Politics seems to be the hot topic of discussion these days, and many innocent conversations turn into screaming matches with neither party being able to get a word in edgewise.  It is well known that the country is divided on many political topics, and people seem to feel stronger about certain issues than ever before.  Many people engage in political discussions for the express purpose of changing another person’s mind, but often tempers flare and no one leaves the conversation having learned anything. There is a difference in taking a political discussion seriously and simply having a heated argument with someone.

The general definition of the word discussion is to exchange ideas. Quite often so-called political discussions couldn’t be further from this definition. When people feel very strongly about a subject they often refuse to see another
person’s point of view, let alone listen to them. If you feel that someone you know could learn something from you about politics keep in mind you could probably learn something from them as well.

To take a political discussion seriously you must be willing to listen, not only speak. Understand that part of what makes up a person’s feelings and opinions is their experiences. Since you certainly haven’t had the same experiences as someone else you can’t expect to see eye to eye on everything. Discussions require each party to allow the other to speak in turn and have a chance to say their piece.

When engaging in a political discussion with someone who holds differing opinions, be prepared to learn if you expect them to. No one likes to be told they are wrong, and if you really want someone to see where you’re coming from you need to pay them the same respect. Name calling and general rudeness will get you nowhere, and your civil political discussion will soon turn into an argument.

Always keep your cool during a discussion. If you aren’t willing to listen to the other person, then perhaps you shouldn’t bother trying to engage them. Starting discussions simply to rile the other party or insult them is both juvenile and lacks any constructive purpose. The other party probably feels as strongly about certain issues as you do, so don’t expect them to concede to your points right away.  A good political discussion may have no outcome other than
an opportunity to understand someone else’s view points and why they hold them.

It is important to engage in civil political discussions, even if you feel you’re not getting anywhere in terms of changing someone else’s mind. We all live in this country together, and no matter what party is currently in power and it is important to be sympathetic to all our fellow country people.

We have all read about Jack Abramoff and how lobbying is done in Washington. Trips, dinners, campaign funding, and other perks paid for by lobbyists in return for favors the politicians can do for their clients.

But our Supreme Court Justices should be beyond reproach. They are not elected, but appointed. They are in that position for life or until they decide to retire. They also should go out of their way to be unbiased and out of the reach of special interest groups, people whose cases might come before the Supreme Court, and lobbyists.

While other Justices may walk the line of impropriety, Justice Scalia proudly struts over the ethical line and is smug about it. Remember Leona Helmsly when arrested for income tax evasion? She said “taxes are for the little people”, or something to that effect. Justice Scalia has a similar attitude when questioned about his activities.

Not too long ago, the Supreme Court was hearing a case that affected the ability for the Bush administration to hold prisoners indefinitely. Just before the case was to be heard, Justice Scalia went on a hunting trip with Dick Cheney that didn’t cost Scalia a dime. When asked if that might present a conflict of interest and that he should possibly recuse himself from the case, he called the idea ridiculous and stayed on the case. His vote favored the Bush Administration.

Yes, it might have been in favor of them anyway. No, the trip may not have influenced him in any way. However the appearance of impropriety, unethical behavior, or conflict of interest is enough to make going on that trip the wrong theng to do. And after doing so, thumbing his nose at people who raised the question was also the wrong thing to do.

Now, all the justices were at the swearing in of Justice Roberts, well all of them but Antonin Scalia. He was playing tennis and going fly fishing at the Ritz-Carlton hotel in Bachelor Gulch, Colo, all on the dole. All paid for by the Federalists Society.

“I was out of town with a commitment that I could not break, and that’s what the public information office told you,” he said.

According to ABC News, One night at the resort, Scalia attended a cocktail reception, sponsored in part by the same lobbying and law firm where convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff once worked.

On a side note, Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has repeatedly said that he has no memory of belonging to the Federalist Society, but his name appears in the influential, conservative legal organization’s 1997-1998 leadership directory.

Members of the Federalists Society stated they think the trip was ethical because they have no cases pending with the Supreme Court and are unlikely to have. Yes, as a group, but how many of it’s members might have cases pending now or in the future?

From the “Why Join” page of the federalists society, “Interaction with prominent public officials, judges, and scholars”. So someone with an agenda might be encouraged to join.

On the about us page it lists their goals as those that bring conservatism back into the judicial system and “In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative and libertarian intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.” Yes it does, evidently, all the way to the Supreme Court and Antonin Scalia.

More from their website;

“Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order.” Overall, the Society’s efforts are improving our present and future leaders’ understanding of the principles underlying American law.

It seems the Federalists Society is a conservative organization, although they endorse no polictical party, and it actually has no cases before the Supreme Court and is unlikely to have as an organization. However, it’s membership includes over 35,000 lawyers and that makes it likely that some of their members have or will have cases pending before the Supreme Court.

So as a lawyer, who presents cases to the Supreme Court, all I have to do is join this group and have access to Supreme Court Justices in intimate surroundings, where of course, I would never discuss a case that was pending.

All I am saying here is that we as Americans have the right to expect a higher ethical standard from Supreme Court Justices. We sure can’t get it from the legislative or executive branch of government, but we deserve it in the Judicial branch.

Accepting trips from groups with political and judicial agenda and gifts from private parties who may at some point have business before the court should not be allowed.

Like a lot of folks in the United States, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as they see fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, which I have no problem with. And the main reason I have no problem with a drug test is because I have nothing to hide. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who are doing drugs and never have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check, because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt. Could you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

A 1999 Michigan law called for a pilot program of random substance abuse testing in at least three counties. Drug testing started at the beginning of October in Alpena, Presque Isle, and Berrien counties and a designated area of Western Wayne County, including some of Detroit’s west side neighborhoods.

All the new applicants for that area had to provide a urine sample to officials or give up their right to any government aid. In addition, any applicants already in the system had to submit to random testing.

A class action lawsuit was filed by the Michigan chapter of the ACLU two days prior to schedule testing. The suit charges that the program violates the constitutional rights of welfare recipients. Two Michigan mothers and a Detroit organization (The Westside Mothers) were named in the suit. The organization focuses on representing hundreds of welfare recipients and their families. Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU in Michigan says, “The Fourth Amendment guarantees that no individual in this country can be subjected to a search by the government unless there is reasonable suspicion that they have committed some crime, welfare recipients may be poor, but that’s not a crime not yet, anyway.”

I have spoken to a number of people in person and on forums about their thoughts and the ones that oppose this have the same stance, that it is unconstitutional. In my opinion, it seems that I am not pushing random drug test onto any random citizen. The welfare recipient chooses to get help from the government. So just like submitting paperwork, you must submit a urine sample. Another stance people talk about is false positives. Well if they claim false positive, then do a hair follicle test.

If urine test are unconstitutional, then scrap the whole welfare program. Let your voice be heard on Political Majority.com.

“The Stilleto” is a weapon featured in Clarke’s science fiction novel “Earthlight”. In the 1955 Clarke novel, the weapon is said to emit a beam of light that was able to pierce a spacecraft. The writer afterwards explains that the weapon he mentioned in his novel was actually a stream of liquefied metal that gets shot through space with very high speed and force.

The research and development arm of the Department of Defense (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency or DARPA) is developing a weapon called MAHEM. This is patterned after Clarke’s fictional weapon.

MAHEM stands for Magneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition. The weapon will be using magnetism to propel either liquid or solid metal. It will be similar to other currently existing weapons since it will use explosions and electromagnetism to power the release of the metal. Weapons that use the same kind of power are called High-Explosive Anti Tank (HEAT). One example of a HEAT weapon is a bazooka.

DARPA is currently developing MAHEM as something that can be attached to a warhead. Once the missile is near the target, it will release MAHEM and be able to stop tanks and other large moving vehicles at close range.

This is not the first time that Clarke has inspired a scientific or technological change. He is also known for the geostationary orbit. The geostationary orbit means that an object in the sky can appear not to move as long as it is aligned with the earth’s equator. This means that the signal from a point on earth will correspond directly with a satellite placed in this orbit. Clarke popularized this in a 1945 with an article in the Wireless Word magazine.

Arthur C. Clarke writes science fiction books and makes inventions. The British national joined forces with renowned director Stanley Kubrick to write the book 2001: A Space Odyssey. The book was later turned into a movie with the same name that was directed by Kubrick.

As the research and development arm of the Department of Defense, the mission of DARPA is to ensure that the United States remains more advanced than other countries in terms of military offense and defense. Originally named Advanced Research Projects Agency, the organization was established in 1958 and its name was changed to DARPA in 1972.

Earthlight was a book released in 1955 of the science fiction genre. Set in the 22nd century, the story revolves around conflicts between the Earth and colonies on the moon along with other people in the solar system.