Log in

No account? Create an account
For those of us who care...Watchtower [entries|friends|calendar]
The Watchtower: Youth Speak Out

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

Moving on... [25 Jan 2005|12:26pm]

Unfortunately, this community seems to have died. Here's another community along the same lines that some of y'all might be interested in:

Speak Out

An informed electorate [16 Nov 2004|02:04pm]

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. -Thomas Jefferson
An informed electorate is a necesity for a healthy democracy. Only the informed voter can make an intelligent decision on who is the best candidate for them. Uninformed voters at best act randomly and at worst fall prey to the allures of a demagogue.
Noting this, the media, the candidates, and the government should make every effort to educate the people on the issues. Yet even with our best efforts, some may avoid being informed yet still desire to cast a ballot. Therefore, the government should disenfranchise the uninformed. The uninformed merely muddy the waters and hamper the will of the people. Their vote should not be allowed to dilute mine.
Speak Out

Introduction, then the Price of Liberty [09 Nov 2004|11:08pm]

Hello. I'm a junior at the University of Mississippi and an editorial writer for the Daily Mississippian. I'm a fairly conservative Republican, and I enjoy debating politics. I hope I can spark some thought.
The article I present today originally ran September 9, 2004 in the Daily Mississippian under the title "Liberties come with a Price." It is important to note that this article is not meant to be an endorsement of government policy. Rather, it is merely calling for people to measure the value of each liberty and compare it to the benefits of security measures that infringe on that liberty. Here it is:

Americans greatly value their civil liberties. We take pride in these liberties, and we are quick to anger when we believe our personal liberties have been infringed.
Yet these liberties do not come without cost. In today’s increasingly dangerous world, the cost of liberty can be measured in the blood of innocent American men, women and children.
Americans value their liberties, but no liberty is absolute. Freedom of speech does not allow a man to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater. Nor can people peaceably assemble for protests without first obtaining a permit.
These limitations are in place to ensure the safety of the general populace, and in times of war, these limitations increase.
The greater the danger to the society, the greater the limitations placed upon our liberties, and rightly so. For liberty is of no account to the dead. Safety is necessary for man to be able to practice his liberties.
To obtain this safety, some liberties have to be surrendered to the government. When there is more danger, people must surrender more liberties to the government in order to ensure a comfortable level of safety.
The major issue facing our country today is how much of our liberty should we surrender to the government to ensure our safety in this time of increased danger.
We must consider how much each individual liberty is worth to us, and we must consider how much each liberty costs. And we must not underrate the costs of our liberties. Each liberty increases the chance that a neighbor, a friend, a loved one or even we might die.
And every liberty worth keeping should be worth more to us than that cost. Indeed, the greatest measure of a liberty is whether we would rather die than live without it.
If a man believes he would rather die than live without this liberty, then and only then should he hold that liberty to be unapproachable by the law in any circumstance.
For example, let’s say the government wants the power to look at what a citizen has been checking out of the library without the citizen knowing about the query.
The first thing we should ask ourselves about this proposed law is whether we would rather die than go without this liberty. Would we rather die than allow the government to look at our reading list without our knowledge? If the answer is no, then we must consider how much safer the proposed law makes us.
How much safer would we be if we allowed the government to look at our library check outs without our knowledge? Finally, we must weigh this increased safety with the value of the liberty being infringed. Is monitoring our library check outs worth the infringement on our liberty? Or is preventing the government from knowing about our library check outs worth the extra risk to ourselves, our family and our friends?
Now I must address one objection to my argument. A friend of mine argues that surrendering some of our liberties to make us safer is giving in to the terrorists. This argument is ridiculous.
The Islamic terrorists that we are at war with are not fighting to make you submit to random searches of your luggage as you try to board an airplane. The terrorists are fighting to expel our military forces from the Middle East and end the exportation of our culture to the Islamic world.
The increased security hurts their efforts instead of helping them. It decreases their ability to coordinate and execute their attacks. Any accusation that they are happy about the increase in security is ridiculous.
Our liberties are valuable, but they do not come without cost. And that cost is in blood. So the next time you complain about the government monitoring your book purchases or enforcing no fly lists, consider whether the liberties these new laws are infringing are really worth the cost.
Speak Out

A Reposted Comment On Gay Marriage [07 Nov 2004|11:01am]

Subject: On the Constitutionality of Regulating Marriage
Well, you are probably right that the national government has no power to regulate marriage in the several states; however, it does have the power to regulate the implementation of Full Faith and Credit under Article IV.
But this is beside the point. This issue at hand is state laws and state constitutions. The constitution does not have to grant an express power to the state for the state to have that power. The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Further, the Supreme Court has recognized in both Maynard v. Hill (1888) and Loving v. Virginia (1967) that the regulation of marriage is well within the police power of the state. So the ruling precedent is that state regulation of marriage is constitutional.

I reposted this because this is a good point. Under the reserve powers, marriage does technically fall under the jurisdiction of the States. But they we have to ask ourselves then if it is okay for the majority in the States to force their morals and beliefs on the minority. It wasn't okay after the civil rights movement. So how exactly is this any different? Homosexuals can't choose to be homosexual any more than I can choose to be white. Again, how is this any different than in the nineteen fifties?
5 | Speak Out

Electronic voting fraud [07 Nov 2004|12:29am]

Evidence Mounts That The Vote Was Hacked
by Thom Hartmann, Common Dreams

When I spoke with Jeff Fisher this morning (Saturday, November 06, 2004), the Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida's 16th District said he was waiting for the FBI to show up. Fisher has evidence, he says, not only that the Florida election was hacked, but of who hacked it and how. And not just this year, he said, but that these same people had previously hacked the Democratic primary race in 2002 so that Jeb Bush would not have to run against Janet Reno, who presented a real threat to Jeb, but instead against Bill McBride, who Jeb beat.

"It was practice for a national effort," Fisher told me. Read more...Collapse )

Here's where the article's from:

Bev Harris' www.blackboxvoting.org is launching the largest FOIA for access to logs on the e-voting machines. It's been interesting to catch up on all this investigative work that's not reported in the mainstream media.
9 | Speak Out

Introducing... [06 Nov 2004|10:14pm]

[ mood | calm ]

Okay, kids, here to balance out the liberals at the request of Sam The Modly One....

I'm Kara, I'm a moderate Republican living in Massachusetts/Rhode Island (Ah, college). I often go by Lyria online and will answer to either. I'm all of 19 years old. As such, I'm very used to living with Democrats. Um, I'm a practicing Episcopalian living in exile amongst the Catholics (JOKING, JOKING, most of them are perfectly nice). I guess there's not tons politically - I'm sure it'll come out as we discuss... (muahaha)...

I like coffee a lot, by the way. Beware of randomness.

Cheers all,

Speak Out

[06 Nov 2004|07:32pm]

[ mood | cheerful ]

Hello Everyone!

My name is Sam Wildman and I am sixteen years old living in the angry red state of Missouri. I decided to start some kind of 'zine' community in response to the past election in protest of Bush's reelection. However, I realized that one of the most important things that happened this past election was not Bush's reelection but the upsurge of young voters. We can't let that trend die out. We need to educate and we need to prepare the youth now so that they can make their own (and better) decisions in the next election.

We will always have open membership. There will also be free posting, however, this community is intended to be a 'zine'. So, I'm looking for a few good men and women who would be dedicated to keeping this 'zine' going. Once membership grows I would like to keep posting privelages within the proven writers. But now, that will not be an issue and I'd like to welcome everyone to post educated posts with great frequency.

Remember, this is a bipartisan 'zine'. I want people from every party to be able to come here, present their issues and ideas in an organized matter and have them open to educated debate.

So, to maintain order, there are a few rules. Seeing as there are currently three members and two of us made this community together, they are few and will be loosely enforced unless there comes a need for stricter enforcement.


1.) Only educated posts will be permitted. They do not have to be lengthy, in fact, they don't have to be more than one line if the point is presented well enough. However, this is not a place to post comments such as "Bush sucks balls" or "Screw Nader" or "Hillary is hawt." The idea is to allow for free posting until a time comes when we have enough accomplished writers to keep the community going on their own or until too many of the above type comments are posted.

2.) People who post here must be prepared for the fall out. This is a politcal 'zine' with a forum like set up so that there can be debate about the posts. Please reply to every comment even if it is to tell the person to look at the answer to another entry if their question has been answered previously.

3.) Keep the debate within the community. Do not attack anyone on their private LiveJournals. Talk outside of LiveJournal if you want but please, no one wants to be attacked within their own borders.


Your Mod,

Speak Out

[06 Nov 2004|07:10pm]


This is to test the text.

This is to test the scroll color.

Why am I talking so offical like?


Fo sho'.
Speak Out

[06 Nov 2004|07:02pm]


This is the first post.

Speak Out

[ viewing | most recent entries ]