Libertarian Party Invites Me To Run

True, they didn't say for what, nor  even  how fast.  And they added that they would appreciate a contribution, and I have this hunch that my running for something, say President or even World Emperor, would be contingent on the contribution amount.  President would be enough for me.  I'm a simple man.

Well, I'm not interested in politics, really.  The company you have to keep is pretty distasteful.  But I am interested in total, nearly unbridled power.  I am confident that I could use such power wisely and remain uncorrupted, or at least uncorrupted for, say, six months. After that I should be watched closely. At my age, how much longer could I last, anyway?

So I've given some thought to my platform, and I will welcome comments, which for the most part I intend to ignore.  Still,  crowd-sourcing sometimes is surprisingly effective.  The first 5 items have to do with Congress:

One:  All Congressmen (and Congresswomen) will have their current ridiculous life-time pensions reduced and the term on their pensions will be limited to the number of years they were in Congress.  Four years in office, four years pension.  That's a better deal than they deserve.

Two:  All Congresspeople will have Medicare ONLY.  They don't get a special deal.  If they want more insurance they can pay for it, same as we do.

Three:  Congress is not allowed to set their own salaries and benefits.  It seems unreasonable to allow the pigs to vote on how much goes into their trough.  A Citizen's Committee, appointed by me, will make recommendations for any salary or benefit changes, and I will put the recommendations on the internet and allow all American citizens to vote for them.

Four:  Amendments to bills will be limited to amendments that relate to the content of the bill.  No more adding the costs of their driveways to the National Parks budget.  This will cause  some major changes in the way Congress does business; it will specifically affect pork-barrel legislation.  Each bill will have to be voted on based entirely on its specific merits.  This alone should cut down the budget and the time to decide on it.

Five:  If campaign promises are broken, the Congressperson may be expelled by vote of his district.

But enough about Congress, though I would consider a movement to make corruption and graft in office a capital offense, to be  carried out publically by firing squad or beheading.  And don't give me any crap about "cruel and unusual punishment".  The jihadists do it, so it must be ok.  The remaining items are about general policy.

Six:  I will have line-item veto on any bills.  This is probably the single most important item in my program.  Congress has used its ability to tie personal crap to otherwise good bills we MUST pass, so that they can bribe each other with public funds.  In particular this will apply to the Budget.

Seven:  Budget items that I regard as superfluous, excessive, or ill-advised will be vetoed by me.  However, I may call a national internet vote on certain less-necessary but valuable issues, such as NPR.  We can only afford what we can afford.  Some good things will have to be put off until later. And bear in mind that much of our military costs are actually spent  IN the US, which keeps a lot of people employed, able to afford marijuana and stay quietly off the streets.

Eight:  I will consider re-establishing a tariff on goods produced outside the US and brought in.  The intention is to keep more money inside the US and stop sending it to other countries.  I will demand a revocation of NAFTA. It's nice to help Nike find cheap labor that helps the abysmally poor people in other countries, but I would rather help our own poor, at least to the extent they are willing to work.

Nine.  No more sending our forces overseas except to defend us.  The exception might be that if the UN votes for military sanctions, AND if all the other countries in the UN agree to send their own troops, I could be persuaded.  But I'm tired of us being the playground guard for the rest of the world.  All they have to do to be fine with me is to stop trying to kill us.  I really don't care if they want to kill each other in the name of whatever primitive religious beliefs they have, as long as they don't try it with us.

Personal pledges by me:  I will be absolutely honest.  I will say what I mean and mean what I say. (This has already limited my social desirability).   At my age I am immune to personal bribes or seductions by interns.  I already have more than I need, so I am not corruptible. I haven't done anything that could be used to blackmail me. I will ask for popular vote of confidence via internet on a regular basis concerning issues affecting the general welfare.  I have no intentions of going to church or praying to or for  anything and I have no intentions of stopping others from such forms of activity. So if you want to be religious, you won't get a problem from me.  Unless you give me one.

Since I am pretty much immune to the usual political influences (see above),  a number of  people will want me dead.  You can easily guess which group or combination of houses would be behind an assassination, although they will probably hire a middle-Easterner so it will look like a terrorist plot. 

After six months I think my term should be renewable by popular vote (internet style).  We could call for a vote of confidence/no confidence every 3 months thereafter.  I'm a honest and honorable sort of person, but who knows how that much power might affect me?  It's never safe to allow that kind of power to remain in one person's hands without time/term limits. Except for me.

Also a qualification:  while sitting on my porch and drinking my coffee, I was accidentally sprayed with a shrubbery-spray intended to kill fungus and insects.  At this point, I should be fungus and bug-free for the near future, which not only is a plus but puts me ahead of the other candidates.

So I'm open to suggestions.  Any thoughts or additions?

Heaven and Hell: Seating preferences

While driving to work I accidentally tuned in to a radio evangelist, extolling the beauties and general  wonderfulness of heaven.  It was beautiful beyond imagining, he said.  Streets were of gold, he said.  Didn't say anything about park benches, I noted, or bowling alleys or fishing or libraries. 

Then he went on to  list the activities available  on the Heaven cruise.  A lot of singing was involved,  and some playing of justly obscure musical instruments.  He described this singing with such gusto that you would think he loved it all, and spent all his spare time practicing hymns and lyre-playing.  I am willing to bet as much money as you wish that he never in his life laid a hand (or anything else) on a lyre. And I don't care how many hymns they have:  over an infinite period of time they are bound to get monotonous.

My first thought was, I don't want to go there.  If I weren't already dead at that time, the boredom would surely kill  me, but not nearly as quickly as one might wish.  I would guess that the number of people who actually want to go to that Heaven for.... wait for it.... eternity, might be a smaller  number than you think.  As Mark Twain said (and I paraphrase) we have populated and decorated Heaven with all the things we least like. And it goes on, the evangelist said, without end. 

I had a lot of trouble believing that he could feel as enthusiastic as he wanted to feel.

I found myself thinking that there must be an alternative, and so  there is. Hell!  Now, I grant you there is a lot of talk about sulfur and blazes and lakes of fire and the like, but I ask you, and try to be honest, would you not prefer that to an eternity of harp-accompanied hymn-singing?

I think I would apply for the Hell cruise, if I could also request being assigned to some useful duties.  I don't mind starting with  a broom.  Somebody's got to pick up the trash and stoke the fiery furnaces.  And there are a lot of troubled people down there, not only your every-day villains but a lot of folk who have no idea where they are, much less why they are there.

Well, you might see where this is going.  Being a psychologist/psychotherapist (not one of those psychologists that make people fill out forms and stare at obscene ink-blots) it occurred to me that I might be able to help some of those people.  We'll have  plenty of time on our hands, and we'll need something to do to take our minds off of the eternal unbearable torment assigned to us by God.  Incidentally, doesn't the amount of misery and torment seem a little excessive for having doubts or saying bad words about ... you know who?

Anyway, maybe I could work with some seriously disturbed people, a lot like I do already, only famous.  I can imagine using cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques on Hitler or even Vlad The Impaler.  Assuming they are there, of course.  Maybe I could hold some evening courses in how to come to terms with and accept one's lot with grace.  In the rest of my time, which should be pretty much infinite, I could clean up with a broom and a dustpan.  Or maybe a pickup truck, and they're bound to have those in Hell.

I wonder if  there is a union for cleaners down there?  I bet I could get some people to join up.   Once we have a union going, we can do as much for Hell as the unions have done for America.  And once we get  some political power, who knows where that might take us.  But I think it best to stop with that line of thought.  God knows who's reading over my shoulder.

Gay marriages

The currently absurd and confusing disagreements about the validity and desirability of “gay” marriages is an excellent example of the reasons we try to keep religions OUT of our civil and legal life.

First of all, we need to be clear that marriages are a mixture of religious observance and civil contract.  We need to separate these two elements, which in this case are clearly incompatible.

The civil contract aspect of a marriage is relatively clear as to content and purpose.   It amounts to have a legally binding contract between two people which ensures that their common interests (such as in property and legal obligations) are spelled out and recognized in the law.  The civil contract is important and is recognized by the state as legal and binding.  The rights of each partner are spelled out and are enforceable under the law, as anyone who has been through a divorce can tell you.  The rights of the partnership itself are equally spelled out and recognized under the law.  This includes the right to raise children, to incur binding legal obligations (such as a mortgage), to own property as a couple, to have health care, and to determine the disposition of common property in the event of the death of one of them.  The couple agrees to share their income.  The rights of a surviving member of the civil union are protected as well.

This is purely and simply a business partnership, as far as the State is concerned, and is recorded and regulated as any other partnership is.  The advantages of this partnership are obvious.  The State has some limited rights to exclude some partnerships as being against the interests of the State, such as prohibiting marital relationships between members of a family, or that are otherwise considered exploitive.  There should be no more restrictions on this kind of partnership than on any other kind.  For the  State to impose religious restrictions on partnership contracts is a violation of constitutional rights.

The religious aspect of a marriage is quite separate.   Some religions have their own regulations and rules as to what is allowed of their membership.    The church (or churches) to which the marital parners belong has no rights, financial or otherwise, nor obligations to the partnership, beyond what their particular beliefs require.  Religions do not have a right to regulate partnership contracts in any way, since such contracts are legal and protected by the State.  They do have a right to disapprove and even to exclude partnerships that do not fit with their beliefs.

There are several solutions to this problem, which are obvious when religion and civil law are separated.  It should be possible for a couple to be “married” without the approval of a religion.  It should not be possible for a church/religion to limit the rights of citizens to have a contractual partnership, as long as the partnership is made within the requirements of civil law.  Private businesses can exclude anyone they want to exclude on whatever basis.   Public service agencies should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of any religious or other arbitrary rules.  So we would have (as we have now) two forms of marriage:  one civil and the other religious.  The religious option is ... well, optional.

If I own a grocery store I can choose not to sell to red-headed people.  If I am an administrator of an adoption agency, I should not be allowed to discriminate against any group.  This seems to me to be fairly simple and in fact is a primary basis for our Constitutional form of government.  We get into serious problems whenever we allow religious or other personal beliefs to be enforced as a matter of law.  Remember separation of church and state?  NOT an accident. Look for comparison at other countries in which the political powers are allowed to make political decisions on the basis of religious beliefs.  Hasn't worked out ever.  Never will.

One further thought:  The government has been denied the  power to dictate what we believe and how we show that belief.  The government may not and should not tell me that I as an individual have to treat everyone equally.  As a functionary of a government or public agency, however, I do.  To prohibit hateful speech would be a denial of our first-amendment rights.  Just because you think my speech is hateful does not give you OR the government rhe right to prohibit it.  The First Amendment was specifically purposed to allow  unpopular and even hateful beliefs on the ground that truth most  easily arises from the conflict of ideas openly expressed. In that regard, note the exact IP address of this blog.