Comments On 95 Theses of We, The People

2009-8-27 03:13:00

In Message Number 42698, entitled "95 Theses Of We, the People" posted to The Keys Of Knowledge on August 26, 2009, JJ Dewey made the following statement:

"My Friends. Inspiration struck and I knew I had to write one more important document that must be included in my book 'Fixing America.' I call it the '95 Theses of We, The People.'

"I'm still fine tuning it. The order is not perfect and I may still get some ideas to replace some of the points. Look over the list. If you see any problem let me know. If you think of a point that needs to be included that is not there let me know your ideas. Just remember each point should be something that the majority will support."

In response to the above, Duke wrote:

"I have reservations as follows: [...]"

JJ:

I appreciate you making these comments. I want these to have the highest mass appeal possible while at the same time leading to improving society.

Duke:

"21. Allowances should be made for unusual circumstances that make late term abortion medically advisable."

JJ:

How does this sound?

"21. Late term abortions should be illegal, except where the life of the mother or another life is at risk."

"22. Children should be required to pass a standardized test before being promoted to the next grade."

Duke:

"22. Standardized tests are not necessarily fair and accurate yardsticks, nor does emphasis on them necessarily foster quality education. And it is quite possible that children who flunk a standardized test would still benefit greatly from a normal public education. What happens to those kids -- do they go into some sort of special education program, all while the budget is being slashed?"

JJ:

I am not a fan of standardized tests either but the problem is that kids are being moved to the next grade when they are not ready. There is no greater frustration for a child than to be in a class that teaches beyond his ability to perform. This was a problem way back when I was in grade school in the 50s and the kids that had this problem just dropped out of learning.

The majority want our kids to be qualified to be in whatever grade they find themselves in. A standardized test is not perfect but it is a reasonable gage of some basic abilities. If we do not use it what is the alternative that the majority will accept? I do not think anything close to the majority support advancing a child who is not ready.

"27. It is outrageous that we pay an average of over $9000 to educate a student with such low results. We need to seek better results per dollar spent."

"28. It is also outrageous that we pay an average of over $9000 per student and the teachers do not receive a higher income. In a class of 30 kids where over $270,000 is spent the teacher deserves more income. We therefore, desire to reduce the number of administrators and the perks that they have and increase teacher pay."

Duke:

"27. On the surface $9000 per student may appear to be outrageous, but without knowing the details I cannot say for sure, therefore I will not make the accusation.

"28. Ditto."

JJ:

The main detail is that we are spending $9000 per student while some private schools charge as little as $2500. To spend $270,000 to educate one class while we are paying the teacher $35,000 sounds pretty outrageous to me and I guarantee there majority want our educational dollars to be more efficiently spent.

"29. The administrators who are fired can be hired as teachers."

Duke:

"29. Teachers should be qualified to teach, and not hired just because we feel guilty for firing them from their previous job because we were outraged."

JJ:

Every administrator I know has a teaching degree and usually moved up the ranks to become an administrator.

An administrator therefore would be a good candidate for teaching.

"34. The U.S. Census should not count anyone who is not a citizen of the United States."

Duke:

"34. I think it is valid for a government to want to know how many people live within its borders and where they live."

JJ:

I'd have no problem with counting non-citizens as long as they are not counted as citizens and then used for political purposes as disbursement of federal funds or voting districts as if they are citizens.

Perhaps we could reword it as follows:

"34. The U.S. Census should not count anyone as a citizen who is not a citizen of the United States. If non-citizens are counted they are to be tabulated as such."

Duke:

"35. There are circumstances and settings in which hate speech or pornographic speech should be abridged without having to resort to a court of law."

JJ:

See if this works for you:

"35. Freedom of speech, even politically incorrect speech, or hate speech, is not to be abridged, except for the following:

"Through a court of law where actual damages may be proven.

"Where existing laws of disturbing the peace are broken.

"Where the person specifically details and encourages breaking existing laws."

Duke:

"40. Hiring quotas based on political party are no different from quotas based on race or gender or anything else other than qualification for the job."

JJ:

You are right, but there are subtle quotas for race and gender. Do you think a company could get away with hiring one black out of a hundred employees when the population is 10% black? No. They would be sued and regulated out of business. Yet many colleges get away with hiring ten times more Democrats than Republicans. If we want true civil rights in this country then this needs corrected as much as the race problem for half the population feel short-changed with the education of their kids because of this.

Maybe some type of lawsuit would be a better approach. I'm open to ideas on this.

"59. We support long sentences where violence or the threat of violence occurred. Where there was no violence, the criminal should be given a chance to pay the victim compensation and not go to prison."

Duke:

"59. If the rich can pay a fine and avoid going to prison, how is that materially different from the selling of indulgences that Martin Luther protested against?"

JJ:

I'd say there is a tremendous difference:

The indulgences went to line the pockets of religious authorities. The fines would go to restore to the victim that which he has lost.
The indulgence got you a place in heaven and restores nothing. The fine helps keep you a useful member of society and the money goes to a good place.

Most of those who work to restore value to the victim would be far from rich and it would be a great sacrifice for them to make the payment. And if a rich guy is involved he would rarely be charged with stealing a few hundred bucks but his damages may be in the millions. If a rich guy has to pay off a million dollars then that would be painful for him and make restitution to the victim that would not be made if he were in jail.

This is one item that I am not sure has majority support as I have not seen a poll on it. I strongly believe it is an injustice to the victim to just put a non violent person in jail when a way could be arranged to provide restitution as well as bring relief to our prison system.

Duke:

"67. This one disturbs me. In the name of some noble cause (in this case extinguishing tyranny), we are justified -- nay, duty-bound -- to do 'all in our power'? "This sounds like a mandate for starting wars. Is it?"

JJ:

How does this sound:

"67. We seek, by peaceful means, to do all in our power to extinguish tyranny wherever we see it."

Duke:

"77. Hey come on over this Saturday, after the barbeque we're circumcising my daughters and need help holding them down."

JJ:

You may have misunderstood my intent. Legislation is being proposed to force every male child to be circumcised whether the parents approve or not. This point leaves the decision up to the parent.

Duke:

"93. There may be wisdom in having Supreme Court members be appointed by the Executive branch and confirmed by the Legislative branch, rather than rising from the ranks of those who are best at running a campaign for public office. There may also be wisdom in the Supreme Court having inherently slow turn-over. I could be persuaded otherwise, but that would have to happen before I would support direct election of and term limits for supreme court justices."

JJ:

The problem is that when we have a Republican president the Democrats are unhappy with the appointments and visa versa. If the people chose I think we would get justices that the majority are happier with. This idea has not been tested for majority approval but I think at least half the people would like it. I would be interested in hearing what the group thinks.

Duke:

"95. I can think of a lot of non-polluting activities that should not be permitted just because the land beneath is privately owned. Perhaps this point was worded too broadly."

JJ:

What we want to avoid are situations like this that the majority find outrageous.

There have been cases where a farmer in the course of his work unknowing ran over and killed an endangered bug or rat and was prosecuted.
Some people in California were prevented by law of clearing away brush creating a fire hazard that led to them losing their property to flames.

The majority definitely support a person having power over his own property to sustain his own interests without fear of outrageous interference.

Maybe the point could be rewritten to clarify.

Duke:

"'Science is not a democracy.' -- Earl Geddes"

JJ:

Unfortunately the governments of the world are trying to make science a democracy and government, a dictation by the few.

We keep hearing about a "consensus" of scientists on different unproven theories with the idea that if the majority are convinced of theory through the media, then it is true.

The discoveries of science usually go against majority belief.

In government we either have a minority rule or majority rule. When minority rule becomes corrupt, as it is now, it is much more dangerous than majority rule.

Thanks again for your observations. I want to make these as potent as possible.