HATE. What a strong, ugly word. To say it one can almost feel it tingling the spine with unpleasant thoughts. Seriously, try it. Just say the word. HATE. Not, "I hate this or that," just HATE, by itself.
Now say it again.
Hate is powerful, but surprisingly something for which most people have a very strong desire. This desire might be subconscious, but it is almost always there. It is interesting how something so ugly, so strong, is capable of actually forcing people to get along. Not because they choose to, but rather because of hate itself.
OK, so what does that mean? Is it convoluted and make not a drop of sense. Perhaps. If one examines relationships in general however, it becomes very obvious. When there is an oppressive ruling force, everyone forgets their differences and deals with the oppressor. This collaboration does not occur because it seems the best course of action, it occurs because the parties involved hate the oppressing group.
I noticed this the other day when I was talking to a co-worker I generally do not get along with about the boss. I mentioned something negative about the boss and the next thing I knew the two of us were engaged in a very productive and interesting discussion on how much we disliked the boss. It was very liberating and extremely interesting when I thought about it later. How he and I had a ten minute, more or less productive conversation when, under normal circumstances, we barely say, "hello" to one another.
Hate Physics does not apply only to individuals. Take the Balkan Peninsula. Some 80 or so years ago the country of Yugoslavia was created at the end of World War I. The powers that be decided to lump all the Slavs together. Since they are all Slavic peoples, certainly they have similar cultures and will easily get along.
Actually yes, they did get along…sort of. Following WWI came WWII and Hitler (another oppressive force to deal with instead). Once WWII was over there was relative stability and then in the late 60s (only some 22 years later), along come the Soviets, the "big bad boss." Never mind the fact that Serbians and Croats have hated each other for centuries. Yes, I am aware of the Croats and persecution of the Serbs under the Nazis, but this supports my point. The Croats were not in charge, but given an outlet to focus their hate through the Nazis. Serbs would likely have done the same.
This takes us slightly off topic, my interest lies in the Soviet menace in Yugoslavia. Although Yugoslavia was technically not an "Eastern Bloc" country, to think Communist Yugoslavia was not controlled on some level by the Soviets is naïve. If I'm incorrect in this I can use a different example…the fall of the Soviet Union and the creation of some 15 new countries as a result. My point is that even though there were squabbles and such amongst the culture groups in Yugoslavia under the Soviets, most of those squabbles took a back seat to the hate felt for the Soviets. Once the Soviet Union fell apart, so did the apparent unity of Yugoslavia.
But Hate Physics does not stop at the physical. It also applies to theory and theme as well. While "hate" is perhaps not the same word one would use, it could be applied as a choice or preference. History works the same way. Was slavery an issue during the Revolutionary War? Sure it was, but so were the French, Indians, and territorial disputes. The Founding Fathers chose to deal with freedom from the British as the most important, the others irrelevant without solving the big problem (the British). Why support "freedom for all" while still having slaves? Because slavery was not as important at the time. The Founding Fathers rightly chose to wait on the issue of slavery.
Eventually the problems will work themselves out. Whether it is the boss, an oppressive regime, or just an idea whose time has not yet come. Time is the ultimate problem solver. What are the issues of today? Sadly it is difficult to identify the important issues which need to be solved first. Issues like slavery and freedom are relatively obvious. Having a boss you hate is pretty easy to identify as well. Society hates terrorism but do they hate it as much as denying rights to gays (or vice versa)? Is either issue important enough to trump hatred of big government or high taxes?
Whatever is decided, whomever the hate is directed at, hate is powerful. Hate is strong, hate is necessary, and surprisingly cleansing. One does not generally think of hate as problem solving, but if the "boss" is hated then we have a common interest: hating the boss. In that hating perhaps we will find that we do not really hate each other, and actually enjoy hating those in charge together. This lasts just long enough to finally get someone we like in charge, at which time we can hate each other once again. Think about that next time someone says they hate you.
I hate poetry. I always have. Poetry is sometimes the expression of feelings, but for some reason many of the poets remembered were crazy nutballs that ended up killing themselves or doing things that led to their death. Killing oneself is always stupid. What does it say about something when those who are skilled in it keep feeling their lives are worth ending? I say it's pretty profound, maybe they just got tired of people insisting they write more of this crap.
That being said I must admit I took an advanced poetry writing class (the supplement to creative writing) in college. This class was actually pretty fun. Not because I enjoyed analyzing mine and others' poetry, but rather because most everyone in the class was easily angered when others started to criticize their work. For myself, I didn't really care. I am not, nor ever have been, a poet.
I must admit however, when going through some old papers I came across my final project for that class and a poem that I can't say I actually enjoyed writing, but in retrospect I generally enjoy reading it. I don't even know if it's a real poem. It is possible I was told it's poetry because it was a class of saps. Maybe I enjoy reading it just because it's written by me, maybe I'm just disturbed...whatever the reasoning, if I can enjoy some part of it, perhaps there is something to this poetry thing...
It'S WonderFul To BE INSaNE
As I was planting explosives in my neighbor's front yard
He noticed me and said,
"Please don't blow up my yard."
I shuffle off with my hands in my pockets
The pavement is black and the woman with pink hair drives her ostrich to its death
I am knocked over by an invisible, naked boy wearing green underwear on his head
I watch him until I no longer see the bouncing briefs in the distance
Some garage salers float through the air
I think I'm crazy but I am pleased when a flat tire rolls by...
because it's wonderful to be insane.
I see a brown cow marrying Bob the bear who eats roller-blading Ethiopian ambassadors
I feed the cow my finger
Which it cares for very little
Its head rolled away and
I see the tennis racket you hit hamsters with as a child...
For some reason I remember the crippled penguin that used to play rugby with the drunk dog down the street
and the stupid peanut farmer
A woman with heterosexual tendencies walks by and forces Arnold into a lesbian relationship with the brown cow
Emphasizing it with a dead hamster she found by the sea.
I return home to discover Doug and Paul cooking dinner so I know we're not having sushi...
Rain falls and without my permission the lawn gets wet
I sit outside in my chair and begin counting the falling raindrops
Doug says I'm stupid
I say I'm insane.
Never mind, poetry is stupid.
There has always existed the idea that the things a person has are not as good as they could be. Quite often a person throws away what they have to pursue that thing which they think is better. Sometimes it is better, which is a wonderful thing, but just as often, it is not. I speak as someone who has finally realized the grass is really no greener on the other side of the fence.
On a professional level, I have looked on the other side. As recently as last year I risked my current good job and applied for another. I was turned down for that job even I though knew I deserved it. I have since discovered there is no way I would ever want that job.
Growing up I had dreams and desires, just like now, but all those turned to dead ends or inevitable rejection. I came to my current job by default. I was turned down by the CIA and the FBI, the Navy, administration, so I remained in my current spot. Pretty typical, nothing special. I work good hours, have great friends, and enjoy the benefits that come with it.
On a personal level, a different story, but much the same thing. The lessons learned here are taught through reflection and interaction with other people. For a portion of my life I was always pursuing perfection in relationships. They would start out well, but I would realize I wanted something else. Quite frequently I would turn down a good thing for the complete unknown. Eventually I got over that as well. Funny thing is the person that taught me this is the very person who left me because of it.
When we are young we have dreams and ideals. We pursue them...this is the other side of the fence. As we get older, we learn that this side of the fence is just as good, the other side is simply different. That difference intrigues us, but when compared against the possible sacrifice of what we may lose as a result of the pursuit, it seems most prudent to accept that what we have achieved with our lives is not worth giving up. Some consider this settling, I consider it an understanding that in life, there is a point where we stop, ponder, look around, and realize what we have earned is not worth any sacrifice.
Much has been written in the past week and a half about the issue of gay marriage. Unlike this issue in the past with such situations as gays in the Boy Scouts or gays in the military, this issue is has created much more controversy. This controversy is currently being fueled by two separate groups. On one side, there are mayors in various cities who are performing, or allowing to be performed, civil ceremonies which "marry" gay couples. The other side is George Bush's announcement he will support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Today I will not entertain the discussion of this issue. What is more important is to explain as objectively as possible my understanding of the Constitution and the amendment process.
First of all, the Constitution is not the document that gives people rights. On the contrary, it forms the government. Governments exist invariably to take rights away. Article I is the legislature, which creates laws. Article II the executive, enforcing the laws. Article III is the judiciary, interpreting the laws. These three articles form the basis of our government, a government that exists solely for the purpose of making sure we can live in peace and harmony with other people. If I were the only person in the country, this would not be necessary. If there were two people on the country, or a very small amount, they could likely find a compromise by themselves. Because there are 290 million people in this country, it is essential that someone identifies a common belief that most of us can agree upon. This agreed upon entity is the government, formed by the Consitution.
That being said, the Framers of the Constitution realized the danger of giving the government power without restrictions. This led to the first ten amendments, also known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments are generally considered part of the Constitution because they were ratified at the same time as the Constitution itself. They did not go through the formal process of amending the Constitution. Since the final ratification of the Constitution there have been 17 changes, many of which are redundant, but necessary1.
Amendments 12, 17, 21, and 22 change the Constitution. 12 changes the format for selecting the president. 17 changes the process to select Senators. 21 repeals a previous amendment, and 22 limits the amount of time a person can serve as president. Aside from the 21st Amendment (repeal of prohibition) these amendments are mostly clarifications (the 21st being a correction to a previous mistake). Amendment 23 extends electoral voting rights to the District of Columbia. The last two amendments that are not "redundant" are the 16th and the 18th. The 18th (prohibition), as stated, was repealed by the 21st. It literally took away rights of individuals. The fact that this amendment was repealed leads one to believe that perhaps additional rights are not supposed to be removed through the amendment process. This would be fully supported if not for Amendment 16, the right to an income tax.
In a society that identifies economic wealth as desirable and necessary, where money is required to attain almost everything, allowing the government the power to tax earnings is a tremendously huge infringement upon personal rights. This amendment has never been repealed, nor does discussion on such ever occur. Such is an indicator that the amendment process can, and will be, used to infringe upon the rights of citizens when necessary. While I do not like paying taxes, and believe the government gets more than it should, I understand the need and file my returns just like everyone else. In the 215 years since the ratification of the Constitution and the 17 amendments since then, ten of those amendments have been simply to clarify the government's power or ability. That being said, understanding the amendment process is paramount to understanding the significance of any issue that might lead to a constitutional amendment.
As identified in Article V of the Constitution, proposing amendments requires one of two things, 2/3 agreeing in the House and Senate, OR, a majority in 2/3 of the state legislatures. 2/3 of state legislatures is 34 states, a clear majority. 2/3 of the House and Senate is a nearly impossible task. Depending on the issue, 2/3 of state legislatures might be equally daunting.
This is however, only the start. Assuming any amendment is proposed, to ratify it requires either a majority of 3/4 of state legislatures or, a majority in 3/4 of conventions specifically set up to ratify the amendment. This is not an easy task.
Let me give you an example of how difficult this is. Let's say any amendment is proposed and is up for ratification. In a heated issue it is likely that state legislatures will have conventions for ratification. This helps to protect the positions of elected officials. 3/4 of the states would be 38 states, therefore 13 states would be required to block any proposed amendment. If the 13 states with the lowest populations reject the proposition by the barest majority, then effectively 1.9%2 of the population can prevent the amendment.
Put very simply, amending the Constitution is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible. If any amendment passes then the people of the country have spoken. If it does not pass then it does not have the support of enough of the population. If the latter is the case, any inconsistencies or descrepencies on the meaning of the Constitution and the powers of the government are to be addressed within the court system and the judicial branch.
That however, is discussion for another day.
1 - I am not arguing that the 13th Amendment, which freed the slaves, or any other amendment that extended rights was a bad idea. Under the circumstances most amendments were required to push belief in a specific way. The Constitution is supposed to apply to everyone equally, and as such, anything stating one group will be the same as any other group is thereby redundant.
2 - figures taken from population counts in the 1999 World Almanac
California's Primaries
While I realize it is election day today, and I should have posted this sooner, I didn't. For those of you who are curious as to the propositions and what they mean in laymans' terms, here's how I see them:
PROP 55: Bonds for schools and
colleges
My job requests that you vote "yes" on this one,
the fact that I don't like paying money to the
government says vote "no." That being said,
schools need more money. Local districts should
foot a good portion of the bill for public
education but many districts don't have that kind
of money. Adam Smith, creator of Capitalism,
noted that government needs to educate its
citizens. Tax revenue for increased education is
a good thing. Poorer schools will benefit.
Unless we want to subsidize the rich getting
richer because they're more educated, the
government needs to fork over more money for
schools. People want short term solutions, but a
long term solution is required for public
schools. Long term solutions do not get
politicians elected, and regardless of what the
politicians say, none of them are for education
when it comes to funding. The only way for
schools to get the money they need is to earmark
these types of bond measures. It may not be
exactly what we need, but it's a step in the
right direction.
PROP 56: Vote on State Budget
This one is really interesting. Taken along with
57 and 58, it basically says erase our debt, and
then make it easier for us to stay out of debt by
raising your taxes. The only way to force
legislative accountability is to FORCE them to
compromise. Politicians are in the business of
compromising, it's their job. Let's force them
to do some real work. Balance the budget, cut
the pork barrel crap, and start agreeing on
what's best for the state. People who disagree
on many things can still agree on the obvious.
Taken to the appropriate level, this proposition
allows the legislature to easily vote itself an
increase in funding.
To give an example. If I spend more money than I make, I go into debt. To get out of debt I have to spend less. I do not get to increase my salary to make up for the fact that I live outside my means. Passing Prop 56 gives the legislature the ability to increase how much it takes in so it can counter its past irresponsibility.
PROP 57: Bonds to help state budget
This one is tricky. Basically it helps raise
money specifically for the purpose of paying off
the debt that California has already accrued.
Passing Prop 57 does allow the government a "free
pass" on its previous debt. The new governor
(Arnold) has to pay off a debt that is not his.
This proposition allows him to start new with
programs he wants to push for -- that being said,
this is not a new situation. All newly elected
leaders "earn" the problems of the last
administration. A "yes" vote says this
administration does not have to pay for another's
"mistakes" in spending. A "no" vote says they
have to deal with the same problem all other
political leaders face.
PROP: 58, Balanced Budget
This is genius. Prop 57 and 58 have to be passed
together. This is where the government is forced
to live within its means. Passing 57 erases the
debt, passing 58 basically states that Arnold is
at fault if we go into debt again because the
legislature has to balance the budget.
Not that I've been discreet about it, but I'll have to go mostly yes on 55, absolutely no on 56, and a marginal yes on 57 and 58. I hate new taxes, but I understand the reasoning behind the ballots.
I'm more than open for discussion, but unfortunately the election is today, anything said would be too little too late.
RANT - to rave, akin to German ranzen, to be noisy, anranzen, to affront / to talk or say in a loud, wild, extravangant way; declaim violently; rave
I'd say that fits rather well. Time constraints being what they are it is nearly impossible to get out actual essays as frequently as I'd like. Dugh has been kind enough to set me up with this format. Hopefully I'll be able to get the formal essays down as well, but on a regular basis, this works, so...
...I hate to say it, but my first order of business on the new site is a note of gratitude toward Dugh, who spent more time than necessary to set this up. That being said, he can go to hell because I think I have now graduated into, at the very least, somewhat of geekdom. No matter, we're all in denial anyway.
I encourage dissent. I thrive on dissent. Much of what is written, in the RANTS in particular will be off the cuff. I may retract things, add things, but the intent is to piss the reader off. That being said, let the games begin.