No boot. I prefer FLYlady's lace-up shoes, and they're never used to kick people. :) I basically agree on abortion, disagree on the NSA because what they're doing infringes too much on rights for way, way too little benefit (there are better ways to track down terrorists) and I don't believe that primary health care and urgent care should be a business at all. (Other things, like dental care, are open for debate, but basic preventative care and urgent care are necessities of life that should be available to everyone regardless of their insurance status.)
My reading of the Bible doesn't lead me to believe that same-sex marriage is a sin, or even homosexual sex. Centuries of mistranslation and misinterpretation have gone into creating that doctrine, and it's questionable at best. The Catholic position on sex is the most consistent and at the same time the least workable in modern life, but for the most part I find the North American Christian obsession with sexual sins to be a sign of their deep repression. I'd like to see the church pay more attention to the poor (which Christ talked about incessantly) and less to sex (which he hardly mentioned at all.) If marriage were to become a purely religious institution, and all couples needed two ceremonies - the civil union at City Hall and the religious one at their place of worship - then I would support any church's right to deny the latter to homosexuals. As long as the word "marriage" has a legal connotation outside of its religious one - and it is possible to get married without setting foot in a church - then it is not solely a religious contract and the word can apply to homosexual unions. And, when you've studied as much history and anthropology as I have, it becomes difficult to say the phrase "traditional marriage" without a snort of derision.
What is the value of a government, if it is not at least somewhat responsible for its citizens?
NSA - you would be surprised at how effective their monitering has been. There have been countless arrests and cells broken up becasue of their monitering of international (they don't moniter domestic) calls (as I said, my husband works in counter terrorism).
I agree that homosexuality is probably not a sin. I am not a bible literalist, by any means. My problem is ammending the constitution. I think we tend to do it too easily, when the same thing can be accomplished by state laws.
What is the value of government? Well, the JOB of the federal governement is to take care of things on a national level - defense/homeland security, infrastructure, environment, printing and regulation of money, etc. Not to make sure every person has groceries in their cupboard. I would actually like to see national welfare completely eliminated, and have it at the local and state level, with emphasis on privately funded charities. The government should be the last resort. It can be much more effectively administered, as each community truly knows what the needs are, and it would eliminate a ton of waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in the faceless national system.
A few years ago, our provincial government "downloaded" social services (read: welfare) to the cities, with the exact same rhetoric behind it as you just expressed. It turned out to be a disaster. The big cities, like Hamilton, have much lower costs of living than neighbouring small towns, so when people are down-and-out, they immediately move into the poorer areas of the nearest big city. The tax base of the city is not big enough to support the influx, so taxes within the city get raised to compensate. The upshot of it is that I'm paying more property taxes on my $100 000 home than a friend of mine in a neighbouring community pays on her $200 000 home, and I'm not getting as many services for it. Before the download, the system was administered by the provincial government, who sent the funds needed to each municipality according to their need. The same thing has happened in many parts of the U.S. in school district funding. The districts are too small to spread out the funding effectively. This isn't to say it has to be federal, but it should at least be statewide to account for those disparities.
The reason it must remain public, IMO, is because of the effect of regular economic downturns on charitable donations. The worse the economy is, the less money is flowing into charities from private sources. So as long as the economy is fine, the charities can do their work, but when more people need it, that's when it dries up. There has to be a failsafe. There are going to be people who abuse the system, but they're very rare compared to the people who feel extremely guilty for their temporary need to leech public monies and would do anything to get off of welfare. (As a teacher in schools in poor neighbourhoods, I've seen a lot of this - people who are dreadfully embarrassed, trying desperately to find a way to work AND pay for childcare AND get their highschool diploma AND navigate the bureaucracy that surrounds the welfare, because heaven forbid they get one cent more than they need to survive. The ones who, at first glance, appear to be abusing the system are usually unemployable - no literacy, no skills, and no jobs that will even look at them.) Frankly, I'd rather have my taxes support a leech or two, than cut off a single family who really needs the help.
I question how much actual fraud exists, and how much people are forced into fraud in order to manage the system. I've heard of people who can't live with the child of the baby they're carrying, because if they're single parents they qualify for medicaid but if they're with someone, his salary plus theirs isn't enough to pay their medical bills. So they lie, live separately or pretend to, and "abuse the system." That's not abuse of the system - it's a broken system.
That's not abuse of the system - it's a broken system</i.
And I agree with that completely. I didn't know about the history of welfare in your country- very interesting. I'm honestly not quite sure what should be done, I just know that what we have now ISN'T working. Too much money is being wasted. And when I say fraud, waste, and abuse, I am talking more about mistakes on the part of the government.
Ya know, I have no idea what happened to the whole rest of my reply. o.O LJ ate it. Probably a good thing, as I am not particularly coherent tonight. Revisit this later, perhaps?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-14 04:44 pm (UTC)My reading of the Bible doesn't lead me to believe that same-sex marriage is a sin, or even homosexual sex. Centuries of mistranslation and misinterpretation have gone into creating that doctrine, and it's questionable at best. The Catholic position on sex is the most consistent and at the same time the least workable in modern life, but for the most part I find the North American Christian obsession with sexual sins to be a sign of their deep repression. I'd like to see the church pay more attention to the poor (which Christ talked about incessantly) and less to sex (which he hardly mentioned at all.) If marriage were to become a purely religious institution, and all couples needed two ceremonies - the civil union at City Hall and the religious one at their place of worship - then I would support any church's right to deny the latter to homosexuals. As long as the word "marriage" has a legal connotation outside of its religious one - and it is possible to get married without setting foot in a church - then it is not solely a religious contract and the word can apply to homosexual unions. And, when you've studied as much history and anthropology as I have, it becomes difficult to say the phrase "traditional marriage" without a snort of derision.
What is the value of a government, if it is not at least somewhat responsible for its citizens?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-14 07:32 pm (UTC)I agree that homosexuality is probably not a sin. I am not a bible literalist, by any means. My problem is ammending the constitution. I think we tend to do it too easily, when the same thing can be accomplished by state laws.
What is the value of government? Well, the JOB of the federal governement is to take care of things on a national level - defense/homeland security, infrastructure, environment, printing and regulation of money, etc. Not to make sure every person has groceries in their cupboard. I would actually like to see national welfare completely eliminated, and have it at the local and state level, with emphasis on privately funded charities. The government should be the last resort. It can be much more effectively administered, as each community truly knows what the needs are, and it would eliminate a ton of waste, fraud, and abuse that exists in the faceless national system.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-14 11:34 pm (UTC)The reason it must remain public, IMO, is because of the effect of regular economic downturns on charitable donations. The worse the economy is, the less money is flowing into charities from private sources. So as long as the economy is fine, the charities can do their work, but when more people need it, that's when it dries up. There has to be a failsafe. There are going to be people who abuse the system, but they're very rare compared to the people who feel extremely guilty for their temporary need to leech public monies and would do anything to get off of welfare. (As a teacher in schools in poor neighbourhoods, I've seen a lot of this - people who are dreadfully embarrassed, trying desperately to find a way to work AND pay for childcare AND get their highschool diploma AND navigate the bureaucracy that surrounds the welfare, because heaven forbid they get one cent more than they need to survive. The ones who, at first glance, appear to be abusing the system are usually unemployable - no literacy, no skills, and no jobs that will even look at them.) Frankly, I'd rather have my taxes support a leech or two, than cut off a single family who really needs the help.
I question how much actual fraud exists, and how much people are forced into fraud in order to manage the system. I've heard of people who can't live with the child of the baby they're carrying, because if they're single parents they qualify for medicaid but if they're with someone, his salary plus theirs isn't enough to pay their medical bills. So they lie, live separately or pretend to, and "abuse the system." That's not abuse of the system - it's a broken system.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 12:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 01:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 01:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 01:17 am (UTC)Although I enjoy talking to someone rational. :D