Comment to Sinan Antoon’s New York Times article “Fifteen Years Ago, America Destroyed My Country”, posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-anniversary-.html?comments#permid=26407775.
“The only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.”
Over 200 years ago a certain people were very upset that its laws were being made by a distant country. They rebelled and successfully fought a revolution to govern themselves.
Now many of the political descendants of that people celebrate that revolution but think nothing of dictating the laws and policies of other countries without the consent of the governed.
“The more things change the more they stay the same.”
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Freedom to do what?
Many people and corporations complain that their freedoms are being taken away by this law or that law which restricts certain behavior. Are these smoke screens or do they have a point? Let’s look at a few cases.
Vermont has passed a law that GMO foods should be labelled as such. Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association filed suit that this was a violation of their right of free speech. Is their right of free speech being taken away by requiring a list of ingredients? If you were on a limited salt diet, wouldn’t you want to compare products for their salt content? If you had had cancer and should avoid soy lecithin, wouldn’t you want to seek products without soy lecithin?
Admittedly, the First Amendment contains “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the freedom of speech…”; that phrase has no qualifier like “persons” or “people”. But the Constitution also includes Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce…among the several States…”
I wouldn’t be surprised if these companies also used the “free market” argument. But “free market” doesn’t mean sellers get to do what they please; it also means that the buyers have all the information they need to make an informed decision. Jews and Muslims want to know if products contain pork; shouldn’t those who have an aversion to other ingredients also know if products contain those ingredients?
In other words, if food manufacturers are free to deceive us then don’t they take away our freedom to know what we eat?
The First Amendment also contains “people have the right to peaceably assemble”. Does that give them the right block other people’s right to move about? I’m sure that meant that people could meet in some hall and discuss whatever was on their minds. Maybe it also meant that people could assemble at the entrance of a government building, but only if they left room for others to go in and out of the building. I doubt that the writers of the Bill of Rights considered peaceably assembling as filling the streets for whatever cause.
The gun manufacturers have been working for decades to erode the Second Amendment from the “right of the people to bear arms” (meaning in militias) to the “right of persons to bear arms”. As late as 1939, a conservative Supreme Court Justice wrote the majority opinion that an individual did not have the right to carry a rifle in a parade, only those in a state-sanctioned militia.
But what is lost in many of the arguments for the individual right to bear arms is where is the argument for the right to not be shot?
Concerning “freedom of religion”, one has to be careful reading some of the stories concerning people’s or corporation’s “freedom of religion”. Some of these stories have been blown out of proportion; others show that one person’s “freedom of religion” is impinging on another person’s freedom of religion.
If a Christian-owned company required that female Muslim employees not wear head scarves, then does a Muslim-owned company have a right to have all female employees wear head scarves?
In the context of the times of the writing of the Constitution, I think the “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion was more meant if you want to go to a Baptist Church fine, if you want to go to a Methodist Church fine. I doubt that they would countenance those who believed in virgin sacrifice having free exercise.
If for security reasons banks ask that customers not wear hoods or sunglasses, then should not they ask that women not have their faces covered? Many a man has escaped from other men by wearing a burqa. Are the banks violating some customers “freedom of religion” or are they protecting their right not to be robbed?
The Congress that has been so adamant about Second Amendment rights seems equally adamant about walking all over Fourth Amendment rights. “The right of be people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” What is the “probable cause” of gathering information on who calls whom? Isn’t a phone call by extension a “paper”? Thanks, Ron Paul, for your efforts.
Many individuals claim a right to do what pleases them without any consideration on how those actions impinge on other people’s rights.
If there is a right to smoke, isn’t there also a right to breathe clean air? Although smoking has declined dramatically, there are still too many people that smoke very close to signs “No smoking within 15 feet”. If someone were to ask them to move away, it is more likely they will get angry rather than apologize and move away.
If there is a right to listen to music, isn’t there also a right to have quiet? Many people have their car radios turned up so loud that other drivers can barely hear the music on their own radios. Many people have their earphones turned up so loud that others can’t hear the music on their own earphones. If you have the right to blast hip-hop up to twenty feet away, do I also have a right to blast Beethoven’s Ninth up to twenty feet away?
I think the thought attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. that “Your right to move your fist ends where my nose begins” is apt for almost all of the above cases. A manufacturer’s “right” to withhold information ends where people’s health begins. A person’s right to bear arms ends where other people’s safety begins. A person’s right to freedom of religion ends where it restricts other people’s freedom of religion. A person’s freedom of assembly ends where it impedes other people’s freedom of movement.
What is lost in all the talk about freedoms is that the basic freedom is the freedom to govern ourselves and not be governed by some foreign power. And to govern ourselves we elect people to make rules to make society work. You do vote in every election, don’t you?
Vermont has passed a law that GMO foods should be labelled as such. Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association filed suit that this was a violation of their right of free speech. Is their right of free speech being taken away by requiring a list of ingredients? If you were on a limited salt diet, wouldn’t you want to compare products for their salt content? If you had had cancer and should avoid soy lecithin, wouldn’t you want to seek products without soy lecithin?
Admittedly, the First Amendment contains “Congress shall make no law…prohibiting the freedom of speech…”; that phrase has no qualifier like “persons” or “people”. But the Constitution also includes Congress has the power “to regulate Commerce…among the several States…”
I wouldn’t be surprised if these companies also used the “free market” argument. But “free market” doesn’t mean sellers get to do what they please; it also means that the buyers have all the information they need to make an informed decision. Jews and Muslims want to know if products contain pork; shouldn’t those who have an aversion to other ingredients also know if products contain those ingredients?
In other words, if food manufacturers are free to deceive us then don’t they take away our freedom to know what we eat?
The First Amendment also contains “people have the right to peaceably assemble”. Does that give them the right block other people’s right to move about? I’m sure that meant that people could meet in some hall and discuss whatever was on their minds. Maybe it also meant that people could assemble at the entrance of a government building, but only if they left room for others to go in and out of the building. I doubt that the writers of the Bill of Rights considered peaceably assembling as filling the streets for whatever cause.
The gun manufacturers have been working for decades to erode the Second Amendment from the “right of the people to bear arms” (meaning in militias) to the “right of persons to bear arms”. As late as 1939, a conservative Supreme Court Justice wrote the majority opinion that an individual did not have the right to carry a rifle in a parade, only those in a state-sanctioned militia.
But what is lost in many of the arguments for the individual right to bear arms is where is the argument for the right to not be shot?
Concerning “freedom of religion”, one has to be careful reading some of the stories concerning people’s or corporation’s “freedom of religion”. Some of these stories have been blown out of proportion; others show that one person’s “freedom of religion” is impinging on another person’s freedom of religion.
If a Christian-owned company required that female Muslim employees not wear head scarves, then does a Muslim-owned company have a right to have all female employees wear head scarves?
In the context of the times of the writing of the Constitution, I think the “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion was more meant if you want to go to a Baptist Church fine, if you want to go to a Methodist Church fine. I doubt that they would countenance those who believed in virgin sacrifice having free exercise.
If for security reasons banks ask that customers not wear hoods or sunglasses, then should not they ask that women not have their faces covered? Many a man has escaped from other men by wearing a burqa. Are the banks violating some customers “freedom of religion” or are they protecting their right not to be robbed?
The Congress that has been so adamant about Second Amendment rights seems equally adamant about walking all over Fourth Amendment rights. “The right of be people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…” What is the “probable cause” of gathering information on who calls whom? Isn’t a phone call by extension a “paper”? Thanks, Ron Paul, for your efforts.
Many individuals claim a right to do what pleases them without any consideration on how those actions impinge on other people’s rights.
If there is a right to smoke, isn’t there also a right to breathe clean air? Although smoking has declined dramatically, there are still too many people that smoke very close to signs “No smoking within 15 feet”. If someone were to ask them to move away, it is more likely they will get angry rather than apologize and move away.
If there is a right to listen to music, isn’t there also a right to have quiet? Many people have their car radios turned up so loud that other drivers can barely hear the music on their own radios. Many people have their earphones turned up so loud that others can’t hear the music on their own earphones. If you have the right to blast hip-hop up to twenty feet away, do I also have a right to blast Beethoven’s Ninth up to twenty feet away?
I think the thought attributed to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. that “Your right to move your fist ends where my nose begins” is apt for almost all of the above cases. A manufacturer’s “right” to withhold information ends where people’s health begins. A person’s right to bear arms ends where other people’s safety begins. A person’s right to freedom of religion ends where it restricts other people’s freedom of religion. A person’s freedom of assembly ends where it impedes other people’s freedom of movement.
What is lost in all the talk about freedoms is that the basic freedom is the freedom to govern ourselves and not be governed by some foreign power. And to govern ourselves we elect people to make rules to make society work. You do vote in every election, don’t you?
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Libertarianism with benefits
The title of this entry is from “The Tea Party: A Brief History” by Ronald P Formisano. He uses it as a subtitle for the chapter “Frustration with Politics as Usual”. He defines “Libertarianism with benefits” as taking government payments while decrying too much government.
Formisano’s little book packs a big wallop to the inconsistencies of Tea Party politicians.
His final paragraph describing the original Tea Party resistance includes:
"In doing so, [Bostonians and their fellow colonists] looked not backward but forward, to an uncertain future. Theirs was a populism of ordered community, in which liberty meant individual freedom to pursue one's destiny as well as responsibility and a regard for the common good."
Formisano’s little book packs a big wallop to the inconsistencies of Tea Party politicians.
His final paragraph describing the original Tea Party resistance includes:
"In doing so, [Bostonians and their fellow colonists] looked not backward but forward, to an uncertain future. Theirs was a populism of ordered community, in which liberty meant individual freedom to pursue one's destiny as well as responsibility and a regard for the common good."
Sunday, January 19, 2014
Republican Party and community
In 2009, David Brooks chided the Republican Party for learning the wrong lessons from Hollywood Westerns.
"Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice. They would once again be the party of community and civic order."
"The Long Voyage Home", New York Times, 2009-05-04.
It seems with their obsession with gun ownership and worship of large corporations, they haven't heeded David Brooks who is called a conservative by many.
On how movie Westerns are not a reflection of life in many western communities, see "How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America" by Ryan McMaken.
"Today, if Republicans had learned the right lessons from the Westerns, or at least John Ford Westerns, they would not be the party of untrammeled freedom and maximum individual choice. They would once again be the party of community and civic order."
"The Long Voyage Home", New York Times, 2009-05-04.
It seems with their obsession with gun ownership and worship of large corporations, they haven't heeded David Brooks who is called a conservative by many.
On how movie Westerns are not a reflection of life in many western communities, see "How the Gunfighter Killed Bourgeois America" by Ryan McMaken.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Are we on the cusp of peace or of war?
President Rouhani of Iran is working to make life more open for Iranians and to build more bridges to the West. See "Not for Prime Time: Music Video with Iran's President" and "Iran Invites Inspectors to Nuclear Site".
On the other hand, China has declared certain air space as requiring permission for others to enter. The U.S., Korea, and Japan felt compelled to enter that air space. Now China is sending fighter jets into that space. See "China Sends Jets into 'Air Defense' Zone After Flights by Japan and Korea".
We have one situation slightly defused and another situation ignited. The first can bring about more peace, and the second can put war a lot closer than most of us want. Will we have a Kennedy and a Khrushchev to resolve the latter?
On the other hand, China has declared certain air space as requiring permission for others to enter. The U.S., Korea, and Japan felt compelled to enter that air space. Now China is sending fighter jets into that space. See "China Sends Jets into 'Air Defense' Zone After Flights by Japan and Korea".
We have one situation slightly defused and another situation ignited. The first can bring about more peace, and the second can put war a lot closer than most of us want. Will we have a Kennedy and a Khrushchev to resolve the latter?
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Surveillance Allowed Days
In its first 24-hours, "No Surveillance Allowed Days" had only seven page views, fewer than most of my other blog entries. I guess it is not a very popular idea. I'll consider keeping to some of its tenets on No Surveillance Allowed Days, but I won't be rigid about it. Sort of like paying cash for most of what I buy, I'll pay with credit or debit card when it is more convenient.
I should have known better. "No Surveillance Allowed Days" had as much chance of success as my attempt to get 90% voter turnout or better at every election.
I should have known better. "No Surveillance Allowed Days" had as much chance of success as my attempt to get 90% voter turnout or better at every election.
Monday, July 15, 2013
No Surveillance Allowed Days
This entry was inspired by "FAQ: What You Need to Know About the NSA's Surveillance Programs" by Pro Publica, reprinted in the Reader Weekly of Duluth on 2013-07-11. You can find a long list of similar stories by Pro Publica with the search terms "FAQ: What You Need to Know About the NSA's Surveillance Programs" "Pro Publica".
If you think government has overstepped its bounds on surveillance, you can protest in a "simple" way: don't use a phone, the Internet, or a debit or credit card each No Surveillance Allowed Day (NSAD). If the usage of these drops significantly every Wednesday, the large corporations such as Google, Yahoo, Verizon, AT&T, Visa, and many others will certainly notice. I am sure you have noticed that large corporations have more clout with Congress and the Administration than we ordinary citizens. No Surveillance Allowed Days could manipulate the large corporations to influence the government not just for their benefit but ours!
This won't be "simple" because many of us need to use the telephone and the Internet for work and for other matters that can't wait until another day. But you might find some things among the following ideas that you can do to make a small contribution to make the large corporations notice.
If you live outside the United States, especially in a country with heavy-handed censorship, you can stage your own small non-violent resistance with little fear of government retaliation.
On No Surveillance Allowed Days, think twice about any phone calls you might make, especially cell phone. Can the call wait until tomorrow? Does the call even need to be made?
On NSADs, avoid using the Internet. Can you look up that burning question with Google on Thursday instead? Can you make that online payment that is due on Wednesday a day early? If you read newspapers online, can you buy a paper copy on Wednesdays instead? If you don't buy a paper copy, you you could catch up online on Thursday. If you must use the Internet, avoid clicking on any ads and avoid any sites that give you a short advertising video before showing you what you clicked for.
Oh gosh! Our Social Security checks are deposited on the fourth Wednesday. I guess we don't need to check online that they are in our accounts that day. We can assume that they are there. Besides, if we're avoiding the Internet, we won't be making any online payments until Thursday.
Finally, pay cash on NSADs instead of using a debit or credit card. Or can you wait until Thursday to make that big purchase with one of your cards?
If we spread the word that we are doing these things in protest of the National Security Agency's wide-ranging snooping on our lives, we might get the attention of the large corporations who control our phones, our Internet use, and many of our purchases and payments. If they are being hit in the pocket book, even one day a week, they might make a big squawk that will be heard in Washington.
No matter how much you plan to participate, would you at least spread the word about No Surveillance Days? If you do so, please pass on the link to this entry (http://magree.blogspot.com/2013/07/no-surveillance-allowed-days.html). That will give me some idea of how well this idea is catching on. I'll periodically post how many views have been made of this entry.
Thanks, and may you sleep well, knowing you have done your part to stop excessive government snooping.
If you think government has overstepped its bounds on surveillance, you can protest in a "simple" way: don't use a phone, the Internet, or a debit or credit card each No Surveillance Allowed Day (NSAD). If the usage of these drops significantly every Wednesday, the large corporations such as Google, Yahoo, Verizon, AT&T, Visa, and many others will certainly notice. I am sure you have noticed that large corporations have more clout with Congress and the Administration than we ordinary citizens. No Surveillance Allowed Days could manipulate the large corporations to influence the government not just for their benefit but ours!
This won't be "simple" because many of us need to use the telephone and the Internet for work and for other matters that can't wait until another day. But you might find some things among the following ideas that you can do to make a small contribution to make the large corporations notice.
If you live outside the United States, especially in a country with heavy-handed censorship, you can stage your own small non-violent resistance with little fear of government retaliation.
On No Surveillance Allowed Days, think twice about any phone calls you might make, especially cell phone. Can the call wait until tomorrow? Does the call even need to be made?
On NSADs, avoid using the Internet. Can you look up that burning question with Google on Thursday instead? Can you make that online payment that is due on Wednesday a day early? If you read newspapers online, can you buy a paper copy on Wednesdays instead? If you don't buy a paper copy, you you could catch up online on Thursday. If you must use the Internet, avoid clicking on any ads and avoid any sites that give you a short advertising video before showing you what you clicked for.
Oh gosh! Our Social Security checks are deposited on the fourth Wednesday. I guess we don't need to check online that they are in our accounts that day. We can assume that they are there. Besides, if we're avoiding the Internet, we won't be making any online payments until Thursday.
Finally, pay cash on NSADs instead of using a debit or credit card. Or can you wait until Thursday to make that big purchase with one of your cards?
If we spread the word that we are doing these things in protest of the National Security Agency's wide-ranging snooping on our lives, we might get the attention of the large corporations who control our phones, our Internet use, and many of our purchases and payments. If they are being hit in the pocket book, even one day a week, they might make a big squawk that will be heard in Washington.
No matter how much you plan to participate, would you at least spread the word about No Surveillance Days? If you do so, please pass on the link to this entry (http://magree.blogspot.com/2013/07/no-surveillance-allowed-days.html). That will give me some idea of how well this idea is catching on. I'll periodically post how many views have been made of this entry.
Thanks, and may you sleep well, knowing you have done your part to stop excessive government snooping.
Saturday, July 06, 2013
Declaration of Independence is still a work in progress
For its July Fourth celebration of 1852, the city of Rochester NY invited Frederick Douglass to speak. Danny Glover gives an impassioned reading of that speech.
The accompanying notes intimidate the speech didn't go over so well but gives no further information.
But according to one account, it went over quite well. A letter to Douglass was "Dear Sir-The Ladies of the "Rochester Anti Slavery Sewing Society," desire me to return you their most sincere thanks for the eloquent and able address delivered in Corinthian Hall, on the 5th of July. Anticipating its speedy publication in Pamphlet form, they request that you will furnish them with one hundred copies for distribution:
In behalf of the Society,
SUSAN F. PORTER, President.
See http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=2945
As I suspected, the Danny Glover version is a shortened version of Douglass' speech. Few 19th Century orators would give an eight-minute speech.
I admit it, my 20th Century eyes don't have the patience to read through the complete speech. Now, will I get back to it before I read all the Federalist Papers or the Wealth of Nations? I have my doubts I will read completely through any of the three.
The accompanying notes intimidate the speech didn't go over so well but gives no further information.
But according to one account, it went over quite well. A letter to Douglass was "Dear Sir-The Ladies of the "Rochester Anti Slavery Sewing Society," desire me to return you their most sincere thanks for the eloquent and able address delivered in Corinthian Hall, on the 5th of July. Anticipating its speedy publication in Pamphlet form, they request that you will furnish them with one hundred copies for distribution:
In behalf of the Society,
SUSAN F. PORTER, President.
See http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=2945
As I suspected, the Danny Glover version is a shortened version of Douglass' speech. Few 19th Century orators would give an eight-minute speech.
I admit it, my 20th Century eyes don't have the patience to read through the complete speech. Now, will I get back to it before I read all the Federalist Papers or the Wealth of Nations? I have my doubts I will read completely through any of the three.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Who elected "The Leader of the Free World"?
Americans claim to believe in freedom and democracy.
Many Americans claim that the President of the United States is the Leader of the Free World.
When was an election held for the Leader of the Free World? I certainly didn't see any results in the newspapers.
Many Americans claim that the President of the United States is the Leader of the Free World.
When was an election held for the Leader of the Free World? I certainly didn't see any results in the newspapers.
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Quote of the day - Separation of church and state
The following quote was included by George Erickson in the Lake Superior Freethinkers Newsletter for March 2013. I found a more complete extract by a Google search.
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and private schools entirely supported by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."
- President Ulysses S. Grant, Des Moines, Iowa, 1876
From "Ulysses S. Grant: the Separation of Church and School", Encyclopedia Britannica Profiles: The American Presidency http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116880
The rest of the speech in the article is worth reading. In some parts he sounds like modern Republicans, but in other parts he is far removed from what modern Republicans practice.
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and private schools entirely supported by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."
- President Ulysses S. Grant, Des Moines, Iowa, 1876
From "Ulysses S. Grant: the Separation of Church and School", Encyclopedia Britannica Profiles: The American Presidency http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116880
The rest of the speech in the article is worth reading. In some parts he sounds like modern Republicans, but in other parts he is far removed from what modern Republicans practice.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Just what are conservatives conserving?
Just
what are conservatives conserving?
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
August 8, 2004
Melvyn D. Magree
Originally published in
Reader Weekly
August 8, 2004
Conservative – another sweeping term that is used as a pejorative by some and as a badge of honor by others. In many ways both views are wrong, conservatism is not necessarily a bad idea and is not necessarily the best idea. The problem is that the term conservative is used to describe a grab bag of conflicting ideas and to pretend that all who call themselves conservatives will adhere to all these conflicting ideas.
Both George Will and William Safire have catalogued the factions contained in the Republican party – economic, social, libertarian, idealistic, and cultural (1). Safire wrote that the economic conservative is against “enforced redistribution of wealth” and for reduced taxes; the social conservative doesn’t like the violence in entertainment and opposes partial-birth abortion; the libertarian “is pro-choice and anti-compulsion”, the idealistic conservative believes it is America’s role to extend freedom, and the cultural conservative prefers traditional to avant-garde and the thoughtful to the emotional. He offered more complex descriptions but space and copyrights limit my explaining more. He also offered some stands that “liberals” would agree with – consumer protection from monopolies, right of counsel, and keeping “fundamentalists out of schoolrooms.”
I would make a slightly different catalog: pro-business, religious right, libertarian, and militaristic. Pro-business is more pro-CEO of larger companies; religious right is enforcing one’s religious views on others; libertarian is as Safire described, and militaristic is projecting power more than defense. They are all mixed up in a weird dance of support and conflict. Some very large businesses provide the violent entertainment that the religious right opposes; businesses like military contracts but they don’t want to pay the taxes to pay for the contracts; the religious right supports the militaristic because they believe it is bringing on Armageddon, the battle to end all battles; the libertarians resent actions of the religious right; and the militaristic play on the desires of all to promote “freedom and democracy” even as they run roughshod over “freedom and democracy” here and elsewhere. Please note: I did not write “military” but “militaristic”. The members of the military may be behaving honorably but the “militaristic” have designs beyond “defense”.
The classical definition of conservatism is holding on to what is traditional and making change gradually. It is hard to find fault with this view, we all have a bit of conservatism in ourselves. The business owner who doesn’t alter his plans until he has looked thoroughly at what change will bring about. The religious person who prefers the King James Bible rather than reading the newer translations. The person who prefers older music or art to the latest trend. Or the person who eats the same thing for breakfast every day.
However, much of what passes for conservatism is more radicalism – the abrupt change of how things were. Large businesses destroy smaller competitors or businesses that are in the way of their expansion. The religious right takes small parts of the bible literally and ignores the larger truths accepted by more traditional churches. The militaristic ignore traditional international relations in order to act on their own worldview. It seems to me that what these conservatives are attempting to conserve is their power over others.
One way they attempt to conserve power is to wrap themselves in the flag and proclaim that they are promoters of freedom and democracy. Freedom is not promoted by telling people how to conduct their private affairs, what they must believe, and what rituals they must perform. Democracy is not promoted by hiding information in the name of security or by taking checks and balances from voting to promote sales of technology.
One of the characteristics of current conservatism is unquestioning promotion of “approved” beliefs. Have you noticed that no matter how many news quotes from “conservative” sources, no matter how many letters from “conservatives”, and no matter how many opinion pieces by “conservatives”, if a newspaper or broadcaster has any news or opinions outside of this set of views, it is “liberal”? Very interesting because many newspapers and broadcasters are owned by “conservative” businesses.
A slogan that captures this mind set is RINO – Republican in name only. One of the supposed attributes of having only two political parties is that they each will cover a wide range of views – the so-called “big tent” parties. However, conservatives are increasingly demanding orthodoxy – a strict adherence to a set of beliefs. You can see this is the writings or hear it on radio shows of conservatives.
Rush Limbaugh is supposedly the master of not allowing anyone to contradict him with a different interpretation of facts. Ann Coulter hammers away with a repetitious call for orthodoxy. I’m having a tough time making it through her book Slander because of all the generalizations and selective quotes she makes to show how bad “liberals” are.
This orthodoxy carries over to support for President George W. Bush. About the only conservative commentators who might question Bush’s actions are William Safire and George Will. They may point out an inconsistency in something Bush said or did. Otherwise the President can do no wrong, unless it is not going to the right far enough.
Maybe George Bush doesn’t see himself as the Roman Emperor that Garry Trudeau depicts him as in “Doonesbury” (the empty helmet), but many of Bush’s supporters treat him as if his actions should no more be challenged than those of early Roman Emperors.
Remember, the Roman Republic fell when a general overstepped the limits the Senate set for him. Could the American Republic fall when a Commander-in-Chief reinterprets the Constitution and oversteps its limits? If so, conservatives will not have conserved freedom and democracy.
(1) William Safire, “Inside a Republican Brain”, New York Times, July 21, 2004 (Page may be available online only to subscribers)
©2004, 2007, 2013 Melvyn D. Magree
Monday, August 20, 2012
The political spectrum – from wrong to wronger
The conventional idea of the political spectrum from left to right is as if one adapts different ideas as one moves smoothly from one side to the other. But people aren't so easily graded as eggs. Some people are for ideas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and other are against all six. Some people are for ideas 1, 2, and 3, and against ideas 4, 5, and 6. Others are for ideas 1, 3, and 6 and against 2, 4, and 5. And so on.
But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative. If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.
Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers. If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative. If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal. If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative. If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.
About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves. About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.
So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?
That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.
Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me. Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance. I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status. I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.
Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less. Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations. Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food? Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases. Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.
It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays. Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day. As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.
But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative. If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.
Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers. If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative. If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal. If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative. If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.
About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves. About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.
So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?
That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.
Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me. Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance. I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status. I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.
Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less. Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations. Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food? Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases. Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.
It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays. Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day. As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
A couple of reads for the Independence Day (Fourth of July)
OK, I know it's a bit late in the day to recommend some reading for the Fourth of July, but any day is really a good day to pass these along.
"Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights", Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, 2007
This is mostly about cases that have been brought to court against the Federal or other governments and generally prevailed in one way or another. These are all from the George W. Bush Presidency's "War on Terrorism".
The other is "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea" by George Lakoff. I haven't started it yet, but all the hype about our "freedoms" has often struck me as insincere. There are the definite illegal intrusions by government into the private lives of individuals. The "freedom" meant in too much of the hype is the freedom for corporations to do what they damn well please without regard to the effects on people. I shall see over the next week or so.
"Bill of Wrongs: The Executive Branch's Assault on America's Fundamental Rights", Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose, 2007
This is mostly about cases that have been brought to court against the Federal or other governments and generally prevailed in one way or another. These are all from the George W. Bush Presidency's "War on Terrorism".
The other is "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea" by George Lakoff. I haven't started it yet, but all the hype about our "freedoms" has often struck me as insincere. There are the definite illegal intrusions by government into the private lives of individuals. The "freedom" meant in too much of the hype is the freedom for corporations to do what they damn well please without regard to the effects on people. I shall see over the next week or so.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Heroes or victims
Nation after nation makes heroes of those who fight in the wars these nations engage in. But it is rare that those who do the actual fighting made the decision to go to war. The decision makers are far behind the lines, exhorting even more to join as fighters.
Often a war is cloaked in patriotic terms as defending the country against foreign enemies, but the war is often not fought on the land of foreign enemy or even the land of the country claiming defense. The war is fought on lands either loosely allied with one side or the other or even on lands that would rather be neutral.
Those who are opposed to these wars are often called unpatriotic, but they may really be the patriotic ones who see the folly in expending lives and treasure. These "unpatriotic" may be executed or imprisoned in some countries or may be sidelined or ostracized in more "gentle" countries.
Some wars are instigated for conquest and masked as being for the greater glory of the nation. Anatole France, commenting about past French wars in "L'Île des Pingouins" could just as well have been predicting Adolph Hitler. A visitor stood in front of a statue of Trinco. Trinco has conquered and lost half the known world in thirty years of war. The guide finishes a description of Trinco's victories and defeats with, "Mais il nous a donné la gloire." The visitor responded "Il vous l'a fair payer cher!" And the guide responds "La gloire ne se paye jamais trop cher."
The true test of the value a nation places on its heroes is how the veterans of war are treated when they return. Is the country willing to raise sufficient funds to fully treat all physical and psychological injuries? Think of Ira Hayes, fêted as a hero until he lost his usefulness as a war bond promoter. Think of the dismal state that Walter Reed Hospital was in a few years ago. Think of all the homeless vets who just can't make it on their own. Until a government fully addresses these issues, many of its heroes are victims of the folly of war.
Often a war is cloaked in patriotic terms as defending the country against foreign enemies, but the war is often not fought on the land of foreign enemy or even the land of the country claiming defense. The war is fought on lands either loosely allied with one side or the other or even on lands that would rather be neutral.
Those who are opposed to these wars are often called unpatriotic, but they may really be the patriotic ones who see the folly in expending lives and treasure. These "unpatriotic" may be executed or imprisoned in some countries or may be sidelined or ostracized in more "gentle" countries.
Some wars are instigated for conquest and masked as being for the greater glory of the nation. Anatole France, commenting about past French wars in "L'Île des Pingouins" could just as well have been predicting Adolph Hitler. A visitor stood in front of a statue of Trinco. Trinco has conquered and lost half the known world in thirty years of war. The guide finishes a description of Trinco's victories and defeats with, "Mais il nous a donné la gloire." The visitor responded "Il vous l'a fair payer cher!" And the guide responds "La gloire ne se paye jamais trop cher."
"But he gave us glory."Some wars are fought for a "national interest" but cloaked as a defense of freedom. The national interest could be protecting shipping, access to resources, or some other interest for which the greatest beneficiaries are nowhere near the front lines. Ironically, to protect freedom the freedom to protest the war is the first freedom to go.
"He made you pay dearly."
"One never pays too dearly for glory."
The true test of the value a nation places on its heroes is how the veterans of war are treated when they return. Is the country willing to raise sufficient funds to fully treat all physical and psychological injuries? Think of Ira Hayes, fêted as a hero until he lost his usefulness as a war bond promoter. Think of the dismal state that Walter Reed Hospital was in a few years ago. Think of all the homeless vets who just can't make it on their own. Until a government fully addresses these issues, many of its heroes are victims of the folly of war.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Who's taking whose freedoms away?
Many candidates and commentators complain bitterly that the "government" is taking our freedoms away. These same people also want a large military to "protect our freedoms". However, they never seem to recognize that their own positions threaten our freedoms.
They also think that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain the various freedoms of speech, assembly, and so on. No, it was fought for the freedom to govern ourselves rather than being governed by a country three thousand miles away.
Now, these same candidates and commentators want to take the freedom to govern ourselves away, and they often consider themselves patriotic because they support a strong military, pledge allegiance to the flag (including "under God"), and wear flag pins. How are they taking away freedom to govern ourselves? By raising the false specter of "voter fraud" and hoping to keep away from the polls people who might not vote for them.
I've written about many of them being hypocrites in religion; they are hitting a double by being hypocrites in patriotism.
Protect your freedom: VOTE!
They also think that the Revolutionary War was fought to gain the various freedoms of speech, assembly, and so on. No, it was fought for the freedom to govern ourselves rather than being governed by a country three thousand miles away.
Now, these same candidates and commentators want to take the freedom to govern ourselves away, and they often consider themselves patriotic because they support a strong military, pledge allegiance to the flag (including "under God"), and wear flag pins. How are they taking away freedom to govern ourselves? By raising the false specter of "voter fraud" and hoping to keep away from the polls people who might not vote for them.
I've written about many of them being hypocrites in religion; they are hitting a double by being hypocrites in patriotism.
Protect your freedom: VOTE!
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
What to make of George Will on Newt Gingrich
George Will wrote a good critique of Gingrich that anyone who values good government would appreciate, "Gingrich - The Anti-Conservative", Washington Post, 2011-12-20.
Will is very displeased with Gingrich's disdain for the judiciary. Gingrich thinks that judges should appear before elected officials to justify their decisions and can be summarily dismissed.
Will writes that Gingrich is not a historian but often plays one on television. Will is right on with this because I think a historian would be familiar with the Federalist papers:
"A circumstance which crowns the defects of the Confederation remains yet to be mentioned, the want of a judiciary power. Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation."
- Federalist No. 22, supposedly written by Alexander Hamilton
Hm! That reads as if Alexander Hamilton was in favor of "activist judges".
I often enjoy reading George Will's columns; he can be very thoughtful. But he loses it when he becomes partisan and overextends himself in generalizations. In the above article he faults Gingrich for not having "the central conservative virtue, prudence…" This may be a trait of classical conservatives, but unfortunately too many who call themselves conservatives now rush into the issue of the day "without due diligence". Will goes on to compare the "conservative virtue" to "progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power." I don't think this wish for "untrammeled power" is an attribute held by only one sort of politician; politicians of all kinds can be too unwilling to ride roughshod over opposition.
George Will shows this same polarization on "The Great American Debate" with Christiane Amanpour as he argues about legalization of marijuana with Barney Frank. Will makes a remark about "liberalism's aversion to information". Sorry, George, but an "aversion to information" is found all over the political map, especially among those who think their particular ideas are the truth.
This bit of repartee, not a debate, can be found on "Barney Frank Challenges George Will on Marijuana". The full show can be found on http://abcnews.go.com/watch/this-week/SH559082/VD55158848/this-week-1218--the-great-debate.
Will is very displeased with Gingrich's disdain for the judiciary. Gingrich thinks that judges should appear before elected officials to justify their decisions and can be summarily dismissed.
Will writes that Gingrich is not a historian but often plays one on television. Will is right on with this because I think a historian would be familiar with the Federalist papers:
"A circumstance which crowns the defects of the Confederation remains yet to be mentioned, the want of a judiciary power. Laws are a dead letter without courts to expound and define their true meaning and operation."
- Federalist No. 22, supposedly written by Alexander Hamilton
Hm! That reads as if Alexander Hamilton was in favor of "activist judges".
I often enjoy reading George Will's columns; he can be very thoughtful. But he loses it when he becomes partisan and overextends himself in generalizations. In the above article he faults Gingrich for not having "the central conservative virtue, prudence…" This may be a trait of classical conservatives, but unfortunately too many who call themselves conservatives now rush into the issue of the day "without due diligence". Will goes on to compare the "conservative virtue" to "progressivism’s defining attribute — impatience with impediments to the political branches’ wielding of untrammeled power." I don't think this wish for "untrammeled power" is an attribute held by only one sort of politician; politicians of all kinds can be too unwilling to ride roughshod over opposition.
George Will shows this same polarization on "The Great American Debate" with Christiane Amanpour as he argues about legalization of marijuana with Barney Frank. Will makes a remark about "liberalism's aversion to information". Sorry, George, but an "aversion to information" is found all over the political map, especially among those who think their particular ideas are the truth.
This bit of repartee, not a debate, can be found on "Barney Frank Challenges George Will on Marijuana". The full show can be found on http://abcnews.go.com/watch/this-week/SH559082/VD55158848/this-week-1218--the-great-debate.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Terrorism, National Defense Authorization Act, and Freedom
There is a lot of chatter on the Facebook page of the Coffee Party as to whether the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 authorizes the government to put U.S. citizens under military detention. See http://www.facebook.com/coffeeparty/posts/267586529957093. I posted the following:
I wish those who make claims one way another about the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 and that it may allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens in the U.S. would provide links to the relevant text.
Trying to find such text is a real challenge. I may have found it at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:14:./temp/~c112xQZz8t:e551744: It is labeled "Passed Senate". This explicitly exempts U.S. citizens: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
There seem to be two knee-jerk reactions to this bill. 1) How dare the government arbitrarily arrest citizens? 2) Of course the government should detain suspected terrorists wherever.
To the first, please check your sources before you protest.
To the second, be careful what you ask for. You may be considered a terrorist by somebody somewhere. Also, if the government cannot run a postal service or determine environmental protection regulation, then how can that same government be sure it is detaining actual terrorists? Remember that fubar and snafu are soldier slang for things not going right. Also remember that Congress has the power to call out the militia to put down insurrections.
What really concerns me about this and so many other bills is that too many in Congress do not read the whole bill. When the first Patriot Act was proposed somebody challenged congress member to read the complete bill. I think only one Senator took up the challenge and when he had read the complete bill, voted against it.
Another concern is that if we are free to put terrorism suspects under military detention in other countries, what's to stop other countries from passing laws that allow them to put terrorism suspects under military detention in the U.S.?
I wish those who make claims one way another about the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2012 and that it may allow the U.S. military to detain U.S. citizens in the U.S. would provide links to the relevant text.
Trying to find such text is a real challenge. I may have found it at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:14:./temp/~c112xQZz8t:e551744: It is labeled "Passed Senate". This explicitly exempts U.S. citizens: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."
There seem to be two knee-jerk reactions to this bill. 1) How dare the government arbitrarily arrest citizens? 2) Of course the government should detain suspected terrorists wherever.
To the first, please check your sources before you protest.
To the second, be careful what you ask for. You may be considered a terrorist by somebody somewhere. Also, if the government cannot run a postal service or determine environmental protection regulation, then how can that same government be sure it is detaining actual terrorists? Remember that fubar and snafu are soldier slang for things not going right. Also remember that Congress has the power to call out the militia to put down insurrections.
What really concerns me about this and so many other bills is that too many in Congress do not read the whole bill. When the first Patriot Act was proposed somebody challenged congress member to read the complete bill. I think only one Senator took up the challenge and when he had read the complete bill, voted against it.
Another concern is that if we are free to put terrorism suspects under military detention in other countries, what's to stop other countries from passing laws that allow them to put terrorism suspects under military detention in the U.S.?
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The Iranian Revolution Lives!!
AlJazeera has posted a 47-minute video of the ongoing struggle in Iran, "Letters from Iran".
It is not a pretty story given the brutality of the current regime, but there are cracks. A few in the regime are not happy with what is going on.
Given that hawks in the U.S. are once again raising an alarm about a nuclear-armed "enemy"., I've been mulling over who created the current regime in the first place. Well, not directly, but the CIA and others who wanted a compliant Iranian government overthrew the elected Mohammed Mossadegh to protect "our oil". The CIA was active in putting Shah Reza Pahlevi on the throne. The CIA also helped him by creating SAVAK, a hated secret police. When Khomenei took power, what happened to SAVAK?
While watching "Letters from Iran", I wondered if the Basiji would meet the same fate as those in SAVAK. Guess what, Khomeini converted them into SAVAMA, his own secret police. See "Why did Khomeini absorb the CIA's SAVAK?"
This leads me back to the topic I had been mulling over: You reap what you sow! The U.S. government decides that America's "interests" (not necessarily the long-term interests of the American people, but the short-term interests of certain corporations) must be protected. But the people in the target country don't necessarily agree with the intervention to "protect" those "interests". Eventually they rise up and overthrow the installed government. The result may be better, the result may be worse. In this case, for many Iranians, it was worse.
So, what happens if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran? Who dies and why? Will only people who support the current regime die? Or will more innocent people die than have been killed by the "Islamic" "Republic"?
Oh, oh! Such attacks could have already started. I was going to end this entry with a reference to Tehran Bureau, a U.S.-based website now hosted by PBS. Its staff does its best to publish as much Iranian news as possible. One of the stories was "At Least 17 Dead After IRGC (Republican Guard) Blast". Iranian authorities claimed the arms depot blast was an accident and that an investigation is underway. But at least one commenter thought that it may have been a U.S. or Israeli air strike.
It could be, the blast story has a link to "Israeli Source Claims Depot Blast Mossad/MKO Operation".
It will probably take weeks or months to sort out what really happened. Even then, who and what shall we really believe? Almost all involved have their own agenda and the truth is not part of those agendas.
It is not a pretty story given the brutality of the current regime, but there are cracks. A few in the regime are not happy with what is going on.
Given that hawks in the U.S. are once again raising an alarm about a nuclear-armed "enemy"., I've been mulling over who created the current regime in the first place. Well, not directly, but the CIA and others who wanted a compliant Iranian government overthrew the elected Mohammed Mossadegh to protect "our oil". The CIA was active in putting Shah Reza Pahlevi on the throne. The CIA also helped him by creating SAVAK, a hated secret police. When Khomenei took power, what happened to SAVAK?
While watching "Letters from Iran", I wondered if the Basiji would meet the same fate as those in SAVAK. Guess what, Khomeini converted them into SAVAMA, his own secret police. See "Why did Khomeini absorb the CIA's SAVAK?"
This leads me back to the topic I had been mulling over: You reap what you sow! The U.S. government decides that America's "interests" (not necessarily the long-term interests of the American people, but the short-term interests of certain corporations) must be protected. But the people in the target country don't necessarily agree with the intervention to "protect" those "interests". Eventually they rise up and overthrow the installed government. The result may be better, the result may be worse. In this case, for many Iranians, it was worse.
So, what happens if Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran? Who dies and why? Will only people who support the current regime die? Or will more innocent people die than have been killed by the "Islamic" "Republic"?
Oh, oh! Such attacks could have already started. I was going to end this entry with a reference to Tehran Bureau, a U.S.-based website now hosted by PBS. Its staff does its best to publish as much Iranian news as possible. One of the stories was "At Least 17 Dead After IRGC (Republican Guard) Blast". Iranian authorities claimed the arms depot blast was an accident and that an investigation is underway. But at least one commenter thought that it may have been a U.S. or Israeli air strike.
It could be, the blast story has a link to "Israeli Source Claims Depot Blast Mossad/MKO Operation".
It will probably take weeks or months to sort out what really happened. Even then, who and what shall we really believe? Almost all involved have their own agenda and the truth is not part of those agendas.
Monday, July 25, 2011
Military quote of the day
"The British never clearly understood what they were against–a revolutionary struggle involving widespread support in the population. Hence they continually underestimated the staying power of the rebels and overestimated the strength of the loyalists. And in the end, independence came to mean more to the Americans than reconquest did to the English."
- The American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood, p. 78.
- The American Revolution, Gordon S. Wood, p. 78.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Why do I write?
A friend asked me this the other day.
I have a lots of reasons to write: I read a lot; I respond to what I read; I'm a performer; I like to share what I think.
I know I'm not the world's greatest writer. I can tell because this blog has not gone viral; on a good day a couple dozen people check my "headlines" via a feed. But I do know that my writings resonate with those who have "open" minds; that is, minds not locked into a certain world view.
Yesterday I thought of another reason - to protect freedom. Nope, I'm not on the battlements fighting against an invading army. But I am expressing my thoughts in a way that I hope gets people to think beyond a certain limited view. When we have a limited view, we think our way is the only right way, and when we do so, we keep making the same mistakes over and over. That deprives us of the freedom to "think anew."
I have a lots of reasons to write: I read a lot; I respond to what I read; I'm a performer; I like to share what I think.
I know I'm not the world's greatest writer. I can tell because this blog has not gone viral; on a good day a couple dozen people check my "headlines" via a feed. But I do know that my writings resonate with those who have "open" minds; that is, minds not locked into a certain world view.
Yesterday I thought of another reason - to protect freedom. Nope, I'm not on the battlements fighting against an invading army. But I am expressing my thoughts in a way that I hope gets people to think beyond a certain limited view. When we have a limited view, we think our way is the only right way, and when we do so, we keep making the same mistakes over and over. That deprives us of the freedom to "think anew."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)