Some Blog Site

Keep the electoral vote.  It’s the vote for the president of the United States, not a vote for the president of the people.

I don’t want to live in the People’s Republic of America – I like the idea of separate States.  The current system has worked for quite some time, and I think eliminating the electoral college, whether by actually removing it or by awarding electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote, will have some unforeseen negative consequences.  I know, I know, some people don’t like the record of the electoral college.  But remember, the states elected the president – the people didn’t elect him.  The popular vote doesn’t matter.  The United States is not a democracy; it is a representative democracy (AKA republic).  Those who don’t like the electoral college want to tinker with how the country was setup.

The problem is that the movement to mess with the electoral college system is calling itself the National Popular Vote something.  How can you oppose something that’s so popular?  What would the opposing movement be called: the Unpopular Vote?  That would never fly.

Keep states’ rights as more important than the federal government – keep the electoral system intact.  Don’t move toward one big federal government.  On the other hand, the states do have a right to send their electoral delegates however they want.  So wouldn’t allowing the states to send mixed delegates also be supporting states rights?

Most of the arguments for the change are to have every vote count and to convince presidential candidates to spend time and, here’s the key, money in their state.  Hey, if you want candidates to campaign in your state, maybe you should use some sort of incentive (tax breaks, subsidies, etc.) to attract the non-dominant party’s voters to live in your state!  That way your state could be more competitive in the presidential campaigns and we wouldn’t have to mess with the proven record of the electoral college.

Or you could make your state more appealing to businesses in general so that more of them would setup operations in your state.  That way, you wouldn’t care so much that presidential politicians weren’t spending time and money in your state – you would be getting money from businesses that are productive and useful (as opposed to political campaigns, which are counter-productive and mostly useless).

The part I was wondering about was the re-count.  If there is a close presidential election, say a difference of a few thousand, then where will the re-count occur?  If there is a contested state in the current electoral system, then the recount can be limited to that state or a certain county.  But if the loser of the election wants to challenge a close national vote, wouldn’t the whole country have to be re-counted?  You don’t want the individual candidate to be hand-picking a state or county to re-count.

With stem-cell initiatives on ballots and the election about a week away, I thought I would throw in my two cents about stem-cell research.  Not many people are against stem-cell research.  What people oppose is one source of stem cells – embryos.

There are other sources of stem cells, and adult stem cells have actual results and show progress.  Embryonic stem cells are touted as having the most potential – the possibility to cure such-and-such.  The only way to prove or disprove this potential is by experimenting with the stem cells.  If you need to experiment to discover or unlock the full potential of something, why not make that something an amoral something?  While embryonic stem cells are difficult to manage (they don’t cooperate very well), adult stem cells behave well, but with less potential.  It’s the classic trade-off: some cures now, or possibly more cures later.  Although the goal is worthy – curing diseases – the means to get there is not worthy if it involves using babies for their tissues.  Just because something can be done does not mean it should be done.

People can do all the research they want with adult stem cells, but why kill innocent children to get their stem cells?  What if a scientist approached you today and said he needed to kill you for your organs?  What if the scientific community agreed that organs from a [insert your age here]-year-old [insert your gender here] held the best potential for curing [insert disease here]?  Would that make it okay for them to end your life for the sake of research?  What’s the difference between that scenario and embryonic stem-cell research?  The only difference is age.  The embryos are zero years old, and they can’t protest or vote.

“But,” you may say, “the embryos are going to be discarded anyway.  Why not get some use out of them?”  Because people in this country are supposed to have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  And our government is supposed to secure those rights for all its people – including those who are zero years old.  Should people in need of organ transplants be allowed to raid orphanages?  Incendiary wording, I know, but don’t forget this is an election year so it’s allowed by the Federal Election Commission.

So if the choice is between discarding embryos and using them for research, research wins in a lesser-of-two-evils duel.  Extra embryos are one of the bad side effects of IVF.  But there is a third choice – one that is not evil.  The embryos do not have to be discarded.  Why not let them grow into adults?  There are plenty of organizations who will handle that for you, if you have embryos that you do not want.

I have heard some election ads that use families with special-needs children, saying that special-needs children could be helped by stem-cell research.  Again, it is true that they could be helped by stem-cell research.  But does it need to be embryonic stem cell research?  Families with special-needs children are more aware that embryonic stem-cell research is wrong, because they realize that embryos are nothing less than special-needs children.

Embryos are children, and they should not be used for research.  There are plenty of ways around this issue.  If you took all the money and effort that are spent trying to promote embryonic stem cells, and put that toward finding a morally acceptable alternative, research could be advanced and people would be happy.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and not of the internet itself.  Not endorsed by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

There was a presidential debate last night.  Not that the debate was presidential, but it was a debate between two candidates for president. I think debates are useless.  I came to that conclusion after the vice-presidential debate.  Not that the debate was vice-presidential, but… ohnevermind.

First of all, you can’t trust what a candidate says while campaigning.  Sure, sometimes he will be telling the truth, but the promises may be tailored to a specific group of voters and not represent in general what the candidate believes or will do.

And secondly, how is a debate supposed to represent anything that will be done in office?  It’s not like a president ever has to debate someone.  That’s not in the job description of vice-president either.  I know, you’re supposed to be able to compare the candidates because of the debate.  But it would be more realistic, more representative of a president, if they were to hold press conferences.  Competing press conferences maybe.  Presidents have to deal with that, but they don’t ever have anyone next to them disagreeing with them and saying the bad things they have done or plan to do.

What you hear during a debate is pretty similar to the political ads that run during the 100 other days of campaigning.  So don’t look to the debates or campaigns if you are trying to decide who gets your vote – look at the candidate’s track record.  Look at the history of votes, decisions, accomplishments, scandals, etc.  That will tell you how he will be as a president.

What constitutes a successful nation?

Is it how comfortable the people are? Is it how happy the people are? Is it how rich the people are? Is it how many people want to leave their countries for it? Is it how free the people are?

However you measure it, the USA is a successful nation and a great place to live. Not just exist, but live.

Although July 4th is two days late:

Happy Birthday

A M E R I C AA M E R I C AA M E R I C A!

I heard a news report today that people will be bringing in non-native species of wasps to control the emerald ash borer population and save the trees. In fact, the emerald ash borer itself came here from Asia. It reminds me of the old song/story about the old lady who swallowed a fly. The ash borer comes here from Asia, then we bring wasps in from Asia to get the ash borers. Then the wasps get out of control and we need to bring in something else to control the wasps. And the cycle continues. I suppose desperate times call for desperate measures, but I’m hesitant to call this a good idea.

When I think of foreign plants and animals coming to the US, I never recall any success stories. Maybe that’s a problem with the news outlets today (hyping the bad news because it sells better) or maybe it’s because most of the instances are bad. The first thing that came to mind was “more killer bees“. But the people are emphasizing that these wasps are stingerless. I hope those Purdue researchers know what they’re doing, and I hope it turns out well for everyone except the ash borers and their cousins. But I’m still a bit wary.

If you have children, be sure to hug them today.

Maria Sue Chapman, 2003 – 2008

Well Susan Lefevre (AKA Marie Walsh) is back behind bars. Is that a good thing?

For those who don’t know the story: Susan Lefevre walked away from a Michigan prison 32 years ago and has been living a normal life in California since then, marrying and having 3 children. Her original conviction was for drug charges, selling to an undercover agent. She has been discovered in California and was recently re-arrested, being held in a California jail awaiting extradition to Michigan.

What are the benefits of re-arresting her? They are to see that justice is served, punish her for escaping, and provide a deterrent for other criminals by demonstrating that the laws are still enforced. What are the problems with re-arresting her? They are cost and her effectively 32 years of parole.

What is the point of putting someone in prison? To punish her, rehabilitate her, protect other citizens, or all of the above? If it is to protect other citizens, then I doubt that applies to this case. She is not a threat to anyone. Now on to the other points.

If it is to punish her, then are there other means of punishment that are not going to be a drain on society? Why not leave her out of prison, but sentence her to some monetary fine and community service? That would provide a benefit to society, rather than costing taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars per year to lock her up. Some punishment is needed to keep the laws valid, but not jail time in this case. The prison space is needed for everyone who is currently dangerous and causing problems.

If the point is to rehabilitate her, then I argue she has already rehabilitated herself. If 32 years of being a productive member of society and committing no more crimes doesn’t mean you’re clean, then what does? Some may argue that she was living a clean life only to avoid being detected and captured. But aren’t there plenty of people out there who don’t have a criminal record who are doing the same thing? Some people need money, but the only reason they don’t rob a bank is because they don’t want to get caught. It’s too tricky to judge people on their intent. A parolee is judged not on his thoughts, but on his actions.

But what lesson is this teaching other criminals? Are they being taught that if you escape, just keep quiet long enough and then you’ll be forgiven? If everybody did what Susan Lefevre did, what would happen? There would be no more crime, no more welfare, etc. There are some dangerous criminals who should be rounded up. It helps this case that there is no direct victim or victim’s family. It would be hard to say she should be left alone if, for example, she had murdered someone. Why should she get to live a nice life while her victim doesn’t get to live? But that doesn’t apply to this case. How do we encourage criminals to leave the crime behind and become productive members of society?

If I were the governor of Michigan (currently Jennifer Granholm), I would be tempted to stop this whole debate by pardoning this woman. But the system should be adjusted to account for these types of cases. I think they will be more common in the future, as states are sharing their records and advances in technology and forensics allow DNA and other things to be tested and cross-referenced. Filling the prisons with non-violent criminals who have been clean for decades makes sense only if the prisons are empty and there is no one else to put in there. But an appropriate punishment should be determined, in order to provide a deterrent for those who are tempted to escape from prison.