American Politics

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I was hoping that the march of technology would help to counterract the decline of human civilization in the cultural, political, and environmental areas but it seems that those in power can just pevert even the most beneficial of innovations.

Pretty much anything can be used for either good or evil; it depends on how it's used.

 

and what is "good" to one person can be "evil" to other.   It depends on whether or not someone wants to keep or change the status quo.

In other words, the Fall of the current (globally connected) civilization is happenning faster than I thought it would this decade, which means my estimation for the Apex to be narrowed down to be around 1960 (give or take a decade) not 2000 (give or take a century).

The Apex of what?  Globally connected civilization?   Technological advancement?     I don't see how it was 1960 (give or take a decade).   I was here then.  Things are much different now.    A lot of things we do now were just science fiction back then.    If you had told most people in the 1960s that they would live to see the day when people would walk around carrying a device that could connect them to a global information network, they simply would not have believed you.

The decline will speed up considerably until some revolutionary innovation can start a new civilization. If no such innovation saves us, then life as we know it will most likely end this century.

Technological innovation can not save us.   That will require a radical shift in human consciousness and awareness.

 

Several different theories/predictions/schools of thought claim we are on the cusp of such a shift in consciousness.    I have seen glimmers of it throughout my lifetime.    I don't know if I will live long enough to see it reach critical mass.  or if it will reach critical mass in time.

*I apologize for the confusion. I hope that this response clears up what I said

1. You are right that most things can be used for good or evil. However, when people in power want to "Keep the Status Quo" they tend to make things worse for others and better for themselves instead of keeping things the same.

2. What I meant was to say The Apex of Civilization, which was not as globally connected back then. The onward, nearly unstoppable march of technological progress will continue until a major event brings us into a new dark age.

3. I realize now that technological innovation alone cannot save us but other innovations in politics, ecology, and culture might be able to combine. However, you are most likely correct that conciousness must change for the better for any other innovations to help.

--Ocram

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

As long as people go around killing other people for petty excuses, and the forces of civilization continue to behave in an unruly fashion, there is a possibility that we may destroy ourselves through sheer inadvertence.  Man's inhumanity to man is legendary and well demonstrated throughout recorded history even though the winners wrote the story. 

 

Twisted ideology has been one of the worst offenders, for example the Christian mission to the south seas islands managed to destroy several going and/or budding civilizations by destroying their monuments and killing their religious leaders and chiefs.  Sound familiar?  Take a look at what IS is up to.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Vicarious video becoming ubiquitous police watchdog.

 

Little Brother is watching.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Vicarious video becoming ubiquitous police watchdog.

 

Little Brother is watching.

 

For some reason I find it pretty funny that police have yet to adjust to the fact that practically everyone has a camera now and if they go around acting stupid they'll probably be recorded. However, one of the problems with these videos is that they only show a fraction of the story. That isn't to say the cop in this video was justified in his action. He wasn't.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Much of the problems with police in the US is their training which seems to be adversarial with regard to the public rather than supportive.  Here the police motto is "Serve and protect".  If US cops use this, they don't know the meaning of 'serve' and 'protect' seems to be protect themselves only and not the general population.

[hym 358]

Much of the problems with police in the US is their training which seems to be adversarial with regard to the public rather than supportive. Here the police motto is "Serve and protect". If US cops use this, they don't know the meaning of 'serve' and 'protect' seems to be protect themselves only and not the general population.

One of the misconceptions people have about the police is that they are obligated to protect you. They aren't. They are obligated to enforce the law and protect society in a general sense. If you call 911 to report that someone is breaking into your house and you think that this person intends to kill you, police are under no legal obligation to come to your aid.

"To serve and protect" is a motto of police departments across the US, but it is only a motto.

[Sabretooth78 808]

"To serve and protect" is a motto of police departments across the US, but it is only a motto.

 

 

Not unlike "liberty and justice for all."

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Mottoes are general policy statements.  If there is no intent to honour them, then they should not be used.

 

Meanwhile, ladies and gentlemen of the U.S.A., enjoy your slide into a police state.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Eh at least this guy quit his job and has apologized, not to mention the fact that for a change no one got killed. Progress! 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Complying with a NATO request?

Here we go again.  After two+ generations of relative peace, military buildups have become fashionable.  Maybe Mr. Putin thinks NATO is a hollow shell?

[CapTon 592]

Well this is one of the more ridiculous things I have ever seen:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/24/white-house-blames-white-male-resentment-for-obama-failures-on-guns-race/

President Obama doesn't know how to fix a thing, so instead, he goes and points the finger. So typical that I shouldn't even be surprised by the article above.

  Edited June 24, 2015 by CapTon  

[Sabretooth78 808]

Well this is one of the more ridiculous things I have ever seen:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/24/white-house-blames-white-male-resentment-for-obama-failures-on-guns-race/

President Obama doesn't know how to fix a thing, so instead, he goes and points the finger. So typical that I shouldn't even be surprised by the article above.

Isn't that how just about everybody handles everything in this country nowadays?  As if it's a partisan phenomenon.  Well, technically it is; it just so happens that all partisans do it.  Fortunately for me, I am not one of them.  Statists gonna state.

  Edited June 24, 2015 by Sabretooth78  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Finger pointing is a great exercise until you happen to point it at a charged rod and get hit by lightening.  However, what do people expect from the Prisoner of the White House?  Between all the advisors and briefings he gets, he is no better than a mushroom being managed by the vested interests.  Probably the last time a presidential candidate has an original thought is the day before he gets elected president.

  Edited June 24, 2015 by A Nonny Moose  
Grammar fix.

[CapTon 592]

Finger pointing is a great exercise until you happen to point it at a charged rod and get hit by lightening.  However, what do people expect from the Prisoner of the White House?  Between all the advisors and briefings he gets, he is no better than a mushroom being managed by the vested interests.  Probably the last time a presidential candidate has an original thought is the day before he gets elected president.

Well I am truly invested in Mr. Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. He doesn't point the finger in irrational ways (as far as I'm concerned) and has a keen mind for the business side of things. Not only that, but he doesn't tolerate any bull. He does things the right way. Him claiming to be the next Ronald Reagan might be a tiny stretch, but I really like what he has to offer overall.

  Edited June 25, 2015 by CapTon  

[LexusInfernus 908]

No offense, but Trumps business sense is to bankrupt every company he ever was a part off. The only good you can say about him from a business perspective is that he manages to keep people giving him money so he can squander it on golden toilets, when they should know that giving Trump money means they are never going to get it back. 

As for his rationality, do keep in mind this guy was basically the spokesperson of the birther movement. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

He was basically a sideshow to the 2012 election.  I think his GOP-endorsed role is that of comic foil:  Have a few good ideas just to keep a modicum of credibility but mostly just say stupid and/or controversial things (stir the pot basically), so as to deflect media attention from proper vetting of the [weak] preferred candidates <cough> Romney <cough>.  Now that they are solidifying two frontrunners who will never inspire widespread support even amongst republicans in Bush and Rubio, they need to get that media screen set up.  It'll be tough for them to out-Romney Mittens, though.  That was quite the standard.

TL:DR; the GOP is just setting the stage to allow fellow Establishment Party candidate Hilary to take office (which she will).  Listen not to their words but to their actions.  See also 2012.

  Edited June 25, 2015 by Sabretooth78  

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

My American cousins, I wasn't kidding about the Prisoner of the White House.  Think about it for a bit.

[metarvo 711]

There was I time when I was naïve enough to think there was a concrete difference between the two parties, but more and more I'm believing that a single party truly has co-opted them both.  The last four and a half years (and in all likelihood 2007 and 2008) have proven that.  It's not just this congress or this president prisoner, either; what about the last administration?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Me too.  I've always had an independent bent but I don't say I truly woke up until maybe 7-8 years ago.  It really is like a religious moment of extreme clarity when you do realize it.

[LexusInfernus 908]

TL:DR; the GOP is just setting the stage to allow fellow Establishment Party candidate Hilary to take office (which she will).  Listen not to their words but to their actions.  See also 2012.

I secretly hope that Bernie Sanders becomes the next president. He seems like someone who actually knows whats up, and he certainly has more flavor than Hillary. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Does it really matter who gets to be the Prisoner of the White House?  The establishment will always pull the strings.

[GreekMan 246]

I am surprised nobody put this up...

SCOTUS ruled in favor of gay marriage

America is certainly changing. Im a conservative who goes to church every week and i could care less if gays get married. im all for it. congrats! my only concern is with churches. my dad is a greek orthodox priest. even if the supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage, my dad can't perform a wedding like that. it goes against my church.  my problem is that the so called liberals who preach tolerance and understanding will completely go insane when churches won't preform the gay marriage. i am not shoving God down anyone's wind pipe. IMO, let God judge others. i refuse to do that. I just don't want to here this BS about the bible is fairytale and crap like this. 

IDk, i can see a case where someone sues the Catholic Church in the next few years.  I just want to practice my religion without anyone calling me names. if that so hard to ask?

thoughts?

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is an entry on this in the official Closet thread in General Off Topic.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I am surprised nobody put this up...

SCOTUS ruled in favor of gay marriage

America is certainly changing. Im a conservative who goes to church every week and i could care less if gays get married. im all for it. congrats! my only concern is with churches. my dad is a greek orthodox priest. even if the supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage, my dad can't perform a wedding like that. it goes against my church.  my problem is that the so called liberals who preach tolerance and understanding will completely go insane when churches won't preform the gay marriage. i am not shoving God down anyone's wind pipe. IMO, let God judge others. i refuse to do that. I just don't want to here this BS about the bible is fairytale and crap like this. 

IDk, i can see a case where someone sues the Catholic Church in the next few years.  I just want to practice my religion without anyone calling me names. if that so hard to ask?

thoughts?

The first amendment should mean that forcing a minister to perform a ceremony that he does not agree with is unconstitutional.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

There is too much emphasis on 'rights' in the U.S. and nobody seems to be watching out for the erosion of 'freedom'.

[hym 358]

 The first amendment should mean that forcing a minister to perform a ceremony that he does not agree with is unconstitutional.

So, the First Amendment says the following:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So, according to the First Amendment, you have the right to freely exercise your religion without interference from the government.  The Supreme Court has broken this down into two constituent rights:

1. the right to believe what you want
2. the right to act upon that belief.

The Supreme Court considers the first to be an unlimited right.  The government cannot prohibit you from believing something, nor can it compel you to believe something.  However, the Supreme Court does not consider the second to be an unlimited right.  The government has the authority to restrict how you may act upon your belief.  If, for example, your religious beliefs said that you had to spray high-strength insecticides over major population areas, the government could restrict you from doing this, as it interferes with legitimate government interests (mainly protecting the general populace).  In the eyes of the Court, the government is not infringing on your First Amendment rights because it is not telling you what to believe, and your right to act on those beliefs never included the right to act contrary to legitimate government interests.  (This raises the question of what is a legitimate government interest, but that is a different issue.)

The important thing to note, is that while the Supreme Court supports the government having the authority to restrict your actions in support of your beliefs, it has not supported the government's authority to compel you to act against your beliefs.  The problem that some individuals have with the Court's ruling is that the wording may have just reversed this precedent.  During oral arguments, one of the questions raised by the Court was whether the government's arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage would create an environment where a religious organization could be compelled to act against its religious convictions or suffer legal consequences for its refusal.  The government's representative would not deny that its line of argument would make such an environment possible.  When Justice Kennedy wrote the majority's opinion, he reaffirmed the Court's opinion that the the First Amendment guaranteed an unlimited right to believe and teach what you wanted, but he completely left out the part about "free exercise."  The Court's dissenting opinion pointed out that, by failing to reaffirm the right to exercise one's beliefs, the Court has now opened a hole where the government can claim "legitimate government interest" to compel an organization to act against its religious convictions, thereby all but ensuring that this issue is going right back to the Supreme Court to figure out if the government has new authority to compel an individual and/or organization to act against his/her/its religious beliefs.

There is too much emphasis on 'rights' in the U.S. and nobody seems to be watching out for the erosion of 'freedom'.

I don't think so.  Rights and freedoms are connected.  As mentioned earlier, freedom of religion depends on the rights to believe what you want and act on those beliefs.  Take those away and you don't have religious freedom anymore.  You can't expect to maintain the freedom to do something if you let people trample on the rights that make those freedoms possible.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Think about the first amendment note you've made.  A Roman Catholic priest cannot perform a marriage between same sex partners because it interferes with the definition of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.  Christianity in general describes marriage as the union between partners of the opposite sex with procreation as part of the agreement.

So, what do you suggest a Catholic Priest do when approached by a same sex couple?  The Vatican has loosened its strictures on homosexuality, but has said nothing about the sacraments, which include marriage.  The priest cannot be compelled to perform some action against his conscience, nor against the dogma of the Church.  Notwithstanding anything that SCOTUS may have said, separation of church and state and the first amendment make it quite clear that you can't force such action in the Catholic Church, and I seriously doubt it can happen in any other truly Christian church because of the views of Christ in the New Testament.

So, are we now coming to the crunch of a new set of schisms in the "Christian" communities of the United States of America, or will same sex couples simply have to forsake any spiritual comfort they might have received from being in a state of Holy Matrimony.  With Catholic gays, it will have to be a civil union.  I think an attempt at anything else might well result in the excommunication of the couple.

[LexusInfernus 908]

The important thing to note, is that while the Supreme Court supports the government having the authority to restrict your actions in support of your beliefs, it has not supported the government's authority to compel you to act against your beliefs.  The problem that some individuals have with the Court's ruling is that the wording may have just reversed this precedent.  During oral arguments, one of the questions raised by the Court was whether the government's arguments in favor of legalizing gay marriage would create an environment where a religious organization could be compelled to act against its religious convictions or suffer legal consequences for its refusal.  The government's representative would not deny that its line of argument would make such an environment possible.  When Justice Kennedy wrote the majority's opinion, he reaffirmed the Court's opinion that the the First Amendment guaranteed an unlimited right to believe and teach what you wanted, but he completely left out the part about "free exercise."  The Court's dissenting opinion pointed out that, by failing to reaffirm the right to exercise one's beliefs, the Court has now opened a hole where the government can claim "legitimate government interest" to compel an organization to act against its religious convictions, thereby all but ensuring that this issue is going right back to the Supreme Court to figure out if the government has new authority to compel an individual and/or organization to act against his/her/its religious beliefs.

Yeah but isn't restricting actions in support of your belief not just another way of saying compelling someone to act against their beliefs? Or at least, it is not inconceivable that such scenarios exist. Say your religion compels you to only eat human flesh, well obviously the government can't allow a cannibal cult to exist right? But if they restrict you from eating meat, you have to eat something else, and you are compelling them to go against their religious beliefs. 

What if your religious beliefs tell you you can't pay municipal taxes, or corporate taxes, because Ayn Rand is your prophet and the invisible hand of the market is your god. Well obviously the government will tell you to pay taxes, because collecting taxes is by all accounts a legitimate government interest. You will be compelling someone to act against their beliefs. 

What if your religious beliefs tell you that interracial relations are an affront to God? Well, you get my gist. 

The government has at the one hand the purpose of restricting certain kinds of human behavior, because that behavior hurts the common interests of society. But from that follows automatically that the government must also be able to compel individuals to undertake certain actions because not doing so would either hurt the common interests of society, or those actions are required to maintain society. 

If religion grants people easy exceptions it creates a giant loophole that everyone can exploit to avoid or bypass laws they don't like. 

[hym 358]

Notwithstanding anything that SCOTUS may have said, separation of church and state and the first amendment make it quite clear that you can't force such action in the Catholic Church, and I seriously doubt it can happen in any other truly Christian church because of the views of Christ in the New Testament.

This is the problem that the minority opinion of the Court has with the wording of the majority opinion.  By failure to reaffirm the "free exercise" portion of the First Amendment, the minority is stating that the majority opinion may have just erased one of the core protections of the First Amendment.  At the very least, the wording of the majority opinion has virtually guaranteed that someone is going to challenge it, and it will simply wind up back in the Supreme Court again.

 Yeah but isn't restricting actions in support of your belief not just another way of saying compelling someone to act against their beliefs? Or at least, it is not inconceivable that such scenarios exist. Say your religion compels you to only eat human flesh, well obviously the government can't allow a cannibal cult to exist right? But if they restrict you from eating meat, you have to eat something else, and you are compelling them to go against their religious beliefs. 

If a court forbade them from eating human flesh, such a ruling would, from a biological perspective, be compelling them to act against their religion.  However, this would not meet the court's definition of the government compelling them to act against their religious beliefs.  If the court ordered them to start eating vegetables, that would constitute the government compelling them to act against their religious beliefs.  Saying "you may not..." is not the government compelling you to do something.  Saying "you shall..." is the government compelling you to do something.

What if your religious beliefs tell you you can't pay municipal taxes, or corporate taxes, because Ayn Rand is your prophet and the invisible hand of the market is your god. Well obviously the government will tell you to pay taxes, because collecting taxes is by all accounts a legitimate government interest. You will be compelling someone to act against their beliefs. 

Every year, the IRS gets people who refuse to pay taxes on grounds that it violates their religious beliefs, and every year, the IRS drags these people to court and the court orders them to pay their taxes.  To the federal court system, this is not the government compelling you to act against your religious beliefs because the courts don't consider these to be legitimate First Amendment cases.  The courts just see people attempting to abuse the protections of the legal system for personal gain.

(On a side note, this is an example of a concern that some people have that the court system's methods for qualifying a First Amendment case unfairly favor established, organized religions, but that is a different issue.)

The government has at the one hand the purpose of restricting certain kinds of human behavior, because that behavior hurts the common interests of society. But from that follows automatically that the government must also be able to compel individuals to undertake certain actions because not doing so would either hurt the common interests of society, or those actions are required to maintain society.  

To the Supreme Court, the government's right to restrict certain behavior to protect the interests of society does not automatically grant the government the authority to compel people to certain actions.  In matters concerning the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, the ability to do the former does not include the ability to do latter.  If the government wants to take take action towards situation X, and that action violates an individual's First Amendment rights, the government must either not take the action, or it it must find a way to engage in said action without violating that individual's First Amendment rights.

If religion grants people easy exceptions it creates a giant loophole that everyone can exploit to avoid or bypass laws they don't like. 

The court system understands this.  This is part of the reason that the Supreme Court does not consider the right to act upon your religious beliefs to be unlimited.  However, the rights of the government are not unlimited either, and the government is not free to simply pass whatever laws it likes without consideration for whether those laws violate First Amendment protections.

[LexusInfernus 908]

To the Supreme Court, the government's right to restrict certain behavior to protect the interests of society does not automatically grant the government the authority to compel people to certain actions.  In matters concerning the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, the ability to do the former does not include the ability to do latter.  If the government wants to take take action towards situation X, and that action violates an individual's First Amendment rights, the government must either not take the action, or it it must find a way to engage in said action without violating that individual's First Amendment rights.

Perhaps the government doesn't have the blanket right to compel people to do certain things in all cases, but it most certainly has the right to compel people to behave in a certain way in a good number of cases. Pay taxes, pay benefits, pay the minimum wage, the draft (although clearly there was a 1st amendment exception for the draft), etc. So it has always been for the courts to decide where the government has a legitimate interest in compelling people to act in a certain way and where it doesn't. For taxes there are no 1st amendment exceptions, for benefits and the draft there are. I'm sure that if I look deeper into US law I can find more. 

Anyways, some states already have anti discrimination legislation that would force business to bake wedding cakes for gay couples. The Unruh Civil Rights act in California for example would compel business owners to treat all their customers as equals. And that law has been around since 1959. Do note that this law is only for businesses, non business entities are still allowed to discriminate. Churches would therefor not be forced to wed gay couples against their will. 

However, perhaps that Act will now be found unconstitutional if someone took it to the SCOTUS thanks to their disaster ruling on the hobby lobby. Actually the people that want to dodge taxes may also stand a better chance now that hobby lobby ruling has determined that businesses can have sincerely held religious believes that have first amendment protection. 

 

  Edited June 28, 2015 by LexusInfernus