Yes, you. You are the enemy.

Actually, it’s not you. It’s nothing personal. It’s your attempts to exercize those Constitutional rights you used to have.

With me, it is personal. I was once a commissioner of police. One of my grandfathers was a sheriff; the other was a chief of police. In tracing my ancestry I discovered several family members that served as sheriffs, even extending back to England.

One day my chief was speaking with one of our citizens. The person said to his child that he better behave or the police would come to get him. The chief admonished him not to engender fear of police in his child.

He stated that the police were there to serve and protect citizens. They were his friend. That lesson stuck with me but, today, that lesson seemingly has been largely lost.

What happened? Those riot cops don’t look all that friendly. They have been immitating the military, in both equipment and attitude.

They see themselves as being immune from the laws that give them warrant. They seem to be more the army of an invading enemy than our protectors.

This past year they have been more frequently the agents of disorder, rather than those seeking to exercise their rights of assembly, speech and petitioning for redress.

How many incidents just this past year have produced video for the media of unprovoked assault of peaceable, unarmed fellow citizens? It took several days before the media admitted there was a story.

Those imaginary liberal media, you know, the ones owned by super-conservative mega-corporations, waited until the “law enforcement” proved they didn’t know how to play bridge legally.

Do these policemen feel themselves in jeopardy? Are these the perpetrators of violence from whom we are being protected? Who is out of control? Who is menacing whom? Who is trashing the Constitution?

Once there was the occasional Rodney King atrocity. Now, almost every city with an Occupy presence seemed to be using the same handbook. The problem was, as a few courts reminded them, that these were citizens with rights, not their spouse’s paramours.

I was taught to respect the police. I complied, because I generally saw them as deserving that respect. Of late, I have had my doubts.

The Police Union?

The Occupy Wall Street movement is aimed at those responsible for, among other things, gambling away the retirement funds of untold millions. A large segment of those lost retirement funds belonged to unions and their membership. It was natural, therefore, that the labor unions supported the Occupy movement.

There was one little problem that nagged at me. The Wall Street casinos had also gambled away the retirement funds of the police unions. Surely, they weren’t stupid enough to support those who stole from them against their fellow victims. That’s just what they did. But, why?

My wife has a cousin who is a state legislator. He is also a captain of the fire department and former state president of their union. I asked for his take on why they would be so ready to break the law and violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow Americans, particularly their fellow unionists fighting for redress for them as well.

Mike admitted that the police union had almost always been a thorn in the side of the union movement. They see themselves as special. They see themselves as a breed apart. That seems in tune with the ‘law unto themselves’ demeanor that is far too frequently apparent.

As commissioner of a small town police force back in the 1970s, I never had to deal with that bullying attitude that fellow commsioners often lamented. I was aware that the profession particularly appeals to that mentality but had no first-hand experience in dealing with it. It is not by any means universal but it has always been there and seems to have grown into a significant problem of late.

Is This What a Free County Looks Like?

It’s difficult to watch a video of New York City’s phoniest and correlate that with the memories of those who served our city, or the respect, even love, shown my grandfather when I was a kid.

One grandfather died before I was born but the chief of police was also the city manager and in charge of the water department. He was more than fully employed during the Great Depression. One day he saw a man with some of his kids. They were all barefoot. He told the man to gather up the rest of his kids and bought them all shoes.

It had been payday. When my grandfather got home, my grandmother was waiting for the pay envelope. He finally admitted that he had bought shoes for the guy’s 8 kids. She reminded him that he also had 8 kids to provide for. He may have been in trouble at home but his kind of bond with the community won’t show up on the local news in Manhattan.

Okay. So things change. But, now all police misbehavior is excused as necessary. Homeland Security says so. Whatever fails to come under that umbrella, is serious enough to invoke the Patriot Act. I find the title ironic for a statute that violates so much of the Constitution.

You don’t need a copy of the Constitution if you have pepper spray, a helmet with face shield, jack boots, a big gun, body armor and an attitude. Are the police just simple minded or bullies. I think many are complex enough to qualify on both counts. If they were rational, acting on behalf of their own self-interest and devoted to upholding the law and the Constitution, they would be joining the protestors, not harassing them.

As a former foreign correspondent, I found the following interesting. Last week an international group that ranks press freedom around the world released their report for last year. Thanks primarily to the beatings, incarceration and other means of interference with the press with regards to the Occupy movement, the U.S. dropped from 20^th to 47^th.

Maybe it’s just one more of the burdens of getting old. You have a memory to compare with the present. I find it impossible nowadays to think of this as a country as free as the one I grew up in.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I am not a fan of ceilings. Well, at home is good. Maybe in most any building.

But that’s not the kind that we have as the subject today. We’re talking about the debt ceiling of the federal government. It’s possible one or two people may not be as familiar with this issue as they think.

For instance, we are the only country in the world with a debt ceiling. Another minor point is that a debt ceiling is unConstitutional. Now, are you ready for some football . . . er, uh, facts?

Yes, Virginia, the Congress of these United States, in their infinite wisdom, made us the only country in the world subject to such a nonsensical, unnecessary and useless stricture.

It isn’t merely a matter of embarrassment. It represents a potential threat to this country, and the world, that can only be guessed at. Why would they put us in so precarious position? Why would they so jeopardize us?

The debt ceiling took years to develop. It was intended to help the United States Treasury. The original intent was laudable. Its present misuse as a political weapon is despicable.

Until the time of WW I, ‘The Big One,” Congress would authorize each specific debt that was incurred. For a couple of decades, efforts were made to provide the Treasury an easier way of dealing with debts. Those efforts were formalized into a law in 1939 that provided for a debt ceiling. No good deed goes unpunished; particularly when the good deed doer has no idea what they are doing.

Most debt is incurred by action of the Congress. However, the executive branch can cause some debt. Even the courts can subject the government to debts, intentionally or not, as the result of some rulings.

However debt may be incurred, if it is legal, the Treasury must, by mandate of the Constitution, pay that debt. The Constitution makes no allowance for failure to pay any and all legal debts.

Additionally, while the above is stated quite explicitly, the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. In 1935 the Supreme Court very clearly ruled that Congress did not have the power to cause any legally incurred debt to go unpaid. There would, otherwise, be no way to promise the “full faith and allegiance of the United States” to any obligation.

Those great patriotic worshipers of the Constitution may tell the Treasury that they can’t pay any bills once the ceiling is breached. They need to actually read the Constitution. It would help if they would also read an occasional ruling that the Supreme Court hands down.

While the above is true and easy to understand, there is a political consideration. It is very unlikely that any Secretary of the Treasury would be willing to be seen as defying Congress. It’s a sure bet that Secretary Geithner and any of his predecessors and successors see, or saw, their only option being to bow to Congress and pretend they have the final word.

Hey. We have a president who used to be a professor of Constitutional Law. Surely he’s familiar with the original part of the Constitution. Surely he read all of way down to Section 4 of the 14^th Amendment. But, even though he may know better, he has no more political room for maneuver than the Secretary of the Treasury.

We are stuck under the thumbs of the super patriots who don’t understand most of the Constitution and disagree with everything they do understand.

Now, we hear that there is a certain amount beyond which the Treasury will be barred from borrowing. We are told that once the cash on hand runs out the Treasury will be barred from paying any bills or other obligations. Were that it was that straightforward.

They say that our armed forces personnel, those on Social Security and many others cannot be paid . . . but guess who can. Did you say banks? You are either absolutely brilliant or at least have a realistic perception of the way our system works.

How do they justify that? Ask them. The IRS collection personnel will continue to be paid as you and I will still be required to come up with the wherewithal to keep those bankers bonuses flowing.

Okay, you say. What’s so bad about not raising the debt ceiling? The truth is, we don’t know. I can recall nothing even close to this happening before. We have no real analog for guidance. We must depend on educated guesses.

Some of the guesswork can provide a relatively high degree of confidence. We know the level of greed that guides the majority of players. We know the inane ideology they will use to rationalize their actions. We know that fear mongering will likely set new standards. Put them all together Dr. Frankenstein.

Usually, interest on the debt is one of the largest items in the annual budget. It continues to be while significantly diminished. You may have heard that interest rates are at historic lows. That has allowed us to borrow at very low cost for the past few years. It is obviously to our government’s, and taxpayers’, benefit to extend those low interest rates as long as we can.

That makes sense, you say. Won’t we? Many in and out of Congress are determined that we pay higher rates. How could they be so unconcerned for our country’s economic well-being? Some because they are ideologues. Some for putative political advantage. Some for both reasons.

It is difficult to understand the ‘thinking’ of some politicians. They are owned by the banks. The banks love the essentially free money they can borrow now. The banks have told their representatives not to shut down the government. They likely will obey their orders but for the sake of their ideology and their ever credulous constituencies they want to push it to the brink.

The banks, our creditors and other major financial entities relying on our “full faith and allegiance” will begin to get fidgety at some point before the actual deadline. The automatic, ideologically-based response will be to raise interest rates. Our government, we the taxpayers, will lose those low interest rates ahead of the final due date.

Here we have the true believers screaming that the debt is too large. They threaten massive cuts to every program that helps the middle class and sustains the poor. Though our taxes are the lowest in more than 60 years, they bemoan such an intolerable tax burden on the top 2% and are willing to increase the debt for their benefit.

Now comes the kicker. They are willing to cause the government’s interest rates to increase incurring additional debt in the hundreds of billions. Don’t forget to send these self-described debt haters a thank you note.

Why all of the concern by the banks, China, the Saudis, the Brits and all of the other major players? Because the US Dollar is the currency of the realm. Everyone puts their “full faith and allegiance” into the Dollar. Everything in international trade is denoted in the Dollar. There is the stability required for the financial world to function because there is a common coin.

So, just replace it with the Euro. You may not have heard that several members of the European Community are experiencing even greater financial discomfort than are we. Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Portugal and others. This is putting heavy stress on the stronger national banks of the Community. There is not inconsiderable talk of some members leaving the Euro. Some even talk of abolishing it.

That doesn’t sound to me like a promising alternative. What about gold? Give me a moment. Let me stifle my paroxysm of giggling.

The Washington Monument measures 55 feet on each side at its base. It stands 555 feet high. All of the gold ever gathered by mankind in its entire history would equal about one-third of the volume of the Washington Monument. That doesn’t seem to be all that much. Use that as the basis for finances of the entire world? And that doesn’t even take into consideration how much would be needed for the egos of both the rich and poor in Rolexes and teeth.

Allow me to translate that for sports fans. The playing field for football is 300 feet long and 160 feet wide. This, of course, doesn’t include the end zones. All of the gold gathered in the history of mankind would stack up on that playing field a bit less than 11½ feet high, barely higher than the crossbars on the goalposts.

People usually fail to take into consideration how advantageous it is to have our currency accepted as the de facto world standard. When OPEC quotes prices in Dollars we have both a slight real and a psychological advantage. We are, to a degree, insulted from most of the zigs and zags of currency values. In many cases, the cost and convenience of currency exchange works to our advantage as tourists or direct buyers from other countries.

If the world holds our credit worthiness or solvency in question, the pedestal of world superpower will start to crumble at an alarming rate. Our national strength has always been intimately yoked to, indeed based on, our perceived economic dominance.

It is impossible to quantify the potential damage from shutting down the government, to us and everyone else. The loss of the standard will mean economic turmoil around the world until a new system can be developed. The present system developed in the aftermath of WW II and was possible because the rest of the world was prostrate. I don’t recommend revisiting those conditions.

The politicians, most of them, are presently playing games with this issue for some expected political advantage. It’s time to realize that it isn’t a game and hope some adults come to the fore.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Everybody seems to have one, usually more than one. Yeah, you thought you knew what I was going to mention, until I said that usually it was more than one. Actually, you would have been close.

Arms? Fingers? Toes? Televisions? Cars? No. I am not alluding to anything desirable or useful. I refer to idiots supposedly representing our interests. I speak of simpleminded politicians.

Here in Tennessee we may not have the most, but only because there are much larger states. On a per capita basis we must be a leading contender. Our “representatives” may have set a new standard for stupidity.

My Personal Embarrassment

Deborah Maggart is my state representative. Checking out the bills she sponsored in the latest session, one might come to the conclusion that she has some expertise in education, mental illness, taxes, the Constitution and such. Not really.

She is concerned with the safety of our children. She sponsored a bill that keeps local government from storing magazines or gun powder within a mile of a daycare center or school. Presumably, it is acceptable for private companies or individuals to do so.

It’s just a guess but she does appear competent to assign names to bridges and highways.

Miss Debbie joined with her peers to commit what may be the supreme act of legislative witlessness.

Specifically, the bill is an amendment to the Tennessee Code Annotated Title 39 – Chapter 17 – Part 362. Harassment.

(a)  A person commits an offense who intentionally:
(1)  Threatens, by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication, including, but not limited to, text messaging, facsimile transmissions, electronic mail or Internet services, to take action known to be unlawful against any person and by this action knowingly annoys or alarms the recipient;

Edited here for length and pertinence.

(4)  Communicates with another person by any method described in subdivision (a)(1), without legitimate purpose:
(A)  (i)  With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or
(ii)  In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and
(B)  As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

Back to the real world

It seems impossible to write a bill with a broader brush. Particularly given the animus of present public discourse, is there any comment or action to which this law could not be construed to apply? I would not recommend spending wasting too much time musing on that question.

I considered not mentioning this and holding my home state up to such ridicule. Then I saw it as a story on a national newscast. Maybe I should take this as an opportunity to feel better about myself; to see myself as superior to the bozos that elected this bunch from their midst.

Many of you may be familiar with our new governor’s family business. It is Pilot, by far the largest company in the business of operating truck stops along our nation’s highways. I should think a person operating a billion dollar business would have vetoed such a monstrosity. Silly me.

Since the state is already a laughing stock, my actions cannot possibly put it in a worse light. This law should be challenged and the remnants hung around the necks of those responsible. Having been disappointed in my home state with some frequency, it may not be challenged if I fail to do so. Here is my attempt to challenge this embarrassing, ridiculous law. Come and get me. I am putting myself in jeopardy of a year of imprisonment and a $2,500 fine.

Blacks can certainly claim that the flag above leads to emotional distress. So can any true American; anyone of normal human sensibility. My calling it a symbol of treason should piss off everyone else. So there, I admit to the proscribed action and to the illegal nature of the symbol.

Before signing off let me attend to two details. That flag is not the flag of the Confederacy. It was Lee’s battle flag. Few worshipers of it know that little tidbit of history. The other detail has to do with the title of the act. It covers harassment. Almost everyone mispronounces the word. It springs from the same root as the words to harry, harried, harrier (as in the vertical take-off jet fighter) and my own surname, Harris. The emphasis is on the initial syllable: har’ ass ment.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Why the Tea Party? Why the absence of civility, what my mother called good manners?

It is the inevitable result of our devotion to various boneheaded ideologies. It makes no difference what the ideology is.

It’s time we recovered from this childhood disease of devotion to ideologies.

The incompetence of our politicians for the past few decades is to blame. They are in the game of politics but never learned the basics.

Parties play many roles. Parties can either be ideological or umbrellas. Umbrellas? An umbrella party is one that is deliberately non-ideological. It has no litmus test. If you want to join the party, come on, as long as you behave yourself.

So, why even have such a party? To help you get elected. That’s what politics is all about. If you don’t get elected, your chances of seeing any of your agenda enacted is severely curtailed.

No one ever accused George Wallace and Ted Kennedy of being ideological bed mates. But, they were both Democrats. I’m certain they didn’t relish the opportunity but when it came to endorsing each other they bit the bullet, smiled and said nice things about one another.

It wasn’t just a Democratic peculiarity. The Republicans likewise indulged. The distance between Arizona’s Senator Goldwater and New York’s Senator Javits was not merely geographical.

Given the rabid ideological posturing that has of late commanded the fields of battle, it is understandable if the behavior of those dinosaurs is perplexing. Why would they yoke themselves to people with whom they shared few, if any, positions on the issues of the day?

If you want to be a politician in the Deep South next year, your odds of success are much better as a Republican. The mirror image of that can be found in other locations.

The concept was not difficult. If you want to get elected, you position yourself to best advantage, at least as long as the others in that party are people with whom you can associate socially. They don’t have to agree with any of your policies. They just have to be willing to help you get elected and accept your help in their time of need.

Such arrangements can flourish only in an ambiance of cordiality. That atmosphere has an element of contagion. The supporters of the candidates are less likely to misbehave in public.

Two Is Enough

With umbrella parties two is all that’s necessary. Everyone, excepting the loonies, can find a home. The result is stability. Yes, I know that stability often translates as no change. I prefer to see it as allowing for deliberation and providing time for adjusting to changes. Although, the Great Depression proved alacrity was not forbidden when the times and events demanded.

Let me reminisce. I think it was in the 1980s when I took a look at Italy’s postwar political situation. The numbers may be slightly off, but only slightly. After about 39 years, the Italians had endured 37 administrations. There is a reason. Ideology. It produced a couple of dozen parties.

People seem never to be satisfied with just disagreeing. Catholics and Protestants disagree. Baptists and Presbyterians take issue with each other. Foot-washing Baptists don’t see eye to eye with Snake-handling Baptists. To some extent, the closer you are, ideologically, the more apt you are to produce another schism. Once you start splitting along ideological lines it’s just as difficult to stop as eating potato chips.

Hence, 37 administrations in about as many years. Political instability can lead to paralysis in the operation of a government. Do you commit to a significant project based on the orders of someone who will not last as long as the planning stage?

It was so bad that every few months the Italian post office would take all of the undelivered mail, bulldoze it into large piles and set it ablaze. Remember that the next time you complain about government efficiency.

We can see the beginning of that counting to 37. We have a Tea Party. Well, really, we have several tea parties. Seemingly, no one is ideologically pure enough to satisfy the rabid. They really don’t understand politics. They really don’t give a fig for democracy. They just want their way. They want to take their country back. Back from whom? From people who actually respect the concepts to which this nation has for so long been devoted?

Perhaps they should be speaking of giving the country back to the original inhabitants.

Are You Up For Some History?

We know that Michele Bachmann and St. Sarah are estranged from history and facts. That may be a requirement to belong to one of the tea parties. My first degree being in History, I have a fidelity to facts. Therefore, I will never be qualified to wear those silly outfits.

The original tea partiers dress as Indians. I probably would have tried to conceal my identity had I been involved. I guess that means I would have behaved cowardly too. If they weren’t Indians, who were they? Were they performing an act of patriotism for their fellow man’s liberty and posterity? Well, the answer has to be no.

Ninety thousand pounds of tea was dumped. Was it because of the tax? No. Really? Really. There were two reasons, neither was taxes.

The colonists were buying more tea from smugglers than from the East India Company. They wanted to change that. Parliament wanted to help. They passed the 1773 Tea Act. This was meant to accomplish the two things the Company wanted. First, it would give more emphasis to the Company’s monopoly. Sellers needed a license to legally sell tea.

The Company shipped tea from China and India to England, then to the colonies. A tax was collected for landing in a British port. The Tea Act eliminated that tax. Why? So that the Company could sell their tea for a lower price than the smugglers and the unlicensed sellers.

Now, can you guess who the ‘Indians” were? Just a hint: they were smugglers and unlicensed sellers.

Not all of their fellow colonists thought very highly of them. It was more than six decades before they first called it the Boston Tea Party. It was known as “the destruction of the tea.” That doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. For the most part, those who were around at the time didn’t consider the destruction of property laudable.

Many condemned their little party; Ben Franklin forcefully so. He insisted that the cost of the tea must be paid.

This was an act that was unnecessary and not indicative of the general mood of the colonies. New York, Philadelphia and other ports simply boycotted the tea. That tea was returned to England.

My Way – Or Else

So, what do we have? We have people who know no history. We have people who don’t understand politics. We have people who don’t like democracy. Despite their uninformed claims, they have no allegiance to the Constitution. They are missing any fraternal feeling for their fellow Americans. They are not patriots. They are spoiled brats.

Obviously, that is not a description of everyone who feels some sympathy for their averred aims. Americans, perhaps 98% of us, have good reason to be upset with our lack of influence on events. The Tea Party is not an acceptable response.

We don’t need these fake populist groups, funded by the plutocracy and corporations. We don’t need this distraction from the real, basic issues. We don’t need simplistic policies based on lies and ignorance.

I don’t appreciate being used and otherwise ignored by those running the country. However, the only alternative is not to be threatened with a gun by an ignorant bully who despises the things I cherish. Some make a lot of noise under the guise of patriotism and other laudable banners. Others put an unwarranted trust in those claims.

I would rather see them spend more time learning the facts, including historical ones, than making fools of themselves.

Look that up in your Funk and Wagnell’s.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I went to search for some images of the untouchables of India.What appeared was almost entirely from the television show and the movie loosely based on Eliot Ness and his homies.

Is it possible we aren’t all that aware of the rest of the world?

The word untouchables is applied to the crew of Ness and the Dalits of India. I, however, think it an appropriate descriptive for another group.

The Dalits are subjected to treatment that can only be described as horrific. It is as open and cruel as the terrorism of the Ku Klux Klan at its height. I may cover this in detail in another article.

However, my immediate intention is to address a completely different demographic. This is a group of Americans that, unlike the Dalits, are deserving of the discrimination and violence to which those in India are subjected. They are our plutocrats. They are the special people of America who are not subject to the rules and laws that govern the rest of us.

Have you ever watched testimony before Congress? Oil men, tobacco executives, Wall Street vultures, these and others routinely lie to the committees. They aren’t even good liars. They obviously don’t even try to be good liars. They know that it doesn’t make any difference.

Let me be more specific. It is illegal to lie to Congress. Also, it is illegal to lie to the FBI, the IRS, the Department of Justice. In fact, it is illegal to lie to almost every agency and department of the federal government. Similar laws govern the states.

It seems not to have stopped these liars. Could it be because the government almost never pursues perjury charges against these special people? I think that may have something to do with it.

Now, let’s change our point of focus just a little. Let’s look at the hoi polloi. It’s just us. It’s just those who are expected to behave. It’s just those who are really subject to punishment for violation of the laws.

You lie to the IRS at your peril. Lying to the FBI isn’t recommended. Even being dishonest with Congress puts you in jeopardy. Yeah, I know, they prefer testimony by the big shots. They garner more attention from the cameras. But, they do, on occasion, interrogate us peons.

Since few of us have the temerity to lie to big brother, this may not seem to be of much consequence to most of us. That may not be the proper way to look at this particular situation.

However few may be affected by it, you need to recognize how fundamental it is to our status in this society. Those plutocrats who have nothing to fear from breaking the laws stand above the rest of us. In effect, they stand on us. They are the elite. We are the subjects. It puts into sharp relief that we are not considered citizens of this country.

What did he just say? Yes, it’s true. We are not citizens of this country. Citizen and subject are not synonyms. A citizen is a member of the state, the country. He is entitled to rights, civil treatment and has various civic obligations. A subject is one ruled over by another; a monarch or a government.

It isn’t just a matter of semantics. It isn’t just a fine academic point. It is real. It has consequences.

It may seem of little import when one of these plutocrats walks away from the scene of his perjury. You may not be planning on lying to Customs officials on your return trip. But, it does matter.

It matters how those in charge perceive you and me. How they do affects the way laws are written; the way they are enforced. Don’t forget, tax rules and regulations are laws. They throw in a little deduction here and there for you and me. For the elite they make the laws and their lack of enforcement a cruel joke. At least it’s cruel from our perspective.

The mindsets of the government and the elite have other consequences. Have you written a letter to you congressman? Have you complained to the Bureau of Indian Affairs? And, what was the result? Did you even feel that they really paid attention? You mean you didn’t have your lawyer, the one with the K Street address, make the call for you?

We’ve heard the refrain thousands of times: All men are created free and equal. True, we know that should be interpreted as equal before the law. That’s what our social studies teachers told us. You don’t still believe that, do you? Free and equal, in the constitutional sense, are too closely entwined to be separable. If you are not equal, your freedom is less than you might think.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Although I have never marched around dressed up funny with a bunch of weirdos, I have studied the Constitution.

I find it amazing how people that haven’t displayed any particular affiliation with government, history, law enforcement, responsibility, weapon use, constitutional law or the English language are convinced of their expertise on all of these subjects.

Perhaps, we should post the 2^nd Amendment before looking into it, our subject for today.

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.

I find it logically difficult to see these staunch “supporters” of the Constitution as such when they insist on ignoring the Constitutional justification of their favorite part.

The only stated reason for allowing people to own arms is for the maintenance of a militia. So, let’s look at what constitutes a militia?

A militia is a military force. A bunch of individuals running around packing heat, shivering in a duck blind or standing watch over a salt lick has nothing in common with a “military force.”

A militia is for the purposes of defense of the community or enforcing the law. While individuals make up the community, one doesn’t organize a militia for the benefit of an individual. That’s another thing: a militia is organized.

There is a small but important consideration to be found in the passage of the Amendment. As passed by the Congress, the word people is not capitalized. As ratified by the states, it is. Meaning? The final version reflects with very specific intent that the Amendment is for “the People” not a bunch of individuals

That part about enforcing the law is interesting. The rabid supporters fear the government and feel the need of protection from it. I always thought it was the government that established the laws that need to be enforced. That would seem to require that the militia act in concert with, and for the benefit of, the government, not as an antagonist.

The second half of the introductory phrase gives further support to the logic of the above. It states that a militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

There is the justification. There is no room for additional, paranoia-inspired, extraneous, verbal contortions to make the Constitution support its enemies.

I have heard some of the new members of Congress and others claim that the Founding Fathers gave us the right to bear arms because they were sufficiently prescient to realize we would one day need to fight the government. Wow!

Accepting that really puts the Founders in a weird position. Instead of the obvious explanation that they wanted to protect the system they were laboring so hard to develop, they were really providing a way of arming its enemies. Is it possible that the people in tin hats today see something the Founders intended but forgot to include? Did the Founders really expect their handiwork to become the enemy?

What if the Founders really did expect the Amendment to be needed by a group individuals, who are smarter than the rest of us, for the purpose of carrying on a war with our government? Will they repel the government with a Colt 45, a Glock, a shotgun or even an Uzi? I can’t figure out how.

To take on the most powerful military force this world has ever known, I would recommend a few tanks, bazookas, helicopters, attack submarines, missiles and thermonuclear devices. Could they get by without satellite support for their GPS-guided weaponry?

Rambo, Dirty Harry and the former Governator will not be able to provide much help. More than celluloid and duck tape will be necessary to take on the Pentagon.

The biggest problem with an unlimited interpretation of the Amendment may be the very ones who consider guns so important. How is that? They may have become excellent marksmen. They may be able to impress you with their mastery of the nomenclature of these weapons. Still, they don’t understand the most basic aspects of handguns.

As a former commissioner of police, let me make certain that people know that both the national organizations of police commissioners and police chiefs are strongly in favor of fairly stringent gun control laws.

An idiot congressman from Arizona refuses to retreat from his public statement that he wishes there had been one more gun at the recent shooting aimed at his fellow congressperson. There was another gun in the crowd.

Think about it. A handgun is for the purpose of getting the drop on one or more others. If someone already has the drop with his weapon, bringing another handgun into the situation is more than likely to increase the body count. A weapon used in a robbery, for instance, may be intended only for intimidation. Introducing another weapon significantly increases the possibility of gunfire.

The man in the aforementioned crowd pulled his gun. He says he was within a second of firing at the guy holding the gun. Fortunately, he realized that the person he was aiming at was holding the gun because he had just disarmed the shooter. In such a confusing situation, it is possible for such mistakes to happen.

Another consideration is that more than 90% of the shots fired by police miss their target. That does not mean they don’t hit someone. It only means that they don’t always hit the right someone. Remember, that accuracy rate is from trained, experienced police officers.

Almost all of these “supporters” of the 2nd Amendment received their understanding of weapon application from television, movies and comic books. For some reason, I don’t find that overwhelmingly reassuring.

There is the matter of self-protection, of course. The death rate in homes with guns is far, far higher than in those without a gun. We too frequently see a news report of a child accidentally killed in a home with a handgun.

A domestic disagreement often escalates to homicide simply because a handgun was available. The problem there is that such events are only local news. On average, several of these incidents occur daily across the country.

Now these yo-yos want to carry handguns in bars, in churches, even the floor of Congress. That should give you a good indication of how far they reside outside of reality.

Keep in mind, whenever you hear someone advocating the absence of gun control, you are likely hearing the absence of sense. Even when written in an opinion of the Supreme Court, it is probably the result of ignorance of handguns, ignorance of history, paranoia-based excursions from the real world or a dupe of those people.

These people have no concern for your freedom or your safety. Their concern is for their deluded desire for power and/or their other political agenda.

With few exceptions the people constantly campaigning against handgun control are your enemy. My hope is that you never become their victim.

Puzzle Me This

I’ve heard it ad nauseum. You’ve heard it too.

They say that guns don’t kill people. They say that people kill people. Is that really true? If so, why do so many people spend all that money buying guns? It just seems redundant and wasteful to me.

Guns may be used for target practice. They may be used as paperweights. They don’t work very well as flower pots. Whatever, they are designed to kill.

People may kill but if they were designed for that purpose I would guess that someone expurgated that from Genesis.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The revelations by Wikileaks point for me to a personal nexus.

Because of this, I ask you to trust me; to trust my take on this entire brouhaha. It’s easy to go with the overwhelming push by the government, the media, the powers that be. If one side is all you have ever heard, it should not come as a great surprise if your perception of reality shares the same distortions as those of your source.

Put all of that aside. I’m going to take you around to the other side for a better, clearer look at all of this.

First, what do I mean by personal nexus?

My multifarious trips to the Groves of Academe resulted in an undergraduate degree in Political Science, among other subjects. My graduate work was in international Relations, among other subjects.

I have been a practicing politician, actually holding public office. I was a foreign correspondent. I worked for a military intelligence agency and with the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. As politician, as journalist, as analyst, I have the background, the education and the experience to look at this from all pertinent perspectives.

Journalism is perhaps the easiest aspect of this to deal with, so I’ll tackle it first. It is not the media’s job to be the public relations arm of the government. The reason for providing the press with constitutional rights in the very first amendment is because the Founding Fathers recognized the role of the press was to counter the government.

Among all of those listed individual rights, they saw the press as the public’s way to be informed. They knew that information was necessary for the citizenry to check the power of the government. It might be more proper to characterize it a bit differently. We need information to keep politicians and agencies and individuals from using the government power to their own perceived advantage.

The media’s role is to be a friend and tool of the people. It’s role is to be our watchdog. The criticism of Wikileaks by the media is misdirected. Why? It is partially because the media is in bed with the politicians. It is partially to cover their embarrassment at being shown up as lazy and incompetent. Wikileaks has been doing their job for them.

If you see the media criticizing Wikileaks, you are well-advised to ignore it. That doesn’t mean that Wikileaks gets a free pass. Their work should be scrutinized. Their sense of responsibility needs to be assessed. Those are aspects of the media’s job on every story. Mindless criticism is not.

The talking heads are foaming at the mouth about the treasonous release of intelligence. Nonsense. What intelligence? The bulk of what was released was fodder for TMZ and the rest of the gossip media.

The Premier of Italy parties a lot. That Russian drinks to excess. The staff of a European country tends to be anti-American. Quick, call all of the gossip columnists.

North Korea is facing immanent collapse. The military of North Korea is in firm control. China is the master manipulator of Pyongyang. China has lost control. Those are all simply guesses by State Department personnel based in Beijing. Guesses by people who are not working in intelligence is not intelligence.

Israel has tried to get us to bomb Iran. Saudi Arabia has urged us to bomb Iran. The Emirates have more than hinted at the pleasure they would derive from our bombing of Iran. Whoops. Somebody’s face is red.

Why would fellow Arabs want to cut Iran off at the knees? Well, for one thing, the Iranians are not Arabs, they are Farsi. Another little detail is that Iran is Shia. So are the majority of Iraqis. Almost all other Muslims are Sunni. It  may be a shock to many but all Muslims are not the same. There is no Islamic monolith.

Intelligence? It doesn’t quite fit the definition that we used back in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

The government didn’t want us to know that the CIA eliminated the first democratically elected Islamic leader. That was Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, back in 1953. We replaced him with the Shah. Some Iranians felt that represented interference in their affairs. Other than upset the Iranians, the primary legacy of the Shah was to rekindle among some of the Iranian leaders a longing for the good old days of the Persian Empire. That has led to their idiotic pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Why did we get rid of the good doctor? Well, I know it’s difficult to believe but he nationalized the oil industry in Iran. He thought it belonged to the Iranians. Silly, wasn’t he?

There are about 54 million documents classified by the government in a year. Actually, they are classified by people, for various reasons. Sometimes it is because it makes the person feel important. Sometimes, it’s because it’s always been dome that way. Sometimes it is to avoid embarrassment. Sometimes it is to avoid the consequences of someone’s actions.

It’s possible that most of those millions of documents have no business being classified.

Let me provide a little lesson on how to keep a secret. Do not authorize two and a half million people to classify and have access to your secret. Do not, as Homeland Security did, make State Department cables available to Army PFCs. Someone in the little Department of Homeland Security thought it would be safer to share all classified documents as widely as possible. Yeah, sure.

Instead of criticizing Wikileaks, you should be grateful for a look at what is going on in the world in your name, with your money. How often do you get such a candid view?

Wikileaks was not founded to provide a transmission device for treason. It was intended that any whistle-blower at any job in any country would have a way to let the public know. It was intended to empower you and me. It was intended to help implement the purpose of the Constitution’s check on government, to provide knowledge of abuses by corporations.

Treason? Not really. At least not for the founder of Wikileaks. One can only commit treason against ones own country. Julian Assange is an Aussie. He is adamant that research by his staff and outsiders has found no case where a person was killed or otherwise harmed by any release they have made.

I would think it is possible some have been forced to cease doing things they were doing, for personal profit or some other reason. That may qualify as harm. Otherwise, I’m more prepared to accept his word for it than some vague, unsubstantiated accusation that the release of documents will cause damage by a politician or other interested party.

Well, he broke the law. Didn’t he? Let’s take a look at you. Have you said unkind things about Kim Jong Il? Did you know that is against the law, in North Korea. Should that funny little guy have the right to punish you for your lack of respect? You didn’t do it in North Korea. Now, just how did you break the law?

Be careful the next time you visit a lady of the streets in Bangkok or light up something besides a cigarette in Amsterdam. Your local constabulary may come knocking on your door.

Wikileaks released classified American documents while in other countries. They didn’t break any laws of America while in American territory. If you later go to North Korea but do not violate their laws while you are there, I would think they had no justification to arrest you. I’m inclined to let Julian visit the US and explain himself on a few Sunday talk shows. I’m not at all afraid of what he might say. Then again, I am not hiding anything under the stamp of a classified document.

Meanwhile, I find it interesting that politicians and others in the government can get so exercised about a violation of the privacy of themselves. They do this while trying to justify unprecedented intrusions into the lives of the public and violations of privacy supposedly protected by the Constitution. The Constitution is intended to protect us from them and provide us the means to know what they are doing.

Why does the word canard come to mind? We are well on our way to the world described by Franz Kafka.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Have you ever acknowledged that there was something you didn’t know? Fortunately, it’s a problem I need seldom confront.

I have a pet peeve. I constantly see politicians and others pontificate on issues as though they actually know what they are talking about.

Given the certitude with which they deliver their dicta, one would think they are the ultimate gurus. They need to be laughed off the stage. Absent that, they need to be asked questions.

One might think I would be pleased with the local political situation. After all, Bart Gordon, the leader of the Blue Dogs, decided not to run for reelection. Oh, how I wish I could take credit for his decision.

The result of his departure is somewhat of a wash.

Diane Black, our local state senator is the odds-on favorite to take the empty seat. Our district is apparently not blessed with intelligent people willing to run for public office. More’s the pity.

There may be more but I have only seen two of her campaign ads for the general election. Let me describe them.

In the first she appears with one of her grandchildren; I would guess a girl of, perhaps, 5 years of age. Using her grandchild in pursuit of her political ambitions, she speaks of how terrible it is that the child owes a debt of x number of dollars. Parenthetically, while several politicians are using this ploy, it seems each has their own figure.

Believe it or not, she is personally going to change that. She will eliminate the debt by giving the richest 2 percent of our population a tax break that will only add a trillion or two to the national debt. Another way she intends to reduce her granddaughter’s burden is by repealing “ObamaCare.” Just ignore, as does she, that healthcare reform is a necessary part of salvaging our budget mess.

Diane’s other ad shows her in what appears to be a hospital setting. She says that, as a nurse, she understands healthcare.

I worked for Delta Air Lines for several years. I worked on the ticket counter in Atlanta. I audited the caterer and planned the meals for the 258 daily flights out of Atlanta. I ended my years there a an assembler language programmer on the IBM 360 mainframe computers. Although I have a pilot’s license with instrument and multi-engine ratings that I haven’t used for over 30 years, I never came close to qualifying on a 747. Whatever familiarity I may have had with the airline industry would not likely induce you to board a jumbo jet with me at the controls. At least I hope not.

Am I in any way an expert on the airline industry, even were my experience current? No. I may have some insight into a couple of limited aspects but certainly not enough for someone to allow me to completely restructure the system. Hello, Diane. Calling Nurse Diane.

Her expertise with regards to the deficit, the economy, the healthcare system and any number of other issues is on a par with Christine O’Donnell’s  mastery of Constitutional Law.

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know some of the questions these wannabes need to be asked. You can always refresh your memory. At a minimum, simply challenge them. Ask them what background, education or experience they have in the subject. Don’t forget, being a nurse is not competency to redesign the system.

Ask them for specifics. Here you need to be careful. Read their web site first. Most of them will have canned answers, talking points. Hold their feet to the fire. Make “uh” the most frequent word coming out of their mouth.

Catch them on contradictions. The big corporate money is fighting “the government takeover of health care.” At the same time, the same big corporate donors are funding attacks claiming the candidates they don’t like are jeopardizing Medicare. It is amazing how easy it is to make these bozos look ridiculous.

If a candidate in your area promises to repeal the healthcare reform as Diane does, ask them to provide the names of the House members and Senators who will make up the 2/3rds of each house needed to override Obama’s veto.

Go to one of the many meet the candidate town meetings and ask a question. Ask it with sincerity; not as a smart alec. Ask it as though you really want an answer. It will throw them off message. Plant a seed of doubt.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Have you ever been angry? Surely you have experienced it at least once.

Would you consider that time of anger the optimal time for making consequential decisions?

The two definitions of mad often get so close to each other that they actually become entangled. There may be occasions when that serves a purpose but probably not while you are standing in the voting booth.

The fact that you may be justifiably angry doesn’t mean that you should cast your vote for a candidate that is venting his spleen.

There are several candidates that seem to be foaming at the mouth. They are saying things that may rev up their core constituency but should be embarrassing in the light of day.

What do you think of a politician calling unemployment insurance unconstitutional while another calls it an entitlement program? Both statements are ludicrous but they come from two candidates for the Senate who are leading their opponents in the polls. This seems strange as 80% of the people support Unemployment insurance.

How are they ludicrous? The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means. They say that unemployment insurance is constitutional. Further, unemployment benefits are a part of what one works for. It’s part of the package. You are paying for it. That means it is insurance, not an entitlement or welfare.

Interestingly, the winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics were announced today. Of the three winners, one is a professor at MIT. A part of his work that is being honored centers on unemployment insurance. What does he have to say on the subject? He says that it is a beneficial program for our overall economy.

It seems that, if there is some income available to an unemployed person, a person will take slightly longer to return to the domain of the gainfully employed. The income provides a greater opportunity to find the best fit for his or her talents, education, training and experience. This, according to prospective Nobel Laureate Peter Diamond, helps make the economy more efficient.

Beyond his arguments, that income has a couple of other benefits. It acts as stimulus to the economy. People rarely do anything with their unemployment benefits except spend it.

We are fortunate that this, Social Security and other programs were enacted during the Great Depression. They keep a flow of money coursing through the economy. They put a floor under us, limiting how far the economy can slide.

Were it not for the monetary flow, the fundamentals of our present economic mess strongly suggest that this would have been a deeper depression than was experienced during the 1930s. If unemployment insurance were unconstitutional, we would be well-advised to amend the Constitution in record time.

I left out the argument that the Constitution makes the government responsible for aiding the general welfare of the people.

Anger does not justify putting people in positions of power who have such unbelievable ignorance about economics and the Constitution. They represent a real danger. That danger isn’t to Democrats. That danger is to the entire country.

Where do these people come from? They have been recruited by Dick Armey, Karl Rove and a bunch of miscreants that put us and our nation in jeopardy.

Do the people of New York really want a governor that threatens to “take out” the leading reporter in the state on the state political beat? Do they want a governor who delights in sending emails with bestiality pictures attached? What is his primary qualification? He has become a multimillionaire as an attorney for mobsters.

Is politics no longer a serious matter? Does it not matter who we elect? I am as critical of the scum that rules this country as anyone. That does not mean that I want to deliberately cripple the country for the gain of those parasites.

I want our country to succeed. Do I have feelings of anger? Naturally. Am I willing to vote for people who are ignorant of history, the Constitution, economics, Christianity and the misery that persists? If you break down their rants, you cannot avoid the anger that they direct towards the people, the nation itself. Calling oneself a Christian and a patriot does not make it so.

Be angry. It is justified. But, don’t lose your cool.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

First, let me reiterate my detestation for all ideologies and labels. To the extent that I use them in this post, it seems necessary and is for the convenience of the reader.

The imminent retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens highlights the problems caused by both. Stevens is commonly referred to as the most liberal Justice on the Supreme Court. He hates being so described.

Stevens was, and remains, a lifelong Republican. He was nominated by a Republican president, Gerald Ford in 1975. But, he and his retirement are just the impetus. This post is about far more.

Why is a Republican called the most liberal member of the Court? Well, it seems that terms such as liberal, conservative, left, right, capitalism, socialism, even populism are thrown around willy-nilly by people who think they know what these words mean.

The right of privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments. However, through the years the Supreme Courts have firmly stated and reconfirmed that it is such a basic right that many other protections that are included would be meaningless without it. They have ruled that it is an implicit right.

Justice Stevens followed that tenet in his opinion in re the Patriot Act. The ‘conservative’ members of the Court just ignored their own claims of conserving the Constitution.

In the recent decision to give corporations free speech, Justice Stevens did something almost unheard of. He not only dissented; he actually read his dissent aloud in the courtroom. He felt that the Declaration and Constitution were clear in their intent when stating “We the People” and “government of, by and for the people.”

As Justice Stevens himself noted, with the single exception of Ruth Ginsburg, every departing member of the Court, since Stevens himself came aboard, was replaced by someone to his or her right.

I have written before of the Founding Fathers’ fear that corporations would destroy their work. Here again, the ‘conservatives’ ignored the Constitution. It makes you wonder if you understand the meaning of the title they claim of being “Strict Constructionists.”

If ‘Constitutional scholars’ have wandered so far away from the Constitution, we common folk may be excused for being less than precise in our usage.

I find it odd that people are so drawn to the label of conservative, given the politicians who claim it today. The original conservatives were the supporters of the king’s prerogatives. The Founders were on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

The king claimed the right of his troops to be boarded in your home. Our Constitution proscribes that practice.

The king preferred that people not criticize him openly. The Constitution says we can criticize George III or George W.

The Founding Fathers not only were progressive, they stated that times would change. They devised a document that allowed for our social and political progress. They were certain that we would improve upon their situation, their conditions and their document. They themselves were no strict constructionists. Oddly, to be a strict constructionist one would have to be against strict construction. One would have to be a progressive. Oooh. There. I said it.

Back in the 1980s a nationwide survey of historians was taken as to the greatest Senator of all time. The winner was Robert “Fighting Bob” Lafollette. He received this signal honor about 60 years after his death in 1925. Lafollette became a Senator in 1906 and died in office. Prior to that he was the Governor of Wisconsin. Prior to that he was a member of the House of Representatives.

Lafollette was a Republican. So, why was he held in such high esteem? Most people credit another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, with first promoting universal health care in the 1912 platform of the Bull Moose Party. Lafollette did it earlier. He also suggested unemployment insurance, social security and a host of other measures, some which appeared in FDR’s administration, some which have yet to appear.

How could a Republican other than Teddy Roosevelt be so liberal? Well, he wasn’t. He felt that conservative values meant that the benefits of our system should be broadly enjoyed. He felt an (perhaps Christian) obligation toward the well-being of his fellow Amercians.

He felt that America, its democracy, its protections, its potential, should not be denied to his fellow citizens. He thought America was too good, too great to be seen as selfish and stingy. He felt that as more people benefited from America’s system, the easier it was to conserve that system.

Lafollette wanted to conserve the benefits and promise of America. For that, he was fondly remembered and honored by those of the fraternity that keeps the record of our achievements and our failures.

At some point, conservatism became almost solely about conserving the treasure and prerogatives of the wealthiest among us. An article of faith was that government should be small. Why? Because a small government cost less but, more importantly, a small government had insufficient power and resources to interfere with their ‘Robber Baron’ activities and their credit default swaps.

Later, it subsumed the idea that to preserve all of that it was necessary to be isolationist. It also so feared the Bolshevik Revolution that it branded any deviation from laissez-faire capitalism as communist, socialist, anti-American, liberal, union, et al. It wasn’t necessary to understand any of those things. It was only necessary to have a knee-jerk reaction to any word the plutocrats told us was bad.

As this restrictive perversion of conservative began to wane, after the embarrassment of Joe McCarthy, the true believers realized they needed an infusion of bodies and money. They had finally realized that the military-industrial complex could be a goldmine. It could also co-opt the label of patriotism

Have you ever wondered why a Republican President, a 5-star general warned us against that group? Could it be that he still considered himself a real conservative? Did you ever wonder why the John Birch Society and its descendents called Ike a communist dupe; why they questioned his patriotism while advertising their own?

Where to get the people? Lyndon Johnson gave them a present. He was able to get civil rights acts passed. There go the racists.

Then there was Roe v. Wade. Then there was prayer in the schools. That caused the social conservatives to go looking for champions. They now had the numbers to go with their financial resources.

But who was running the show? Was it the social conservatives? No. They just provided the volume. The tune was still called by the ones that paid the piper. The plutocrats and their prosti . . . er, politicians worked in close harmony.

The new conservatives commandeered the Republican Party. They told the social conservatives they would overturn Roe v. Wade. They would put God back in the classroom. They would . . . Well, did they? Not just yet. After all it’s only been about 50 years.

With the Republican ‘conservatives’ enjoying electoral success, why were these promises not kept? If these new conservatives had actually accomplished these things, they would no longer have the means of motivating the troops. If the voters who had been convinced that their leaders were really conservatives felt that everything was right with the world, they wouldn’t need to come down to the polling booth. Those politicians would lose their faithful. They would lose their jobs. Better to keep them angry and going to the polls than actually come across on the promises.

Along came a spider. A part of those controlling the ‘conservative movement’ thought, “Why not control the world?” These were largely macho draft dodgers and other wannabes who thought war was as portrayed in John Wayne movies. We call them neoconservatives.

They believe that everything they dislike domestically can be overrun through bluff, bluster and making up the rules as they go along. They believe that everything they dislike internationally can be gotten rid of by a crude use of America’s supposedly unlimited military might. Unsurprisingly, they think of themselves as realists, as smarter than average.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of conservatism, beyond how it is being used and who is using it. In the form exercised by many in the past it has much to commend it. But, it has been commandeered by the political dregs of the country as a method of fooling large numbers in order to obtain and maintain control.

I can easily identify with many conservative precepts. Similarly, I can do the same with liberal and progressive. I cannot identify with capitalism, communism, socialism and such. They are tools to be used by people who understand them and their limitations. I feel most comfortable calling myself a populist but not in the sense that far too many use it. I see a bifurcation of those whose highest priority is people (Populists) and those whose highest priority is corporations (Fascists).

Take your pick. There are those two. There is room for conservative, liberal and progressive inside populism. There is only room for plutocrats, politicians and dupes among the fascists.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites