.
I hope it can inspire people to stop outsmarting themselves and enable them to adhere to the dictates of their own conscience in place of having their conscience molded by those around them in positions of wealth and power and their associated agendas.
I hope you like it. If not, I am sure I will hear about it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
