Semi-Absolutism

Hillary Clinton did not just refer to nuclear deterrence as, "What Worked During the Cold War."

I think that it is abundantly clear at this point-- and this is one of the few absolute-like statements I will make-- a State must be secular. Among sovereign states, the idea of state religion must be discarded, and a policy against respecting individual establishments of religion must be adopted-- the reason being that a secular state is the only state which can and must allow all religions to practice, freely and safely. The only religious freedom barred by the secular state is the freedom to oppress, or to murder. For religion must be held to the standards of humanity, and must not be permitted-- as a people-- to deny the rights of all humans to those they deem unworthy of them.

The exceptions being the city-state, such as Vatican City. Jerusalem must not be incorporated into external state; it must be given sovereign status like Vatican City, and ruled by a Jewish/Muslim/Christian triumvirate of a quasi-secular nature.

But I do think that the middle east will never truly experience peace until the rights of muslim arabs and jews both are respected, as all citizens living on the same damn land.

The Lorax Facepalmed

Part of...well, any political whatever ought to, at least, involve a goal, and, you know, doing things that get you closer to that goal.

Which is why the whole bit about allowances for pollutions for companies and things pisses me off so egregiously. If the goal is to reduce emissions, how exactly does telling companies the goal-- without telling them how to go about it, but that they can trade pollution allowances with cleaner companies-- accomplish this? We're talking real reality, not a Sim City type, where the friendly AI could pop up a message, "sorry, you can't make any more Thneeds, you have reached your Emissions Limit for this quarter :)"

One must always keep in mind the oft forgotten fact that government does not exist to ensure that companies continually turn a profit. And while forced shut-downs of non-essential businesses who fail to live up to responsibility standards may be extreme, it is a more serious solution to the stated problem than what is on the table thusfar.

This all, of course, assumes that the stated goal is desirable. But if it is, let's bloody well take it seriously, by cracky.

Assuming positions.

I realise I have quite a bit to lay out in the way of both my philosophy in terms of how to actually come to conclusions, given the positions and attitudes of those around. And I have some good illustrative anecdotes as regards that, that I will go over later, as I have a ginormous headache right now.

But I did wish to make the point that being a moderate does not mean rejecting extreme policies-- in some ways, the moderate stance involves the most extreme measures. It means doing things in such a way that, while both sides may bitch and moan because it is not /exactly/ what they wanted (and it doesn't undercut the other guy totally), actually gives them as much of what they really want/need as possible.

Anyway. See Joseph Andrew's Speech on why he switched from Clinton to Obama. You can argue all you want about this particular guy and whether he is honest, whether he's right about Obama, whatever. It doesn't matter. What he is saying in this speech, and his reasons for doing what he is doing now, are Right.

IMHO.