How a Bill Really Becomes a Law

Posted on March 19, 2017 by David Roebuck

Yes. I know you expect me to just refer you to the Schoolhouse Rock video that we’ve all seen many times because this short video perfectly summarizes our legislative process. A bill begins as an idea, is introduced into Congress by one of its members, goes through committees, must pass both houses, and is either signed or vetoed by the president. Short and sweet. But wrong. Not even close.

The truth is that laws must pass through a much more complex series of very political processes, and as my Dad always said: “It ain’t pretty”. Otto Van Bismarck’s 19th century proclamation that “Laws are like sausages. It’s better not to see them being made” is more true today than ever before. Here is a short summary of problems with the American legislative process and with Congress. I leave out MUCH more than I cover and will likely return to the topic in future posts.

WHO WRITES BILLS?

Most folks think legislators have ideas that they develop or which are brought to them by their constituents and that they then work to turn this idea in to a bill. There may have been a time when this was the norm, but it is certainly not today. On the state level where most legislators serve only part time positions and don’t have full time staff, they rely heavily on interest groups and lobbyists. Ideas for utility laws might originate with utility companies, laws affecting grocery stores might originate with the lobbyists for those stores, etc. Or, in many states an idea might originate with ALEC (The American Legislative Exchange Council), a group funded by corporations and widely criticized for its undue influence on state governments. This should really concern you.

Sure, it happens that legislators have ideas they personally support which they try to turn in to law, but these days that is often the exception. Remember that organized interest groups have full time lobbyists in Washington and in every state capitol; you and I do not. Last year there were more than 11,000 lobbyists in Washington alone, and they spent over $3 billion to influence government. The same is true on the state level as well. In Illinois, for example, there are 1,609 registered lobby groups.

Bills also originate with the agencies responsible for a policy area, so EPA might compose environmental legislation, The Department of Agriculture might write ag bills, the Uniform Law Commission might write bills attempting to help states find common ground on an issue, etc. A large portion of bills also come from the White House.

In recent years we’ve seen an alarming trend (mentioned later) where the leaders of the two houses write legislation themselves and present it to their houses.

THEN WHAT?

Each year more than 10,000 bills are formally filed in Congress, so there must be a way to efficiently deal with them. Most bills are sent to a committee, and most die there. The idea is to send bills to committees with content expertise, so military bills go to the military committees, agriculture bills to agriculture committees, etc. This is a good idea that evolved as government grew larger and issues became more complex. By now you probably can assume that there are problems with the committee system (or I would not be mentioning it), and you would be correct.

A committee composed of a relatively smaller number of members of Congress conducts research and hopefully offers an objective recommendation to the House or Senate. Great idea except that the members of committees are the primary target of interest groups that want to influence their decisions. These interest groups donate large sums of campaign money to the members of the committee because they know the committees’ decisions are almost always final. The lobbyists for interest groups focus much of their efforts on the committee members, wining and dining them in other ways as well.

The committee system also suffers from other problems, but the discussion would put you to sleep (my greatest fear!). I’ll just say that the committee system has also been weakened in recent years by congressional leadership’s decisions.

OK. WHAT ELSE?

Well…many members of Congress leave DC on Thursday afternoon and return on Tuesday morning. On average Congress engages in legislative work less than three days each week, or 139 days per year. Not bad for folks earning a salary of $174,000 per year. I’d calculate their hourly wage but it would just depress me.

Why do they work so few hours when they have more than 10,000 bills to consider each year? They return home to engage in “constituency service”, meaning they theoretically work with their voters regarding problems with government. They also hold (or should hold) “town hall” meetings where they engage with their voters. And they spend some of that time raising campaign money. According to a 2013 study, members of Congress spend between 15-20% of their time raising campaign money. In case you are interested, for the 2012 election cycle members of the House raised on average $2,400 per day and senators raised $4,700 per day for the six-year period. Oh…and they are also required to raise money for their parties.

So, our representatives and senators don’t really spend much time on the legislative process itself.

ANYTHING ELSE?

Well. Yeah. Quite a bit, but I’ll be brief. The legislative process is now mired in party division with no end in sight. There really were times in our past when Democrats and Republicans in Congress worked to compromise on issues, but rank partisanship has steadily increased during the last four decades to the point that compromise is considered a four letter word. The reasons for this split are numerous, and none are pleasant. At least part of the problem is voters who either stay at home on election day or have no clue why they are voting for someone, and by now you can assume that money also plays a part as well.

At the heart of the problem is Congress’ rejection of regular order as a way of doing business (which, by the way, would be much more similar to the Schoolhouse Rock version). Under regular order bills are introduced by members of Congress, referred to the relevant committees, and then go to the floor for debate if approved by the committee. Further, the process is TRANSPARENT. Today bills often come to the floor of the House and Senate for debate, and the members do not even have time to read them in advance. The text of the bills is often not made available to the public in advance, committees are bypassed, and the bills are sometimes written by House or Senate leaders and then presented to the members for votes with little or no debate (the current healthcare proposal is a good example).

My students know that I consider the U.S. Congress to be THE major problem with American government. People blame presidents because they are visible (and its easier to focus on one person than 535), but I believe most blame can be placed squarely on Congress. Congress could solve many issues facing our nation if it would just do its job. My students also know my only joke (and it is a weak one) regarding Congress: If pro is the opposite of con, what is the opposite of progress?

Too Much Government?

Posted on March 16, 2017 by David Roebuck

On the news this morning a member of Congress said “I don’t know anything government does well other than defend the country”. Of course my ears pricked up and the squirrels in my old head started spinning the wheels. Is he correct?

Libertarians argue that government is far too big and that it should only perform the functions specifically outlined in or reasonably implied from the Constitution. I think most of us have at least some libertarian tendencies because independence and freedom from government intervention are in the American DNA, probably a consequence of our history. And I absolutely agree that government is too big and that administrative bodies often impose silly regulations on society and the economy. I also agree that government is often very inefficient. However, I’m not at all interested in making government go away. Here are a few governmental functions I’m happy to let my tax dollars cover.

Fire and police protection. I don’t think I really need to defend this. I like the idea that I can call 911 if our house is on fire, if I see an automobile accident, or if I see someone suspicious lurking in our yard.
Protecting the environment. I mentioned this in a previous post. We have quantifiable evidence that the air and water are cleaner since the creation of EPA, and we can look right across our southern border and see the consequences of government inaction. Does EPA sometimes overreach? Yes, but I appreciate the agency’s overall impact.
As someone who flies quite often, I’m very happy that the FAA imposes regulations on airlines, requiring them to inspect and replace engines and other equipment at regular intervals, randomly drug testing pilots, providing air traffic control to keep planes from flying in to each other, and more. Do I think I should be required to remove my shoes when I go through security? No. It is a silly regulation, but I’ll accept that inconvenience knowing that in other ways the FAA makes flying in the U.S. very safe.
Local zoning ordinances. I actually turned down a job many years ago and one of the reasons (among many) was that the town did not have zoning ordinances. I realized this when I saw ramshackled mobile homes sitting next to nice homes, bars close to schools and churches, and neighborhoods next to industrial parks. I’m not being a snob at all, but zoning ordinances are necessary to protect property values.
Parks. All levels of government set aside publicly owned land for common enjoyment. This is a great idea. There would be no incentive for a private company to buy 3,500 square miles and designate it as a park, but I’ve visited Yellowstone National Park several times and am glad the government does so. The same is true of state parks here in Missouri, and our local government has purchased large chunks of land for sports complexes as well as biking and walking trails. States also provide lakes in which we may fish and land on which we may hunt.
Highways. Again, there is no private incentive for building streets, roads, and highways. I would prefer putting a large portion of transportation money into rail systems, but absent that I can at least travel to visit friends and family on publicly-funded highways.
Libraries. Being able to visit my local library either in-person or virtually is a great benefit. I regularly check out e-books at no cost, and that saves me quite a chunk of change over buying e-books for my Nook.
Postal Service. The USPS processes 353,000 pieces of mail every minute of the day and generates $227 million in revenue every day. The USPS receives no federal money and would operate much better and efficiently if Congress would just leave the agency alone. Sending a letter across country for less than 50 cents knowing it will almost certainly arrive within a few days is a bargain. And the USPS is battling forces beyond its control such as email.
Curtailing blatant discrimination. Prior to the 1950’s schools were segregated. Prior to the 1960’s minorities were not give equal access to restaurants, water fountains, or restrooms in certain parts of the country. Prior to 1967 employers were allowed to discriminate on the basis of age. Prior to 1971 men were legally given first right to a family estate. Prior to 2015 the right to marry was not guaranteed to same sex couples. All these forms of discrimination and more have been addressed by government.
Educating our citizens. Free public education (k-12), the G.I. Bill, land grants to states to create universities, Pell Grants, free lunch programs for underprivileged kids, and much more.
Food safety. Local governments require food service employees to complete a proper food handling class and they inspect restaurants for cleanliness violations. State governments impose regulations such as temperature to which restaurants must cook food. The federal government provides food inspectors, normally at the point of production.
And much more. Government prohibits organized cock fighting and dog fighting and controls puppy mills (or at least does so in some states), it protects my rights such as speech and assembly, it makes the workplace safer (if OSHA had been around a few years earlier my Dad would have been spared a major injury), local and state governments provide health departments that provide some care for the underprivileged, state governments regulate professions such as physicians and cosmetologists to ensure they are trained properly, and on and on…..

Could government do these and other things better? Absolutely. As mentioned above, government is often inefficient. Further, it doesn’t always represent the common citizen and its decisions are certainly influenced by money. And sometimes government makes dumb decisions based on petty partisanship. However, it does many things well in addition to keeping us safe from foreign threats.

If you’ve been reading my blog for a few weeks I’m sure you know that I have addressed and will continue to address things the government does not do well and things government should not do at all, but after hearing the Congressman’s comment this morning I thought a little perspective was in order.

Crime and Punishment

Posted on March 14, 2017 by David Roebuck

In spite of what politicians may tell us, crime has declined dramatically since the 1990s. Sure, policy makers can always point out exceptions (murder rates in Dallas and Chicago, for example), but most of us do not live in areas where those exceptions apply and those statistics are not indicative of overall trends. You can click HERE to read ten possible explanations for the decline. Remember that they are just theories.

Politicians often want us to believe crime is at an “all time high” because it is an emotional issue that captivates our attention and, consequently, they can claim to be “tough on crime” and win our votes. This demagoguery keeps Americans from understanding the truth AND it causes a large number of us to live in an unnecessary state of fear.

The common argument that crime rates are higher in the United States than any other countries is also incorrect; we actually rank 53rd of 125 countries included in the current crime index. However, our crime rate is, unfortunately, higher than in countries we would consider our social and economic peers. Why that is true is a question that does not lend itself to a simple answer.

Of course folks in academia have developed all sorts of cool theories to explain American crime, but finding one theory that explains all crime just isn’t possible. Someone who walks in on a spouse having “relations” with another person might react violently for one reason whereas someone acting violently in another context might have a different reason. Someone who steals groceries to feed her family commits a crime for different reasons than someone steals a car to go for a ride. So theories explaining crime are by nature limited.

Arguments regarding crime are complicated by the fact that crime is what we say it is. Some crimes are fairly obvious and are generally common to most societies (murder, theft, etc.) while others are not necessarily obvious and are defined by each society (pornography, drug use, traffic laws, prostitution, etc.). Laws are not always rational and are often passed for all the wrong reasons (which I’ll explore sometime soon), so expending resources enforcing those laws is illogical. In an earlier post I argued that most drug laws make no sense. I would add laws creating our current system of taxation and OTHERS (you should read some of these for fun).

A final issue is appropriate punishment for crimes. The Constitution says a punishment cannot be “cruel and unusual” and state constitutions impose similar restrictions, but legislatures otherwise have a great deal of latitude in assigning punishments to crimes. Again, some punishments are obvious (a fine for speeding makes more sense than death by firing squad) and others are not (should non-violent offenders be imprisoned).

Although states and the federal government occasionally review their civil and criminal codes, there is never a wholesale attempt to reconsider those codes and determine whether they are still reasonable. Nor do these governments consistently examine possible causes for various crimes and attempt to address them. I believe it is time to reconsider crime and punishment, and here is an outline of what I propose.

First we need to determine which of our fellow citizens’ actions might elicit fear. In other words, which criminals am I really afraid of? That one is actually pretty easy, at least in my mind. I’m afraid of murderers, rapists, heroin and meth dealers, child abusers, armed robbers, arsonists, terrorists, those guilty of aggravated assault. I’m less fearful of embezzlers, drug abusers, minor drug distributers, those committing fraud, and other non-violent offenders. I’m also less afraid of speeders, those running traffic lights, and other motor vehicle criminals (with the exception of impaired drivers). I’m not afraid of drug users, prostitutes, gamblers, and other non-violent offenders and I would either decriminalize or legalize those activities.

Then we have to assign consequences to criminal actions, and my ideas here are pretty radical because I think we need to reconsider the purpose of prisons. We should stop thinking of them as “corrections” facilities and begin thinking of them as places we send people of whom we are afraid. For life. If I’m afraid of a rapist today I will still be afraid of him or her in twenty years. I feel the same about any violent offenders. No three strikes because in this game you only get one. Maybe there could be a way for the offenders to demonstrate that we no longer need to fear them at some point in the future, but I don’t know of any such way. So the only people I’d send to prison are violent offenders.

I’d be creative with non-violent offenders and the punishment would vary by the crime. For minor offenses (traffic violations, minor embezzlement, corporate fraud, etc.) I would continue imposing fines; the more severe the crime the higher the fine. The goal is to deter future behavior by the offender and others. Does deterrence work for some crimes? Yes. I only need to ask; why do you stay within a few MPH of the speed limit when you drive? Most of us do so because we fear a fine.

For more serious criminal offenders I would require community service, electronic monitoring, shock boot camp (I know repeat DUI offenders whose lives were turned around by this experience), and various rehabilitation services. We should allow judges to exercise creativity so they may craft an appropriate punishment for each circumstance.

We should also eliminate three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentences, but I’ll save those for later.

As of March, 2016 the United States was holding more than 2.3 million prisoners in its federal, state, and local prisons, and more than half of those incarcerated were confined for non violent offenses. You probably know that we have the highest incarceration rate in the world, yet we still have the highest crime rate of all similar countries. I really think it is time to reconsider our ideas regarding crime and punishment.

https://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2016/content/section-6/PDF/2016NCVRW_CrimeTrends-508.pdf
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/dueling-claims-on-crime-trend/
http://www.creighton.edu/fileadmin/user/CCAS/departments/PoliticalScience/MVJ/docs/mckim.pdf

Bigotry

Posted on March 6, 2017 by David Roebuck

Freedictionary.com defines bigotry as “extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own“. Narrow-minded prejudice is yet another thing tearing apart the planet and our country. If you don’t believe me just spend a few minutes reading comments on the Foxnews, CNN, or MSNBC news websites (and if that doesn’t do it for you, spend some time on more extreme websites). Warning: Be prepared to jump in a hot shower and wish for a mind scrub because there are some folks using angry, abusive, bigoted language hiding behind those computer monitors!

Bigotry and prejudice lead us to think that anything defining us as “us” is superior and, ultimately, can result in a fear of or hatred for others. It makes us see the world in terms of Christian/Muslim/ Hindu/ Atheist/Buddhist/Bahai/Mormon/etc., native/immigrant, dark skin/light skin, first world/developing world, wealthy/poor, lazy/industrious, straight/LGBTQ, or communist/capitalist.

Here are three characteristics I believe tend to define many of our differences these days.

RACE

Anthropologists generally divide homo sapiens into four broad racial categories which are then further divided into numerous subcategories based on things like region of origin, hair texture, skin color, and more. Regardless of our differences, however, all humans share more than 99% of genetic material. The darkest and lightest-skinned humans are genetically almost exactly the same, so race is an artificially created defining characteristic.

AN ASIDE: On the drive back from dinner in the home of Mississippi friends many years ago our four year old son asked from his car seat if Christy and Christopher were his cousins. The fact that Christy and Christopher were African American never crossed his mind. Children do not see differences; they are taught.

RELIGION

Counting the number of different religions on the planet is not possible, but at least eighty are documented (though I tend to think those claiming “Jedi Knights” might have been having fun with the surveyors). If we also count religious beliefs that are specific to indigenous groups and what might be referred to as “new religions” that are constantly popping up, the number must be in the hundreds or thousands. The top five are Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. Surely there is agreement among the adherents of each of these. Right? Not so much.

Buddhism is divided into Theravada, Mahayana, Tantric, Zen, and Pure Land sects (terminology varies somewhat depending on region).
Islam is divided into Wahhabi, Kharijites, Sunni, Shi’ites, Ghulat, and Sufi sects.
In 2012 a Christian seminary estimated that there were 43,000 denominations of Christianity that agree or disagree on such things as the trinity, heaven, hell, the authority of scripture, predestination, and much more.
Judaism is divided into conservative, orthodox, reform, reconstructionist, and other denominations.
Hinduism includes Saivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Tantrism, and non-denominational sects.

So any blanket statements or assumptions we make about Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. are by nature false.

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

It is sometimes easy for those of us who do OK financially to assume that personal choices cause folks to be poor, and this is certainly the case with some people who are unwilling to put forth the effort to succeed. However, in today’s economy education is closely related to economic status, and educational success is most closely tied to family background. It is easy, therefore, to understand how this becomes self-perpetuating. If education is not valued or promoted by a family and that attitude is passed on to children, then it becomes increasingly difficult for these families to rise from their status. Like most of you who are reading this blog, I had great, hard-working parents who valued education and encouraged me all along the way (sometimes more successfully than others). Many children don’t have that support and are often caught in a cycle over which they have little control. As with race and religion, therefore, socioeconomic status is an unfair characteristic for division.

I am in no way claiming to be above all this. People who say, for example, that they do not notice someone’s race are probably not being completely honest. When I meet someone I notice gender, race, height, demeanor, tattoos, clothing styles, hair style, and more. I think everyone does. The issue is what we do with that information. We can generally assume that if we meet a woman wearing a hijab she is Muslim, but does that prompt us to feel a certain way about her? If we see a young black man with his pants hanging low is “punk” or “thug” the first word that runs through our mind? If we see a well-dressed middle-aged white man does that make us feel more secure? If we see a teenage girl who is pregnant do we immediately judge her?

How do we overcome, or at least diminish, our bigotry? Mark Twain said “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.” I agree. When I was nineteen years old two of my buddies and I spent several weeks camping in 26 different states, and that was eye-opening and mind expanding for this Mississippi kid. To date I have visited 46 American states and about fifteen countries (and will visit many more before I die), and the thing that always strikes me is that people are the same wherever I go. Most are kind, generous, and fun-loving, and a few are jerks (I had a fun shouting match with a cabby once in Italy. Too bad he didn’t speak English and my Italian is awful). People are people. All our bodies are made from the same star dust (and I’m not going all hippie on you). This is a truth I could have never understood prior to traveling.

I do understand that most people don’t have the opportunity or inclination to travel as much as do my wife and I, but there are other ways to become familiar with people of other races, cultures, socioeconomic groups, and religions, and to reexamine our prejudices.

When I was very young our youth group from Verona Methodist Church was taken to a Jewish Synagogue in Tupelo where we met the Rabbi and learned about the history of Judaism. This was a valuable experience and exposed me to a different religion and culture. I recommend it.
Eating in ethnic restaurants and getting to know the folks working there helps break down barriers.
Reading books about other people, religions, etc. can help us understand our common struggles.
Questioning our personal biases and determining how they were developed. When we catch ourselves thinking something like “teenagers are lazy” or “blonds are not very smart” or “he’s Mexican so I’ll bet he is here illegally”, stop and question the validity of that thought and its source.
Simply nodding, smiling, and saying hello to people we meet on the streets regardless of their appearance usually invites a similar greeting.
Heck, watching travel shows helps.

So here is my argument. Recognizing and evaluating people’s differences is learned. Since this is learned it can be unlearned. I believe that certain conversations, circumstances, influences, and other life experiences create bigotry and, conversely, those can also be used to begin breaking it down. And from personal experience I know that unlearning negative information accumulated over time is possible because I did so with algebra.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/list-of-human-races.html

https://www.reference.com/world-view/many-races-world-bb7c1ea95ddd1c57

http://www.humanreligions.info/religions.html

http://archive.artsmia.org/art-of-asia/buddhism/buddhist-sects.cfm

http://www.religionfacts.com/charts/denominations-beliefs

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ736085

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/150128-big-bang-universe-supernova-astrophysics-health-space-ngbooktalk/

Our Environment: Living Like There is No Tomorrow

Posted on March 3, 2017 by David Roebuck

During much of our history humans have had this idea that everything was placed on Earth for our consumption. In the West this notion may at least partially stem from the Bible’s Book of Genesis which commands humans to “…rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” Western philosophers such as John Locke and Jean Jacques Rouseau promoted this belief that all animals, plants, minerals and other resources exist only for human consumption. That belief is threatening the only world on which we have to live.

A study released two months ago concluded that approximately 60% of the planet’s primate species are currently in danger of extinction because of human activity and populations of 75% of primate species are on the decline.
There is evidence that half the Earth’s wildlife has disappeared during the last forty years.
The population of bees has been on the decline in recent decades, and at least a portion of that decline results from herbicide and pesticide use. One in three bites of human food come from crops pollinated by bees, so this really matters.
The use of coal, a plentiful and cheap source of energy, releases numerous chemicals that lead to acid rain, respiratory illness, lung disease, developmental disabilities in humans and other species, and other environmental problems. Also, about 2/3 of the coal used in the U.S. is extracted by strip mining which removes the top soil (including mountain tops) to expose the coal seams below.
More than 600 million of the Earth’s inhabitants do not have access to clean and safe drinking water. More than two billion do not have access to clean sanitation systems and almost a billion go to the toilet outside.
More than 97% of actively publishing climate scientists believe the current global warning trend is likely caused by human activity.
Humans dump eight million tons of plastic into the Earth’s oceans every year.
Humans also dump about 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide, the worst of the greenhouse gasses, into the atmosphere every second (China is the worst offender but the U.S. is in the top ten). In 2013 a total of 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide were released. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by plants, but it also remains in the atmosphere longer than other greenhouse gasses.
Oh… and 32 million acres of rainforest (that remove a great deal of CO2) were lost to deforestation between 2000-2009. Thankfully the United Nations’ REDD program has created incentives for countries to slow or halt deforestation, so the loss of forest land has at least slowed in some key countries.

You get the idea. I’m inclined to believe this is NOT what the Book of Genesis meant. It appears that humans are determined to slowly destroy our own home. We also seem to believe that resources are unlimited and will last forever, a rather short-sighted point of view. Because of a growing population and an increasing desire for more “stuff” (new cars, TVs, clothes, furniture, Snickers bars, etc.), our demands lead us to explore new avenues for energy development such as fracking without seriously considering the potential long-term consequences. It is almost like the human race is so determined to have what we want NOW and to satisfy our need for instant gratification that we ignore the potential consequences for future generations.

I am in favor of improving our current infrastructure (highways, airports, power grids, etc.), but I also believe we need to urgently seek energy solutions that ensure future generations a clean home in which to live. As an optimist I do believe this dilemma can be resolved, but not until we begin funding research into alternative and renewable energy sources with the vigor of a modern day Manhattan Project. We should approach the issue with the resolve required for success in a war that must be won. We must also begin investing in mass transit, begin weaning ourselves from reliance on automobiles that burn fossil fuels, and must find ways to make planes and other modes of transportation as energy efficient as possible.

People of my generation will not likely live long enough to suffer the more severe consequences of inaction, but our children and grandchildren certainly will. To continue behaving as if this is not the truth is selfish and irresponsible.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1600946.full
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf
http://e360.yale.edu/features/declining_bee_populations_pose_a_threat_to_global_agriculture
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_environment
https://www.unicefusa.org/mission/survival/water
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jul/01/global-access-clean-water-sanitation-mapped
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150212-ocean-debris-plastic-garbage-patches-science/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/carbon-dioxide-emissions-rise-to-24-million-pounds-per-second/
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/09/10/people-near-fracking-wells-health-symptoms/15337797/
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/why-is-fracking-bad-google-answer

The Two-Party System

Posted on February 28, 2017 by David Roebuck

“If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
– Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” -John Adams to Jonathan Jackson (1780)

“I hate the two-party system” -David Roebuck (1974-2017)

In an earlier post I argued that money was corrupting the American political system. Another corrupting influence is the stranglehold the Democratic and Republican parties have on elections and, consequently, governing. The truth is that these two parties have so much control that third parties will have almost no chance of winning elections unless the two major parties allow it. They have a very effective political monopoly and they decide whether to allow other players in to the game. This monopoly is not good for America.

You might respond that having only two parties is OK because they are very different and offer legitimate options for the voters, and you would be at least partially correct. There really is a clear difference between the parties; at least there is a difference in their platforms. Any standard first-year textbook in American government will tell us that:

The Democratic Party is liberal and the Republican Party conservative.
Democrats favor a more active government that attempts to solve social problems whereas Republicans favor passive government that lets the economy and social forces solve problems.
The Democratic Party is pro-choice and Republicans oppose abortion.
Democrats favor more gun control, Republican oppose it.
Democrats favor more government regulations, Republicans disagree.
The Democratic Party’s economic policies are more Keynesian (government spending to stimulate the economy) whereas the Republican Party tends to favor “supply-side” policies that focus on producing more so consumers will invest in the economy by buying stuff (this is a terrible over simplification on my part).
Democrats tend to focus more on environmental regulations.
Republicans tend to spend more on the military.

The list of differences, at least on paper, is much more extensive. So what is the problem? The parties are obviously different, right?

Maybe. But:

Both parties have contributed almost equally to the national debt. For example, the debt increased 68% under Barack Obama and 101% under George W. Bush.
Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump took huge donations from large banks and corporations to fuel their campaigns.
As of 2015, of the top ten wealthiest members of Congress, five were Republicans and five were Democrats (the top 50 wealthiest were worth at least $7.28 million each).
The wealthy tend to benefit regardless of which party is in power. Under Barack Obama the top 1% gained 95% of the wealth created.
Both favor capitalism though their views on who should profit from the economy may differ.
Both parties are more than willing to spend your tax dollars on projects for which they can take credit (via “earmarks”) and gain voters’ support, whether or not the projects are necessary.

The truth is that although the parties do differ in the types of issues they tend to support, both are dominated by big bucks and are, consequently, less likely to focus on the needs of the masses. Further, they both benefit from the current system and have no reason to promote reform.

The two major parties currently hold 533 of 535 Congressional seats. Congress has a 22% approval rating and, as I’ve said previously, I wonder what that 22% is seeing that the rest of us miss. The Democrats and Republlicans also hold 7,312 of 7,383 state legislative seats. So the truth is that we can blame both parties for the national debt (almost $20 trillion), the failing infrastructure, air pollution, wars, problems with criminal codes, poorly funded state universities, and the crushing impact money has on American politics.

There are various reasons the two parties retain control over the political system.

They are in control of drawing legislative districts and are more than willing to gerrymander those districts (draw the districts to favor their parties).
They write the election rules and do so in such a way that third parties have trouble winning.
They also write the campaign finance laws that benefit their parties.
They have the advantage of historical name recognition because they have dominated since the mid 1800s. It is thus difficult for minor parties to gain acceptance.
They can use governmental resources such as free postage to keep in touch with voters, and this also helps with name recognition.

I can think of only two ways a successful third party could emerge. First, if a widely loved and respected individual decided to lead such a party (I cannot think of any such individuals today). The other way is by establishing a grassroots movement and begin electing third-party members at the lower levels of government. In my mind a viable third party would need to be focused more on common sense than ideology and would be moderate in nature because most Americans do not identify with ideological extremes.

I firmly believe that until such a party emerges nothing will change because the Democrats and Republicans have nothing real to gain from changing the system they dominate.

And for anyone who might argue that the system isn’t broken, I have only one question: Do you really believe Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were the best choices available out of 330 million Americans? They rose to the top of their parties.

http://www.shmoop.com/political-parties/quotes.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/the-founding-fathers-tried-to-warn-us-about-the-threat-from-a-two-party-system.html
https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/11/trump_and_clinton_share_same_special_interests.html
http://media.cq.com/50Richest/
http://www.westernjournalism.com/political-parties/
http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/01/congressional-ban-on-earmarks-hasnt-stopped-pork-barrel-spending/

Government For The People

Posted on February 24, 2017 by David Roebuck

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (Declaration of Independence)

“…We the people…” (First three words of the United States Constitution)

“The great object of the institution of civil government is the improvement of those who are parties to the social compact.” (John Quincy Adams)

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” (Abraham Lincoln)

In our hearts we want to believe that governments at all levels (local, state, national) exercise their powers based on some notion of what is good for “we the people”. Consequently, we believe, laws are passed with our best interest in mind and that they benefit society as a whole. There is no doubt many laws do in fact serve society well. Speed limits on highways, laws requiring the regular inspection and overhaul of airplanes, restrictions on dumping pollutants into the air and water, and limits on corporate monopolies all protect us in one way or the other. Using such examples we might assume government does actually work in the people’s interest.

An extensive 2014 study concluded otherwise. Researchers at two universities (Northwestern and Princeton) examined about 1,800 laws passed by the government in Washington over a twenty year period and compared those laws to the public’s preferences. They determined that government’s decisions rarely favor the “common” American but almost always favor the “economic elite” instead. They did find that policies (laws) are much more likely to pass when support is favored by groups from all economic levels, and this is frequently the case, so in those instances the common folks are represented. More significantly, however, if the elite class opposes a measure it has only an 18% likelihood of passing. They also conclude that “the average citizen or the ‘median voter’ has little or no independent influence on public policy” when average voters’ preferences contradict those of the wealthy elite.

The authors’ conclusions: “The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

Is this a surprise? Probably not. The argument certainly predates C. Wright Mills’ 1956 conclusion that “all the power’s in the hands of people rich enough to buy it” or Charles Beard’s 1912 conclusion that “The fundamental division of powers in the Constitution of the United States is between voters on the one hand and property owners on the other”. In fact our Founders themselves created a type of class system when they refused women and minorities the right to vote, had the president chosen by an electoral college over which voters had no influence, had the U.S. senators appointed by state legislatures rather than elected, and affirmed a system only allowing white male property owners to vote.

It would be difficult to argue that a great deal has changed.

If you have ever fought with insurance companies over worker compensation claims you probably learned very quickly that the work comp laws favor the insurance companies (and were possibly written by them). My wife and I have personal experience with this.
When large banks or major industries suffer catastrophic losses (frequently because of mismanagement) the government will often bail them out, but it doesn’t do so for small companies, homeowners facing foreclosure or students with loan debt. I am in no way arguing that government should bail out any of these folks, but if we believe in capitalism I’m not sure government should be bailing out failing companies.
Oh…and when we bailed out the banks in 2008/2009, $1.6 billion went to the executives of those banks. The top five Goldman Sachs executives pocketed a total of $242 million at a time when taxpayers were saving their company. Your. Tax. Dollars.
The Constitution’s “Takings Clause” allows governments to take private property via eminent domain for “public use” by providing “just compensation”. Much of this makes sense because society needs highways, for example, so government must have a mechanism for taking property required for building them. However, in Kelo v City of New London (2005) the Supreme Court expanded the Takings Clause to allow government to take property for “economic development”. Ms. Kelo’s property was seized to make room for a pharmaceutical company’s new building, a plan that was later abandoned. So Ms. Kelo was without her property and the property was ultimately not used. Similar abuses of eminent domain have occurred across the country, and the local property owners are always the loser. In Boonville, MO, about twenty minutes from my house, the city granted eminent domain power to a company to force the sale of property so a casino could be built over the objections and legal challenges of property owners.
Each year there are numerous examples of corporations that earn billions in profit but pay no taxes. In fact many of these actually receive a rebate from the IRS (see the ctj.org link below). I’m not sure about you, but I’m fairly certain my good Uncle (Sam) takes a good portion of my income every two weeks.
As of 2017 the first $127,200 of income is subject to the Social Security tax. Yes, I realize that this is quite a bit more than the average American earns, but it also means that a person earning $50,000 per year will pay exactly the same amount as someone earning millions (or billions). In that respect the Social Security tax has a greater adverse affect on those with lower incomes.

Similar examples abound.

Before you start calling me a flaming liberal or socialist, you should know that concerns over this disparity and consequent income inequality cross ideological and income boundaries. Last spring Charles Koch, the conservative billionaire who has historically supported conservative candidates and causes, told ABC News that the economic system is rigged in favor of the wealthy and that the U.S. tax code does in fact offer “corporate welfare” to companies such as his. He and Warren Buffett, the world’s third richest person, have argued for years that the tax codes are unfair and that the wealthy should be paying more in taxes.

Income inequality matters, and it matters more now than possibly any time in history. The steady economic growth since the 1970’s has not affected all income groups equally. The truth is that during the last forty years the rich have truly become richer while incomes for the poor have not significantly improved. Many Americans still live in poverty, and that number would be much higher were it not for government “safety net” programs (SNAP, TANF, SSI, etc.) that have actually reduced the number of people living in poverty since the 1960’s in spite of the growing income gap.

So why does this income inequality matter? A 2015 piece in The Atlantic concluded that in addition to the obvious inability to buy things, including necessities, the folks at the bottom of the income scale suffer in at least three ways. First, the growing disparity in incomes has led to “residential segregation” as a result of the growing number of people living in poverty-stricken neighborhoods, and it self-perpetuates because these folks and their children have difficulty finding a way out of those neighborhoods. Second, children growing up in poor families generally have limited access to higher quality education throughout their lives. Finally, the authors conclude that children in these neighborhoods also have less access to “enrichment goods” and fewer social networks, and studies demonstrate they are more likely to suffer from “toxic stress” resulting in hampered brain development and lower earning potential. The authors conclude that policies reducing taxes on the rich (eliminating the estate tax, for example) increase the burden on the poor and, interestingly, often harm the children of the wealthy because they lose incentive to be productive, an idea argued by wealthy philanthropist Andrew Carnegie and others in the 1800s.

In addition, there is evidence that other social ills such as crime and unplanned teenage pregnancy are more closely associated with income disparity than with poverty itself.

These are powerful arguments for seeking ways to close the income gap. I’m not optimistic that such alternatives will be actually sought in the current political environment where money dominates politics (the topic of an earlier post).

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/div-classtitletesting-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizensdiv/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/is-america-an-oligarchy
https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/the-power-elite-9780195133547?cc=us&lang=en&
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/16b-of-bank-bailout-went-to-execs/
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/246691-eminent-domain-abuse-violates-private-property-rights
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/06/28/its-time-for-congress-to-actively-condemn-eminent-domain-abuses/#43f6f6c130aa
http://www.mdn.org/1997/STORIES/DOMAIN.HTM
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2015/04/fifteen_of_many_reasons_why_we_need_corporate_tax_reform.php#.WKz2q4WcFpd
http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/what-matters-inequality-or-opportuniy/393272/
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality-on-society-2011-11

The Drug Problem

Posted on February 20, 2017 by David Roebuck

Until about six years ago what I knew about America’s drug problem was what was reported in the news. I assumed drug abuse and addiction were isolated and only impacted a relatively small number of people. Then the real world came crashing in and we had to help our 19 year-old son enter a substance abuse program because of his struggles with opiates and other drugs. As a consequence I now know a great deal about the drug crisis facing our country, much more than I ever wanted to know, and I am certain that our current approach to solving that crisis does not work.

One response offered when this topic is broached is that an individual chooses to start taking drugs, and that is certainly true. However, a reliable national survey indicates that some children are abusing drugs by the age of 12, meaning they likely started even earlier. Our own son started smoking marijuana at 12, and we had absolutely no clue. When he was in his late teens we realized he was smoking weed, but we thought the use was rare and we had no idea he had turned to harder drugs until a few months prior to helping him find treatment (which, by the way, he asked for). And yes, I’m in tears as I write this because the pain parents go through in this situation is indescribable. I also hurt for the eight friends my son has lost to overdose. The ones I knew were great kids, just like our son. I also weep for others who still struggle every second of every minute of every day; you can take me at my word when I say that a large majority hate their lives and want desperately to quit.

Anyway, are we really going to hold children responsible for the mistakes made at age 12 or earlier even though we know that continued use over time makes quitting ANY drug difficult? I don’t want to be held responsible for all the stupid stuff I did in my late teens (and maybe early twenties), much less for the things I did at 12. And today I’m a coffee addict and have been for 40 years, and if I try to quit I know the consequences (Because I have tried. Dumb idea!). Apply that challenge 1,000 times over to drugs that are 1) very, very, very enticing and 2) much more addictive, and I’m amazed anyone ever wins the battle.

Here are some other relevant facts:

Deaths from drug overdose reached an all time high in 2015 (the latest year for which statistics are available), with about 50,000 deaths reported. The number of drug-related deaths more than doubled between 2002 and 2015. The number of deaths from opioid overdose rose 2.8 times during that period, with more than 30,000 deaths. And the number of heroin-related deaths reached about 13,000 in 2015, a number 6.2 times higher than in 2002.
As of 2014 it was estimated that our economy suffers about $700 billion each year because of tobacco ($295 billion), alcohol ($224 billion), and illegal drugs ($193 billion). These result from required medical care, lost productivity, and crime.
In 2013, the last year a nationwide survey of almost 25 million Americans was conducted, 9.4% of the population over 12 admitted to using illegal drugs during the last month. Almost 20 million had smoked marijuana in the last month, up more than 5 million from the 2007 survey (and remember that this drug is still illegal in most states).
About 54% of current drug users started use as teenagers. Most began with marijuana.
According to the 2013 survey 22.7 million Americans needed drug treatment but only 2.5 million received that treatment.

So our current approach just isn’t working. It perfectly describes the definition of insanity generally attributed to Einstein (though he likely borrowed it): “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”. It is time to try something else.

A 2014 Pew poll found that 2/3 of Americans believed those arrested with illegal drugs should be offered treatment options rather than incarcerated, yet today 46% of federal prisoners (more than 82,000) are incarcerated for drug-related crimes. For comparison, the next highest number of federal prisoners was convicted on “weapons, explosives, or arson” charges, and they comprise only 16.8% of the federal prison population. On the state level, about 16% of prisoners are serving time for drug offenses (as of 2015). So punishment remains a major option when dealing with drug offenders.

Please understand that I am very “law and order” minded and I argue for severe punishment for violent offenders or others of whom we are afraid, but I’ll address that another time. If a drug offender is also charged with a related crime such as robbery, assault, or vehicular homicide, I want that offender off the streets. However, if the offender is only committing a crime of drug possession or minor dealing, I’d address it another way. On a personal note, by the way, I hope there is a special unpleasant cranny in the afterlife for heroin, meth, and illegal opioid sellers, and I’d punish them severely in this life as well because they are murderers.

I know this sounds counterintuitive, but according to my sources (I’ve gotten to know a lot of teenagers during the last few years), it is easier for those under age 21 to purchase illegal drugs than alcohol because drug dealers don’t care how old the buyer is whereas the convenience store doesn’t want to lose its selling license and bars don’t want to lose their pouring license. Of course we could crack down even more on selling alcohol to those who are under 21 (I would probably change that to 18 if I had my way, but that is for another discussion) by making liquor licenses expensive and making it almost impossible to regain a license lost for selling to underage customers.

I would also legalize marijuana (and I am NOT promoting its use), regulate the heck out of it to ensure growers were not mixing in addictive chemicals (as was done by tobacco companies), charge large sums for selling licenses, and impose strict penalties for selling to minors. There is little doubt that continued use of the drug is harmful, that it is especially harmful to adolescents whose brains are still developing, and it is dangerous during pregnancy. So is consuming alcohol (yet I still enjoy the IPA). Adults should be able to make the choice whether to use it but children should not. I repeat what I stated earlier; kids have no trouble at all buying marijuana now even though it is illegal.

I would not legalize other drugs but I would decriminalize them, and I would always favor treatment options first. Many states have been experimenting with “drug court” options for non-violent possession and minor distribution cases in recent years, and they have been very successful. Recidivism rates are drastically reduced and crimes that often accompany drugs have been reduced as much as 45% over other sentencing options. Drug courts require those convicted to seek treatment, and the judge monitors success (the one convicted is subject to random urinalysis and other testing). I know kids who have turned their lives around because of drug court. It works much better than sending someone to prison at a cost of $30,000 per year where he or she learns about a lot of other cool crimes to commit upon release.

The bottom line is this: Treatment does not always work, but it does work for a good number of addicts. The war on drugs is a failure by every significant measure, and both liberal and conservative media outlets have reached that conclusion. Even the Law Enforcement Action Partners (LEAP), an organization created by law enforcement officers, argues for abandoning the unwinnable war. Let’s try something new and use a portion of the war on drug money for treatment.

Oh, and our son who entered treatment at 19? He has been clean and sober since May 13, 2011 and is now a drug counselor working with young people to help them overcome dependency. Treatment saved his life and is saving countless others. And the truth is I would not change a thing because the experience has strengthened me as a person and our relationship as a family. I’m just happy and fortunate that our son survived.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/preventing-drug-abuse-among-children-adolescents-in-brief/chapter-1-risk-factors-protective-factors/when-how-does-drug-abuse-start-progress

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/drug-abuse-addiction#1

America’s New Drug Policy Landscape

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

Click to access p14_Summary.pdf

https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics

http://www.livescience.com/48171-marijuana-research-health-effects-review.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/is-cannabis-dangerous-a-review-of-research-over-the-last-20-years-says-yes-9780679.html

http://www.nadcp.org/learn/facts-and-figures

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/13/ap-impact-years-trillion-war-drugs-failed-meet-goals.html

Drug Policy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_additives_in_cigarettes

Fixing the American Government

Posted on February 16, 2017 by David Roebuck

When people learn that I’ve studied American politics more than forty years, one question they often ask is what I would change to begin improving the state of American politics, and the answer is actually quite simple; remove money from the equation. Stop allowing corporations and wealthy individuals to have so much control over who wins party nominations and, ultimately, elections. Last year $1,312,110,914 was raised for the presidential races alone (yes, that is over a billion dollars). Another $1,035,693,928 was raised for the 435 House of Representatives seats (again, over a billion dollars) and $787,814,300 for the 33 vacant Senate seats. The grand total raised last year was…a whole bunch of money.

Here are a few interesting facts. In 2016, a little more than 70% of all donations of more than $200 came from .5% of the population, .08% gave all donations greater than $2,700, and 100 individuals or organizations contributed at least $2,272,500 or more EACH. Interestingly, 30,677 individuals or organizations donated to both parties, apparently hoping to gain influence regardless of the winning party.

What are the consequences of these huge campaign donations? There is honestly no way to be absolutely certain, but it is reasonable to assume that large donors expect to gain access and influence. And even if the connection between money and influence cannot be conclusively proven (I doubt many elected officials will actually admit that their decisions are based on donations), it certainly seems obvious that it could be a corrupting influence. If those capable of contributing huge sums are in fact receiving favors that you and I don’t enjoy, I would argue that this contradicts the notion that everyone’s vote should count equally, enunciated in a number of Supreme Court decisions.

A related problem is campaign money’s chilling influence on the notion of fair and competitive elections. Members of Congress and other elected officials can raise huge sums of money, even in non-election years, and keep that money in their “war chest” (bank account) to use in future elections. In 2016 fifty members of Congress had at least $1,313,688 in the bank (Paul Ryan had $9,098,873). Let’s say that Professor Dave decided to run against Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) in last year’s election (he actually represents a different district and I’m offering no critique of his effectiveness; just go along with me here). Then I learn that Representative Luetkemeyer has $1,858,861 in the bank (which he did), and I know he can begin spending it when a serious challenger appears. Professor Dave looks at his bank account (which has MUCH less than $1,858,861) and decides that he will pass on the opportunity to run for this office. It happens. I know it does because I know very intelligent and capable people who chose to not pursue an office because of the amount of money required.

How did we get to the point that money is so important that the two 2016 candidates for District 19 of the Missouri Senate, for example, raised $3.6 million to win a seat that pays the winner about $36,000 per year? In 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court decided that money equals speech, and speech is protected by the 1st Amendment. The Court thus ruled that limits on the amount people can contribute to an election are an unconstitutional denial of their speech. In a 2010 case the Court struck down limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions, ruling in essence that these groups could spend an unlimited amount of money promoting candidates as long as the money wasn’t given directly to the candidate’s campaign. Money, money, and more money.

To change this requires ether 1) The Supreme Court to have a change of heart and reverse it’s interpretation of the Constitution, or 2) a Constitutional amendment reversing the Court. I’m not optimistic. My ultimate solution would likely be unpopular with many (most?) folks, but I’d like to find a way to follow the British model that limits the amount spent by providing public and equal funding for Congressional and presidential campaigns. I am a dreamer, but until we remove money as the motivating factor in American politics we will not be able to effectively address all the other issues facing our political system such a gerrymandering, healthcare reform, protecting the environment, or improving our infrastructure.

Introduction

Featured

Posted on February 12, 2017 by David Roebuck

There is no scarcity of political and social commentary these days, but the scarcity of CIVIL political and social commentary is troublesome. I hope this blog can help fill that void. If you have grown tired of reading vitriolic commentary where people tend to shout (well, e-shout) and call each other names, this might be the blog for you. If you have grown tired of finger pointing, blaming, scapegoating, and mindless commentary, this might be the blog for you. If you want the opportunity to read ideas that contradict your own, but in a civil manner, this might be the blog for you.

I’m a political scientist (don’t judge) and administrator at a liberal arts college in the American Midwest, and I’ve been in academia since 1978 (you can read a brief personal bio in the Basic Information section). My liberal students think I’m conservative and my conservative students think I’m liberal. The truth is that traditional liberal and conservative labels no longer work, but we keep holding on to them as if they are sacred.

I start from the premise that very few public policy decisions are based on objective data; most are just written on a whim to satisfy the constituent of the moment or in response to a specific event (gun control after a school shooting, environmental laws after an oil spill, etc.). It seems obvious to me that policy choices should be somewhat clear when science or data DO support a conclusion, and that could happen much more often than it currently does .

Here are the basic rules for my blog:

I will offer ideas, often controversial, and will cite objective data (when available) supporting an argument. Other times I will offer a personal view and defend it. You may then offer counter arguments or ideas. Be assured that you may change my mind because I know I have not yet cornered the market on political truth.
No responses may attack an individual, use coarse language, or be otherwise belligerent or hostile. If you cannot post a comment without using such terms as libtard, extra chromosome, stupid, snowflake, wingnut, loser, Hitlerian, moonbat, conservatard, Neanderthal, or mouth breather, please find your idea fix elsewhere. In fact, I think the discourse will be much more thoughtful if we don’t even refer to “left-wing” or “right-wing” ideas. They are just ideas. The question is whether the ideas bear scrutiny.
Uncivil posts will not be approved for publication (Sorry. I do not like censorship but I dislike discourteous conversation even more).

I do understand that these rules will eliminate a segment of society, people who enjoy being rude and who refuse to engage in civil debate, and I’m perfectly fine with that. I’m fairly certain most of you look forward to debate without those folks as well.

My goal is to post ideas at least twice each week, but posts may be more frequent as public events unfold. Some posts will be long (hopefully not too long), and others will be shorter. I will always provide sources when I cite statistics or other specific information, but I don’t plan to bother with formal citations unless my academic colleagues reprimand me.

I hope this endeavor will be successful because I’m weary of the current state of political discourse. If you enjoy reading and participating I hope you will let others know so we can try to spread this radical idea of civility. If you don’t enjoy it, keep it to yourself!!

Fiercely Independent

Unbiased political and social commentary

Category Archives: Uncategorized