And he’s funny too

For some time, I’ve enjoyed going to Political Irony for a compilation of political humor – lines from late night teevee, newspaper cartoons, internet cartoons – fun stuff. Just now I checked out the blogger his/herself at the ‘about’ page and found this, which transcends the stereotypes of political positions we are all so fond of and which tracks my own beleifs pretty well.

Q: What is your position on typical hot political issues?

A: I am strongly in favor of a single-payer health insurance systems; I’ve lived in several countries that have them and have seen the benefits firsthand. Single payer would save tremendous amounts of money, improve the economy, and save lives.

I think people have the right to own guns, absolutely. But I also think that government should ensure public safety by requiring gun safety training. (I’m not totally with him on this one. I don’t think the right is absolute – I think government has an obligation to register and license and to limit the types of guns individuals can purchase.)

I am pro-choice. I am against abortion, but believe it is absolutely none of the government’s business.

I am strongly in favor of allowing same sex couples to marry, but that constitutionally it is an issue to be decided by the states. However, marriages in one state must be recognized by all other states.

I believe in the separation of church and state. For example, each church has the right to decide if they want to perform marriages for same sex couples. But I also believe that giving tax breaks to churches violates the constitution. At the very least, even if you do give tax breaks for church donations and for the church building itself, businesses owned by churches should be fully taxable. Otherwise you are asking taxpayers to subsidize organized religion, which is hardly a separation of church and state.

I think we should end the embargo on Cuba and start to normalize relations with them. Government has no right to tell me not to visit Cuba, or anywhere else.

I think all recreational drugs should be decriminalized and taxed, just like we do with alcohol and tobacco.

I think software patents are wrong, and that copyrights should be limited.

I think giving corporations the rights of people (but none of the responsibilities) was a huge mistake from which we may never recover. The [most recent] Supreme Court ruling that corporations can spend unlimited amounts on political speech is deeply flawed.

6 responses to “And he’s funny too

  1. Oh thanks for this link Mo. I’ve added it to my reader!


  2. Thanks for the recommendation! And thanks for being a reader.

    And I don’t disagree that the government should have the power to register guns. Requiring people to register the guns they own does not limit their ability to own guns. As for limiting what kinds people can own, I think it is a constitutional issue. If we think it is a good thing to keep people from owning some kinds of weapons, then we know how to amend the constitution.

    I also want to note that (like abortions) I am not in favor of guns themselves. I don’t own a gun and would never want one. But it worries me when people “bend” the constitution. If you can bend it in one area, even an area that you believe in, then what’s to stop other people from bending it in ways you don’t like?

    I’ve read quite a few documents written during the founding of our nation, and it seems pretty clear that the founders really did intend for people to be able to have whatever weapons they liked, even to protect themselves from their own government (which the founders had just done in rebelling against the English monarchy). Times do change and such concerns may not apply in our modern world, but if so, they we should formally change the constitution, not just ignore it.


    • I think it’s a matter of weighing harm vs. good, like the old Justice Potter Stewart line about pornography – “I know it when I see it”. I don’t actually know if that was applied in a free speech case but it is a truth. We have to make judgments constantly and for many we turn to our legislatures – if the society at large perceives an infringement (and with guns many surely will) the case will then be tried constitutionally.

      And perhaps the justice’s decision will be partially informed by the public sentiment, as expressed by their elected officials.

      We both know that amending the constitution today would be nearly impossible, especially with such a well financed opposition to any proposed amendment. The last amendment, the 27th, took 202 years from proposal to ratification (although in fairness, it was an outlier)!

      Today’s AK-47 is maybe akin to a Revolutionary Era canon; a weapon for armies, not for men.

      I think the problem is big enough to warrant a back door approach – most likely to be followed by the constitutional challenge. The outcome of that could preclude the need for any amendment.


  3. ” I think the problem is big enough to warrant a back door approach – most likely to be followed by the constitutional challenge. The outcome of that could preclude the need for any amendment. ”

    Interesting admission.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s