After the Geological Catastrophe, the Earth was reeling. Massive tectonic shifts had caused radical and devastating changes to the face of the planet as a result of the activities of the Geonites. Only the quick action of a team of scientists and engineers backed by the militaries of the great powers managed to destroy the Geonites before their endless hunger for the crystalline substance known as brikonite resulted in the complete fragmentation of the Earth's plates. Still, despite their victory, humanity's survivors knew that they needed more than ever to expand beyond the limitations of their home world lest some other threat end mankind once and for all.
Therefore the major powers, led by the United States but with significant Chinese, Indian, Russian, and European Union assistance, began a swift move toward the stars. A new international space agency was founded, called SPACE, or Species Protection by Attempting to Colonize Everywhere. SPACE's first mission involved establishing a permanent colony on the moon, taking advantage of the robust private space industry as well as the significant state-sponsored programs already in existence. Using the aging International Space Station as a springboard, SPACE managed to establish their moon base within a single decade. Moon Base, as it came to be known, quickly grew into a bustling center of research and industry, wholly devoted to the task of establishing humanity on as many different planets as possible.
A Mars exploratory mission determined that the red planet was indeed a prime candidate for experimental terraforming, and so within twelve years of its founding SPACE began dispatching its first major expeditions. Consisting largely of scientists, ranging from geologists and chemists to biologists and geneticists, the initial survey team were the first men ever to set foot on an actual planet other than Earth itself. Their goal was to analyze the soil and atmosphere of Mars and determine the best course of action for transforming the planet for human habitation. The first major success came when a way was found to engineer bacteria specifically to process the iron oxide in the martian soil, releasing the oxygen into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, it was also to be the catalyst for tragedy.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lego Blacktron Frigate
This past weekend I spent some time on a project that I've been wanting to try my hand at for a long time. Sadly, I don't have enough pieces to pull it off properly, but I made my best effort. So, here it is. Presenting, the Blacktron Frigate:
This isn't the best overview shot ever, but my camera was having issues (low batteries, I think), so I had to struggle to get it to take any pictures at all.
As you can see, it is designed around a hexagonal hull, with turrets on the angled hull segments. It also has a pair of point defense turrets at the base of the bridge section. The bridge and the engineering sections both are modular and can be removed. I also designed the hull of the ship to open:
It doesn't open as far as I'd like, or as cleanly, but at least it allows relatively easy access to the interior. You can't see it, but the airlock follows Moonbase standards and has a cap on it to seal it for flight.
This is a shot of the detached engineering section:
This is a shot of the engineering section from the side, with the hull opened to reveal the Hazardous Environment Robot manning the controls.
I didn't have the pieces to do this quite the way I wanted, but I think it still worked out pretty well. I'd have preferred more interior details for the engineering section, though.
This is the bridge:
The sides can swing out and the whole thing can detach from the main hull. It is crewed by a pair of minifigures, with room for a third to serve as captain/commander of the ship.
So let me know what you think. Is this any good? I'm rather proud of it, but I know it could use a lot of work.
In the mean time, I'll be focused on making some ground vehicles for my Blacktron Marines to have as armored backup.
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Lego Dromon
Lego recently came out with a new Troll Warship, part of their updated, Fantasy-oriented Castle theme. It includes four oars and several hull sections, as well as assorted other pieces that work nicely for constructing a classical or medieval galley. I immediately saw the potential for creating a dromon, a medieval Roman war galley distinguished in large part by a tower built around the central mast. I managed to acquire several of the Troll Warships via ebay, and this is what I put together: 
This last picture is a close-up of the Greek Fire Siphon that I managed to build for the bow of the ship. The actual siphons would often have their spouts designed to look like the maws of dragons or lions or various other beasts, so I took one of Lego's old dragon-winged horse helmets, attached it to the end of the spout, and hooked a hose up to the other end and ran it to a barrel. It makes for a decent enough fire thrower.
The whole thing only has 12 oars, which isn't much (a basic pentaconter, or small, fast dromon, would have had 25 per side if I remember rightly), but considering that it's Lego and most things are either smaller-scale than normal or somewhat exaggerated, it isn't too unreasonable. I also don't have a sail yet, in part because I'm not sure if I should stick with the current lateen rig or switch to a square rig.
As for personnel, I have a fully-armored knight minifigure as the captain, using the barred helmet instead of the full helm with moving visor (I have to use them on somebody, and it distinguishes him from the heavy cavalry lancers). I also have two marines (I'd prefer more), using the soldier minifigures with surcoats printed on them instead of either of the scale armor prints (which I use for my infantry). For the rowers, I lacked the number of blue wizard minifigures to man the oars with blue-uniformed unarmored men, so instead I opted to use older armor-printed minifigures (to represent rowers being issued old, archaic armor while the frontline troops get the newest gear). I tried to include pikes for when the rowers need to arm themselves in the event of a boarding action (I also have a rack of swords for the marines, who will use crossbows until they need to prepare for hand-to-hand).
The bow of course has the Greek Fire Siphon, the central mast has both the distinctive tower of the dromon war galley as well as a crow's nest for a spotter or a sniper, and the stern has a sterncastle complete with catapult. I don't have a ram, since it'd be underwater and thus impossible to model on something intended to have the waterline flush with the tabletop.
So, what do you think? Is this a workable interpretation of a dromon? If I had the pieces I think I could expand it into a proper pentaconter, and with even more I have some ideas about how to make a bireme out of it (two ranks of oars on each side, one above the other), but for now this is the best that I can do without burning through entirely too much money.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Piracy
The navy SEAL snipers who rescued the captured American ship captain are to be lauded. In all, the US Navy's handling of the situation seems from my armchair to have been quite good. However, it should not stop there.
Piracy is a plague upon the earth. For as long as man has sailed the waters, man has preyed upon his fellows. Whether killing crews and siezing ships for the hulls and the cargo, raiding coastal settlements for slaves, loot, or other things, or even the more modern ransom-holding piracy, the lessons of history are clear. There can be only one response to piracy that will end it and make the waters safe once more.
Rome faced pirates many times throughout its long life. Each time they dallied around, allowing the pirates free reign on the seas until finally they pushed too far. Only then did Rome do what it should have done in the beginning, marshalling a large fleet, invading the pirates' homes, and killing them all. Later in the Empire's history, it became even more difficult to deal with piracy since the pirates, now Arabs and Turks, had the backing of powerful states. Still the Romans tried, and often succeeded, purging the pirates from their havens and bringing peace to shipping.
The Barbary Pirates are the next great example, and perhaps are an even better one given that they were interacting with what would become the modern Amero-European powers (in this case specifically France, the UK, and the USA, mostly). When the first American ships were preyed upon by these scum, Jefferson (the president at the time) dispatched a small fleet of frigates and a handful of Marines to deal with the situation. After a rather epic story, with the United States and their local allies poised for an incredible victory that would allow them to dictate terms to any survivors, Jefferson sold out those local allies to the leader of the pirates and withdrew the Marines (at least the commander on the ground had some scruples, as he made sure to pull out the mercenary auxiliaries he had hired). It wasn't until many years later, when the Barbary states were once again becoming a serious problem for everybody sailing through the area, that a permanent solution was found. The three states mentioned above gathered ships together and began to shell all the cities along the Barbary coast, pounding the pirate states into submission. They pretty much destroyed the pirate kingdoms, ultimately paving the way for European domination of the region (the rising tide of colonialism took full advantage of the power vacuum following the fall of the pirate states).
Now we have pirates on the coast of Somalia. How is the world, or in this case the United States (given the threats levied against it by the pirates after the heroic rescue), to deal permanently with these vile criminals? I have a few suggestions.
1) Any pirate captured should be summarily shot and thrown overboard.
2) Any act of piracy should result in serious and violent reprisals, whether in the form of naval bombardment of coastal settlements or an actual landing of Marine soldiers to conduct a more thorough and targeted purge of the area.
3) Any deaths of hostages should result in an immediate invasion of the area, not for occupation but for purgation.
In short, if any pirate has the nerve to attack shipping, take hostages, or worst of all kill any captured crewmen, then there should be no limit to how hard and how fast the USMC comes down on their heads. None should live to regret their actions. Make an example of them, kill them all, and end the threat that they pose forever.
It might get messy. Innocent civilians among the Somali population might be caught in the crossfire. Hostages would probably die in the process. But if the world coddles this kind of unacceptable activity then it will continue and it will spread. Better to end it quickly and permanently, even at a high cost, than to allow it to proceed uninterrupted. The SEAL snipers have made a start. It is now up to the USA and other countries who suffer at the hands of these pirates to step up and finish the job, before more innocents are victimized by some of the lowest scum on the earth.
Piracy is a plague upon the earth. For as long as man has sailed the waters, man has preyed upon his fellows. Whether killing crews and siezing ships for the hulls and the cargo, raiding coastal settlements for slaves, loot, or other things, or even the more modern ransom-holding piracy, the lessons of history are clear. There can be only one response to piracy that will end it and make the waters safe once more.
Rome faced pirates many times throughout its long life. Each time they dallied around, allowing the pirates free reign on the seas until finally they pushed too far. Only then did Rome do what it should have done in the beginning, marshalling a large fleet, invading the pirates' homes, and killing them all. Later in the Empire's history, it became even more difficult to deal with piracy since the pirates, now Arabs and Turks, had the backing of powerful states. Still the Romans tried, and often succeeded, purging the pirates from their havens and bringing peace to shipping.
The Barbary Pirates are the next great example, and perhaps are an even better one given that they were interacting with what would become the modern Amero-European powers (in this case specifically France, the UK, and the USA, mostly). When the first American ships were preyed upon by these scum, Jefferson (the president at the time) dispatched a small fleet of frigates and a handful of Marines to deal with the situation. After a rather epic story, with the United States and their local allies poised for an incredible victory that would allow them to dictate terms to any survivors, Jefferson sold out those local allies to the leader of the pirates and withdrew the Marines (at least the commander on the ground had some scruples, as he made sure to pull out the mercenary auxiliaries he had hired). It wasn't until many years later, when the Barbary states were once again becoming a serious problem for everybody sailing through the area, that a permanent solution was found. The three states mentioned above gathered ships together and began to shell all the cities along the Barbary coast, pounding the pirate states into submission. They pretty much destroyed the pirate kingdoms, ultimately paving the way for European domination of the region (the rising tide of colonialism took full advantage of the power vacuum following the fall of the pirate states).
Now we have pirates on the coast of Somalia. How is the world, or in this case the United States (given the threats levied against it by the pirates after the heroic rescue), to deal permanently with these vile criminals? I have a few suggestions.
1) Any pirate captured should be summarily shot and thrown overboard.
2) Any act of piracy should result in serious and violent reprisals, whether in the form of naval bombardment of coastal settlements or an actual landing of Marine soldiers to conduct a more thorough and targeted purge of the area.
3) Any deaths of hostages should result in an immediate invasion of the area, not for occupation but for purgation.
In short, if any pirate has the nerve to attack shipping, take hostages, or worst of all kill any captured crewmen, then there should be no limit to how hard and how fast the USMC comes down on their heads. None should live to regret their actions. Make an example of them, kill them all, and end the threat that they pose forever.
It might get messy. Innocent civilians among the Somali population might be caught in the crossfire. Hostages would probably die in the process. But if the world coddles this kind of unacceptable activity then it will continue and it will spread. Better to end it quickly and permanently, even at a high cost, than to allow it to proceed uninterrupted. The SEAL snipers have made a start. It is now up to the USA and other countries who suffer at the hands of these pirates to step up and finish the job, before more innocents are victimized by some of the lowest scum on the earth.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
On racism
Every time that I encounter somebody who is hung up about racism I always have to wonder, who really cares? Whether it's the guy who thinks everyone who looks different from himself is inferior or the guy who accuses everybody who looks different from himself of thinking that he is inferior, both are hung up needlessly on an utterly stupid idea. Why? What possible benefit could either point of view actually hold for anybody? It frustrates me to no end how utterly self-centered people can be, especially when it plays out in a way that is so utterly meaningless.
Once more I will go to my old standby example to illustrate my point. Under the Roman Empire it didn't really matter who you were or where you came from or how you looked or anything like that. What really counted was your religion and your language and your politics. Those things combined with whatever degree of competency you were capable of expressing tended to matter far more in terms of advancement than anything else. Sure, the great families had wealth and power, but there were always the new rich or the recently promoted families, proving that even the aristocracy wasn't immune to advancement. Virtue, competency, merit, whatever you want to call it, in the Roman civilization it ultimately determined how high you could rise.
Let's look specifically at the Empire. There were countless emperors with diverse backgrounds. You had Thracian peasants, Armenian generals, Isaurian thugs, classic Greco-Roman aristocrats, and so many others rising to the purple. Ultimately what made a man emperor was his ability to rally the people behind him, to get the army to back him, and to get the aristocrats to support him. Whether he was a stableboy who managed to get a job at the palace, befriend a young emperor, use that influence to rise to a position of power, and then use that power to establish the single greatest dynasty the Empire ever saw, or he was a peasant from a hick town in a hick region of an utterly civilized society who managed to get his uncle proclaimed as emperor and then ruling from behind the scenes, only to take open power upon said uncle's death, if a man had enough skill, enough ambition, and enough sheer audacity he could rise from the very bottom to the very top.
Throw in the Church and you have even more opportunity. Anyone could become a great cleric, a renown monk, or even the Patriarch of Constantinople itself.
Then of course there is the military. Of all the institutions in the Empire it perhaps was the most meritocratic. Sheer ability could make the lowliest of men rise to heights of wealth and power regardless of where he came from. For that matter, eunich slaves taken in battle by Roman officers could rise to command the entire military might of the Empire, and prove both loyal and capable in the process.
So basically what I'm trying to say here is this. If somebody is good at what he does then he should be rewarded within that field. If he is not, then he should not be rewarded. If somebody is a great leader, then people should follow him. If he is a brilliant general, then he ought to be able to rise to command of armies. If he is fervent in his belief, orthodox in his practice, and as virtuous in his life as he can be given the state of this fallen world, then by all means raise him to the clergy and make him overseer of many congregations. Whether he is black, white, yellow, red, or some other color is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is can he do the job? If he can, then let him. If he can't, then don't put him where he is unworthy to be. It should be as simple as that.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people like to play the so-called "race card" as a cover for their own incompetence. This applies both ways, too. The person who screams discrimination at the drop of a pin is just as bad as the person who complains about the evil others who are contaminating society or whatever other drivel he happens to spout.
If somebody is black, so what? If he's a socialist, then it matters. If somebody is white, why does it matter? If he's a bhaal worshipper, though, then there might be some problems (such as infant sacrifice...). Ultimately, if you are going to look at anything other than basic ability when judging somebody, then the only things that I can see that are justifiable as criteria would have to be politics, economics, and religion. Anything else you can probably deal with easily enough. Certainly no accident of birth or vagary of genetics should have any impact beyond whatever outright physical or mental disabilities might be attributed to such causes.
Racism, like nationalism, is a stupid idea that is dangerous and irrational. It destroys civilizations, breeds divisiveness, and utlimately prevents those who ought to be doing things from having the proper opportunities to do them. Whether racism is an offensive, "I hate different people" thing or a defensive, "nobody is letting me succeed because I'm different" thing, it still amounts to the same fundamental idea, and still causes the same basic problems within society. So give it up already, all of you. If you want to be treated well, then earn it by action. If you want to look down on somebody, find a reason that matters, such as base incompetence or outright malicious corruption. Don't waste your time, or more importantly everybody else's, with your petty and meaningless stupidity.
Once more I will go to my old standby example to illustrate my point. Under the Roman Empire it didn't really matter who you were or where you came from or how you looked or anything like that. What really counted was your religion and your language and your politics. Those things combined with whatever degree of competency you were capable of expressing tended to matter far more in terms of advancement than anything else. Sure, the great families had wealth and power, but there were always the new rich or the recently promoted families, proving that even the aristocracy wasn't immune to advancement. Virtue, competency, merit, whatever you want to call it, in the Roman civilization it ultimately determined how high you could rise.
Let's look specifically at the Empire. There were countless emperors with diverse backgrounds. You had Thracian peasants, Armenian generals, Isaurian thugs, classic Greco-Roman aristocrats, and so many others rising to the purple. Ultimately what made a man emperor was his ability to rally the people behind him, to get the army to back him, and to get the aristocrats to support him. Whether he was a stableboy who managed to get a job at the palace, befriend a young emperor, use that influence to rise to a position of power, and then use that power to establish the single greatest dynasty the Empire ever saw, or he was a peasant from a hick town in a hick region of an utterly civilized society who managed to get his uncle proclaimed as emperor and then ruling from behind the scenes, only to take open power upon said uncle's death, if a man had enough skill, enough ambition, and enough sheer audacity he could rise from the very bottom to the very top.
Throw in the Church and you have even more opportunity. Anyone could become a great cleric, a renown monk, or even the Patriarch of Constantinople itself.
Then of course there is the military. Of all the institutions in the Empire it perhaps was the most meritocratic. Sheer ability could make the lowliest of men rise to heights of wealth and power regardless of where he came from. For that matter, eunich slaves taken in battle by Roman officers could rise to command the entire military might of the Empire, and prove both loyal and capable in the process.
So basically what I'm trying to say here is this. If somebody is good at what he does then he should be rewarded within that field. If he is not, then he should not be rewarded. If somebody is a great leader, then people should follow him. If he is a brilliant general, then he ought to be able to rise to command of armies. If he is fervent in his belief, orthodox in his practice, and as virtuous in his life as he can be given the state of this fallen world, then by all means raise him to the clergy and make him overseer of many congregations. Whether he is black, white, yellow, red, or some other color is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is can he do the job? If he can, then let him. If he can't, then don't put him where he is unworthy to be. It should be as simple as that.
Sometimes I get the feeling that people like to play the so-called "race card" as a cover for their own incompetence. This applies both ways, too. The person who screams discrimination at the drop of a pin is just as bad as the person who complains about the evil others who are contaminating society or whatever other drivel he happens to spout.
If somebody is black, so what? If he's a socialist, then it matters. If somebody is white, why does it matter? If he's a bhaal worshipper, though, then there might be some problems (such as infant sacrifice...). Ultimately, if you are going to look at anything other than basic ability when judging somebody, then the only things that I can see that are justifiable as criteria would have to be politics, economics, and religion. Anything else you can probably deal with easily enough. Certainly no accident of birth or vagary of genetics should have any impact beyond whatever outright physical or mental disabilities might be attributed to such causes.
Racism, like nationalism, is a stupid idea that is dangerous and irrational. It destroys civilizations, breeds divisiveness, and utlimately prevents those who ought to be doing things from having the proper opportunities to do them. Whether racism is an offensive, "I hate different people" thing or a defensive, "nobody is letting me succeed because I'm different" thing, it still amounts to the same fundamental idea, and still causes the same basic problems within society. So give it up already, all of you. If you want to be treated well, then earn it by action. If you want to look down on somebody, find a reason that matters, such as base incompetence or outright malicious corruption. Don't waste your time, or more importantly everybody else's, with your petty and meaningless stupidity.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
On Church and State
Ever since the founding of these Unites States of America people have been trying to deal with the complicated issue of the proper relationship between Church and State. Perhaps the most important phrase in that discussion was one made by Jefferson in a letter during his presidency. It mentions a "wall of seperation" between the two. This has since been adopted as tantamount to constitutional canon, despite its almost entirely personal nature (it was from a private letter, which under any understanding of the Constitution cannot have the force of law). This phrase has come to be the definitive interpretation of the 1st Amendment that states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of." People say that the 1st Amendment establishes a complete and inviolable seperation between Church and State.
Let us then examine the wording of the Amendment in this regard. "Congress shall make no law" is pretty straightforward. Congress, or the House of Representatives and the Senate, are prohibited in the exercise of their enumerated powers from making any law whatsoever that would violate the amendment. This does not limit the powers of the President, of officers or officials who are not members of Congress, or even of the operations of Congress itself outside of its lawmaking duties. "... respecting an establishment of religion..." is also clear. The aforementioned outright prohibition on legislation applies to each and every issue that is in respect to establishment of religion. This means that Congress cannot by law forbid any other part of the Federal government (that is, the several States, the other branches of the General government, or other such bodies, including private institutions) from establishing one or more religions as the official religion of said body. This would apply to States such as Virginia (which might decide to establish the Methodist Church as its official religion) or Massechusetts (which might establish some form of reformed or Puritan church as its official religion), just as it would apply to a college (for instance Fordham might make Roman Catholicism its official religion, while Brigham Young University might establish the Baptist Church as its official religion). So too could the President declare that all officers of the executive branch must hold whatever religion he so chooses to be the official religion of said branch of government. However, it also applies in the other direction. Congress cannot force any institution to adopt a particular religion as its offical one (so if Virginia wanted to disestablish its church it could do so without interference, or if the President wanted to secularize the executive branch then he could). Finally, "... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the most problematic section, and the one most often ignored. It means, quite simply, that Congress cannot make any form of law that would limit the ability of the People freely and openly to practice their religions. This would mean that public prayer, open wearing of religious symbols, and all other such trappings of faith are untouchable by any act of Congress. And since all legislative power has been reserved to Congress, the States, and the People in their respective spheres, if the People decide to practice a religion and the States allow them to do so then Congress cannot interfere (nor can any other part of the General government, since only Congress can pass laws; courts, I'm looking at you here).
There are two major problems with the above analysis. First, what about religions like Druidism or Baal worship that entail human sacrifice (infant sacrifice in the case of the latter)? What about other religions with similarly evil practices? It is my conclusion that the religion itself remains protected. Only those specific practices of that religion that violate other laws can be prosecuted, and then only because they violate other laws. A law cannot be passed that says that women are not allowed to wear veils in order to limit their right of exercise of religions like Islam. However, laws can be passed that prohibit murder, which would prevent human sacrifice as an incidental effect. Second, there is the 14th Amendment. Though not broadly applicable when it comes to restricting the several States by the limitations of the Constitution, by stretching its wording it can be argued that a State establishing a religion would thereby be abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that State who were not members of said religion. This is a tenuous argument, though, since the 14th Amendment is most clearly read when it is interpreted to refer only to such things as voting rights, criminal rights, and other such matters of basic personal protections, rights, and responsibilities inherent to citizenship.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the 1st Amendment therefore prohibits Congress from imposing any limits whatsoever on the free exercise of religion, up to and including a State establishing (or disestablishing) a particular religion as its official one.
Let us then examine the wording of the Amendment in this regard. "Congress shall make no law" is pretty straightforward. Congress, or the House of Representatives and the Senate, are prohibited in the exercise of their enumerated powers from making any law whatsoever that would violate the amendment. This does not limit the powers of the President, of officers or officials who are not members of Congress, or even of the operations of Congress itself outside of its lawmaking duties. "... respecting an establishment of religion..." is also clear. The aforementioned outright prohibition on legislation applies to each and every issue that is in respect to establishment of religion. This means that Congress cannot by law forbid any other part of the Federal government (that is, the several States, the other branches of the General government, or other such bodies, including private institutions) from establishing one or more religions as the official religion of said body. This would apply to States such as Virginia (which might decide to establish the Methodist Church as its official religion) or Massechusetts (which might establish some form of reformed or Puritan church as its official religion), just as it would apply to a college (for instance Fordham might make Roman Catholicism its official religion, while Brigham Young University might establish the Baptist Church as its official religion). So too could the President declare that all officers of the executive branch must hold whatever religion he so chooses to be the official religion of said branch of government. However, it also applies in the other direction. Congress cannot force any institution to adopt a particular religion as its offical one (so if Virginia wanted to disestablish its church it could do so without interference, or if the President wanted to secularize the executive branch then he could). Finally, "... nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is the most problematic section, and the one most often ignored. It means, quite simply, that Congress cannot make any form of law that would limit the ability of the People freely and openly to practice their religions. This would mean that public prayer, open wearing of religious symbols, and all other such trappings of faith are untouchable by any act of Congress. And since all legislative power has been reserved to Congress, the States, and the People in their respective spheres, if the People decide to practice a religion and the States allow them to do so then Congress cannot interfere (nor can any other part of the General government, since only Congress can pass laws; courts, I'm looking at you here).
There are two major problems with the above analysis. First, what about religions like Druidism or Baal worship that entail human sacrifice (infant sacrifice in the case of the latter)? What about other religions with similarly evil practices? It is my conclusion that the religion itself remains protected. Only those specific practices of that religion that violate other laws can be prosecuted, and then only because they violate other laws. A law cannot be passed that says that women are not allowed to wear veils in order to limit their right of exercise of religions like Islam. However, laws can be passed that prohibit murder, which would prevent human sacrifice as an incidental effect. Second, there is the 14th Amendment. Though not broadly applicable when it comes to restricting the several States by the limitations of the Constitution, by stretching its wording it can be argued that a State establishing a religion would thereby be abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of that State who were not members of said religion. This is a tenuous argument, though, since the 14th Amendment is most clearly read when it is interpreted to refer only to such things as voting rights, criminal rights, and other such matters of basic personal protections, rights, and responsibilities inherent to citizenship.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the 1st Amendment therefore prohibits Congress from imposing any limits whatsoever on the free exercise of religion, up to and including a State establishing (or disestablishing) a particular religion as its official one.
Monday, November 24, 2008
On the Electoral College
There has been quite a bit of talk over the last few years about doing away with the electoral college. The basis for the argument seems to be one of democracy. It is undemocratic for the president to be elected by having a high enough electoral count despite losing the popular vote. Indeed, the way the system currently is set up is very bad, since in many ways it is dishonest and fails to accomplish that which the electoral college was intended.
Currently each of the states is run by the parties (Republican and Democrat). They use their positions of control to ensure that each party must put forward a slate of electors who most people never actually know even so much as the names of. Said slates are then bound to vote for whichever candidate their slate was attached to. In a handful of states, the slate is assigned partially based on a proportion of the popular votes cast, while in the rest it is an all-or-nothing system.
What does this do? It makes people think that they are voting for president, when in reality they are voting for a slate of people that they never even heard of. It also turns the election into a popularity contest where celebrity, demagoguery, and other such plagues of the democracies of the world can bring about their full corrupting effect. The result is such people as FDR getting four terms (the closest the US has come to a totalitarian dictator so far), Kennedy getting elected at all (a corrupt and incompetent president if ever there was one), and most every other president that we've had defeating the few potential good candidates (most of whom lost due to a lack of popular support, despite being the only ones who actually spoke the truth, obeyed the Constitution, and maintained dignity and morality in their campaigns).
How should things work? The electoral college was established to remove the presidency from the realm of petty politics and to elevate it to a more considered, more stable, and more principled manner of choosing. The state legislatures were supposed to decide how their respective states would choose electors, whether the governor would appoint them, the legistlature itself pick them, or the people vote for them by district, at large, or in some other fashion. This would make the choice not one of presidential candidate, but rather one of elector. The election would come down to picking those people who were most respected for their principles and wisdom, for their capacity to judge character and competence, and for their faithfulness to the needs of the people of their state and to the requirements of the Constitution.
How can we go from our current corrupted way of electing presidents to one consistent with the wisdom and foresight of the Founders? My favorite solution would be to have the several states remove the presidential candidates from the ballot altogether, indeed they ought to disallow campaigning for president completely. Rather, they should require that those who wish to take a seat in the electoral college run for that office. Turn the presidential race into an electoral college race. Require that candidates be citizens of the states in which they run and allow the people therein to get to know said candidates well enough that they can make wise choices about who to trust to pick their president. If all works as I hope, then the president would be chosen once more by a thoroughly vetted group of trusted people in accordance with the Constitution. Factional strife, demogoguery, and petty rhetoric would be limited in their impact, while true considered wisdom and though might actually return to the process. Shallow celebrities, blatant criminals, and other typical party candidates would no longer be likely to make the cut, while virtuous statesmen and honest politicians might finally have a chance at winning the presidency.
Currently each of the states is run by the parties (Republican and Democrat). They use their positions of control to ensure that each party must put forward a slate of electors who most people never actually know even so much as the names of. Said slates are then bound to vote for whichever candidate their slate was attached to. In a handful of states, the slate is assigned partially based on a proportion of the popular votes cast, while in the rest it is an all-or-nothing system.
What does this do? It makes people think that they are voting for president, when in reality they are voting for a slate of people that they never even heard of. It also turns the election into a popularity contest where celebrity, demagoguery, and other such plagues of the democracies of the world can bring about their full corrupting effect. The result is such people as FDR getting four terms (the closest the US has come to a totalitarian dictator so far), Kennedy getting elected at all (a corrupt and incompetent president if ever there was one), and most every other president that we've had defeating the few potential good candidates (most of whom lost due to a lack of popular support, despite being the only ones who actually spoke the truth, obeyed the Constitution, and maintained dignity and morality in their campaigns).
How should things work? The electoral college was established to remove the presidency from the realm of petty politics and to elevate it to a more considered, more stable, and more principled manner of choosing. The state legislatures were supposed to decide how their respective states would choose electors, whether the governor would appoint them, the legistlature itself pick them, or the people vote for them by district, at large, or in some other fashion. This would make the choice not one of presidential candidate, but rather one of elector. The election would come down to picking those people who were most respected for their principles and wisdom, for their capacity to judge character and competence, and for their faithfulness to the needs of the people of their state and to the requirements of the Constitution.
How can we go from our current corrupted way of electing presidents to one consistent with the wisdom and foresight of the Founders? My favorite solution would be to have the several states remove the presidential candidates from the ballot altogether, indeed they ought to disallow campaigning for president completely. Rather, they should require that those who wish to take a seat in the electoral college run for that office. Turn the presidential race into an electoral college race. Require that candidates be citizens of the states in which they run and allow the people therein to get to know said candidates well enough that they can make wise choices about who to trust to pick their president. If all works as I hope, then the president would be chosen once more by a thoroughly vetted group of trusted people in accordance with the Constitution. Factional strife, demogoguery, and petty rhetoric would be limited in their impact, while true considered wisdom and though might actually return to the process. Shallow celebrities, blatant criminals, and other typical party candidates would no longer be likely to make the cut, while virtuous statesmen and honest politicians might finally have a chance at winning the presidency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)