As most of you know, Democrats have now taken control of both the House and Senate. What does this mean for the future of America? Our president is republican, and our congress is democrat, so nothing will be done. And quite frankly im happy with that. Both Republicans and Democrats are two heads on the same political body seeking power. Id rather have a government that gets nothing done then a 1 sided government like we have had for 6 years. Most see this as a publicite for the disapproval of the republican party. I see this as a publicite for the disapproval of the government in its entierty.
American's voted for democrats not because they feel democrats are the best party to run our government but because it was the only way to show their distaste for the government. And i predict that the democrats are going to assume that the country is on their side for whatever they do. Come 2008 election, democrats will have shot themselves in the foot because of this assumption. American's more and more are feeling that both parties are incompetent and feel that their views and issues cannot be represented by just one party. Most americans feel that a mixure of the two parties is the only way that their views will be represented in good order, weither anything gets done or not.
Heres how i see American's will make sure they are represented. Ask yourself one question: Why do we have political parties? The answer most american's come up with doesnt exist because most americans do not understand the historical background of the parties. The parties tell you that they must exist in order to combine power of certian view points. Before the 12th amendment was ratified, the runner-up to the presidency would take the position of vice president giving the minority vote a minority voice in the executive branch. Today the minority vote has absolutely no representation in the executive branch. I fail to see why we allow the government to secure such power to just one type of individual. Also in congress we have citizens voting blind based on the party of the canidate. I find this quite irresponsible on the part of american citizens in two major ways: 1) It doesnt require the candidate to state his/hers platform because people assume he/she runs for the party platform (when history has shown us otherwise) and 2) It allows for those candidates that try to reach the people to be swept aside by big parties. So how do we fix this? Some thing a strong 3rd party would fix the problem of the 2 headed beast, but it is this bloggers honest opinion that no matter how many strong parties there are, each one will soon be attached to the political body seeking absolute power.
This blogger finds that if we disband the practise of using parties in congressional races, maybe then people would actually start to inquire as to who these candidates are and pick the best one for the job. I also propose that we go back to the ways before amendment 12 and make it so our runner up to presidency is the VP so that the minority vote can still be represented. I do not see clearly enough to understand why the formation of parties led to this practise being halted except for the obvious reason: So that each party has a shot at full executive power every 4 years. Tell me how that benifits the people. Tell me how the 49% that voted for Kerry in '04 and the 50% for Gore in '00 benifit from this practise. Ladies and gentlemen we may be a democracy, but we must remain seeking individual freedom at every turn of life. 50% of the population is a huge portion that went un-represented for 4 years, then came 49% still be un-represented. And now we have a split government because the people got sick of the republicans. If forced, the american people would make fantastic choices in government, but alas we are too lazy to care about politics. We allow Fox News and CNN to come up with conclusions for us when it comes to politics. And we take those formulated conclusions to the voting booths every election year.
Also the house of represenative needs to be re-vamped or rennovated to accomidate for the 300,000,000 americans living today. 435 no longer represents america in a fair manner. I think increasing the number of represenatives gives the people more confidence in the central government which has deminished over the past 12 years. Also increase the senate to 150 members. keep 2 elected (without party affiliation also) and and extra 1 appointed by a committee of low income voters. The one appointed would be appointed for 10 year terms making sure that those without money will be represented as fairly as special interest groups.
Abolish special interest groups while we are at it, and if some find that unconstitutional or devestating then we just need to increase the number of represenatives and senators to a point where special interest groups couldnt them off to vote because the amount of money spent to do so would bankrupt them. Imagine a government where your elected official actually did what they were suppose to do: The best thing for you not a company in another state.
Just a recap of my thoughts:
Democrats being elected this election does not mean that the people want a government ran by democrat policy, it just was the only way the american people knew how to express their disgust in the republican party.
Parties themselves are inherently evil and, although not be abolished for their role as a unifier for some citizens, must be removed from congressional elections so that the american people are forced to pick the best canidate.
We need to revoke the 12 amendment and give the minority voters representation inside the executive branch. This way we are almost guarenteed a government that is not corrupt with absolute power like the government of the past 6 years.
We need to increase the number of represenatives for the house. 435 people representing 300,000,000 just doesnt seem like we are being represented the best way possible.
Increase the senate.
Debolish special interest groups and outlaw lobbying.
the one and still only,
CrazyGoose
Friday, November 10, 2006
Sunday, October 08, 2006
The Variables of Truth
Truth is a funny subject simply because no one can accertain it, or so they think. In philosophy, i am charged with not finding truths but only valid arguments to explain certain situations. Notice how i stated multiple valid arguments are needed. The concept of truth is that there is one definite answer to all the worlds workings and problems. Science tries to find these truths through their scientific method, but often come short of finding the truth in anything it studies. to almost every law there is an expection. Why is this? How can we trust something that almost never guarentees a definite truth.
Now we flip the coin to the other seeker of truths. Religion claims to have the truths that science cannot explain through its sound arguments (sound meaning true). Religion takes up the questions of begginings and ends, and of the supernatural order of all things. But again no definite truths are guarenteed through this line of thinking. So how can we possible expec to find truth in religion. And considering that religion takes the stance of not having to prove what it says with logic and only having to prove it through emotional arguments that nuture faith. Faith is the keystone in all religious thinking and truths. In order to believe gods exist it required a blind trust in those who are telling you they exist.
Im not pivoting science against religion. Science too relies on faith, faith in the system they use being correct. Both are failed attempts of humans to better understand the world we live in. In Philosophy there is no faith, but alas there is no truth. Philosphy relies on validity and that is the topic of todays discussion.
For an argument to be valid it must pass 1 simple test. All the premesises (the so called "proof") must easily lead to the conclusion (the percieved "truth"). This means that a valid argument can go as follows:
All Cats are Lawyers
All lawyers are dogs
Therefore, All Cats are Dogs
This in itself is false, we know this by simple scientific observation that cats are not dogs. This may seem meaningless but the same type of arguments are being used in both science and religion. Science will take this argument that is valid, and go into the field and study such things as cats, lawyers and dogs and come back with information to either support or deny this valid claim. Religion takes such an argument and puts it up against their traditional theology and obtains information to support or deny this valid claim.
The point is that neither of the three forms obtain truth. They simply obtain opinions based on their training. Philosphy is mearly a tool that BOTH science and religion use to explain their own thinkings.
It is with this in mind that i chose to undergo studies in philosphy. We should not take truth for granted. The most powerful tools any human has to obtain truth are questions. Questions make up the truth of tomorrow, if ever found. Science proposes questions soley on reactions to already made valid presumptions, and religion doesnt questions a single thing within itself.
Again the point being that with BOTH science and religion minimizing questions in their thinkings, how can we as humans possible be expected to accept either of the two forms of truth. Philosphy is the only way of finding truths through open-ended questions. Its philosophy that comes up with the questions that need to be asked. Science is too afraid to ask questions that may tear down its framework of knowledge, and religion is also afraid to ask questions that may tear down its framework of faith. Only philosophy has the courage to question itself, and others on the basic principles that make up philosophy.
Some see this as a weakness. How can we trust in something that continuously ask questions that destroy the previous train of though. The answer is simple, dont trust it. The point of philosophy isnt to obtain something that is unchangable but to obtain something that explains current understandings, and when those understandings lead to new questions, then philosphy is charged with explaining the new understandings questions proposed.
We live in a world where truth comes at face value. In todays world there are two sides you can be on, science or religion. I am introducing an old but forgotten third alternative, Philosphy.
In a world that changes almost exponentially there cannot be any definites only indefinites that need explaining on a time by time basis. If people were taught to question every bit of truth set before us, and to investigate them to find our own truths, then the world we live in wouldnt be in a classic strugle between gods and men.
I suppose what im getting at is this constent bickering between those who faithfully follow relgiion and those who faithfully follow science will lead humanity into the ground. Any polarization of the human race is detramental to its long lasting success. Im simply saying that questioning everything that is set in stone before you leads to betterment of the entire human race as well as yourself. And if we all questioned everything set in stone then we would all be philosophers.
So lets be philosophers and better the human race. Let us question everything brought before us. Let us accept the only truth that can be assertained by studying history: Truth is dead.
Then and only then will we be able to fully grasp this world we live in and the world our gods live in. I dont seek truths ladies and gentlemen, i seek knowledge and wisdom, and im calling on everyone to seek the same.
Thx
CrazyGoose
Now we flip the coin to the other seeker of truths. Religion claims to have the truths that science cannot explain through its sound arguments (sound meaning true). Religion takes up the questions of begginings and ends, and of the supernatural order of all things. But again no definite truths are guarenteed through this line of thinking. So how can we possible expec to find truth in religion. And considering that religion takes the stance of not having to prove what it says with logic and only having to prove it through emotional arguments that nuture faith. Faith is the keystone in all religious thinking and truths. In order to believe gods exist it required a blind trust in those who are telling you they exist.
Im not pivoting science against religion. Science too relies on faith, faith in the system they use being correct. Both are failed attempts of humans to better understand the world we live in. In Philosophy there is no faith, but alas there is no truth. Philosphy relies on validity and that is the topic of todays discussion.
For an argument to be valid it must pass 1 simple test. All the premesises (the so called "proof") must easily lead to the conclusion (the percieved "truth"). This means that a valid argument can go as follows:
All Cats are Lawyers
All lawyers are dogs
Therefore, All Cats are Dogs
This in itself is false, we know this by simple scientific observation that cats are not dogs. This may seem meaningless but the same type of arguments are being used in both science and religion. Science will take this argument that is valid, and go into the field and study such things as cats, lawyers and dogs and come back with information to either support or deny this valid claim. Religion takes such an argument and puts it up against their traditional theology and obtains information to support or deny this valid claim.
The point is that neither of the three forms obtain truth. They simply obtain opinions based on their training. Philosphy is mearly a tool that BOTH science and religion use to explain their own thinkings.
It is with this in mind that i chose to undergo studies in philosphy. We should not take truth for granted. The most powerful tools any human has to obtain truth are questions. Questions make up the truth of tomorrow, if ever found. Science proposes questions soley on reactions to already made valid presumptions, and religion doesnt questions a single thing within itself.
Again the point being that with BOTH science and religion minimizing questions in their thinkings, how can we as humans possible be expected to accept either of the two forms of truth. Philosphy is the only way of finding truths through open-ended questions. Its philosophy that comes up with the questions that need to be asked. Science is too afraid to ask questions that may tear down its framework of knowledge, and religion is also afraid to ask questions that may tear down its framework of faith. Only philosophy has the courage to question itself, and others on the basic principles that make up philosophy.
Some see this as a weakness. How can we trust in something that continuously ask questions that destroy the previous train of though. The answer is simple, dont trust it. The point of philosophy isnt to obtain something that is unchangable but to obtain something that explains current understandings, and when those understandings lead to new questions, then philosphy is charged with explaining the new understandings questions proposed.
We live in a world where truth comes at face value. In todays world there are two sides you can be on, science or religion. I am introducing an old but forgotten third alternative, Philosphy.
In a world that changes almost exponentially there cannot be any definites only indefinites that need explaining on a time by time basis. If people were taught to question every bit of truth set before us, and to investigate them to find our own truths, then the world we live in wouldnt be in a classic strugle between gods and men.
I suppose what im getting at is this constent bickering between those who faithfully follow relgiion and those who faithfully follow science will lead humanity into the ground. Any polarization of the human race is detramental to its long lasting success. Im simply saying that questioning everything that is set in stone before you leads to betterment of the entire human race as well as yourself. And if we all questioned everything set in stone then we would all be philosophers.
So lets be philosophers and better the human race. Let us question everything brought before us. Let us accept the only truth that can be assertained by studying history: Truth is dead.
Then and only then will we be able to fully grasp this world we live in and the world our gods live in. I dont seek truths ladies and gentlemen, i seek knowledge and wisdom, and im calling on everyone to seek the same.
Thx
CrazyGoose
Friday, October 06, 2006
Political Shame -- Discussion Welcomed
Im reading an artical on the new immigration bill that allows 1.2 billion for the construction of a fence. Although i disagree with this concept, i found this snipet out of the article most disturbing:
"While Bush had proposed a temporary worker program, it did not garner enough support in Congress for passage. The idea has been dropped by Washington, at least until after the November congressional elections."
Every member in congress who is part of this so called drop of the a real effective plan to help both america and mexico need to be voted out and replaced. This type of political cowardness due to comming elections cannot be tolerated by the voting populous. We didnt vote those men into office so that they could get re-elected. We voted them in to do the job of making America a better place, and if elections are so important that congress is not willing to resolve issues that Americans want resolved, then how can we continue to epect them to do what they were elected to do? Therefore these men need to be taught a lesson. At this point in our political history we can no longer care about parties and whos a democrat and whos a republican or party platforms. If every incumbent that failed to resolve issues because their care is on re-election was to be voted out, then all the new members of congress would understand the power of the people. Therefore leading to the congressmen actually doing what they are suppose to do: Represent their voters. This does not require parties ladies and gentlemen. In order for a represenative to be elected he needs majority votes, those in the majority are his means of election and if those majority do not grab the reins on their represenatives then congress will not be anything more then the ineffecent machine it has become.
We the people need to take these party blinders off our eyes and meet one another and find majority concensious as to what is needed by our represenatives. I want to shake the hand of both parties plus other people who consider themselves different. I want us to be able to sit down as American citizens and better this country rather then fight over which party platform is better.
So i say we the people send a message to congress and vote out incumbents who are known for doing nothing beneficial. Vote in the best opponant of this incumbant no matter his party platform because as stated before, if the majority of incumbents lose then those who we vote in, no matter thier party, will care more about what their voters want rather then what their party want. Parties are not representations of American citizens, they are representations of those wealthy.
So lets wake up America, lets grab the reins on congress and show them that the power they have become comfortable with was ours to give them and ours to take.
Thank you,
CrazyGoose
"While Bush had proposed a temporary worker program, it did not garner enough support in Congress for passage. The idea has been dropped by Washington, at least until after the November congressional elections."
Every member in congress who is part of this so called drop of the a real effective plan to help both america and mexico need to be voted out and replaced. This type of political cowardness due to comming elections cannot be tolerated by the voting populous. We didnt vote those men into office so that they could get re-elected. We voted them in to do the job of making America a better place, and if elections are so important that congress is not willing to resolve issues that Americans want resolved, then how can we continue to epect them to do what they were elected to do? Therefore these men need to be taught a lesson. At this point in our political history we can no longer care about parties and whos a democrat and whos a republican or party platforms. If every incumbent that failed to resolve issues because their care is on re-election was to be voted out, then all the new members of congress would understand the power of the people. Therefore leading to the congressmen actually doing what they are suppose to do: Represent their voters. This does not require parties ladies and gentlemen. In order for a represenative to be elected he needs majority votes, those in the majority are his means of election and if those majority do not grab the reins on their represenatives then congress will not be anything more then the ineffecent machine it has become.
We the people need to take these party blinders off our eyes and meet one another and find majority concensious as to what is needed by our represenatives. I want to shake the hand of both parties plus other people who consider themselves different. I want us to be able to sit down as American citizens and better this country rather then fight over which party platform is better.
So i say we the people send a message to congress and vote out incumbents who are known for doing nothing beneficial. Vote in the best opponant of this incumbant no matter his party platform because as stated before, if the majority of incumbents lose then those who we vote in, no matter thier party, will care more about what their voters want rather then what their party want. Parties are not representations of American citizens, they are representations of those wealthy.
So lets wake up America, lets grab the reins on congress and show them that the power they have become comfortable with was ours to give them and ours to take.
Thank you,
CrazyGoose
New Medium
To my new readers and my old, welcome to my new medium to gather my thoughts coherrently inorder to better myself and the entire human race. I hope the comming thoughts are exactly what every individual who reads them needs to hear on the subject for that is my ultimate goal, a turely universal opinion on subject matter that occurs in our world today and can only be considered truth after history devours it. Opinions are the natural resource that can never be depleted, thanks to sites like LJ, Blogger and other opinon orientented online posting sites, (i despise myspace but that is just one opinion). The subjects of my post will range from my personal observation of some illogical behavior or a response to something ive read or seen on tv. To give you what to expect comming up.
Im a 21 year old liberal(not a democrat look up the word and email me your definition and maybe you can comment on my blog) I pick no party as i see no point in any point in having elections based on them. Democrats are about as useful as Republicans, and any third political party is too far off a cliff in the tropics. I am studying Philosphy & Political Science at Auburn University. My end goal is law school. I think anaylitically and from too many perspectives to give many valid conclusion but none of them sound im sure. They call me idealistic, but ive found that label quite durogetory considering that they think im set in my ways and cannot be pursuaded otherwise, i just demand more proof to back up what your saying then i have to back up what i have in my mind, then and only then can i consider your opinion greater then mine and adopt it and accept it as a major opinion. Because of this thought im arrogant, so be it i just call it confident in my understanding of logic and rethoric.
Topics i discuss may range from theoretical physics(im reading Fabrics of the Cosmos by Brian Greene) to maybe some international economics and globalization(also reading The World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman). And i will dwell back into past issues such as the Abrahamic Faiths, namely christianity(have read The Decline of Western Thought: The fall of reason and the rise of faith by Charles Freeman, also many pro-christian books considering my religious devoutness of my youth). I also enjoy genetic information that explains for certain human trends throughout history and information in genetics that can possibly show light into future events in the human race(Both The Seven Daughters of Eve and Adam's Curse(A Future Without Men) by Bryan Sykes are wonderful readings for those who barely know anything about genetics). I listed my books for each subject not to gain any sense of credibility, afterall i am using a blog and credibility is loss simply with that. I offer the names and authors for yourselves to read when given time for knowledge is the most valuable resource that can never be stripped from a person.
I hope to post regularly as i always seem to have something to rant about that ive seen to my friends so i will begin to remember and reitterate those verbal rants into bloging rants.
-Insanity: When you think you are the only sane person alive
--CrazyGoose
Im a 21 year old liberal(not a democrat look up the word and email me your definition and maybe you can comment on my blog) I pick no party as i see no point in any point in having elections based on them. Democrats are about as useful as Republicans, and any third political party is too far off a cliff in the tropics. I am studying Philosphy & Political Science at Auburn University. My end goal is law school. I think anaylitically and from too many perspectives to give many valid conclusion but none of them sound im sure. They call me idealistic, but ive found that label quite durogetory considering that they think im set in my ways and cannot be pursuaded otherwise, i just demand more proof to back up what your saying then i have to back up what i have in my mind, then and only then can i consider your opinion greater then mine and adopt it and accept it as a major opinion. Because of this thought im arrogant, so be it i just call it confident in my understanding of logic and rethoric.
Topics i discuss may range from theoretical physics(im reading Fabrics of the Cosmos by Brian Greene) to maybe some international economics and globalization(also reading The World is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman). And i will dwell back into past issues such as the Abrahamic Faiths, namely christianity(have read The Decline of Western Thought: The fall of reason and the rise of faith by Charles Freeman, also many pro-christian books considering my religious devoutness of my youth). I also enjoy genetic information that explains for certain human trends throughout history and information in genetics that can possibly show light into future events in the human race(Both The Seven Daughters of Eve and Adam's Curse(A Future Without Men) by Bryan Sykes are wonderful readings for those who barely know anything about genetics). I listed my books for each subject not to gain any sense of credibility, afterall i am using a blog and credibility is loss simply with that. I offer the names and authors for yourselves to read when given time for knowledge is the most valuable resource that can never be stripped from a person.
I hope to post regularly as i always seem to have something to rant about that ive seen to my friends so i will begin to remember and reitterate those verbal rants into bloging rants.
-Insanity: When you think you are the only sane person alive
--CrazyGoose
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
