The Supremes miss the boat

You have got to hand it to the Supreme Court of the United States: They probably have done more damage to the country than they realize.

In two days, in my opinion (and one shared by many people), the justices in split decisions have done considerable damage to the rule of law in the United States.

Granted, I am not saying that the justices don’t have that power, because they do, and however wrong I, or anyone else, may think their reasoning and conclusions may be, what they say is how the law is supposed to be interpreted and applied in the United States. That is the compact we live under. I don’t have to like it. You don’t have to like it.

But love or hate the decisions they make we have to accept them as the new rules that govern the nation (at least until the political process can come up with a new way someway to interpret the compact that stands the scrutiny of the justices). If you don’t like that, then move to another country.

Now, having said all that, I think the Court’s rulings on both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and on “gay” marriage are faulty. Both of them for basically the same reason: They chose to redefine words with established definitions.

To some people this may not seem to be a big deal, but in the realm of the law, its rules live and die on definitions. How words are defined is established by tradition and precedent, and in both these cases the concurring justices chose essentially to say that neither tradition nor precedent was enough to warrant not changing the definitions.

Now, liberals and progressives will tell you this is as it should be because words evolve, the language evolves and over time things mean differently than they did before. Only in these cases, that really is not the situation. The justices just decided it was.

For example: the word “state” in the context of the U.S. Constitution and Congressional legislation has a pretty specific meaning that has been held for roughly 228 years. That definition is no longer valid. When legislation or regulatory rules are made now, rather than meaning just the political subdivision of US called the “state” (of which there are 50 of them), the word now means either the states (in the traditional sense) or the federal government, depending on how you want to interpret it in the political/social context.

I understand the argument that ruling the PP&ACA (Obamacare) would have adversely impacted millions of Americans and I imagine that played a significant role in the thinking of the justices. The court is loath to play bull in the china shop with the U.S. economy and usually seeks ways to avoid doing it. Of course, the court could have done as it did 30+ years ago with the bankruptcy code and stayed striking it down in Toto and told Congress it had six months to fix the problem. But that would not have served the ends of those on the liberal end of the court whose political view of the world is that role of the government is expansive and such things such as health care are a right (wrong … but that is an argument for another day).

The justices did the same thing with granting equal rights to same sex marriages.

Look, I have no problem granting two people of the same sex who wish to enter into a contractual relationship (which, legally, is all “marriage” is) and receiving government benefits equal to those granted “married” couples. No problem whatsoever. But you have to recognize that this really isn’t about people loving each other or living together; it is about those benefits. All the rest really is just window dressing.

Granted, it is an effort by a minority of our population trying legislate social acceptance of behavior which is, by any estimation, a tad bit on the abnormal side and in most cultures is considered something other than acceptable behavior. In some it may be tolerated more than others but pretty much universally it is considered aberrant.

So, the justices decided, based pretty much on a loud and orchestrated campaign of political correctness, to say that such pairings had right to be called “marriages” and were indeed a constitutional right (S0 that they had to be recognized in all 50 states). In essence, they redefined the millennia old meaning of a word in almost all cultures and religions to fit what they thought was correct in our evolving world.

The court, however, was correct in saying what is a contractual right in one state has to be in all states. So, in that sense, they did do something right.

To me, at this junction, I don’t have a dog in this fight. My objection is to the laisse faire playing with the language. Now, I know this is what lawyers and judges do all the time and it is what they get paid to do. Doesn’t mean I have to like it.

I see it as an assault on the rule of law, for remember the law hinges on words and how they are defined. Start changing the definitions and you tear at the foundations of the law. And if people can change definitions at will, then we become a nation of men and not law, as the old saying goes.

In one footnote, I would say that this ruling opens the door to polygamy becoming a constitutional right. You might say “nah, never happen”, but 20 years ago people were saying the same thing about gay marriage.

Autumn of life

First, I want to apologize to anyone who has followed this blog in the past: I have been woefully bad about updating, having somewhat abandoned you all to make links on my Facebook page. Richard Browne on Facebook

It has been easier to post links with brief commentary there, but I have decided to take the time at this point to more fully develop my headline thesis and Facebook is inadequate vehicle for that.

Secondly, I want to apologize for the lack of links that will be in this post, but a) I am lazy and b) I am going to credit you, the reader, as one who follows the news in the United States and therefore already will be able to understand the context in which my views are made.

Now, what do I mean by “Autumn of Life”? Am I referring to my own or do I have some larger portrait to paint? The answer to both is “yes”.

I recently reached the ripe old age of 66 and with my health being as it is, I am – I must realize and acknowledge – in the “autumn” of my existence. It doesn’t mean I plan to die tomorrow or sometime soon, but it is a possibility that will come to pass. Being an old codger with a few miles under my treads does tend to give me a perspective that I once would have applied only to my digressions into my studies of history – of American, of the World, of Western and other civilizations.

So as I read today’s headlines on the internet and read through the lead stories of the day, on one hand I have been struck by an increasing sense of doom and gloom, while occasionally I see flashes that there may yet be hope.

The problem in the U.S., to me at least, is that we have become too complacent, maybe even too apathetic, about who we are as Americans and what is expected of us as Americans. Understand, that for most Americans we take for granted a lifestyle that literally few, except maybe the very wealthy, around the world really can hope to achieve. But we assume that lifestyle as a right, and don’t realize it is a privilege that has been built on the hard work and discipline of our parents, their parents, etc.

It is our expectations that are at fault now and how we fail to acknowledge the basis for the life that those expectations are built upon. Over the course of my life, I have witnessed how the elevation of our expectations in outcome were not keeping pace with the expectations of what input it would take to achieve them.

It is, of course, de rigor now to teach every child that they can achieve anything they want to and that everyone can be a success. That concept is why we now downplay competition and celebrate mere participation. We do this to promote self-esteem in our young and a belief in their abilities … even if their abilities are not up to achieving their expectations. I remember the first year I played organized baseball, I had these visions of me driving the ball up the hill above our diamond and into the parking lot. I walked 13 times (I was a little kid and had a small strike zone) and I struck out 13 times. We forgot somewhere along the line that we also have to teach our progeny that what we want often is not what we get.

I remember a saying from my youth: Aim for the stars, but be willing to accept the moon, or even low-earth orbit, if that is what your abilities will carry you to.

It is called dealing with disappointment and dealing with the reality that sometimes what you want and what you can achieve are entirely different things.

For example, when I was a young man I would have given my eyeteeth to become a line officer in the US Navy or the US Coast Guard. It didn’t happen, but not for lack of trying. Events both in and out of my control augured against me and I was disappointed in nine different attempts. What that taught me, with each of the failures I had a long the way, was to fall back, regroup, and strike out again with a new objective in mind.

Over my life, I have had some successes and, if I am honest, many failures. It was the challenge of trying to pick up the pieces after each of the failures – an some probably should be legend – and go on. It is hard. It is not easy. However, I thank my parents for for somehow endowing me with the perseverance to keep going.

The problem I see with a large part of my nation these days is that we have lost the consensus of what it means to be an American … and even if to be called an American is a worthy thing. If you read much of the politically correct debate, you begin to wonder if being an American really is worth all we go through … especially if we who believe in the old American ideal were such evil and bad people.

We have lost the consensus of what is expected of the individual adult, or the role of faith is to play in our collective lives, or what role civil and community organizations are to play in our American civilization, or what the individual roles of city, county, state and federal governments are.

The role of the individual, as perceived by those rather smart white men who wrote the constitution that underlies our current republic, was guardian of his (sorry, certain groups were excluded, although that has been for the most part correct as a matter of law) own sustenance and future. It was not the government’s role (especially not the federal or state) to make sure the individual had a roof over his head or food on the table. The role of the individual, however, was to contribute to the success of his community and to stand in its defense … and in a larger sense, to his city, county, state and nation, as part of his obligation to it. It was the individual’s obligation to uphold the law through his own actions, rather than an expectation that the government, at what ever level, to enforce the law. All were to be treated equally by that law and it applied to everyone.

That perception, unfortunately, no longer applies. If it feels good and you can get away with it, it seems that today no one has an obligation to obey or uphold the law. In addition, that extends to those whose job it is to enforce the law. If, for whatever reason, it becomes expedient not to enforce the law, or to enforce it selectively, or in some cases rewrite the law by executive fiat, those who are charged with its uniform enforcement decline to do so.

In order to satisfy the political beliefs for some, rather than take the language at its face value, it is twisted and turned into something Orwellian to behold. George Orwell’s “NewSpeak” is alive and thriving in 21st Century America.

On one hand, there are those who believe – not as American tradition holds – that in the 21st Century the rights and beliefs of the individual no longer matter but the rights of the community and democracy trump the individual with the “government” as the arbiter. We see political candidates to date making it clear that it is their position in no uncertain terms.

For example, take firearms. Well, you have the right not to own one, but does that make it right to deny someone who wants to own one to be able to do so. Just because you are scared of guns does not necessarily correlate to a need to ban guns.

The Second Amendment makes it an inalienable right of the individual to keep and bear arms, as so many of the people who debated its adoption pointed out. And it was not just for hunting, but it was survival … survival against enemies of the Republic from both within and without. The government is not giving us this right as a privilege and it doesn’t have the privilege to take it away from American individuals without showing good and just cause. It is not up to the individual to prove that he or she worthy of the right; it is up to the government to prove that he or she is unworthy of the right.

Now, I know that is not a popular position with some of our elites, particularly among our media gatekeepers and pundits and others who consider themselves to be progressive. To them, we have “evolved” past the need for individuals to be willing to step and defend not only themselves but their communities “from all enemies foreign or domestic.” (I know that oath because I have taken it many times) To them, that is what we hire police and the military for, but I would disagree with them.

In our hubris, we are letting our expectations and wants get ahead of our abilities and capabilities. In our hubris, I would posit that my country has reached the autumn of its life. Those who are familiar with the Cycle of Democracy will understand what I am saying … if you are unfamiliar with it, then I beg forgiveness and ask you to research it.

For many decades now we have let those who want desperately for everyone to succeed and raise everyone to the the same level as everyone else raise expectations without pointing out that there is no free lunch. Everything comes with a price and what you want sometimes is beyond the reach of what you can afford. That this is true does not necessarily mean that you are failure – I can attest to that, for I don’t consider myself a failure … I may not have been perfect or roaring success who achieved all his goals without effort, but that doesn’t make me a failure.

Unfortunately, we have raised at least two, if not three and possibly going on four, generations who were not taught that while all things are possible, not all things are probable. That as individuals we have to be prepared for disappointments and that we will take losses, probably in greater proportions than our gains.

I once gave a poem to my step-son and commended it to his reading. I told him to listen, hear and attend to its words, for they are good rules to live your life by. I hope it has helped him … and I would recommend everyone, especially every adolescent and young adult to read it and pay heed. It is the poem “If” by the British author and poet Rudyard Kipling. I know there are those who will immediately dismiss it, given Kipling’s provenance, but they would be wrong. It truly is an eternal lesson that knows no race, religion, creed or era.

When I look at events of recent days, I am struck by the fact that evil does walk among us … and, yes, there are evil people out there. They feed upon the envy, resentment and hate that is being fanned every day by people on the internet, in the media, and in our political leadership. We cannot escape that truth. All we can do is prepare ourselves to cope with.

How do we do that? There are a number of things we can do, but it falls to individuals and not to “society” or “government”.

First, we can endeavor to live our own lives by the only one true and universal rule of life: Treat others as we would have them treat ourselves.

Easy to say, but difficult to do. We wish we were ruled by our reason, but the truth is we are move often ruled by our emotions and our passions. Still, we must learn that it truly is better to forgive rather than to let our anger and hate eat away at us and turn us into beasts we do not recognize.

The second thing may seem at odds with the first, but it is just as true: If we want peace, then we must be prepared for war.

Whether it is war at the individual level, the community level or the national level, we must be prepared to step forward and take whatever measures we can to combat evil when it comes … and it will come. This is not something we can farm out to mercenaries in the form of police or the military. This is something each of us must take on as our personal obligation, not just to ourselves, but also to our communities, our cities, our counties, our states, territories, commonwealths and districts, our nation … and probably, by extension, to our planet.

I say these things without consideration of color, or race, or ethnicity, or economic, or social status. It doesn’t matter to me. Unfortunately, for far too many Americans, it does matter these days. No longer is it important what the law says, or what people’s actions are in accordance with those laws, it only matters what someone’s perceive gender is, or sexual orientation, or color of their skin, or whether they are rich or poor or somewhere in between. This is wrong and is part of the evil that has brought autumn to our Republic.

If you have bore with me throughout this lengthy essay, I commend you. If you agree with it, I hope it inspires you; just as I hope it it inspires you to respond with a comment if you don’t agree with me.

 

When is a belief bigotry?

Duck Dynasty star suspension

The suspension from the cast of the Arts and Entertainment cable channel’s Duck Dynasty clan leader seems to brought the culture wars to a boil.

At the outset, let me say that a) Phil Robertson had every right to say what he did and b) A&E (barring some contractual verbiage otherwise) has every right to suspend him from the show.

Personally, I think it is all a tempest in a teapot, except for the fact that the progressives seem to going all out on this issue.

For the record, I didn’t find much to get upset about what Mr. Robertson said, and – as usual for me – fail to see what the ruckus is all about.

First, he is expressing his opinion … and that and a sawbuck will get a coffee at Starbucks.

Second, he is basing he opinion on his reading of a passage in the Christian Bible. His recitation of the passage is pretty accurate as far as I can ascertain … and I don’t hear anybody disputing that. Now, if you don’t like the passage …. well, nobody is holding a gun to your head or a sword to your throat saying  you have to be a Christian or at least one of his denomination.

The funny thing about the Bible, as my grandfather (the circuit-riding Congregational minister in the Yellowstone Valley and graduate of Oberlin College’s Seminary) taught me: IF you look hard enough you can just about justify anything you want, one way or another, by citing some biblical passage ... and people will do it.

I am not accusing anybody here, mind you, but by tradition and scripture (reinforced by the comments of the latest Pope in the Catholic Church), homosexuality is considered a sin in the Christian dogma. You don’t like that? Then don’t be a Christian, or a Muslim or any of a large portion of the world’s religions.

Having said that, I was struck by something else Mr. Robertson said:

"I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me," he said. "We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity."

Hello? You got a problem with that? Or maybe you didn’t read/hear that part in the story you are basing your opinion on. To me that is a pretty important part of his opinion. You know, the old “judge not lest you be judged” admonition.

Then he pointed out that having been “poor white trash” living in Louisiana for  67 years, he had the opportunity to live and work among the African-Americans going back to the pre-Civil Rights Act days of the 1960s. Back then, he said, he didn’t see any of his co-workers, friends and neighbors who happened to be darker skinned than he blaming all their woes on evil white folks.

Well, this has got the African-American grievance industry in an uproar. They seem to be blasting away with both barrels on how racist this bayou redneck is. He may be, but I suspect not … and least not in the way that East and West Coast progressives see it.

Now, I spent about half my life living in the Deep South – but I wasn’t raised there, nor did I go to school there. I can say from my own experience that there are those in the South – non-whites, mind you – look back on the 1940s and 1950s with a certain amount of wistfulness and fondness. It seems that before the upheaval of the 1960s (and into the 1970s) there was “era” of “black culture” that left a warm spot in the heart of many of the “baby boomer” generation of the African-Americans.

It seems that there was a greater emphasis on family, church, education (such as it was … and it was not equal, but they tried as hard as they could to make it work), and economic life back then. Thriving black business districts fell victim to urban renewal, schools (which are the anchor of almost any community – black, white, red, yellow, tan, whatever) were wiped out and consolidated as integrated entities that did not have the history that gave students roots to build their futures on.

Now, that is my experience being a newspaper editor in the South. Yes, there were many things wrong with the society and culture that was torn down by the Civil Rights movement … and in time a new society was born. It isn’t perfect. Not by a long shot, it isn’t but it is better than what was there before. Still got somewhat of a problem with 11 a.m. Sunday mornings, but that is by choice and not by government edict.

Unfortunately, the movies and television have perpetuated the old stereotype of the South which has engendered a new bigotry against the people who probably were just as much victims of the old Southern culture.

Unfortunately for those folks, whose educational opportunities also were limited, gone are the days of hoeing cotton, sharecropping or working in a textile mill. The mill culture that ruled much of the South for nearly a hundred years is dead folks and a new reality is rising.

The Duck Commander/Duck Dynasty clan is indicative of that change. Unfortunately, the progressives, gay rights activists, the racial grievance purveyors just can’t get that through their preconceptions. To them, po’ why-at trash is racist and bigoted and always will be.

Well, some are, but most aren’t.

It is like the War of Northern Aggression/American Civil War: Folks, it is over and done with. Same with the South of apartheid of the pre-1970s.

As for how Christians are supposed to view homosexuality? Well, it remains a sin (whether it is a choice or not) and those of us who are heterosexual Christians are reminded to hate the sin, but love the sinner.

So, hey, it don’t matter to me none if you are a homosexual, bisexual, transvestite, transgendered or somewhere in between. However, I do have one request, I won’t slap you in the face with my heterosexuality if you won’t try to force me to condone, approve, etc, your whatever.

And as long as you treat me with respect and dignity, that is what you will be getting from me. You start condemning me and ranting and raving about my views and beliefs, then don’t expect me to be quite so charitable with you. I will try, mind you, but my patience may be sorely tested.

And if that makes me a bigot, then so be it … but then, to my mind, everybody really is sort of some shade of green … but that is the old soldier in me.

Only in America

Billy Krystal on Letterman as Romney

It is one of the things I absolutely love about being an American: Being able to mock and parody people – especially public figures like political candidates – with virtual impunity.

Billy Krystal, who is a very funny comedic actor, just leaves me in stitches all the time and he doesn’t fail here in his appearance on the late night TV show with David Letterman.

Now, I know that Letterman supports President Obama, as does Krystal, and that doesn’t bother me at all. It bothers me that Letterman seems so upset that his entertainment show apparently will not be a campaign stop for the Romney campaign bus. Get real, man, you obviously are hostile, so why go there?

Still, I think Krystal is a gem and this was absolutely hilarious. Besides, there is an element of truth to it, which is what makes parody and satire so effective.

Thank God for religious freedom

Pakistan grants bail to girl accused of blasphemy
Iran releases Christian pastor
The Mutawah
There is one thing that most Americans have a great difficulty in understanding and that is living under theocratic rules.
Of course, to your run-of-the-mill progressive, American Christian fundamentalists fit the description, but believe me, they don’t even come close. Fundamentalists in the U.S. of any stripe don’t hold a candle to the real thing that you find in Muslim countries functioning under the auspices of Sharia laws.
For example, the young Christian girl in Pakistan who was charged with blasphemy for supposedly burning a page from the Quran (the Islamic faith’s version of the Christian Bible or the Jewish Torah, the holy book). Apparently, it seems, that the equivalent of a priest or rabbi or pastor fibbed and that was what got the child arrested. Due to international pressure, at least the girl was released on bail. That doesn’t mean that the charges can’t go ahead, but it does mean that she gets out of jail to be with her family, hiding somewhere in Pakistan from those Muslim fundamentalists who would like to see her drawn and quartered. And you think American Christian fundamentalists are intolerant.
In the second case, an Iranian who was fulfilling the role of a Christian church minister apparently is not going to be put to death for apostasy by the Iranian regime. It seems that the international attention won another victory and he got off on appeal, which reduced his charges to a lesser crime and he was released in lieu of time served, which was three years in the pokey.
You see, things like that don’t happen in the United States and won’t as long as the law is respected by those who believe and those who don’t believe. It wasn’t always that way, but it is the way it is today and has been for a good long time now … well at least for about a century or so. Yes, we do tend to tolerate differing religious views in the U.S., even though those not currently popular often have a relatively rough time of it. Unfortunately, intolerance also is one of those faults/sins that we will never get rid of … but, more than other places, at least we have a bridle on it.
What we don’t have are mutaween … or as I call them the mutawah. In Saudi Arabia, the mutaween are the enforcers of customs and mores, like what you wear, are you observing prayer time, is your shop not selling unapproved goods like CDs, DVDs and alcoholic beverages. I know my progressive friend out west sees an American version of these religious policemen in everything the religious right/conservatives seem to do, but really, our religious right has nothing on the mutawah. And such enforcers here definitely don’t have the sanction of the government, and despite his fears, I don’t think our government will give such enforcers sanction.
When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, I had a number of encounters with the mutawah. Most were amicable – they didn’t speak much English and my Arabic was limited to about three or four phrases. There was one incident when the business I was visiting suddenly shut all the shutters on the windows to the street and as it continued on with business, the owner explained to me that it was prayer time and rather than shut down the press run he was doing for me, he just closed the shutters so the mutaween wouldn’t see what was going on. I guess my time was worth more than the pressmen’s prayers or the fine he would have faced had he been caught (which he said he was occasionally – he did this often and not just for the infidel American Army NCO who was there – and was ready to pony up the fine).
There was one encounter, which fortunately I missed, where another NCO, who was a friend of mine, literally had to drag a female soldier out of a shopping mall before she got arrested. They were both in civilian clothes and she was wearing the obligatory floor length skirt, but her shirt sleeves only came down to her elbows and she wasn’t wearing something covering her hair. A couple of mutaween decided that she wasn’t observing the local dress code and decided to hassle her about it. Being a proper American who seems to think that the U.S. Constitution applies anywhere in the world, she proceeded to try to make a federal case out of it. Bad idea, young lady. Well, the NCO rode to her rescue, literally dragging her by her arm out of the shopping mall as she was practically screaming about her rights and away from the two officers.
When they got back to the hotel where we were billeted, I got the story and we two NCOs tried our best a) to calm her down and b) explain to her the facts of life that what goes in the US does not always go over in other countries and we have to respect that. We may not agree with it, and definitely don’t have to like it, but we do have to – as we usually put it – SADO. (SADO stands for Salute And Drive On and is what you do when you have to do something someone in authority tells you to do that you disagree with or think is wrong)
When I look around and see a Mormon and a Protestant, backed by two Catholics, running to lead the United States I am amazed (Well, not really, because I am an American who believes in the tolerance of America). It is not something that you will see in very many countries around the world. Well, even in the US, the fact that these candidates even profess their religious preferences raises eyebrows in some progressive quarters that would rather see secular humanists in the job. They have no room for those who see some value in religious faith or the belief in some deity that you can’t see or prove the existence of. To them it, it all opiates for the masses and a bunch of hokum.
Of course, we may come to the obverse of a theocracy, and that is almost as scary as the thought of living in a theocracy.

Redefining freedom?

Travis Smiley on redefining Freedom in America
I read this commentary by Travis Smiley and immediately some warning bells went off in the old brain.
First, we need to be careful when we start to redefine what “freedom” and “liberty” mean. It puts us on a tricky slope that could get dangerous really fast.
Second, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a really smart politician and a first-class statesman, he also was a propagandist. His four freedoms are an example of his skill at the latter. If you want another example, view Frank Capra’s “Why We Fight” series of films from World War II (they are the epitome of the art). Trying to appeal to the higher feelings of people, FDR framed the fight in World War II as the fight for the Four Freedoms:
Freedom of Expression
Freedom of Religion
Freedom from Fear
Freedom from Want
Well, two out of four is not bad. You can have freedom OF things, but you never really can promise anyone freedom FROM anything. Too many people also think that because you should have a freedom that means it is a right given by our Creator and that freedom is absolute. Wrong answer.
Our Creator granted us only freedoms of, not freedoms from. Freedoms from are really a secular concept that has nothing to do with rights.
We don’t have any freedom from fear, and never will. Sorry, but I am afraid of spiders sometimes (like the one that just crawled out from behind my monitor on the wall – oops, bad move spider, you’re dead now)  … nobody is going to grant me a freedom from that fear. There are too many fears and fear is a part of human existence. Now, I would agree that we should be as free as possible from the fear of government running our lives or banging on our doors, but we should always be afraid of government’s ability to do just those things and attempt to restrain it at every opportunity.
We will never be free from want because “want” is an elastic concept that defies definition. IF you cannot define something, then you can never be free of it.
When you call something a freedom, then that implies it is a right, but rights, unlike Mister Smiley’s position, do not come from government. What government gives, government can take away and rights are not like that. You either have rights or you don’t have rights, at least in country that professes that its government strives to treat each of its citizens equally and that they are equal under and before the law.
Of course, government can grant you some legal rights, but remember the government can take away those rights just as fast or slow as it granted them.
Even then, it is wise to remember that all freedoms are not unlimited. Sorry, but even freedom and liberty cannot be unrestricted. Unrestricted would mean anarchy and unfortunately, we have to have some social order. It would be nice if people would without prompting interact with each other with respect and dignity, as well as respect individuals’ rights to own property, including their own labor. However, people are not that way and so we, as a society (in every society in every country), implement rules and taboos that we delegate to our government to enforce. Note that government’s power comes from the consent of the governed and not the other way around.
We have freedom of expression, but that freedom is not absolute. There are some things you can’t say or do (as I outlined in an earlier post) and you do have a responsibility for what you say and do. There are consequences and you need always to bear that idea in mind.
We have freedom of religion or of conscience, but even that is not absolute. For example, in our society, the use of human sacrifice is not included among the freedoms for a religion’s adherents. Sorry, can’t go chopping people up to appeal to your God. In some areas, even animal sacrifices will run you afoul of animal abuse laws. Usually, the use of mind-altering drugs is not protected by religious freedom, although there are some exceptions to that.
Now, Mister Travis wants to redefine what freedom means. If it means freedoms of choices (even there, there are some tough calls and freedom of choice is never absolute – without consequences), I will be right there with him. However, if he means freedom from things, then he is barking up the wrong tree and I would hope you would agree with me on this and not him.

First Amendment concerns

Critiques' deletions cause censorship cries
You know, sometimes I really am impressed by how little a large proportion of the American people understand the U.S. Constitution and the “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution).
For example: The right of free speech is guaranteed in the First Amendment, but most people don’t understand what “free speech” means.
It does not mean, for instance, that you can say anything you want about anything and anybody you want at any time you want. Sorry, but you can’t do that.
You can’t lie about other people, either verbally or in writing. You can’t damage the reputation of other people, either verbally or in writing (with some exceptions). You do that verbally, and you can successfully be sued for slander. You do it in print (or over the airwaves) and you can successfully be sued for libel.
You can’t say just anything that you want, like, maybe, yelling “FIRE” in a crowded theater. That also can get you arrested.
You can’t display things, calling it “art”, or do certain things that offend local community standards (or sometimes national community standards). It is called obscenity and will get you arrested.
You can’t call for the violent overthrow of the government. That also will probably end up getting you arrested, especially if you try to garner the means to accomplish your calls. It is called treason and sedition.
You can’t demand a third party print your libelous, obscene, treasonous or seditious material, or air it on television or radio or leave it on their servers on the internet. Sorry, that does not fall under your right of free speech.
Now, if you own the server, you can put whatever you want on it. But if it is someone else’s server or web page, then you have no rights at all. Besides, they can get (and probably would be) sued for your libel and they really don’t want that to happen.
You see, that is why web sites, servers and internet service providers (almost all of which are private entities and not government entities) will “censor” your comments. They don’t want to get sued.
The First Amendment only applies to the government(s – courtesy of the 15^th Amendment) in the United States. It says CONGRESS shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to the freedom of speech, expression, etc. It does not say that your neighbor, or your newspaper, or radio station, or your television station, or some web site or internet host has to allow you to have free rein on their platform.
Nope, you want the freedom to say or whatever, then you go get your own soapbox and put it on the public square, or buy a copy machine and use it as a printing press, or crank up your own radio or TV station (unfortunately, there you will have to get an FCC licenses due to limited bandwidth on the airwaves), or set up your own web site on your own server (although there too the government can shut you down if you violate the law, sorry about that).
You see, freedom doesn’t mean you have no responsibility. Not that at all as you are responsible for what you say and do. If there are consequences, civil or criminal, then you have to be prepared to face those consequences and accept them as a result of your actions while you were exercising your vocal cords or your computer terminal.
So, when a web site deletes your comment, get over it. It is their right. You may not like it, just as they don’t like what you are saying. But they own the printing press and they get to decide what they print. You don’t like it, go create your own web site.
You see, freedom really isn’t free. It doesn’t mean that there is nothing that can be licensed or censored. Freedom comes with a cost and part of that cost usually is acting responsibility and with dignity and respect toward the rights of others.

Threats and threatening situations

Occupy Threats
Definition of assault / Another definition of assault
Tea Party threats 1 / Tea Party Threats 2 / Tea Party threats 3
Census data 1 – Oregon / Census data 2 – California
Census data 1a – Ohio / Census data 2a – Georgia / Census data 3a - South Carolina / Census data 4a - North Carolina / Census data 5a – Texas /Census data 5b – Texas
I apologize for all the links above, but this posting took more than a little research and consideration.
First, my progressive friend out in Oregon, seems to be a bit agitated about the polarization and potential for racial violence in the United States. I am less so.
Granted, the potential is there and if you just go by the comments you read on the internet, then – I suppose – there would be some cause for concern. However, I take most of the comments on blogs and stories on the internet with a whole bunch of salt. I do this mainly because it is easy in the relative anonymity of the internet chat rooms and threads to say a lot of things that really are never going to come to pass. Sorry, while there are threats that you should take seriously, usually those on the internet are the least of your worries.
Now, the first link above, a video of a group of Occupy RNC protesters in Tampa heckling Republicans leaving their national convention shows a rather obnoxious man, among others, being as offensive as possible. Now, he comes dangerously close to breaching the line when it comes to assault (which is why he does the hand in the camera lens bit when he realizes what he said. Hand in the camera lens, I learned as a public affairs officer for the military is a really bad move. It makes you look guilty of something that you are trying to cover-up). See the definitions of assault, and you can make the call.
Note that he is African-American, although others in his group are Euro-Americans, which lends a bit to the racial aspect of his threats. Also note that many in this group are either covering their faces or at least their heads. This could lead to a feeling of unease that would indicate that a minority person is threatening open warfare against the predominately white or Euro-American people who are passing in front of him.
Personally, I take it as rhetoric and bluster because the guy is trying to get attention and trying to get a reaction (hopefully violent against him) that he can use to make his case. Sorry, it didn’t happen. Good try though.
Then, I posted three links to various and sundry alleged threats from people in the Tea Party (which progressives seem to love to hate). Again, most of the alleged threats are not really documented with video, etc., but can also be balanced by similar threats that have been made to Republican lawmakers in the same time frame. The same can be said about the alleged violent incidents.
The most “damning” threat is the sign threatening “gun violence.” That I would contend is far less than the vocal threat from RNC demonstrator. That sign is pure rhetoric. In addition, note that none of the “protesters” in that photograph are making any effort to hide their identity. I mean if you are going to start threatening violence at people, you would think you would have the sense to at least make it somewhat difficult for the authorities to figure out who you are (as was the case in Tampa).
Ok, so we are having rhetorical violence on both sides of the political spectrum. I think that is a pretty accurate statement.
Now, as for his concern about racial violence breaking out: I guess I look at it from a different perspective. You see, I have lived a long time among significant populations of minorities, particularly African-Americans and I think that gives me a little better perspective than someone who hasn’t. I list the census data for the two areas that I know he has lived in (as well as six places I have lived in for comparison) and the thing that leapt out at me was the lack of African-Americans living in those areas.
Now, I have to say, that both he and I were really good friends in high school with one of the few African-Americans at our school (who actually got himself elected president of the Student Body Association – this being in the mid-1960s), so I am not accusing him of having any racial prejudices.
Still, having lived in integrated and not so integrated communities, having covered the news in those communities for a very long time, I think I have a somewhat more accurate perception what the average person in those communities thinks and feels.
I can tell you, when they are not watching the nightly news, they are very stable, sane, honest, hardworking people who just want to live their lives and pursue their dreams. There really isn’t more than a whit of difference between most people, regardless of their ethnic background.
The sad thing is that is not the story that you get from watching the national news outlets. In my little corner of the world, which includes (basically) eight town homes, we have one Hispanic family, three African-American households and four Euro-American households. If any of us are planning to man the barricades, it has eluded me and since I am basically homebound most of the time, I spend a lot of time looking out the window and (when it is not too hot) sitting on the patio interacting with my neighbors. All of them are pretty much working stiffs working regular day jobs and trying to stay afloat in a really tough economy. One of my former neighbors was a small business owner who took it on the chin, although he had a good idea and excellent merchandise. It was just the wrong time for him and his wife to try to launch it.
I guess my point is that despite what you see and hear, the U.S. is not about to collapse into civil war (in my humble opinion). Yes, there are a lot of angry people out there, but that is nothing new. It has been that way for a long time, it seems to me.
I think even though we are “polarized”, if this election goes smoothly (and no one tries to get hinky by trying to overturn the ballot box results in the courthouse), most Americans will accept the results (whoever wins) and the country will go on.
Those who throw temper tantrums will be the one to lose and, in a sense, they will only have themselves to blame.
Granted, I would like to see the country go in one direction and I suspect my progressive friend would like to see it go in another, but that doesn’t mean I plan on taking up arms against him if it doesn’t go my way. I hope he feels the same.
That is the essence of living in a democracy. You tolerate those you disagree with and try to convince enough in your community that your vision is better than theirs.
Anyway, just some more fodder for the brain.

But it is not my fault I went crazy!

Aurora Gunman's responsibility

It is interesting in our quest to understand what makes an adult walk into a crowded theater and try to kill a whole bunch of people; our society always tries to absolve the individual of his responsibility.

The New York Times spent a whole lot of ink trying to explain that the shooter in the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting that killed 12 (plus the shooter) and wounded something like 55 was obviously mentally deranged and therefore, obviously, not responsible for actions. Barley Corn.

Yes, there were warning signs. Yes, I suppose, that the appropriate mental health professionals at the University of Colorado at Denver campus could have done more. But you know something; the young man in question could have done a lot more to stop himself. You do realize that this person is an adult, a very smart one from all testimony.

Ironically, he knew he was slipping off the edge. He could have made a choice. He could have gone to the psychiatrist that he sent the tome to and said, “Doctor, I have a problem, and I fear I might go out of control.”

With his intelligence and background, particularly since CU-D is the campus of the CU medical school, one would think that he would have enough awareness to know that he was slipping over the edge. He obviously did, because he told “friends” that he was going to do something, but nothing specific enough to run to the cops and say “you need to investigate him.”

What bothers me is that this young man probably will be determined non-guilty by reason of insanity, or at least the NYT is laying the groundwork for that defense.

How about this, folks: A young man makes some really horrendous, atrocious choices, relatively deliberately and rationally. He is aware what he is doing is not correct, and actually does seek some help from the mental health community. He could go the next step and be honest with the mental health professionals dealing with him, or he could just go to them and say “put me somewhere I won’t hurt myself or other people.”

I know I am sounding far too rational for this case, but since the young man did not make those choices, then I fear he should pay the penalty for committing aggravated murder with malice aforethought.

Given the information that we have at this point, insanity is not a defense. Of course, then we can ask ourselves why people do this. Why do seeming intelligent, rational people choose to kill, maim or rape people? It is a good question, and one I don’t have a simple answer to.

However, if you look through history, you find so many cases where this happens that you begin to wonder about people. Whether is small mass murders to mass murders on the scale of the Holocaust or other genocides, people you would think would know better get swept up in the dementia of killing, torture and rapine.

It is not unique to any society. If you think it is, then you are the one who is deluding yourself. It is a plague upon mankind and cuts across all societal structures.

How do we stop it? I don’t know if we can, given the emotional, rather than rational, nature of humans. How many times a day do we do something that defies even our own sense of rationality? Take a moment and examine your own behavior and analyze how many times you let your emotions of the moment, day, week, month, year, to overwhelm what people would tell you is rational behavior.

Yes, humans are rational creatures, but they also are very irrational creatures. That probably is what sets us apart from all the other animals in the animal kingdom. We have the capability to be both rational and irrational at the same time.

As I said, I don’t have a solution to this dichotomy. I am, however, a reluctant proponent of capital punishment, in that there are some behaviors for which there is no forgiveness. There are some things that people can do that transcend the boundaries of civilized behaviors and therefore those people have forfeited their right to live in civilized society. Since we no longer have the Botany Bay option (sending them off to a deserted island where there is no chance of escape and return to civilization), then the only way to remove them, and the threat they pose, from society permanently is for them to forfeit their lives. You can make a case for perpetual incarceration, but these people still pose a threat not only to the people who perforce must watch over them to ensure they stay behind bars but also to the other people who must, by necessity, share accommodations with them. At some point, society has to say that mere banishment to some penal facility is not enough. In those cases, when the crime has been so wanton or so heinous (killing or attempting to kill a large number of people qualifies, in my humble opinion), then the killer’s life is forfeit.

I know there are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this point, and I do understand. However, some things truly are evil or unacceptable and have to be eliminated. In those cases, there are no excuses.

Disturbing defense trends

I am not linked in as well as I once was to things that are happening the Army, but I do try to follow as best I can. I recently was trying to catch up on the case of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the young intelligence specialist who is to stand trial for leaking hundreds of thousands of classified (if nothing other the FOUO/NFD (For Official Use Only/No Foreign Dissemination) but much classified (which is the next step up) and secret) documents from the Department of Defense and the Department of State, and I noticed something that I thought was disturbing about issues that the defense had raised.
Note, I also heard a similar defense argument that Maj. Hassan, the accused killer of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood a while back.
The defense argument in each case is that it is the Army’s fault that the soldier involved did whatever they did which has them facing charges because the Army failed to take preventative actions against the individuals. In other words, the Army should have known these guys were bad eggs, and weeded them out of the basket before they could do any harm. These people are not responsible for their actions, the Army is.
Time out! Does this logic not bother anybody else? It bothers the heck out of me.
You take adults (these people are adults, you know, not little children) who are supposedly responsible individuals, or at least aware what is expected of them, and you are trying to say that they are not because the Army didn’t stop them. Whoa! As the old saying goes, that dog won’t hunt.
Sorry, I don’t care what issues these individuals may have had in their personal lives, it doesn’t excuse conduct contrary to the Universal Code of Military Justice. Unfortunately, in this day and age, few people understand what goes into being a service member and have even far less understanding of the UCMJ. I admit, I am not an expert on the UCMJ, not even enough to be considered a barracks lawyer, but I know enough what usually right and what is wrong in the way of military behavior. I also know that the “well, everybody else does it” defense doesn’t fly, in the military as well as in civilian life.
From what PFC Manning’s attorneys say, it is pretty obvious that a) he downloaded inappropriate material (regardless of whether or not he should have access or not) and b) he gave that information to a foreign national without authorization.
Why he did it really doesn’t matter. I know that will offend some people who think that if you think you are in the right, then there are no laws that cannot be broken. Or those who think that just because you disagree with what somebody else is doing, it is ok to publicize information that will possibly damage the institution, if not those you disagree with. That is a whole bunch of bovine scatology.
What if I think my employer, let’s say a software company that makes games, panders to views or values that I think are wrong. They don’t have to be illegal, necessarily, just things that I think are wrong. Does that give me the right to dump all the source code for all their software out on the internet plus all the bosses’ e-mails that discuss strategy against the competition? Do you not think the company would have the right to fire that me, sue me for everything I have and, if possible, file criminal charges against me for breach of contract and theft of property … basically throw the book at me?
If you don’t think the company has that right … please pull your head out of your derriere.
Essentially, what PFC Manning did is the equivalent or so would any legal bumpkin who had any smarts know that.
So, we plead that it is the company’s fault, because they shouldn’t have let me have access to any of the crap because of my personal problems (I was going through a mid-life – ok a senior-moment – crisis). Just because he allegedly had “gender identity” problems does not absolve him of his culpability for his actions. I am sorry, but that defense doesn’t fly.
Ok, he didn’t like what the government did, or how it did it … when you wear the uniform, you basically have surrendered your right publically express dissent. Sorry, but that is the way things are. In the polling station’s privacy, you can express your political views, otherwise, sorry, but it is prohibited by law and regulation. I hope all of you see the value in having an apolitical military (even if most members adhere to more conservative values) responsive to civilian authorities, rather than having a politically active military that ignores civilian authorities when it comes to domestic policy.
I think it is sad that the legal system grinds so slowly, but like everything else bureaucratic, it does. And it is unfortunately that PFC Manning is the person that he is, and that those who support him are the way they are.
Sorry, but solitary confinement is not torture. Sorry, but it is not.
When you are considered a suicide risk, yes, certain procedures are taken to make sure you can’t create an opportunity to hurt yourself. Sorry, but that has to be done.
Lastly, while you have many rights, all those rights you think you have as a civilian? Well, when you swear that oath when you enter military service, you basically surrender most of them. You no longer are in a democratic republican society, but a military one. Military society is different. In today’s world, you are not forced to join this society; you volunteer. You are not a child when you volunteer, but an adult and you must assume adult responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is understanding that you probably won’t get to do what you want to do most of the time and, in fact, you probably will dislike what you are asked to do a big part of the time. Get over it, it is part of the job.
Based on the information that is in the public domain, PFC Manning is nobody’s hero. He really isn’t a decent whistleblower as a good part of the information that he dumped out on the internet could be obvious to most rational people, but it didn’t help to throw it in people’s faces. That hurt and possibly cost some people their lives. We will never know.
Still, he acted like he didn’t care what happened to his fellow soldiers, to those who serve the nation. I am sorry, but that attitude, when in uniform, will get you jail, if not shot (and not by the official system).
Mister Assange of WikiLeaks can huff and puff all he wants (because it makes him feel good and powerful), but PFC Manning should face the full measure of the consequences for his breaking faith with those who served with in uniform.

Who really does have a say?

Poor have no say in government

A Princeton University academic, a sociologist with a doctorate, says according to his research that the poor and the middle class have no say in government policy. No say? That is an interesting construct and a very interesting allegation.

First of all, I have not read his book; merely the above article about his book. Woe unto me, for I know I am venturing into unstable ground here, but it makes me wonder about what policies he is talking about.

According to the article, it quotes him as saying:

"If federal policy more equally reflected the preferences of all Americans we would see a more progressive tax structure, higher unemployment benefits, stronger regulation of business and industry, a more protectionist trade regime, more prayer in public life, and less access to abortion."

Ok, but my question would be is that what the federal policy should be? You see, the problem I have with that basically is that it looks on the government as not only a protector but as a purveyor of government largess to the benefit of this group or another. Is that what the federal government is supposed to be in the United States? Is it supposed to be protecting this group or that group or any group? Is that what government has come to mean to people?

The author of the study seems to think so. Obviously the wealthy have too much influence on federal policies, like the progressive tax structure? Is that true? I may be wrong but I have read somewhere in government documents that nearly half of Americans pay very little if anything in federal income taxes. The vast majority of these people, according to the demographics accompanying that statement are people who come from the lowest and lower levels of income (at or below the median income of somewhere around $45,000 a year. I don’t know about you, but that seems pretty progressive to me. It also seems to me that the “poor” benefit a lot more from the federal government than the wealthy seem to be, but I could be wrong.

You see, one of the things those really smart guys who framed the constitution that outlines what the federal government is supposed to be really, really feared was the “tyranny of the mob.” You see, being revolutionaries, they knew the power of mobs and how they can swing quickly into tyranny of the majority.

Since we all agree that there are a lot more poor people than there are rich people, it would seem that they do have a large influence on public policy. Is that not “representative democracy”? Well, I suspect it isn’t if you think that there should be no wealthy.

I am not arguing that “rich” people don’t have more influence than one person one vote, because obviously they do. But then that is what the founders wanted. They wanted “minorities” to be protected from the tyranny of the masses. Granted, we never really have done all that good of a job protecting all minorities all the time, but still it is what we should be trying to do.

The reason we want the “wealthy” to pay more is the same reason that bank robbers rob banks instead of stock brokers: That is where the money is. So, if you want to get the money and give it to someone else, then you have to take it from the people who have it. That seems to be a simple enough concept, but then you have to ask yourself is that really the right thing to do?

Well, there are those people who do think that it is. These people are those who honestly believe that a human society can function under the precept that you give to each according to their needs and you take from each according to their ability to give. It is a really utopian concept. However, if you look at history … it doesn’t work. It seems that people are just not made that way. I guess it is a fault in the human genome (something like the old religious concept of “original sin”) but I don’t know. However, I do know that it doesn’t work.

Behavioral specialists will tell you flat out that the best way to get people behind a project is to give them a personal stake in it. That is why democracy usually works, because the “people” have a stake in it, or at least think they do. I think that is because, deep down, each one of us thinks that we have a right to own our own labor. We have this funny belief that it belongs to us as individuals and not necessarily the group, or community or society or the state.

Those same behavioral specialists will tell you that individuals don’t always work just for the sake of working, In fact, very few people work just for the sake of working. Usually, they want a return of some sort on their investment, and if possible they want to maximize that return. In other words, we want a reward for our behavior.

Now, in this case, according to the academic, the reward people get from government is directly linked to their wealth. The more you have, the more you get from government, or so it would seem the argument would go. But is that really true? It seems that the social safety net that we have pays out considerably more to individuals who fall more into the “have not” category than the “have” category.

Which then leads to the interesting question of why is it in the society’s interest to rob from the rich to provide from the poor? Why is it that we allow government to do that?

Again, I thought the whole idea was that the government would be neutral and we all as individuals would be equal before the law. I know, it is a foolish utopian concept, but I find it much more appealing than the to-each/from-each utopian concept. I realize I may be in the minority here, but it is my humble opinion.

You see, the reason special interest groups (regardless of political bent) spend lots of money on political races is because they believe that there will be a large monetary benefit (or maybe just an ego boost) that they will get in return. The money is invested to influence the “government” to spend whatever largess it has to spend to that special interest group’s benefit. It doesn’t matter if it is a labor union or a corporation, or economic group or any of the plethora of other special interest groups that we can (and do) divide ourselves into, the point of the objective is how much money or benefit can we get for us.

You want to take the big bucks out of politics? It is really easy: Take away the power of government to give big bucks to special interest groups. It is just like drugs. You want to take the crime out of the war on drugs, then decriminalize drugs, legalize their use, tax them and regulate them. Guess what, there goes the biggest reason for crime.

You see, there are only two things that really motivate people: Power or rewards (usually in the form of money). Give individuals a feeling of power, and that helps make them happier. Give individuals rewards for the investment of their time and labor and they feel better.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing here in the U.S. is the subdividing of the culture into competing blocs for what always was and always will be a limited government pie. We have, as I have said before, done let the cat out of the bad and the people have realized they can vote themselves money out of the common treasury.

This a sad state of affairs.

Power corrupts, doesn’t it?

President considers executive order on cyber-security

President Obama is considering circumventing Congress’  inability to pass legislation implementing certain cyber-security measures his administration wants to see in effect. His response, apparently, is to consider implementing the measures via executive order.

Does this report not bother anybody? It bothers me a bunch. It bothers me because I am seeing the legislative branch being bypassed all too often, in my humble opinion, by recent administrations (especially the most recent) using questionable methods.

The most obvious is the use of executive orders, signing statements and intelligence findings. I understand the necessity of each; however, I do have reservations about even that. I realize that Congress has sometime in the past given presidents the authority to use such tools, I just think their use has become abused and not limited as it should be.

But then, that always is the case, isn’t it?

For example, until about 100 years ago, there were few regulatory agencies in the United States and those that existed enforced Congressional laws, not their own. Then, in the early part of the 20^th Century, new agencies were created to protect the public. As the years passed, these agencies were given more and more power to draw up their own rules and regulations to enforce. Of course, Congress had a check, but basically once a rule was in the Federal Register, it became law. This is not because the Congress approved it, but it is assumed to be approved under the authorizing statute.

 

Code of Federal Regulations

 

Now, the justification for this is that Congress is too busy, or lacks the technical expertise, to micromanage these various agencies and delegates its authority to make the law to these parts of the executive branch.

Now, what Congress can do, Congress can do, although a simpleton like myself thinks it is abdicating its responsibility … but then Congresses have been doing that since the revolution. One of my favorite songs from the musical 1776 is John Adams’ lament “Piddle, Diddle and Resolve.”

What becomes bothersome is that there appears to be no real check or balance to this federal rule making and it seems to be really open to abuse of powers.

So, here we have a president, whose agenda can’t get passed by Congress, issuing executive orders to various and sundry federal agencies telling them either to ignore existing law and invent new law (amnesty for young illegal immigrants) or to make new rules that put certain policies, not Congressionally mandated or authorized, into effect (Aid to Libyan and Syrian insurgents, wavers for mandates under the Affordable Care Act, etc.) and we are not supposed to question anything?

I am sorry, but this really bothers me. If it bothers you too, then think about it. I would like to know what we can do. I would hope an election would change things, but do you think it will?

Anyway, the random thought of the day.

Diplomatic immunity?

British threaten to enter Ecuadoran Embassy to arrest Julian Assange
Wikileaks leader Julian Assange probably has been granted political asylum by Ecuador by the time you read this, but I doubt he has been arrested. (As my progressive friend out west posted on his Facebook site about 10 p.m. EDT Wednesday (8/15/2012))
Granted, the British can, if they want to invoke one of their own laws, march in to the Ecuadoran embassy in London to arrest Mister Assange. However hardball at this juncture the Brits want to play this, I do think that they will think twice about going into the Ecuadoran embassy.
To me, the whole issue a tempest in the proverbial teapot, but apparently the Swedish authorities think they have reason to bring rather serious charges against Mister Assange (unless you want to dismiss claims of rape, which seems to be the European bent these days when people in influential positions who have allegedly consensual sex with women, that the women claim later was not so consensual).
It seems that the biggest fear Assange has is that somehow he is going to be extradited to the US and then put on trial for espionage and then executed. That would be a circus.
Unlike some people, I don’t view the US government or its plethora of intelligence and security agencies as being all that capable. Sorry, guys, but we ain’t that good and never have been.
Assuming that Assange was extradited from Sweden or even Britian to the US, I don’t think he would be “disappeared.” Sorry, he is too high profile for that to happen. So, that means he would wind up in a US court – not a military one at that – with all the fun and games that means. Nope, I don’t see him being strapped to a gurney to get his lethal dose happening.
So, what else? Well, it is going to be a trick to get him out of the Ecuadoran embassy to anywhere, and I don’t think his chances of that happening are very good. Of course, he could spend the next several years enjoying the freedom of said embassy, but I don’t think he is going to like that much.
Whatever he may think of the charges pending against him in Sweden, which led to the European arrest warrant, he also faces problems with violation of his bail in Britain. However sympathetic to the man you may be for the things that Wikileaks has done, if you are supporter of the rule of law, then his behavior makes him in the wrong.
Those people who think the World Court, or the European Court of Human Rights, is going to step in better think twice about what they wish for. Sweden, regardless of what you may think of the charges, does have a valid warrant outstanding for Assange. If you want to invalidate that warrant, then you really are striking a blow at the entire international legal system and elevating one man above the law. I am not sure even progressives like my friend out west want to do that, but I may be wrong.
No, I don’t think that the British should march in and seize Mister Assange. That action would set a very bad precedent for all nations. By the same token, I think it would be wrong for Ecuador to grant him political asylum to prevent his return to Sweden.
Embassies are not to be refuges for basically common criminals, but I know the US has protected its share of “refugees” over the years. It also has surrendered its share, including a Chinese dissident earlier this year (of course, a deal was cut and he was allowed to leave China).
Still, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to hear a person calling others to the barricades for someone who has the morals of an alley cat. But then, if you don’t like the US, or its government, or respect that sometimes communications are better left under seal, then be ready for the backflash … I am sorry but the US constitution, and the European declaration of human rights, really doesn’t apply very many places and you have to get used to that fact. It is not pretty and it does not make a lot of people happy … especially those in the US who are fat, happy and sassy and take those rights as a given. They aren’t.

This is my body

(Pro-choice "This is my body" video

Once again, my progressive former classmate out on the West Coast presents me with some low hanging fruit.
His Facebook page rages about how wonderful this video “monologue” is. He cites his role as a leader in Planned Parenthood and the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League/National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws. (NARAL defined)
I respect his right to hold his opinions, but I question the rationality behind those opinions.
Ok, to begin with, the mantra that is repeated throughout the video by a succession of women is that it is their body and they have the right to do with it as they wish. They won’t get much argument from me about that. It is theirs to do with as they wish and as such they need to take responsibility for that choice: Which means that I or people who disagree with them or their choices shouldn’t have to pay for those choices. Why should I be forced to pay for their decisions?
Heck, I am not trying to stop them from having sex. I am not trying to stop them from having orgasms or pleasure. If that is what motivates them, then have at it.
However, at the same time, don’t ask me to subsidize their desire for contraceptives or the possible need for an abortion. I think that is wrong.
As for the abortions, well, in a sense, I am ambivalent. I can’t have one. I never could and never was in the position where I wanted/could have/needed to ask someone else to have one, so it really doesn’t affect me. I know people close to me who could have made that choice and chose not to and I respect them highly for their decisions.
Still, I am not necessarily “pro-choice” either.
My reasons there are a bit complex. First, my dear sweet wonderful wife, who is passionately pro-life (anti-abortion to those of you who don’t know the lingo), has given me much to think about. The biggest question is “when do we become human beings?”
Now, we are not necessarily talking about that in the philosophical sense. I mean we are not talking about when we become sentient. Heck, I know some people that I would question whether they will ever become sentient. Still, the question remains, when does that little ball of cellular material become a human being and stop being a little ball of non-descript cellular material?
Does it happen at the moment of conception, when the two cells (male and female) merge? Does it happen with the now fertilized egg, which already has undergone several cell divisions, when it becomes implanted in the uterus? Is it after the little form has begun to take human shape? Is it after the new life becomes reactive to pain and other stimuli? Is it once its little heart starts beating? Is it once it is born and takes its first breath? Does it happen when the person has enough self-awareness to begin making decisions on its own? Just when does this magical transformation occur?
I don’t know, but I do understand the argument that once conceived that little bundle of cells has the potential to develop into only just one thing and that is a living, breathing human being.
So, the question is to the women who proudly proclaim that it is their body: At that point is it really just yours or are there now two lives at stake? When does that consideration come into the balance? I know that once the child leaves your body, you become responsible for its health and care and if you fail in that responsibility, society has chosen that it has the right to punish you; but what about before?
I guess that is a personal decision. I am glad I will never have to face it.
Still, it nags at me. If it is wrong deliberately take another person’s life, then when does that rule go into effect? When is it not in effect? What are the circumstances that determine each and how can we know so that we, as a society, can respond appropriately.
For the women in the video, that does not appear to be a consideration. No, the only consideration is themself. It is all I, I this, I that and my choice and my body. I am not sure that is a position a true progressive wants to take. I know as a libertarian, it is a hard question for me to answer.
Is human life so cheap that women can just throw it away because it doesn’t fit with their plans for their bodies at the present time? I understand the exceptions for rape and incest and other forcible violations. Even then, you are stuck with the question about the unspoken life yet to be. But to argue that you have a momentary right to pleasure or enjoyment regardless of the consequences seems to me to be irrational.
Yes, these women have a right to govern their own bodies. As I said, I have no argument with that. My only argument is who takes the responsibility for the new life that has been created and who has to pay for that woman’s choice.
Why is it right for those women to demand that I accept their views, while they refuse and reject my views? Where is the justice in that? Where is the fairness?
Just a thought or two to ponder.

Voting right or Voting privilege

Juan Williams on voter IDs

With all due respect to Juan Williams, a commentator for whom I have (surprisingly enough) a lot of respect, but I would take issue with the premise here. Not from a partisan point of view, but one that would question the statistics that he uses to bolster his talking points.

I am sorry, but when some think tank/polling group says X numbers of people are going to be affected by Y, it immediately raises my suspicions, especially when they say this group is going to be more affected. Now, they may be right, but then again, I just question the accuracy of their figures.

Granted, ballot box stuffing is more prevalent now than chain voting – an old practice where a person provided a voter with a pre-marked ballot to use in place of the one given at the polling station, which then was passed on pre-marked to another voter – or even serial voting – which is where a voter goes from precinct to precinct to vote, which is what identification requirements are designed to prevent.

Now, it would seem obvious that every citizen should have the right to vote in elections, but what is obvious is not always really the truth. You do not, in the United States, have an absolute right to vote in any election, even if you are a citizen. You see, before you are eligible to vote in this republic (remember it is not a “democracy”), you have to establish “residency” in a particular voting precinct. How you do this is outlined in various state laws, but usually requires that you have an address that is good for a specified length of time. That is qualification requirement number 1.

Then you have to register with the local board of elections – usually run at the county level – to put you on the voter rolls. There is any number of ways to do this, including, in most states, doing it online or through the mail. This is qualification requirement number 2.

Now, if you are a felon and currently serving a sentence, then you are not allowed to vote, although in most states, it seems, once you have completed your sentence, the state offers forgiveness and lifts the ban. So, in essence, that is qualification requirement number 3.

Then, in one way or another, you have to either present yourself to the voting precinct on the day of the election or – in states where early voting is allowed – the county election office to cast your ballot. You also can request an absentee ballot that you can submit by mail, but that requires a sworn statement from the voter. This is requirement number 4.

So, an individual just doesn’t have the right to cast a ballot. It is more like a privilege.

However, saying that a person needs to present a valid photo identification does not seem to me to be really that undue a burden, but then I have always presented one in the six states that I have been present and able to vote.

But then again, I have tried to vote absentee a couple of times, but being that I was deployed in the military at the times of the election, I suspect that my efforts were in vain.

Here, in Ohio, however it disappoints me to read that the campaign organization for President Obama and the Democratic National Committee have filed lawsuits to block allowing service members three extra days to use the state’s early voting system. I guess it is right that they should not get the three extra days, but it seems to me that they deserve it.

Still, when it comes down to it … it really is important that you have to want to vote because it is up to you to make sure it happens.

Vote with your feet

Gay Chik Fil A employees speak out

 

I get really tired of people talking like this. Understand, I am not a fan of Chik Fil A. It is not my taste.

Still, if you work for someone and you don’t like the views of the people at the top of the corporation, there is a simple solution: Cast your vote with your feet and go to work somewhere else. Chik Fil A doesn’t owe you a job and you don’t owe your labor to Chik Fil A.

The sad thing, as was apparent in the HuffPo piece above, is that the actual policies and treatment for gay employees was pretty much no different than any other employee and that is how it should be.

People should keep their sexual orientation out of the workplace, where it doesn’t belong in the first place. I know that is an unrealistic attitude to take but it is what should be happening. Just like people should keep their religion and politics out of the work place, people should not make an issue out of a lot of other things that absolutely no bearing on whether the person can do the job they are paid to do.

I suspect I speak for a lot of people who say that being homosexual is unusual, but if it is what you are, then have at it. However, don’t force your views on me or ask me to accept your homosexuality as “normal” because it is not. It is normal for you, as the GLBT, but it is not normal for the species as a whole. This is not to condemn you or to criticize you. It is merely pointing out the obvious.

I used to have red hair. When I was younger, I took my share of abuse for it. Didn’t like the abuse but I didn’t run around demanding that people had to accept me because I had red hair. No, I wanted them to accept me because I was a competent individual who did whatever job I was assigned to do to the best of my ability. If you didn’t like my red hair, too bad, that was your problem, not mine.

Can’t tell you how many times I was referred to as that “little red-headed son-of-bitch” but I got over it. Got called a lot of other names as well, but I survived. Heck, every person gets called names unless they are totally milquetoast.

As I have said before, I have no problem with individuals being GLBT or whatever. What they do with their private sex lives is no concern of mine. However, the operative word there being “private.” Unlike, some people (lord, it wasn’t all by a long shot, I know after living what is “affectionately” referred to the “Bible Belt” for most of my adult life) whose take on religion makes them intolerant in their own right. Just like gays are being intolerant of those who don’t accept them, these people can’t accept gays because they are different.

It really is sad that a relatively small group of people, all in the name of demanding attention and acceptance of their “unusual” sexual orientation have set out to redefine everyone else’s religious beliefs. You may not agree with their religious beliefs, but just as you expect them to respect yours and treat you with dignity, then each person should treat those with whom they disagree with respect and dignity.

Unfortunately, we are seeing precious little of that these days … anywhere (Not just in the US). Makes a real sad commentary on the human race, doesn’t it.

What is poverty?

Poverty level highest since 1960s

To solve poverty, raise the minimum wage

Americans are too poor to have babies

Poverty and what constitutes it is going to be a debate this election cycle and you know what? Except for probably some really rare cases in some very small pockets, real poverty doesn’t exist in America.

Gasp! Horrors! What is he saying? Are there no people going hungry or without every day in America? How can he say such blasphemy?

Well, folks, you see, poverty is relative. And I contend that except in some really rare cases that real poverty – like homes without facilities and utilities, people actually living on the streets with nowhere to go – basically does not exist in the U.S., not like it does say in other countries, even “developed” countries.

Oh, yes, we have our poor, our homeless, those who don’t have as much as maybe the “mainstream” individual has, but we really don’t have masses of refugees, unless you want to count the stream of illegal immigrants crossing our southern border. We don’t have masses of people starving; not just hungry but starving. We really don’t have masses of people living in totally unsanitary conditions. Yes, you can find isolated examples of this, but it is not like it was when I was a kid and before.

How many houses do you find today with an outdoor privy? Well, there might be some, but I think if you did your research you would find that the number of people who do without indoor plumping is very small.

How many people are without electricity? Again, the number is very, very small and oftentimes it is by choice – they live where it is very, very difficult and expensive to extend electrical service in.

In the United States, the “poor” - as defined by the U.S. government - typically have clothes, a place to stay or access to one, indoor plumbing, at least one television set, probably a cellular phone, usually a mode of transportation like a car worth at least, if not more, than half the poverty line, food, access to more food, access to health care. If you go elsewhere, at least in my experience, you will find that often is not the case.

Americans are privileged. We don’t want to admit that, but we are. So privileged, that we take it for granted and some of us think we are so wealthy that we can give this privilege to everyone. That is the problem. We really aren’t that wealthy. No one is and no one could ever be.

Gasp! Why do I say that? Because the definition of what it is to be “poor” keeps getting revised upwards. Don’t have enough poor? Revisit the definition.

In the process, you can extend the elite’s control over some of the people by making them dependent on government largess. I am not ranting like some person who says to hell with the poor. It just is not the government’s role, per se, to do things like that.

Alexander De Tocqueville, more than 175 years ago made an interesting observation about American culture – a culture that unfortunately has been made obsolete by the unsustainable entitlement society that we have today. He noticed that Americans had this wonderful way of coming up with civic – that is private – solutions to age-old problems. Americans, he noticed, did not seem to expect that government was the source of all the things necessary in life.

De Tocqueville was right, it isn’t, but that is not what a lot of people in this country will tell you.

Don’t have enough money from your job? Raise the minimum wage. That, I contend is the biggest load of fecal material ever sold the American public. I spent far too much of my life living barely above the minimum wage level. I have seen far too many people thrown back to the bottom of the pile by raises in the minimum wage. You train, you work, you get experience … and then wham, you are shoved back to the bottom by those who think those just entering the work force should get more. Of course, I suppose, we could let government set all the pay scales in this country, but what gives “government” that privilege? Besides, who or what is the government?

Despite what I did or did not get paid during my years of work, I was somewhat proud of the fact that I did indeed “own” my own labor and I could, if I wanted, sell it elsewhere (why do you think I have lived in 12 different states?) and possibly get more money for my skills and talents.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, it is the progressives – those people who believe they are enlightened enough to tell the ones who are not enlightened in the same manner how to live and that they need the government to help them – are the ones, in my estimation who are mounting a full-scale attack on the individual and individual rights. In their estimation, I suppose, people are not smart enough, or educated enough, or capable enough, to take care of themselves.

Well, I disagree.

If people are not having babies, then it is not the government’s role to subsidize them into having babies. It just doesn’t make any sense to me, but, alas, I am among those who are unenlightened.

You may think I am arrogant (and maybe I am) but I firmly believe in the individual; in the individual’s rights and responsibilities (as those go hand in hand). All individuals have the right to life and dignity. That right is denied them when their decisions are taken over by anyone else.

Remember, life is tough. Life isn’t fair. It never has been and it never will be. It is a journey that we all take, essentially, by ourselves, hopefully with  comrades and companions and helpmates along the way. But it still is our journey and not someone else’s.

Poverty? Only the individual can define what poverty means to themselves.

This is asinine, people

Chicago Seek to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Chik-Fil-A is bad (as are Christians)
Boston wants to Ban Chik-Fil-A
Politicians face road to unconstitutional acts
Ok, boys and girls – my fellow Americans – this is absolutely stupid with a capital S.
It seems the mayor of Boston and the mayor of Chicago (and some other town out in California) and the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite rights advocates have their nose out of joint because the president of the private company that franchises all the Chil-Fil-A restaurants happens to be a card-carrying Baptist who believes that homosexuality is a sin.
These people want to use the law to ban this person’s business from operating in their cities and if possible run them out of business. WRONG ANSWER!!!
First of all, there is not documented case to my knowledge of Chik-Fil-A restaurants ever denying service to any gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite person. The company even makes a point of this that it is NOT their policy to do so.
So, the president of the privately-held company tells a Christian publication that if it is said that he is against gays getting married, then he is guilty as charged. That is what he believes, that only a man and woman can get married.
So the progressives, ever so willing to tolerate differing views from their own, throw an absolute temper tantrum.
Give me a break. I am sorry, but this pushes my buttons. I may disagree with what you believe, but honestly – after 26 years as an active and reserve component soldier and 30 years as a civilian newspaper journalist – I will put my life and my reputation on the line for your right to hold your views without threat from the government.
For years, I worked one block and lived about five blocks from a very infamous store in South Carolina. It was the Redneck Shop and Klu Klux Klan Museum. If you don’t think I didn’t hate that shop and all it stood for, then you have no clue who I am. However, I -- in print and in person -- defended the right of the owner of that shop to operate his souvenir store just off the public square in that town. I may not of liked it, and may have told everyone who asked if they please would not patronize the store, but I fought just as hard against any effort by the city government or any level of government to force it to close.
You see, freedom isn’t just a one way street. People are not just free to do and say things that you like. They are also free to do things that you absolutely detest or express views that are so stupid you want to vomit.
My progressive friend out west seems, from his Facebook posts, to be one of those people who, if I showed the same sense of tolerance he seems to, I would be banning him from Facebook and the world. I let him rant, because – to be honest, Don Carlito – it makes me laugh and shake my head how silly you can be.
Now, for what it is worth, the GLBT people are literally trying to force their views down “our” collective throats. If you don’t agree with the “rights” as they define them, then they want government to punish you. No, that will not happen. I am sorry. You have every right to your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, but you have no right to dictate to me what my views on your sexuality, your beliefs, your views, your actions, are or will be! That is a line you do not cross.
I had no problem with the military GLBT people marching in uniform in the recent parade in San Diego. No problem at all, as long as each individual maintained proper military decorum as a representative of their service. That, among other things, basically means no sexual hijinks, no over the top displays of affection, etc. It doesn’t matter what parade you are in, that sort of behavior represents improper military decorum.
If you are not in uniform, and then do what you want, but once you put that uniform on, you have sworn to uphold that military decorum under the articles of the Universal Code of Military Justice. It does not matter how many stripes, or lack of, or bars, stars or leaves you have, it is still wrong.
I really am getting tired of the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite community ramming their views of a proper life down people’s throats. I hate to think what would happen to them if they were doing this stuff in some other countries, particularly Muslim countries.
Anyway, if you can’t tell, I really am pissed off. And I am really getting tired of the so-called progressives and liberals who put up with this bovine scatology. Almost as pissed off as I am at conservatives and religious fundamentalists and evangelicals who just won’t let the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transvestite people live their lives.