Planet Ace


The Official
Ace ArmstrongSM
Web Site








This site
and all graphics
designed by
Ace Armstrong for

Twilight Media
and Design


© 1999 Ace Armstrong
All Rights Reserved

"Ace Armstrong" is an official service mark of Twilight Media & Design.

Geopolitics

Most people don't realize that there's a serious side to that goofy guy they hear on the radio or on the stage, but there is. In addition to his work on stage and on the radio, Ace Armstrong is also a political activist and a writer with experience in political analysis. As part of this effort, he has created The Power Station BBS and its outgrowth, Acenet, for the purpose of stimulating debate of the issues and encouraging education and analysis. The following are Ace Armstrong's views on a number of issues. Comments on these views are more than welcome.
TOPICS:

OVERVIEW/PREFACE
Probably the best way to describe me politically is "a libertarian with a nasty pragmatic streak." I want the government (and everyone else) to stay out of my life unless invited. I believe very much in the rights of individuals. In the classical sense, this would make me a conservative. However, in today's modern political world, where self-proclaimed conservatives want the government to poke its head into your uterus, your bedroom, your family and your religion, I don't really fit in as a conservative. I don't fit in as a pure libertarian because I believe that, as an individual, I do have an interest in government regulation of certain activities that endanger me (or others), and I do see the government as the most appropriate provider of some services (such as energy, highways, emergency services, etc.) for pragmatic reasons. So, the closest term in modern political jargon for me would be "liberal" or "centrist." Centrist I kinda like, and liberal I don't really mind, although the classical "socialist" definition of a liberal (which has as much relevence in American political discourse these days as "conservative") doesn't describe me very well, either. Do I defy description? Maybe. But, as you come to understand my views, perhaps you will understand me a little better.

THE LIVING WAGE INITIATIVE
There's this thing that happens all over America that I'm not totally sure I understand. There are thousands—even millions—of Americans who work full-time who are still not making enough money each year to take care of themselves and their families. These people are said to live below the "poverty line"; that is, the minimum amount of income required to be self-sufficient in American society. Again, let me emphasize this point: these are people who are working full time. It's not like they were lazy and just decided they weren't going to get jobs; many times, they work harder and under worse conditions than you and I for far less money.

This is enough to confuse me. Why should someone who works full time not make enough money to support himself/herself and his/her family? It doesn't make sense. But there's something that makes even less sense to me. The odds are that if this person works for a large company, the city and county (and maybe the state) in which this person lives and works gave his/her employer special tax abatements, zoning waivers and other special favours in order to lure that company into the area. In other words, the local government made sure that this huge multi-zillion dollar company would be able to save money and get a competitive edge in return for bringing jobs to the area. Then, when the company plunked its factory down, it created jobs below the poverty line. The community gives the company a break, and the company gives nothing back to the community.

That's where the Living Wage Initiative comes in. This is a national movement, but it is manifested mostly in a local, grassroots sort of way. Here in Kalamazoo, the Living Wage Coalition is fighting for statutes that will require any company that gets special abatements and considerations from the local government to hire all of its full-time employees at a rate above the poverty line. (Currently, I believe this to be somewhere in the vicinity of $8.00 an hour.) This is important, because people working for under that level, even single people with no children, will eventually need to seek some form of assistance, and it will likely come from the government in the form of food stamps, rent subsidies and/or welfare. And even if it's not the city or county government that has to pay for these services, it still comes from tax dollars, which means that the taxpayers are subsidising a company that, as Chris Rock said, essentially tells its employees, "Look, if I could pay you less, I would!"

Understand that this is by no means a radical concept; we're not even talking about something as mundane as raising the minimum wage. At least, not yet. All we're talking about is a sense of fair play. (I would like to make a personal note here that most of the people who are opposed to this idea tend to be of the conservative Republican variety—you know, the same people who are always preaching about family values. Funny how they apparently don't value our families enough to make sure we can support them if we're willing to work for it!) I have just recently been able to scrape together the time to become involved in the Living Wage Coalition, and I am proud to have been the MC of their local fundraiser in early December. I even gave a short speech. Bookmark this site for further updates, and please email me if you want to get involved.
ABORTION
It is my firm belief that the majority of activists out there who are opposed to a woman's right to have an abortion mean well, and I respect some of them. However, it is also very clear from the rhetoric that many of these individuals are merely interested in punishing a woman for having sex. How do I know? Because, while claiming that it's wrong for a woman to have an abortion because "the fetus is a human being with all the rights of a human being," many of these people are willing to make exceptions for women who were raped because "it's not the woman's fault." Bwah? If the "fetus is a human being," isn't it a human being regardless of how it came to be? Therefore, when I hear a "pro-life" person make this exception, I know that they could care less about the fetus; what they really want is the right to tell someone how to live her life.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not opposed to abortion rights. In fact, I am pro-choice, and my beliefs are basically the same as most mainstream pro-choicers. It is my belief that there is a difference between being "alive" and having a heartbeat. For instance, if I was in an automobile accident, and I suffered a head injury that rendered me without any brain activity, would I still be "alive" just because my heart was pumping and my lungs were breathing? I don't think so. By that same token, how can a fetus without a developed central nervous system and without the capacity for thought truly be "alive"?

It is my position in this debate that a fetus is not a full-fledged "living human being" until there is some brain activity that indicates that the process of thought and learning has begun. After that point has been reached, I am very opposed to the prospect of abortion except in cases where the health and life of the mother are endangered. Until then, however, I feel that the question of abortion should be something left completely to the conscience of the individuals involved. It's not my business, your business, the government's business or Randall Terry's business.
Top Bottom Email Ace
GUN CONTROL
The whole gun control argument is, in my humble opinion, fueled largely by three things: ignorance, a lot of money from people with a vested financial interest in keeping guns on the streets, and paranoia. Did the framers of the Constitution all feel that anyone should have any gun they want any time they want any place they want for any purpose they want? Not likely. Did these same people want the populace to be armed so that they would have the ability to rebel against the government? Definitely not. In fact, the Constitutional mandate of the militia is to help put down insurrection (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16). Sounds pretty clear to me.

The problem with the whole gun control debate is that the gun manufacturers and their retailers have a vested interest in keeping as many guns on the street as possible. Go to a gun club meeting; a good portion of those there (and the most vocal, almost without exception) will be people who sell weapons for a living. Do these people want criminals off the streets? Hardly; it's the fear of criminals that they use to sell guns and make their living.

    Here are some thing to consider:
  • You are more likely to accidently shoot yourself or a family member with a gun than you are a burglar. If you claim you have a gun in your house to protect your family, you're seriously misled. You are, if anything, placing your family in more danger, not less.

  • Alarm systems are more effective and, in some cases, cheaper than weapons. Most burglaries are committed while the home owner is away; a gun won't help you then. But an alarm will. And an alarm will most often frighten a burglar away before (s)he can take anything or cause any real damage. In order to confront a burglar with a gun, you have to put yourself in danger. With an alarm, you can confront a burglar with no risk to yourself or anyone else. And if an alarm accidently goes off, nobody gets hurt.

  • A law-abiding citizen has no need for a concealed weapon. Handguns serve only one purpose: to be easily concealed. A law-abiding person does not need to conceal a gun. And anything you can do with a pistol can be done just as easily with a long gun.

  • Gun control laws do help curtail crime. Groups like the NRA like to point out that places like Washington, D.C. have high crime rates, even though the city has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, while places like Idaho with few gun control laws have less crime. The fact of the matter is that, when compared to cities with similar populations, Washington D.C.'s crime rate is slightly above average. And why is that? Because Virginia and Maryland (which surround D.C.) have lax gun laws, and there's a thriving industry in those states geared at selling weapons to people in D.C. If the flow of guns from Virginia and Maryland was stopped, or even lessened, the crime rate in Washington would likely drop substantially.

There's a great argument that I've heard from opponents of gun control laws. It goes something like this: criminals are criminals, and they break laws by definition, so making laws against posessing or buying a gun won't stop them. I love it when a gun control opponent uses this argument, because it's just so silly. Think about it: we have laws against robbing banks. Criminals still do it. But do they do it as often? If there were no laws against bank robbery, would bank robbery occur more or less often? What do you think?

And, by the way, "gun control" doesn't mean (as the NRA and most gun nuts would tell you, usually with wild eyes and voices that crack with excitement and fear) that the goverment (or anyone else, for that matter) is trying to "take away your guns." All that is advocated by most gun control activists (myself included) is a ban on the sale and manufacture of weapons designed only for the purpose of killing and maiming other human beings. This includes weapons with high rates of fire (say, better than 30 or 40 rounds per minute) and large clips (there's no need for a sportsman to have a weapon that can hold 50 rounds of ammunition). Most of us (myself included) also want severe restrictions on the sale of handguns, including background checks and a special permit, which can only be awarded if you show a need to carry such a weapon. Two-thirds of the public support these kinds of laws (see Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1993, U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics, page 204). So why aren't these laws in place? Because groups like the NRA are more vocal and active and have more money than real people. And when it comes to their pocketbooks, you know where they'll stand on this issue.
Top Bottom Email Ace

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

This is, probably, the issue which I feel is most important to me. I am adamant about maintaining the separation of church and state, and about keeping the government 100% secular. There are many, many reasons for this stance. The first is that, when you are talking about religion, you are talking about what people feel will happen to their "immortal soul." Immortal's a pretty long time, so this is kind of an important issue, and it's not something that I want the government to mess up for someone else--myself included. When you get right down to it, this really is the basis for all of my stands on church/state issues.

My father was a minister. He's retired now, and doing well as a therapist, but for a very long time he was in the ministry, and I grew up in that environment. And there are things I saw which completely convinced me of the fallibility and corruptibility of organized religion. Those people who most enthusiastically wave the banner of religion do so for their own self-interest; they want control of how other people live their lives. This is abundantly clear when you look at people like Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson (who has, in the past, advocated scrapping the Constitution and setting up a theocratic government in the U.S.), Randall Terry, James Dobson and Fred Phelps. There are some who really do believe in their religion for the right reasons, to be sure, but they tend to be less vocal and simply preach by example (as the Bible instructed).

I fear the day that the Religious Right grabs control of the government. There will be no more room for dissent in our country; after all, if God chose the current government (which of course, they will argue), He must have had a plan, and to argue with the government would be not only treason, but heresy. Didn't we have enough of this in the Middle Ages? Didn't the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Hunts and the condemnation of Copernicus teach us anything? All we have to do is look at the current government of Iran to see that this is still possible--even likely--to occur in this modern age when religious zealots take power.

What frightens me more is the capacity for preaching ignorance that these people so love to display. Copernicus and Galileo were condemned as heretics by the church. Even today, evolution (which should by no means be an earth-shattering proposition; the Greeks and Hindus figured out evolution long before Darwin came along) is considered a horrible idea by vocal members of the Right. They seem to take the approach that religion and science are opposing forces, and that science, therefore, is evil. This is most definitely not the case. The two fields answer different questions. Science asks "how?" Religion asks "why?" There is no inherent contradiction.

Because of this misguided reasoning, though, zealots rail against teaching the simple biology of reproduction in schools, claiming that schools are telling students to go out and fornicate by giving them information on contraception; then they offer their own "abstinence-based" curriculum (which essentially consists of a policy of not teaching anything) with the lofty goal of preventing teen pregnancy. Studies have shown, though, that the teen pregnancy rate (and the abortion rate) in schools that adopt "abstinence-based sex education" skyrockets to upwards of ten times the rate in schools where students are actually taught. Again, state-enforced religion works to the detriment of society.

More importantly, what happens to the churches when government and religion become mixed? If we're going to legislate based on "sin," whose sin do we legislate? If the Southern Baptists come into power, will it be illegal to dance? If the Pentacostals come into power, will women have prescribed codes of dress, as they do in Iran and other Islamic countries? And what if these laws mandate a church do something it finds sinful or disrespectful? Protestants would howl in anger if Catholics made it law that they had to pray to saints. If even Christian sects can't agree on what is and is not sinful, how can we expect them to do it with respect for everyone else? If the church pokes its nose into government, eventually the government is going to poke its nose into religion (ironically enough, at the behest of religious leaders). I don't think anyone wants that.

On this issue, I have no caveats; there must be a continued and impregnable wall of separation between religion and government, and I will never stop defending this separation. It is, I feel, no less than the key to our freedoms.
Top Bottom Email Ace
HOMOSEXUALITY
See the previous section on church and state issues. I don't care what your religion says about homosexuality; you can't legislate on the basis of it. And I've never understood why so many conservatives, who preach the rhetoric of less government interference in people's private lives, want the government to have an interest in people's sex lives. What consenting adults do with each other is their own business, and if these consenting adults want to live together, get married, raise children and grow old together, I can't help but be happy for them. Laws intended to harass and persecute homosexuals, bisexuals, whatever are ill-conceived, philosophically unsound and downright wrong.
Top Bottom Email Ace
FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FLAG BURNING
Freedom of speech is the most important thing to have in a democracy. Without the ability to express ideas--even unpopular ideas--the people in a society have no real real choices and no true democracy. That's one of the reasons I became a journalist; to contribute something important to that process. Even on my current show, which is entirely an entertainment-type show, I work in ways for the people to express themselves because I feel that it's important to get those views into the public discourse. When you talk about restricting the ability to express views, you're not talking about "speech" as literally a vocal utterance of words; it's the expression of those ideas. Perhaps the flag burning example is the best model I could offer in a modern setting.

Remember the whole stink about flag-burning? There were veterans groups and opportunistic politicans capitalizing on the public outrage at this. The argument they made was that "these people are completely disrespecting our country when they burn that flag!" And, indeed, they were, and that was their intention. Case closed. They got their point across peacefully, and it was apparently effective, since people understood it. And, as much as the people who were so up in arms about this incident would like to say they were apalled at the action, their words themselves show that what they really opposed was the message. And that makes it a clear-cut case of free speech.
Top Bottom Email Ace
HEALTH CARE
The issue of health care is one of those few areas in which I might be considered somewhat socialist, although that would still be a misnomer. What I advocate is a mixture of private and government hospitals. Before I explain my proposal on this, let's go over a few quick points:

  • Everyone needs health care. The rich, the poor, everyone. This is a universal need, and, like basics such as food and shelter, I don't feel that this can be considered a "luxury" for the rich and those who can afford it. That's downright immoral in a supposably enlightened society like ours to base the level of medical attention one can get on their income.

  • Very few people can afford health care. Most people who have health insurance get it through their employers. If they didn't, they simply wouldn't be able to afford a check-up, let alone a major surgery. And even with health insurance, many people are still left with bills that they simply can't pay when they face a major health crisis.

  • There are several million people in this country without health insurance. Most of them are children. If you're employed full-time, you are most likely supplied with at least minimal health insurance, although you may not be able to afford the premiums. A person living on $16,000 a year (the average starting income for 20-30 year-old college graduates taking new jobs in 1995) simply can't afford to pay $100 or more a month for health insurance. And with the current corporate climate of "downsizing" and job security no longer considered a given, more and more people are working temporary jobs, which offer nothing in the way of health insurance. When these people—who are already living paycheck to paycheck—face a even a minor illness, it can be devestating.

  • Health expenses are less when people receive regular checkups and get medical attention early, as opposed to waiting to see if a minor problem turns into something major. If a "sinus infection" turns out to be spinal meningitis (the symptoms can be the same in the early stages), the costs of waiting for treatment on that illness are huge, in both the financial and health sense.


Bearing all of that in mind, here's my proposal for a universal health care system that I feel would work for everyone. First, you encourage people to become doctors by offering loans and scholarships for medical students, and you actually fund these programs. Then you set up government-run clinics, starting with areas that have insufficient health care and then expanding into all areas of the country. These hospitals would provide health care (like any other hospital) to anyone who needed it at no charge or a minimal charge (like $5 or so). When the college students who received the goverment loans graduate from medical school, they can choose to either pay back the loans or go to work for the government-run hospitals for a period of, say, seven years. While working at the government hospital during that time, the doctors would receive a salary comparable with the salaries of other college graduates (we'll use an example of something like $16,000 to $25,000 a year, depending on the location of the hospital, cost of living, etc.). After that period of seven years, the doctor's school debt would be completely paid off, and the doctor would be eligible to continue working at the hospital or go into private practice without any strings attached. This plan would do several things:

  • Reduce the cost of health care. There would be more competition, meaning that hospitals and doctors in private practice could no longer charge exhorbitant fees when their "customers" are not in a position to say "no." Doctors would no longer have the argument that they need to charge such high rates to pay back their loans (which never washed with me, anyway; when was the last time you saw a doctor driving anything less than a $35,000 car? When I see a doctor driving a rusty Gremlin, I'll put some stock into that argument), and the insurance companies would also be able to cut their costs because they would not have to shell out as much money to private hospitals.

  • Maintain choice. Every person in the country would have the choice of being treated by a government doctor or a doctor in private practice. If they didn't trust the government hospital, or felt that the wait there would be too long, they could go to a doctor in private practice. Doctors could still go into private practice wherever they chose, and would only be required to work for the government-run hospital if they chose that method to repay their loans. There would be no more restrictions on private hospitals and doctors than there are now; in fact, there might be less, because private hospitals now often have to meet the needs of people who could not afford to pay them. This need would be eliminated with the government hospitals around.

  • Reduce the spread of diseases. People with infectious diseases would be treated sooner, reducing the rate at which they infect others. Major diseases and injuries which can masquerade as minor inconveniences could be caught sooner and treated more effectively.



The next question you're wanting to ask is, "How do we pay for this?" Well, for starters, we won't need Medicare or Medicaid any more. Every penny that currently goes into those programs could go into this. We can cut out silly military projects that we don't need. Hospital space could possibly be leased from private companies, which (unless the company is greedy) could be cheaper than building entirely new hospitals. Unfortunately, the insurance lobby and the AMA would both hate this plan, because it would mean that insurance companies wouldn't be necessary for everyone, and doctors would have to compete in a real marketplace like everyone else.
Top Bottom Email Ace
THE CLINTON IMPEACHMENT
It started out as a bogus investigation into a failed real estate investment known as "Whitewater." Five years and $40 million dollars later, we got a lame-duck Republican Congress frothing at the mouth at the possibility of removing the duly elected President of the United States on the grounds that he used "legaleze" to disguise his affair with a White House intern. You couldn't create something that bizarre! But here we are.

Ken Starr, the mostly highly non-independent investigator in the history of the whole independent counsel law, delivered to Congress his report on the Whitewater scandal. The report essentially says the president had a few trysts with a young woman in his office, engaged in phone sex, allowed her to give him oral sex, and used a cigar for what a female friend of mine calls "its rightful purpose." Oh, yeah, and on a footnote buried near the very, very end of the document, Starr mentioned in passing that apparently neither of the Clintons did anything wrong in Whitewater, Travel Gate, the Vince Foster suicide, nor any of the other outrageous and atrocious "scandals" thrown in their general direction. In fact, he stops just short of admitting that neither Bill nor Hillary is the antichrist, as many of Starr's cohorts would have you believe.

Ken Starr, the self-appointed moral guardian of America who told Barbara Walters on national television that he feels dancing is a sin, couldn't even stick to the facts; in his testimony and in his report, Starr claimed Clinton told reporters he had consulted his attorneys on one matter two days before telling the grand jury exactly the opposite. As was amptly demonstrated, this claim was an outright fabrication.

All this is took place, of course, under the watchful eye of Rep. Henry Hyde, the Republican who claims his own extramarital affair with a married woman was simply a "youthful indiscretion" (which he carried out at the youthful age of 47, only three years younger than Clinton). Hyde, who can somehow claim with a straight face that the hearings and the ongoing debate were "bipartisan" when votes fell strictly along party lines, certainly helped his standing within his own party, but I'm not so sure the taint of this whole affair will escape him in the next general election. All of which goes to prove that if you give politicians enough rope, eventually they'll hang themselves.

I predicted during the impeachment procedings that the Senate would acquit. It turns out I was right. Now we have to wait and see how the scandal will affect the 2000 elections. The public's outrage at the Republicans (two-thirds gave the president high approval ratings during the procedings and two-thirds gave the Republicans high disapproval ratings according to NPR, the Associated Press, and the New York Times) is waning, and "Clinton fatigue" is setting in. I personally don't think the Lewinski affair will have much effect on the presidential campaign, and I think it will have a minimal effect (mostly negative for Republicans) in the individual Congressional districts. If this is the case, then it will be something less than a victory for the Democrats, but definitely a defeat for Republican smear tactics. In situations like this—where the power of government is used to personally attack one's opponents for political gain—there can never be a winner. Hopefully, the Republicans (and the rest of the country) will learn that those who use such tactics end up as losers.



Your questions and comments about this page and the views expressed are more than welcome!
TOPICS:

The author of this site is commited to bringing free speech and ideas to the world.