I think that my fundamental problem with the bailout is this:
Joe Wall Street is screaming "FIRE FIRE!" and saying we need $700 billion to bailout and save the financial system "for the good of all Americans."
That comes out to an average of $2200 for every man, woman, and child in America.
So try explaining to a poor family of four in rural Tennessee, or a poor family of four in Compton, CA why they should be paying $10,000 of their tax money to save the "system"...
They don't have any Wall Street investments. No 401K. No money market account. No real savings to speak of. They work a minimum wage job and live paycheck to paycheck. They cant get small business or home loans, so a frozen credit system means nothing to them.
...and they are expected to do this for the good of the financial system, when in all likelihood, it wont affect them in any substantial way. Or to put it another way -- to save a financial system that is never going to make them rich.
But tell one of those Joe Wall Streets why they should chip in an extra $500 per year so that those same poor families (and millions more) can have healthcare when they are sick, and they don't want to hear a word of it.
They say "Why should i do something that wont directly help me? The medical system is fine as is." (Of course it is when you can afford it.) And healthcare is just for an example.
Bottom line. They are screaming for help from the same people they refuse it to on a constant basis.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
A quick hypothetical
People always say that they need to be accepting of the other side's views. And I am all for that in an informed and democratic society. I am all for acceptance.
I was thinking about a hypothetical. If someone put a button in front of me, and if I pushed it, it would ensure that no matter what, Obama would win -- would I push it?
And the answer, somewhat strangely, is no. I couldn't just shit on everything that our founding fathers fought for. Maybe I'm being idealistic. But I don't think I would push it.
It's not like I want to see America fuck itself worse -- which i think is where the McCain ticket sends us. It's just that I have a little bit of faith left in America. I think we can do it. I think we can get back on the right track using actual democracy. It's just another test for our 200 year old Constitution. Our founding fathers didn't envision television. They didn't envision a time where four companies controlled the airwaves and the airwaves were pretty much the only way that 90% of people got their news. They lived in a time where people were so happy to have a vote that they wanted to seek the truth before casting it --- at least more so than most people do today.
(On a side note: I think that most staunch Republicans would push that button it for McCain. It's the win at any cost mentality and it's anti-American. And that's why I am very afraid of ballot stuffing and all the other sketchy e-voting stuff.)
Anyway, back to my point.
I think there's a threshold. We're not there yet, but we're close. It's the imaginary line we're going to cross soon. The line where I no longer will be able to "accept" the other side, because the other side will fundamentally add up to treason -- to a disfiguration of democracy -- to an attack on the essence of America. There's a point where it's no longer American to allow the neo-con movement to rape our system, take advantage of voters by out-and-out lies which are not punished because the media feels they must be balanced. To let them use lies, religious control, and media manipulation... To deceive nearly half of our country.
Just like if you watched a friend start hanging out with a cult. There's a point where his curiosity and free will is traded in. A point where it becomes brainwashing. And you can't identity that moment until it has happened. And at that moment, it is no longer your duty to accept your friend's "choice". It is not "stoic" or "honorable" to be accepting -- you're just plain wrong to do it. At that point, it is your duty to help him. To stop accepting and starting being forceful.
I actually was imagining a time when someone like Brian Williams (who seems intelligent and well informed), on the newscast, would just straight up refuse to honor the "balanced" view he is supposed to report because he felt like a traitor doing so. And come out of his "newsy" character and just say: "OK seriously, America, I can't stand by any longer -- we're about to head down a dangerous road. Get your head on straight". And yes, we're quite a ways from that. But I feel like eventually, if we go down this road long enough, people are bound to start being more forceful and less balanced and accepting.
I mean, we're talking about the possibility of someone being president (Palin) -- or at least VP -- who demanded burning books in the local library because there were "bad words".
Like I said, though, we're not there yet. For the time being. But we're close.
I was thinking about a hypothetical. If someone put a button in front of me, and if I pushed it, it would ensure that no matter what, Obama would win -- would I push it?
And the answer, somewhat strangely, is no. I couldn't just shit on everything that our founding fathers fought for. Maybe I'm being idealistic. But I don't think I would push it.
It's not like I want to see America fuck itself worse -- which i think is where the McCain ticket sends us. It's just that I have a little bit of faith left in America. I think we can do it. I think we can get back on the right track using actual democracy. It's just another test for our 200 year old Constitution. Our founding fathers didn't envision television. They didn't envision a time where four companies controlled the airwaves and the airwaves were pretty much the only way that 90% of people got their news. They lived in a time where people were so happy to have a vote that they wanted to seek the truth before casting it --- at least more so than most people do today.
(On a side note: I think that most staunch Republicans would push that button it for McCain. It's the win at any cost mentality and it's anti-American. And that's why I am very afraid of ballot stuffing and all the other sketchy e-voting stuff.)
Anyway, back to my point.
I think there's a threshold. We're not there yet, but we're close. It's the imaginary line we're going to cross soon. The line where I no longer will be able to "accept" the other side, because the other side will fundamentally add up to treason -- to a disfiguration of democracy -- to an attack on the essence of America. There's a point where it's no longer American to allow the neo-con movement to rape our system, take advantage of voters by out-and-out lies which are not punished because the media feels they must be balanced. To let them use lies, religious control, and media manipulation... To deceive nearly half of our country.
Just like if you watched a friend start hanging out with a cult. There's a point where his curiosity and free will is traded in. A point where it becomes brainwashing. And you can't identity that moment until it has happened. And at that moment, it is no longer your duty to accept your friend's "choice". It is not "stoic" or "honorable" to be accepting -- you're just plain wrong to do it. At that point, it is your duty to help him. To stop accepting and starting being forceful.
I actually was imagining a time when someone like Brian Williams (who seems intelligent and well informed), on the newscast, would just straight up refuse to honor the "balanced" view he is supposed to report because he felt like a traitor doing so. And come out of his "newsy" character and just say: "OK seriously, America, I can't stand by any longer -- we're about to head down a dangerous road. Get your head on straight". And yes, we're quite a ways from that. But I feel like eventually, if we go down this road long enough, people are bound to start being more forceful and less balanced and accepting.
I mean, we're talking about the possibility of someone being president (Palin) -- or at least VP -- who demanded burning books in the local library because there were "bad words".
Like I said, though, we're not there yet. For the time being. But we're close.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Who's Bearing the Load?
One of my professors in college used to say that the line most often said in movies (usually very earnestly) that was never said in real life was:
"You just don't get it, do you?"
And this hits me as something I feel like saying to so many middle class voters in America that have a McCain sticker on their car or a sign in their front lawn.
And I'm not saying this in a condescending way. In all seriousness, I'm not.
And I'm not saying this to the ones who are so blindly religious that they dismiss me because:
(a) I don't care if two gay people get married.
(b) I support a woman's right to choose
(c) Of some other Christian moral value that has been rammed down the throat of our "secular" society.
Because those people's mind's cannot be changed. Fine. I won't even try. Feel free to dismiss me.
But I am saying it to those that voted Bush because he felt like "one of us", or because you could "have a beer with him", or who fell prey to smear campaigns.*
And I'm saying, look at what it got you. And look what it's going to get you. The American middle-class is in terrible shape. From health care, to the housing market, to the declining dollar, to gas prices, etc, etc, etc.
And most of all, your sons and daughters. Let me introduce you to a little known but very interesting fact. There is no spin here. There are two sets of hard statistical data: the US population and the number and hometown of US troops killed in support of the current Iraq campaign. (The red-state/blue-state breakdown is as it was in the 2004 Presidential election.)
Look at the fact that 9 of the 10 states most over-represented in casualties are RED STATES.
And to make it even more clear, 7 of the 10 states that are most under-represented in US casualties are BLUE STATES.
To the 'red states' of middle-America (in a broad sense): You are sending your own sons and daughters to war. And disproportionally, it is your sons and daughters who are dying for this country, in a war that was unjustified and has gone on too long. I have very close friends and relatives that have come back from 2 and 3 tours of duty. And I know that they don't politicize the war like the rest of America does. They go over there, they do their job, and they see the good and the bad that comes from the US being there.
But that's not what's I'm getting at here.
I'm simply observing that red states paid a greater (proportional) price for the war than the blue states did. And yet it is the red states who are more apt to vote in another candidate who supports the war and agrees with the policies of George Bush. A candidate who has said he wouldn't mind staying in Iraq another 1000 years.
Like I said, there is no spin. But there is a hypothesis. And that's my hypothesis. And you can disagree with it.
Now, back to those religious people who flock to the polls more vehemently in support of a few social issues than they do in support of their own lives and self-interest;
To all of you-- is it really worth more of the same, in defense of social issues that look to impose and not to liberate? You can choose to practice abstinence and discourage a woman's right to choose... in your own families and homes.
In the history of America, as in most countries, there has always been a struggle between liberalism and conservatism. And looking back at the junctures and the biggest forks in the road over the years, it seems that each time we took the more liberal path -- whether in abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote, instituting free speech, protecting Civil Rights -- it was, in hindsight, the virtuous path.
As it is now.
And maybe you disagree that those past decisions were "correct". And in that case, you are a bigot, a sexist, a racist, or a fascist. Sorry, you are.
I'll end this whole thing by just saying to our troops abroad: Stay safe, we support you, and we hope you come home soon.
Bless America.
-----------------
*(And if we're keeping it real here, many Republicans deny smear campaigns on Democratic candidates or say it happens both ways. In all honesty, I want someone to point out a smear campaign against Bush or McCain. Not something regarding either of their stances or policies, but something that unfairly used a quote or action or piece of history to prey on the fear and cynicism of American citizens.)
"You just don't get it, do you?"
And this hits me as something I feel like saying to so many middle class voters in America that have a McCain sticker on their car or a sign in their front lawn.
And I'm not saying this in a condescending way. In all seriousness, I'm not.
And I'm not saying this to the ones who are so blindly religious that they dismiss me because:
(a) I don't care if two gay people get married.
(b) I support a woman's right to choose
(c) Of some other Christian moral value that has been rammed down the throat of our "secular" society.
Because those people's mind's cannot be changed. Fine. I won't even try. Feel free to dismiss me.
But I am saying it to those that voted Bush because he felt like "one of us", or because you could "have a beer with him", or who fell prey to smear campaigns.*
And I'm saying, look at what it got you. And look what it's going to get you. The American middle-class is in terrible shape. From health care, to the housing market, to the declining dollar, to gas prices, etc, etc, etc.
And most of all, your sons and daughters. Let me introduce you to a little known but very interesting fact. There is no spin here. There are two sets of hard statistical data: the US population and the number and hometown of US troops killed in support of the current Iraq campaign. (The red-state/blue-state breakdown is as it was in the 2004 Presidential election.)
Look at the fact that 9 of the 10 states most over-represented in casualties are RED STATES.
And to make it even more clear, 7 of the 10 states that are most under-represented in US casualties are BLUE STATES.
To the 'red states' of middle-America (in a broad sense): You are sending your own sons and daughters to war. And disproportionally, it is your sons and daughters who are dying for this country, in a war that was unjustified and has gone on too long. I have very close friends and relatives that have come back from 2 and 3 tours of duty. And I know that they don't politicize the war like the rest of America does. They go over there, they do their job, and they see the good and the bad that comes from the US being there.
But that's not what's I'm getting at here.
I'm simply observing that red states paid a greater (proportional) price for the war than the blue states did. And yet it is the red states who are more apt to vote in another candidate who supports the war and agrees with the policies of George Bush. A candidate who has said he wouldn't mind staying in Iraq another 1000 years.
Like I said, there is no spin. But there is a hypothesis. And that's my hypothesis. And you can disagree with it.
Now, back to those religious people who flock to the polls more vehemently in support of a few social issues than they do in support of their own lives and self-interest;
To all of you-- is it really worth more of the same, in defense of social issues that look to impose and not to liberate? You can choose to practice abstinence and discourage a woman's right to choose... in your own families and homes.
In the history of America, as in most countries, there has always been a struggle between liberalism and conservatism. And looking back at the junctures and the biggest forks in the road over the years, it seems that each time we took the more liberal path -- whether in abolishing slavery, giving women the right to vote, instituting free speech, protecting Civil Rights -- it was, in hindsight, the virtuous path.
As it is now.
And maybe you disagree that those past decisions were "correct". And in that case, you are a bigot, a sexist, a racist, or a fascist. Sorry, you are.
I'll end this whole thing by just saying to our troops abroad: Stay safe, we support you, and we hope you come home soon.
Bless America.
-----------------
*(And if we're keeping it real here, many Republicans deny smear campaigns on Democratic candidates or say it happens both ways. In all honesty, I want someone to point out a smear campaign against Bush or McCain. Not something regarding either of their stances or policies, but something that unfairly used a quote or action or piece of history to prey on the fear and cynicism of American citizens.)
Taking A Step Back
After I read something that really moves me, I like to wait a while and then go read an opposing viewpoint. So I went online and read some very harsh words about Adam McKay's blog entry.
A lot of people felt it was a bunch of B.S. -- A very leftist, slanted view of feeling sorry for one's self on a fair playing field. And I can see why. It's a lot to swallow.
And although I tend to agree with what he said -- that the media conglomerates (not the individual reporters themselves) are generally self-interested and thus looking to maximize profit and increase ratings, and that this makes a close election out of what should be a landslide on account of a referendum on the Bush years (something we heard in 2004, but not as much in 2008) -- I'd like to look at it from another angle.
OK, so let's take a step back. Can we all at least agree on something? I'm going to throw this out here:
I'm not saying that the media is favoring the left or the right for now. I'm just gonna say that in a national presidential election, it benefits the entire media machine to have a close race. I mean, think about it in terms sports. Can you see NBC saying, "Tune in next week when the Chicago Bulls demolish the Cleveland Cavaliers! It's not even going to be close folks; the Bulls are going to wipe the floor with the Cav's faces!"
Of course not. The "closer" it's gonna be -- the more it makes it a "better" game and the more likely you're gonna put it in the 'Can't miss TV' bin.
And unlike sports, there is always one or more teams that we haven't seen before. In 2000, we didn't know how Gore or Bush would perform as president. Bush had a president-Dad, but Gore served as VP. It's like watching a one-on-one game between an NBA player's son who's never been in a real game and some guy who's sat the bench for an NBA team all season. It's hard to judge. So you can hype it up as a close match as much as you want. These are untested players and uncharted territory. But unlike a sports match, the consequences are very serious and very real.
So wouldn't it make sense that the media are going to keep things close for as long as possible in the public's eyes. When Obama gets ahead in the Polls, find another poll that says he's behind. And when McCain is leading, find another poll that shows Obama just edging him out. And when you've led 4 headlines about McCain and Palin gaffes, you've got to balance it out by showing an Obama camp misstep.
YES. It does. It's common sense. And it seems like something we should all be able to agree on. With 55 days left and lots of adspace to fill, the media wants to keep this thing as close as possible. Even if it shouldn't be.
A lot of people felt it was a bunch of B.S. -- A very leftist, slanted view of feeling sorry for one's self on a fair playing field. And I can see why. It's a lot to swallow.
And although I tend to agree with what he said -- that the media conglomerates (not the individual reporters themselves) are generally self-interested and thus looking to maximize profit and increase ratings, and that this makes a close election out of what should be a landslide on account of a referendum on the Bush years (something we heard in 2004, but not as much in 2008) -- I'd like to look at it from another angle.
OK, so let's take a step back. Can we all at least agree on something? I'm going to throw this out here:
I'm not saying that the media is favoring the left or the right for now. I'm just gonna say that in a national presidential election, it benefits the entire media machine to have a close race. I mean, think about it in terms sports. Can you see NBC saying, "Tune in next week when the Chicago Bulls demolish the Cleveland Cavaliers! It's not even going to be close folks; the Bulls are going to wipe the floor with the Cav's faces!"
Of course not. The "closer" it's gonna be -- the more it makes it a "better" game and the more likely you're gonna put it in the 'Can't miss TV' bin.
And unlike sports, there is always one or more teams that we haven't seen before. In 2000, we didn't know how Gore or Bush would perform as president. Bush had a president-Dad, but Gore served as VP. It's like watching a one-on-one game between an NBA player's son who's never been in a real game and some guy who's sat the bench for an NBA team all season. It's hard to judge. So you can hype it up as a close match as much as you want. These are untested players and uncharted territory. But unlike a sports match, the consequences are very serious and very real.
So wouldn't it make sense that the media are going to keep things close for as long as possible in the public's eyes. When Obama gets ahead in the Polls, find another poll that says he's behind. And when McCain is leading, find another poll that shows Obama just edging him out. And when you've led 4 headlines about McCain and Palin gaffes, you've got to balance it out by showing an Obama camp misstep.
YES. It does. It's common sense. And it seems like something we should all be able to agree on. With 55 days left and lots of adspace to fill, the media wants to keep this thing as close as possible. Even if it shouldn't be.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The Best Thing I've Read Lately.
THIS WAS WRITTEN BY ADAM MCKAY
We're Gonna Frickin' Lose this Thing
"Stop saying that!" my wife says to me. But this is not a high school football game and I'm not a cheerleader with a bad attitude. This is an election and as things stand now, we're gonna frickin' lose this thing. Obama and McCain at best are even in the polls nationally and in a recent Gallup poll McCain is ahead by four points.
Something is not right. We have a terrific candidate and a terrific VP candidate. We're coming off the worst eight years in our country's history. Six of those eight years the Congress, White House and even the Supreme Court were controlled by the Republicans and the last two years the R's have filibustered like tantrum throwing 4-year-olds, yet we're going to elect a Republican who voted with that leadership 90% of the time and a former sportscaster who wants to teach Adam and Eve as science? That's not odd as a difference of opinion, that's logically and mathematically queer.
It reminds me of playing blackjack (a losers game). You make all the right moves, play the right hands but basically the House always wins. I know what you're going to say " But I won twelve hundred dollars last year in Atlantic City!" Of course there are victories. The odds aren't tilted crazy, but there is a 51%-49% advantage. And in the long run, the house has to win. The house will win.
So what is this house advantage the Republicans have? It's the press. There is no more fourth estate. Wait, hold on...I'm not going down some esoteric path with theories on the deregulation of the media and corporate bias and CNN versus Fox...I mean it: there is no more functioning press in this country. And without a real press the corporate and religious Republicans can lie all they want and get away with it. And that's the 51% advantage.
Think this is some opinion being wryly posited to titillate other bloggers and inspire dialogue with Tucker Carlson or Gore Vidal? Fuck that. Four corporations own all the TV channels. All of them. If they don't get ratings they get canceled or fired. All news is about sex, blame and anger, and fear. Exposing lies about amounts of money taken from lobbyists and votes cast for the agenda of the last eight years does not rate. The end.
So one side can lie and get away with it. Now let's throw in one more advantage. Voter caging and other corruption on the local level with voting. Check out the article here on HuffPost about Ohio messing with 600K voters. If only five thousand of those voters don't or can't vote that's a huge advantage in a contest that could be decided by literally dozens of votes. That takes us to about a 52 to 48% advantage.
Story continues below advertisementI'm not even getting into the fact that the religious right teaches closed mindedness so it's almost impossible to gain new voters from their pool because people who disagree with them are agents of the devil. I just want to look at two inarguable realities: A) we have no more press and B) the Repubs are screwing with the voters on the local level.
I'm telling you, we're going to lose this thing. And afterwords we'll blame ourselves the same way we did with Gore and Kerry (two candidates a thousand times more qualified to lead than W Bush.) Just watch.. McCain wins by a point or two and we all walk around saying things like "Obama was too well spoken." "Biden wasn't lovable enough." "I shouldn't have split those eights." "Why did I hit on 16? Why?!"
So what do we do?
1) We give definitive clear speeches like Biden and Obama gave the other day about how no one talked about any issues at the Republican Convention and how they outright lied. But we do them over and over again. 2) We use the one place where it's still a 50-50 game -- the internet -- as much as we can. 3) But most importantly we should bring up re-regulating the media and who owns it and what that conflict of interest is a lot more. By pretending there's no conflict of interest we're failing to alert the public that they're being lied to or given a looking at a coin at the bottom of a pool slanted truth. Every time a pundit or elected official is on any TV news program it should be a polite formality to mention that GE has made such and such billions off the war in Iraq by selling arms or that Murdoch is a right-wing activist with a clear stake in who wins and who taxes his profits the least. Disney, GE, Viacom, and Murdoch -- all want profits and the candidate and agenda that will get in their way the least.
Obama and Biden should also create a "master sound bite sentence" and repeat it hundreds of times. It should be so true that even the corporations can't screw with it when it makes the airwaves. Here's my attempt: "Katrina, four dollar gas, a trillion dollar war, rising unemployment, deregulated housing market, global warming...no more."
This race should be about whether the Republican Party is going to be dismantled or not after the borderline treason of the past eight years. But instead it is about making the word "community organizer" a dirty word and a beauty queen who shoots foxes from a plane. Someone is not in any way doing their job and it's the press. Or more specifically, that job no longer exists.
Probably the worst offenders are the pundits who take the position that it's all just a game and say phrases like "getting a post-convention bump" or "playing to the soccer Moms." This isn't a game of Monopoly or Survivor. There are real truths that exist outside of the spin they are given and have an effect on lives. 250,000 Iraqi civilians are dead because we let our reality be distorted by the most effective propaganda machine in fifty years, the corporate American press. Money and jobs are flying out of this country as our currency becomes worthless and we're talking about the fact that McCain is a veteran. If someone busted into your house and robbed you would you then forgive them if you found out they were a veteran? Of course not. So why are we forgiving McCain for selling out his country by supporting the Bush agenda?
This is it folks. If McCain takes power we fade and become Australia in the seventies: a backwoods country with occasional flashes of relevance. Except we've got a way bigger military and we're angrier. People will get hurt and we'll pay the bill for the bullets. I'm telling you, unless we wake up, we're gonna lose this frickin' thing.
ORIGINAL LINK HERE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-mckay/were-gonna-frickin-lose-t_b_124772.html
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Keep Patriotism Simple
pa·tri·ot·ism (pā'trē-ə-tĭz'əm) n. Love of and devotion to one's country.
Why is it so hard to realize that patriotism can manifest itself in countless ways?
Going to war in uniform is not the only accepted form of patriotism.
"I make no pretension to patriotism. So long as my voice can be heard on this or the other side of the Atlantic, I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this, I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins. It is righteousness that exalteth a nation while sin is a reproach to any people."
-Frederick Douglas
Those who capitulate to the Republican fear machine are not bad people. Their heart may be in the right place. They're afraid of not being a "true patriot" -- but refuse to question what a true patriot is.
Those that question and examine those governing them are patriots.
Demanding truth, demanding answers, and demanding change.
Do we forget that we are a nation founded by a single act of justifiable and beautiful traitorship?
Read the Declaration of Independence. It never fails to inspire.
Why is it so hard to realize that patriotism can manifest itself in countless ways?
Going to war in uniform is not the only accepted form of patriotism.
"I make no pretension to patriotism. So long as my voice can be heard on this or the other side of the Atlantic, I will hold up America to the lightning scorn of moral indignation. In doing this, I shall feel myself discharging the duty of a true patriot; for he is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins. It is righteousness that exalteth a nation while sin is a reproach to any people."
-Frederick Douglas
Those who capitulate to the Republican fear machine are not bad people. Their heart may be in the right place. They're afraid of not being a "true patriot" -- but refuse to question what a true patriot is.
Those that question and examine those governing them are patriots.
Demanding truth, demanding answers, and demanding change.
Do we forget that we are a nation founded by a single act of justifiable and beautiful traitorship?
Read the Declaration of Independence. It never fails to inspire.
Could the DOI be used against Bush?
In actuality, no.
But read some of this shit. Seems so relevant, 200+ years later.
Yes, as a reminder, America is just over 200 years old and we act invincible. For the record, Rome lasted almost 500 years.
Anyway... Now to some DOI quotes:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands 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.
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 of 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.
...
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.
...
[The King] has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
...
But read some of this shit. Seems so relevant, 200+ years later.
Yes, as a reminder, America is just over 200 years old and we act invincible. For the record, Rome lasted almost 500 years.
Anyway... Now to some DOI quotes:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands 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.
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 of 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.
...
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.
...
[The King] has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
...
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation."
Declaration of Independents
I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I will vote for whomever will make this country a better place.
In the election of 2008, the choice seems clear.
In the election of 2008, the choice seems clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
