Page 28
E S S A Y S
By the NUMBER
e75
A Contest of Bills
A Dissertation On Politics For Those Who Hate Political Dissertations
Fig. 1. Credit: artsfuse.org
A Brief Disclaimer:
I am not particularly qualified to write this essay. I make no claim as to possessing any special education, knowledge or skill that positions me above any other writer with respect to the matters covered.
A lot of folks who are smarter and more articulate than I am, may well find a number of misstatements and inaccuracies that I've inadvertently included in my composition. Please know, however, that any and all such errors are unintentional and purely the result of my personal enthusiasm.
So little of the kind of material that follows is found here at WDC or elsewhere among similar writing forums, that one of the chief purposes of this essay is in helping to fill the void to which I refer. Without debate, it is acknowledged that this article is neither the first word about the subjects addressed, nor does it portend to represent the last in any way. Indeed, it might be viewed and read as a beginning only.
Be that as it may, the following work should provide a stimulating read for those persons who find the subject of politics not altogether abhorrent. For some, this rather lengthy dissertation may provide new insights which are untypical of the topics discussed, while granting others a rare glimpse into one of the lesser known attributes of the U.S. Constitution.
A lot of folks who are smarter and more articulate than I am, may well find a number of misstatements and inaccuracies that I've inadvertently included in my composition. Please know, however, that any and all such errors are unintentional and purely the result of my personal enthusiasm.
So little of the kind of material that follows is found here at WDC or elsewhere among similar writing forums, that one of the chief purposes of this essay is in helping to fill the void to which I refer. Without debate, it is acknowledged that this article is neither the first word about the subjects addressed, nor does it portend to represent the last in any way. Indeed, it might be viewed and read as a beginning only.
Be that as it may, the following work should provide a stimulating read for those persons who find the subject of politics not altogether abhorrent. For some, this rather lengthy dissertation may provide new insights which are untypical of the topics discussed, while granting others a rare glimpse into one of the lesser known attributes of the U.S. Constitution.
So what is this essay all about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose and ultimate goal of this treatise, if we can call it that, is threefold:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose and ultimate goal of this treatise, if we can call it that, is threefold:
1) First and foremost is the soliciting of responses from average, everyday people (as opposed to politicians themselves), with respect to how they view the current state-of-affairs -- in both the United States and the world at large. This is a chance for those who suffer from political outrage (as opposed to road rage) to vent, rant, and otherwise expound on what they see are the problems, the good news, today's heroes and, of course, the worst of modern-day villains.
2) Second is the proposal for a hypothetical contest of sorts -- an imaginary competition whereby a group of WDC judges for whom politics is their raw meat of choice, might read, review, and score each entry on the basis of a set of simple rules. While the appropriate awards would need to be determined, all submissions would be read, acknowledged, but never judged in terms of being right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate. The judges themselves would make their final decisions based solely on issues of quality and practicality.
3) Third is the rather unique opportunity for writers, philosophers, psychologists, would-be politicians, and wannabe rescuers of a "broken" system, to have their say about things, take a stand -- and a chance -- and submit their work to people who actually care about what they've written. Each response would receive a personal reply from one of the judges. Sort of like the Supreme Court as regards contests.
In addition, all winning entries would be professionally edited and printed, then mailed to an, as yet, indeterminate number of state representatives, senators, and selected delegates. The reason for awarding this final benefit is explained in greater detail further on, and forms the primary basis for the contest idea in general.
2) Second is the proposal for a hypothetical contest of sorts -- an imaginary competition whereby a group of WDC judges for whom politics is their raw meat of choice, might read, review, and score each entry on the basis of a set of simple rules. While the appropriate awards would need to be determined, all submissions would be read, acknowledged, but never judged in terms of being right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate. The judges themselves would make their final decisions based solely on issues of quality and practicality.
3) Third is the rather unique opportunity for writers, philosophers, psychologists, would-be politicians, and wannabe rescuers of a "broken" system, to have their say about things, take a stand -- and a chance -- and submit their work to people who actually care about what they've written. Each response would receive a personal reply from one of the judges. Sort of like the Supreme Court as regards contests.
In addition, all winning entries would be professionally edited and printed, then mailed to an, as yet, indeterminate number of state representatives, senators, and selected delegates. The reason for awarding this final benefit is explained in greater detail further on, and forms the primary basis for the contest idea in general.
Fig. 2.
Oh, Say, Can You, Please?
The World According to Me!
Another Clinton for president? Another Bush? Seriously? Or Donald Trump, scoundrel or savior?
Fathers and sons, husbands and wives. I thought dynasties went out with ancient Egypt and China, but apparently not in contemporary American politics. We might as well build another Great Wall along our southern borders while we're at it.
Among all the heated topics that pervade the modern psyche, none is more incendiary than politics, with religion and taxes placing second and third respectively. Indeed, politics and religion so closely overlap nowadays, are so nearly contiguous, that to suggest they are practically one and the same would not be much of an exaggeration.
Such thinking is especially true within the more conservative community, where morals and ethics derive from Judeo-Christian ideals. By contrast, liberalism relies heavily (though no solely) on secular humanism as the moral guidepost for its values and convictions. This is not to say, however, that politics and religion are inseparable, but only that international affairs have forced the two together -- in some cases perilously closer than ever before. And nowhere is this more true than in the Middle East.
Signs of the times -- times that try men's souls, as American "founding father" Thomas Paine once suggested. If you find that these and a multitude of other issues, whether political or religious in nature -- or current events in general -- have grown increasingly vexing, then the following essay might be of interest to you.
Although many people yawn, or their eyes glaze over at the mere mention of politics (or religion), the importance and relevancy of the topic to our everyday lives has dramatically increased over the past couple of decades. But while the division between global happenings and political events has also shrunk to where virtually no separation exists whatsoever, the gaps between liberalism and conservatism, Democrats and Republicans -- already at a historic high -- appear to be widening by the moment.
One of the more interesting aspects of the Vietnam war and the street protests which eventually played a role in ending our military involvement there, is the fact that a large segment of the American population possessed either no real opinion about the war, or claimed to know too little to take a stand, one way or the other. Thus while scores of thousands of citizens were touched personally by the conflict, millions of others went about their daily lives, with Vietnam being little more than an international news story playing nightly on prime time television. Not until a steady toll of causalities combined with no end in sight, no victory in the offing, did nationwide public opinion finally force a rapid and disorganized end to the war.
I believe history is repeating itself today, whereby large numbers of people are again disengaged and largely disinterested in both politics and world events. Once more, a huge segment of the American public is disinclined to become overly excited about governmental affairs and other matters -- all of which demand an acute awareness both of who the players are, and where truth falls victim to lies. As if the government learned its lesson from Vietnam and high casualty figures, a passive citizenry remains idle and relatively quiet while a multitude of civil wars ravage the rest of the planet. Much of which is again relegated to television news programs.
Confusion, misinformation, misrepresentation, and purposeful distortions are the perfect recipe for ensuring public apathy on a big scale. Piling complexity upon complication, the small but significant number of those who are politically active and aware, similar to the Vietnam era, are once again making their voices heard. And politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are apparently listening.
This time around, however, it's the conservatives, the so-called "Tea Party" people, who are prepared to start marching in the streets, whether figuratively, literally, or both -- and the liberal Democrats, who strive to defend the "establishment" and the status quo of a bloated, centralized government.
"Oh, sure, the country has its share of problems today, but nothing we haven't been through before. Things will all work themselves out in the end." I hear this same attitude expressed, in one form or another, by most people with whom I discuss politics -- or try to. I also hear ancient echoes, voices of Romans in the last days of the empire, most of which no doubt expressed similar, if not identical sentiments.
How many times is a nation granted the ability to reform and recover before the option to do so is no longer possible? Where is the breaking point, when a country already in decline due to the hemorrhagic effects of widespread fraud, corruption, and abuse of its authority, faces the final, death-knell toll of economic collapse?
And yet, in spite of everything, even casual discussion of these matters outside small circles of both fans and fanatics alike, leaves most people cold and quickly bored. The true cause for this indifference is, I believe, not a result of the lackluster nature of the subject matter itself, but rather due to the inherent contentiousness when discussing emotionally charged opinions -- many of which can and do result in personal, accusatory attacks and insults.
Understandably, many folks choose to avoid the potential negative feedback, or direct confrontations that might easily result from expressing their opinions regarding today's controversial, hot-topic issues. Indeed, in modern-day America, participation in religious or moral arguments may often prove more productive than debating the pro's and con's of politics in general, and liberalism versus conservatism specifically.
Certainly one of the reasons for a reluctance to speak out, whether in speech or written commentary, is based upon a lack of confidence in one's own awareness or understanding of the circumstances related to political situations. For instance, who among us is equipped to intelligently debate the ever-evolving events taking place in the Middle East? Within America itself, the country is poised at the brink of a massive showdown among a well entrenched Democrat establishment, an unfocused Republican conglomerate, and a staunch conservative base known as Goldwater, Reagan or Tea Party Republicans.
The stage is set for a vicious conflict that, for now, is reserved to vituperative exchanges alone. But conditions in the country are such that widespread reform and recovery are no longer part of the debate itself, but rather what, and by whom, needed rectifications will be implemented. Especially pertinent are questions as to whether or not more severe measures, such as amendments to the constitution, have become necessary if not unavoidable altogether.
Back in the day, so to speak, many of the intrusions and controls exercised today by the federal government, such as education, our food, or immigration enforcement, were left to the individual states to monitor for themselves. A fledgling EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) did little more than oversee what the states considered were their own (and private) concerns as to what constituted certain hazards both to the public and the environment. Religious issues and Second Amendment gun rights were almost exclusively the realm of the states alone to adjudicate.
But over the past half century or more, a kind of political tide has turned in America, whereby the states have abdicated increasingly more of their constitutionally granted powers, in favor of bolstering a stronger and ever larger, centralized bureaucracy. Among elected officials, in both houses of congress, the once all mighty separation-of-powers clause of the constitution has grown blurred, all while senators and representatives appear less responsive and more insensitive to their constituents -- perhaps more than ever before in the nation's history. In every pole ever taken, voters overwhelmingly reject the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) and yet politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to fund the program and strengthen its control over our lives.
And still, most folks are disinclined to voice their opinions or take a stand. Especially in written form. Well, since WDC is a website for writers, it seems only natural to encourage and support those persons who might feel inclined to state their case. Especially if an interesting forum was provided for doing so. Maybe not, but as things exist presently, the notion is indeed a no-lose proposition. But what, some will legitimately ask, is to be gained from such a gleaning of ideas and opinions? Many of which are thrown gauntlets from the very start.
Fathers and sons, husbands and wives. I thought dynasties went out with ancient Egypt and China, but apparently not in contemporary American politics. We might as well build another Great Wall along our southern borders while we're at it.
Among all the heated topics that pervade the modern psyche, none is more incendiary than politics, with religion and taxes placing second and third respectively. Indeed, politics and religion so closely overlap nowadays, are so nearly contiguous, that to suggest they are practically one and the same would not be much of an exaggeration.
Such thinking is especially true within the more conservative community, where morals and ethics derive from Judeo-Christian ideals. By contrast, liberalism relies heavily (though no solely) on secular humanism as the moral guidepost for its values and convictions. This is not to say, however, that politics and religion are inseparable, but only that international affairs have forced the two together -- in some cases perilously closer than ever before. And nowhere is this more true than in the Middle East.
Signs of the times -- times that try men's souls, as American "founding father" Thomas Paine once suggested. If you find that these and a multitude of other issues, whether political or religious in nature -- or current events in general -- have grown increasingly vexing, then the following essay might be of interest to you.
Although many people yawn, or their eyes glaze over at the mere mention of politics (or religion), the importance and relevancy of the topic to our everyday lives has dramatically increased over the past couple of decades. But while the division between global happenings and political events has also shrunk to where virtually no separation exists whatsoever, the gaps between liberalism and conservatism, Democrats and Republicans -- already at a historic high -- appear to be widening by the moment.
One of the more interesting aspects of the Vietnam war and the street protests which eventually played a role in ending our military involvement there, is the fact that a large segment of the American population possessed either no real opinion about the war, or claimed to know too little to take a stand, one way or the other. Thus while scores of thousands of citizens were touched personally by the conflict, millions of others went about their daily lives, with Vietnam being little more than an international news story playing nightly on prime time television. Not until a steady toll of causalities combined with no end in sight, no victory in the offing, did nationwide public opinion finally force a rapid and disorganized end to the war.
I believe history is repeating itself today, whereby large numbers of people are again disengaged and largely disinterested in both politics and world events. Once more, a huge segment of the American public is disinclined to become overly excited about governmental affairs and other matters -- all of which demand an acute awareness both of who the players are, and where truth falls victim to lies. As if the government learned its lesson from Vietnam and high casualty figures, a passive citizenry remains idle and relatively quiet while a multitude of civil wars ravage the rest of the planet. Much of which is again relegated to television news programs.
Confusion, misinformation, misrepresentation, and purposeful distortions are the perfect recipe for ensuring public apathy on a big scale. Piling complexity upon complication, the small but significant number of those who are politically active and aware, similar to the Vietnam era, are once again making their voices heard. And politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are apparently listening.
This time around, however, it's the conservatives, the so-called "Tea Party" people, who are prepared to start marching in the streets, whether figuratively, literally, or both -- and the liberal Democrats, who strive to defend the "establishment" and the status quo of a bloated, centralized government.
"Oh, sure, the country has its share of problems today, but nothing we haven't been through before. Things will all work themselves out in the end." I hear this same attitude expressed, in one form or another, by most people with whom I discuss politics -- or try to. I also hear ancient echoes, voices of Romans in the last days of the empire, most of which no doubt expressed similar, if not identical sentiments.
How many times is a nation granted the ability to reform and recover before the option to do so is no longer possible? Where is the breaking point, when a country already in decline due to the hemorrhagic effects of widespread fraud, corruption, and abuse of its authority, faces the final, death-knell toll of economic collapse?
And yet, in spite of everything, even casual discussion of these matters outside small circles of both fans and fanatics alike, leaves most people cold and quickly bored. The true cause for this indifference is, I believe, not a result of the lackluster nature of the subject matter itself, but rather due to the inherent contentiousness when discussing emotionally charged opinions -- many of which can and do result in personal, accusatory attacks and insults.
Understandably, many folks choose to avoid the potential negative feedback, or direct confrontations that might easily result from expressing their opinions regarding today's controversial, hot-topic issues. Indeed, in modern-day America, participation in religious or moral arguments may often prove more productive than debating the pro's and con's of politics in general, and liberalism versus conservatism specifically.
Certainly one of the reasons for a reluctance to speak out, whether in speech or written commentary, is based upon a lack of confidence in one's own awareness or understanding of the circumstances related to political situations. For instance, who among us is equipped to intelligently debate the ever-evolving events taking place in the Middle East? Within America itself, the country is poised at the brink of a massive showdown among a well entrenched Democrat establishment, an unfocused Republican conglomerate, and a staunch conservative base known as Goldwater, Reagan or Tea Party Republicans.
The stage is set for a vicious conflict that, for now, is reserved to vituperative exchanges alone. But conditions in the country are such that widespread reform and recovery are no longer part of the debate itself, but rather what, and by whom, needed rectifications will be implemented. Especially pertinent are questions as to whether or not more severe measures, such as amendments to the constitution, have become necessary if not unavoidable altogether.
Back in the day, so to speak, many of the intrusions and controls exercised today by the federal government, such as education, our food, or immigration enforcement, were left to the individual states to monitor for themselves. A fledgling EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) did little more than oversee what the states considered were their own (and private) concerns as to what constituted certain hazards both to the public and the environment. Religious issues and Second Amendment gun rights were almost exclusively the realm of the states alone to adjudicate.
But over the past half century or more, a kind of political tide has turned in America, whereby the states have abdicated increasingly more of their constitutionally granted powers, in favor of bolstering a stronger and ever larger, centralized bureaucracy. Among elected officials, in both houses of congress, the once all mighty separation-of-powers clause of the constitution has grown blurred, all while senators and representatives appear less responsive and more insensitive to their constituents -- perhaps more than ever before in the nation's history. In every pole ever taken, voters overwhelmingly reject the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) and yet politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to fund the program and strengthen its control over our lives.
And still, most folks are disinclined to voice their opinions or take a stand. Especially in written form. Well, since WDC is a website for writers, it seems only natural to encourage and support those persons who might feel inclined to state their case. Especially if an interesting forum was provided for doing so. Maybe not, but as things exist presently, the notion is indeed a no-lose proposition. But what, some will legitimately ask, is to be gained from such a gleaning of ideas and opinions? Many of which are thrown gauntlets from the very start.
A great question that deserves a good answer.
I envision a sort of open invitational, if you will. Complete with guidelines and rules of decorum, people from all walks, as they say, of all religious denominations, whether liberals, conservatives, moderates or none-of-the-above, can join the party (no pun intended). Whether Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or librarian, everyone (willing) is invited to stand up, take a chance, and sound off.
Come one, come all, regardless of race, creed, or national origin. Regardless of citizenship status or what country you call home. No matter your education level or how much or how little is your knowledge of political and world affairs -- all are welcome. All are bid to use words instead of rocks or bottles, protest signs or candlelit vigils, in order to speak your mind. To let the world, and the United States in particular, know what you think of things. And how, if it were within your power to do so, you might change them.
Figuratively speaking, this would be an opportunity to meet in the streets, link hands, and march in favor of -- or in opposition to -- your issue of choice. Whether your concern is abortion, same-sex marriage, or a Palesinian two-state solution in the Middle East, a friendly and courtesy-based vehicle for dissent seems more in order than ever. Such a forum would, in theory, welcome and encourage those who would otherwise keep to themselves, preferring silence over vocal or written commentary.
Well, I, for one, and surely many others, secretly wish to know if our ideas and opinions are shared -- or disputed -- by friends, acquaintances, and strangers alike. Unfortunately such a desire to know what others think -- and let them know our own thoughts -- is asking a lot. Maybe too much. My proposal for the suggested forum may carry with it a curse of hyper-apprehension, if not outright fear and anxiety. If we're Jewish, for example, do we really want to know if someone we considered to be our friend, quietly harbors animus towards Israel? Or as a devout Christian, can we remain friends with a correspondent who, it turns out, is an atheist or suddenly professes a strong advocacy for Gay rights?
Many folks don't necessarily define themselves as liberal or conservative, let alone possess a firm grasp of what such labels even mean. Not until we discover, often much to our chagrin, that other people adhere to morals, values, and ethical beliefs far different from our own, do we then realize why such terms are relevant and important. For the many who would prefer not to know these and similar details about persons we have otherwise considered our friends and valued acquaintances, a mutual interchange of political or religious opinions represents dangerous, shark-infested waters. We sometimes risk a great deal when wading even into the shallows of such discussions.
For some of us, however, we find it difficult not getting our feet wet, at least. Not so long ago, when the world seemed a simpler, less complicated zoo of political and religious revelations, I think we tended towards far more tolerance of others' views. Where persons positioned themselves in the arena of ideas, the things over which they opined seemed somehow more fanciful and less factious than today. Certain core beliefs, such as patriotism and morality, were assumed to be pretty much the same for most folks. And among those who differed, they were typically considered as delightfully eccentric.
In stark contrast, present-day America is a complex amalgam of both cohesive and divisive beliefs. Our feelings, impressions, and attitudes derive from a combined mix of politics, sex, the environment, and concerns over national and international identities. Fast paced, ever changing, volatile, and often tragic in nature, currents events play extremely important roles in our everyday lives -- whether or not we pay attention to them.
To the extent that we stay informed about world events, both local and international, our subsequent view of reality is based on this awareness. It plays out as a kind of figurative litmus test for whether our positions are mainstream, on the fringe, or extreme -- even radical in nature. Depending on how seriously we embrace our own views, the rationality (or lack of same) of another's beliefs in what is true or false, and who the real liars and scoundrels are, is determined accordingly. Likewise our judgment of such people may well define our future relationships with them. Or the decision to dissolve these associations regardless of what other qualities may exist.
Consequently some of us, a lot more than you might think, want to hear what readers of this essay see as the good, the bad, and the ugly of what's happening in both the world and in America. How is your own life impacted? And that of the people you know, and others you don't. Speak now, or forever hold you peace, as they say. While you still can.
If you'll allow me, here now is the rub, in a manner of speaking. There's a lot more to all of this than meets the eye or the keyboard. A time is fast approaching where a court of last resort, as some would call it, could become a viable opportunity for average citizens to have their voices heard outside the limitations of typical elections. If implemented, not only would writers here (at WDC) have a chance for others to read their ideas and concerns, but a number of state senators and lower house members as well. All of whom represent legislative bodies that could, in theory, appoint special delegates to a rather unconventional convention.
A bit of historical background is needed before we can go any further with where my necessarily wordy missive is headed. Granted, it's aim is high-minded, even noble in what it hopes to achieve. As opposed to other topics, one of the vital ingredients that go into making politics interesting is a lengthy narrative that reads as a cross between history lessons and pontificating. A major factor in why so many are put off by the subject, I would argue, is due precisely to a lack of sufficient information, offered in the form of interesting details. What follows, then, is a general discussion of some of those particulars, related as succinctly as possible, but not so much as to make them otherwise worthless.
In the end, no amount of written argument may be long enough -- or short enough -- to convince anyone to author a single word in response to anything I say here. It might well be that no incentive is inviting or rewarding enough to provoke readers into exposing their innermost thoughts and concerns as to what is either wrong -- or right -- about the world, their country, or both. If all of my remarks are an exercise in futility, then so be it. In the film, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, star Jack Nicholson tasks himself with lifting an impossibly heavy bathroom sink and throwing it out a window. After failing the effort, he turns to his bewildered friends and says, "At least I tried."
Come one, come all, regardless of race, creed, or national origin. Regardless of citizenship status or what country you call home. No matter your education level or how much or how little is your knowledge of political and world affairs -- all are welcome. All are bid to use words instead of rocks or bottles, protest signs or candlelit vigils, in order to speak your mind. To let the world, and the United States in particular, know what you think of things. And how, if it were within your power to do so, you might change them.
Figuratively speaking, this would be an opportunity to meet in the streets, link hands, and march in favor of -- or in opposition to -- your issue of choice. Whether your concern is abortion, same-sex marriage, or a Palesinian two-state solution in the Middle East, a friendly and courtesy-based vehicle for dissent seems more in order than ever. Such a forum would, in theory, welcome and encourage those who would otherwise keep to themselves, preferring silence over vocal or written commentary.
Well, I, for one, and surely many others, secretly wish to know if our ideas and opinions are shared -- or disputed -- by friends, acquaintances, and strangers alike. Unfortunately such a desire to know what others think -- and let them know our own thoughts -- is asking a lot. Maybe too much. My proposal for the suggested forum may carry with it a curse of hyper-apprehension, if not outright fear and anxiety. If we're Jewish, for example, do we really want to know if someone we considered to be our friend, quietly harbors animus towards Israel? Or as a devout Christian, can we remain friends with a correspondent who, it turns out, is an atheist or suddenly professes a strong advocacy for Gay rights?
Many folks don't necessarily define themselves as liberal or conservative, let alone possess a firm grasp of what such labels even mean. Not until we discover, often much to our chagrin, that other people adhere to morals, values, and ethical beliefs far different from our own, do we then realize why such terms are relevant and important. For the many who would prefer not to know these and similar details about persons we have otherwise considered our friends and valued acquaintances, a mutual interchange of political or religious opinions represents dangerous, shark-infested waters. We sometimes risk a great deal when wading even into the shallows of such discussions.
For some of us, however, we find it difficult not getting our feet wet, at least. Not so long ago, when the world seemed a simpler, less complicated zoo of political and religious revelations, I think we tended towards far more tolerance of others' views. Where persons positioned themselves in the arena of ideas, the things over which they opined seemed somehow more fanciful and less factious than today. Certain core beliefs, such as patriotism and morality, were assumed to be pretty much the same for most folks. And among those who differed, they were typically considered as delightfully eccentric.
In stark contrast, present-day America is a complex amalgam of both cohesive and divisive beliefs. Our feelings, impressions, and attitudes derive from a combined mix of politics, sex, the environment, and concerns over national and international identities. Fast paced, ever changing, volatile, and often tragic in nature, currents events play extremely important roles in our everyday lives -- whether or not we pay attention to them.
To the extent that we stay informed about world events, both local and international, our subsequent view of reality is based on this awareness. It plays out as a kind of figurative litmus test for whether our positions are mainstream, on the fringe, or extreme -- even radical in nature. Depending on how seriously we embrace our own views, the rationality (or lack of same) of another's beliefs in what is true or false, and who the real liars and scoundrels are, is determined accordingly. Likewise our judgment of such people may well define our future relationships with them. Or the decision to dissolve these associations regardless of what other qualities may exist.
Consequently some of us, a lot more than you might think, want to hear what readers of this essay see as the good, the bad, and the ugly of what's happening in both the world and in America. How is your own life impacted? And that of the people you know, and others you don't. Speak now, or forever hold you peace, as they say. While you still can.
If you'll allow me, here now is the rub, in a manner of speaking. There's a lot more to all of this than meets the eye or the keyboard. A time is fast approaching where a court of last resort, as some would call it, could become a viable opportunity for average citizens to have their voices heard outside the limitations of typical elections. If implemented, not only would writers here (at WDC) have a chance for others to read their ideas and concerns, but a number of state senators and lower house members as well. All of whom represent legislative bodies that could, in theory, appoint special delegates to a rather unconventional convention.
A bit of historical background is needed before we can go any further with where my necessarily wordy missive is headed. Granted, it's aim is high-minded, even noble in what it hopes to achieve. As opposed to other topics, one of the vital ingredients that go into making politics interesting is a lengthy narrative that reads as a cross between history lessons and pontificating. A major factor in why so many are put off by the subject, I would argue, is due precisely to a lack of sufficient information, offered in the form of interesting details. What follows, then, is a general discussion of some of those particulars, related as succinctly as possible, but not so much as to make them otherwise worthless.
In the end, no amount of written argument may be long enough -- or short enough -- to convince anyone to author a single word in response to anything I say here. It might well be that no incentive is inviting or rewarding enough to provoke readers into exposing their innermost thoughts and concerns as to what is either wrong -- or right -- about the world, their country, or both. If all of my remarks are an exercise in futility, then so be it. In the film, One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest, star Jack Nicholson tasks himself with lifting an impossibly heavy bathroom sink and throwing it out a window. After failing the effort, he turns to his bewildered friends and says, "At least I tried."
A New Beginning?
In his best-selling book, The Liberty Amendments, conservative author and syndicated radio host, Mark Levin, was the first to revive a serious reconsideration of the Article Five provision contained in the U.S. Constitution. The new, additional amendments that Levin proposes take aim at not only curtailing congressional and presidential violations of the constitution, but also the adoption of certain modifications, such as term limits, that would further patch unforeseen loopholes left open by the framers.
In their wisdom, these original founders of the constitution anticipated a time when the central government might deviate too far from the limitations placed upon it by the very document they had crafted. Based upon their earlier experiences with tyrannical kings and potentates -- the very reason for their having sought refuge among the New England colonies -- the "fathers" wanted to ensure that they hadn't escaped one form of despotism, only to have laid the groundwork for yet another.
If and when the problems regarding corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse should become so severe that congress had proven incapable of reforming itself, then an additional remedy via the amendment process could be -- and ought to be -- instituted. This bloodless redress is written into the U.S. Constitution and listed as Article Five. Although never used, past presidents such as Lincoln, Eisenhower, and as recently as Reagan, made reference to the Article which is designed to temporarily circumvent governmental passivity at the federal level.
Whether or not you believe that such dire conditions presently exist, the amendment process offers us a way to bypass the feds and insert revisions which could fix those things most in need of repair -- as determined by a three-fourths majority of the state legislatures. The idea is to swing the government back towards a more faithful adherence to the strict limitations placed upon it by the constitution. Article Five allows the citizens of the individual states -- via the appointment of special delegates -- to, in effect, force the federal government to both follow the constitution and conform to whatever new restrictions or allowances are sanctioned and ratifed by a majority of the states.
The most widely familiar form of the amendment process is known as a constitutional convention -- a so-called "con-con". Instead of the United States Congress proposing its own, self-serving amendments, however, and then sending those out to the states for ratification, it is the states themselves who vote upon their own proposed amendments -- an alternate process referred to as a "convention of the states". Once approved by the necessary majority, the new rectifications become formal amendments to the constitution, the same as any other.
The adopted provisions are then imposed on both the congress and the presidency -- immediately. If you've been following along, it's really pretty cool. Those old, crotchety founders did their best to provide for every contingency. And until very recently, the constitution has served the nation well.
Important to note is the fact that it's not the constitution itself which, through some fault based on its age and antiquity, has somehow failed to keep up with the times. On the contrary, the failure of our elected officials to properly constrain themselves according to a constitution that is virtually unhampered by the passage of time, lies at the heart of the grim circumstances which, some are prepared to argue, currently threaten our very survival as a country.
Perhaps more importantly, the chief reason behind any and all proposed amendments, would be for the purpose of countering perverse levels of corruption and iniquity that the framers could have hardly imagined.
What about slavery? And the fact that some of these "fathers" were owners of slaves themselves. Such questions underscore the need for historical clarity. And the providing of answers for those unable to grasp the obvious notion otherwise, that the wheels of history and change grind slow but sure. Opponents of orginalism (and original intent) who consider the constitution as dated or obsolete, often use the slavery issue as the focal point of their criticisms.
Persons who know their American history will also know the reason why slavery was left unresolved with the completion and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Despite the obvious contradiction between the Declaration of Independence which declared all men as being created equal, and a constitution which left the widespread practice of slavery firmly in place, the creation and solidarity of the union itself lay at stake. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and other framers understood that no agreement was possible, no constitution would ever be ratified, nor a united country ever formed, if the slave states were forced to abandon their heavily economic -- albeit equally immoral -- enterprise of buying, selling, and owning other human beings.
Not until many years later, at the end of a terrible and bloody civil war, would the issue of slavery be settled once and for all. And at great cost both in terms of human life and treasure. As of this writing, estimates of the actual death toll have recently been revised upwards to a not-so-grand total of over 750,000 men, women, and children. Add to this number the tremendous losses suffered from two world wars and numerous other conflicts, and one quickly realizes how liberty and freedom come at a great, immeasurable price indeed.
To some degree, our collective memories, even of those who live in other countries, seem to have forgotten the toll required in order for democracies to survive in a hostile world. Our sense of appreciation for those who sacrificed everything on our behalf -- on the world's behalf -- has seemed to lessen over the years. Not on the part of everyone, of course, but enough so as to become worrisome. It is the reason, perhaps, why so many countries falter today, now that great evils once more threaten the peaceful peoples of the earth. Why nations hestitate the same as when Nazi Germany made its first grabs for global conquest, and seem unable or unwilling to take decisive actions that might stem the new tides of war presently cresting almost every horizon.
To paraphrase the aforementioned author and commentator, Mark Levin, ". . . the stench of the 1930's again hangs in the air." For younger readers, this remark points to the militarism and imperial, nationalistic fervor of such countries as Italy, Japan, and Germany, that, like an uncontrollable disease, infected Europe during the 1930's.
Today, Thomas Paine would surely view these as the most perilous of times, the greatest danger of which is the seeming placidity in fighting terrorism. Many people still think in terms of uniforms, front lines, rear lines, drawn lines, and the honorable rules of warfare as delineated by the Geneva Convention. Terrorism is the new Nazism, Italian and Japanese fascism, and Soviet Bolshevism, all wrapped into one. And its banner this time around is radical, Muslim extremism.
Terrorism presents its own form of nuclear warfare, but one which is more accurately described as purely nuclear in nature, meaning "at the core" of where the most number of lives might be lost, the greatest degree of damage incurred. It is critically important, therefore, that actual nuclear weapons be kept out of the hands of fanatics who would use such weapons not for the purpose of world conquest, but as a new and improved form of genocide -- a purification of the human race whereby the most intolerant of theocracies reigns supreme and unquestioned.
In their wisdom, these original founders of the constitution anticipated a time when the central government might deviate too far from the limitations placed upon it by the very document they had crafted. Based upon their earlier experiences with tyrannical kings and potentates -- the very reason for their having sought refuge among the New England colonies -- the "fathers" wanted to ensure that they hadn't escaped one form of despotism, only to have laid the groundwork for yet another.
If and when the problems regarding corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse should become so severe that congress had proven incapable of reforming itself, then an additional remedy via the amendment process could be -- and ought to be -- instituted. This bloodless redress is written into the U.S. Constitution and listed as Article Five. Although never used, past presidents such as Lincoln, Eisenhower, and as recently as Reagan, made reference to the Article which is designed to temporarily circumvent governmental passivity at the federal level.
Whether or not you believe that such dire conditions presently exist, the amendment process offers us a way to bypass the feds and insert revisions which could fix those things most in need of repair -- as determined by a three-fourths majority of the state legislatures. The idea is to swing the government back towards a more faithful adherence to the strict limitations placed upon it by the constitution. Article Five allows the citizens of the individual states -- via the appointment of special delegates -- to, in effect, force the federal government to both follow the constitution and conform to whatever new restrictions or allowances are sanctioned and ratifed by a majority of the states.
The most widely familiar form of the amendment process is known as a constitutional convention -- a so-called "con-con". Instead of the United States Congress proposing its own, self-serving amendments, however, and then sending those out to the states for ratification, it is the states themselves who vote upon their own proposed amendments -- an alternate process referred to as a "convention of the states". Once approved by the necessary majority, the new rectifications become formal amendments to the constitution, the same as any other.
The adopted provisions are then imposed on both the congress and the presidency -- immediately. If you've been following along, it's really pretty cool. Those old, crotchety founders did their best to provide for every contingency. And until very recently, the constitution has served the nation well.
Important to note is the fact that it's not the constitution itself which, through some fault based on its age and antiquity, has somehow failed to keep up with the times. On the contrary, the failure of our elected officials to properly constrain themselves according to a constitution that is virtually unhampered by the passage of time, lies at the heart of the grim circumstances which, some are prepared to argue, currently threaten our very survival as a country.
Perhaps more importantly, the chief reason behind any and all proposed amendments, would be for the purpose of countering perverse levels of corruption and iniquity that the framers could have hardly imagined.
What about slavery? And the fact that some of these "fathers" were owners of slaves themselves. Such questions underscore the need for historical clarity. And the providing of answers for those unable to grasp the obvious notion otherwise, that the wheels of history and change grind slow but sure. Opponents of orginalism (and original intent) who consider the constitution as dated or obsolete, often use the slavery issue as the focal point of their criticisms.
Persons who know their American history will also know the reason why slavery was left unresolved with the completion and ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Despite the obvious contradiction between the Declaration of Independence which declared all men as being created equal, and a constitution which left the widespread practice of slavery firmly in place, the creation and solidarity of the union itself lay at stake. Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and other framers understood that no agreement was possible, no constitution would ever be ratified, nor a united country ever formed, if the slave states were forced to abandon their heavily economic -- albeit equally immoral -- enterprise of buying, selling, and owning other human beings.
Not until many years later, at the end of a terrible and bloody civil war, would the issue of slavery be settled once and for all. And at great cost both in terms of human life and treasure. As of this writing, estimates of the actual death toll have recently been revised upwards to a not-so-grand total of over 750,000 men, women, and children. Add to this number the tremendous losses suffered from two world wars and numerous other conflicts, and one quickly realizes how liberty and freedom come at a great, immeasurable price indeed.
To some degree, our collective memories, even of those who live in other countries, seem to have forgotten the toll required in order for democracies to survive in a hostile world. Our sense of appreciation for those who sacrificed everything on our behalf -- on the world's behalf -- has seemed to lessen over the years. Not on the part of everyone, of course, but enough so as to become worrisome. It is the reason, perhaps, why so many countries falter today, now that great evils once more threaten the peaceful peoples of the earth. Why nations hestitate the same as when Nazi Germany made its first grabs for global conquest, and seem unable or unwilling to take decisive actions that might stem the new tides of war presently cresting almost every horizon.
To paraphrase the aforementioned author and commentator, Mark Levin, ". . . the stench of the 1930's again hangs in the air." For younger readers, this remark points to the militarism and imperial, nationalistic fervor of such countries as Italy, Japan, and Germany, that, like an uncontrollable disease, infected Europe during the 1930's.
Today, Thomas Paine would surely view these as the most perilous of times, the greatest danger of which is the seeming placidity in fighting terrorism. Many people still think in terms of uniforms, front lines, rear lines, drawn lines, and the honorable rules of warfare as delineated by the Geneva Convention. Terrorism is the new Nazism, Italian and Japanese fascism, and Soviet Bolshevism, all wrapped into one. And its banner this time around is radical, Muslim extremism.
Terrorism presents its own form of nuclear warfare, but one which is more accurately described as purely nuclear in nature, meaning "at the core" of where the most number of lives might be lost, the greatest degree of damage incurred. It is critically important, therefore, that actual nuclear weapons be kept out of the hands of fanatics who would use such weapons not for the purpose of world conquest, but as a new and improved form of genocide -- a purification of the human race whereby the most intolerant of theocracies reigns supreme and unquestioned.
An Old Fashioned Essay Contest
If you've tolerated the pain of reading everything thus far, then it's time you should know that all of this has been for the primary purpose of preparing others, who are willing, to push back in any way they see fit. I've even designed an interesting forum for finally setting aside my own views and encouraging others to have their say.
Constructed in the form of an old fashioned essay contest, the few rules and guidelines are delineated below. I and the other judges of this hypothetical competition could look forward to a spirited participation, although our general expectations would run fairly low. And for all the reasons explained in the foregoing lead-up material.
The contest itself might be located elsewhere on its own pages and, for those interested, an appropriate link could be found here. Likewise the much abbreviated contest pages possess their own links back to this portfolio item, where both entrants and curiosity seekers can delve deeper into the rationale that forms the basis of the entire project.
Here, then, in a slightly longer, more unadulterated essay layout, is the actual competition in question. The contest as it might appear elsewhere, is a more succinct and self-explanatory presentation about how to enter, what you can win -- and what you can't. This particular essay was always envisioned as a separate adjunct, a kind of supplement for those who wanted a more forensic analysis of the ideas and beliefs which underlay the concept as a whole. If you've read down this far, now you know all there is, and your further participation is humbly requested. My anticipation for responses is set so low, however, that I would actually consider rewarding others for not replying.
In other words, respondents and contributors to this essay and its imaginary contest, wouldn't do so in order to win something -- much beyond recognition of their effort, I should think. So why not use the prize money (in the form of GPs) as a way of recognizing that most people wish to keep their political opinions to themselves. Fair enough.
By the way, the Article Five content described below is serious business. It actually exists and may one day come into play as a tool in which people have a more direct say in how their federal government operates. In most similar monologues penned by other writers, the author makes their case and says their piece with little or no hope of ever being heard. Thus it's often an understandable case of, why bother?
Article Five of the U.S. Constitution provides the one exception where an essayist can realistically anticipate the possibility, albeit remote, that a politician might read their words and perhaps -- just maybe -- act upon them.
Under almost all other circumstances and conditions, this kind of essay contest would represent nothing more than a few folks (if that many) rattling on about this and that, all while none of it would -- or could -- have any impact whatsoever on the real world. Thus I preferred not to envision just another contest, whether fiction or nonfiction, that runs its course and is then forgotten the day after the winners are announced.
At the (somewhat undisclosed) core of such an essay contest is my desire to bring to the fore, an increased public awareness of the Article Five provisions established by the U.S. Constitution. In its own way, this is far more important than who the winners are and what their essays talk about. For this reason alone, the competition aspires to garner as much attention as possible.
In a very real sense, the competition I have in mind is, for me, an additional expression of my own wish to do something meaningful and patriotic. Raising the public consciousness about Article Five, and doing so without sounding like a left or right-wing extremist kook, struck me as an admirable goal. If I could successfully (and skillfully) walk the fine line between suggesting that the U.S. Constitution could be improved -- and that maybe it should be -- I figured we had the potential makings of a rousing debate ideally suited for an essay contest.
One last example might prove helpful for those who would seek to touch upon things such as the Second Amendment, which is that whole right-to-bear-arms dispute. If one so chose, for instance, one could certainly argue that the amendment protects an individual right, and not solely a collective one.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, the wording stated, "A well-fed militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches shall not be infringed." Would anyone believe that we have only a collective right to eat such sandwiches? The answer for most people is obvious. But since the verbiage is an old construction -- and guns are scary -- the amendment could use some definitive clarification.
Such an elucidation is not likely forthcoming anytime soon from the federal government. Or if so, it will probably reflect a political bias or agenda that may or may not be to your liking. Therefore it becomes apparent that only via an Article Five convention of the states themselves, might a slightly revised version of the Second Amendment be adopted. And one that no longer leaves any doubt as to its absolute meaning, and concretely accepted interpretation.
That said, here for your bemusement, chuckles, or consternation is a possible new slant on a traditional essay competition:
Constructed in the form of an old fashioned essay contest, the few rules and guidelines are delineated below. I and the other judges of this hypothetical competition could look forward to a spirited participation, although our general expectations would run fairly low. And for all the reasons explained in the foregoing lead-up material.
The contest itself might be located elsewhere on its own pages and, for those interested, an appropriate link could be found here. Likewise the much abbreviated contest pages possess their own links back to this portfolio item, where both entrants and curiosity seekers can delve deeper into the rationale that forms the basis of the entire project.
Here, then, in a slightly longer, more unadulterated essay layout, is the actual competition in question. The contest as it might appear elsewhere, is a more succinct and self-explanatory presentation about how to enter, what you can win -- and what you can't. This particular essay was always envisioned as a separate adjunct, a kind of supplement for those who wanted a more forensic analysis of the ideas and beliefs which underlay the concept as a whole. If you've read down this far, now you know all there is, and your further participation is humbly requested. My anticipation for responses is set so low, however, that I would actually consider rewarding others for not replying.
In other words, respondents and contributors to this essay and its imaginary contest, wouldn't do so in order to win something -- much beyond recognition of their effort, I should think. So why not use the prize money (in the form of GPs) as a way of recognizing that most people wish to keep their political opinions to themselves. Fair enough.
By the way, the Article Five content described below is serious business. It actually exists and may one day come into play as a tool in which people have a more direct say in how their federal government operates. In most similar monologues penned by other writers, the author makes their case and says their piece with little or no hope of ever being heard. Thus it's often an understandable case of, why bother?
Article Five of the U.S. Constitution provides the one exception where an essayist can realistically anticipate the possibility, albeit remote, that a politician might read their words and perhaps -- just maybe -- act upon them.
Under almost all other circumstances and conditions, this kind of essay contest would represent nothing more than a few folks (if that many) rattling on about this and that, all while none of it would -- or could -- have any impact whatsoever on the real world. Thus I preferred not to envision just another contest, whether fiction or nonfiction, that runs its course and is then forgotten the day after the winners are announced.
At the (somewhat undisclosed) core of such an essay contest is my desire to bring to the fore, an increased public awareness of the Article Five provisions established by the U.S. Constitution. In its own way, this is far more important than who the winners are and what their essays talk about. For this reason alone, the competition aspires to garner as much attention as possible.
In a very real sense, the competition I have in mind is, for me, an additional expression of my own wish to do something meaningful and patriotic. Raising the public consciousness about Article Five, and doing so without sounding like a left or right-wing extremist kook, struck me as an admirable goal. If I could successfully (and skillfully) walk the fine line between suggesting that the U.S. Constitution could be improved -- and that maybe it should be -- I figured we had the potential makings of a rousing debate ideally suited for an essay contest.
One last example might prove helpful for those who would seek to touch upon things such as the Second Amendment, which is that whole right-to-bear-arms dispute. If one so chose, for instance, one could certainly argue that the amendment protects an individual right, and not solely a collective one.
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, the wording stated, "A well-fed militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and eat peanut butter and jelly sandwiches shall not be infringed." Would anyone believe that we have only a collective right to eat such sandwiches? The answer for most people is obvious. But since the verbiage is an old construction -- and guns are scary -- the amendment could use some definitive clarification.
Such an elucidation is not likely forthcoming anytime soon from the federal government. Or if so, it will probably reflect a political bias or agenda that may or may not be to your liking. Therefore it becomes apparent that only via an Article Five convention of the states themselves, might a slightly revised version of the Second Amendment be adopted. And one that no longer leaves any doubt as to its absolute meaning, and concretely accepted interpretation.
That said, here for your bemusement, chuckles, or consternation is a possible new slant on a traditional essay competition:
Fig. 3.
Oh, Say, Can You, Please?
The World According to You!
A Purely Hypothetical Invention looking for Seriously Pissed-Off Participants
Calling all patriots, anarchists, nihilists, wannabe do-gooders, and other trouble makers--lend us your thoughts!
This is your chance to spout off about some of the things you love about America, or some of the stuff you don't. And if the U.S. isn't where you call home, then we want to know your impressions of America -- the good, the bad, and the ugly.
An old fashioned essay contest about the state of the United States. And of the World. According to how you see them.
Theme: Philosophy, Politics, Opinion, Social Commentary.
When: Before it's too late.
1st Place, 2nd Place, and 3rd Place all win the same award: Your essay professionally edited and printed, suitable for framing.
And entry fee, as yet to be determined, would be charged to all entrants.
First, second, and third place finalists are afforded the option, should they so wish, to have their essay mailed to the state legislatures of all states currently supporting an Article Five convention of the states. In the case of where actual delegates have already been chosen, every effort will be made to send copies of the winning essays to these delegates.
For those poor, masochistic few who are seduced into having their say, their reward is in being read, listened to, and possibly recognized for their effort. For folks who have something on their mind, to get off their chest, plus a desire to share it with others, a good reader (and listener) is usually reward enough. And in this particular instance, no other options beyond those mentioned, would be offered.
Regardless of your political persuasion, whether liberal, conservative, moderate, or none of the above; no matter your religious faith -- or lack of same -- all viewpoints are welcome, and none will necessarily influence or determine the final outcome of the judges' decisions.
Minimum age to enter: 13+
No poetry -- essays and monologues only.
Maximum length: 1000 words.
Entries can be fiction or nonfiction, but should be based on real people and places, plus a rudimentary understanding of American government. Anything about contemporary, present-day issues, both domestically and globally, is acceptable. No special knowledge or academic training is required, nor will the same necessarily increase an entrant's chance of placing among the top winners.
All submissions would be judged on the following criteria, in the exact order as shown, with the most important qualities listed first:
1) Originality.
Say something we haven't already heard a hundred times over. Be creative, innovative.
Don't hold back. Detailed analyses of one or more problems, with or without offering
solutions, will increase your chance of winning. But this isn't just about what's
wrong with anybody or anything. There's a lot of good news around, and an essay that
tells us what's right with the world, stands an equal chance of success.
2) Relevancy.
This is not a contest that looks favorably on science fiction, fantasy, or fiction
generally. Humor, however, always has a place. There's enough events, both good and
bad, in America and globally, where no one needs to resort to whimsy or purely imaginary
scenarios which are irrelevant in today's world.
3) Accuracy.
Geography, current events, history, real people and real places. Dates and times. Some or
all of these may or may not be important in your essay. If they are, make sure you get
them right. Fact checking, thanks to Google and the rest, is all too easy nowadays.
4) Punctuation and Spelling.
No contest would be worth its own relevancy without a demand for good grammar and
spelling. No one is looking for perfection, however, and common typo's happen to the
best of us. Even the judges. And while a few won't automatically disqualify your
entry, more than a few, meaning three or more, will probably put the judges in a bad mood.
It's also understood that regarding those for whom English is not their first
language, this last criteria may seem unfair. Accordingly, since fairness plays a big role
in this contest, no one's submission will be immediately discarded based solely on bad
grammar or spelling. The essay of any finalist for whom English is not their primary
language, will be judged mainly on content, and only secondarily on grammar and spelling.
This is your chance to spout off about some of the things you love about America, or some of the stuff you don't. And if the U.S. isn't where you call home, then we want to know your impressions of America -- the good, the bad, and the ugly.
An old fashioned essay contest about the state of the United States. And of the World. According to how you see them.
Theme: Philosophy, Politics, Opinion, Social Commentary.
When: Before it's too late.
1st Place, 2nd Place, and 3rd Place all win the same award: Your essay professionally edited and printed, suitable for framing.
And entry fee, as yet to be determined, would be charged to all entrants.
First, second, and third place finalists are afforded the option, should they so wish, to have their essay mailed to the state legislatures of all states currently supporting an Article Five convention of the states. In the case of where actual delegates have already been chosen, every effort will be made to send copies of the winning essays to these delegates.
For those poor, masochistic few who are seduced into having their say, their reward is in being read, listened to, and possibly recognized for their effort. For folks who have something on their mind, to get off their chest, plus a desire to share it with others, a good reader (and listener) is usually reward enough. And in this particular instance, no other options beyond those mentioned, would be offered.
Regardless of your political persuasion, whether liberal, conservative, moderate, or none of the above; no matter your religious faith -- or lack of same -- all viewpoints are welcome, and none will necessarily influence or determine the final outcome of the judges' decisions.
Minimum age to enter: 13+
No poetry -- essays and monologues only.
Maximum length: 1000 words.
Entries can be fiction or nonfiction, but should be based on real people and places, plus a rudimentary understanding of American government. Anything about contemporary, present-day issues, both domestically and globally, is acceptable. No special knowledge or academic training is required, nor will the same necessarily increase an entrant's chance of placing among the top winners.
All submissions would be judged on the following criteria, in the exact order as shown, with the most important qualities listed first:
1) Originality.
Say something we haven't already heard a hundred times over. Be creative, innovative.
Don't hold back. Detailed analyses of one or more problems, with or without offering
solutions, will increase your chance of winning. But this isn't just about what's
wrong with anybody or anything. There's a lot of good news around, and an essay that
tells us what's right with the world, stands an equal chance of success.
2) Relevancy.
This is not a contest that looks favorably on science fiction, fantasy, or fiction
generally. Humor, however, always has a place. There's enough events, both good and
bad, in America and globally, where no one needs to resort to whimsy or purely imaginary
scenarios which are irrelevant in today's world.
3) Accuracy.
Geography, current events, history, real people and real places. Dates and times. Some or
all of these may or may not be important in your essay. If they are, make sure you get
them right. Fact checking, thanks to Google and the rest, is all too easy nowadays.
4) Punctuation and Spelling.
No contest would be worth its own relevancy without a demand for good grammar and
spelling. No one is looking for perfection, however, and common typo's happen to the
best of us. Even the judges. And while a few won't automatically disqualify your
entry, more than a few, meaning three or more, will probably put the judges in a bad mood.
It's also understood that regarding those for whom English is not their first
language, this last criteria may seem unfair. Accordingly, since fairness plays a big role
in this contest, no one's submission will be immediately discarded based solely on bad
grammar or spelling. The essay of any finalist for whom English is not their primary
language, will be judged mainly on content, and only secondarily on grammar and spelling.
Pre-Ramble
This contest is partially a game of pretend. The pretend part has to do with the idea that you have been granted the ear, so to speak, of both the American people and the world as a whole. It's as if you are a featured speaker on a nationalized television broadcast, and given the opportunity to put forth your personal ideas of how you would change things or improve them, and otherwise make America and the world a better place for all citizens and all peoples. Winning submissions will, however, maintain their principal focus on the United States.
As stated, all winners will have the opportunity to have their essays edited for grammar and mailed to specially selected delegates who, at this very moment, gather throughout the country and prepare for deliberations that could alter the course of American history.
But who are these delegates? And why would they be interested in reading anything written about how to improve the country? Or the world. The answer lies within the context of a basic procedure referred to as a convention of the states, and written into the U.S. Constitution as one of the two means by which it could be amended. This process is designed to serve as the basis upon which all essays are written.
The contest is based upon the premise that a critical disconnect now exists between the citizenry of the United States and the elected officials who represent them in both houses of congress. Further, that this condition has led to a loss of certain freedoms and liberties that can only be regained via the amendment process.
Such amendments are implemented for the purpose of rectifying injustices and other wrongdoings which have resulted in an inability of the federal government to correct its cumulative deficiencies. Amendments do not necessarily ameliorate preexisting problems, however, and may also be for the purpose of adding new improvements which enhance a government's ability to rule fairly and competently.
As stated, all winners will have the opportunity to have their essays edited for grammar and mailed to specially selected delegates who, at this very moment, gather throughout the country and prepare for deliberations that could alter the course of American history.
But who are these delegates? And why would they be interested in reading anything written about how to improve the country? Or the world. The answer lies within the context of a basic procedure referred to as a convention of the states, and written into the U.S. Constitution as one of the two means by which it could be amended. This process is designed to serve as the basis upon which all essays are written.
The contest is based upon the premise that a critical disconnect now exists between the citizenry of the United States and the elected officials who represent them in both houses of congress. Further, that this condition has led to a loss of certain freedoms and liberties that can only be regained via the amendment process.
Such amendments are implemented for the purpose of rectifying injustices and other wrongdoings which have resulted in an inability of the federal government to correct its cumulative deficiencies. Amendments do not necessarily ameliorate preexisting problems, however, and may also be for the purpose of adding new improvements which enhance a government's ability to rule fairly and competently.
Article Five
Labeled as Article Five of the constitution, the brief text of which is displayed below, the section allows for a convention of the states whereby special state delegates are chosen to put forth carefully considered amendments which, if and when approved by the required number of votes, become lawful additions to the constitution.
Many people confuse Article Five with the more well known concept of a constitutional convention. A so-called "con-con" wherein the Congress itself chooses which amendments it will send to the states for ratification. Others reject Article Five outright, and worry needlessly that such a convention of the states represents a potential free-for-all, in which anarchists and zealots could forever alter the constitution to suit their own diabolical designs. Still others argue that in the absence of any convention whatsoever, an out-of-control congress already operates outside the limits set by the constitution, and continues to create laws that are themselves unconstitutional.
Your job, as they used to say on the old Mission Impossible TV show, should you choose to accept it, is to decide what changes, if any, are needed to resolve the problems facing us as a nation. And as a world community. Then to propose your ideas as realistic amendments that, once adopted, could make things better for everyone. Or for the greatest number of beneficiaries.
Some extra, helpful hints to keep in mind:
America's founding fathers foresaw a time when the central government might deviate too far from the limitations placed upon it by the U.S. Constitution. If and when the problems regarding corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse should become so severe that congress had proven incapable of reforming itself, then an additional remedy of the amendment process could be implemented. Intended as a last resort that might avoid the bloodshed of revolt or revolution, this redress is written into the constitution and listed as Article Five.
Whether or not you believe that such dire conditions presently exist, the amendment process can still offer us a way to circumvent the government and employ consensually agreed-upon fixes. The idea is to bring the government back in line with the strict limitations placed upon it by the constitution. Article Five allows the citizens of the individual states to legally -- and peacefully -- force the government to comply with whatever new restrictions or allowances are sanctioned by a majority of the states.
Many people confuse Article Five with the more well known concept of a constitutional convention. A so-called "con-con" wherein the Congress itself chooses which amendments it will send to the states for ratification. Others reject Article Five outright, and worry needlessly that such a convention of the states represents a potential free-for-all, in which anarchists and zealots could forever alter the constitution to suit their own diabolical designs. Still others argue that in the absence of any convention whatsoever, an out-of-control congress already operates outside the limits set by the constitution, and continues to create laws that are themselves unconstitutional.
Your job, as they used to say on the old Mission Impossible TV show, should you choose to accept it, is to decide what changes, if any, are needed to resolve the problems facing us as a nation. And as a world community. Then to propose your ideas as realistic amendments that, once adopted, could make things better for everyone. Or for the greatest number of beneficiaries.
Some extra, helpful hints to keep in mind:
America's founding fathers foresaw a time when the central government might deviate too far from the limitations placed upon it by the U.S. Constitution. If and when the problems regarding corruption, fraud, waste, and abuse should become so severe that congress had proven incapable of reforming itself, then an additional remedy of the amendment process could be implemented. Intended as a last resort that might avoid the bloodshed of revolt or revolution, this redress is written into the constitution and listed as Article Five.
Whether or not you believe that such dire conditions presently exist, the amendment process can still offer us a way to circumvent the government and employ consensually agreed-upon fixes. The idea is to bring the government back in line with the strict limitations placed upon it by the constitution. Article Five allows the citizens of the individual states to legally -- and peacefully -- force the government to comply with whatever new restrictions or allowances are sanctioned by a majority of the states.
Article Five of the U.S. Constitution
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress . . . .
There's a few more lines to do with 1800's law, some lawyer-jargon and so forth, but for all intents and purposes, this is the complete version of Article Five.
Good luck to everyone who feels up for the challenge (and is pissed off enough) to enter my contest.
Good luck to everyone who feels up for the challenge (and is pissed off enough) to enter my contest.
You're currently on page NOU28
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
