I recently had occasion to read some microfiche of newspaper articles from before and after the Civil War. All but forgotten was the personal nature of attacks on politicians running for office and their families. My High School classes (when High School actually taught you something instead of confining its activity to that of a badly run Day Care Center) had covered the lack of civility and the crass accusations that took over the newspapers of the day during the election season...and they were an embarrassment even to a bunch of cynical highschoolers. More than 60 years ago we commented to ourselves and our teachers that such no longer happened and we were far more civilized now. How presumptive were our assertions.
Today's electioneering and candidates actions and statements make those ugly days of the past seem both civilized and moral by comparison. Today's fellow citizens leave me embarrassed. Why?
Somewhere in our inner selves...in our minds, our souls and our very being...we know that attacks on family are just wrong. At some basic level, we know that liars are not good leaders; we know that policy is fair game for comment and attack, but that personal attributes (other than truthfulness and moral behavior) mean nothing. A handsome face does not guarantee anything but a good picture. A less than handsome visage, with or without hair, or with a wig (good or bad), doesn't make a person a bad leader.
There was a time when bad language, baseless attacks, personal attacks, derogatory comments about family members, a reputation for falsehoods would render any person unqualified for public office. There was a time when a person's policies would be demanded and then evaluated for effectiveness and sound financial base. There was a time when the citizens of the United States of America wanted to vote for a person and policies, not against them; we wanted to be for something, not chose the lesser of two bad choices.
Apparently a majority of our citizens have replaced judgement with greed and narcissism; the impossible promise of "free" stuff is now sufficient to cause voters to forego an examination of whether a promise is possible to fulfill, whether a candidate is a liar, whether a candidate is the kind of person that we will be proud to say stands in our stead to the rest of the world. How disgustingly and offensively cretin-like. Our collective acceptance of , and dependence on, such behavior should leave us all ashamed. But we clearly are not ashamed.
We make excuses for ourselves and for our candidates. We say things like: "All politicians lie, so you have to put up with it." You hear, "I wouldn't say it that way but what can you do?" We nod when we hear, "Its about time someone running for office stopped 'pussyfooting' around and called it like it is!" And yes, we do get angry with the failure of our leaders to keep their promises, and to solve problems. Yet we also know that solving those problems will cost us money and now a majority of us don't want to hear that truth or contribute to the cost. The result: we not only allow the lies...we condone them by electing those who lie to us. And then complain about it...such hypocrisy!
So now we look to have three possible candidates, one of whom will be elected President of the United States: a liar, a vulgarian and a Socialist Septuagenarian with policies proven over the centuries not to work after the money of the rich has been spent. Boy, do we know how to pick 'em!
I would not give any one of these people my power of attorney, yet our political system is about to give one of them far more power over each of us that would be granted by such a power-of-attorney. We seem intent on proving to the world our collective stupidity and lack of caring for our country's and our own well-being.
Monday, March 28, 2016
Thursday, March 17, 2016
We have forgotten...
Those on the Left speak of the Constitution as a "living breathing" document. Under this definition, they declare that it has not only the right, but in the natural order of things, to evolve to be useful to today's United States of America.
This is utter hogwash. It is an attempt by those who don't like what the Constitution contains, with special emphasis on its limitations of government authority and huge areas not written of, to try to claim authority for their actions today from the ultimate secular authority...the documents founding this nation's government.
Years ago, I visited our Capitol. I looked at the original Constitution. It was paper, ... inert. It did not have a pulse or a heartbeat. It decidedly was NOT a "living, breathing" document. Like a contract written today, it says what it says; the clear meaning of the words are easily discernible simply by reading the document.
What no longer exists today is the public's general knowledge of the Constitution and the attitude of those that created it...an attitude largely ascribed to by the general populace of the time. For whatever reason, today's educational system doesn't teach American History in anything close to a comprehensive manner; ask a young person or a student about the founding fathers and their points of view regarding government and you get blank stares. Our educational failings have the potential to destroy the America that the founding fathers attempted to create.
The interpretation of the Constitution is NOT an exercise in creative writing or free association mental gymnastics. Just as with laws written by Congress, it is a matter of looking at the clear and normal meaning of the written words, and supplementing that with a reading of the contemporaneous writings and utterances of those who created and voted to adopt it. This approach is absolutely logical and does not require a "rocket scientist."
Those of us who were "educated" before students were given equal rights with educators and parents and allowed to dictate what and how they should be taught know just how much antipathy the founding fathers had for government. They had suffered from the not-so-tender mercies of the English Government, and realized the danger that granting power to any government posed to individual freedoms. Jefferson said it best, and is most often referenced, when he said that ultimately all government becomes the enemy of individual freedoms. So...if they disliked government so much, why did they write the Constitution and create another one for themselves? Does anyone think that they felt that they could do it better and create a ruling body that would be benign and no threat to the people?
They did not!
There was one over-riding reason for creating a Government of the United States of America: to protect it against another nations attempt to take over and govern the people of the colonies. In other words...to defend the country's autonomy.
All the rest is an attempt to prevent the Government from encroaching on its citizens. It took no position about individual action regarding other individuals; the founding fathers were concerned with limiting government action that would effect citizens. Militias were not the creation of the government; people created their own...and that right, with the effect of making hugely difficult any government desire to control the citizens by disarming them, to possess arms and be able to defend themselves against ANY government, including our own if it became the enemy, is right there in writing. The right to rise up and overcome any government is made clear in our Declaration of Independence and does not have any exception for our own government; all can develop a threat and require revolt.
Read the comments, letters and other documents left by the Founding Fathers, with particular emphasis on those who signed the Constitution. Their attitude was never about how to give the national government power or how to make it efficient; while one was needed for defense, in all other things it was perceived as a nascent threat to the freedom that has just been won on the battlefield, and the Founding Fathers fondest hope was that the government would practice the art of benign neglect in all areas of the colonists lives with the singular exception of defense of the nation.
Truly, the fears of the Founding Fathers have come to pass. But the foolishness of a paper document "living and breathing" is just an exercise in creative writing...with the emphasis on creative! It was the Founding Fathers who were living and breathing...and they were living and breathing the collective fear of just how dangerous government could become to the citizens over which it might develop power. Their desire was to limit governmental power of citizens. Thus, they did what they could to make the government inefficient and put in what they hoped would serve as checks and balances. Unfortunately, those who gain positions of power adopt and adjust, and also connive, to extend power and avoid answering to the people.
If there is any hope of saving the creation that once was the United States of America, the voting public needs to learn...and in some cases re-learn...the attitudes and intent of the living, breathing Founding Fathers. Therein is the key to understanding our Constitution.
This is utter hogwash. It is an attempt by those who don't like what the Constitution contains, with special emphasis on its limitations of government authority and huge areas not written of, to try to claim authority for their actions today from the ultimate secular authority...the documents founding this nation's government.
Years ago, I visited our Capitol. I looked at the original Constitution. It was paper, ... inert. It did not have a pulse or a heartbeat. It decidedly was NOT a "living, breathing" document. Like a contract written today, it says what it says; the clear meaning of the words are easily discernible simply by reading the document.
What no longer exists today is the public's general knowledge of the Constitution and the attitude of those that created it...an attitude largely ascribed to by the general populace of the time. For whatever reason, today's educational system doesn't teach American History in anything close to a comprehensive manner; ask a young person or a student about the founding fathers and their points of view regarding government and you get blank stares. Our educational failings have the potential to destroy the America that the founding fathers attempted to create.
The interpretation of the Constitution is NOT an exercise in creative writing or free association mental gymnastics. Just as with laws written by Congress, it is a matter of looking at the clear and normal meaning of the written words, and supplementing that with a reading of the contemporaneous writings and utterances of those who created and voted to adopt it. This approach is absolutely logical and does not require a "rocket scientist."
Those of us who were "educated" before students were given equal rights with educators and parents and allowed to dictate what and how they should be taught know just how much antipathy the founding fathers had for government. They had suffered from the not-so-tender mercies of the English Government, and realized the danger that granting power to any government posed to individual freedoms. Jefferson said it best, and is most often referenced, when he said that ultimately all government becomes the enemy of individual freedoms. So...if they disliked government so much, why did they write the Constitution and create another one for themselves? Does anyone think that they felt that they could do it better and create a ruling body that would be benign and no threat to the people?
They did not!
There was one over-riding reason for creating a Government of the United States of America: to protect it against another nations attempt to take over and govern the people of the colonies. In other words...to defend the country's autonomy.
All the rest is an attempt to prevent the Government from encroaching on its citizens. It took no position about individual action regarding other individuals; the founding fathers were concerned with limiting government action that would effect citizens. Militias were not the creation of the government; people created their own...and that right, with the effect of making hugely difficult any government desire to control the citizens by disarming them, to possess arms and be able to defend themselves against ANY government, including our own if it became the enemy, is right there in writing. The right to rise up and overcome any government is made clear in our Declaration of Independence and does not have any exception for our own government; all can develop a threat and require revolt.
Read the comments, letters and other documents left by the Founding Fathers, with particular emphasis on those who signed the Constitution. Their attitude was never about how to give the national government power or how to make it efficient; while one was needed for defense, in all other things it was perceived as a nascent threat to the freedom that has just been won on the battlefield, and the Founding Fathers fondest hope was that the government would practice the art of benign neglect in all areas of the colonists lives with the singular exception of defense of the nation.
Truly, the fears of the Founding Fathers have come to pass. But the foolishness of a paper document "living and breathing" is just an exercise in creative writing...with the emphasis on creative! It was the Founding Fathers who were living and breathing...and they were living and breathing the collective fear of just how dangerous government could become to the citizens over which it might develop power. Their desire was to limit governmental power of citizens. Thus, they did what they could to make the government inefficient and put in what they hoped would serve as checks and balances. Unfortunately, those who gain positions of power adopt and adjust, and also connive, to extend power and avoid answering to the people.
If there is any hope of saving the creation that once was the United States of America, the voting public needs to learn...and in some cases re-learn...the attitudes and intent of the living, breathing Founding Fathers. Therein is the key to understanding our Constitution.
Monday, March 7, 2016
America chooses Barabbas!
Occasionally I wonder at how the United States of America has survived almost Two Hundred and Forty Years. For the most part we now seem to be a stupid, self-centered people lacking the ability to think objectively about anything long-term...and from time to time even having trouble concentrating on anything for more that twenty-four seconds unless it is ourselves.
While this seems quite clear in general, it is in the political arena where the proof seems written in neon, bold face, italics and underlined within quotes. Reason has apparently left the building and we are left with mob rule governed by the lowest common denominator.
Need proof?
First, the American Public is angry. It is angry at our politicians, particularly at the national level, for not getting things done, being "unable to play well with others" and just generally being dismissive of the wishes of the electorate. The "public" is turning on those that are of the establishment, both on the political Left and Right.
On the political Left, we have two candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. One is an avowed Socialist (recently self-amending his description to Democratic Socialist), promising "free stuff" to all, to be paid for by taking money from the rich and redistributing it to virtually everyone not categorized as "rich." Recently he has had to admit that he will have to take "some" money from the Middle Class to cover the cost of his promised benefits. He manages to ignore that even then, the funds that would theoretically be available would be inadequate...even if he took 100% of everyone's earnings. Yet this candidate is actually winning primaries around the country. His opponent is a previous First Lady who has served as Secretary of State for the United States of America. She and her husband have been very successful in creating and obtaining funding for a Charitable Foundation they have formed. Remarkable sums of money have been donated by all sorts of people around the world to both the foundation and as "speaking fees" to this ex-Secretary of State and her husband...including during her period of service as Sec/State. Even her most stalwart supporters admit that the coincidence of such payment with requests granted do not look good, but they don't care. Add to that the fact that during her term as Sec/State, our Ambassador to Lybia was killed and under oath she admitted that she told her daughter and others that the attack was a result of terrorism, but sent out State Department representatives to claim that the attack was the result of a movie trailer critical of Islam. The families of those killed indicate she made the same false claim to them when greeting them when the bodies of the fallen arrived in the U.S.
Even now, there is a continuing investigation of her choice to set up a non-governmental, non-government sanctioned, email server for herself and her inner circle during her sojourn as Sec/State. The investigation holds the possibility that she will be indicted for violation of the Espionage Act. At the very least, she has shown a total lack of concern for protecting the secrets of the United States of America.
These are the best and brightest that the political Left can put forth as potential Presidents of the United States of America.
Ah...but let us not neglect the political Right! The American Public that defines themselves as the political Right have declared that the "professional" politicians and the establishment that serves and represents them have consistently lied to the public for the purposes of gaining office and, once having won an election gone, on to act in only their own personal interests and ignoring the wishes of the people. So the people of the Right want an outsider; one they perceive as being more likely to actually act on behalf of the people.
The Establishment and the professionals did not, at first, take this sentiment seriously. After all, in the past such anger dissipated sufficiently by election time to allow the continuation of business as usual. Apparently they were wrong.
Out of more than a dozen initial candidates, the political Right is, as of now, down to four. There had been three candidates who had not held public office previously; now there is just one...and he is winning delegates. The professionals and the establishment is panicking! They could end up losing their "insider" status along with their inside influence...and in government power and influence is far more important than money.
There is no doubt that politicians on both sides of the political aisle deserve the anger of the populace. They have worked long and hard for it and now they are suffering the consequences.
But...mobs are not good judges of character, ability, right or wrong. They actually are not good judges of anything...and that is being proven in this election season. Think about who remains in the running? We have an experienced administrator currently serving as a Governor of an important state. He has a track record of getting his state government to function effectively. Yet he has the fewest delegates. There are two first term Senators, one with a strong Conservative record garnered at the expense of "not getting along" with other Republican Senators and the other seen as young and too easy on illegal immigration. But these two are second and third in the struggle for delegates. So...who is the current leader? A successful businessman who has grown his fathers substantial stake into a truly impressive fortune of business interests and who has a track record of making deals and getting things done in the business world. Largely ignored, however, is that his background of political donations and political thought has been largely to the left. Additionally, he has switched positions on many fronts often, to the point that, if elected, any action taken or attempted would be in line with one of his promises or positions during the campaign. A proven vulgarian, he also exhibits certain megalomaniac tendencies and a temper...not entirely unlike the current Office holder. But...many are supporting him just to punish the establishment types.
Not a pleasant situation to ponder, regardless of who "wins." It is very likely that regardless of the outcome, the American Public will lose.
But for me, the icing on the cake is that the American Public had said they wanted someone who: 1) was truthful; 2)was intelligent; 3)had proven character; 4)was not "full of himself;" 5)was not "tainted" by public service; 6) humble enough to listen to and learn from others; 7) "played well with others" while holding onto authority; and 8) would hold the will of the people foremost in his or her mind.
They had such a candidate and rejected him: Dr. Benjamin Carson. Dr. Carson is a man of proven intelligence, raised in a single parent household and rising to the top educationally and in a profession that mandates first that one "do no harm" and with a track record of honesty, accomplishment, administration and truthfulness. As a neurosurgeon he has dealt with advancing the horizon of the known by studying and learning new things under pressure and under control, earning the respect and cooperation of those around him. In other words, Dr. Carson was exactly what the mob said they wanted. He did not insult others, he did not denigrate others, he offered his character and background to the American people...and the American People declined the offer.
Well...it is not the first time. After all, the mob in Jerusalem chose Barabbas over Jesus!
While this seems quite clear in general, it is in the political arena where the proof seems written in neon, bold face, italics and underlined within quotes. Reason has apparently left the building and we are left with mob rule governed by the lowest common denominator.
Need proof?
First, the American Public is angry. It is angry at our politicians, particularly at the national level, for not getting things done, being "unable to play well with others" and just generally being dismissive of the wishes of the electorate. The "public" is turning on those that are of the establishment, both on the political Left and Right.
On the political Left, we have two candidates vying for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. One is an avowed Socialist (recently self-amending his description to Democratic Socialist), promising "free stuff" to all, to be paid for by taking money from the rich and redistributing it to virtually everyone not categorized as "rich." Recently he has had to admit that he will have to take "some" money from the Middle Class to cover the cost of his promised benefits. He manages to ignore that even then, the funds that would theoretically be available would be inadequate...even if he took 100% of everyone's earnings. Yet this candidate is actually winning primaries around the country. His opponent is a previous First Lady who has served as Secretary of State for the United States of America. She and her husband have been very successful in creating and obtaining funding for a Charitable Foundation they have formed. Remarkable sums of money have been donated by all sorts of people around the world to both the foundation and as "speaking fees" to this ex-Secretary of State and her husband...including during her period of service as Sec/State. Even her most stalwart supporters admit that the coincidence of such payment with requests granted do not look good, but they don't care. Add to that the fact that during her term as Sec/State, our Ambassador to Lybia was killed and under oath she admitted that she told her daughter and others that the attack was a result of terrorism, but sent out State Department representatives to claim that the attack was the result of a movie trailer critical of Islam. The families of those killed indicate she made the same false claim to them when greeting them when the bodies of the fallen arrived in the U.S.
Even now, there is a continuing investigation of her choice to set up a non-governmental, non-government sanctioned, email server for herself and her inner circle during her sojourn as Sec/State. The investigation holds the possibility that she will be indicted for violation of the Espionage Act. At the very least, she has shown a total lack of concern for protecting the secrets of the United States of America.
These are the best and brightest that the political Left can put forth as potential Presidents of the United States of America.
Ah...but let us not neglect the political Right! The American Public that defines themselves as the political Right have declared that the "professional" politicians and the establishment that serves and represents them have consistently lied to the public for the purposes of gaining office and, once having won an election gone, on to act in only their own personal interests and ignoring the wishes of the people. So the people of the Right want an outsider; one they perceive as being more likely to actually act on behalf of the people.
The Establishment and the professionals did not, at first, take this sentiment seriously. After all, in the past such anger dissipated sufficiently by election time to allow the continuation of business as usual. Apparently they were wrong.
Out of more than a dozen initial candidates, the political Right is, as of now, down to four. There had been three candidates who had not held public office previously; now there is just one...and he is winning delegates. The professionals and the establishment is panicking! They could end up losing their "insider" status along with their inside influence...and in government power and influence is far more important than money.
There is no doubt that politicians on both sides of the political aisle deserve the anger of the populace. They have worked long and hard for it and now they are suffering the consequences.
But...mobs are not good judges of character, ability, right or wrong. They actually are not good judges of anything...and that is being proven in this election season. Think about who remains in the running? We have an experienced administrator currently serving as a Governor of an important state. He has a track record of getting his state government to function effectively. Yet he has the fewest delegates. There are two first term Senators, one with a strong Conservative record garnered at the expense of "not getting along" with other Republican Senators and the other seen as young and too easy on illegal immigration. But these two are second and third in the struggle for delegates. So...who is the current leader? A successful businessman who has grown his fathers substantial stake into a truly impressive fortune of business interests and who has a track record of making deals and getting things done in the business world. Largely ignored, however, is that his background of political donations and political thought has been largely to the left. Additionally, he has switched positions on many fronts often, to the point that, if elected, any action taken or attempted would be in line with one of his promises or positions during the campaign. A proven vulgarian, he also exhibits certain megalomaniac tendencies and a temper...not entirely unlike the current Office holder. But...many are supporting him just to punish the establishment types.
Not a pleasant situation to ponder, regardless of who "wins." It is very likely that regardless of the outcome, the American Public will lose.
But for me, the icing on the cake is that the American Public had said they wanted someone who: 1) was truthful; 2)was intelligent; 3)had proven character; 4)was not "full of himself;" 5)was not "tainted" by public service; 6) humble enough to listen to and learn from others; 7) "played well with others" while holding onto authority; and 8) would hold the will of the people foremost in his or her mind.
They had such a candidate and rejected him: Dr. Benjamin Carson. Dr. Carson is a man of proven intelligence, raised in a single parent household and rising to the top educationally and in a profession that mandates first that one "do no harm" and with a track record of honesty, accomplishment, administration and truthfulness. As a neurosurgeon he has dealt with advancing the horizon of the known by studying and learning new things under pressure and under control, earning the respect and cooperation of those around him. In other words, Dr. Carson was exactly what the mob said they wanted. He did not insult others, he did not denigrate others, he offered his character and background to the American people...and the American People declined the offer.
Well...it is not the first time. After all, the mob in Jerusalem chose Barabbas over Jesus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)