![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
10 Political Issues I Care More About Than Terrorism
Part of why I and many other people I know tend to feel disenchanted with the political process is because the politicians and the media tend to address issues that aren't my priorities. So because it was important for me to articulate this, because I can articulate this while not everyone who feels the same way can, and because I wanted to be more like [Bad username or site: jdcohen / @ livejournal.com], I decided to write this post. Here are ten issues I care about more than terrorism.
1. Intellectual Property Law The concept of copyright has shifted entirely around since it was invented. It's now virtually indefinite, instead of for a short duration, and it's designed to protect corporations rather than Struggling Artists. Even if you think the Struggling Artist stereotype is a myth, look into the changes that copyright law has undergone over time, and look at who they benefit. The DMCA is a terrible law, totally ruining the vital concept of fair use. Tangentially related, UCITA might be an even worse law, allowing the makers of software to be held to a lower standard of product quality than in any other industry, and screwing the rights of the consumer in the process.
Also, the idea of patents in this country has recently become absurd. The patent organization now will grant process and software patents for almost anything, leaving challenges to the legal realm, rather than quashing questionable patents in the first place. It may not be something that most people care about, and that's part of why I need to care about it. It's broken and it needs to be fixed.
2. Civil Liberties In a disturbing parallel to what the DMCA did to fair use, the Patriot Act summarily shafted that pesky facet of criminal prosecution, due process. I don't care if the FBI wants to investigate me. They can investigate me all they want. But they can't search my belongings or tap my phone unless a judge says so. Or at least, that's how it used to be. And everyone who is arrested in this country, especially our citizens, deserve a day in court. Our country is strong enough to survive the loss of prosecutorial power that the various agencies would be subject to without this law, but it's not strong enough to survive the gradual erosion of essential freedoms that this law portends. Remember always that the bill of rights enumerates the rights we intrinsically have, not the ones that our government was kind enough to give us.
3. Education Reform And I mean real reform. Not the No Child Left Behind act. Schools should be so overfunded that there's no such thing as a failing one. Vouchers should be a non-issue. Teachers should be fighting for positions and the paycheck that comes with them, but they won't be allowed in the classroom by themselves unless they're an assistant for a year first. Why aren't there billions more dollars being poured into public schools? I really don't understand. It's the only problem on this list that can be fixed just by throwing money at it, and yet we don't.
4. Homophobia I mean, really. I'm not talking about gay marriage, because I don't think there should be state-supported marriage at all. (But I'm way ahead of my time on this one, and I don't expect to see a candidate who agrees with me any time soon.) But why is a civil partnership so odious? All I ask is that the government guarantee certain rights to people who have agreed to commit to spending their lives together caring for each other. Since this is not a theocracy, there should be no objection.
Time for a brief interlude to note that all of the above issues are, for lack of a better term, content-based issues. All of the remaining six will be process issues. I'm a firm believer that if you have the right framework, the correct details will eventually fall into place. I love this country so much because we have a pretty good framework already. But it needs a lot of fixing, and I might be just the man to suggest how.
5. Election Reform This has become a hot topic among certain circles of friends of mine, and I suspect it's more widespread than that. It needs to be much more widespread. We simply cannot remain a democracy if we keep having closed-source computers running closed-source proprietary voting programs written by the lowest bidder. For technical reasons that I don't want to explain here, open source software is necessary to even begin to consider an electronic voting system fair and secure. Of course, I'd be happier if electronic voting were done away with entirely. The old clunky Philadelphia machines, mechanical and lever-based, were my favorite. They're clearer and easier to count than any paper ballot and more secure than any electronic one. Also, why oh why is voting overseen by elected, partisan officials? If there's one position or committee in the country that should be non-partisan, shouldn't it be election officials? As much as I'm in favor of states' rights, this should be a national law.
6. Voting Reform This is subtlely different than the previous category. I'm talking about the voting methods themselves: Rather than how people get to the polls and what sorts of things they write or push, what are they voting for and how do we count and interpret the results? And my answer is that Instant Runoff Voting needs to at least be considered, to allow for a viable third party candidacy. Also, with regard to presidential elections in particular: I'm not in the camp that wants to disband the electoral college. I agree that there are potential problems with a direct popular vote for the president. But really, why is the electoral vote in 48 of 50 states unanimous? I don't understand. Why not a proportionality system like Colorado proposed, or a congressional-district-based system like Maine uses, or some combination (the winner of the state gets 2 votes, and the rest are allocated proportionally, thus always ensuring a victory by at least 3)? It would help stave off the disenfranchised feeling that voters in small states, voters in non-swing states, and voters who vote for the losing candidate feel. One potential problem I can think of with this would be alleviated by #8 below.
7. Gerrymandering Every two years, there are about thirteen times as many seats up for election in the House as there are in the Senate. But there are usually fewer competitive seats in the House. The reason is that the party in power in any given state will tend to draw up the congressional districts in a way that benefits its party most, attempting to lump as many opposition voters into as few districts as possible. Computers are now being used to aid this process. When this is done again nationwide in about 7 years, the vast majority of us will never see a close race for their representative again. Talk about disenfranchising.
8. The Small House The U.S. Constitution doesn't fix the number of Representatives allowed per state, or overall, to the House. That number can be altered by law. But the cap has been stuck at 435 since around 1911. The Constitution was worried about the number of citizens per Representative dipping below 30,000. But today, there are almost 700,000 citizens per Representative! That's almost 10 times what England has, and almost 7 times what Canada has. Sure, in today's communication age, a rep can handle a constituency larger than 30,000. But there really should be at least two thousand representatives, because a constituency approaching one million people is just too much.
9. Separation of Powers Where has the separation of powers gone? Our president thinks he can declare war, and the Congress lets him. Our judges think they can make law, as I've complained about before, and no one stops them. Our federal government has usurped a lot of the rights that belong to the states, and no one has stopped them. Sure, some evolution in this area is natural, but this is too much, I think, even though a lot of it benefits my causes. And it is disturbing to me that so much of the shift is away from Congress, the most democratic part of our democracy.
10. Campaign Finance Reform And I mean REAL Finance Reform. Spending money on a campaign is NOT speech, it's money, and it ought to be regulated much more than it is now. Aggressively close whatever loopholes pop up. Level the playing field a bit more. If we're lucky, it might even take some of the sound bites out of politics.
And there we go. I have to go now, I'm going to go fix the world.
1. Intellectual Property Law The concept of copyright has shifted entirely around since it was invented. It's now virtually indefinite, instead of for a short duration, and it's designed to protect corporations rather than Struggling Artists. Even if you think the Struggling Artist stereotype is a myth, look into the changes that copyright law has undergone over time, and look at who they benefit. The DMCA is a terrible law, totally ruining the vital concept of fair use. Tangentially related, UCITA might be an even worse law, allowing the makers of software to be held to a lower standard of product quality than in any other industry, and screwing the rights of the consumer in the process.
Also, the idea of patents in this country has recently become absurd. The patent organization now will grant process and software patents for almost anything, leaving challenges to the legal realm, rather than quashing questionable patents in the first place. It may not be something that most people care about, and that's part of why I need to care about it. It's broken and it needs to be fixed.
2. Civil Liberties In a disturbing parallel to what the DMCA did to fair use, the Patriot Act summarily shafted that pesky facet of criminal prosecution, due process. I don't care if the FBI wants to investigate me. They can investigate me all they want. But they can't search my belongings or tap my phone unless a judge says so. Or at least, that's how it used to be. And everyone who is arrested in this country, especially our citizens, deserve a day in court. Our country is strong enough to survive the loss of prosecutorial power that the various agencies would be subject to without this law, but it's not strong enough to survive the gradual erosion of essential freedoms that this law portends. Remember always that the bill of rights enumerates the rights we intrinsically have, not the ones that our government was kind enough to give us.
3. Education Reform And I mean real reform. Not the No Child Left Behind act. Schools should be so overfunded that there's no such thing as a failing one. Vouchers should be a non-issue. Teachers should be fighting for positions and the paycheck that comes with them, but they won't be allowed in the classroom by themselves unless they're an assistant for a year first. Why aren't there billions more dollars being poured into public schools? I really don't understand. It's the only problem on this list that can be fixed just by throwing money at it, and yet we don't.
4. Homophobia I mean, really. I'm not talking about gay marriage, because I don't think there should be state-supported marriage at all. (But I'm way ahead of my time on this one, and I don't expect to see a candidate who agrees with me any time soon.) But why is a civil partnership so odious? All I ask is that the government guarantee certain rights to people who have agreed to commit to spending their lives together caring for each other. Since this is not a theocracy, there should be no objection.
Time for a brief interlude to note that all of the above issues are, for lack of a better term, content-based issues. All of the remaining six will be process issues. I'm a firm believer that if you have the right framework, the correct details will eventually fall into place. I love this country so much because we have a pretty good framework already. But it needs a lot of fixing, and I might be just the man to suggest how.
5. Election Reform This has become a hot topic among certain circles of friends of mine, and I suspect it's more widespread than that. It needs to be much more widespread. We simply cannot remain a democracy if we keep having closed-source computers running closed-source proprietary voting programs written by the lowest bidder. For technical reasons that I don't want to explain here, open source software is necessary to even begin to consider an electronic voting system fair and secure. Of course, I'd be happier if electronic voting were done away with entirely. The old clunky Philadelphia machines, mechanical and lever-based, were my favorite. They're clearer and easier to count than any paper ballot and more secure than any electronic one. Also, why oh why is voting overseen by elected, partisan officials? If there's one position or committee in the country that should be non-partisan, shouldn't it be election officials? As much as I'm in favor of states' rights, this should be a national law.
6. Voting Reform This is subtlely different than the previous category. I'm talking about the voting methods themselves: Rather than how people get to the polls and what sorts of things they write or push, what are they voting for and how do we count and interpret the results? And my answer is that Instant Runoff Voting needs to at least be considered, to allow for a viable third party candidacy. Also, with regard to presidential elections in particular: I'm not in the camp that wants to disband the electoral college. I agree that there are potential problems with a direct popular vote for the president. But really, why is the electoral vote in 48 of 50 states unanimous? I don't understand. Why not a proportionality system like Colorado proposed, or a congressional-district-based system like Maine uses, or some combination (the winner of the state gets 2 votes, and the rest are allocated proportionally, thus always ensuring a victory by at least 3)? It would help stave off the disenfranchised feeling that voters in small states, voters in non-swing states, and voters who vote for the losing candidate feel. One potential problem I can think of with this would be alleviated by #8 below.
7. Gerrymandering Every two years, there are about thirteen times as many seats up for election in the House as there are in the Senate. But there are usually fewer competitive seats in the House. The reason is that the party in power in any given state will tend to draw up the congressional districts in a way that benefits its party most, attempting to lump as many opposition voters into as few districts as possible. Computers are now being used to aid this process. When this is done again nationwide in about 7 years, the vast majority of us will never see a close race for their representative again. Talk about disenfranchising.
8. The Small House The U.S. Constitution doesn't fix the number of Representatives allowed per state, or overall, to the House. That number can be altered by law. But the cap has been stuck at 435 since around 1911. The Constitution was worried about the number of citizens per Representative dipping below 30,000. But today, there are almost 700,000 citizens per Representative! That's almost 10 times what England has, and almost 7 times what Canada has. Sure, in today's communication age, a rep can handle a constituency larger than 30,000. But there really should be at least two thousand representatives, because a constituency approaching one million people is just too much.
9. Separation of Powers Where has the separation of powers gone? Our president thinks he can declare war, and the Congress lets him. Our judges think they can make law, as I've complained about before, and no one stops them. Our federal government has usurped a lot of the rights that belong to the states, and no one has stopped them. Sure, some evolution in this area is natural, but this is too much, I think, even though a lot of it benefits my causes. And it is disturbing to me that so much of the shift is away from Congress, the most democratic part of our democracy.
10. Campaign Finance Reform And I mean REAL Finance Reform. Spending money on a campaign is NOT speech, it's money, and it ought to be regulated much more than it is now. Aggressively close whatever loopholes pop up. Level the playing field a bit more. If we're lucky, it might even take some of the sound bites out of politics.
And there we go. I have to go now, I'm going to go fix the world.
no subject
small note on #2: Remember always that the bill of rights enumerates the rights we intrinsically have, not the ones that our government was kind enough to give us. would you say the same for amendment 2?
no subject
no subject
2nd amendment
That does not give any idiot who wants to has a right to bear arms. What it says is that the state militia has a right to bear arms and views the militia as the instrument through with the state may defend the people or that the people may defend themselves from the federal government. It's just that no state acutally has a militia at this point. Hence, it actually really jibes with your states' rights philosophy.
No Militia?
I think states should militia's. Then Pennsylvania could rightfully reconquer the rogue county of Delaware, as promised to William Penn by King Charles II in 1683.
Re: No Militia?
Post
A Rather Long Comment, Part 1
Desh, I loved this post. You know what I like, baby. Strangely enough, I found myself agreeing with you on most of it, with the possible exception of your arguments for a bigger House of Representatives - but I'm of two minds on that matter, so I'll let it go.
Now, I'm not as extreme as the EFF in announcing the death of capitalism and the free market whenever a pro-corporate IP law is passed, but I do believe that such laws don't help consumers, either. That's part of the reason why I want that Patent Office job as a Patent Examiner - because I believe myself to know the difference between a novel, patentable idea and one that is frivolous, obvious, or downright IP theft (falling under "prior art"). Strangely (and somewhat hypocritically) enough, I believe that the patent system can still work, even in the area of software. Open Source and the GPL are examples that use IP law for the benefit of consumers, by encouraging the free evolution of software/ideas and allowing enhancements and changes, which is more than proprietary software designers are willing to do by far. And I believe there are certain patents that deserve to be granted in the software IP world - for example, the patent on the RSA algorithm that expired four years ago. Patents are still a good and viable way to motivate R&D - however, it is really up to the patent holders whether or not they are greedy with their inventions. And sharing is a wonderful thing, too.
An amusing anecdote for you: I was having a discussion with my mother one day while making dinner about the issue of Gay Marriage. I brought up the customs of Jewish marriage in the U.S. - how the "official" marriage is the Ketuba ("official" as in recognized by Judaism) yet the state/municipality had a separate legal form to sign. This brought around the idea that the state has no real business signing off on marriages, since marriage is a religious concept (partnership, on the other hand, is a secular concept, possibly rooted in our species's history). This point of view presents what I believe to be a nice compromise (acceptable by at least 60% of the American public) on Gay Marriage - all legal unions are Civil Unions, while Marriage is left up to individual religious authorities. Like the recent debate over a gay bishop in one of those zany Protestant sects, each religion would be able to define marriage their own way - but the state would take no part in these definitions. The government would only recognize Civil Unions, which can be made applicable to homosexual as well as heterosexual couples through nothing fancier than ambiguous language and Anti-Discrimination legislation (which is a way to ease those pesky state-by-state marriage recognition issues as well). Thus, the state's definition of a union must be broad and encompassing, while each religion is allowed to be as discriminatory as it wants to be (which, if anyone has noticed, is the way it is now). That should satisfy most everyone, except for the rabid religious right.
A Rather Long Comment, Part 2
Which brings me to campaign spending and my admonition. I agree with you - the current system is essentially legal bribery, but my warning to you is that it is currently the strongest method of political representation in this country. PACs and Non-Profits all participate, along with corporate entities, in campaign spending, often on both sides of the aisle (Republicans and Democrats alike). If campaign spending were to be capped or eliminated outright, voters would be disenfranchised from their best method of influencing their government. That, and the media would become the biggest pseudo-lobby ever, as airtime and sound bytes are just as good when they're free as when you have to pay for them (those who decry the mass media now have no idea what's in store should this ever happen). There are two ways to aleviate that predicament. The first is instituting more referendums, polls, and having the public participate more actively in lawmaking (which I consider somewhat unlikely). That will at least show representatives of government the will of the people, but it in no way guarantees that representatives will follow that will. The second is what I consider to be a more viable system (because it is the one used by most democracies around the world): the institution of a multiparty democracy. Instead of just two parties to represent us either way, we finally admit that there can be more than two sides to any issue and more than two issues on which we have opinions and we bring the many third parties (and create new ones) back into politics, starting locally and expanding nationally. I yearn for the day that the Representatives in the House are talking about forming a coalition rather than talking simply about the "Majority" and "Minority" parties.
One thing about this post surprised me, Desh. You mentioned your top ten major political concerns, but you left out one of the issues that crossed your mind more than once this past election: Abortion Rights. I'm kind of curious why you didn't put that one up there. Also, there are several other issues that I would have put up that you didn't, but that's a difference of opinion. I'll list them anyway, and if you want, you can sound off on them as well.
Other issues:
Abortion Rights - Duh.
Foreign Policy - I mean specifically unilateralism vs. multilateralism, i.e. the current administration's "Fuck You, World" policy vs. the last administration's "Let's Make A Deal" policy.
Iraq - Take your pick on which issue to address: how Iraq relates to the War on Terrorism, occupation of a foreign power with little provocation, prevention of WMD proliferation (again with little provocation), or just why the hell are we spending money on this?
Israel - Always a concern of the American Jewish community.
Environmentalism - This administration has one of the worst environmental records ever; don't you think that'll come back to bite us in the ass?
Corporate Corruption - This links quite a bit with your IP arguments, in that corporations are acting less and less for the public good and more and more for their own.
Healthcare, HMOs, and the Pharmaceutical Industry - While this does encompass the fight against the drug companies for cheaper drugs, that's not all this is about - it can be about public healthcare, fixing the HMO system, reforming medical liability laws, or whatever you like.
--Jeff
Re: A Rather Long Comment, Part 2
I don't think software patents are a categorically bad idea. I'd have to see them handled properly before I can form an opinion on them. As they tend to exist now, I hate them. (I was even boycotting Amazon for awhile because of the absurd 1-click patent.)
Your thing on marriages is exactly what I meant. The government has no business getting involved in marriages at all.
With respect to campaign finance: That's a very good point. The whole idea of lobbying grates at me, but it does serve a purpose, you're right. What do you think should be done to fix this? As for the multi-party idea, that would tend to evolve naturally from a bigger House and voting reform, so maybe campaign finance reform can only come after those are fixed?
The purpose of this entry, for me, was to focus on issues that aren't focused on enough in the press and by the candidates. Therefore, abortion doesn't qualify. Though, to be honest, I'm not a big fan of how abortions work in this country anyway. (See the link in section 9 above to a previous post of mine for a hint on why.)
I knew I forgot something, though. The environment, you're right. That's a huge one. I should've put it in there instead of the homophobia/marriage/whatever thing. As for your other issues, yes, I agree that they're all important to varying degrees, but they tend to get roughly the appropriate amount of attention. And I care about most of them less than the ones I talked about, anyway.
Re: A Rather Long Comment, Part 2
And thanks again for the thought provoking discussion.
--Jeff
Comments
And number 4 should be restricted to equal rights. You cannot legislative a point of view, such as pro/con homophobia, and it doesnt sound like that is what you are getting at. Sex pref'ism (as a suite of behaviors rather than thoughts)?
Ah, yes, almost forgot
Re: Comments
Yes, with numbers 8 and 9 I am a little concerned about the concentration of power in the federal government in general, but more so as it plays out in the details that I've already mentioned. For example, I care more when power drifts from the legislatures (either of the states or of Congress) to the president, and slightly less just because it goes from states to national. Why? Because with the passage of the income tax amendment, the federal government suddenly had enough money to bully states into compliance with their "guidelines", thereby circumventing the enumerated rights allocated to the federal government. I don't love it, but I've largely come to terms with it. I'd be happy, though, if the states decided to assert themselves at this point to prevent this power concentration from growing further.
absurdities and atrocities of American Copyright
(Anonymous) 2004-11-24 12:05 pm (UTC)(link)1) dramatic technological developments that are radically changing the ways music, video, and writing can be produced and shared. The role of artist/creator and audience, and the relationships between them, is being radically reshaped.
2) Ever-consolidating recording, movie, and media industries have long ceased to be of any benefit to the vast majority of artists and creators (not to mention their audiences), and yet these and not the artists themselves have been the most influential players in shaping intellectual property law, to their nearly exclusive benefit.
3) We direly need to return to the noblest roots of intellectual property law--the intention to support creators so that they can continue to create and so that their creations can continue to benefit society. There are so many ways that new technologies can be used to benefit and support artists in new ways, to help them find new audiences for their work and new means of financial support for their efforts. Our country has a responsibility to return to these priorities, and to creatively explore how new legislation could further their pursuit.
I would like to recommend an addendum to this part of the list, which is media ownership reform. The FCC of late has been far more concerned with Janet Jackson's nipples and Howard Stern's affinity for synonyms of poop to do its real job, Instead of ensuring that media in our country continues to be a free, open, and vibrant forum for diverse views, it had handed over the keys to the public airwaves it is bound to steward to conglomerates such as ClearChannel. The FCC, rather than protecting against media consolidation that threatens the future of free and open media in our country, has actually been pushing for legislation to encourage such consolidation!
My apologies for the ramblingness of my email...I appreciate your list, and it inspired me to vent a bit. I will try to search the archives of my blog ( www.serendipitynow.blogspot.com ) for something a little more articulate on the subject.
no subject
2. Yup. We have the right to own guns for the purpose of citizen militias. Not just because we want to. So...how you fit that into your vision depends on how strict/loose you want to be.
3. Yes, but! Throwing money at the problem will not completely solve it. It will help, at least initially. Once schools are all operating off the same reasonably large budgets, however, we will have to address other issues. Money is the largest problem right now, but there are so may other things to worry about when improving public schools. The basic structure of our school system is flawed.
4. Yup. Keep the state out of marriage, but allow it to enforce contracts between any two people, and introduce the idea of civil contracts separate from marriage. Then you deal with all the financial, legal, etc issues that people cite when supporting state-regulated marriage without needing it.
5. Yup.
6. Yup!!
7. Yup. So, how should we determine districts? Suggest an alternate process.
8. I go back and forth on this one. Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous, but would anything get done in a House that big?
9. yup! I just taught a lesson to a bunch of 8th graders about the Constitution and checks-and-balances. Watching those disappear is not a happy-making thing. My strongest logical reason for voting for Kerry was that if we had a divided government (Republican Congress looked overwhelmingly probable) at least we'd go back to a little more balanced powers.
10. yup. That would be nice, but politics and campaigning is about emotions, not logic.
no subject
Didn't one state recently have a relatively high profile situation involving an anti-gerrymandering law? I'm thinking it might have been Texas, though I could be wrong. And I think the situation was a legal challenge of the law, though it might have been the passage or attempted passage of the law itself. Google isn't helping me. But in any case, you're right, and I'll have to think about this. My first idea is a bipartisan commission on redistricting, with a vote of more than a simple majority of the legislature to overturn their recommendation. Might not work; I'm not sure.
Will think about this further. For now, sleep.
no subject
As for issues that don't get their fair share of attention, I would say:
POVERTY maybe? Like the fact that there are people in this country that don't have enough to eat and stuff. That's awesome. I can't really imagine it getting too much attention. Like it's soooo in the news now though.
no subject
I want to finish reading Whitfield Diffie's book on privacy, but the part that I have read makes the (obvious once you think about it) point that the notion of privacy changed with the telephone and with email, with microphones and with hard crypto. Some means of defining privacy are better than others, but there is not an easy logical argument to maintain the same balance of powers as at any given past time. By a similar token, I disagree about the source of the Bill of Rights. I think that it is more constructive to view the ammendments as an attempt at securing liberty than as the final word on what liberties are natural and inalienable---and yes, that means that I have to listen to people who actually think that we have too much liberty in this country. I should write about the second ammendment in my own journal, because I do believe in an armed citizenry.
Little as I like campaign spending patterns, I think declaring partisan speech not speech is worse. I would be open to suggestions of where the line could be drawn between private independant partisanship and sponsoring a candidate. I guess I do not want to accept that paying money to use someone else's distribution makes the speech legally suspect---I'm pretty sure that this has caused problems elsewhen.
no subject
no subject