Revolution
Topic: Political Science
Ever notice how strife breeds greatness?

Every time we've had revolution in this world, a great leader has emerged. Kennedy, Lenin, Lincoln, Arthur... whenever there's been a civil rights revolution, someone, whether it be Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King Jr., has become a people's rallying point.

But did the leader make the revolution, or did the revolution make the people? I'm of the opinion that the latter is true. Imagine being a leader, and suddenly thousands of people look up to you and say "Hey! Help us! Make speeches, get attention, petition, picket, pass laws, help us!" And what are you going to do? You can't look at them and say "But that's so harrrrrrrd!" Thousands of people will find a new leader. And that new leader will be someone that just saw the old leader get his ass handed to him to wear as a hat, and will say "Yep. Passing laws. Petitioning. I'm the Vox Populi, I am, and I... I mean, WE are going to be heard!"

Lincoln was smart about it. When the people said "Pass laws!" he said "How high?" That sparked another revolution. And while The South lost that one, they still hold General Lee as a hero, because he fought for their cause.

Kennedy was also smart about it. General Fulgencio Batista wasn't so smart about it, and Guevara and Castro became the next People's Heroes.

Now, granted, these people had greatness prior to becoming heroes. Read a little bit about El Che, just as an example. But they were also in the right place at the right time, sociopolitically speaking. And, as a result, greatness was thrust upon them.

It's not an instant hero thing. They spent their entire lives becoming greatness material. They'd have been leaders among people no matter what their situation. But people needed them to be more, and so they became more.

Why? Because you do what you have to do. I believe that people become great because they have to do a lot, and because they are able do it.

They Knew What They Were Doing
Topic: Political Science
Jackson, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and Adams were down at pub one evening in our nation’s infancy, discussing one of its many growing pains. They were well into their third pint.
“Dammit!” said Thomas Jefferson. “We have to protect everyone! We’re the government! But how do we do it?”
“We do have a standing army, you know.” said George Washington. “I should know, I commanded it long enough.”
“But that only protects our borders.” Jefferson replied. “We need to protect the people as well.”
“Can’t the army do both?”
“I advise against that.” Benjamin Franklin said. “You’re a military man, so you feel comfortable with the army’s presence. But the commoner will not be so relaxed about having their government’s military force in an ever-present show of martial law. No, if we’re to protect them, it shall have to be with a civilian force.”
“That’s a bit self-contradictory.” John Adams warned. “Civilan force? Isn’t that an oxymoron?”
“Shut up!” Jefferson said. “In 200 years, who’s going to know who you are? Sit down and shut up, and you’ll get to be President some day, and maybe we’ll put your face on some of the money. But don’t expect it to be a mass-produced denomination!”
“I’ve got my eye on the two-dollar bill.” Adams retorted.
“Fuck you! I called ‘dibs!’”
“Me and my son are going to kick your ass!”
“Gentlemen, we’re getting no-where.” Franklin said. “Look, the issue is civil, common defense. It’s in The Preamble. We have to do it.”
“Then the military.” Washington said again.
“No, their defense is not for the common man. It’s to defend our borders from aggression and trespass.” Hamilton argued. “Oh, and can I have the ten?”
“Do what you want.” Washington said. “You’re the Secretary of the Treasury.”
“I’ve always liked you.” Adams shmoozed to Hamilton.
“Jefferson still called ‘dibs.’” Hamilton snubbed.
“Shit! Anyway, the military can’t protect the common man.” Hamilton continued. “We’d need two men for every civilian, and even if it were one man for every ten civilians, that means that at least one tenth of our total population would be military. We’d have to conscript just to get the man-power.”
“Why two men?” asked Adams
“They’d also have to watch each other.” Franklin answered. “One person might take advantage of the situation, and abuse the person he was supposed to be protecting.”
“One soldier for every ten civilians, then.” Washington enjoined. “Ten civilians could over-power one soldier, right?”
“He’d be armed.” Jefferson said. “It would get ugly. But ten is about the limit he could handle. And that doesn’t address the issue of how we’d acquire an army the size of one-tenth our population, plus large enough to defend the borders. We’d need fifteen percent of our population conscripted! Half of our adult male population would be in the military. The army would be gigantic, and a police state would have to be… uh… George? Why are your eyes glazing like that?”
“A civilian defense.” Hamilton said. “The people would have to defend themselves. A police force is best.”
“Then we’d need most of the population in a police force.” Franklin said. “We’d be a police state. Freedom? Liberty? Look, I may just be a mailman, but that’s highly contradictory. Besides, the police can’t be everywhere at once unless there’s two for every household. I wouldn’t feel very secure about an omni-present armed ‘protective’ force in my home.”
“Franklin’s right.” Adams said. “A balance between liberty and protection has to be found. Besides, the judicial and legal system is not set up to protect. It’s set up to punish the criminal, and in that way, deter people from becoming criminals. You can’t possibly be everywhere you need to be to stop a crime. All you can do is punish the person that commits the crime.”
Jefferson was amazed. “That may well be the most intelligent thing you’ve ever said.”
“Then can I have th…”
“No.”
“Awwww!”
“Then it seems obvious.” Franklin announced.
“It does?” Washington asked.
“Yes. Don’t get snitty.” Franklin said. “Look, the only person that someone can trust to protect their own interests, and be with them twenty-four-by-seven, is themselves! A person’s protection is their right, true? True. But we can’t guarantee that! It’s not possible! So, to provide for the common defense, we need to allow the commoners to defend themselves.”
“Arm the populace?” Hamilton asked.
“That’s nuts!” Jefferson exclaimed. “How would we quell riots?”
“A police force established for extreme cases, of course.” Franklin explained. “It wouldn’t have to be as large as two people for every home, but it would have weapons and manpower enough to ensure civil peace. They should be able to handle anything, short of every person in the community taking arms and revolting. But that isn’t mere civil unrest, that is full rebellion…”
“And therefore within the domain of the military to quell!” Washington finished.
”Exactly!” Franklin smiled.
“How do we do it?” Adams asked.
“T.J., what’s that project Madison’s working on? That “List of Rights” thing?”
“He calls it a ‘Bill of Rights.’” Jefferson replied. “It’s some amendments to the Constitution… a little tweaking and fine tuning now that we’ve seen where it needs adjusting. What about it?”
“Can you mention to him something about the ‘Right to Bear Arms?’ Give every citizen that as a right, not a requirement, and the responsibility becomes theirs, not ours. We don’t have to buy the weapons or ammunition. They do, and it becomes self-regulating… the more money or land a person has, the more protection they’ll need. But the better able to afford that protection they’ll be. All we have to do is tell them they have the right to protect themselves, and they’ll still have liberty and personal freedom, and it’s in their hands, not ours! It’ll still be illegal to kill people unless it’s self-defense, of course, but essentially, it puts the power in their hands. And the responsibility.”
The rest of the group stared at Franklin in awe. Finally, Jefferson drained his fifth pint and said “Tha’s fucking brilliant! You… you… you, Ben, are a genius! I’ll go see Madison first thing in th’ morning!”
“Thank you.” Franklin said modestly. “Please let him know that it has to be as straightforward as possible. There can’t be any room for misinterpretation!”
Washington raised a finger. “Say something like we need a good milita, but the right of the people to keep and carry weapons won’t be… uhm… word?”
“Infringed?” Franklin suggested.
“Infringed!” Washington smiled.
“Brilliant” Jefferson repeated.
“Yeah! Said Adams. “How stupid do you need to be to screw up that?”
And they all staggered home and slept it off, except for Franklin, who could hold his liquor, and instead celebrated with a pair of local women who bared a lot more than their arms.

Still another Modest Proposal
Topic: Political Science
I'm such a slug.

It's been a long while since I did a blog entry. I have no defense and throw myself on the mercy of me. Fortunately, I forgive myself. Later, I'll give myself an apologetic lunch and make up with me. I'll be holding hands again by evening.

It's almost time to choose a president. Many of us American types have already chosen in our minds, but the hard part is choosing on paper. Florida has shown beyond all question that they simply cannot handle the balloting process in its current implementation. It's that whole "the layout is confusing" bit. They're there to choose a president. They're not there to think.

I've heard organizing the ballot like a Bingo card would help, but that still gives us the whole layout problem ("Why is Bush under G, and Kerry under B? I'm confused again! DAMN OUR ELECTORAL PROCESS! OH, DAMN IT TO HELL!").

Let's face it. The ballot has to be simple. Putting too many choices on it with no clear idea of how to use it will only make the voting that much more difficult. And it should also be fun. Also, if you're reading a lot of instructions, you're not having fun and taking up too much time that could be spent at Disney World getting sick on the rides and throwing up on a guy in a Goofy suit.

So... fun. Quick. Easy to understand. Simple. Few instructions. Floridians can use it.

I think I got it. It's called "Scratch -N- Vote."?*

The ballot is simple, and so is the voting process. You show your ID to the person at the booth, who lets you in when its your turn, and gives you an official "election slug," a coin sized and shaped metal disc you can keep as a memento of your voting decision (that way, you feel like you won something). They push a button and a ballot drops out. You use the coin (or a quarter or whatever) to rub off one, and only one, of the selections.
The selections are covered with that funky silvery crap that they use to cover the boxes on scratch-and-win lottery tickets, which every Floridian knows how to use, and so will have no trouble remembering to only scratch off one of the boxes (if they do manage to scratch off more than one, however, the attendant takes away their slug and sends them home without voting). The boxes underneath the silvery crap are a bright green color, contrasting with the color of the rest of the ballot, making it easier to see which choice has been made. The name of the candidate is printed on both the silvery crap and in the box underneath the silvery crap.

See? Easy.

The slug could be made more memorable, too, by adding an embossed image to it, with Candidate A on one side, and Candidate B on the other. Or maybe an American flag on one side, and an eagle or something on the other. Maybe add "Year XXXX Presidential Election" to it, and bang! Every voter walks away with a presidential election commemorative slug, and I think that's highly appropriate: their slug would be very pretty and impressive looking, but would have no real value... just like their vote.

It's too bad we have a guaranteed vote in this nation, though. If we could make it a random thing, each voter would simply take part in a fully random process... instead of choosing a president by thinking about it, the names could be left off of the silvery crap, and half the ballots could be printed with the names in different boxes, so nobody would know for sure which name was in which box until they'd scratched. There'd be less campaigning, less mud-slinging, fewer lies, and the candidates would really feel like they won, instead of just buying the election. But then people wouldn't have a choice; they'd just be part of a gigantic randomizing effect. True, because the electoral vote isn't the same thing as the popular vote, and our representatives will still vote the way they think is best (for them), the people don't really have a say in who the next president will be anyway. But at least we have the illusion of choice, which shuts us up for the most part.

Florida! Take note! Grab this idea and run with it! With the present day methods of proposal, approval, implementation, selecting a lowest bidder, design, design approval, and all the other bureaucratic procedures in place in your State government, you should have this idea implemented in time for, say, the 2048 presidential election.

*The ? isn't real. I haven't registered this. Go on and steal the idea if you want. I'd laugh my ass off if you did.