The Irony of Celebrating a Nostalgic Past

The fourth of July is seen as this great holiday. Well, by some people. Some people use it to remind people of the "Good Old Days", those halcyon times when everybody was happy and lived in blissful peace and nobody ever hurt anybody ever, or took away another's free agency, and everybody could buy guns whenever they wanted to.

Other people (*coughtumblrcough*) ironically celebrate the idea of the fourth, using it as an excuse to post sarcastic pictures of bald eagles and American flags, with the all-caps protestations that we are, in fact, free dammit.

I am not guilty of this honestly sorRY CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY FREEDOM

But by celebrating this sometime-in-the-past state of freedom, as enshrined in the comic above, which I've seen in a few places today, I think we're forgetting something very important.

Freedom hasn't ever really, truly existed in America. Yeah, predominantly white, rich landowners rose up against an unjust tax over 200 years ago and threw off the shackles of one government that was, I will grant you, incredibly repressive in a few very important areas. Taxation without representation, tea in the harbor, blah blah blah, all that jazz. Poor and rich rose up together and fought a war, even though in the Continental Army was vastly over bloated with officers, mostly because rich people were the ones who wanted to fight, and the poorer side of the population (while enlisting in larger numbers initially), had to leave because--surprise, surprise--they couldn't support themselves when the government wouldn't pay them for the time they were spending.

Meanwhile, the Virginians we all know and love (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, yadi yad), while outwardly professing some kind of adherence to liberty and fraternity and equality, yay, were all slave holders. That means that they kept people in bondage against their wills, without ever returning anything but food and shelter. Technically, according to some viewpoints, probably okay--after all, why do you need anything but food and shelter in order to survive and, at least in part, live happily? That doesn't change the fact that the free agency of these individuals was being infringed upon. Strike one against the beautiful, utopian vision of ~freedom presented by nostalgic right-wingers.

Okay, so slavery sucked and it wasn't really our best moment. I think we can all agree on that. But let's fast forward. Surely after the Civil War there was ~freedom! Well sure, if you ignore the Jim Crow laws (both in the south and the north), and the crippling economic and political sanctions placed upon the south in the wake of that conflict. Not to mention the restriction of the vote from blacks, and the continuing fight for suffrage for women.

This fight for equal rights for all sorts of people still isn't over, meaning we still don't have true freedom. Blacks are still discriminated against, especially in the south. The poor are kept poor under an enormous pyramid of governmental power, through taxes and health insurance requirements and child support laws and a bevy of other idiocies. Ordinary people are being spied upon and--if things get too out of hand for the government's taste--they can even be assassinated by drone strikes. In order to take advantage of mass transportation within one's own country, one must submit to molestation. A woman in a hijab can't even walk outside her front door without being subjected to racist comments and the small-minded idiocy of her fellow Americans. Homosexuals can't get married. Doctors can't help their patients make the best choices for themselves.

We're not ~free. We've never been ~free. Oh sure, there's been a modicum of 'freedom' that's been offered to the American populace--so long as that populace has been white, male, and owned property. So yes, by all means, celebrate the fact that at least once upon a time, America had representation that actually meant something. Celebrate the fact that there is at least something left of the framework that could have gotten rid of these injustices centuries ago if rich, white men hadn't gotten in the way. But let's not look back at some idealized past that, in the end, didn't exist and yearn for a return to it.

I have no desire to lose my right to vote, thank you very much.

Mandated Milestones

One week ago, I celebrated my eighteenth birthday. Thanks to that auspicious occasion, I can now make decisions about the health of my lungs, how to dispense of my money, and where to live. Because I am, apparently (at least according to the government) officially capable of making the most responsible decision about each of these subjects.

For instance, I can now be depended upon to not take money out of my bank account and fritter it away on drugs or sex or other irresponsible forms of entertainment. This is evident by the fact that I am now able to have my own, independent bank account, and able to draw money out of it whenever I want to, without my mother co-signing the withdrawal slip. Forget the fact that it caused my mother no end of inconvenience to take me to the bank every time I needed money, or that I couldn't withdraw money on the 21rst, but was suddenly able to on the 22nd...all of that. I am now responsible enough to make the best decision for myself.

Oh, and I can buy cigarettes now or something. Not sure why I'd want to. But I can. So go me.

I suppose the whole point of this is that arbitrary age-limits for certain aspects of life are sort of ridiculous. Because there is nothing fundamental that changes in a person's moral makeup or their thought processes when they reach a certain birthday. But the government must be seen to be doing something about certain behaviors (since God forbid people be allowed to exercise good judgement, or even poor judgement, and make a hash of it), so in the process they simply remove the ability to make choices at all.

O, Nanny State. Your ridiculousness will never cease to be amusing.

The Government Must Tell Us

Amidst the debate over the Supreme Court case that is challenging some provisions of the Affordable Healthcare Act, it seems that an interesting phenomenon has arisen. It's one I've seen other times, as well: this idea that the government has to tell us what to do, or else we will be completely incapable of, you know, being adults and taking care of ourselves.

Which is, obviously, why the government must tell us that we are required to buy health insurance. Because, naturally, we can't expect to make our own decisions about our healthcare and make the choices that are best for us. No, the government must come and tell us what to do, or else we will be physically and mentally incapable of taking care of our own business.

You have to love the Nanny State mentality, whether you partake in it or not. Whatever else you might say about it, it offers limitless opportunities for amusement.

According to this article, the Obama administration is claiming the interstate commerce clause as justification for the mandatory health insurance bit, once again proving that the government can fit anything under that label. So long as it requires monetary exchange, they can tax it and say that it's interstate commerce, so it's okay for them to get involved. Besides all that, of course, we must think of all those poor people who can't afford health insurance...

And must steal money from taxpayers in order to pay for them. O, having a government that is simultaneously extravagantly spendthrift and also practically bankrupt is sometimes very interesting.

The Day I Was Called a Marxist

Today I was called a Marxist.

Apparently, I'm for big government.

Because I think that the government shouldn't be able to take freedom away from a group of people for tribalistic reasons.

Needless to say, this was news to me.

The gentleman who formed this opinion about me in just a few minutes of debating with me and looking at my profile picture, later amended his opinion to state that I was a cultural Marxist.

Because I have the audacity to believe all people should live together in peace.

The horror.

Stupidity Knows No Bounds

Even if you're a terrorist.

In the newest Big Bad Plot to Kill All the Americans, 27 year old Jose Pimentel was arrested for planning to bomb several targets in New York City--most notably, mailboxes during his practice runs. He's been under police surveillance for three years, and left a trail that all but screamed "come and get me 'cause I'm a bad person!"

When these idiots post on their open blogs just what they're going to do, one has to wonder, once again, just why we should be afraid. And then when the suspect operates an entire website centered around the subject...yes, they're living in the underground, coming to get us. Be very afraid.

And then there's some insight into just how far our wonderful law enforcement officers are willing to go to prove that there's still something to be afraid of.

Along the way, Mr. Pimentel began making incriminating statements to an informant who was working with the police, investigators said. Those conversations were recorded.

I suppose this shouldn't really surprise me. It doesn't actually--I mean, our government has already assassinated one American citizen, and didn't seem at all concerned about it--but it is rather worrisome. No, more than that: it's definite entrapment. We have an informant who was egging on Mr. Pimentel for the sake of the police, so they could build a more convincing case against him.

Of course, it just shows me that, once again, our government has a vested interest in scaring us back into submission every few months...just as soon as it appears that we might actually be starting to realize that there's not that much to be afraid of.

Tuition, Education, and OWS

First off, this was quite possibly the most painful two minutes I've spent in...quite awhile. Since the last time I was forced to sit through an Obama speech. Or Rick Perry's ramblings. This gentleman seems quite confused as to what, exactly, a protest is supposed to be. When a protest/rally has degenerated to the point where, as the interviewer said, the protesters are "putting your Christmas list on a sign and waving it in the air," I think we can definitively say that it has sunk to the point where it will most likely achieve nothing of consequence.

Now, I know that this young man is only one among thousands. And my purpose in this post isn't necessarily just to nitpick on the fact that he doesn't seem to know what he wants. It's more to prove why his wish-list is pretty ridiculous, and why the wish-list of so many others in the Occupy movement are just as far-fetched.

Yes, corporations are bad. They restrict the free market, monopolizing market resources and pooling them into huge vats of capital that they can draw from at will. They also have a bad habit of forgetting the little guy in the midst of their financial orgy. I think it would be a very good thing if they ceased to exist entirely, to be replaced by something more friendly to the idea of liberty. At the same time, corporations and rich people are not necessarily synonymous.

There is a line that needs to be drawn there, in my opinion. Rich people may have gotten rich using a corporatist model. Or they may not have. And even if they did, they still earned the money. Perhaps not fairly, but since when has life been fair? The mere possession of money does not make a person evil or, in the language of my siblings and certain statist Democrats, "mean." It simply means that they were more clever and quicker on their feet than the rest of us. (Nor, I would add, is inherited wealth a bad thing. It was still earned, and should belong to whoever its original owner wants it to.)

What concerns me is not necessarily the idea that corporations or bad, or even the idea that rich people are bad. What does concern me is the very prevalent idea that the government should do something about the badness of corporations and rich people--usually, the idea goes, by stealing money from them and giving it to poorer people. Or, at least, giving it to the government so that it can give it to poorer people.

Or, as the gentleman in this video seems to want, to pay for his college tuition.

I totally get the value of a good education. I think that it is necessary to maintain our standard of living and the society we have now. I do dislike the idea that college is the only place you can get such an education (seeing as I'm probably not going to be attending college), but I also realize that there are some professions that require the specialized education a college course can give one. That said, I think it is far from the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone gets a good education. We've been trying that, through the public school system, for the past thirty years, and the quality of our education has only declined. Do we really want to get the government involved in our places of higher learning?

There is also the libertarian argument that for government to pay for college tuition would be utterly unfair, since it isn't my responsibility to make sure anyone else gets an education. Go get a job and pay for your own college degree if it means that much to you.

Now, this young man may be saying that he wants the evil rich people to pay for his college tuition. But that isn't right, either. If some philanthropic, wealthy individual does want to help him through college, more power to them. But they are under no compunction to do so, and they shouldn't be. That is called plunder, and whether legal or illegal, it is wrong. We simply can't take money from private citizens and give it to other private citizens--or rather, we shouldn't.

And that is my take on this subject.

Protests, Palin, and Polls

Protests...

I'm sure all of us have had the Occupy Wall Street movement drummed into our heads over the past few weeks. Not that I mind the news media giving popular movements coverage. That's a good thing. There seems to be a wide range of people who are participating in the protests, from anarchists to democrats who just think government should give them more money. The people I especially don't understand--and the ones who seem to be most vocal on the movement's website--are the ones who are upset about their student loans and how evil Wall Street is because those evil corporatists don't pay taxes.

To the first, I would simply say that your choices are yours to make and yours to live with. You decided to go to college, with the idea that it would help you get a job. It obviously didn't, and now you're saddled with mountains of college debt that you have no way of paying off. Welcome to reality, where government doesn't pay for your shoddy decisions.

The second has a bit more justification, because the men who work on Wall Street are sometimes the ones who try to get out of every tax they can in quest of profits. I see this more as a commentary on the stifling nature of our tax code, and how easy it is to buy off the IRS, more than anything else. Should our politics and our money be separate? Sure. Will it happen anytime in the next six thousand years? Probably not. Six thousand years of past human civilization couldn't figure out how to wrest the two apart, and I have no delusions that our highly advanced technology will figure out a way for us to do it.

Of course, being the borderline anarchist that I am, I think our tax code is broken, period, and needs to be completely scrapped and rewritten, preferably in a way that will take up no more then ten printed pages and will be easy for the regular person to read. Hey, I'm allowed to be lazy with my citizenship. But once again, that's not going to happen anytime soon, because the IRS is far too lucrative an agency to be so curbed.

I identify far more with the protesters who are there for causes like ending the wars, or protesting the fact that our government is basically owned by the Chinese one because we owe so much money to them. Or even the people who are protesting the fact that corporate sponsors make up so much of the money given to our politicians (I'm still wondering why Rick Perry needs a whopping $17 million to prosecute his campaign...especially when Ron Paul is doing far better, and has only raised $12.5 million since he entered the race. I'm also wondering why people are still giving that shill money. But I digress). But, then again, as I said above, there's no way we're going to separate the two.

Palin...

Sarah Palin announced yesterday that she wouldn't be making a bid for the job of Spender in Chief. Democrats are disappointed, because their easy victory won't be quite as easy as they'd hoped, Palinites are mad/sad/in the depths of despair, and the rest of us are just happy we won't actually have to put up with her for the next thirteen months unless we are masochistic enough as to turn on Fox News.

I'm really not all that surprised by the move. She enjoys her role as media darling far too much to give it up for actual campaigning, and she knows she has more power as a pundit than she would as a prospective candidate for the highest office in the land. Mostly because she'd never get elected, and I do hope she knows it.

Polls.

With Barack Obama's approval rating down near 42% and his Rasmussen approval index at -24--again--I think it's safe to say that people don't really like him much. And it's not just our Democrat president, but also our Republican Congress that is drawing the ire of voters. According to a recent poll, only 14% approve of Congress' handling of recent business.

Not that Congress really seems to care. To individual congressmen, all that matters is that their individual popularity remains stable. And judging from my experience, that hasn't changed much. People in my district may not be fans of Congress, but they love Mac Thornberry, our valiant Republican knight who votes for bailouts and doesn't know the first thing about the Constitution, judging by his rhetoric. So individual congressmen get reelected, and Congress doesn't change, since people apparently don't realize that if you don't like what they're doing, it might be time to put new blood in there.

After all, it can't be our elected representatives who are statist curs. It's other people's representatives who do such terrible things.

No Matter What Your Problem Is...

Government is, obviously, the answer.

At least, if you're a Democrat. Or a Republican. Or a statist. But this list is becoming repetitive.

It's something I've slowly come to realize about the people around me: no matter what the question they are faced with, or the problem that is confronting them, government inevitably, at some point, becomes the answer. Or, more properly, government money. Which is, of course, only our money taken from us by force then being immediately regurgitated into a behemoth system of government agencies and programs.

That network of agencies and programs is precisely what people have come to depend upon. I'm convinced, at this point, that the "American dream" as it existed for our forebears on Ellis Island is nothing but a pipe dream, a quixotic fantasy that is fostered by the optimistic denizens of American suburbia. That dream has been strangled by the idea that, no matter what goes wrong, government has money for us.

Democrats live this out in their rhetoric - that is, blatantly telling us exactly how they think all problems should be solved. Poverty is rampant? Well, we should steal more money from every citizen in the country to (sort of) solve it. A teenager is pregnant and wants an abortion? Well, we've stolen some money precisely for that purpose! There are people who can't keep their opinions to themselves and live with other people? Well, legislation should fix that right up!

Republicans are, in some ways, more devious. Their ideas of government intervention are more subtle. Most of them actually think they are for limited government and free markets. But then a question arises as to how, exactly, to stop abortions, and it becomes clear how they think - obviously, government is the only entity that can stop that...not individual action, with people reaching out to their fellows. Saving corporate interests, protecting big money, stopping crime, fighting the forces of chaos...all those things are jobs for the government. Quite obviously.

But for the life of me, I can't understand why. Perhaps it can be traced back to the fact that people don't want to be responsible for things. It's far more comfortable to let somebody - or something - else take care of it. This might give rise to the apparent inability of any politician to put their money where their mouth is and actually help a poverty-stricken community or reach out to single mothers and help pay medical bills. Perhaps that's just how governments work; they are inherently designed to reduce their subjects' intellectual capacity to zero through entertainment and then become the answer to everything.

But given our federal government's track record, I can't fathom the overwhelming trust that is placed in it. Our government can't stop a cave-dwelling Saudi with a core base of a couple hundred followers whose sole assets are a satellite phone and an ego as big as Betelgeuse, despite a pantheon of security guidelines, two massive wars and, of course, denying that the Taliban ever offered to give him up. But we can totally and completely trust it to successfully stop a kid from shooting himself up on a cocktail of drugs in a back alley. And we can totally trust our government's plethora of health and safety regulations to never let a drug get recalled. Ever.

All that's not even touching on the fact that the government is the biggest advocate of legal plunder in this country. You can get fined for letting rainwater run off your property! (That's actually a measure being considered in my hometown at the moment. Apparently, my town gets little enough rain as it is, so we don't want it falling on concrete. Exactly how property owners are supposed to prevent that is anybody's guess.) Before we know it, they're going to be fining us for breathing.

Oh, that's right. We release CO2 at every exhale. Us evil polluters, breathing all over the planet.

So I suppose it comes down to this.

Through some twisted process, government has become the ultimate solution to every problem. Because it's so good at solving things. And somehow, if we could just get a different person in there, real solutions would come along, and life would be dandy. If we could just squeeze a little more money out of somebody, all our problems would be solved. Jenny would have a good school that didn't fill her mind with fluff, Rob wouldn't be living in a tumbledown apartment complex in the middle of the Projects, Sarah wouldn't be pregnant at 16 and contemplating an abortion, and Timmy wouldn't be down the well.

Oh, and grandma would be baking apple pie.

If only.

Here's the deal, folks. Government has proven over and over again that it ruins everything it touches. The economy, the medical industry, schools, roads, puppies, the post office, important founding documents, libraries, other countries. They can't get involved in anything and it end up better than when they started. A new administration is not going to change that. More money and more power isn't going to change that. It will just give them more opportunity to twist more out of us.

We're all addicted to government programs. And we all know addictions aren't good. Let's break the government habit. Who's with me?

Egypt

So I thought it was high time that I say something on this subject, since its been going on for weeks now.

I've heard some interesting things from both sides. The Republicans, as always, are taking the opposite side from President Obama. The President apparently decided it would look good politically, and earn us more friends, if he gave a nod to the "rioting masses" in Egypt. Since then, I've seen numerous Facebook comments from Republican friends saying something to the effect that Obama is stupid, Egypt should quell the uprising with deadly force, and that the people of Egypt should stop trying to contest the government.

A couple problems with that, Yoda has.

*ahem* Number one, you didn't see this kind of lay-down-and-take-it attitude when the communist government in China was blasting unarmed protesters in Tiananmen Square some years ago. Then, uprisings were wonderful. Uprisings such as that, movements of the people should be honored!

Number two, I think those people are forgetting their own country's heritage. People, America was founded on rabble rousers who formed...an uprising. And were none too quiet about it, either. They like, had guns. And were shooting people. Yeah.

So, to put it succinctly- Egypt's people have the right, just like all humanity, to choose their leaders. Isn't that one of the trademarks of the "American tradition?" Since Mubarak is a repressive dictator by all accounts, our wish to keep him in office is nothing more than the selective "freedom" we like to enforce. And as Mubarak wouldn't leave office quietly, the Egyptian people are doing their level best to make their intent and wishes known.

As to Egypt being a threat to us...what's changed, again? Get used to the fact that people don't like us, and it's probably because of us. That's how the world works.

In the Name of Safety

I'm sick of this subject. Which is why I'm going to proceed to rant about it for a minute. Or more.
I love how much is done in the name of "safety." We have to be "safe." After all, we wouldn't want to be...uh....unsafe, right?! It's for the children! So that they can...uh...well, be seen naked by creepy TSA people you can't see! Yeah! Save the children from...

Inept and slightly stupid terrorists. Who won't even blow up their own seats. I'm not sure why I should be scared of that. But okay.

Safety. What is safety? The absence from fear? Yeah, right. People are always afraid of something. It's practically a rule from the Human Handbook. And if there's nothing logical and concrete to be afraid of, our minds will make something up. Classic example: vengeful, angry ghosts. Throwing away billions of dollars and tons of privacy in the name of making people "feel safe" is absolutely silly from that standpoint.

If we define safety as merely being able to get on a plane without being blown up...well, since the chances of your dying in a terrorist attack are pretty near non-existent, I think we have that all wrapped up. Mission accomplished. The TSA can go home now. Leave us alone. Buh-bye. Let us go back to regular fears, like possibly dying from heat stroke or electrocution.

There's also the logical hilarity of the arguments used to support these new measures. The "Underwear Bomber"? Please. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab didn't even embark on a plane in the United States, but rather in Amsterdam. How was that a failure of our security services, and how could any heightened security measures here have stopped him in any way? (Except of course, for that little measure we could have taken of revoking his visa, but that would have been way too simple!)

The other two "major" terror attempts in the past few years have also not been connected to commercial flights departing from the US- the "Times Square Bomber" which was in no way connected to airplanes or airports, and the Terrible Cartridge Bombs of Death, that were sent through the cargo and baggage areas of the airport. On a FedEx plane. Tell FedEx they must submit to rigorous security protocols. FedEx can be used to initiate terror plots against the United States!

Yet despite all that, the government continues telling us that, in the pursuit of "safety", it is essential that we ignore every area of transportation and mail that might actually prove to be a threat, and instead focus on the civilians of America. In other words, us. Somewhere along the way, we became the enemy...if we ever even had a real enemy in the first place. Which I doubt. We created a phantasm in our minds, and now shy at it reflexively. But like nightmares, the danger is very real.

But only in our minds.

Civilian Trials (once again)

Ahmed Ghailani, one of the men supposedly involved in the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya (that occurred, um, twelve years ago) was brought to trial Wednesday- or at least, that was when he was acquitted of all but one out of 280 charges.

Yessir. Those poor prosecutors were unable to use statements he made under duress (the outrage!), and unfortunately their trail had gone cold since, apparently, terrorists are unlike regular people, and we can't bring them to justice immediately. Oh no. We have to wait twelve years. Actually, only six, since he was captured in 2004. And then sent to Guantanamo.

Yeah.

Despite the acquittals, Ghailani is still looking at anything from twenty years to life in prison. Go us. We now know that if you conspire to mess up a pretty government building, you can get life in prison.

Right. Okay.

In any case, the response to this is pretty typical. In fact, it's laughably familiar. Didn't we already go through this? The Republicans are mad because they only had circumstantial evidence to throw at him, and hence he's not...uh...going to go to jail for a long time. Guys, let me acquaint you with one of the beauties of the American justice system:

You can't send somebody to jail if you don't have proof. It doesn't work. No matter how much you absolutely know, deep down in your little heart, that Ahmed Ghailani committed grievous crimes against us, without proof, there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. That's a good thing. It keeps innocent people from going to jail.

This does not prove that civilian trials won't work for terror detainees. It just means that we have a cultural block, and we need to get over it and realize that these people are just that- people, who deserve just as much courtesy and justice as any other human being. We afford the worst kind of people civilian trials.

And on that note, I'd also like to, once again, challenge that little thing. "They're not civilians!" people cry. "We can't try them in civilian courts!"

But... "They're not a military! We can't afford them the protections of the Geneva Conventions!"

....

This proves it. I know what these men are.

They're figments of our imagination. *nods seriously* This has all been a big trick played by our minds. 9/11 didn't happen. Guantanamo doesn't exist. Because there is not a netherworld between military and civilian, and hence these men must not exist.

In any case, and all joking aside, I have decided that most of these trials are merely a sham, in any case, as this quote from the NYTimes aptly illustrates:

"Had he been cleared of all charges, the administration would probably have been forced to take Ghailani back into military custody rather than see him released."

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. It just flat doesn't matter. Nothing matters in this crazy country we're living in now. According to the government (not only this administration's, but past ones as well), convictions, or non-convictions, by a jury duly appointed can be turned over at the whim of said government.

People ask how they can see us naked and pat us down in incredibly invasive ways for the mere crime of *gathp* wanting to travel?

That's how. Welcome to America.

Didn't we already do this?

Right. So now we're about to sell $60 billion in weapons to our very near and dear radical Muslim friendly friends in Saudi Arabia! Because it's so smart to do that. It's worked so well in the past.

I mean...Iraq never turned on us after we sold her weapons. Nor did Russia. Or Syria. Or Iran. Or Pakistan.

Not at all. Why, selling our weapons to other people just makes them love us so much! They think- "Wow! America really loves us! Let's not attack her now!"

If only...

Life Goes On

Even in the middle of evil terrorists being tried. Well, well. Four trials prosecuting terror suspects were held in the past two weeks.

I'm sure some would like to say that there was mass rioting and much badness happened as the evil terrorists spouted anti-American rhetoric and thousands fell under their sway via their evil Sith mind tricks...

Unfortunately, nothing like that happened. People nearby, in the city, outside the city...were just fine. They didn't even hardly notice. It was a normal day. Birds singing, people talking, cars honking...

And the best part? It didn't cost New York City billions of dollars in security or trial fees. It didn't cost any more than any regular trial on any other regular case. 'Magine that. (H/T to SunTzu for this story. :) )

In other news, a Michigan judge ruled the health care law Constitutional yesterday. Oh, the joys. The judge's argument? He used the Commerce Clause, which is an innocuous line in the first article of the Constitution. It reads: "[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." (Emphasis added)

How, exactly, that gives the federal government the leeway to mandate people must buy health insurance I don't know. You might be able to say that would justify the government making health insurance companies cooperate and like, let their policies carry on over state lines, because that's just smart and all. But not to demand that private citizens must carry some form of insurance.

Also, for those of you have been following the story of the soldiers who repeatedly staged combat deaths of multiple Afghanis for some strange, demented reason, court-martials have now been "recommended" for them. Really, now? You mean we might now want to court-martial them?

Meh. The military's inner workings will probably remain a mystery to me far into the future, and I really don't mind that. I don't want to know.

So, from terrorists...and back to terrorists. Peace.

Wall of Separation

‎"The wall separating church and state has functioned as a one-way wall, primarily restraining government and doing little to restrain religious individuals or religious organizations that are accorded the same rights to free speech, publication, association, a redress of grievance that other secular entities and individuals are accorded. So that has allowed religion to robustly serve as a moral code to the conscience of the country. No restriction on the ability of religion to speak to political issues, nor should there be. The limitations that are built in come the other way. The government cannot impose religious views on any person. Cannot choose up between religions, cannot choose religion over a nonreligion, can't endorse religious messages or oppose religious messages. It definitely shouldn't be funding overtly religious activity."

Rabbi David Saperstein, quoted in "The Holy Vote" by Ray Suarez

So I have to say: I agree with this guy. He states what I've tried to say numerous times quite simply and eloquently.

Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

I found this article interesting- Is the U.S. a Fascist Police-State?

From the article:
First of all, what is a “fascist police-state”?

A police-state uses the law as a mechanism to control any challenges to its power by the citizenry, rather than as a mechanism to insure a civil society among the individuals. The state decides the laws, is the sole arbiter of the law, and can selectively (and capriciously) decide to enforce the law to the benefit or detriment of one individual or group or another.

In a police-state, the citizens are “free” only so long as their actions remain within the confines of the law as dictated by the state. If the individual’s claims of rights or freedoms conflict with the state, or if the individual acts in ways deemed detrimental to the state, then the state will repress the citizenry, by force if necessary. (And in the end, it’s always necessary.)

What’s key to the definition of a police-state is the lack of redress: If there is no justice system which can compel the state to cede to the citizenry, then there is a police-state. If there exists a pro forma justice system, but which in practice is unavailable to the ordinary citizen because of systemic obstacles (for instance, cost or bureaucratic hindrance), or which against all logic or reason consistently finds in favor of the state—even in the most egregious and obviously contradictory cases—then that pro forma judiciary system is nothing but a sham: A tool of the state’s repression against its citizens. Consider the Soviet court system the classic example.

A police-state is not necessarily a dictatorship. On the contrary, it can even take the form of a representative democracy. A police-state is not defined by its leadership structure, but rather, by its self-protection against the individual.

A definition of “fascism” is tougher to come by—it’s almost as tough to come up with as a definition of “pornography”.

The sloppy definition is simply totalitarianism of the Right, “communism” being the sloppy definition of totalitarianism of the Left. But that doesn’t help much.

For our purposes, I think we should use the syndicalist-corporatist definition as practiced by Mussolini: Society as a collection of corporate and union interests, where the state is one more competing interest among many, albeit the most powerful of them all, and thus as a virtue of its size and power, taking precedence over all other factions. In other words, society is a “street-gang” model that I discussed before. The individual has power only as derived from his belonging to a particular faction or group—individuals do not have inherent worth, value or standing.

Thanks to SE over at Skeptical Eye for the link. ;)

NSA Wiretaps Illegal

Finally, finally, someone is actually realizing that maybe (just maybe) the stuff our government has been doing in the name of our "safety" is wrong. A federal judge found that the NSA wiretaps done during Bush's reign were illegal. (Like imagine that- NSA has to get a warrant! *gasp*)

Of course, this also shows, once again, just how little difference there is between the Bush policies and current Obama policies: both insist upon maintaining the nationalist idea that America can do whatever she wants both to the international community and to its own citizens, and that anything goes in the quest for "safety."

Furthermore, they are also akin in that they both have and are insisting upon claiming superiority to every law, Constitutional and otherwise, on the books merely because they happened to have a face the media liked. Mmm-hmm.

"“Judge Walker is saying that FISA and federal statutes like it are not optional,” Mr. Eisenberg said. “The president, just like any other citizen of the United States, is bound by the law. Obeying Congressional legislation shouldn’t be optional with the president of the U.S.”"

So perhaps, just maybe, somebody in the actual framework of our government is starting to wake up. Would be nice.

Goodbye, Mr. Jefferson

By Sam J. Smeaton

"When we interpret the Constitution, let us go back and look at the spirit in which the clause was drafted, so that we may truly interpret correctly." -Thomas Jefferson

There is no argument of any merit whatsoever that the founders would have supported this Healthcare legislation. For any person in this country (much less an elected official, Pelosi!!!) to suggest that the founders envisioned a country where the federal government forces (by law!) private businesses and citizens to do what it says, or buy what it demands you buy, has no understanding of history and no respect for the principles of liberty.

Health Care is not a right, Madame Speaker. To say so suggests that, as individuals, we have the right to other people’s lives and property. This is not true, and is downright reprehensible. It is not a right. Period.

On this night I fear for my country. Not some abstract, over dramatic, Olbermannesque fear, but a legitimate concern for the greatest nation on earth. On this night we have passed into law the idea that we all have the right to one another's money and property. If there was even a thread connecting us to the political philosophy of the American founding, it may have been cut tonight.

The road to hell is paved with good intention. I have no doubt that many supporters of this bill genuinely want all people to be healthy. But they are fools, naive in historical and moral understanding if they think that more government will fix our problems. Government killed the markets. It killed Medicare and Medicaid. It killed true economic recovery. It sends our troops to die in needless military interventionism. Government kills things. It retards growth and it hampers market forces. History has shown this, time and again. Yet despite all this, supporters of this Health legislation insist on granting government the power to slam more mandates, more regulations, and more taxes on our country. Problems caused by a lack of market forces cannot be solved by interventionism. 80 years ago, the greatest Austrian economist of all, the brilliant Ludwig Von Mises himself, tried to warn us that government interventions are an endless circle because each intervention causes more problems, which will attempt to be solved by future interventions, which will cause more problems, etc. This has turned out to be totally true in the last century in America (The New Deal, Military meddling in the Middle east, government mandates on health and insurance and housing, need I go on?).

I believe the solution to the Health crisis is fundamental change, more competition, less regulation, and more individual freedom. At the bottom of this note I will supply a link to some great writings on free market solutions from the Austrian Economic thinkers. But the focus of this note lends itself to the over-arching philosophy behind tonight's bill.

Are we so far away from the Constitution that it is totally null and void? Article One Section 8?! Remember that? It is immoral for governments to mandate healthcare. It is an assault on your liberty. It is an assault on American political Philosophy, and it is an assault on the founders. This country has maintained its greatness because of the Jeffersonian ideals of religious freedom, free expression, states rights, less taxes, and weak government. America is made great by her people, not her government.

But we are losing that. Indeed, tonight, we may be bidding Jefferson and his ideas, farewell. For tonight, government expands to its fattest form yet, and thus drives another nail into the coffin of the ideals of liberty. If you're not outraged, there are only a few options.

1-You are ignorant of the contents of the bill.

2-You don't understand our economic and political history.

3-You have an immoral political philosophy, because you believe Health Care is a right.

Regardless of which it is, you are bidding farewell to American liberty.

Goodbye, Mr. Jefferson. We shall miss you more than you know.

http://mises.org/daily/3737

Who's Holding the Gun?

Yoo and Bybee

I do not understand how we can let war criminals loose. It is appalling.

John Yoo and Jay Bybee were absolved from any responsibility for their infamous "torture memos." Why? Apparently because the investigators of the case didn't give enough credit to the tense atmosphere right after 9/11.

Okay. And that means they're not responsible for their actions....how?

Sorry, but people are just as responsible for their actions when under stress as when they have nothing on their minds. It doesn't make you any less responsible for what you did.

From the NYTimes article-
"The report quotes Patrick Philbin, a senior Justice Department lawyer involved in the review, as saying that because of the urgency of the situation, he had advised Mr. Bybee to sign the memorandum, despite what he saw as Mr. Yoo’s aggressive and problematic interpretation of the president’s broad commander-in-chief powers in trumping international and domestic law."

"Okay, so I knew this wasn't exactly Constitutional, and I also knew this might not be the best thing to give the President, but I also thought that it might do...something...."

Okay. I see how this logic makes some sort of sense. In Wonderland.

From the same article-
"“While I have declined to adopt O.P.R.’s findings of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo’s loyalty to his own ideology and convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client and led him to author opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, view of executive power while speaking for an institutional client,” Mr. Margolis said."

And yet it was, apparently, not enough for them to actually say- "This guy is guilty."

When we let people like this off the hook, people who don't even have enough respect for the Constitution to consult it before giving the President power, what is our rule of law coming to?

Congress

We always hear about Turkey Coma. Well I have been in the sway of the Post-Christmas Coma. And trying to come out of it. Rather unsuccessfully. >.<

Let's see... Ah yes. Congress.

They slipped the healthcare bill through. On Christmas Eve. I hate that.

It's so cowardly- they can't bear to actually try to compromise and consider that they might be wrong about it; we have to get it through at all costs, even if said costs include lying about it and pushing it through when we know no one is paying attention, and they can't do anything about it.

Ugh.

Which leads me to another topic. Why is Congress in session so often?

I mean, I don't think they even have the right to say they live in their home districts anymore. They don't live there. They live in D.C. for practically the entire year. I don't see how that is good for our country. When they have enough time to pass an attaboy for an athletic 'hero', we have problems. That shows that they have entirely too much time on the floor, and not enough time actually listening to their Constitutents.

And that, in turn, leads me to yet another pet peeve.

Why in the world is the Senate/House floor always empty when anyone is speaking? I mean, it's like the minute they aren't the center of attention anymore *shoom* out the door they are.

I understand they are busy men. I mean, they have to work hard to schmooze all those lobbyists and come up with 1,000 page bills none of them even read, and of course, there's all the Pork Cram Time they have to get in. All those things are very, very important.

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

Mark Twain