Credit Card- Plastic passport to the valley of the shadow of debt.
Credit Rating- A confidential report card circulated among creditors for the purpose of ascertaining whether a given consumer has incurred enough debts to be considered a sound risk.
Socialism- Transformation of the state into a milquetoast Robin Hood, a pudgy gray bureaucrat who robs from the spirit to give to the poor
Unemployment- The usual alternative to overwork. A full-time job that depletes energy and morale even more effectively than one's former occupation.
Union- An exclusive club for manual laborers, esp. those with well-placed in-laws. Formerly the socialist underbelly of the American corporation; now notable for having transformed blue-collar workers into staunch conservatives with a patch of lawn to keep impeccably trimmed and weeded.
Xenophobia- A pervasive fear and loathing of anything foreign, commonly voiced by Americans of European ancestry as they dine on pork lo mein while enjoying Arnold Schwarzenegger on their Japanese VCRs.
-From: The Cynic's Dictionary by Rick Bayan
Are you tired of the incessant dribble that holds our political system hostage? Has the overall glibness of humanity finally pushed your last button? Well, chances are you found the right place. So come on in and take a seat. This blog is aimed to reach out to those of you who are in search of virtue and truth. But be prepared, this blog explores more faucets than right-left politics. It’s a doorway to philosophy and self sustainable thought, with a natural twist of cynicism!
Monday, March 16, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
When the Patriots Became Unpatriotic
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”... The United States Constitution (Preamble)
When did patriotism become such a cliché? Has its abundant use desensitized our country to the actual meaning? Let's get it straight right now. Patriotism is the love for ones country and the fundamental ideas from which it was founded and portrays. Land of the free and home of the brave, sound familiar? The definition is simple enough. However, the devil is in the details. Many choose to express their patriotism in a variety of manners. The founding fathers rebelled against the British and historians tell their stories. Since then, soldiers have fought and died in the name of patriotism. Politicians enact it in legislation and policies. School teachers instill patriotism into the minds of young Americans everyday during the pledge of allegiance. Even the protester with a picket sign on the white house lawn chanting about civil rights is showing their patriotism. However, contrary to popular belief, patriotism is not shown in a lapel pin, bumper sticker, or even a belt buckle (all of which were more than likely made in China anyway). These are merely superficial expressions of patriotism and not the actual act. Moreover, patriotism is not synonymous to a political party or to a particular group. In fact, party politics abuse of the word “patriotism” is why I sit here writing this. Still interested? Well pull up a chair and lend me your ear.
During the early 1600's, separatists fleeing religious persecution from the Church of England began to settle here in America in what they named New England. We know them as the Pilgrims. Soon the popularity of the New World grew and more joined the settlements. Well it wasn't long until the new residents sought to officially liberate themselves from English tyranny. Those who stood against the British were the first patriots. This progressive bunch included Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and many others. These were the original patriots and they upheld republicanism ideals.
The model of republicanism is based on public officials being voted (not inherited) into office because they are believed to be the best suited for the particular job. This in combination with the three separate branches of government helps ensure that no particular person or group has absolute power. Furthermore, our founding fathers enacted our Constitution for the lawmakers to abide by when writing new legislation and enforcing the law. They were firm believers in the individual-rights of the people and also emphasized the separation of church and state. That is what America was founded on and its motto: E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one).
Freedom or safety: Who decides and where's the patriotism? The Bill of Rights guarantees all American citizens a number of basic individual rights. These rights range from “A right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty” to “A right to be treated the same as others, regardless of race, sex, religious preference, and other personal attributes.” Even though these rights are guaranteed, they are still open to interpretation and criticism. It is the role of the courts to translate these rights into the laws of the land. Unquestionably, that is how the system works. However, I am a partial public-order advocate. This means that under certain circumstances, I believe public safety should take precedence over individual rights. Please note, that this model basically assumes that everybody is playing by the same set of rules and that those rules could be bent or broken for the sake of public safety. For example, racial profiling for terrorists at an airport is considered an infringement on basic civil rights. However, for the sake of public safety, such methods should be considered in a "ticking bomb" type of scenario. So in essence, under extreme circumstances, I believe that if people aren't willing to allow some of the rules to be bent for the sake of public safety, they are NOT PATRIOTS. But not to the degree that the USA PATRIOT ACT assumes from Americans.
The USA PATRIOT ACT is a seemingly clever acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. In a nutshell, this Act's purpose is designed to dramatically enhance police investigatory authority. Many of the methods however are widely considered controversial and unconstitutional. For instance, “sneek and peek” searches were broadened to further empower the prosecution. This means that searches can be done in the absence of individuals without prior notice more easily under this Act. Another extremely unsettling provision in the USA PATRIOT ACT is in Sec 213: Authority For Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant. What this means is that authorities can perform searches or other court orders without immediately providing a warrant. Obviously the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other individual-rights advocate groups believe that this provision is a direct infringement on the Fourth Amendment Right that protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also is supposed to guarantee that a search warrant is provided to the person whose property will be searched before the actual search is to take place. Sadly, these examples of the provisions within the Patriot Act barely grazes the civil right infringements inherent to this legislation.
Social conservative, friend or foe? Well the answer is subjective to the individual and varies in regards to historical timescales. Throughout written history many socially conservative individuals have made their marks in their respective times and civilizations (for better or worse). Political leaders who have been socially conservative range from Ronald Reagan to Adolf Hitler. Truthfully, the comparison isn't that far off base either. Sure, one was a tyrant and the other was Hitler. But together, they held the same sort of philosophies that are inherent to conservatism. They both wanted to maintain the status quo. The question is: How can we ever advance as a nation if we seek to maintain a failing status quo?
Let's take a look at some of the current socially conservative standpoints here in America. Lately gay marriage and abortion are among the major aspects of the status quo that right wingers fight to conserve. As a patriot, I believe that EVERY American is entitled to the same basic rights and freedoms of choice. I'll never understand why conservatives fight to preserve the definition of marriage to include only a “man and a woman.” The basis of the argument always rests on the bible (which of course condoned slavery) and the notion that somehow gay marriage will lessen the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. It is delusional thought and sounds much like the religious persecution that our founding fathers fought against. Furthermore, it's not simply the title of marriage that gays are currently fighting for. They're fighting for partnership rights that are inherent to traditional marriages, i.e., insurance coverage, credit benefits, etc. Then there is the dirty little topic of abortion. For some reason this is a touchy subject. I can understand the appreciation of every human life. But lets face facts. Abortions take place for a variety of reasons that range from rape and incest to the health of the mother. Of course the arguments against abortion fall back on religion (and besides, a clump of cells has no consciousness). However, the world does not march to the beat of the same drum. Sure, gay dudes creep me out and I'll never get pregnant, but I won't be the one promoting limitations on the rights of Americans. You know why? Because anybody who wishes to limit the fundamental rights of other Americans IS NOT A PATRIOT.
I have been noticing a reoccurring trend in the corners of the right and left wings. Since we have had a Democratic president the right wingers have been creating gigantic fields of static. But not all the right wingers. The majority of the business class Republicans did not vote for McCain. They knew McCain could not deliver the sort of economic support needed in these troubling times. After all, the Republican party has dramatically strayed from its traditional business class ideals (remember a thing called balanced budgets?). But I digress. The right wingers I am referring to are the far right Evangelical base. The ones who don't necessarily care for or really even understand how the economy works. Now because their candidate lost, they've become doomsayers and began generating turmoil for the new Democratic president. The same thing happened with Clinton. The far right criticized everything he did particularly for the first 6 months of his administration and he didn't accomplish much that wasn't under intense scrutiny (and ultimately Clinton was responsible for the largest economic expansion in history). Unfortunately, this criticism wasn't constructive. To the contrary, this criticism was destructive. Here is where the right wing and left wing differs. Generally speaking, from my experiences, when the right loses, they want the left to fail, just so they can say “I told you so.” When the right wing is in power, like during the Bush administration, the majority of the left didn't want bush to fail. They simply wanted him to do his job. Sure, the left heavily criticized everything, but it was for a different reason. The left criticized because they expected more from an elected official. Granted, a minority were indeed rooting for Bush to fail, especially in Iraq, but nowhere near the percentages of the right on every issue. In any case, the fact remains the same: Anybody, on any side that wants the other political party to FAIL, is NOT A PATRIOT.
Patriotism is a touchy subject for some and it's important to remember that I'm not pushing an agenda. I don't want to give a group special treatment. I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of the thought patterns being displayed by my fellow Americans. I believe every American is entitled to the same rights and choices. Restricting the rights of other Americans is small scale treason. It's a disloyalty to our Constitution and seriously injures the core fundamentals our country was founded on. I also believe that if a particular person or group purposely yearns for the opposite political party to fail they are NOT patriotic. The bottom line is simple. An individual cannot claim patriotism simply by displaying American flags or saying they are patriotic. Patriotism is an ideal that is lived and adhered to. It's not a negotiable concept or inherent to a political party. We cannot cherry pick which constitutional rights we choose to uphold. Our forefathers liberated our country from these same types of restrictions and wrote us out the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would roll over in their graves if they saw how these political ideologies infringe on our individual rights. I don't know when it happened, but somewhere along the line the patriots became unpatriotic.
A final thought:
I believe organized religion creates large degrees of cognitive dissonance in people. I've seen people torn between issues like evolution and creationism simply because of what they hear in church. Deep down inside, they know that the scientific evidence is overwhelming and all but impossible to ignore. However, their religion binds them to false notions of the physical world and they go through great mental debates where they justify these false notions with vague generalizations written in the bible. My greatest fear is that this mentality will keep procrastinating the advancement of our nation until it ends like a Greek tragedy....Mythologies need to be excluded from issues of state. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about this philosophy in the constitution (and for just cause). We cannot advance as a nation when so many members care more about restricting the rights of others than the faith they put into science. Just because people believe in god, doesn't give them the right to go around and act like complete morons. This attitude compromises the integrity of all the sacrifices done by true patriots.
When did patriotism become such a cliché? Has its abundant use desensitized our country to the actual meaning? Let's get it straight right now. Patriotism is the love for ones country and the fundamental ideas from which it was founded and portrays. Land of the free and home of the brave, sound familiar? The definition is simple enough. However, the devil is in the details. Many choose to express their patriotism in a variety of manners. The founding fathers rebelled against the British and historians tell their stories. Since then, soldiers have fought and died in the name of patriotism. Politicians enact it in legislation and policies. School teachers instill patriotism into the minds of young Americans everyday during the pledge of allegiance. Even the protester with a picket sign on the white house lawn chanting about civil rights is showing their patriotism. However, contrary to popular belief, patriotism is not shown in a lapel pin, bumper sticker, or even a belt buckle (all of which were more than likely made in China anyway). These are merely superficial expressions of patriotism and not the actual act. Moreover, patriotism is not synonymous to a political party or to a particular group. In fact, party politics abuse of the word “patriotism” is why I sit here writing this. Still interested? Well pull up a chair and lend me your ear.
During the early 1600's, separatists fleeing religious persecution from the Church of England began to settle here in America in what they named New England. We know them as the Pilgrims. Soon the popularity of the New World grew and more joined the settlements. Well it wasn't long until the new residents sought to officially liberate themselves from English tyranny. Those who stood against the British were the first patriots. This progressive bunch included Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and many others. These were the original patriots and they upheld republicanism ideals.
The model of republicanism is based on public officials being voted (not inherited) into office because they are believed to be the best suited for the particular job. This in combination with the three separate branches of government helps ensure that no particular person or group has absolute power. Furthermore, our founding fathers enacted our Constitution for the lawmakers to abide by when writing new legislation and enforcing the law. They were firm believers in the individual-rights of the people and also emphasized the separation of church and state. That is what America was founded on and its motto: E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one).
Freedom or safety: Who decides and where's the patriotism? The Bill of Rights guarantees all American citizens a number of basic individual rights. These rights range from “A right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty” to “A right to be treated the same as others, regardless of race, sex, religious preference, and other personal attributes.” Even though these rights are guaranteed, they are still open to interpretation and criticism. It is the role of the courts to translate these rights into the laws of the land. Unquestionably, that is how the system works. However, I am a partial public-order advocate. This means that under certain circumstances, I believe public safety should take precedence over individual rights. Please note, that this model basically assumes that everybody is playing by the same set of rules and that those rules could be bent or broken for the sake of public safety. For example, racial profiling for terrorists at an airport is considered an infringement on basic civil rights. However, for the sake of public safety, such methods should be considered in a "ticking bomb" type of scenario. So in essence, under extreme circumstances, I believe that if people aren't willing to allow some of the rules to be bent for the sake of public safety, they are NOT PATRIOTS. But not to the degree that the USA PATRIOT ACT assumes from Americans.
The USA PATRIOT ACT is a seemingly clever acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act. In a nutshell, this Act's purpose is designed to dramatically enhance police investigatory authority. Many of the methods however are widely considered controversial and unconstitutional. For instance, “sneek and peek” searches were broadened to further empower the prosecution. This means that searches can be done in the absence of individuals without prior notice more easily under this Act. Another extremely unsettling provision in the USA PATRIOT ACT is in Sec 213: Authority For Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant. What this means is that authorities can perform searches or other court orders without immediately providing a warrant. Obviously the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other individual-rights advocate groups believe that this provision is a direct infringement on the Fourth Amendment Right that protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also is supposed to guarantee that a search warrant is provided to the person whose property will be searched before the actual search is to take place. Sadly, these examples of the provisions within the Patriot Act barely grazes the civil right infringements inherent to this legislation.
Social conservative, friend or foe? Well the answer is subjective to the individual and varies in regards to historical timescales. Throughout written history many socially conservative individuals have made their marks in their respective times and civilizations (for better or worse). Political leaders who have been socially conservative range from Ronald Reagan to Adolf Hitler. Truthfully, the comparison isn't that far off base either. Sure, one was a tyrant and the other was Hitler. But together, they held the same sort of philosophies that are inherent to conservatism. They both wanted to maintain the status quo. The question is: How can we ever advance as a nation if we seek to maintain a failing status quo?
Let's take a look at some of the current socially conservative standpoints here in America. Lately gay marriage and abortion are among the major aspects of the status quo that right wingers fight to conserve. As a patriot, I believe that EVERY American is entitled to the same basic rights and freedoms of choice. I'll never understand why conservatives fight to preserve the definition of marriage to include only a “man and a woman.” The basis of the argument always rests on the bible (which of course condoned slavery) and the notion that somehow gay marriage will lessen the sanctity of heterosexual marriage. It is delusional thought and sounds much like the religious persecution that our founding fathers fought against. Furthermore, it's not simply the title of marriage that gays are currently fighting for. They're fighting for partnership rights that are inherent to traditional marriages, i.e., insurance coverage, credit benefits, etc. Then there is the dirty little topic of abortion. For some reason this is a touchy subject. I can understand the appreciation of every human life. But lets face facts. Abortions take place for a variety of reasons that range from rape and incest to the health of the mother. Of course the arguments against abortion fall back on religion (and besides, a clump of cells has no consciousness). However, the world does not march to the beat of the same drum. Sure, gay dudes creep me out and I'll never get pregnant, but I won't be the one promoting limitations on the rights of Americans. You know why? Because anybody who wishes to limit the fundamental rights of other Americans IS NOT A PATRIOT.
I have been noticing a reoccurring trend in the corners of the right and left wings. Since we have had a Democratic president the right wingers have been creating gigantic fields of static. But not all the right wingers. The majority of the business class Republicans did not vote for McCain. They knew McCain could not deliver the sort of economic support needed in these troubling times. After all, the Republican party has dramatically strayed from its traditional business class ideals (remember a thing called balanced budgets?). But I digress. The right wingers I am referring to are the far right Evangelical base. The ones who don't necessarily care for or really even understand how the economy works. Now because their candidate lost, they've become doomsayers and began generating turmoil for the new Democratic president. The same thing happened with Clinton. The far right criticized everything he did particularly for the first 6 months of his administration and he didn't accomplish much that wasn't under intense scrutiny (and ultimately Clinton was responsible for the largest economic expansion in history). Unfortunately, this criticism wasn't constructive. To the contrary, this criticism was destructive. Here is where the right wing and left wing differs. Generally speaking, from my experiences, when the right loses, they want the left to fail, just so they can say “I told you so.” When the right wing is in power, like during the Bush administration, the majority of the left didn't want bush to fail. They simply wanted him to do his job. Sure, the left heavily criticized everything, but it was for a different reason. The left criticized because they expected more from an elected official. Granted, a minority were indeed rooting for Bush to fail, especially in Iraq, but nowhere near the percentages of the right on every issue. In any case, the fact remains the same: Anybody, on any side that wants the other political party to FAIL, is NOT A PATRIOT.
Patriotism is a touchy subject for some and it's important to remember that I'm not pushing an agenda. I don't want to give a group special treatment. I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of the thought patterns being displayed by my fellow Americans. I believe every American is entitled to the same rights and choices. Restricting the rights of other Americans is small scale treason. It's a disloyalty to our Constitution and seriously injures the core fundamentals our country was founded on. I also believe that if a particular person or group purposely yearns for the opposite political party to fail they are NOT patriotic. The bottom line is simple. An individual cannot claim patriotism simply by displaying American flags or saying they are patriotic. Patriotism is an ideal that is lived and adhered to. It's not a negotiable concept or inherent to a political party. We cannot cherry pick which constitutional rights we choose to uphold. Our forefathers liberated our country from these same types of restrictions and wrote us out the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would roll over in their graves if they saw how these political ideologies infringe on our individual rights. I don't know when it happened, but somewhere along the line the patriots became unpatriotic.
A final thought:
I believe organized religion creates large degrees of cognitive dissonance in people. I've seen people torn between issues like evolution and creationism simply because of what they hear in church. Deep down inside, they know that the scientific evidence is overwhelming and all but impossible to ignore. However, their religion binds them to false notions of the physical world and they go through great mental debates where they justify these false notions with vague generalizations written in the bible. My greatest fear is that this mentality will keep procrastinating the advancement of our nation until it ends like a Greek tragedy....Mythologies need to be excluded from issues of state. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about this philosophy in the constitution (and for just cause). We cannot advance as a nation when so many members care more about restricting the rights of others than the faith they put into science. Just because people believe in god, doesn't give them the right to go around and act like complete morons. This attitude compromises the integrity of all the sacrifices done by true patriots.