A Sarcastic Thank You to the American Media and People

Why am I dipping my thanks in a deep irony sauce seasoned with a fresh grind of hostility? Because you (and by you I must indeed include me, as we are “We the People”) and the media we allow to taint our thoughts have successfully managed to befuddle and obfuscate every issue this election cycle. At times, it's been downright lies, but most often it's half-truths interpreted through our ever more polarized worldviews. I have been labeled, rightfully, in one such discussion as a “Centrist Intellectual.” (Let me wipe off the irony sauce and say thank you to my dear Deborah, who though we may disagree, calls them as she sees them, and this is I hope exactly the political persona I hope to project.)

As such, I now have no one for whom to vote. In order to receive kudos from the vocal of either side and their media masters, any show of intellectualism makes a candidate out to be not of the people. Candidates are CLAIMING IGNORANCE as a positive characteristic. Please think about that for a minute, and honestly assess of you want to support someone who claims to be no smarter than you. I can't balance a checkbook, I certainly hope the people for whom I vote are smarter than me. I want them to be smart... but I am apparently in the minority.

Secondly, there's no benefit in moderation today. Be a little in the middle as a Republican, and you are labeled a RINO and some Tea Partier will come along and kill you in the Primary. Be a little in the middle as a Democrat, and websites like “AlterNet.Org” will decide you are just part of the machine carrying on Bush policy. We have become enslaved to our false left-right political spectrum (where does anarchy fall on that spectrum may I ask?) and have paid corporate giants millions to have their talking heads on both sides stop informing us and start simply confirming what we already think we know. Obama's a Socialist? Beck said so, and that's just what I thought, so it must be true. Reagan's the devil? You bet Keith, tell it like it is! We take it and we feed our confirmation bias, and if we do flip to the other channel, it's just to see how wrong the other guy still is.

And that's if we even bother to go to a “news source.” Usually it's just a forwarded email we won't bother to confirm because it falls in line with what we think. Of course, we must then share this with our like minded friends and perpetuate those half truths ourselves.

So here I am, with no candidate to represent my thoughts except ones already in power whom I would like to replace with someone better, or hear the truth about once in a while. I can't; there's no one better running, and no one who's on the side of truth, on the side of America. If you think your political part represents true America, the simple truth is you are wrong. There is no party representing America, because there are too many of us to break into two easily definable groups, and the fact we keep trying is a detriment to our nation and our future.

I am about to make a confession. I am a Liberal. There, I said it.
Oh, you think I mean PELOSI Liberal? Oh hell no. I am a Liberal like Thomas Jefferson, the classical definition, the idea that LIBERTY should be the first consideration. The rights of the people. I see both slides wrapping themselves in that flag, and neither truly representing it. LIBERTY does not mean the Government doing everything for you. LIBERTY also does not mean a powerless Government. We have a Bill of Rights to protect us from an overzealous Government so that that Government can protect us from overzealous Businesses. Indeed, we seem to be on a path to eliminate the governments ability to do anything, and will instead sentence ourselves to slavery to banks and corporations to whom we will be indebted as long as we shall live. The corporation does NOT represent unfettered capitalism. The government MUST keep them honest, and not be enslaved to them. Simply ask Republican President and Monopoly breaker Theodore Roosevelt:

“Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures. But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”
Speech at Providence, Rhode Island (1902-08-23), Presidential Addresses and State Papers (1910), p. 103

For there to be true freedom, we must be independent; independent of Government, of Corporation, of Political Party. There was a time Democrats preached that, as did this other Roosevelt:

“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
Franklin Roosevelt

I have another confession to make; I am a Conservative. There I said it.
Oh, you think I mean a PALIN Conservative? Oh hell no! I mean the one who wants to leave the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as our ruling ideal. We have to understand what that means. If we want to be Constitutionalist, our government doesn't establish a State Religion, we don't keep people from saying what they think, we leave guns in the hands of the people, and we let some bad guys get away in order to secure Liberty and privacy. Yeah, I know privacy doesn't appear in the Constitution. Primarily because the word in the 1700s related specifically to using the toilet. (Look it up- ever hear the term “using the privy”? Surely you can see the etymological evolution of usage here).

See, I think about these things, and you should too. Think, don't feel. Think, learn to cooperate, because it is what we have in common, which is a hell of a lot more than we disagree on, that will protect us from those who are jealous of what we have. Don't underestimate the internal threat though; we are more of a threat to our own Republic, either through over-legislation, or under-regulation; through taking advantage of an already ailing system, or destroying it so it cannot help those with legitimate need. The answer to America's future lies in the middle, and in thinking so we can differentiate real problems from banner issues meant to get our party elected. We indeed must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately.

Now, I would like to think I haven't promoted a specific side's agenda here, particularly since I am pretty put out with both. Their posturing as left an impression of doom. Despite the S&P500 showing great progress since January, despite two years of tax cuts from withholding (which leaves money in your paycheck which you spend rather than sending you a check you put in the bank which only helps... the bank), and a severe slowdown on job loss. Also, no one came to take my guns, no one forced me to house soldiers in my home (except of course the one who pays the rent) and I am not a headless body left in the Arizona desert...yet. Also, I have not been locked in prison for my repeated use of the term “aham' d'Allah” or my possession and occasional use of Islamic prayer beads (usually while reciting the Shema and singing hymns or sitting in a lotus position). We are not as bad off as either side says, and neither side is really as bad as their detractors tell you.

But don't take my word for it. Put aside your feelings, read a lot, and THINK about it all. If you change your mind on nothing, you haven't done it right. We all are wrong about something. Go find out what YOU are wrong about. Stop letting the parties tell you it's all the other guy, because you know who's fault it is?

Ours.

And that's why I am mad at us (and me too).

Deyz in yur government mezzin' up yer medizin!

My dear congressional Republicans, there is a problem in this country which needs your action. Right now, Federal bureaucrats are preventing doctors from making medical decisions regarding their patients. A specific treatment which has proven beneficial and cost effective is being blocked by big government, and some committee which thinks it know better than physicians how patients should be treated. Seeing as how that's one of the major arguments Congressional Republicans have against the Public Option, I am looking forward to seeing some brave Conservative get up and say it:

It's time to repeal the Federal ban on medical marijuana.

Seriously, regardless of my Centrist views, I also do NOT want some committee deciding who gets particular treatments. However, if we're not going to let a death panel decide an 80 year old can't have a new liver, then why are we still allowing the FDA to say doctors can't prescribe marijuana? I am not talking about legalizing it for recreational use (that's another argument). I am talking about a doctor prescribing to his or her patient who is undergoing chemo, or suffers from glaucoma, or has breast cancer, or even as some studies show, Alzheimer's- a natural remedy which is easy and cheap to produce, and has far less ill effects than the pharmaceutical alternatives.

I'm talking about a treatment supported by the American College of Physicians, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychological Association, and of course Chris Robinson of The Black Crowes.

I'm talking about an easily delivered treatment which some evidence shows may treat or alleviate up to 250 different ailments.

Now, let's be fair- this list was assembled by a doctor who may not be totally objective about this subject, but if it works for even ten things on this list, isn't it worth using? Five? Even one, if it can bring relief for a single ailment, and doctors want to use it, why are we letting the Federal government say otherwise? They're the doctors right? And not just some quacks, but real doctors (see the list above).

So, what is the government's argument against it? The hazards of smoking. No really, you can't have relief for your nauseous reaction to the chemo you have treating your cancer because the period you smoke the MJ might give you lung cancer. Well, what if it becomes a gateway for the patient? According to the Rand Corporation, the Gateway concept is bunk, and so say these doctors.
Even the 1999 study the FDA cites on usage in general only says:

"The gateway analogy evokes two ideas that are often confused. The first, more often referred to as the 'stepping stone' hypothesis, is the idea that progression from marijuana to other drugs arises from pharmacological properties of marijuana itself.

The second is that marijuana serves as a gateway to the world of illegal drugs in which youths have greater opportunity and are under greater social pressure to try other illegal drugs." (Institute of Medicine in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base")

Not really a damning statement. Here's how Lynn Zimmer, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Queens College at the City University of New York put it:

"In the end, the gateway theory is not a theory at all. It is a description of the typical sequence in which multiple-drug users initiate the use of high-prevalence and low-prevalence drugs.

A similar statistical relationship exists between other kinds of common and uncommon related activities. For example, most people who ride a motorcycle (a fairly rare activity) have ridden a bicycle (a fairly common activity). Indeed, the prevalence of motorcycle riding among people who have never ridden a bicycle is probably extremely low. However, bicycle riding does not cause motorcycle riding, and increases in the former will not lead automatically to increases in the latter.” (his 1997 book “Marijuana Myths - Marijuana Facts”).

More than that, 13 States have voted to use medical marijuana- aren't the Republicans the party of State's Rights? Why aren't Republicans screaming about the Federal Governments insistence on imposing their will over these States' decisions? Who's going to be the brave Republican to get up and call for the end of these laws? John McCain, whose state is one of those who passed a local proposition? Sarah Palin, who is vehemently against Federal controls and bureaucratic interdiction in medical decisions? Joe Wilson, who obviously feels very passionately about health care. Who?

I am not trying to be a smart ass here- this is exactly WHY I want to see two parties in government. Any argument however must follow to the logical consequences. Opposing Government Health care on the grounds of bureaucrats not being allowed to countermand doctors has to apply to any reasonable medical decision. The facts are in- MM is reasonable, with the FDA's stats being spurious at best. Further, wanting to shrink Federal power in favor of State power means allowing States to make certain decisions on their own. The tenth amendment says they can do that, if there is not an existing Federal law- Federal Laws came from the control of recreational use- you know what? I can't use Vicodin for recreational use either, but no one in the Federal Government is asking to ban it as medicine.

So as a citizen, I ask a Republican to take advantage of the argument about health care right now and do the right thing. You would have doctors, States, facts, and logic on your side. Be the party of Smaller Government and put this tool back in the hands of doctors.

So I been thinkin'...

I just watched a really good TV series from Great Britain, called “Torchwood.” For those of you who don't know, it's a spinoff of the venerable “Doctor Who” tv series, and plays a bit like a British version of “The X-Files” though is at times a bit more grown up, and certainly allows darker things to happen to its characters, which British SF is kind of famous for (Blake's 7 anyone?). It stars the delighful John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness, the indestructible leader of the extra-terrestrial-investigating group Torchwood, and Eve Myles (who has the best hair in television history) as Gwen Cooper, the former cop turned alien hunter (I might have written this entire posting as an excuse to post a picture of Eve Myles).


I specifically watched the third season, a special five part miniseries within the series called “Children of Earth.” I don't want to give away too much here, but the basic premise is what happens when an alien race comes and threatens to wipe us all out, unless we give them ten percent of every pre-pubescent child on Earth (I specifically won't spoil the 'why' part).

As the story plays out, the British leadership does some pretty heinous things, and eventually puts troops in the streets to gather up the undesirable children to give to the aliens. “Undesirable” pretty much equates to those who are eventually just end up on welfare or in prison, or those who were children of immigrants denied asylum. The scenes were the politicians are justifying this decision to themselves, while not offering up their own children are especially chilling.

The show is written by Russell T. Davies, who is also responsible for the Doctor Who revival, and the Showtime show “Queer as Folk.” The man is obviously a Liberal, and uses this venue as a method of pointing out how easily those who are supposed to serve us will offer us up to the wolves. He also makes a great show of pointing out how the Government, particularly in London, makes use of the “security cameras” to exploit or spy upon their citizens.




Now, this got me thinking about “V for Vendetta.” Decent film, but much better graphic novel about tyranny which takes hold while no one is looking, under the auspices of security and defending the people from terrorists. In the case of that film (pardon spoilers), a manufactured terror attack allows the powers that be to be those powers for life, and a despotic Orwellian nightmare ensues. Again though, this is a warning about the misintentions of government from a liberal source. Lots of that was really going on under the Bush administration for the last eight years, driven by things that even I have talked about: The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, warrantless wire-tapping, willfully ignoring the FISA laws, etc. It goes back though; the original V for Vendetta was written in the late 1980s, and was specifically talking about Margaret Thatcher's government. Frank Miller did something similar in “The Dark Knight Returns” with a Ronald Reagan who had become President for life. Liberals don't want those damn Conservatives creating a police state.

Have you checked your e-mail lately? Conservatives don't want those damn Liberals creating a police state. President Obama is backing public health care to weed out the old white folks (majority conservatives), and wants you to report to his political officers the names of people who disagree with him. Apparently he is also prepping to declare all Christians to be extremists, and possibly has the secret cabal backing of the Hawaii state Records division. Think though- this didn't start here! Bill Clinton was in office when the ATF went after innocent Christians like David Koresh, and he stripped down our military to make us weak before the UN. Remember all the people he and Hillary had killed to ensure their place in the Oval Office? (I bet Al Gore wishes they'd killed a few for him.)



So what's my point?

Maybe it's the idea they are all actually out to get us, and secretly in cahoots. It wouldn't matter who you voted for, it's whoever THEY want to win to keep the people thinking they have a say in a Democracy which is long dead.

Maybe each side is vying for their own power, so THEY can rule without dispute. We The People would still be screwed, because by that reckoning, each side still wants to enslave us, just around different agendas.

Maybe it is the natural way of all governments to tend toward tyranny. Again we would be screwed, because it doesn't matter what the actual intentions are of any given politician, so long as we keep legislating we will eventually create a state with so many rules anything is a crime.

Maybe each side is just doing what they think is for the best, mostly based on honest intentions (always some bad apples), and we have all descended to this sorry point where it is easier to spout one side's rhetoric than to actually look for a solution which is mutually beneficial. It's easier to believe the other side is evil than to admit you may be wrong about something and the truth may lie somewhere between.

Maybe it's always been this way. Have you looked at old political cartoons calling FDR a Commie, or anything in the late 1800s by Thomas Nast (the Mormon/Roman churches as “Reptiles” slithering on America is my favorite), or the rhetoric from John Adams' enemies regarding the “Intolerable Acts.” (The fact we remember them as the “Intolerable Acts” I think demonstrates some pretty powerful swaying of public opinion!)




Maybe... hell, I don't know. I was just thinking in Word. I do wish I was hearing more reasoned arguments and less fear mongering. What have YOU done to make things better? Something positive, not stopping someone else from doing something, not neglecting to do something out of protest; what was the last thing you got out and DID for your country, your state, your town, or your neighborhood? If you have something good, cool. If you had to think through all the negative things you did, even for the right intentions, maybe you should rethink it. Maybe it's time for all of us to research before we vote, be active in the community, and actively try to find a middle ground.

Or don't. We'll just pass more laws until passing laws is illegal.

Not really gonna tie this one up neatly; I think it's just a rant.

WTF? Are you kidding me?

This is the stupid shit that gets your guns taken away. There's a responsibility to gun ownership, and you know, we can bitch about the Government taking away our rights all we want to, 90% of the time it's in response to one (or more) of us being an idiot. Thanks for making all legitimate, responsible gun owners look like nuts. I really appreciate it.

You may not have broken the law, but you proved yourself an asshole- you are trying to make the people in charge afraid- that won't end well for any of us.

Not with a bang but with a whimper.

Why a whimper? Fear. Fear is what drives people these days. Fear of the economy crashing, fear of the terrorists, fear of change. Fear drives hate. Fear drives paranoia. Fear drives bigotry.

This last couple of weeks, I have been poking fun at our society with some TS Eliot, and have been waiting for that funny little story to post to fit the title of this post, something full of snark and absurdity.

Instead, I got this:


Sorry, TS- there were bangs signalling the end and they were gunshots in a Holocaust museum.

See, this is where fear leads. It leads to ideas of us and them, and once we have us and them, we have to be better than they are. Then they have to be bad. Then they have to die. In this case, it's a White Supremacist, and like so many intloerant bastards, he claims God is on his side, and he's working for Jesus.

Hey asshole, Jesus was a Jew who claimed everyone on Earth was a child of God.

The White Supremacist movement wants America back to its core values.

Hey asshole, America was founded under the principle that all men are created equal. Forgive the irony that time and place of authorship paints that statement with, but this is America, and we are all in here together.

There are a lot of honest Conservatives out there who just genuinely want to maintain their faith and values while honestly being part of the solution. Here's a chance; denounce this man now. Right now. Make sure Neo-Nazis don't become the face of Conservatism in America. Talk about how we can acknowledge we have different beliefs, but we don't have to resort to violence over it.

There are a lot of Liberals out there who will equate this to Conservatism as a whole. Don't do it. Acknowledge the good honest Conservative movement out there, and reach out to it in order to work together to put aside the fear this man tried to sow.

America. Put aside your fear. E Pluribus Unum- it's the only way America survives this Century.

Otherwise, it goes out with a whimper of fear.

Some rules really are golden...

I have a fundamental belief in how the universe works. I believe everything in the end balances out. One of the things which first brought me out of my “everyone has to believe just like me” shell was recognizing balance as a major factor in most of the belief systems of the world. “Karma” has several interpretations in the world of Eastern Religion, but stays true to the concept of balance. Sure, some forms of Hindu karma say it is delivered by the Supreme Being while Buddhism sees it more as one of the building blocks of natural law, but the idea is our deeds (in fact the word itself is derived from a Sanskrit word for “deeds” or “actions”) affect what happens in the world. Our actions carry repercussions, consequences, and we have a responsibility to act properly to make those consequences turn out for the best.

Just before the time of Rabbi Jesus, Judaism came under the influence of a Rabbi named Hillel. Hillel, who basically established Rabbinic law, codified the ethic of reciprocity for the Jews. As the story goes, a foreigner (rejected by another Jewish leader at the time as being unfit for God's law because he was not a Jew) complained to Hillel there were too many rules to follow in the Jewish religion. Following his rejection at the hands of the other Rabbi, the foreigner felt he could never understand Judaism unless it could be simple enough for Hillel to explain while standing on one foot. Hillel raised his foot and said, “that which is hateful to you, don't do it to your neighbor; the rest is commentary.” So, this great teacher reduces the entire Torah, Talmud, and Mishnah to little more than an explanation of why God's law is the ethic of reciprocity- balance.

Then of course, in our Western tradition, comes that Rabbi Jesus I mentioned earlier. He takes it a step further. See, the Eastern idea was one allowed the balance to happen- Karma was a matter of course. Hillel said you should adjust your behavior to not do bad things. Jesus comes along and says “do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law of the prophets (Mt 7:12).” It has become active at this point- you are to go actively do good.

One of the most important tenants of this rule is the object of its application. To whom are we to do good? Jesus makes it pretty plain he thinks it applies to everyone. In the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 we see Jesus point out to a fellow Jew that the term 'neighbor' applied to the Samaritan man in the parable (this is right after the whole love your neighbor as yourself thing). We forget that to the Jews of the first century, the Samaritans were held in about as low regard as you could get. Tell yourself this story, but substitute a Christian for the Priest, a Jew for the Levite, and an Islamic Fundamentalist Mujahadin in Afghanistan for the Samaritan and you'll get the idea what Jesus was talking about. Now, it would seem Jesus himself didn't have this lesson at first- when in Matthew 15 a Canaanite woman asks him for his help in exorcising a demon from her daughter, he initially refuses saying he's only there for the Jews, but she convinces him to do more, and he does. What's the lesson?

The tenants of faith don't just apply to the adherents of that faith. You don't just do unto other Christians as you would have them do unto you, you do unto EVERYONE as you would have them do unto you. I love my neighbor as myself even if he's a lowdown, dirty Samaritan. The Laws of God are good enough to apply to everyone, whether they believe in it or not. Regardless of a person's own belief or origin, Christians must treat everyone as they treat Christians, Jews must treat everyone as they treat Jews, and karma will get you if you are chubby Gautama or skinny Siddhartha (yeah, I know really they are the same guy, but it sounds poetic, doesn't it?). What does this mean to us today?

The philosophical edict of universalizability. Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century said the only way to judge an ethical philosophy was by its application; should it be applied as a natural law? If an ethic is truly right, it has to apply to everyone. So, Kant extends the idea of the “Golden Rule,” the great balance, beyond religion and into philosophy- if a set of ethics or rules are truly good, they must be applied universally, just as karma will catch everyone, not doing bad things is the whole of the law, and even the jerk who lives down the street is the neighbor to whom you should do good things. Kant summarizes the simple fact that our ethics, like our religion, aren't only for those who share our ethics but are for everyone.

Anyone who knows me or has read this blog knows I have a passion for the Constitution of the United States that borders on, and perhaps illegally immigrates into, religious fervor. I have literally sworn a solemn oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Establishing a government ruled by the people, ensuring and enumerating rights held by the people, codifying the process for peaceful transfer of leadership as dictated by the people-- these are not just words to me. To establish Justice and ensure domestic tranquility, ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity is a mantra of faith to me. To whom do we do this?

If I truly believe in the greatness of our codified law, in the power of our democratic republic, I have a moral and ethical obligation to apply to protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to everyone, regardless of their citizenship. If I truly believe the ideas of presumed innocence and right to a speedy and fair trial are morally right, I must insist on their application to everyone, regardless of their origin. Universalizability, the Golden Rule, makes it a moral imperative to grant equal protection under the law to everyone, despite their adherence to the law.




That's why we have to afford the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Holding Facility a trial by jury. See, I have faith in our system. I think our system is good enough to apply to terrorists as well as criminals. I think its good enough to apply to citizens and foreigners alike. I believe in America. I believe in the inherent rights of Habeas Corpus, and I argue here that those rights must be applied universally if we are truly to claim our system as morally just.

Should we proceed with these trials, is it possible some legitimately bad people will be acquitted? Of course, it happens in our criminal justice system every day. As Americans we accept the fact protection of individual rights is more important than locking someone up. “Blackstone's ratio” is a common edict in our courts; that is the idea that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than one innocent person to suffer. William Blackstone was an English jurist in the 1700s, and author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, which heavily influenced our Constitutional framers and has been cited as recently as Clarence Thomas in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Despite the possibility some “terrorists” would go free, the majority will find justice in a trial by jury. Additionally, we would again show ourselves to be an example to the world as a nation and people who practice Democracy not as a convenience but as an obligation. We would demonstrate again the moral certitude and convictions inherent in a fair system which guarantees equal protection under the law. There is no better method of spreading democracy than practicing it.

That's really the key isn't it? The acts of these extremists are by design intended to change how we think. The definition of terrorism is the “use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” The political aim here was to hurt the way we conduct our nation. The unfortunate truth is, it succeeded. In response to their attacks, we adopted their methods rather than employ our own. We suspended our ideals of trial by jury, and legal representation, and presumption of innocence under the rationale of “they would do the same or worse to us.”

Of course they would. They're terrorists.

The Golden Rule doesn't say do unto others as they did it unto you, it says as you would have them do unto you. The fourteenth amendment while defining citizenship also states you can't deny equal protection to any person within the state's jurisdiction. Do we as a people really feel it's OK to circumvent these ideals by simply not bringing them within the borders of the United States? Why have we sought ways to avoid granting the guarantees of the system we seek to protect? The ethic of reciprocity dictates we must apply our laws to everyone, or else they are nothing more than words on paper, and not ideals of ethics and morality. I can't believe that's true. I didn't take an oath to protect words, I took an oath to protect ideals we as Americans should all share, despite our individual differences. Ideals which can light the world when properly exemplified.

You see, I believe in the Constitution. I have faith in its edicts, it protections and its punishments. I believe it was written for all time, and not just for times of expediency or convenience. I believe it is strong enough to survive any onslaught from a foreign enemy. I believe it is strong enough to withstand any testimony of a foreign fighter. I believe granting trial to the prisoners at Guantanamo will not weaken our Constitution, but rather will bolster it.

I believe, as with any system of faith, there is only one thing which can destroy the Constitution: its own adherents allowing it to pass away. We can do better. We can continue to ensure the blessings of liberty to our posterity. We only have to do what it says unto others, Samaritans and all.

Rights and Left

All over the Liberal Media (and when I say Liberal Media, I mean those who are self labeled as such, i.e. Air America Radio, etc), I see a flurry of accusations regarding the current administration's attacks on American Civil Liberties. From the suspension of Habeas Corpus, Warrant-less wire tapping, the Patriot Act allowing for search warrants to be issued by law enforcement agencies without a judge's signature provided it's under the auspices of national defense-- it would seem there may be plenty of reason to fear the intentions of the current administration. (For a timeline of alleged civil rights violations, check out this site . Check this site out. They also enumerate the violations of civil liberties by the administration.)

So what do you do? How do you keep these violations from expanding? The Democrats won Congress in 2006, but that hasn't really changed anything. Citizens have conducted protests all over the country, but it hasn't really changed anything. Courts have not been able to hold members of the administration accountable for anything, even as egregious as outing our own covert agents engaged in fighting the War on Terror.

At this time only the most crazed of talking heads are talking about subjects like martial law, or certain people refusing to leave office, but what about three or four administrations down the road? If there is another terror attack on U.S. Soil could a future administration take that step in an emergency, and then refuse to reinstate due process for our Republic when the crisis passed? Unfortunately, history is on the side of the Tyrants. Every Republic in history became an Empire; every Democracy in history fell to the rule of might over the rule of reason. If only the Founders could have had the foresight to provide a means to protect freedom from an overzealous administration so our children will be free to waste their time on TV and pizza too. Oh wait...

It's called the Second Amendment, and recently the Supreme Court upheld the fact it supports the individual's right to own a firearm. The Liberal pundits have not been pleased. Now, I am no lawyer, and far more intelligent people than me have interpreted the Second Amendment to mean things like the National Guard, hence the use of the term “well regulated militia” in its text. I have seen the arguments about how “you don't need an AK-47 to hunt deer, or to protect your family from crime.” I even heard a Liberal commentator for whom I have great respect make the argument that the firearms protected by the Second Amendment would be firearms similar to those which existed in 1789.

Again, there are people far more versed in Constitutional law than I, however I don't understand why there is confusion over the intent of the Amendment. The Right to Bear Arms is not about hunting or stopping crime. The Right to Bear Arms is so the Citizenry can defend itself from tyrants. How can I come to this interpretation? It's called “context.” ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are to protect the citizenry from an overzealous Federal Government. You may remember (or maybe you don't) that there were two primary factions when the Constitution was written: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. As a compromise between those who wanted a strong central government and those who feared it descending into tyranny, the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights. This is an enumerated list of rights the Federal Government could not screw with to ensure justice for generations to come as the Nation grew.

Should the Second Amendment be frozen in time? Does it apply only to the weapons that existed when the Bill was written? By that reckoning, the First Amendment could only apply to speech or religion which existed in 1789. The Internet would not be protected by the First Amendment. Gangster Rap would not be protected by the First Amendment. Comic books would not be protected by the First Amendment. Television or radio news commentary would not be protected by the First Amendment.

Arguing that the Second Amendment is outdated would mean the Administration is right-- the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, all of them are outdated and the Founders were too shortsighted to imagine the War on Terror. As Liberals argue the Second Amendment is outdated, they are giving tacit approval to the Administration's assertion that other Amendments in the Bill of Rights are outdated.

Now, I do think there is validity to the idea the Second Amendment calls for a State-run militia to regulate the armed citizenry. However, I cannot accept this as being the National Guard for one simple reason: The National Guard can be activated under Federal control. Indeed, I served with National Guard folks in Babylon, not exactly a force meant to protect the citizenry from a tyrannical government (unless we are now saying the Bill of Rights extends to Babylonians too. If the Bill of Rights DOES extend to the Babylonians, then it certainly extends to those in Guantanamo Bay...).

So it comes back to my original confusion. Liberal pundits believe the administration is bordering on tyranny and bending the Bill of Rights to their own interpretation. Yet, it is a similar misinterpretation they wish to apply to the Second Amendment. Conservatives are just as bad when saying it's OK to take Habeas Corpus from certain citizens, but dear God don't touch my guns. We can't have it both ways. The Second Amendment is there to protect us from Tyranny- of course you try to resolve any issues in the system first. Of course voting and protest and the legal system are the primary weapons against tyranny. Of course we as a citizenry have the responsibility of acting like adults if we are going to keep our right to Bear Arms, and if you have violated the social contract by committing a crime, you forfeit the right to be part of the body politic. But when all else has failed, if a President some election decides two terms are not enough, and he is now President for Life. When the rights of the citizens are no longer considered and the infringement of those rights is the norm and not the horrid exception, the citizenry must be prepared to fight for their rights just as the Founders did with the right the Founders gave us for just such an occasion- the Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms.

I don't think we are there, and I am most certainly not calling for armed revolution, but I applaud the Supreme Court decision, and ask my friends on the Left in this Country why they are complaining about THIS Constitutional Right being upheld when so many others are not. I ask my friends on Right to apply the same vehemence to protecting the other nine Amendments as they do the Second. It's what keeps us free, and keeps this Nation one worth defending if you love liberty, and attacking if you are a tyrant.

Dear Right and Left, the Constitution exists independent of your party politics, and objective to political wants. It is a marvelous document that history has not yet progressed beyond. Now, on this anniversary of our Nation's birth, I reprint the greatest gift one Generation ever gave succeeding Generations, The United States Bill of Rights. This is what I have sworn to uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those enemies include apathy, greed, and closed-mindedness. Right, Left, open your minds and look upon the self evident truths enumerated below granting We the People our Freedom. Amen.


The United States Bill of Rights.
The Ten Original Amendments to the Constitution of the United States Passed by Congress September 25,
1789 Ratified December 15, 1791

I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

II
A well−regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re−examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Use them together, use them in peace (OK- that's actually from 2010:Odyssey Two, but you get the idea...) Happy Fourth.

The Death Penalty

Sowing what you reap. Seems like a simple concept, doesn’t it? You kill someone, you get killed. One of the fundamentals of our society; the eye for an eye concept. I was behind it for a long time. The equation seems clear, you break the social contract and present a threat to that society, we no longer have the obligation to care for you, so you must be removed.

Then, one of the rottenest sons of bitches in American history, a fine example of why we have the death penalty in the first place, didn’t get a fair trial. That bastard Timothy McVeigh was sitting on death row and the Federal Court that tried him admitted that they withheld evidence about a possible second bomber (John Doe Number 2) from McVeigh’s defense. Look, no one thinks any of that would exonerate this monster, but in the interest of fairness, let us delay that execution until the defense team can analyze these 3000 withheld pages, and then we’ll burn him at the stake. We’ll do this because we are interested in making up for our mistakes- we are not the oppressive government people like McVeigh claim.

Only we didn’t. We went ahead and executed Timothy McVeigh, delaying not an hour, despite the fact we the State were wrong. We did not allow a fair assessment of the evidence under our own laws.

That steps out of the range of execution, and becomes murder. Worse yet, it help validate people like McVeigh who claim our government is out of control. The Bastard didn’t argue, because he knew this would make him a martyr to his like minded ilk. It sickens me that we gave him such ammunition, we gave him validation, and I can only hope we didn’t create a dozen more such monsters. It would seem, the Federal Government has lost its moral superiority, and therefore is not longer justified in issuing the death penalty.

Furthermore, let’s take a look at the quality of juries these days. Our same responsibility-shirking citizenry sleeps in the juror box, and falls to the same legal chicanery one sees on television. Look at your neighbors- how many of them are you willing to trust with your life?

As forensic science progresses, we find more and more people on death row (or already off death row if you know what I mean) who are proven innocent after years of imprisonment. I find myself coming to a certain conclusion. The system is no longer competent enough to wield the power of life and death.

At the very least, it is incumbent upon us as the citizenry and the Government to place the highest standards of evidence upon cases that may result in the death penalty, perhaps reserving this punishment only for those cases where there is confession. There must also be a strict adherence to whatever rules we decide to apply here- we cannot be arbitrary with life. The system must work, or when it does not, those who are responsible for the failure must be held accountable. There will never be a perfect system, but this can only be ameliorated by taking responsibility when mistakes are made and working as a body to set the consequences in balance.

If we can claim we are responsible enough to kill as a State, then we must wield that power with the utmost caution; remember, the same Bible that we like to quote Eye for and Eye from also states that any court that sentences more than one man in 7 years to death is bloodthirsty.

And I really don’t want us to validate the monsters.

Why I think all Americans should have firearms, and why I think no one should.

It’s kind of funny that this debate seems to have cooled down over the last few years following the beginning of what is popularly known as the War on Terror. Certain firearms bans are part of the Patriot Act, and no one wants to talk bad about that by golly, but on the other hand, when hordes of Islamic warriors came tearing out of the sky, who doesn’t want an old faithful shotgun at their side to introduce some of those fanatics to Allah?

My argument however has nothing to do with the chosen enemy of the decade—instead I wish to discuss the right to bear arms in general, in the context of the American Republic; the intent of the Constitutional writers (in my opinion), why they are right, and why they are wrong. Please keep in mind that I am writing this while my current firm has me out in what we call “The Field.” This involves a certain degree of isolation (though luckily electricity and my laptop have followed me here). This isolation equates to me having virtually no access to fact checking mediums, aside from a copy of the Bill of Rights and Constitution I keep on my computer along with some copies of the Federalist Papers. My statistics are quoted to the best of my memory from previous reading, and this makes me officially “Full of Shit.”

Our beloved Bill of Rights, written by visionary men more than two centuries ago, states:

“A well−regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


The argument here usually falls in the area of “well-regulated militia.” Is this an armed populace, or is it a State run organization like the National Guard? There are two reasons this does not equate to the National Guard to me. First, the National Guard did not exist when the Bill of Rights was written. At that time, the militia was the Minutemen who were normal farmers and the like who heard people like Paul Revere screaming like bloody murder about Redcoats, went to their closets and pulled out their hunting rifles. These men later made up the Continental Army, but most of them just went home and put their rifles back in the closet. Later, individual states began to organize the National Guard.

The second reason? You may have noticed in recent years, the National Guard has been federalized. Often, the NG has been looked upon as a second Reserve force, and deployed to War for the United States. In the War on Terror, the National Guard has been called in to defend airports, sea ports, and borders. If the Federal government can call on the National Guard for federal purposes, it is no longer just a well-regulated Militia; it then becomes a Federal Force.

And that is the problem- the Bill of Rights does not guarantee the right to bear arms for hunting. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee the right to bear arms for home defense from criminals. The Bill of Rights guarantees the right because it is necessary to “the security of a free state.” In other words, the people have guns to keep the Federal government in check, to secure the concept of a free state. Remember kids, this was written in the late 18th century. The idea of an imposed monarchy was common, and the idea of a government by the people, of the people, for the people was in its infancy. No one knew how this whole Republic thing would really work, and a lot of the Anti-Federalists were afraid that the President would seize control on the near future (indeed there is evidence that many of the Federalists thought that was a good idea). Allowing the Federal Government to take control over the agency that is supposed to keep them honest defies the intent of the Constitution.

The next logical step here, is that the people’s right to bear arms in defense of a free state means that the people must have the firepower to stop the government if it goes bad. Surely, no Constitutional author foresaw the F-117 and the MOAB, but conceptually speaking the people should be able to handle something like that.

Sure, that sounds ridiculous; I don’t think my neighbor needs an MX missile in his garage, but if we begin to chip away at the concept, it leaves the rest of the Bill of Rights open to interpretation. The founders didn’t foresee Gangsta Rap or Hate Speech either, so let’s tweak the First Amendment. The founders never conceived as insidious an enemy as Al-Qaeda, so let’s change that silly fourth amendment about probable cause searches (oh wait- we’ve done that).

Honest citizens with guns are not a problem. They aren’t committing crimes or terror acts. Indeed, some FBI crime studies show that a gun is used illegally in the US every three minutes- and one is used to halt a crime by a responsible citizen every 15 seconds. In a responsible republic with a mature citizenry, there should be no restriction on what they are allowed to own.

And therein is the rub. Are we a responsible republic with a mature citizenry? The answer may be no. In fact, it would seem that we are doing everything we can to avoid responsibility, and begging our government to take care of us. We are scared enough to ask them to wiretap “the right people” and ignore the Bill of Rights to search the homes of “the right people.” We learned nothing apparently from WWII and our treatment of Japanese Americans. In short we (and I am including myself as an American citizen) are dumb, irresponsible, and need to be told what to do. We are incapable of defending ourselves against criminals, against terrorists, against our own foibles. When we own guns, we don’t pay enough attention to our kids to notice them taking them to school. We don’t make sure our kids learn and take responsibility to solve issues without resorting to deadly force. We are no longer competent as a people to be allowed firearms, anymore than a toddler should be allowed matches, despite the good they can do.

So the choice is ours America- we can give up our guns, let the Government tell us how frightened to be each day, and blame things like video games, movies, and the terrorists for our problems. Or, we can retake responsibility for our actions, spank our kids when they do wrong, and punish the guilty rather than oppressing the innocent, and step back up to our half of the social contract.

Please, take responsibility for yourself, your family, your community, before we have to beg Big Brother to do it for us. Or don’t- that is still one of our freedoms; the freedom to be allowed to choose oppression.