Blog Posts

Affirmative Action--help that does harm

4/24/2014

Have you ever noticed that the most significant discrimination has occurred at the hands of government? The free market has had its issues. However, it has always led the way to inclusive behavior and normally having lower rates of discrimination than the government. Most 1960s civil rights movement issues were fighting discriminating laws or private sector discrimination enforced by the government. True free market, while not perfect, leads the way to inclusion far faster than the government sector and law.

Three Ways Affirmative Action Harms

First, many whites look suspiciously at minorities that get a job or an advancement as not on merit, rather by the color of their skin. Right or wrong, affirmative action creates a divisive suspicion. Minorities also feel that suspicion. This can cause animosity between the races thus worsen the racial tension.
Second, minorities with equal SAT scores or skill levels have shown to compete just fine with a class or workforce of the same general skill level. However, in education, if affirmative action pairs those of high academic levels together with a minority with lower SAT scores, the minorities are more likely to fall behind the class and not thrive.

Studies have shown the adverse effects of affirmative action on minorities. Similar results are likely in the workforce if the job is highly skilled and a less skilled minority is competing with a higher skilled workforce.

Third, there is harm when higher qualified students are not given a spot at a school even though their academic results are better than an affirmative action student. This also widens resentment and animosity between the races.

The promise of affirmative action was always to even things out and give minorities a chance and bring racial harmony. The results have been detrimental to minorities and racial animosity.

How do we get these plans passed?

4/13/2014

Too many politicians want to talk a big conservative game, then complain they cannot deliver because they do not have the votes.

I am sick of the House of Representatives claiming that they are one-half of one-third of government. I am sorry to say, but that is clearly people making a lame excuse to not get things done. The House of Representatives holds the purse strings. No legislation, taxing or spending can happen without them.

The House of Representatives could pass their conservative plans. With clarity and with boldness, they could take each government program separately and pass their conservative adjustments for that program. They could tell President Obama, and the liberals in the Senate that they can pass and sign the bill or that program is not funded.

Programs should always need the votes to be funded, they are not funded by default. Legislators should never think that a defund bill needs to be passed because programs are funded by a vote. The default is that the program ends without a vote. The structure of our government is that the House, Senate and the President must all agree for legislation to occur and programs to be set up and funded. These programs have to be funded every year. This is a high bar and was meant to be high in order to keep most sectors of our society in private sector control.

For example, the score might be about fifty votes from the House to repeal the ACA to about 5 to fund. However, those fifty repeal votes had no effect because the Senate did not take it up. The 5 to fund the ACA over the years passed both houses and signed into law. If Republicans seriously did not want the ACA, they would stop funding it once a year, the Senate and the president do not care how many ‘statements’ the House GOP make with defunding bills, they only need that one funding bill every year.

State Government

Currently (April 2014) in Virginia, there is a showdown between the Democrats in the Senate aided by Governor McAuliffe and the Republicans in the House of Delegates over Medicaid expansion. It is overwhelmingly frustrating to many conservatives that the Republicans did not fight for a smaller budget or a rollback of governmental functions with a 68% majority of Republicans in the house.

They (the GOP) proposed a massive spending increase, thus a massive tax increase--from $43 billion a year to $48 billion. While I hope they hold tight on not passing Medicaid expansion, they are likely using that as a cover for massive government expansion into our lives by the budget.

Anti-Discrimination Laws Versus Freedom of Association

4/12/2014

Anti-discrimination laws clearly compete with and push on the limitations of Freedom of Association protections in our Constitution. There needs to be a balance. Often people do not think out the complete ramifications of what they are advocating. Social change comes about best from social pressure, education and making the arguments, not from government force.

There is a narrative battle over the Arizona law that purports to allow religious protections against those that would force business owners to serve in a manner that they consider against their religious creed. Some claim that it is hateful for someone to not serve others just because they are gay; whereas the other side claims, they do not want to be forced to compromise their deeply held principals. A third side is that it is hateful for a person or group to force by law others to provide any service. Of course, there are many more sides we could discuss.

Just like another First Amendment freedom, freedom of speech allows for speech that we find objectionable. We must also allow for association or disassociation that we find objectionable. While a vast percentage of citizens would stop going to a restaurant if they did not serve gay people, most would totally understand a business not wanting a gay-themed night just because they had other theme nights such as a country music theme, women’s night, singles night, or “truckers night.” If a baker did not allow gay people to come in to buy cakes off the shelf, I could see a justifiable complaint; however, catering a gay wedding is entirely a different story.

Going Way Overboard
From a story
This story was deleted from the web

"This bill is arbitrary, capricious and antithetical to the spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood that informs our documents of freedom.
It will lead to marginalization and oppression by allowing bigots to deny gay people access to virtually any business or service. The road to Indian genocide, Jim Crow, Japanese-American internment, the Holocaust and other iterations of human persecution began with laws that isolated and dehumanized entire groups of people."

These critics try to drive a narrative so extreme, they want people to assume that they are morally just and on the side of angels. They clearly are not. The vast majority (over 99%) never even come close to any of these extreme views. These critics themselves are being hateful.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Under a non-discrimination law that states that any business offering products or services must, by law, sell to or provide services to whoever asks, is highly problematic. That law can be used by any hate group or highly immoral person to harass the people they hate.

The KKK could force a black-owned and staffed catering business to cater their mock lynching rally that subjects all these black caters to truly hate-filled speech directed at them.

An actress could be hired by pornographers that force, by law, her to do nude and sex scenes.

Jewish actors could be forced by law to work for modern-day neo-Nazis to reenact concentration camp scenes.

Could gay professionals be forced by law to serve the truly perverted Westboro Baptist Church during their anti-gay marches?

Should anti-church gay activist be able to use the law to force a Pastor of a bible believing fundamentalist church to marry a gay couple?

The list is endless; the Supreme Court has clearly stated that the freedom to associate is also the freedom not to associate.

Social norms will handle the extreme cases of a store not allowing in someone for being Jewish; we should not have laws that force someone to do business with anyone that asks, because haters can use the law to harass. A line needs to be drawn by the providers of service. All transactions and associations must be agreed to by both parties involved. The government should not draw that line. Haley2024's Rating system surely could include these issues. This issue is one that is a perfect example of why there needs to be competing Rating Agencies. Different groups would rate these issues very differently, and everyone decides what rating association they would trust.

The Law and Marriage

2/16/2014

Judge: Va. same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional

The bottom line is that the judge proclaimed a kindergarten argument
‘It ain't fair’ - Bill Haley

This decision is wrong in so many ways.

First, the judge equates mix-race marriage with same-sex marriage. This evaluation is wrong on so many levels. The 14th Amendment was especially about race since it was established right after the Civil War. No talk of same-sex marriage was anywhere around the argument 150 years ago. Race and sexual orientation are just not the same.

If you think same sex is the same as interracial, I will ask you a simple question. If you were in the locker room of people of the same sex, however of different races would you feel uncomfortable changing in front of them? Second question, If you were in the locker room of people of the different sex, would you feel uncomfortable changing in front of them? Would you allow your 13-year-old to change in a mixed race or a mixed gender locker room?

Second, the Judge wrongly concludes that defining marriage between one man and one woman is born out of prejudice. IT IS NOT! They are born out of a long history of marriage as a highly valuable pillar of society.

Under the warped arguments of this opinion, how can the government forbid the same benefits to a single person? Some laws and policies give preferential treatment for a married couple such as adoption and other tax benefits that singles are not afforded. Moreover, a marriage of three or even 100 people or more could not be denied. If one government employee had benefits for a spouse, could that one employee marry 1000 people, thus granting them health insurance? Could an elderly man with not long to live marry his son, thus avoiding the death tax or give over a pension that only goes to a spouse?

While these examples might seem far-fetched, as a matter of law, they are very valid concerns if as the judge points out numerous times, a marriage is: We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? And their freedom to choose to marry the person they love. They seek "simply the same right that is currently enjoyed by heterosexual individuals: the right to make a public commitment to form an exclusive relationship and create a family with a partner with whom the person shares an intimate and sustaining emotional bond.

The Judge stated that “There can be no serious doubt that in America the right to marry is a rigorously protected fundamental right.”
Haley: There is widespread debate over this.
While there are many articles on both sides, these few out of many show the debate is still very real.
Marriage is Not a Right by Derryck Green (bio)
Why Gay Marriage Is Not a Right By Carlton Austin
Gay marriage is not a right By Jonathan Zhao
You Don't Have a Right to Marry By Jackson

The judge stated: Gay and lesbian couples are as capable as other couples of raising well-adjusted children. See id. at 980
("Children raised by 30Case 2:13-cv-00395-AWA-LRL Document 135 Filed 02/13/14 Page 30 of 41 PageID# 1072 gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful
and well-adjusted"). In the field of developmental
psychology, "the research supporting this conclusion
is accepted beyond serious debate."

The debate is far from being over!

A father has certain qualities that are very important as well as the mother. When God created Eve from the rib of Adam, I believe he separated Gods image into male and female, and when they join in holy matrimony, the Bible states they become one. Both the Mother and Father bring very different qualities to raising a child.

While the Va. Constitution is inclusive to claiming what marriage is; the state law is exclusive of on what marriage is not. I prefer the inclusive versus the exclusive definition.

Va. Constitutition: Section 15-A. Marriage.
That only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this Commonwealth and its political subdivisions. This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage.
The amendment ratified November 7, 2006, and effective January 1, 2007
—Added a new section (15-A).

§ 20-45.2. Marriage between persons of same sex.

A marriage between persons of the same sex is prohibited. Any marriage entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created by such marriage shall be void and unenforceable.

(1975, c. 644; 1997, cc. 354, 365.)§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

(2004, c. 983.)

While I agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman, I am also for allowing individuals not married to have easily attained contracts that allow strong relationships with privileges and responsibility. This would allow gay or straight people to join together to take care of each other. This could be two elderly people who do not wish to be alone; however, romantic love and marriage is not presenting the opportunity. It is good for society that people join together to help each other out. This is true with or without romantic love.
More of my position on this can be found in my Social Issues

Side note, this judge declares that “Our Constitution declares that "all men"are created equal.” That is in the declaration, not the Constitution.

If the GOP does NOT have the votes, WHY do the Liberals have the votes?

2/16/2014

The Hastert rule states "no legislation can be brought to the floor without a majority of Republican votes." This rule should be in place at all times when Republicans have the majority, or there is not much value in holding a majority.
I am often very disappointed in the lame excuse of "we did not have the votes."

Denny Hastert

"When you don't have 218 votes, you have nothing," Boehner said. "We'll let his party give him the debt ceiling increase that he wants," Boehner said, hours before the expected evening vote.

John, quite simply, you have the power given to you from the Republican majority to put up or NOT, any bill you wish. If the GOP does not have 218 votes, why do you allow the Democrat's bill to go up? If it is not a good bill, do not put it up. If the GOP does not get what they want, the default needs to be no bill at all, rather than go along with the liberal bill.

With a Republican as Governor and a House of Delegates two-thirds Republicans, the Republican Party needed to throw their weight around a little more on this. How about the strategy, that the house states clearly to the Senate (21-20: GOP) that they will not take the ‘Tebow’ provision out of the budget. Would the liberals really shut down the school system to keep their discrimination against homeschoolers?
If Republicans do not have the votes then why do the liberals?

It was tackled again in a Senate committee, failing on an 8-7 vote when Republican Sen. Harry Blevins of Chesapeake, a retired high school principal, joined with the Democratic minority on the panel in opposition to the bill.

Forward>>