Last time around one of the GOPers in the House lost track of what show he was watching and turned Congress into his couch in front of the TV playing WWF silliness. "You Lie!" he shouted as he imagined himself doing some folding chair smashing. A lot of people pointed out the incivility of that behavior... as though that Party doesn't breed for it.
Tonight the President is going to play to pretty much the same audience in house - and a segment that is considerably more pissed-off out in TV land. Given the President's disinclination to rile people up; it is a pretty safe bet that we'll get some soft proposals surrounded by pretty words. Liar Mitch Daniels is up as the GOPer rebuttal operative and he can speak in complete sentences without seeming embarrassed by it. You can expect a bunch of "real America" kind of stupidity from Mitch with maybe even a touch of heat.
Now if the President were to give a State of the Union speech that reflected the political and economic and social realities of The Union the House seats would look just like a WWF cage fight. There'd be chairs uprooted and thrown at the podium and Democrats body slammed. The hooting, catcalls, and racial epithets (how long to you think they can do socialist and food stamp President before the nigger word breaks out?) would shatter the media's sound meters. The media follow up would then include the words "both sides do it."
No, the President is not going to tell the Union that we've been in a class warfare for over three decades, he's not going to tell the Union that un-regulated near criminals crashed the economy and made out like bandits for doing it. He is not going to tel the Union that one Party has dedicated itself to the failure of the Union in a bid to replace the speaking President. He is not going to tell the Union that one of the Parties sustains itself on hate and resentment while inflating the plutocracy. Nah, you'll get a pretty speech and the GOPers will play hyenas anyhow.
The only people who'll get satisfaction will be that amorphous "why can't they all get along" middle. Yes, they'll wonder "why" while the President doesn't bother to tell them exactly "why." Sure, I'll watch it - just to see what it takes to get called a socialist while that person's base, which is miles from socialistic, tears its hair out in light of the plutocratic agenda of its President. Cynical? Yeah, and...?
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Monday, November 21, 2011
The President, "No"
So who was that guy on my TV? He looked a lot like Pres Obama.
I assume he means it, "No," you don't get to just bypass your "Super Committee" deal. I found the whole "Super Committee" thing ludicrous on its face and political buck passing by the GOPers. Now lets see if Americans get straight in their heads who has what role - Congress passes laws and the Pres signs or vetoes them. His actual power is that and it begins to look as though the GOPers walked into a massive trap.
My affection for the Pres veers around quite a bit and it is based mostly on what he is willing to tolerate and some of that I don't like one damn bit. He is a hugely better choice for President than anyone the GOP is promoting, but that is also a pretty back-handed compliment.
I've heard people say that if in 2012 we'll have won if we re-elect the President in regard to things like OWS and rightwing nuttery. I disagree. Rather than making actual progress we'll have marked place or slowed the descent to hell. We won't have won spit and we won't until this nation ceases to tolerate positions where Obama seems anything other than moderate right.
You can love this President and still agree with me...
I assume he means it, "No," you don't get to just bypass your "Super Committee" deal. I found the whole "Super Committee" thing ludicrous on its face and political buck passing by the GOPers. Now lets see if Americans get straight in their heads who has what role - Congress passes laws and the Pres signs or vetoes them. His actual power is that and it begins to look as though the GOPers walked into a massive trap.
My affection for the Pres veers around quite a bit and it is based mostly on what he is willing to tolerate and some of that I don't like one damn bit. He is a hugely better choice for President than anyone the GOP is promoting, but that is also a pretty back-handed compliment.
I've heard people say that if in 2012 we'll have won if we re-elect the President in regard to things like OWS and rightwing nuttery. I disagree. Rather than making actual progress we'll have marked place or slowed the descent to hell. We won't have won spit and we won't until this nation ceases to tolerate positions where Obama seems anything other than moderate right.
You can love this President and still agree with me...
Monday, May 02, 2011
Got Him
The most wanted man in the world was taken by the Obama Administration in a quick clean operation in an urban setting. The patience and discipline exercised by this Admin is exceptional, this location was heavily suspected since October, in the run up to a questionable mid-term election. No hints escaped, in point of fact the theme that Osama was holed up in a border cave was not hedged.
There is this element of staying on task, despite all distraction, and keeping the consideration on the end and not the political ends. You are free to contrast this with the GWB record and more so with the Republican Party record all the way back to the "wag the dog" days of Clinton. Afghanistan stayed the steaming pile of crap it is for years while GWB and the GOP chearleaded an Iraq invasion. GWB was attacked on the basis of facts during this period while this President has been under relentless lying ... stuff like birth certificates, religion, and death panels and yet this one managed to act like an adult.
There is little I can add to the paeans of bravery and competence for the units involved, I really don't have words. As for assertions that Osama should have been taken alive - I don't know anyone who has reasonably asserted that he would not resist (and I don't mean a wrestling match). In such a situation even city cops shoot, and these guys aren't city cop shooters, huge amounts of money and time go into ensuring that they are absolutely lethal in all conditions. The outcome is not going to be a guy with eight non-lethal wounds and bullet holes all over creation. Outside some ridiculously remote condition Osama was going to die even when capture was a part of the directives.
What this will mean to international and local terrorism is unclear to me. What it will mean to the war in Afghanistan and regarding Pakistan is unclear to me. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims insight is engaging in guessing. In the world of politics a lot is going to depend on just how stupid the GOPpers get over this. President Obama presided over this and took some real political risks in the process. An awful lot of Americans are real happy to see Osama dealt with and aren't going to be pleased with political "buzz-kill."
This doesn't fix the recession, it doesn't fix the dislocation of wealth, it doesn't fix health care (especially with the GOP dedicated to screwing it worse), it doesn't fix much of anything. It sure does draw an underline under competence in descriptions of President Obama. That is a tough one for the GOP, minimize as they will. They will.
There is this element of staying on task, despite all distraction, and keeping the consideration on the end and not the political ends. You are free to contrast this with the GWB record and more so with the Republican Party record all the way back to the "wag the dog" days of Clinton. Afghanistan stayed the steaming pile of crap it is for years while GWB and the GOP chearleaded an Iraq invasion. GWB was attacked on the basis of facts during this period while this President has been under relentless lying ... stuff like birth certificates, religion, and death panels and yet this one managed to act like an adult.
There is little I can add to the paeans of bravery and competence for the units involved, I really don't have words. As for assertions that Osama should have been taken alive - I don't know anyone who has reasonably asserted that he would not resist (and I don't mean a wrestling match). In such a situation even city cops shoot, and these guys aren't city cop shooters, huge amounts of money and time go into ensuring that they are absolutely lethal in all conditions. The outcome is not going to be a guy with eight non-lethal wounds and bullet holes all over creation. Outside some ridiculously remote condition Osama was going to die even when capture was a part of the directives.
What this will mean to international and local terrorism is unclear to me. What it will mean to the war in Afghanistan and regarding Pakistan is unclear to me. I'm pretty sure that anyone who claims insight is engaging in guessing. In the world of politics a lot is going to depend on just how stupid the GOPpers get over this. President Obama presided over this and took some real political risks in the process. An awful lot of Americans are real happy to see Osama dealt with and aren't going to be pleased with political "buzz-kill."
This doesn't fix the recession, it doesn't fix the dislocation of wealth, it doesn't fix health care (especially with the GOP dedicated to screwing it worse), it doesn't fix much of anything. It sure does draw an underline under competence in descriptions of President Obama. That is a tough one for the GOP, minimize as they will. They will.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Addressing Congress And The Nation***Updated
One of the early questions about this address was whether Republicans would sit on their hands, it was answered in the first minutes, the opening remard. Paraphrasing; the remark was that while this economy may take awhile that the hardest working most innovative nation would prevail and emerge stronger - a clear whoever you are applause line, no partisan agenda in the least - unless you sit on the right side of the Chamber.
Now if you wanted to hear Republicans cheer, we cannot pass onto our children a debt they cannot afford to pay. But a statement regarding ending tax breaks for the top 2% was distinctly unpopular - or at least not applaudable on the right aisle. What the hell the Republicans are standing and applauding the inclusion to Iran/Afghanistan in the budget for I am entirely unclear - certainly not their agenda of 7 years.
I do not know who the young Marine Sgt in the upper deck is, but the support of the troops expressed by the President resulted in an extended applause and hand shakes for him. His dress blues left chest displayed a serious weight of eye candy of the ribbon supported metal type.
The opportunity of crisis and we're not quitters, that statement of confidence in the US should make anyone happy. It won't, but it ought.
This isn't any sort of definitive review, I was more interested in watching than playing at live blogging. If you care about this stuff you watched it.
*****Update ***** Jindal Talks
Republicans, please, please run this clown for POTUS. He took credit for writing this and then RNC & R Congress took on cooperative credit, whoever sucks eggs badly.
Which piece of living in the same universe rationally would involve invoking the Republican Administration's handling of Katrina for justification for government sucks at solving problems? In Congress we were led into pork and deficits? Who the hell was leading? In fact who the hell was Jindal trying to talk to (or at)?
I realize the Republicans have only had since November to adjust to having had their heads handed to them, but this isn't adjusting...
To be sure, I'd root for this iteration of the Confederate Party of Republicanism to strive for a 10% share of government, but at some point a responsible and credible oppostition party will be important to have.
Now if you wanted to hear Republicans cheer, we cannot pass onto our children a debt they cannot afford to pay. But a statement regarding ending tax breaks for the top 2% was distinctly unpopular - or at least not applaudable on the right aisle. What the hell the Republicans are standing and applauding the inclusion to Iran/Afghanistan in the budget for I am entirely unclear - certainly not their agenda of 7 years.
I do not know who the young Marine Sgt in the upper deck is, but the support of the troops expressed by the President resulted in an extended applause and hand shakes for him. His dress blues left chest displayed a serious weight of eye candy of the ribbon supported metal type.
The opportunity of crisis and we're not quitters, that statement of confidence in the US should make anyone happy. It won't, but it ought.
This isn't any sort of definitive review, I was more interested in watching than playing at live blogging. If you care about this stuff you watched it.
*****Update ***** Jindal Talks
Republicans, please, please run this clown for POTUS. He took credit for writing this and then RNC & R Congress took on cooperative credit, whoever sucks eggs badly.
Which piece of living in the same universe rationally would involve invoking the Republican Administration's handling of Katrina for justification for government sucks at solving problems? In Congress we were led into pork and deficits? Who the hell was leading? In fact who the hell was Jindal trying to talk to (or at)?
I realize the Republicans have only had since November to adjust to having had their heads handed to them, but this isn't adjusting...
To be sure, I'd root for this iteration of the Confederate Party of Republicanism to strive for a 10% share of government, but at some point a responsible and credible oppostition party will be important to have.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Just So You Understand
Sultan Knish may be a loon but his loonism gets links, and I've just added to it. You need to understand that the voting may be done but that doesn't add up to reconciliation or anything that begins to resemble it. This isn't to suggest that these people have an importance beyond their self-assigned idea of it, what it is to suggest is that this stuff is going to be boiling around underneath the Republican politics.
Boehner doesn't like Rahm Emanuel, not even a little bit. He didn't like him in the House and he likes him less as WH Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a hard edged pragmatic partisan politician of great ability. Mistaking him for a rigid ideologue is a mistake. The RNC calling this a broken promise two months before Inauguration might be called a Partisan Attack. But one has to be understanding that they are standing in the ruins of political aspirations to a "permanent majority." Oh, the hell with that, they've earned it, they deserve it, and their credibility talking about broken promises is nil.
The House Republicans are pretty much a lost cause looking for cooperation, fortunately the Senate rolls are renewed on a rolling two year cycle so some responsible Republicans are still home there. If the Republican Senators are offered something of import that is not an absolute kick to the ideological crotch and don't want to play; it might be important to have someone just like Rahm Emanuel on hand. It isn't hard to imagine a scenario where Rahm points out to a Republican that he's been given some political cover, that this is important, and that the Obama election lists and credibility have not gone away and that it is entirely possible to make their political life short.
It is important to remember that there are the "sultans," the Boehners, and also reasonable and responsible Republicans. It pays to remember that two years ago Boehner sent around a memo stating that their entire purpose was to obstruct Democrats for political advantage. Boehner is one of those Republicans and in general politicians who seems unable to avoid make unnecessary enemies out of opponents. Lindsey Gramm actually finds Emanuel a good choice, something which points up the distances involved in Republican politics.
These are the shoals President Obama will have to negotiate. There is a noisy lunatic fringe, the politically ignorant element in Congress, and possible shifting alliances. Sweetness and light is not on the horizon, but careful politics may allow this country to move forward. Just don't expect it to be peaceful.
But we are a long way from surrender. The battle is over, the war begins. The United States government now falls into the hands of the enemies of this country and civilization for a time or forever. And that is part of what the war is about. The country has been in the hands of people we disagreed with, but never in the hands of people whose views are as diametrically opposed to ours as anything in the Third Reich or the Kremlin. In their hands Federal power becomes enemy power. The more ineffective and tied up they are, the less damage they can do.
Boehner doesn't like Rahm Emanuel, not even a little bit. He didn't like him in the House and he likes him less as WH Chief of Staff. Emanuel is a hard edged pragmatic partisan politician of great ability. Mistaking him for a rigid ideologue is a mistake. The RNC calling this a broken promise two months before Inauguration might be called a Partisan Attack. But one has to be understanding that they are standing in the ruins of political aspirations to a "permanent majority." Oh, the hell with that, they've earned it, they deserve it, and their credibility talking about broken promises is nil.
The House Republicans are pretty much a lost cause looking for cooperation, fortunately the Senate rolls are renewed on a rolling two year cycle so some responsible Republicans are still home there. If the Republican Senators are offered something of import that is not an absolute kick to the ideological crotch and don't want to play; it might be important to have someone just like Rahm Emanuel on hand. It isn't hard to imagine a scenario where Rahm points out to a Republican that he's been given some political cover, that this is important, and that the Obama election lists and credibility have not gone away and that it is entirely possible to make their political life short.
It is important to remember that there are the "sultans," the Boehners, and also reasonable and responsible Republicans. It pays to remember that two years ago Boehner sent around a memo stating that their entire purpose was to obstruct Democrats for political advantage. Boehner is one of those Republicans and in general politicians who seems unable to avoid make unnecessary enemies out of opponents. Lindsey Gramm actually finds Emanuel a good choice, something which points up the distances involved in Republican politics.
These are the shoals President Obama will have to negotiate. There is a noisy lunatic fringe, the politically ignorant element in Congress, and possible shifting alliances. Sweetness and light is not on the horizon, but careful politics may allow this country to move forward. Just don't expect it to be peaceful.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
President Obama
While you're savoring the words, rolling them around on your tongue like your favorite chocolate, versus the anguished howl of President McCain, there are some realities that need to intrude. Despite the McCain theme, Barack Obama has a middle of the road political philosophy, unless McCain is correct and he's been hiding stuff. Even with that philosophy the Republicans will not go away. Boehner will be back and quite possibly McConnell and they are neither low key nor somewhat partisan opponents. The day after the election the Republicans will go on the attack and it will get serious the day after Inauguration.
The Republicans, to our distress, have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in their quest to break government and now us with it. Government is broke, worse than broke, sunken in debt and committed to even more of it. Money for new programs isn't there and worse, existing programs are threatened. Not only has debt doubled under BushCo, but the interest has increased. Crony contracts will have a space to run yet. BushCo's economic wreckage will be with us for some time to come.
The real disaster in government is truly entrenched, the infusion of partisan hires into Agencies. Not the appointed heads, this is an ordinary issue for transition teams to deal with. These are the Civil Service hires who should not have been hired on a partisan basis but are now protected from "retaliation" by Civil Service rules. This damage will live on long after GeorgeII is no more than a swear word for stupidity. The incompetent and agenda ridden will continue to have a large hand in American affairs.
Whether there are tax breaks or not, government is going to see its revenue go down. Business is going to hurt, employment is going to be hurt, and even some of the plutocrats that have been late will get dinged. You should believe that there will be a plutocratic stock buy up in the very near future. The market is getting near what companies are worth in assets so where ever the market goes, buying is a good deal, these companies can later be broken up for a profit. It is important to remember that right now the only people who have lost any money in the market have either sold or are living off their investments.
The right ideologues on the Supreme Court are not going anywhere for a good long time, the older and less healthy members are the centrists and left of centers. While I may agree with the decision on Heller v DC, the majority opinions were about as bad as any you'd expect from students. This case should have been defining and clearly about the US Constitution and it was a mess. This means that you cannot expect anything like good legal opinion from that bunch and they have, generally, four votes. This particular situation may last for decades.
If Obama gets the entire package and has a 60 seat Senate and a really sizable House majority you might think things will really get done. Being able to pass bills doesn't mean being able to fund them. Passing bills doesn't mean business becomes confident, it doesn't mean expansion and job growth, the factors that control that are beyond government control once transparency is achieved. Senator Obama has some good ideas, good intentions, and I believe a real concern with ordinary America's well being. He will surround himself with able and intelligent people who will do a good job - with what they've got. And that is exactly the problem.
The Republicans, to our distress, have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in their quest to break government and now us with it. Government is broke, worse than broke, sunken in debt and committed to even more of it. Money for new programs isn't there and worse, existing programs are threatened. Not only has debt doubled under BushCo, but the interest has increased. Crony contracts will have a space to run yet. BushCo's economic wreckage will be with us for some time to come.
The real disaster in government is truly entrenched, the infusion of partisan hires into Agencies. Not the appointed heads, this is an ordinary issue for transition teams to deal with. These are the Civil Service hires who should not have been hired on a partisan basis but are now protected from "retaliation" by Civil Service rules. This damage will live on long after GeorgeII is no more than a swear word for stupidity. The incompetent and agenda ridden will continue to have a large hand in American affairs.
Whether there are tax breaks or not, government is going to see its revenue go down. Business is going to hurt, employment is going to be hurt, and even some of the plutocrats that have been late will get dinged. You should believe that there will be a plutocratic stock buy up in the very near future. The market is getting near what companies are worth in assets so where ever the market goes, buying is a good deal, these companies can later be broken up for a profit. It is important to remember that right now the only people who have lost any money in the market have either sold or are living off their investments.
The right ideologues on the Supreme Court are not going anywhere for a good long time, the older and less healthy members are the centrists and left of centers. While I may agree with the decision on Heller v DC, the majority opinions were about as bad as any you'd expect from students. This case should have been defining and clearly about the US Constitution and it was a mess. This means that you cannot expect anything like good legal opinion from that bunch and they have, generally, four votes. This particular situation may last for decades.
If Obama gets the entire package and has a 60 seat Senate and a really sizable House majority you might think things will really get done. Being able to pass bills doesn't mean being able to fund them. Passing bills doesn't mean business becomes confident, it doesn't mean expansion and job growth, the factors that control that are beyond government control once transparency is achieved. Senator Obama has some good ideas, good intentions, and I believe a real concern with ordinary America's well being. He will surround himself with able and intelligent people who will do a good job - with what they've got. And that is exactly the problem.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Why the Revolution Isn't Happening
My apologies to regular readers who've been wondering what happened to posting on a regular basis; I've been ill. It is actually a bit more than illness, it also has a bit to do with my having a temper. By the time I had finished watching our Senate hand George II another piece of our rights and our protection from corporate misdeeds I was furious. The fact that the House let the FISA mess expire didn't assuage the boil over. I am ordinarily quite capable of expressing my outrage without losing my mind but the combination of a rather rude flu bug and the steady Congressionally approved erosion of American liberty finally short-circuited my thinking processes. I found myself looking at the screen and keyboard with disbelief, amazement, and fury; and no words. Just stalled and stuck in place.
It might have been mitigated if either Democratic candidate had gotten up on their hind legs and said something...anything, really. It didn't help in the least that friends I like were also losing their minds, it isn't the least calming to hear, "I guess we'll just have to meet on the village green." As furious as I am, this one just pokes all the wrong buttons. As an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment I have looked carefully at the intentions behind it and the current societal conditions and the results are not calming.
While there are side benefits to hunting and other sporting activities involved in the Second Amendment, and noted at the time of the framing debate, the purposes are the defense of a "free state." The expression "free state" was a deliberate usage, it is a universal concept rather than the narrow one of, for example, 'the United States' or 'the nation' or 'the free states.' In this usage "state" is not a geographical concept but rather one of condition, the condition of all people though most particularly the citizens of the US. That there could even be discussion of this concept, much less heated debate, makes rather definite statement about the state of the American citizenry. We all abhor the pointless lawless violence the is perpetrated in our schools, malls, streets, and homes; but a large percentage of the population seems to have forgotten that life is a very risky proposition and liberty increases the risks.
Murder and mayhem are scarcely new phenomenons in this country, for a large portion of our history it was the everyday norm for many. The frontier history is more recent for those of us in the West, but the frontier started at the Atlantic Ocean at one point. The states of Ohio and Kentucky were scenes of incredibly brutal violence, primarily between settlers and Native Americans but also including the French, later the British, and even between the settlers themselves. These conditions played out in varied degrees from ocean to ocean and the institution of law enforcement (civil or military) did not cause a cessation. Being on the leading edge of human condition is an incredibly dangerous situation.
The mistake people make is in thinking that law was and is the operative concept, it is human behavior that is in operation. Giving human beings liberty is not a safe sort of thing to do, humans are incredibly variable in behavior as a species. They are given to all kinds of extremes and law does no more than punish the behaviors. Laws do not stop behaviors, moral and ethical judgements do. The judgement may come down to no more than a weighing of possible consequences, but legal sanctions are only an add on, not the determinant. Committing robbery, for example, has always had possible negative consequences which may in fact have been more serious and more sure in the absence of law. It is a fallacy to believe that the law stops people who are willing to ignore consequences. The Framers decided that the benefits to the citizenry far outweighed the risks, risks they were fully aware of.
Today, many believe that we are or should be much more secure and safe now than then. Why people believe that armed bands of depredation have disappeared or would disappear simply in the face of Law is an odd question. Behavior is linked to much more than simple legal consequences, those considerations are really at the end of the line of behavioral determinants. This attitude of safeness leads to considerable outrage when it is proven unfounded. Certainly we would rather be safe than at risk, but druthers have little to do with reality, and this is aggravated by our Founders ideas.
The Constitution sets out a framework of how to govern, the Bill of Rights sets out specified human conditions that government is not allowed to trespass on, specifically prohibited governmental behaviors because these states of being are assumed to be precedent to government. Not allowing the government to attempt to interfere in these areas was at the time the leading edge of political science, it was essentially untried and acknowledged as dangerous. It is still the leading edge of political science, there is no government on the face of the earth with stronger prohibitions of interference with human rights. There is a reason this is true, it is damned dangerous. And we're throwing it away in search of illusionary security.
This is the populace of today, the one that is willing to ignore the simple language of the Bill of Rights in order to secure the non-existent safety promised by political organizations. Contrast that desire with the at any cost defense of liberty and see which is most prevalent. The idea that Revolution could now occur on the basis of the intangibles of the Bill of Rights is awfully optimistic. The simple reason the Second Amendment is within the Bill of Rights is the ability to secure a free state of being, the ability to withstand foreign or domestic assaults on that state of being. In the face of a national military, the final ends are personal security from others and citizen security from our own government's depredations.
Inherent in the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitutional document is the acknowledgement of governmental inclination to abridge the natural rights of citizens and its final dissuasion is the right to keep and bear arms. You have to look at the entire document to understand that it is essentially a blueprint for Revolution. Freedom of religion, speech, and press allow the breeding of and dissemination of Revolutionary thought. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure allows the infrastructure of Revolution. The keeping and bearing of arms allows the physical means of Revolution. Follow on through the Bill of Rights with this state of reasoning and each will reveal a tool of rebellion, and why not? These were the instigators of a Rebellion against a lawfully constituted government to whom they had historical and societal ties, deep ties. We were given all the tools needed to physically "throw the rascals out."
This is what the government is in the process of dismantling to limited citizen outcry. There is good reason why the outcry is limited, it is natural to crave security and materialistic success. Those cravings are exactly what is at risk with the form of Liberty the Framers envisioned and we are so far from the obvious frontier requirements of personal responsibility and risk that the depredation of Liberty goes almost unnoticed. This is the citizenry that we could expect to hold responsible for their own Liberty? One of the reasons guns become such a flash point is that they are an actual physical and materialistic expression of liberty, it is easier to hold in your hands a Colt than it is to wrap your mind around governmental snooping, or the funding of chosen religions. The immediate bark of a Winchester is more obvious than the whimper of corporate media in the face of governmental misdeeds. But that does not a Revolution make.
The American people sat on their hands when RICO was passed, it was not a matter of their house payments or grocery bill, even though the depredation on the Fourth Amendment was clear. It was touted as a tool applicable to the Mafia, a feared and despised minority. The problem is that however feared and despised and nastily criminal the Mafia is, they are also by definition, us. What is applicable to the Mafia is equally applicable to ordinary citizens, if the government doesn't like what you and some associates are up to you can easily find yourselves designated a criminal conspiracy and subject to some truly draconian outcomes. All it takes is a few more little baby steps like The Patriot Act or Military Commission Act to make it so. In the time of the Framers, instigators of actions allowed by RICO would have found themselves at best tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, and today almost nobody notices. This is the bunch somebody expects to build a Revolution on?
The political appellation of authoritarianism is not Party determined, it is an outlook and desire for a type of political action. The mindset seems more prevalent in the Republican Party, but that is, perhaps, due to the more heated rhetoric of the extremes of the Party and the out of control just past Republican Congress. RICO was passed by a Democratic Congress, and the more egregious offenses on the Second have been at the hands of primarily Democrats. The current Democratic Presidential candidates are both notorious gun banners and supporters of blatantly un-Constitutional gun activities. It is not a Party affiliation that is dangerous to this nation's Liberty, it is the mindset of those we elect and our refusal to hold them accountable. Authoritarians should be opposed at every pass, at every opportunity, whether their stated ends match our own or not. That is not the case, not for the ordinary gun owners, press, religions, or even speech advocates, they ignore what does not impact their pet idea. This is what Revolutionary thought has to contend with, figure a considerably larger chance if the issue was economic and materialistic. Short of another Great Depression or the grinding plutocracy of the Robber Barons expect more of the same. Toilet paper and the Constitution's parts respecting Liberty have a lot in common, in DC, Statehouses, and your houses.
It might have been mitigated if either Democratic candidate had gotten up on their hind legs and said something...anything, really. It didn't help in the least that friends I like were also losing their minds, it isn't the least calming to hear, "I guess we'll just have to meet on the village green." As furious as I am, this one just pokes all the wrong buttons. As an adamant supporter of the Second Amendment I have looked carefully at the intentions behind it and the current societal conditions and the results are not calming.
While there are side benefits to hunting and other sporting activities involved in the Second Amendment, and noted at the time of the framing debate, the purposes are the defense of a "free state." The expression "free state" was a deliberate usage, it is a universal concept rather than the narrow one of, for example, 'the United States' or 'the nation' or 'the free states.' In this usage "state" is not a geographical concept but rather one of condition, the condition of all people though most particularly the citizens of the US. That there could even be discussion of this concept, much less heated debate, makes rather definite statement about the state of the American citizenry. We all abhor the pointless lawless violence the is perpetrated in our schools, malls, streets, and homes; but a large percentage of the population seems to have forgotten that life is a very risky proposition and liberty increases the risks.
Murder and mayhem are scarcely new phenomenons in this country, for a large portion of our history it was the everyday norm for many. The frontier history is more recent for those of us in the West, but the frontier started at the Atlantic Ocean at one point. The states of Ohio and Kentucky were scenes of incredibly brutal violence, primarily between settlers and Native Americans but also including the French, later the British, and even between the settlers themselves. These conditions played out in varied degrees from ocean to ocean and the institution of law enforcement (civil or military) did not cause a cessation. Being on the leading edge of human condition is an incredibly dangerous situation.
The mistake people make is in thinking that law was and is the operative concept, it is human behavior that is in operation. Giving human beings liberty is not a safe sort of thing to do, humans are incredibly variable in behavior as a species. They are given to all kinds of extremes and law does no more than punish the behaviors. Laws do not stop behaviors, moral and ethical judgements do. The judgement may come down to no more than a weighing of possible consequences, but legal sanctions are only an add on, not the determinant. Committing robbery, for example, has always had possible negative consequences which may in fact have been more serious and more sure in the absence of law. It is a fallacy to believe that the law stops people who are willing to ignore consequences. The Framers decided that the benefits to the citizenry far outweighed the risks, risks they were fully aware of.
Today, many believe that we are or should be much more secure and safe now than then. Why people believe that armed bands of depredation have disappeared or would disappear simply in the face of Law is an odd question. Behavior is linked to much more than simple legal consequences, those considerations are really at the end of the line of behavioral determinants. This attitude of safeness leads to considerable outrage when it is proven unfounded. Certainly we would rather be safe than at risk, but druthers have little to do with reality, and this is aggravated by our Founders ideas.
The Constitution sets out a framework of how to govern, the Bill of Rights sets out specified human conditions that government is not allowed to trespass on, specifically prohibited governmental behaviors because these states of being are assumed to be precedent to government. Not allowing the government to attempt to interfere in these areas was at the time the leading edge of political science, it was essentially untried and acknowledged as dangerous. It is still the leading edge of political science, there is no government on the face of the earth with stronger prohibitions of interference with human rights. There is a reason this is true, it is damned dangerous. And we're throwing it away in search of illusionary security.
This is the populace of today, the one that is willing to ignore the simple language of the Bill of Rights in order to secure the non-existent safety promised by political organizations. Contrast that desire with the at any cost defense of liberty and see which is most prevalent. The idea that Revolution could now occur on the basis of the intangibles of the Bill of Rights is awfully optimistic. The simple reason the Second Amendment is within the Bill of Rights is the ability to secure a free state of being, the ability to withstand foreign or domestic assaults on that state of being. In the face of a national military, the final ends are personal security from others and citizen security from our own government's depredations.
Inherent in the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the Constitutional document is the acknowledgement of governmental inclination to abridge the natural rights of citizens and its final dissuasion is the right to keep and bear arms. You have to look at the entire document to understand that it is essentially a blueprint for Revolution. Freedom of religion, speech, and press allow the breeding of and dissemination of Revolutionary thought. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure allows the infrastructure of Revolution. The keeping and bearing of arms allows the physical means of Revolution. Follow on through the Bill of Rights with this state of reasoning and each will reveal a tool of rebellion, and why not? These were the instigators of a Rebellion against a lawfully constituted government to whom they had historical and societal ties, deep ties. We were given all the tools needed to physically "throw the rascals out."
This is what the government is in the process of dismantling to limited citizen outcry. There is good reason why the outcry is limited, it is natural to crave security and materialistic success. Those cravings are exactly what is at risk with the form of Liberty the Framers envisioned and we are so far from the obvious frontier requirements of personal responsibility and risk that the depredation of Liberty goes almost unnoticed. This is the citizenry that we could expect to hold responsible for their own Liberty? One of the reasons guns become such a flash point is that they are an actual physical and materialistic expression of liberty, it is easier to hold in your hands a Colt than it is to wrap your mind around governmental snooping, or the funding of chosen religions. The immediate bark of a Winchester is more obvious than the whimper of corporate media in the face of governmental misdeeds. But that does not a Revolution make.
The American people sat on their hands when RICO was passed, it was not a matter of their house payments or grocery bill, even though the depredation on the Fourth Amendment was clear. It was touted as a tool applicable to the Mafia, a feared and despised minority. The problem is that however feared and despised and nastily criminal the Mafia is, they are also by definition, us. What is applicable to the Mafia is equally applicable to ordinary citizens, if the government doesn't like what you and some associates are up to you can easily find yourselves designated a criminal conspiracy and subject to some truly draconian outcomes. All it takes is a few more little baby steps like The Patriot Act or Military Commission Act to make it so. In the time of the Framers, instigators of actions allowed by RICO would have found themselves at best tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail, and today almost nobody notices. This is the bunch somebody expects to build a Revolution on?
The political appellation of authoritarianism is not Party determined, it is an outlook and desire for a type of political action. The mindset seems more prevalent in the Republican Party, but that is, perhaps, due to the more heated rhetoric of the extremes of the Party and the out of control just past Republican Congress. RICO was passed by a Democratic Congress, and the more egregious offenses on the Second have been at the hands of primarily Democrats. The current Democratic Presidential candidates are both notorious gun banners and supporters of blatantly un-Constitutional gun activities. It is not a Party affiliation that is dangerous to this nation's Liberty, it is the mindset of those we elect and our refusal to hold them accountable. Authoritarians should be opposed at every pass, at every opportunity, whether their stated ends match our own or not. That is not the case, not for the ordinary gun owners, press, religions, or even speech advocates, they ignore what does not impact their pet idea. This is what Revolutionary thought has to contend with, figure a considerably larger chance if the issue was economic and materialistic. Short of another Great Depression or the grinding plutocracy of the Robber Barons expect more of the same. Toilet paper and the Constitution's parts respecting Liberty have a lot in common, in DC, Statehouses, and your houses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)