The World According To Alan

*&%%! Spammers

F-ing blog spammers have found this site, and now I'm either going to have to go through each entry and disable comments, as well as leave them off by default, or spend time deleting the garbage when it shows up. Version 3 of movable type will require registration for comments --- a total pain, but these assholes have made it impossible to leave an open door anywhere on the Internet. They are the lowest form of graffiti vandals --- at least many graffiti artists really are artists. These creatures are nothing more than vandals trying to scam a buck from the all too many naive people around. They don't care what neighborhoods they destroy in the process and have no respect for any one else's rights.

It's really difficult to craft legislation that can distinguish between merely annoying speech and spamming, and it's as hard to even find the spammers in the first place, but it's time to stop being lazy about this and spend the resources to track them down. Free Speech stops when it becomes harassment and infringes on the rights of others, and spam has long since passed that point.

If I Were President: Education

Education is an issue that polarizes me internally; it's no wonder it's a hot issue everywhere. On the one hand, a good education is probably the most important thing that children can be given. It benefits them, and it benefits everyone else. On the other hand, it is the parent's responsibility to provide that education! Having a child carries a huge burden of responsibility, and making sure that child is educated is only one aspect of that. Unfortunately, people have gotten into the mindset that because they can have children, it is their right to have children, and if they can't properly raise them, then it's up to the rest of society to do it for them. And we accept this blackmail because that's really what it is: if we don't see that the kids are educated, they become criminals because they are given no other options. Areas with poor schools deteriorate in a downward spiral unless a lot of work is put in to fix the problems. Without a sense that the future holds some value for them, kids have no motivation.

The solution to the problem is not to keep pushing it up the food chain, where more and more of the money goes to bureaucracy instead of education. The solution is to pull it back down to the parents, so they control the education their children are getting.

I'm willing to help contribute to education because it is good for all, and because some poor parents do make good parents (though only the people who actually know the parents themselves can make that call, and really they're the ones who should be contributing if they think the parents are good ones). But still, I don't mind contributing some. Right now, however, fully 50% of my non-federal taxes are going to education. Last year, the education taxes I paid covered the entire cost of an entire child's education, and I have no children. That is an outrage.

It's no wonder people are rebelling over the cost when I no longer own my house --- I have to pay rent to the state (and the rent on my middle of the road house would cover the rent on a low end apartment!) to be allowed to stay in it, and half of that is for education.

Clearly, reform is needed.

No Child Left Behind Act - Strongly Oppose

The Federal Government has no business getting involved in education at all. At most, the states should set standards for their schools, but it's really up to the communities and particularly the parents to see that their kids are educated. Most parents actually do want what's best for their kids and if they're given the choice, they'll send them to the best school they can.

Vouchers for Public, Private or Religious Schools - Strongly Support

If public money is to be spent on education, then give it to the parents who can't afford to send their kids to good schools. Let the schools then compete, and the best ones win. There should be no such thing as a "public" school, only public funding. Only the parents and the kids themselves should be deciding what form that education should take, save that the public does have the right to expect certain minimum standards to be met in exchange for paying for the child's education. I would include both Home Schooling and Religious Schools in this.

In the case of Home Schooling, some might argue that it's another way to scam the system, but as long as the kids are meeting the standards, I don't see it that way. These days, most families have both parents working to make ends meet, and if this allows a parent to stay home and do a better job of raising their kids, that sounds like a win. Note that I only support voucher payments to families below a certain income level. I expect families that can afford to educate their kids to do so and not feed off the public trough. When they send their kids to public school today, that is exactly what I think they're doing, save perhaps the first one that their taxes are paying for.

As for Religious Schools, people claim "separation of church and state!" They clearly don't understand the meaning of that: it's to keep the state from promoting one religion over another. If the parent is making the decision of what school to send the kids to, then the state can hardly be promoting a religion. I'm no fan of religion, but if we truly want separation of church and state, then the state has to stay out of it entirely: not only what religion, but if religion at all as well.

Increase Federal Funding for Higher Education - Somewhat Oppose

Indirectly, via research grants, which support higher education, yes. But the Federal Government should Stay Out Of Education. Period. The way I would recommend handling it is for banks to be able to write off the discount for discounted student loans as a charitable contribution on state taxes. Then students who needed them, would get student loans to pay for college. There are also the plethora of scholarships and other ways of paying for college as well.

If I Were President: Death Penalty

Abolish the Death Penalty - Somewhat Oppose

The only problem I have with the death penalty is that if you make a mistake, it can't be reversed. So I support it only when there's no doubt whatsoever that the person is actually guilty.

I don't understand the people who think it's somehow inhumane --- locking someone up in a cage for the rest of their lives isn't? Why should the rest of us pay to support someone who's shown a total disregard for the lives of others (or else they wouldn't be on death row in the first place)? There are those who probably support the notion of letting them suffer living in a cage for the rest of their lives as just punishment, but I would expect that the longer they're in, the farther up the food chain they move, probably inflicting their anti-social attitudes on others who will get out, and then be more likely to commit a violent crime in the future (whether or not that's why they were in in the first place). I have no data to back that up, it's just a gut feeling.

The bottom line is this: if you're such a danger that you can't be let back out into society ever again, then I see absolutely no reason to waste time and money caging you to make sure society is safe when we can eliminate the problem quickly and simply.

National Review of Death Penalty Fairness - Somewhat Support

While I think this is just an attempt by death penalty opponents to keep their position alive, it is not unreasonable to make sure that the death penalty is not being abused. For example, if there are more violent crimes committed by one race or another, whatever the reason, then it's reasonable to expect more people of that race to be found on death row. If the proportions are different, however, then that bears some looking into. So as long as the National Review is itself fair and unbiased, then I would support it.

If I Were President: Gay Rights

Next on the list is an item that is currently hot as the Republicans are trying to use it to divide the country and split the homophobic Democrats from voting with their party. The specific issues in the quiz are:

Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban Strongly Oppose

Gay marriage is an issue that has really heated up of late, but I'll start with the idea of putting into the Constitution a definition of marriage: this is an appalling abuse of the Constitution! Regardless of what side of the issue you're on, this would destroy the entire point of the Constitution. It basically has two functions:

1. Define how government works: the House, Senate, President, etc.
2. A framework, a set of principles for laws

If we start putting legislative details into the Constitution, it basically becomes worthless as a guide. It's already ignored at will, but this would put the final nail in the coffin.

Equal Rights for Civil Unions Strongly Support

As for the fundamental issue, if marriage is the "sacred institution" the religious right would have us believe, then it has no business being handled by government at all under the first amendment's separation of church and state. Not only that, but they've already lost that battle!. There are a number of churches, including a number of mainstream ones, that perform gay marriages today.

On the other hand, there is a legitimate interest in defining the rights and responsibilities of families: who has the authority to make decisions for the other members who may not be either present or competent at the time to make them? There are also inheritance and visitation and a plethora of other issues: one report says there are over 1000 references to "marriage" or "married couples" in the federal statutes.

What the government does not have a legitimate interest in is defining what a family is. That is, and should be, left entirely up to the people forming it. And yes, that goes beyond just same sex coupling to include polyamory.

Remember that this country was founded in order to escape religious persecution, and yet at every turn, it seems like someone is trying (and all too often succeeding) to institute it in one form or another. The attempt to prevent homosexuals from enjoying their full civil rights is just the latest in a long list of religious persecutions.

Allow Gays to Openly Serve in the Military Strongly Support

Frankly, I think the main problem straight male homophobes have with gay men is that they're afraid gay men will treat them the way they treat women. That's the only reason they have to be worried about "having to shower with them" or "being in close quarterss" with them. If they had to deal with the unwanted attentions of others, perhaps they'd be more sensitive to the issue with women and maybe we'd have fewer embarassing incidents like the regular rape incidents the US military has to deal with. If it's too much to expect soldiers to behave like grownups instead of children, whether the issue is homosexuals or women, then we've got far worse problems than merely having to work with someone they don't like.

The military is wasting millions of dollars tossing out good men and women providing a valuable service to their country, and for no better reason that base prejudice. As citizens of a supposedly free country, we should be apalled, and as taxpayers, we should be outraged.

If I Were President: Gun Control

Gun control means using both hands! ;-)

People always seem to like to attack the surface of problems, and rarely the actuall root cause. As many places are finding now, gun control does absolutely nothing to reduce crime, and in fact, find it's getting worse. Washington DC has the strictest controls in the country, and it's got the highest murder rate in the country.

They also like to say "you don't need those kind of guns for hunting." Well, I've got news for people: the right to keep and bear arms was not put into the Constitution to allow hunting!

When citizens fear their government you have tyranny. When government fears its citizens you have freedom. ~Thomas Jefferson

The founding fathers understood that the first thing you do to oppress a populace is take away any means they have to fight back.

With that said, regarding the issues in the quiz at hand:

Safety Devices on All New Guns Somewhat Support

While I'm sure this is intended to be just one more control to add to the list by those pushing to ban guns entirely, in fact, it's not unreasonable to make sure that guns are only handled by responsible, authorized, parties. While there are kids who are competent to handle guns safely, most are not, and it's irresponsible of parents to not keep them safe. On the other hand, that's what should be legislated, not the specific design of how to do it.

Background Checks on Gun Show Purchases Somewhat Support

This is another reasonable request, if done properly. It's completely reasonable to make sure that someone purchasing a weapon is responsible. It's NOT reasonable to license the weapon itself and put it in a database, though it wouldn't be a bad idea for gun manufacturers to take a ballistics sample of every gun so when a gun is stolen (as most guns used in crimes are), then information about it can be used to help find it.

Require Safety Course, License Before Gun Purchase Somewhat Support

Yet another reasonable requirement --- licensing owners, just as we license drivers to make a reasonable effort to ensure competence and responsibility (yes, I know you can say but we license cars too, but I'm not convinced that's a good idea either, for the same reason --- one more way to track a person and invade their privacy). I would even take this one step further and treat it as an operator's license: anyone carrying or shooting a gun would have to be licensed to do so, but it would not then matter *what* they were shooting. I would have two licenses however --- one for open carry and one for concealed. The latter would have stronger requirements, including classes with practice in self defense situations to avoid 1. making mistakes in judgement and 2. having the weapon captured and turned against the owner.

All that said, I don't think it's a necessary requirement, just a good idea.

Allow Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers Strongly Oppose

This is just ludicrous. People don't seem to care who's at fault, they just want to get whoever they can. Suing Smith & Wesson because someone shot someone else with a revolver is like suing Mercedes because that woman ran over her husband in Texas. Give me a break!

If I Were President: Religion in Government

This country was created in order to get away from government controlled religion, and it's appalling that many seem to want to put it back. Everywhere you look around the world, countries are being torn apart by exactly this issue. What are people thinking?

Organized Prayer in Public Schools Strongly Oppose

The state has absolutely no business organizing anything of the sort. If they want, they are free to provide a moment out of respect for those who choose to pray, but in no way should anyone select or recite a prayer, nor be required to pray. By the same token, however, neither should disrespect towards religious students by the non-religious students (or staff!) be tolerated.

Commandments Displayed in Federal Buildings Strongly Oppose

While this could be considered an historical display, in fact it is clearly promoting the Christian religion, and has no business in a governmental environment. At most, if you had a public area where different groups could put up displays celebrating their culture, religious artifacts could be part of that display, as long as any and all religions are allowed to participate.

Federal Funding of Religious Charities Somewhat Oppose

I believe that President Bush's "Faith Based Initiative", from its very name, is wrong in that it's actively trying to promote a religious direction. In principle however, if the government is giving out money to organizations for whatever purpose, as long as the money is being used for that purpose, the government has no business discriminating for or against the organization based on religious reasons. The only basis that should be used is whether the money is being effectively used for the intended purpose. This means that religious organizations should have the same rights to participate as secular organizations.

If I Were President: Abortion

The first category they have listed is Abortion, with these positions:

Appoint Judges Who Will Outlaw Abortions Strongly Oppose

Abortion is an issue that on the surface depends on whose definition of when life begins you choose to accept, but it's more complicated than that because for the gestation period, two lives are very closely tied together and it is really a question of conflicting rights. To start with, I think that it's ludicrous to consider a couple of cells sticking together to be "life", certainly not life that is worthy of significant consideration. There's no doubt that once a baby is born and becomes a separate life, it attains all the rights everyone expects. There is about 9 months of grey area in between, however. Until such time as real science determines a better basis for determination, however, I think the trimester boundaries that are currently in use are as good we can reasonably compromise on: 1rst trimester: no problem. 2nd trimester: to avoid possible risk to mother. 3rd trimester: to avoid serious risk to mother.

Outlaw "Partial Birth" Abortions Somewhat Oppose

What I've heard about these makes me a little squeamish, but this is a medical decision, and politics and the law has no business in it. If the abortion is legal, it's up to the medical community to determine the best procedures.

Outlaw Abortions Except for Rape/Incest Strongly Oppose

This just goes back to the first issue, but I think Rape/Incest should be valid extenuating circumstances to allow later abortions than might otherwise be permitted.

Parental Notification for Minors Under 18 Somewhat Oppose

Parental Notification is a touchy issue: parents certainly have the right to make decisions for their children, but it's also understandable why some teens would be afraid of having their parents find out they're pregnant. I think the reasons to oppose this are twofold:

1. If the child is old enough to get pregnant, then like it or not, they're old enough to start making decisions about their future. Parents may not like it, but Mother Nature already made that the case, and sticking heads in the sand won't change it.
   
2. If the child is afraid to tell the parents, then if they don't have the option of a safe, legal, abortion, they'll get an unsafe, illegal, abortion. That creates far more problems than a safe abortion carries.
   

If I Were President

A website by Time/AOL asks your positions on a number of issues and your rough weighting, and then tells you which presidential candidates match up to you. Seems like a good starting place to start my own party and platform: I'll call it the Freedom Party, and go down the list of issues explaining my position, For What It's Worth ;-)

Dear Senator Frist

February 8, 2004

Dear Senator Frist:

I'm reading your speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on January 23, 2004, and feel that you are completely missing the intentions of the founding fathers.

They didn't write the definition of "family" into the Constitution because the government has no business defining what a family is. They *came* to the new world to get *away* from religious persecution, and they're probably rolling in their graves knowing that it's rearing its ugly head yet again.

You are welcome to define a religious marriage however you see fit. Many religions agree with you and will only marry a man and a woman. Others believe that a family is defined by those who commit to loving and supporting each other, and will marry those willing to do so. That religious freedom already exists and will not change unless you complete the job of destroying the Constitution that you are threatening to embark on the start of.

What *is* at issue are the legal rights of citizens. You claim to reject hatred and intolerance, and yet that is at the very center of this debate. What can be more hateful than denying the right of one spouse to visit another in the hospital, or to be told that they do not have the right to make key medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse. Or for a hateful family to take away shared possessions adding to the grief of the loss of a spouse. *These* issues are at the center of the legal marriage debate, and there is nothing more hateful than trying to deny these rights to loving committed partners.

Finally, I would point out that freedom only has meaning if you apply it to things you don't approve of: the freedom for me to be or do only what you approve of is no freedom at all.

The question is: will the America of the future be a *free* country, or will it be a theocratic tyranny of the sort that drove our forefathers to this country in the first place, and that is now, and has been for centuries, tearing apart the Middle East?

You are one of the people who will be making that decision for us.

Boobs

Everybody's all in an uproar because they saw a tit. Oh my heavens! The world is going to come to an end! Give me a break. Some woman, a Terri Carlin, is in such an uproar she's starting a class action lawsuit. People like her are the real boobs, and aren't going to be happy until everyone's so afraid to do anything the slightest bit controversial that we all go hide in our closets our entire lives. Like seeing a tit that most people sucked on for the first year of their lives is really a problem. If they're really upset over it, the best thing they could do is ignore it. The only reason the stunt happened is for the publicity. If it didn't get any, it would be a bust (pun not intended until I thought about it ;-) ) and that would be the end of that. Get a life people!