The Press is Plutocratic

In Federalist #39 James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, defines a Republic as a type of government where officers are either elected or appointed by people who are.1


Governance in a representative democracy 2 is a particular type of feedback loop.3

There are elections,
the elected make decisions,
they act,
the people learn about the actions
and the results of those actions,
and then there are elections again.


For the Government of the United States, the Presidents and Congresspeople are elected, the Judges are appointed by those who are elected, and the press are paid for. 4

Shorter:
A republic means elected or appointed officers.
The process is a type of feedback loop.
One step in this loop is bought and paid for.

Haiku:
For a republic
elections are feedback
a portion is bought.

footnotes

1. "[W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior." back


2. There are lots of people who say "This is not a democracy, it is a republic." I follow the terminology developed developed by Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesqieu et de la Brede, the political philosopher most widely read by the American Revolutionaries. He said there were three types of governments, Republics, Monarchies and Tyrannies, and that there were two types of Republics, Democratic and Aristocratic. The only modern Democratic Republic is Switzerland, and that only partially. Athens and Rome (the lower "House" between the end of Tarquin to the Second Triumvirate) are the ancient examples. We are definitely an Aristocratic Republic by Montesquieu's definition. We also have one feature resembling a Democratic Republic (identification left as an exercise for the reader).back


3. I got the idea of this type of loop originally from the work of Colonel John Boyd, United States Air Force, which he calls an OODA loop. I am unaware if he applied the theory to anything beyond military strategies. back


4. Hired and fired by wealth maximizing entities which are the media conglomerates.
back

A is for Abortion in America

When it can't be saved,
not even on life support,
no gov'ment decides.

If the baby can not live,
not even on life support,
then, as with end of life care,
the government does not decide.

My solution divides pregnancy into two parts, and pregnant people into two types.

At about day 165, a baby might live if it receives professional, perhaps even expert, hospital care. It might live without significant brain damage. The two halves of pregnancy are before and after this date12. The two types of pregnant people include the regular type, and the type where the pregnancy might either threaten the life of the mother, or have originated in rape or incest34.

Law and tradition clearly indicate an interest in the status of living human beings. Those same two, when concerning themselves with people at the end of their lives, state that if a person can survive without machines they can not be killed. However, after a certain point, we all recognize that keeping a person alive does nothing to help them, or others5, live.

I would prefer that laws only be passed about pregnancies after 165 days, and no Federal law should restrict abortions for the second type of pregnant woman. For pregnancies of less than 165 days, have no Federal restriction, recognize the State's right to exercise their discretion.

footnotes

1. If we wanted to go back in time, we English speakers can call it "the quickening," after its common name before the last century. It referred to the time after the baby first kicks, which might be between 100 and 120 days. The goal appears, to me, to be to try to determine when it was alive. back


2. I expect religious-minded people to fund research to reduce the days from 165.  I know that if laws as I propose were enacted, only new laws could change this number.back


3. If, ten thousand years in the future, in a plot resembling an outlandish science-fiction movie, the world can only be saved if the genes of two close relatives are combined, I'll vote for the combination. It's real basic, though, and nothing that most every human society, separated by 1000s of miles and 1000s of years, didn't figure out for themselves.wiki back


4. Life and rape/incest are really in a different class from each other, however, they are not that far apart. None of the above have ever been generally accepted practice in a culture. Please check the link in footnote 3 to wikipedia, which seemed sufficient when I linked to it this day, 2007-11-25.back


5.    Again, totally sci-fi, I'm wondering how a person could help other people live, but can't help themselves live.  Despite the suggestion of a popular movie, humans are not an efficient way to create heat energy.back