Author: Kevin Lawver

I’ve been contemplating this list since Sunday. It’s not in final form yet, because I’m not. Hopefully, it will change and evolve as I learn more and I’m sure as I get older. I’m going to try to do a post on each point to further explain them.

I came up with this list in response to what I see in my elected officials today. Unfortunately, I don’t see a lot of these traits. I’m not sure how we can find candidates who subscribe to them, but I’m still searching. Let me know what you think of the list.

What I Want From My Elected Officials

• Not to support legislating any particular religious beliefs, but to support my right to observe my beliefs as I see fit

• To not prescribe how I should live my life, but to effectively legislate the limits of civil social interation (trade, crime, etc).

• To be able to intelligently debate an issue from both sides and appreciate the role of dissent in society.

• Defend my right to free expression

• Defend the weak from the strong, and the powerless from the powerful.

• Resist the unethical influence of corporate lobbying. My representatives at all levels should do their best to represent the needs of their constituents and not the desires of their contributors.

• Understand the difference between playing politics and doing the “right thing”, and should do the latter more than the former.

• Should not be so tied to one party’s platform that they are unable or unwilling to vote their conscience or follow the will of their constituents.

• Support transparency in government except in cases of National Security defined as narrowly as possible.

I came up with a great list of what I’d like from my elected officials during church today. Yes, I did it during church… weird, huh? I’m not sure what it means, but I’m going to try not to think about it too much. I obviously wasn’t paying attention while I was frantically scribbling notes to myself. Unfortunately, the list is in the car, so you’re not going to see it tonight. I’m physically tired and emotionally tired and just not ready to wade through my notes on all of this stuff, digest them, and then get them up here so we can discuss them.

Kurt’s comments have got me thinking, and I may need to come up with a graceful way to explain my take on them, and come up with a coherent position on them. I understand his points, and they’re good ones.

I want to see a society where everyone is free to worship (or not) as they see fit. It’s defining the “do what you want as long as no one gets hurt” concept that bothers me. I would hope that people would be better and more noble than that. Unfortunately, I’ve watched Jerry Springer and know that a good portion of our society is not that noble, and some things do need to be legislated. That balance between personal freedom and the need of a society to maintain order and provide basic services is what politics is all about. Having the Republicans in power, the scale tips too far to the “order” side of the spectrum for me. The far left is probably a bit too far to the “free” side. How do we find that balance? How do we weigh that needs for personal freedom with personal responsibility (and accountability) with the needs for defense, services, and protecting the weak from the strong, and the powerless from the powerful?

Bah, too many questions and not enough answers. I’ll try to come back with the list of what I’d like to see from my “ideal” elected official, and my “ideal” representative government tomorrow after I’ve gotten a good night’s sleep, and hopefully processed all these conflicting thoughts running amok in my noggin.

As I told Kurt, I welcome all opinions, as long as they’re well thought out and reasoned. Bring ’em on. Share ’em. You never know what it’ll spark.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.” — Senator Rick Santorum

I know it’s old news, but the White House has come out supporting this guy, but this just blows my mind. Let’s dissect it… the law is against sodomy (I think you all know where this is going, and if you’re not a grown up and can’t handle thinking or reading about this, please move on). So, the senator is against sodomy, because it’s a “gateway” sex act to legalizing incest and bigamy? Let’s talk about what each of these is and how ignorant the Senator is making himself look (he may indeed be ignorant, but this just makes him seem ignorant). Sodomy is an act that can happen between two consenting adults. If the two are consenting and undertake the “enterprise” of sodomy aware of the risks of such, then why is that against the law? See, here’s why I have a problem with these laws. They’re degrading. If consenting adults (sense a theme) feel it’s OK for them to engage in such an act, they should be free to do so without fear of prosecution. And this is where Mr. Santorum misses the mark (all definitions from Mirriam Webster):

• Bigamy: the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another. Usually, this is a case of fraud, where one or more of the parties does not consent. Therefore, as a case of fraud, I can support there being laws against it.

• Incest: sexual intercourse between persons so closely related that they are forbidden by law to marry; also : the statutory crime of such a relationship. In the common meaning, this is an intimate relationship between parent and child, most often when the child is either under undo psychological influence, or of such an age as to be unable to give proper consent. Again, no problem having laws against this, because it’s more than likely an abusive relationship, and the taking advantage of a weaker party by a stronger with extraordinary influence over them.

• Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband. Ahh, this one’s a little tougher. I think it’s definitely punishable in a civil sense if the spouse who isn’t the adulterer in unaware and has not consented to the other committing adultery. Do we need a criminal statute? No, not really. We have divorce lawyers and marriage counselors.

• Polygamy:marriage in which a spouse of either sex may have more than one mate at the same time. Why is polygamy illegal other than our county’s Puritanical background? If all parties are of an age to consent to the marriages, and all give their free and uncoerced consent, then I don’t see why they shouldn’t be able to do it.

So, Mr. Santorum, do you just not know the meaning of the words, or do you want everyone to be subject to your own personal moral code? I would much rather live by my own.

I am so tired. For the past two weeks, I have beeen absolutely exhausted when I get home. Work has been… taxing? I’m back to having work take all of my energy, and leaving almost none for my “real” life. I’m also pretty grumpy and plagued by deep thoughts that keep me up at night. Deep thoughts about work and things I can’t talk about here, and deep thoughts about the state of the world and my personal undertstanding of how the world workes, which I can talk about here, and plan to.

I just won’t do it now. I’m too tired, too angry and the paragraph I wrote and then deleted wasn’t logical. It was angry. It was too emotional. I’ve realized that I really don’t know enough about what it means to be on the right or left, what it really means to be conservative, liberal or even progressive. I have some ideas, but I don’t know for sure. I’m not sure how I don’t know this, but I don’t. I admit it. I know what sounds good to me, and what sounds like crap. As it stands right now, and this may change, most of the President’s positions seem like crap, and progressive ideals seem pretty good to me. Like I said, I’m still reading. If anyone has any good books they’d like to recommend, I’ll take ’em. I want stuff from all sides. I already subscribe to Salon, and because I do, I got a free subscription to Utne, which I’m enjoying. I also got Mother Jones, which seems a little farther out there than Utne, but I haven’t even made it halfway through that issue yet.

What should I read? How do I find out what a real conservative is? A real liberal? A libertarian?