The four basic options on granting citizenship/voting rights

-Everybody who wishes to vote, whether born in the country or having come to it, would have to pass a test. This would increase the fairness of the system as there wouldn't be different standards or people taking the vote for granted. This would lead to the unfortunate situation where people would have to live under laws that they didn't have a role in supporting, not even in electing the representatives who made them.
-Everybody (over the legal age) is allowed to vote; there are no citizenship or residency qualifications. This would avoid having anyone having to take a test and, if he or she failed, not being able to vote but it would allow tourists to vote for representatives and/or initiatives who they subsequently wouldn't have to live under.
-The status quo: everybody born in the country becomes a citizen automatically and is able to vote on turning 18 while people not born in the country who aspire to become citizens have to pass the test. This has the problem of double standards and the seeming unfairness that they entail, although some feel that this is an instance where the different standards are appropriate.
-The compromise reform: people born in the country are automatically citizens with voting rights at 18. All people who want to come to the country can do so by following procedures or ignoring procedures and moving on their own. The people who immigrate illegally and avoid deportation (or do not but illegally immigrate again enough times) can receive amnesty and be put on the pathway to citizenship that those who followed the procedure are. As not following the procedure is advantaged (by letting the person get to the country earlier), more people would ignore the procedure. The political forces that support granting amnesty would gain support from the receivers of amnesty and would therefore want the number of illegal immigrants to increase so that there could be further grants of amnesty and they could get more support.

Judging by hypocritical standards

While most people disapprove of the initial outlook of the A Christmas Carol character Ebenezer Scrooge (in the 2009 film, the attitude was intended to make people both shake their heads and laugh at his extremism), I would say most people actually share it, at least to some degree. They work for their own interests and feel others should do as well. They can have sympathy for those they get to know but some feel that the "undeserving" poor (those who can work but don't, or waste the money they do make) don't deserve to be helped (which makes sense, as actions should have consequences) and even people who feel the majority of the poor are not undeserving of help put themselves first and do little to personally help them as they still remain abstract. Given that time is limited, putting self first and not knowing how the poor are (and so assuming the worst or close to it to justify oneself) is understandable but people who do this should admit that those are their decisions and not condemn those who decide likewise or are the ones not afraid to admit it.

When we talked about my idea that most people are similar to Scrooge, my mother said she was not and my father admitted most people are similar but to a lesser degree.

Degrees should indeed be considered, but the problem is that people are often only too willing to be overly favorable towards themselves and condemnatory of others and some use the idea of degrees to try to argue that their share of the trait is so small it's really nonexistent; this is a violation of the idea that one should seek and accept truths.

Scrooge's attitude that the poor should die quickly to "decrease the surplus population" is harshly stated, yet many don't have alternatives to what should be done when a region or globe does have a surplus population. Social services come through extracted personal income, decreasing people's choice of what to do with what they make, and may only delay, if not enlarge, the proplems.

Philosopher Garrett Harding (in the essay "Lifeboat Ethics") made the argument that selfishness is preferable to generosity, especially at the international level, as the more aid is given to hungry, populous countries, the more the global population will expand until the globe isn't able to feed everyone, as when a lifeboat tips over from having too many passengers and everyone drowns.

As a sidenote to films and audiences making judgments (without reflection on the person who judges), Vegas Vacation has the daughter character dancing while in a covering red dress; he father is nonetheless appalled and takes her away. The daughter instantly change her mind, saying she doesn't know what came over her, even though she seemed to very much like and want to perform the activity earlier. These types of sudden changes of opinions, in order to avoid showing conflict and challenging the audience, are usually unconvincing and hence bad writing, though they may, by not showing conflict and not challenging the audience, enhance commercial appeal and possibility. The father has lecherous moments which are considered acceptable; this nonjudgmental attitude may make males sympathize with him, and his hypocritical condemnation of his daughter for providing such feelings to others makes him sympathetic to those who claim to not be lecherous, or at least only lecherous within reason. Unfortunately, a lax standard for self and a harsh one for others is often considered to be just, appropriate and reasonable.

Confidence and Despair

One of the ways people attempt to increase their sense of security is the "blaming the victim" approach. In order to believe that the world is just, people decide that those who have been harmed/victimized did some action that caused their own victimization; therefore the people who behave in wise and moral actions have nothing to fear as they won't make the mistakes that lead to victimization.

The approach is perhaps incorrectly named as most people who believe this way don't only blame the victim, but attribute them some responsibility, perhaps the decisive share, but with the majority of the responsibility going to the victimizer or the situation.

This method may be self-defeating as, when believers are victimized, they may blame themselves. However, they may be more lenient with themselves or they may have in fact been partly to blame and the self-blame can lead to better behavior.

While "blaming-the-victim" has a negative connotation, I believe the belief in a just world, with its implied corollary about those who are treated unjustly, is widely shared in the world. It would probably be hard to live with the perception that the world or are systems are not necessarily just, that injustice does occur frequently, that are statuses may not be just and so are not intrinsically permanent.

While I believe in freedom and the ability to pursue happiness, I also feel that humans have an obligation to try to learn and acknowledge the truth (this obligation is not something that should be legislated, as in many matters truth is subjective); while it may cause some discomfort, it is an important aspect to appreciating and preserving freedom and happiness.

The entertainment media has an interest in persuading people that we do live in a just world (so we feel justified in focusing on ourselves and not improving it), but sometimes entertainment products take so much for granted that their messages are laughable if not infuriating.

In the 2003 comedy Bruce Almighty, Jim Carrey's Bruce Nolan complains that God is doing a bad job at running the universe, particularly with regards to him but also in general. God (Morgan Freeman) gives him his powers so he can go on vacation and the film sets out to show why it wouldn't be good for an ordinary human being to have divine powers.

Or not, though most viewers probably agreed with the film's viewpoint. There are strong questions about whether Bruce, a light-news reporter, is really ordinary. He's unusually well-off by global standards (given that many people are forced to live on a few dollars a day), which you would think the deity would be more concerned. While the film was chiefly intended for "Western" audiences, a deity as a character practically demands a wider focus, which this film chose to exclude.

The film almost touches on the point that, because Bruce is materially comfortable, he wants more. But as his position is considered average, it's really a false critique of all humanity. Powered-Bruce creates marijuana in the van of a rival reporter (which is considered to be funny, though laughing at someone for what is not his fault is questionable) while a grower of the plant would probably use his power to legalize the product, creating a benefit for all sellers, buyers and people in general as police forces could spend their time working against interpersonal harm. A prisoner deprived of liberty for having condemned views would probably gain liberty and only a little more.

On being scolded for his selfish acts, Bruce takes a lazy approach to benevolence-he approves the requests all people make in prayer. This leads to too many people winning the lottery, getting a low amount, and rioting.

Rather than use his power to pacify the people or at least heal the injured and repair the damage, Bruce despairs at the first time his power caused problems, the first sign that people have flaws. This is considered a good sign of humility rather than evidence of a lack of imagination and perseverance.

Bruce also faces personal problems as his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston) believes he was too close to another woman and is too selfish in general. While it's been some time since I saw the film, if I recall correctly the other woman incident was not Bruce's fault but merely the choice of the other woman coupled with bad timing. Bruce could have argued that it wasn't his fault or that it shouldn't matter, or simply accepted that his true self and Grace weren't a good pair, but instead he laments that he can't persuade her to love her; he doesn't consider moving on.

God says he has the same problem in being unable to force people to love him without violating their free will, but this comparison only works if you consider the world to be just, if you consider that people have only unjust or petty grievances against God.

If, on the other hand, you think that Bruce's misuse of power and quitting at the first sign of trouble (the latter of which is considered good and proper humility) is no sign of failure for the human race and that it is unwise to give up ultimate power over a few troubles, you could well do a better job than either of the film's characters.

The best part of the film is that Carrey and Freeman's characters both have, at least at times, a rather malevolent sense of humor. Freeman's God claiming that Bruce only won a fight with a girl is in touch with the misogynistic attitudes that some attribute to the ultimate creator/ruler.

The end of the film's trailer (Bruce, in a high position against a dark power, exclaiming "My will be done!") suggested that, after comical beginnings, the protagonist would be horribly corrupted. While I've learned in the years since I watched the trailer that trailers are sometimes deceptive, what was promised would probably make a much better film than what was released. That a better film was suggested makes Bruce's quitting at minor troubles that much more disappointing and artificial.

Given that the world is so troubled, to present quitting after minor troubles as the good action seems to be a refusal to acknowledge the really bad problems the people of the world face, so that we can think that the world as it is is just, or at least the best it could possibly be.

An accusation of evil

This news story from September 7 features quotes from former Alaska Governor and Vice Presidential Republican nominee Sarah Palin complaining of something she considers evil.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/07/palin-calls-news-org-heartless-and-selfish/

Despite her claim that the image should be "sacred," we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that death is a part of life. In his article "Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving the Natural Environment," Thomas E. Hill, Jr. argued that refusing to accept aspects of ourselves, including similarities to animals, can lead to troublesome and troubled attitudes, originating from their lack of humility and honesty.

Palin, as many politicians do of other acts, condemned the act as selfish. The "problem" with using selfishness as a measure of good and evil is that almost everyone acts selfishly. To condemn some for a common fault is hypocritical and leads to self-righteousness rather than self-improvement.

In explaining the action of the Associated Press in a way that declared she knew what its motivation was (a very morally dangerous thing to do as, obviously, no one can exactly know motivation aside from the actor, and external acts can have varying explanations and motivations), "exploit[ing] the tragic death of a true American hero," her emotional description tries to set the act as simple, wrong and thus deserving of condemnation.

Relying on emotion is a poor moral measurement as just about anything can be described in a way that makes it emotionally appealing (or at least necessary) or repulsive. Emotions also depend very much on what another person brings with him or her and so are not likely to convince those that feel previously feel differently. Convincing the previously-ignorant, especially with emotional terms, is neither difficult nor admirable, and the persuasion is (as the person could subsequently read an equally-bad or better argument from the other point of view) likely to be short-lived compared to a less-emotional or partisan argument. Trying to reinforce the already-convinced through simplistic methods doesn't deepen understanding but causes debaters to be more firmly placed in their weak positions.

The news media should inform, and inform as accurately, in a manner intended to make audiences understand, as possible. Showing that conflict areas involve deaths, and allowing viewers to see death, a part of military conflict, fits with this mandate. The idea that news products should never be disquieting or disturbing (and they too-often do self-censor) contributes to false understanding of reality, hampering citizen's ability, right and duty to make informed decisions in their self-governance.

Dying in service to your country and the people who placed you in that situation is hardly a private act. While the wishes of grieving family members deserve some consideration, it should hardly be the only consideration because in the real world important considerations frequently come into conflict.

Palin also declares that the fallen soldier was a hero, yet heroism involves both actions and motivations. We don't know Joshua Bernard's motivation nor all of his actions. I believe that in something as morally complex as military service, intention has to matter as do external conditions. There exists the possibility that a nation is in the wrong. While someone who has examined matters and come to the conclusion that the nation is in the right deserves to be respected (again, posting of truth is not disrespect) even if people disagree, there's no obligation to call the person a hero if you feel the actions were, regardless of intention, resulted in bad ends.

Of course, the idea that a soldier is always morally commendable simply because he fights for your nation is one of the worst types of bias and that mindset perpetuates warfare.

Given that an alternative interpretation of the AP's action was to inform readers, that death is part of life and the news and doesn't have to be seen as dehumanizing, to calling it evil goes dangerously close to the traditional definition of evil as being something that one doesn't like, from which point there can be no objectivity. The act doesn't fit my definition of evil as the photographer and decision-makers would likely consent to the idea of having their deaths reported on, especially (with a picture) if the death was of an unusual sort and especially if the citizens of a nation, through their actions, bore responsibility for it. Unless they wouldn't consent to it being done to them, they are not hypocritical and given that it's known that soldiers and wars will receive press coverage, hence soldiers aren't in a position of total privacy, let alone in the battlefield, the treatment was not dehumanizing. Rather, accuracy to the truth can, and in my view should, be viewed as a great form of respect paid to people's decisions.

Evil

Evil consists of dehumanizing others and/or hypocrisy.

Doing things to others you wouldn't want done to you, which breaks my view of morality, clearly would have to be based on one of the aforementioned factors. Unless you genuinely have no concern for yourself (and most thieves, rapists and killers try to avoid getting caught, indicating that they do have self-concern), in doing badly to others you make the others inferior rather than trying to be fair in putting yourself in their place and viewing their feelings and value as important as yours.

The goodness and flaw of the United States

The goodness of the United States lies in its freedom. From appreciated freedom comes diversity of views and actions and people can choose what they feel is best and most pleasant. There can also be some consensus, of whatever strength and duration the people want it to be.

The United States' biggest flaw comes from intolerance, prejudice and insecurity (which is perhaps a major contributer to the other two negative qualities). There is still too little appreciation for freedom and diversity and too much desire for conformity.

Entrenchment and resistance to the status quo

In his September 9, 2009 speech to Congress, President Barack Obama bluntly declared, "our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem."

This statement reflects Obama's celebration of the active government mentality of many of his supporters and his attempt to entrench that viewpoint in the public. When faced with what he considers an unsustainable situation for the taxpayers, rather than reduce what taxpayers pay he feels that it can't be that the government has asked too much and given too much to taxpayers but that the whole system is wrong.

At least in its ideal form, the pricing feature of capitalism results from the differing desires of makers, sellers and consumers interacting, each with an interest to themselves, so that the final price, based on what people are willing to hold on to or give up of their interests compared with those of others. That the participants voluntarily participate and believe that they benefit from the interaction are big parts of what make the price legitimate.

However, Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democratic Representative from California, don't believe in the legitimacy of capitalistic pricing. Rather, they want the national government to help some at the expense of others. As Pelosi said July 31, she wants legislation to switch the leverage to the consumer, having caps on payment but not on service.

Obama also declared that the "irresponsible behavior" of individuals and businesses who choose not to buy health insurance "costs all the rest of us money" and that without everyone doing their part, many sought reforms "just can't be achieved."

In order to save society money it feels it has to give but would rather not, he'll require individuals make purchases. Saving money, especially the people's tax money, is a good thing but when it requires restricting rights and making demands, the results suggest that the initial premise that the money has to be spent, the specific result has to be achieved are faulty. Making sure a political idea works is a worse reason to restrict freedom.

Obama quoted a letter from the late Senator Ted Kennedy, who claimed the matter was "above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

While some Democrats, including Obama, think that public health care can be achieved without raising taxes, others think tax raises to pay for current and added spending are appropriate but that taxes should only be raised for the very rich; Obama has said he won't increase taxes for the bottom 95% of Americans, conspicuously not talking about what could be done to the top 5%.

The idea that liberal politicians demand sacrifice by some for a program that will help others, that they and their supporters support forcing some to act charitably but aren't willing to voluntarily contribute as much on their own, does indeed reveal a troubling immorality of the public.

Unfortunately, Republicans, sticking to bad traditions, are unwilling to challenge Medicare or Medicaid. Without this challenge, Democrats have an advantage in the public debate, easily able to argue that the government already subsidizes the elderly and poor and that paying for all, particularly when that involves manipulating price, could lower the prices overall. The lack of directness of Republicans about what should be cut is a big reason for their lack of credibility and the acceptance of big, active government.

Democrats arguing for cheaper products is a hard approach to defeat, particularly if Republicans aren't willing to challenge the idea that the product should be cheap and socially provided (indeed, most of them want to lower prices by lowering the prices of doctors' malpractice insurance, throwing away respect for the legitimacy of how capitalism determines prices).

But while the current struggle for the preservation of economic rights is bleak, bits of hope emerge. Michele Bachmann, Republican Representative from Minnesota said August 18 that citizens need to let liberal Congresspeople know that "under no circumstance will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

Some websites noted that the statement reflects a pro-choice perspective, an odd and opportunistic tactic for a conservative Republican to use (and indeed Bachmann supports legislating her views of when life starts), I think it reflects a deep truth: while government control can seem very appealing when it's used against people you don't like for a cause you do, it's unjust in itself and incredibly dangerous as it can be applied to you. Moral and personal autonomy resides in the individual person. Governmental controls should be as limited as possible in order to continue.

If people commit to this ideal, we may develop a more sincere appreciation of freedom but this will be very difficult when we accept governmental controls over more and more aspects of the economy.