Sunday, September 20, 2015

Government of the People, For the People, and by the People: It's Time We Made This Statement Real

"People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people." - Alan More in V for Vendetta

"I dedicate this peace to all of my fellow Political Theory junkies!" - Kent Allen Halliburton

         The above photograph was taken during the Detroit Race Riots in 1967. There are plenty more where that came from, but I felt that this one was particularly revealing. This is so because it makes an interesting point. In my last post, I brought up a concept that I call 'The Fourth Branch of Government.' Here is an example of that branch of the government at work. How so? First, if you read the US Constitution, literally, there is no such thing, but I have also stated that I believe that our constitution is a living document that is designed to evolve over time, despite our Found Fathers' inability to listen to their consciences. This means that it is not supposed to be taken as unchangeable and infallible law. In the document, it constantly refers to the fact that the document was written for and by the American people. I see that as an implication that the American people are the Fourth Branch of Government. In this document, we are given the 'Sovereign Right' to replace our government if it no longer meets the needs of the majority of the people in this country. The main three branches of government that it enumerates are the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary, and it empowers each branch to check the other's power. It does in the hope that corruption and injustice can be avoided. Further, it implies that it is the job of the people to put them in check, when corruption inevitably rears its ugly head. Thus, the people in this photo are exercising their right to reject the authority of a government that has chosen to oppress them rather than govern them.
        'We the people of the United States, in order to form a perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This is the exact text of the Preamble to the Constitution. This is where the 'Fourth Branch of the Government,' is implied. I would like to travel back into history a little to provide some support for my claim. Now, if you please, let us open our hymnals to the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. "Of the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right," should be considered his greatest work. Especially, given the fact that his work had a major influence on the Framers of the Constitution. I am of the opinion that this work solidified his role as the Godfather of modern Social Contract Theory. If you do not agree, consider that some of his readers are among the most important minds of the modern era, for example, Carl Marx, Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., just to name a few.
        The aim of the text was to determine if there could actually be something such as, 'Legitimate Political Authority.' Rousseau sought an answer to this particular question because of all of the poverty, war, and oppression that he witnessed in the Europe of his day. He argued that people living in a state of nature, essentially, with no rules but their own, had lived better and more productive lives than most of the people were able to do in his lifetime. The biggest argument that he made in his exploration of the Social Contract that the people agreed to for the common defense was that 'Force does not create right, and that the people are only obligated by the terms of the 'Social Contract,' which they agreed to when they gave their leaders power over them, to obey a legitimate power. He further argues that force does not create legitimacy, and the people are only obligated to obey those laws which are just and proper. They are obligated, in fact, to resist any authority that attempts to oppress them because that authority's power is only in effect because the people gave it to them.
         In this desired social contract, Rousseau argued, everyone will be free because they all forfeit the same amount of rights and impose the same duties on all. Rousseau argued that it is absurd for a man to surrender his freedom for slavery; thus, the participants must have a right to choose the laws under which they live. Although the contract imposes new laws, including those safeguarding and regulating property, there are restrictions on how that property can be legitimately claimed. His example with land includes three conditions; that the land be uninhabited, that the owner claims only what is needed for subsistence, and that labor and cultivation give the possession legitimacy.
        He also argued that that the political aspects of a society should be divided into two parts. First, there must be a sovereign consisting of the whole population, women included, that represents the general will and is the legislative power within the state. The second division is that of the government, being distinct from the sovereign. This division is necessary because the sovereign cannot deal with particular matters like applications of the law. Doing so would undermine its generality, and therefore damage its legitimacy. Thus, government must remain a separate institution from the sovereign body. When the government exceeds the boundaries set in place by the people, it is, then, the mission of the people to abolish such government and begin anew.
         Rousseau further argued that the size of the territory to be governed often decides the nature of the government. Since a government is only as strong as the people, and this strength is absolute, the larger the territory, the more strength the government must be able to exert over the populace. In his view, a monarchical government is able to wield the most power over the people since it has to devote less power to itself, while a democracy the least. In general, the larger the bureaucracy, the more power required for government discipline. Normally, this relationship requires the state to be an aristocracy or monarchy. He also argued that aristocracy and monarchy are not necessarily un-democratic as the term is used in the present day. The aristocracy or monarch could be elected. When Rousseau used the word democracy, he referred to a direct democracy, rather than a representative democracy. In light of the relation between population size and governmental structure, Rousseau further argued that, like his native Geneva, small city-states are the form of nation in which freedom can be most secure. For states of this size, an elected aristocracy is preferable, and in very large states a benevolent monarch; but even monarchical rule, to be legitimate, must be subordinate to the sovereign rule of law.
         Now, let us return to the present day and the situation where we find ourselves under the boot of the United States Government. Rousseau's, Sovereign, is the people, indicating that they are the supreme authority, from which all other authority is derived. Combine that with the implications written in the Preamble of the US Constitution; 'We the People,' and 'Do Ordain and Establish,' and boom, there you have it, the Fourth Branch of the Government. Now, what is the responsibility of this body? It has already been shown what Rousseau says, abolish the government and start over, and it has also been shown that the US Constitution grants the American people sovereign authority over the government. Are there any other documents in the United States that support that assertion, though? Well, of course, there is! This document is known as the Declaration of Independence. What does it have to say on the subject? A great deal.....
         "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." This is immediately followed by..... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
        This gives the American people, who's government is legally subordinate to their will, the express right to terminate their government's tenure if they determine that government to be out touch with their needs. In fact, it implies that it is their sacred and, practically, divine duty to do so. Now, this begs the question, if the American people are endowed with this authority, by law, how should they go about changing their government? Well, of course, the Constitution outlines a program for that. Every four years, a President can be voted out of office. Every six years, a senator can be voted out of office, and every two years, a member of the House of Representatives can be voted out of office. Each state has similar avenues to remove state level officials. This, however, has proven less than sufficient. So, is there anything else that might support the alternative that has been posited in this text, the right to dissolve the government and start again? In his text, "Revolution and Reformation," Thomas Jefferson can be quoted as saying, "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Here is some more support. He wrote this text in response to the French Revolution, before that conflagration, essentially, went off the deep end, giving way to the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. He is essentially saying that rebellion is necessary to keep democracy honest, insinuating that it is the duty of the people to rebel when they feel that their government is no longer meeting their needs.
        Let us review for a moment. It has been determined that conceptually, at least, the American people are the Fourth Branch of the government. It has also been determined that any people governed by others, at some point in their past, willingly submitted themselves to that authority in exchange for certain physical protections and social guarantees. This relationship has been labeled the Social Contract. In this contract, the people of a nation are determined to be the true sovereign of the nation, and any ruling body, no matter their disposition, is subject to this contract and subordinate to its people. Which means that if the people are no longer satisfied with their government, they have a right to replace with a government with another institution that they believe more suits their present needs. It has also been determined that the founding documents of the United States of America recognize this relationship, and actually, consider it the people's sacred duty to act in their best interest when the government is no longer bending to their will. The founding leaders of this country go so far as to say that we have the legal right to physically rebel against and abolish the government if it becomes oppressive and destructive.
        Having established the authority and position of the American people as the sovereign authority, from which, all other authority is derived, what should their course of action be in the present political and social climate? Is it appropriate for the people of this country to commence a violent and armed rebellion against their government? There are many people in the left that would say that it is, but I am not one of them. If I argue that the American people have the sovereign and sacred duty to replace their government, why would I, then, turn around and argue against the Revolution? I posit this question because this is exactly what I will be accused of by my fellow leftists. I know this because I have already been accused of this on multiple occasions. Well, just like I told them, I am not arguing against the Revolution. I am arguing against a violent rebellion. A Revolution does not have to be violent. Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King proved that. Yes, I do argue that the American people have an obligatory duty to throw off the chains of the present government and replace it with a government that will better represent our needs, both at home and abroad. However, I will not support the loss of innocent lives in a rebellion that will, most assuredly, see hundreds of thousands of people die and two hundred years plus of hard work and progress crumble into ashes. I will not allow that outcome to stain my hands with the blood of the citizenry, whom I have made it my moral obligation and duty to protect.
        How, then, should the American people go about abolishing their present government and establishing a new one? The American people have to call for a Constitutional Convention, not to amend the Constitution, though I do revere it so, but to replace it entirely. The present Constitution has become outdated and overly restrictive, and the government that it outlines is no longer capable of adequately representing the real make-up of the American citizenry. Further, all present elected officials, to include state officials, and those that support or work for them, must not be allowed access to the Convention. They have already proven the lengths they will go to keep us from exercising the sovereign power that we legally posses. Therefore, it has to be a Convention elected from the present population. This does not mean that present political boundaries should be abolished. It can be done in stages. It can begin with city assemblies, move up to state conferences, and then, from there, members of these bodies can elect delegates to a National Constitutional Convention. Here is where the concept of Refuse to Cooperate comes around in another big way. I have mentioned this concept before in a previous post, "What Does it Mean to Refuse to Cooperate?"
        The American people, as the true and only sovereign power in this nation, have the right to call these assemblies without the permission of the present government. They have the right to meet, as is guaranteed by the present constitution to meat peaceably and choose their own future for themselves, rather than have that future dictated to them by a government that has lost touch with its people and frankly, with itself. Though, the intent is to write a new constitution, it is still prudent for the people to make full use of the protections that are guaranteed to them in the present constitution. The people then have to elect and defend new leaders of every single government entity that they can, so that when the time comes, they will be able to just step into the void left by a government that has lost the support of the people, whose power they are borrowing. Will the government attempt to break such a venture apart? Yes, it will. Will it resort to tactics unbefitting an honorable statesman, in their effort to discredit such a movement? They most definitely will! Will the present government attempt to goad the delegates into engaging in pitched battles in the streets in their  effort to protect their own interests? Without a doubt, and they will do so with a fervent passion that has not been seen from this government in a very long time. This, however, is precisely what the American people need them to do.
          This government has already done a great deal to lose the respect and support of the rest of the world. The American people, after they have held these meetings, and after they have drafted a new constitution, and further, have elected new leaders, have to show the world what this government is really willing to do to secure its position. Once the constitution is written, it must be submitted to every branch of government, and they have to be given an appropriate time table to respond to this usurpation of the power that we gave them. They will, of course, reject it, outright, and they will probably do so without even properly examining the document. It will then be the job of the American people to shut them down. How is this to be done? First, massive and peaceful protests, declaring to our government that they have been deemed to be illegitimate and must peaceably step down. It can be guaranteed that they will not do that. That is when the American people simply refuse to recognize their authority. Refuse to Cooperate with the police. Refuse to pay fines, fees, and taxes. If they want to defund our programs, it is time that we defunded theirs.

         Of course, keep up the protests and never let up, not for anything. The biggest thing that needs to be remembered about this plan is that in no way, whatsoever, should the people resort to violence with their resistance and protests. I say this because we posses something that the generations before us did not, technology that can give us the ability to expose this government to the world without having to shed blood. The government has to be the first one to commit violence against the people. It is the only way that we will be able to garner the recognition and respect of the international community. They have to be able to see that the present government has lost its ability to govern, and this government has to debase itself so severely that when the people do finally rise up and place them in criminal custody, which as has been noted multiple times, is their sovereign right by both the constitution and, to add another avenue, the Natural Law that people like Rousseau and the founders of this nation held so dear, the rest of the world will see their actions as justified.
         They will then be able to support the American people, and give their new constitution and elected officials formal diplomatic recognition, allowing the United States to interact with the world on a genuinely equal basis, and to provide the people with a government that is more responsive to their needs and less likely to ask them to put their lives on the line for something that they know to be wrong. It is, then, at this point that that they new government must exercise a moderate form of leniency with their former government, Why? Its simple, the new government has to show to the rest of the world that it has more integrity and honor than the government that it replaced, so that they will be able to trust our judgment in the future. As for the form that that new government should take, that is up to the people. We must trust ourselves to make such decisions, or the effort will fail before it ever beings, and we have to stop the present government before they get us all killed.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Look at Me, Here I Go, Talking About Abortion Again, and I am Still Trying to Compromise

The Burger Court, 1973, Roe v. Wade

"I simply do not think that yelling, swearing, threatening, or belittling will get you to the place you want to be faster than kindness, understanding, patience, and a little willingness to compromise." - Rachel Nichols

         I am only writing about this again because the last time I wrote about it, I got slammed seven ways from Sunday. What's more, is I got slammed for taking a middle of the road position. If I get smashed again, and I am sure that I will, I am not going to repeat myself a second time. I was told that I was anti-woman, a near-fascist, and even a relic of times past. I was also called an unfeeling chauvinist and a weakling for not taking a FIRM position on the issue.
        While I will admit that from time to time, I can be a bit of an asshole; these remarks, I will not accept. First, I am not anti-woman. I believe that every human being on the planet deserves a fair shot to make something of themselves, and I am very adamant that women be granted access to the same jobs that men are, especially military service. Specifically, they should be allowed to take on combat roles. They are citizens too, and they deserve to prove that they are willing to put their lives on the line for the nation that they live in. Second, I am no Fascist. If you want see a Fascist, turn on the television and listen to the present field of Republican presidential candidates speak. There are a whole slew of them ready to say just want scared people want to hear. Third, a relic of the past? How so? Is it because I seek compromise over constant bickering? Is it because I believe in responsibility? Is it because I believe that each person in a given situation deserves to be treated fairly? If so, then screw it, call me what you want.
        As for being unfeeling, chauvinistic, and weak; Please! Am I unfeeling because I do not wish to insult someone during a debate because they do not agree with me? If I did that kind of stuff, I would be unfeeling. Am I unfeeling because I think that people should take responsibility for their actions, both men and women? Am I unfeeling because I believe that in such a case as abortion, the father of the child should at least be made aware of the situation? Not so! I have spent my entire life in the pursuit of helping those who are not being treated fairly, and I will do everything in my power to defend anyone in this country that is being treated so, regardless of where they stand on the substantive issues of our day. I say this because I still believe in the power and importance of the United States Constitution.
          I believe that despite the Founding Fathers inability to act on their consciences, an action that would have required them to delve into the realm of Natural Law, the Constitution is a living document that is designed to evolve with the society that it governs. I also believe that it is the job of the American people to ensure that as they evolve, they force their leaders to do the same. Each citizen in this country has a sovereign right to express their opinions free from persecution. It does not matter how repugnant their beliefs are to me, they still deserve the right to speak, and I will defend them in that pursuit.  All I ask in return is that they have the common decency to back up their claims with evidence and give me the same respect that I would afford them. I take the basic intrinsic value of each human life, and their ability to freely express themselves, very seriously.
        As for being a chauvinist, I am a male, there are going to be times when I do not necessarily present my best side on any given day, but that is true for women, as well. However, if a person is willing to discuss an issue with me in a peaceable manner, I will hear them out, and more, I will actually listen. Such behavior is supposed to be indicative of a genuine scholar of the truth. I am not going to accept anyone insulting me just because I disagree with them, especially when I made it clear that I would not do that to them. If that makes me a chauvinist, so be it. Further, if my position on abortion makes me a chauvinist, well then label me what you like. As for weakness, the ability to compromise does not mean that a person is weak. What it really means is that a person has intentionally taken the initiative to set aside the time which, honestly, could be productively spent on other pursuits, to view a given issue from all sides of the discussion and has chosen a middle path that will hopefully satisfy the greater majority of the people. Though, admittedly that is a very difficult thing to do.
         In real government, compromise is necessary to getting things done, and you do not have to abandon your core principles to do it. Here is how I believe that I can justify such a stance. Reintroduce the concept of Natural Law. Now, some would call this God's Law, but I definitely will not. God, whichever one  you believe in, does not have to tell a person what is fair and what it not. Human beings possess a natural sense, in the very core of their being, of what is fair and what is not. Some people are just quick to abandon this little pesky voice, but I am not. I will do what I can, in all instances, to stand by what I believe is fair for everyone. This does not make me weak. I believe that it makes me stronger. That may just be me, but on that point, I will not budge.
        After having said all of this, I want to explain my position on the issue of abortion again, as clearly as I can. I do not support the My Body, My Choice campaign. Not because I think women should not have control over their bodies, but because I believe that in the case of reproduction, it takes to two to tango. Science backs me up on this one. At present, though, there is some very interesting and very remarkable research being to done to create the possibility of reproduction in same sex households. However, there is not yet a viable way for a pregnancy to be successful without the egg from a woman and the sperm from a male. This leads me to the conclusion that in the case of abortion, it should be allowed for the father of a child to be informed that the woman that he slept with is considering an abortion. I am not saying that the man has the right to stop said abortion! I am merely saying that he has the right to know what is going on, so he can have the Right to Choose where he stands on the issue. Further, even though you may not believe it, most men, when presented with such a reality, will be more interested in the needs and health of the woman than a debate over the intricacies of the abortion issue.
        To provide myself with some back up, I would like to open my hymnal to the records of the United States Supreme Court. In the case of Roe v. Wade, and the companion case Doe v. Bolton, the Court did not rule that abortion is legal. Before you chop my head off again, allow me to explain. As I mentioned in a previous post, "Noting is Legal, Not Even Taking a Piss: A Few Definitions and Some Analysis," every single act that we take is regulated in this country. Is it acceptable to take a piss in an open air forum, where people go to relax and enjoy their spare time, while those very same people, including children, are watching you? No it is not, thus taking a piss is not legal because there are times and places where you will be arrested if you do it. It is, therefore, only Decriminalized. This goes for everything, from Abortion to the recreational use of Marijuana. If there are regulations governing the use of or the completion of a given product or act, it is not legal, but rather, as I have said already, Decriminalized.
        The position of the Burger Court, the Bench that heard the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, proves this. In these cases, the Court made five very clear rulings. First, for the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Second, for the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Third, for the stage subsequent to viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even prescribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life and health of the mother. Fourth, the Court ruled that in the case of Incest and Rape, the woman has a right to an abortion, as long as her attending physician agrees that it is the correct thing to do. Finally, the State has the right to regulate who can or cannot conduct abortions. They ruled that the state has the right to limit the practice to qualified and fully licensed medical professionals, thus allowing women to avoid back alley death traps.
        They also did like I did. They reviewed the history of abortion, admitting that it has been a common method of contraception throughout the entirety of human history. They also recognized, as I did that before modern medical advancements, abortion was a very risky affair, which routinely put the life of the mother at risk. They agree that this is why abortion was finally regulated in the 19th century. They argue further, just as I did that since the advent of modern medicine, abortion has become much safer. They end by saying that it is no longer feasible to outlaw abortion, in its entirety, because women now have a viable option to take advantage of that can allow them to decide whether or not to have an abortion and to do so with a medical professional that will ensure that the procedure does not endanger their lives.
        Now, consider that the rulings that I quoted are word for word from the majority opinion delivered by Justice Harry Blackmun. In the text of the opinion, in now way, do they give a woman the right to an unfettered abortion. A women cannot even conduct the procedure herself if the pregnancy has gotten past modern contraception like the Morning After Pill or other available procedures. She has to, by law, go to a licensed physician to have the procedure performed. Further, the ruling gives state governments the right to regulate abortion after the first trimester, minus the caveats mentioned earlier. Another thing that court does is refrain from making a decision on 'When life begins.' What they did say is that if a child is medically viable, in that it can survive outside the womb, the State has the right to regulate the conduction of abortions, so long as the life of the mother is not put in jeopardy. This all means, essentially that abortion is not legal, but rather decriminalized because of the nature of the regulations that the Court placed on the procedure.
        The most rabid of the proponents of the My Body, My Choice campaign would argue that a thirteen year old girl should be allowed to enter a facility and get an abortion without having to inform her parents. Who among us believes that a thirteen year old child is capable to making such a decision, and then living with the psychological aftermath? They would also argue that late term abortions should not be regulated. I have to call them on that one. From personal experience, I can say that it is now possible, through the advances of modern medicine, for a child born as early as the twentieth week of a pregnancy, to be capable of surviving. My son, who is now thirteen, is such a case. He was born so early because of complications with my ex-wife's health. He survived because Waco General Hospital was staffed with some pretty amazing and highly qualified physicians and nurses.
         All I add to the decision is that the man that impregnated the woman be allowed to know that an abortion is occurring. This does not mean that the man has the right to prevent the abortion, especially if the mother's life is at risk. There are caveats to this, of course. If the man has run off and cannot be located, it is clear that he has forfeited his right to know what is going on. If the man that impregnated the woman is abusive and the woman fears for her well-being and the possible well-being of a child born to the man, she has a right prove her case that an abortion would be the most appropriate action for her to take, for her health and the health of the potential child. However, if the man is available for comment and is not found to be the kind of coward that would hit a pregnant woman or abuse an innocent child, then he should, at the least, have the right to know what is going on, so that he can deal with the issue in his own way. So, minus a single addition to the Court's ruling, I stand with their decision. Abortion should not be outlawed. The medical profession has made it safe. However, a woman should not be allowed unfettered access to an abortion. Late term abortions are a matter of morality, as well as, legality. Additionally, a woman should not be born with the responsibility of carrying a child conceived or rape or incest. If past the point of viability, the woman does not want the child, she should have the right to turn the child over to care of the State, admittedly, another minor addition on my part. Like it or not, this is where I stand on the issue. If that gets me crucified by my fellow left wingers; so be it, I am not ashamed. I will suffer my death with Honor and Dignity.
        Before I end this honest attempt at self-defense, I want to mention just a few more things that will offer some more context for people to understand why I take the stance that I do on this subject. First, while the Supreme Court did not take a position on where life begins in their 1973 decision, in my last post on abortion, "Abortion, Is There a Middle Ground? An Honest Opinion From a Texas Liberal," I did. I am a Buddhist and a Celtic Spiritualist. With these philosophies comes the belief that life does not have an ending or a beginning. Life is more than just the body that we inhabit, it is also the energy within us that we share with the planet that gave us all life, Earth. Life is eternal, and it is the force that binds our people, and our world, to the rest of the universe.  Thus, life does not begin at conception or at the point of live birth because life cannot begin or end, but rather it is a constant cycle that repeats itself over and over again. I got hammered for that, as well, and I am still not apologetic, in any way, for that position.
        My second point is this. People from other parts of the country, other than the old South and Texas, need to realize what they are up against when they bring the Abortion debate down here. The first, and the most obvious thing that they will encounter are religious cracks that do not want to debate the issue. The only thing they are interested in is telling you how bad you are and how you are going to go to hell for killing babies. I am not one of those people. I stand with the Hindu family in Ireland that sued their government over the death of their wife and mother because the State would not allow an abortion that would have saved her life. She went to the hospital in the throws of a violent miscarriage, and had her Doctors not been bound by criminal statutes, they could have saved her life. Her case went to their highest court, and now Ireland allows abortions, when the life of the mother is in danger, as long as a medical professional is present to verify that that an abortion is the only method available to ensure the survival of the mother. My Celtic brothers and sisters in Ireland should be ashamed of their government for that death. It was unjustified, and her blood is on the hands of every Irishman and Irishwoman that supported the State's traditional position on the issue.
        To conclude, my third point is this. You people really do not understand what life is like in the South, if you think, for one second that Abortion is just a two sided issue here. I would like to tell you a little story to give you a sense of what I mean. A number of years ago, while I was attempting to enjoy a meal with some friends at a local dining establishment in Fort Worth, Texas, I had the unfortunate honor of hearing one of the most egregious conversations that I can easily say was, most assuredly, one of the most disgusting conversations that I have every heard in my life. Sitting in the booth behind my group, was a mother and daughter discussing what the daughter should do about being pregnant. The situation between the two was tense, so I can imagine that this was the first moment that the mother had heard about her daughter being pregnant. She was, at first, speaking in a surprisingly calm voice, letting her daughter know that everything would be alright and that her family would always be there for her. She also said that they would do everything in their power to ensure that the father did his part, as well.
        This was, of course, until the daughter told her mother who the father of her child was. She meekly informed her mother that the father was a young African American boy. It would be prudent, at this point, to tell you that the mother and her daughter were Caucasian. After this, 'bombshell,' the mother was silent for a few moments. When she finally came around to speaking again, she immediately told her daughter that she needed to get an abortion, and that she would help her get it. She also stated that she would make sure that no one ever knew that she was pregnant, so as to avoid the embarrassment! The girl asked her mother what their pastor would think about the situation, and her mother stated that it is was none of his business, which is true. However, she also said that God would understand! Please, understand that this very important bit of information, these are the same people, who the very next day after getting that abortion, would be out in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic calling women baby killers and asking the State to outlaw the procedure in its entirety.
        The thing that makes it ten times worse, is the fact that the less enlightened of the citizenry of the Southern portion of the United States think that this sort of thing is acceptable. The mother did not recommend abortion because her daughter was not ready to be a mother. She did not recommend abortion because she believed that her daughter's health was in jeopardy. She told her daughter that an abortion was the best way to go because she did not want her family to suffer the embarrassment of having to raise a black child, and she justified her stance by stating that God would understand! If that is not about one of the most evil things you have ever heard, I do not know what else could be!!!!! Think on that a little, at the least, before you jump on people that want to take the middle ground on the issue, for both our sake and yours.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

The United States, as A Whole People, Should be Ashamed of Itself, but We Still Have Time to Redeem What's Left of Us

“As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them.” - 
John F. Kennedy

        This picture should turn your stomach. If it does not, you need to talk to a psychiatric professional. There is no reason, no excuse, and no idiotic line of propaganda that will ever even slightly convince me that something like this is normal. To be honest, the reasons, excuses, and idiotic lines of propaganda that have spilled out of our leader's pie holes, so far, have all been just that, a load of hogwash from the deepest depths of their flowing pool of senseless waste. There is just not enough money to go around! They're soldiers, they should be able to suck it up and drive on! Some people just like being homeless! What does them being homeless have to do with economics? If they can't adapt to the market that is their problem! There are programs out there to help them. Why don't they use them? Maybe they deserve to be homeless.....

      I have heard these lines actually come out of people's mouths and worse. It makes me sick. The men and WOMEN that have served their country, WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE WITH WHAT THEY WERE SENT TO DO, should not have to come home to the prospect of homelessness. This kind of inhumane behavior is reckless abandonment on behalf of the whole of the United States federal system of government. It's already bad enough that this country has one of the largest homeless populations, per capita, in the entire world. It is bad enough that there have been, at varying times over the past sixty years, anywhere from 300,000 to 600,000 homeless people living on American streets. This, of course, has always been those that can be accounted for, based on estimates by organizations commissioned to produce the statistics, saying nothing for the possible thousands unaccounted for. It is immeasurably worse that in that same time period, the homeless veteran population has made up anywhere from twenty to forty percent of the total homeless population. One must admit that some good has begun to happen to reduce this number. This good work, however, has been minuscule in comparison to what should be done. Is there anyone else that thinks this is despicable?

         A great many of these veterans have lived on the streets for longer than they ever lived in a warm home, and women are among this population. If you do not think so, just Google the numbers, they are out there for all to see. There has got to be something more than can be done for these people. In fact, there is a whole lot of good stuff that can be done for them. Why, then, has it not been done? Very simply, it is because helping the homeless is not profitable. Companies do not want to get in on an EFFECTIVE solution because, while it would look good on their public profile to be seen helping homeless veterans, providing these people with everything that they need to return to productive lives, would hurt their bottom line. Why did I mention companies, first? Frankly, it is because municipalities have not done much better. I am sorry Los Angeles, but kicking businesses out of a run down shopping mall and turning it over to homeless veterans is not an effective solution to the problem. They are still homeless! All you did was just push them to the side, hoping that that would be enough to get them out of the eyesight of important investors. Companies, screw your bottom line, and MUNICIPALITIES, you can dance with the devil in the pail moon light.

         Here is a message to the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT and all of the STATE GOVERNMENTS: you are all a bunch of greedy, derelict, and decrepit jerks! How can you justify this? Please, enlighten me. You say you don't have enough money to help every veteran? Pure nonsense! You have created the largest national debt in modern history, and by which method did you do it? What, no answer? Are you ashamed of yourself? DOUBTFUL! Even though you finally ratified James Madison's amendment limiting how you can give yourselves pay raises, I am still not convinced! The department that is supposed to be handling this, the Department of Veteran's Affairs, is full of corruption, and is to this day, still unable to fully meet the needs of its charges, if it can be caught doing that at all.  This is unequivocally a matter of economics you boneheads! However, it is also, more deeply, a matter of conscience, in that you are devoid of one. If any one of you jackwagons had a conscience, there would not be a single veteran without a home and a job. In fact, if you truly cared for you people, there would not be a single homeless person in the United States. If you really want this nation to be an example to the world, the first people that you should give the responsibility of delivering that message to the people, is our veterans. You just can't seem to get out of your comfortable offices to make that happen. Are you afraid of something? Maybe you should be because, lately, you certainly have not been in the business of making friends.

        What happens when a Veteran finally snaps, and goes off on people? They get arrested, put in jail, and loose any chance of recovery, thus making there status as a homeless veteran, permanent. Here is the thing, the many cases of veterans losing it have been individuals going off the deep end. What will happen when they all come together, and you have a battalion of trained soldiers coming for you with a purpose? Are you going to respond like MacArthur and Patton during the early years of the Great Depression? These two men were ordered to remove a camp of World War I veterans who had come to DC to claim the benefits that they earned while in service in Europe during the war. What did MacArthur and Patton do? When the veterans refused to leave, they ordered their units, accompanied by the DC police, to attack the camp and force the veterans to disperse. They ordered American soldiers to fire on American soldiers, and it wasn't friendly fire! You have, in fact, already given your answer when, in Oakland, CA, you ordered the police to attack a group of unarmed civilians associated with the Occupy Movement. That attack resulted in the death of a United States Marine. For that alone, you deserve to go to suffer eternal damnation! The homeless veteran problem is not going away just because we are in the twenty-first century. Men and women who fought in Afghanistan and Iraq 2 are living on the streets, as we speak!

        This has got to change now, before it is too late! Here is a philosophy and avenue of approach that you might find interesting, but for an example; first, let us turn to history. When the Roman Republic was in its infancy, and it was challenging the other major powers of the Mediterranean region, such as Carthage, Greece, Egypt, the Parthians, and others, they established a novel program. They enlisted their soldiers for twenty-fives years to life. This was not all they did, though. When they experienced times of relative peace, they put their soldiers to work on the infrastructure of their burgeoning empire. Then, finally, when their men retired, they gave them land, as part of a severance package, to ensure that their highly trained and extremely effective warriors did not, in the heat of dissatisfaction, take up arms against them. Eventually, the policy fell apart because Rome spread itself way too thin, started using auxiliaries instead of Roman citizens, relied too heavily on the labor of slaves, and had very little arable land left to give out to those veterans that were actual Roman citizens. There was also another reason for this. When the policy was working, if, at any time, the province that those men were living in came under attack, these veterans could be called upon one more time to defend their homes and the Empire. This was part of the reason that Rome was so formidable in its early days, and it is one of the biggest reasons why Hannibal of Carthage was unable to rouse the people of the Italian peninsula against Rome. Many of them had fought and bled for Rome, and they would have gone to the darkest depths of Hades before they allowed anyone to take from them what they had earned at such a high price.

        Now, what is my suggestion? Keep our soldiers working! First, it is not totally unfeasible to ask people to dedicate their entire lives to the defense of their nation, but in modern times, it is impractical. The only way it would become practical is if, for some, it became the only way they could afford food and shelter. Wait, for many, it has gotten to that point! The majority of the men and women that enlist in the armed services anymore are poor and feel like military service is better than joining a gang or going to jail. So, enlisting soldiers for a lengthy term should be considered. Such a long enlistment would also give the government the time that it needs to give each soldier the proper tools to function in civilian society after their term of service is over. Furthermore, during times of peace, soldiers can be used to do the work that private companies do not want to do. They could repair and build new roads. They could refurbish our ailing railway system, and expand it, so that the American people can become more mobile and economically competitive. For Gaia's sake, there is no doubt in my mind that every single person presently residing on the street, would be ecstatic to work a job that could actually sustain a basic family living, rather than remaining on the street.

         Imagine the possibilities. If a high speed rail, along the lines of what already exists in both Europe and Asia, were built in this country, it could get someone from a dilapidated community in say, Detroit, to a job in Dallas, and get them there and back in the same day, as well as, giving them the money they need to help revitalize their own communities. Granted that would change a lot of things, but it would definitely be a boost to the entire nation, and it would keep soldiers occupied. It would also do a lot to give them pride in what they are doing. It is hard to take pride in killing another human, no matter what we have been told that they represent. Just imagine, after their service is long over, what it would be like if they could look out their window and see the high speed rail that revolutionized the US economy and job market, knowing that they had a part in making that happen. It is feasible to say that they would be less likely end up on the streets, and more likely to take pride in their homeland. Below is a picture of the Maglev train that connects Downtown Shanghai, China with its airport. It can reach a maximum speed of 430 kph, or roughly, 193 mph, and China is looking to connect their entire country with similar rails. Imagine traveling from Detroit to Dallas in a matter of an hour.....

        Now, what of the present population of homeless veterans? Put them all back to work! They can begin the refurbishment of our infrastructure. They can also be sent into neighborhoods that are falling apart or growing over, like some of the neighborhoods in Detroit, and rebuild them to modern specs. Additionally, and here is a novel concept, they could live in them, while they continue working on other projects, like rebuilding bridges, paving roads out to poor remote towns, or repairing our electrical grid, upgrading our major shipping centers, i.e. airports, seaports, bus stations, distribution centers, and railways hubs. They could also be sent into old run down factories to modernize them, and turn them into facilities capable of building all of the high-tech gadgets that we are so fond of, right here at home. Now, imagine, what else this would do for the economy. The support structure around such a program would have to be massive, and it would have to have offices in almost every single major city in the country. The number of qualified personnel that would be needed to run those offices would be very high, putting even more people to work. The rebuilt factories would do this also.

         Who is to blame for this, really? I have already sounded the horn against the incompetence of the various government bodies in this country, but is there anyone else to blame? Oh yes, there most definitely is, and what do you know, it is not necessarily capitalists. Granted, they are guilty for a great many things, but they are not supposed to be part of things like rebuilding infrastructure. They are supposed to operate in this country, at the pleasure of the people and the government, not the other way around. It is the government's job to step in and do such work. Local, State, and Federal governments are supposed step up on this one, so that those companies can deliver their products to every citizen in this country in an efficient and cost friendly manner. They are obviously not performing that function very well, and they need to be called on it. However, in the end, they are not the ones that should shoulder the greatest portion of the blame. That blame should should be placed squarely on the shoulders of those people who, I argue, are the 'Fourth Branch of Government' in this country, the American people. We are endowed with the sovereign right to choose our own government and the right to replace it when it fails to meet our needs. Where are we on that?

         Every single day that passes by that sees homeless people, especially veterans, on the street, and our infrastructure crumbling, is another day where we are guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of a massive and unconscionable crime against humanity. We are allowing people to wallow in the streets, while our leaders send us off to fight wars that we want no part of. We are allowing our jobs to be sent overseas, while our economy suffers, and more people are put out of their homes. We are sitting idly by, while our country's infrastructure is left to ruin, and we are allowing our veterans, the people that on paper, we should be honoring the most, to join those already thrown into the streets to fend for themselves. We are just as guilty as any government official or corporate mogul could ever be because we, who know that the wealth to fix this problem exists, have allowed this all to continue. This is part of the philosophy behind the phrase, Refuse to Cooperate. We have to change the nature of the debate by simply refusing to accept any action that we know is contrary to the welfare of the nation we hold so dear.

         We, as people, cannot allow this kind of evil stuff to continue! We have to do something about it. We have done it before, and we can do it again. We need a new set of heroes to arise and say again, in the loudest of voices possible, YOU HAVE GONE FAR ENOUGH, AND YOU SHALL GO NO FURTHER!!!!! What's more, is that these people can be every day citizens. We just have to have the kind of courage that people displayed in the union riots, when they were fighting for better pay, and we have to take inspiration from men like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, who with their blood, sweat, and tears, for Gaia's sake, their very lives, stood up and made the government act against it own interest because it feared the consequences of not doing so. This is OUR country, and we need to remind all of the jackwagons in our government and in the business world that we have not forgotten that. We need to remind this entire system that without us, the general citizenry of the United States of America, this country is in big trouble. We need to turn ourselves in to the INVISIBLE HAND of JUSTICE, screw the market!!!!!

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Maybe I'm Just Rambling, but I am Pretty Sure that Some Funky Smelling Stuff is About to Go Down in the City

"To be nobody but yourself, in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else, means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting." - E.E. Cummings

         I am frustrated. I am angry. I am tired. I am worn out. I have had enough! These are words that I am sure, are muttered, at some time or another, by every single human being alive. Well, I have been muttering them for years, and it does not look like I will stop any time soon. I am not entirely sure why I even decided to start writing about this, but I am going to give my best effort to produce something worth reading. I look around me each and every day, and I do not see people that feel free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. I see people simply existing, hoping, only, to at least be able to make it to the next day. It is almost as if people have lost all hope for a better future in this country. Lately, Bernie Sanders has been motivating the silent far left wing of the political spectrum, and Donald Trump has been energizing the part of the Republican base that does not usually vote. This has given a lot of people hope for their future, if their candidate gets elected. However, someone is going to win and someone is going to lose. How far will the losers supporters be willing to express their discontent? Further, what will happen if neither of them gets elected? Will either side be willing to go all out to challenge a loss, and if they are, how will they do it?
        Ultimately, at this point, how either side would respond to a political loss is not all that important, but it certainly will be in a later post. For now, what is it that is making people lose their hope in the future of this country? There are several things that come to mind. I shall attempt to enumerate just a few of them as briefly as is possible. First, our old heroes have lost their luster, and our new heroes can't measure up to the the false standards that were placed on them by the old ones. It might be difficult to accept that heroes, or big personalities, are necessary, but they are. They motivate people to do more than they think they are capable of. They encourage people to push their boundaries, and they can convince us of anything. Whether their lesson is good or bad, they still drive us to be more than we are or defend what we have left in life, with our own lives. Without those electrifying people that push us to be more than we are, people become complacent and comfortable, and they fail to go anywhere beyond what is close around them. This is known as the Cult of Personality, and it is very real.
        Christopher Columbus was a drunk, a war criminal, and a sex trafficker. The Pilgrims cheated the Native Americans that helped them and their decedents later nearly wiped them out. They and others from England also set up repressive theocratic mini-states that are eerily similar to some recent oppressive regimes. George Washington was a war criminal, a slaver, and a borrowed ladder, in that he married his way into the elite. Andrew Jackson was also a war criminal. Abraham Lincoln did not enter the White House with the intent to free the slaves in the South. Teddy Roosevelt was guilty of genocide. John F. Kennedy was an adulterer. Reagan cuts funds to almost every single social program offered by the U.S government and said it was for our own good, while children went hungry in the streets of the 'Greatest Country on the Planet." Bill Clinton was way to horny for his own good. George Bush started a war that we are still trying to get completely out of, and Barack Obama has failed to unify the electorate as he promised he would. Who do you we have to look to, then? Should it be movie stars, sports players, or someone else of that sort? It is important to know that while such people are important, we need to realize that the problem is ourselves. We are the ones that have set ourselves up for failure. We turn our heroes, all of them flesh and blood humans just like us, into gods, and then we are heart broken when they fail us. What is the logic in that? We are also less inclined to believe something if it challenges our preconceived notions of what this country is supposed to be about.

         Second, for most people, the job that they work is making them miserable wrecks. We get paid too little, we either work way to much, or we are unable to find sufficient work to survive on. We get treated like garbage by our bosses, and we have to walk on pins and needles when we speak to fellow employees, for fear they will get offended by something and report us. In other jobs, if we hold an opinion about the world that is different from the official position of the company that we work for, we run the risk of getting terminated. Work benefits are disappearing for all but the most high paying jobs. Further, physical work that used to pay well, is becoming badly devalued, and many people are not able to adapt to the changes in the market without assistance. Our perceived liberties have also taken a hit, and every time we see the atrocities our own country has committed, it makes us more and more scared that the same thing will soon happen to us. How can people be expected to keep the hope alive, if every time they begin to make progress, something else comes along and interupts them?
        This moves in to the third thing I see. People are stressed out and overloaded. Each day of our lives, we are bombarded with information. We watch the news in the morning, we get loaded with information all day at work, we come home and hear from our spouse and children, we watch the news before we go to bed, and in the interim periods, we get stories from all over the world thrown at us from social media, the radio, television, the internet, and any number of other outlets. The thing that makes it the most difficult to deal with is the fact that many times, there is very little escape from the onslaught. The options available for relieving stress among the poor, and not so wealthy, are limited by their cost. Of course, we are provided with our distractions. Football, baseball, professional wrestling, movies, video games, food, drugs, sex, religion, television, and many others. However, the point remains that after we are done with the fun time, we still have to go back to the crappy job that is our real lives, and when our options require more than we are willing to give, we feel stuck. Of course, our domestic issues are only half of the problem. We are faced with porous borders, domestic and international terrorism, economic downturns halfway across the planet that affect the prices of our goods everyday, wars halfway across the planet that threaten to spill over into our sphere of influence, and many other things like international treaties that put more and more pressure on us each day. What happens if one of those wars does reach our shores? Will we be able to handle it? How are we supposed to react as we get older and learn that everything we were taught as children was a massive scam designed to intentionally keep us ignorant of the screw job being pulled on us right in front of our very own eyes?
         The most frustrating part of it all is that many people are having a difficult time finding the way out of this mess. We find ourselves under attack daily, and we feel like we have no one to turn too. So, we get all of this stress built up that we are never able to completely release. It drives us crazy, and it kills our bodies. Of course, not everyone is able to keep a wrap on their stress, and they end up doing something desperate and stupid. I don't know if any of this makes sense. It if does, great! All I am trying to say is that people, generally speaking, are growing so tired of being mindless drones that the backlash from their final mental breakdown could be fatal to them, someone else, or all of us. When people feel like they are out of options, they can do some pretty daring things that they would not have done otherwise. What is going to happen when people lose the ability to contain the massive amount of energy in their body that their stress is stockpiling? The possibility of an entire nation cracking in half is not unheard of. Unbridled rebellion in the streets is not unheard of either. What is unheard of is a bunch of tired, overworked, underpaid, barely literate, and angry poor people sitting down at a table to talk out an arrangement with the people that are oppressing them. It is only a matter of time before something pops off on a scale much larger than we have yet to see in this country. Many predict, and I have presented the possibility in an earlier post, a Civil War on the horizon. The destruction from such an event would immeasurable. Is it too late to avoid such a unimaginable travesty?

Monday, September 14, 2015

What Does it Mean to Refuse to Cooperate?

"We are either Kings or the Pawns of Men." - Napoleon Bonaparte

         Several people have asked me for clarification on Refuse to Cooperate. Here is my explanation. Let me know what you think.
        We are all pawns in a massive game to control the world and all of the people and resources in it. At the very top of human society, is a very comfortable set of people that is slowly consolidating their power over the entire planet. Those in the middle, governments and the like, have become silently compliant and value ignorance over knowledge. What is the general population's role in this game, then? It is the role of regular people to follow the moniker of the United States Marine Corps, "It is not to reason why, it is but to do and die!" This is all that is expected of us. Well, if you ask me, and none of the assholes running the world will, they are all full of shit! Every time I wake up and hear about another war, another genocide, or another disaster, all of which are methods of extermination, I get more and more angry with them. Every single day, they are ruining the lives of regular people, who simply wish to live their lives in peace and be left alone. Perhaps, that is part of the problem. Too many people are content to accept the present arrangement, so long as their basic needs or rights are not infringed upon. Guess what people? The rights that we have can blow away into the past just as easily as a cotton ball can be blown half way across the country, and slowly but surely that is happening to all of us. As for our needs, we have all already been told what we need. Soon, if we allow it, we will be living like the sad excuse for a human being in George Orwell's, 1984.
         So what are some of the things that we can do to Refuse to Cooperate with this charade? There are many things that we can do. Here is a brief list of some of the better options.


Premises are assertions that, when joined together, will lead you to a conclusion. The most important part of any premise is that the audience will accept it as true. If even on of the premises if false,  reject the conclusion, and watch as an argument falls apart. When constructing premises, it is essential to consider how an audience will react. Our rulers do everything they can to understand how we work, so they can word their statements in such a way that we will not catch the clandestine reality behind their statements. This world has become nothing more than money pit to them. We are getting screwed. We need start calling our leaders on their bullshit. A good way to reject a poor premise is to refuse to watch the show, commentator, or politician that made the statement, or to openly challenge them and force them to either explain themselves or stop talking. The greatest victory in such a moment is someone that cannot answer the question, no matter the topic.


A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for social or political reasons. If our government is supporting a company that knowingly produces inferior products, products that violate safety standards, polices that punish workers for doing their jobs, i.e., low pay, no vacation, little to no health benefits, or a company that simply represents everything that the general population is against, call them on it. The best way to do this is to simply refuse to interact in any way with that company. Turn the outlets that these companies use to hock their goods into ghost towns, by refusing to go their store, refuse to buy their products sold in affiliated establishments, who should also be boycotted, and then tell your friends about it. When their profits start to tank, these companies may be more willing to talk. We also need to pressure our politicians to do something more than just put out a press release.


The biggest thing that these people use to control us is the differences that exist between us. They are so good at what they do that people get lost in programs or institutions that represent philosophies that are completely contrary to everything that they believe in. Propaganda tells us that anyone that does not think like us is our enemy. Hmmmmmm, BULLSHIT! The real enemy of us all is the Invisible Hand, aka these shadowy pricks that are controlling the world. They will do anything to keep us divided and from understanding a very basic truth. This truth is so simple that it hurts when people attack each other over stupid shit that does not really matter to the extension of their daily lives. We are divided by such things as race, gender, religion, sexual preference, creed, color, hair color, eye color, blood type, the list can go on forever. Rather than focusing on these things, as we have been instructed to do, we should, rather, being talking to our fellow supplicants about what a mass movement could really do on a global scale. Imagine the sight!
         These methods are just a few of our options. The most popular unmentioned option is armed rebellion. I intend to take up this topic, in full force, in a later post dedicated solely to that option. There are many more options we can choose from, but before you explore them, take a minute to think about your positions. Set all of this shit down for just one second, and think about life. Who has more in common with you? Is it the rich asshole that signs your checks, and tries to convince you that the quality of his product, the huge ass house and the enormous boat that the owns, or the pay that you receive is based on what the market can bare? I would say not. The truth is that ninety-nine percent of the world's population has more in common with each other, than any of one of us could possibly have in common with that jackass, or any of the other jackasses that he runs around with.
         In the past, leaders used the 'Divine Right,' philosophy, almost exclusively, to justify why they had the right to subjugate their people. That philosophy is still used by some; unfortunately, but their main tool now is to flaunt their wealth and prestige and then try to convince the rest of us that we too can have all of their wealth, if we just work long and hard. Of course, at the same time, they do all they can to influence their intermediaries, governments, to make sure that will never happen. All we get is a shitty job, with shitty pay, and shitty hours, and to their delight, very few of us ever escape the stress and frustration of that lifestyle, never once owning our home, let alone the boats or cars that they are so proud of. They are not going to change their minds. They are not going to suddenly grow a conscience. They are going to keep doing this shit for as long as they can get away with it. They want us poor and reliant upon them for everything that we need. They want us to believe that we have no option but to trust them and accept what we have been given. They want us to believe that they have our best interests at heart. They want us to believe that they are just like the rest of us. DO NOT ACCEPT THEIR LINE OF CRAP. It's time to call bullshit, and the only way that it will work is if we all do it, all at once!

Sunday, September 13, 2015

George Washington, A Mere Human

"Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all." 
- George Washington

         Not so much with the quote, huh? George Washington is considered the Father of the United States of America. He has been placed on the highest pedestal that could be found for him. He has nearly reached God status in some people's eyes. He was a top leader at both initial meetings of the Continental Congress. He was the U.S. Army's first Commander, and he is touted as the man that won the Revolutionary War. He was the first President of the United States, and he was the one that set the standard for the two term Presidency. He helped to shape the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the very structure of our system of governance. He is portrayed as a man of honor, a pure Christian soul, and a noble warrior. In some historical writings, he is even compared to Cincinnatus of the early Roman Republic, the 'Citizen Soldier.' Washington took up the role of the citizen warrior, who was offered a kingdom, but instead went home to his farm to let democracy take its place in the world. It's too bad that he really was not that the pristine and flawless Father of Us All that he is touted to be. He was a living, breathing, human being. He had flaws just like the rest of us, and he failed just like us. Further, just as many of our leaders now, he was not without his criminal scandals, and he was not a professed Christian, but rather, a Deist, believing that a singular God figure had created the universe on scientific principles and then hit the bricks for better shores. He spoke of freedom, but owned slaves. He spoke of individual liberty and the right of people to protest against their government, but he was the first and only President in U.S. history to personally lead a national military force into combat against the people of his own nation.
        What kind of man was George Washington, really? First of all, he was born of stock from the Lower English Gentry. They came from England in 1657, and very quickly amassed a modest tobacco plantation and a number of slaves. Washington, however, was not a member of the social circles of the Virginia Tidewater elite. After his father died, he was unable to get the same education in England that his brothers had. In the end, from his own studies, and with the help of various tutors, he achieved the equivalent of a sixth grade education. He did not enter the elite, though, until he married Martha Dandridge. She was the daughter of John Dandridge, a wealthy planter and English immigrant, who was a member of the Virginia Tidewater elite. At the time that she met Washington, despite already having an established family, with four kids and a massive estate, Martha was only twenty-five when she was widowed by Daniel Parke Custis. She and Washington were both twenty-seven at the time they were wed. Washington took over the administration of her estate, watched over hundreds of slaves working in his fields, while he profited off their labor and moved himself into a position of leadership in the Virginia Assembly. While there, he wrote his own story of his feats, and subsequently, he built himself up as a hero of the French and Indian War.
         So what actually happened? George Washington can actually be criminally charged with inciting the colonial side of Great Britain's Seven Years War, known to U.S. History as the French and Indian War. Washington was sent into western Pennsylvania, with a militia commission, by the Virginia Assembly to explore a rumor that the French were looking to establish a military presence in the region. They were looking into securing land that they had speculated in heavily, on the expectation that the land would soon be obtained by the Britain. George Washington was involved in the deal, directly. When he arrived in the region in 1754, he encountered a small French unit under the command of Joseph Coulon de Jumonville. Washington ordered his men to fire on the French unit, despite Jumonville being on orders to parlay with any British forces encountered in the region. In the fray, Jumonville was killed. Another unit later captured Washington after the battle, and forced him to sign a confession, where he admitted to killing Jumonville, in order to secure his release. Upon his return to Virginia, Washington told his version of the story and became a local hero. On the international stage, however, he brought a global war to the American colonies, after engaging a French unit, unprovoked. In a modern court, this could label Washington a self-confessed war criminal. He also later participated in two failed attempts by the British to capture the base, Fort Duquesne, a key French military post in the Americas.
         This, of course, was not the end of his military career. Touted as an American military hero, George Washington's service record is full of defeats. In fact, his failing record as a commander is a signature of his poor education and limited military experience. He had a complete lack of strategic imagination. He attempted to take a bunch of farmers and turn them into a European quality military force that could stand toe to toe with the British Army in a traditional European style field engagement. The result was heavy losses, high rates of desertion, and a series of close scrapes that routinely placed his life and freedom in jeopardy, along with the men that fought with him. He was constantly on the run. He made no real use of the militia under his command; in fact, he was openly disparaging of them. He failed to use the militia for what they were really good for, Guerrilla Warfare. He thought it was uncivilized, despite his uncivil behavior as a member of the Militia years before.
        The real interesting thing is how Washington came about the victory that ended the Revolutionary War in the United States' favor, Yorktown. It was getting harder and harder to evade the British, and the United States needed legitimacy. The Continental Congress went to the French, who because of their conflict with Britain in Europe, was unable to offer more than cursory support at the beginning. They were also weary of helping a young country that had not proven itself. The earlier Battle of Saratoga brought France into the war with its money, at least. It is also important to note that his was a battle in which George Washington did not participate. The most significant French contribution to the war came as Britain was shipping reinforcements to the colonies. The French army joined American forces at the Siege of Yorktown, while the French navy blocked the the fleet that was on its way to reinforce the British garrison there. If the French had not had a personal score to settle with Britain after they were beaten in the Seven Years War, they may not have had any reason to help the United States. If the French had not shown up, the British reinforcements would have arrived. The result would have been a resounding defeat for the infant United States, and would, likely, have seen the execution of most of its tops leaders, including George Washington.
        Of course, the French did show up, the United States was able to pull independence out of the shadow of the gallows, and George Washington became the mythical Father of our 'Great Nation.' This is not designed to sully the reputation of George Washington. Honestly, it was a reputation that was manufactured to begin with, so it cannot be sullied. He was a man that took advantage of his circumstances to get to the top of his world. He was the same as any man of opportunity of his day. He took the tales of his exploits, repackaged them, exaggerated them, and then took advantage of a high tension situation and a massive stroke of luck. He was not a God, he was not some noble warrior, and we was not some faultless monk without sin. He was a physical, live, breathing, flawed human being. The reason that the people of this country are constantly disappointed is because the people that built this country and every leader since, with every good and bad part of their being, are turned into God-like figures to be looked up to. They are put on a pedestal so high that when it turns out they are human, just like the rest of us, people are disappointed, let down, and even hurt inside. What were we expecting would happen? There is no one that has ever lived or will ever live that can.
        Placing that much pressure on a single person is ridiculous, especially in a day in age when a leader's entire life is on television. Further, once people realize that their contemporary heroes are just as deluded and fucked up as they are, they start to question the heroes of myth, and they find out what their heroes that they were taught to believe in like gods, really are, human beings with issues, just like the rest of us. So, you have a writing like this that points a very different picture of George Washington. No longer is he the god like, noble warrior, and sin free role model. He made mistakes in his youth. Any decent scholar that analyzes Washington's actions in 1754, can see him for the flawed, imperfect, and sometimes impudent human that he was. This does not sell well with some, though. People find it difficult to to see their old heroes in this new light, as someone, much like themselves, who simply had a shot to make a name for himself and took it. Was he a big personality? Yes. Was he in the right place at the right time? Most definitely. Should he be blamed for the crimes that he committed? Without a doubt. Having said these things, should the fact that he managed to outrun the British for so long and that he was later able to take advantage of Britain's strategic blunders, and Frances need for revenge, to pull a victory out of his ass, be ignored? No, of course not! If not for his stroke of luck, we would not be here to talk about the nature of Washington's persona. We just need to keep people like Washington in perspective. We need to recognize how their flaws and mistakes made them who they were, and put them into a position to do for us what they did for us as a whole. They gave us the idea that in this country, for better or for worse, a regular person should be able to say, do, and believe whatever the want to do, so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of their fellow citizens. If nothing else, they as least gave us a lot of interesting stuff to talk about......