All Things Being Equal

I have watched the movie Lincoln a dozen times or more, now. Forgiving the filmmaker's habit of glossing and smoothing over history to present a coherent narrative thread, it is still a window into a time when the story of equality was still raw and jagged. A time when it was far easier to dismiss those of darker skins to being inferior to the marbled and mottled white of the Founding Fathers.

At one point, Daniel Day-Lewis' President Lincoln relates learning of Euclid's First Axiom: Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another. It is a jumping off point for the coming vote on the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery, per the story.

Euclid spoke of the "self-evident" nature of his Axioms. They were true because they were true. They were bedrock principles of geometry and mathematics; neither would function without such things as the First Axiom being true. The movie extends the idea that perhaps this could be considered a starting point for that immortal phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are create equal." More importantly, it applies the idea to people, that they are, in fact, all people.

What seems self-evident to modern eyes was not so to 17th, 18th, or 19th Century ones. The movie accurately, but perhaps too softly, portrays the revulsion of White men at the idea they might be considered equivalent to Black men. Opposition to the Thirteenth Amendment was not necessarily because anyone wanted to promote slavery further, or maintain its legality, but due to the idea that millions of freed Black people would demand equality under the law, and White men were not ready to give it to them.

We step one hundred fifty years into the future, and the idea of equality has taken on broader connotations. There is still the Black-White divide, as healthy as ever, written into the very marrow of our society, but now so many other groups are subject to variations on the theme. Hispanic and Latin individuals, members of the LGBTQ community, the disabled... humanity has had equality divvied up and partialed out in microscopic quantities to be fought over by many groups, like a pack of ravenous animals, while the White power structure works feverishly to retain the power to do the divvying and partialing out. The result is the inevitable: White fear of extinction driving us to an administration wholly incapable of running a nation, populated by those who were never capable of doing so in the first place.

If the current situation does nothing more, it should galvanize us into action. We've been deficient in our maintenance of government, and lacking in the moral firmness to drive bigotry, hate, and greed from the halls of Congress and the Oval Office. It's time we stopped assuming that someone will take care of the things necessary to restore order. That was always our responsibility. Many Founding Fathers were skeptical we could do it, but they gave us the power nonetheless. If we were slow to recognize the coming onslaught, we have enough outrage within us to light the fire necessary drive it back. If we take action.

We, who are enjoined to affirm and believe in equality, know the stakes. It is not just the equality of race that must concern us, though this does run through every other area of concern. We must establish equality of Justice. We must establish equality of Income. We must establish Equality of Health. We must establish Equality of Care. We must establish Equality of Education. Most importantly, we must establish Equality of Representation, for all time. It is time for the Constitution to receive proper upgrades, and safeguards, and to retire those parts of it no longer relevant to the modern age of humanity.

This is on us. All of us. But it starts with those of use who carry the same privilege as those who now seek to roll back the clock on American history, to a nonexistent "gilded" age. The easiest way to tear down a system built on White privilege is by White privilege, from the inside. If we are reticent because we are afraid of what we will lose, then we do not understand that we have already lost it. No amount of freedom, liberty, or justice we may hold means anything while it is shared unequally with our fellow citizens of all types. If we do not work to ensure equality in all things, we stand to watch our society tear itself apart as these groups try to wrest from us what we could simply impart by our efforts on their behalf.

It is no longer possible to maintain the current state of affairs. We fight for what we know is right, or as President Lincoln once said, our nation stands to die by suicide.

One Nation, Under Siege

It became clear the moment Barack Obama was declared the winner of the 2008 Presidential election, that a shift was occurring in American society, a momentous shift, the momentum for which had built over the decades since the end of the 1960's. In the highest bastion of white male dominance, a black man would reign, finally.

To many, it signaled the end of the world.

A cherished view of a nation dominated by the last vestiges of the exclusively white, male Founding Fathers was torn asunder, as if the Starts and Stripes were ripped from a flagpole, dashed to the ground, and trampled. The harsh, unendurable reality of hundreds years of secession, repression, segregation, criminalization, denigration, and enslavement of a people burst forth, as the damming of their drive for freedom was damned by the weakness of a white race unwilling or unable to accept that their view of the black race was built of tissues of self-approbation, self-delusion, and ignorance, not one single stone of truth.

As this wave of change flooded the lands once fertile with overt racism, the spores of that fetid crop were given rise to flourish once more in the light, nourished by the delusional hatred thus uncovered. So it began that the tattered remnants of those forces antithetical to the nation knit themselves into groups that hoisted banners long dormant, taking them to be symbols of the "true" nation, and voicing opposition to anything that spoke to the unity of the disparate elements that, conjoined, make up the United States. Suddenly, it was no longer all of us created equal, but some of us more equal -- and thus more deserving -- of freedoms than others.

These misguided miscreants, buoyed by their wretched enthusiasm, exhorted and supported by The Monied Powers, took to the airwaves and the ballot boxes and battered their way into Federal government, and as the mouse that nests in the gears of the grandfather clock, proceeded to gum up the works. A strong government that could -- and was enjoined to -- support the American people and defend her way of life, began to disassemble the core values that made her great. They put their heads down and rampaged through a system that, while imperfect, had managed to keep the nation together through feast, famine, war, pestilence, and internal strife. A well-oiled mechanism might have absorbed the blow; the government stitched together over two hundred years was not so tough.

It was a simple proposition: the newcomers and their mentors already extant established one goal: to deny the President of the United States any kind of legislative boon, no matter how much it was necessary to the operation of the country. Caught in the midst of a crisis of their manufacture in decades past, these hooligans in the castle proceeded to drag their feet, to spout useless puffery, to point fingers and assign blame, and brought the system of Federal governance to a crawl, barely able to keep it functioning from month to month.

And there was no reason for it.

For in this case, we take "reason" to mean that there was some flaw in character, some dark, deceitful streak, some malevolent undertone, that they could see and we could not.

President Barack Obama presented no such things.

Instead, he was earnest in his attempts to urge the nation along, to light a fire under a sputtering economy, to rein in the excesses of our forays into nation-building at the end of a sword. He spoke of peace, but was unafraid of war. He could wax eloquent about the true meaning of the founding of our nation and at the same time point out its most egregious flaws. Most of all, he was able to draw ire from both sides of the aisle, the surest sign that he was on the right track to handling a fractious and floundering country.

No, this foul, festering obstructionism was not the product of any realized malevolence in the heart of our President. It was -- and is -- the odious stench of racism, swathed in anti-government sentiment, cloaked in jingoism, and borne upon a howling wind of self-importance by Americans who are certain they owe nothing to anyone, even as they are sure they are owed everything by everyone else. It is a match set to the tinder of a nation desiccated by close to four hundred years of treating every person on the North American continent who was not of the "good fortune" to be born of the white race as inferior.

Is every opponent of the President's agenda a racist? Certainly not. If not, however, they have not been in a hurry to denounce their brethren who are. They have not been quick to denounce those who wish violence and death upon him and those who work for them. They have not been quick to derail the fanatical desire of some in their number to drag his name through the mud. They are certainly not quick to acknowledge his lack of malevolent intent. No, they are content to sit on the sidelines, eyes closed, ears plugged, pretending they are above it.

It is clear that there is one narrative in our nation now, that overrides anything reasonable, one that is given the widest possible latitude, one that is shouted from rooftops and television sets: President Obama is destroying America. If that were the case, it would already lie in ruins at our feet, for it was tattered badly by the previous administration's lackadaisical approach to governance and appeasement of its party base. All evidence points to a nation that has resisted a tide of disappointment, disaster, and chicanery, through brute strength and main stubbornness and a willingness of the average American to lend a hand to those in need. Despite every attempt by a petulant and fickle Republican Party to douse the flame of unity, we soldier on, as we always have. If anything, we are stronger for the fight to restore order.

Now, as the grey skies part, it is time to turn from the business of survival to that of restoration. The bombastic lot that plunged us into the whirling chaos of budgetary shortfalls coupled with regulatory dismemberment lain on top of the admixture of nationalist fervor and the tyranny of the minority must be handed their walking papers. The United States of America is not ready to fold, not prepared to simply walk away from the table. We have come too far, survived too much, to allow a bunch of rabble-rousers to continue excoriating a government that has held this nation together for over two hundred thirty years. If they do not like the Federal government, they need not be part of it, but as long as they claim the individual rights and freedoms that that government protects and provides, they will not be allowed to destroy it.

So it is up to the rest of us to put a halt to this madness, through word, and deed, and ballot. Let us restore the faith our Founding Fathers had in us, when they built a nation Of The People, By The People, and For The People, by showing that We, The People shall not give in to the tyranny that some among us would claim as patriotism. Our nation must remain indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL.

Founded By Geniuses?

This week I was exposed to the limited thinking of some, more-so than at any time I can remember. It came in the form of a series of statements trying to link current circumstances to the nation the Founding Fathers lay down over two hundred years ago. Each circumstance ended with the phrase: "You may live in a nation founded by geniuses but run by idiots."

Rather than reproduce any of them, and thereby lend them credence, let me focus solely on that last portion of each phrase, for it points out a complete and abject failure on the part of the educational systems of our nation that such diatribes could be thought of as some sort of truth. For on neither side of the ledger is the assertion strictly true: most of the Founding Fathers were not geniuses, nor are many of our legislators idiots. That is only a surface appearance that has been spun in to some sort of earthy, down-home "logic" that holds no basis in fact.

It comes from a place of worship and veneration for the founding of the United States of America, based on fractured, incomplete, and often misinterpreted information about the Founders and the state of the Colonies at the time of the Revolutionary War. Some in our nation conflate the Constitution of the United States with the Declaration of Independence, and draw the conclusion that somehow those men who founded our nation -- and yes, they were all men -- were paragons of virtue and thought, which could not be further from the truth. Tarring current legislators with the epithet "idiot" only further seeks to create an undue comparison between past and present, as if they could be compared on some kind of equal footing.

If we take a cold, clear, critical look at the Founding Fathers, we see only two who could roundly be described as "geniuses," and only one of them could be said to be an actual genius: Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Franklin is certainly a bona fide genius in terms we might relate to Newton, Einstein, or the like; he was a scientist, scholar, inventor, and visionary, and foresaw what it would take for the American Revolution to be successful, trying his utmost to pull the strings quietly but firmly to push everyone in the correct direction. Washington was a genius in a more limited but still highly important role, as leader of troops and a nation. He was confident that Colonial troops, properly trained and equipped, could be a match for the British, and was more than willing to employ unique and unorthodox tactics to gain advantage over his foes. Once made President of the nation he helped forge, he saw how the future would need the nation and its leaders to follow a certain path, to bear good comportment, but be willing to use the power of the nation to quell the more radical elements still extant within it.

As for the rest of the Founding Fathers, many were virtuous in their own ways, men of The Enlightenment, willing to think a few steps outside their comfortable box, but not the geniuses many would now portray them as. Thomas Jefferson wrote stirring prose and helped launch a war of independence, but he thought only men were created equal, not people, and at that, black people were not even considered. He was a slave-owner who took full advantage of his property, even as he expounded on the necessity of his nation to be free. John Adams was a very smart, very clever man, and excellent jurist, but not a leader, not able see much beyond his own inadequate vision. It could be said his wife Abigail often saw what he could not, and perhaps it was she who made him a better man than he could have been alone. Alexander Hamilton was wedded to economics more than people, and while we might applaud for his efforts in trying to establish a collective and regulated financial structure, we have to wonder at how he went about it.

The fact is, they were no better than we are now, these captains of the foundation of our nation. In only one aspect of their forethought can we see true genius: the idea that the people of the United States must be able to govern themselves. But even in that, they did not quite do the most complete job of laying groundwork, riddling the Constitution with firm assurances and vagaries of comprehension we are still teasing out today. Perhaps this was a way to make future generations think, but it's more likely that it was simply the end product of the squabbling and bickering of a group of men who had anointed themselves the smartest people in the room. Whatever the case, the crafted an adequate framework, but left so much undone or in a muddle, that the nation is still trying to tease it our centuries later.

If they were said to be wise in letting We, The People, choose who will govern us from among our peers, it may be said that we have failed the Founding Fathers in that area, by allowing a class of politicians to enmesh themselves in the inner workings of government at all levels. Governance is gone, replaced by style and popularity and money. Rather than sweeping the halls of Congress clean occasionally and allowing for new blood and new life to pervade them, we simply allow the same weak, forlorn, outmoded thinking to persist. If those in positions of governance can be said to be idiots, we are the idiots for putting them there and leaving them there. The great body that is America suffers, for not being allowed to breathe.

Naturally, the "idiocy" we see is not always thus, for much that many would malign is simply the product of ancient ways fighting modern times. In over two hundred years, our nation and world have changed, are no longer the familiar grounds that Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, and the like strolled in their day. As these things change, so must we, and we must realize that new ways of think are not of necessity bad ways of thinking, even where they challenge what has held true for centuries. Enslavement of blacks, the denigration and patronization of women, religious and sexual intolerance... these might have been the order of the day one thousand years ago, even two hundred years ago, but they are not now. Change is inevitable, change is constant, and even the Founding Fathers, as men of The Enlightenment  knew this, hence allowing the Constitution to be re-written and providing for a central government that could redress issues unknown to them and alter law to match the times.

The nation we have now is the nation we have wrought from more than two centuries of anguish, triumph, pain, and grief. Founded in imperfection, it was the wish of those founders that we take their work and improve upon it. If we are unhappy with the current results, perhaps that is more an issue with our lack of forethought and courage, than it is with the competence of our current legislators compared with the "genius" of our founders.

The Case Against The Second Amendment

There is one, and only one, flaw in all attempts at the imposition of normal control on guns & gun ownership: the Second Amendment. It is the fly in the ointment that degrades any reasonable discussion into shouting pedantry and veiled threats. It is at once the crux of the issue and the thing that bars any movement in any direction. Its semantics have been decompiled, deconstructed, dismissed, and devalued, and in the end, its shadow still lies endlessly across the peace of our nation.

I am reticent to touch it; it is like a clinging, clutching vine that no amount of cutting and trimming may successfully dislodge. As part of our Constitution, I am honor-bound to defend it, but so am I also required to see that its precepts are properly followed. That's where the problem lies: the intersection of the then, from whence it was spawned, and the now, wherein we must live with it two centuries later, in a world radically different from the one the Founding Fathers lived in at the time of its conception.

You and I may speak of clauses and commas, intent and introspection, but at the end of it, the Second Amendment is an enigma, both plain to see but bounded in mystery, a monolith that rises among us and programs us to fear and to fight. The amendment itself is plain enough, despite what we take to be a crude & confusing wording. At its simplest, it means that government may not take away all rights for citizens to maintain arms; the caveat is -- and this part is often glossed over -- that the reason for this particular allowance, above any other, is that States must be allowed to maintain the necessary strength to form militias.

Look at the world and the circumstance that led to it. The United States was a swaddled, newborn nation, had just fought a war of independence, and was heavily indebted to others to supply the necessary firepower for us to gain that independence. Having so gained it, those who agitated for revolution were now faced with a difficult task: pry that independence from under the thumbs of any potential adversary. At the moment, with no large standing naval forces, land forces that were demobilizing to a greater degree after the war's conclusion, and a nation still not fully constructed in law, The United States was in a precarious and vulnerable position, should Great Britain or any other sovereign nation choose to make a play for it.

This leads, inevitably, to finding ways to secure a nation from foreign threat that allowed for quick mobilization of forces in the advent of attack, and placing such forces in close proximity to every possible entry point on a significant landmass. And doing so, possibly without a strong central government to coordinate defense. The answer was obvious: State militias, built up of citizen soldiers brandishing their own weapons, fighting for their own ground, concentrated in cities and town near possible invasion points. When rallied, such militias would be the first line of defense, hopefully able to hold an invading force at bay long enough, for Federal government to coordinate the fight and bring larger forces to bear.

So when the Bill of Rights was crafted, it seemed appropriate to codify this necessity. After all, the British were not keen on an armed citizenry in their midst, and were wont to strip the average Colonial of weapons if they thought that would protect them from exposure to attack. Having just lived through that war, and having seen how hard it was to gather sufficient forces quickly to counter British thrusts, it made sense to the Founding Fathers to enshrine the principle of home defense in the newly-minted Constitution, not simply as an organizing principle, but as a warning to other nations: we will defend ourselves and if you seek a fight, you shall have it.

As men of The Enlightenment, the Founding Fathers knew that their work, like the world, would not remain static, but would need to be reshaped to meet the challenges of new times and new technologies. The Constitution was meant to be altered as circumstance warranted, when conditions called for a new approach to the organization and functioning of the country. Secretly, they must have sensed that by not dealing with the issue of slavery, that alteration would have to come sooner rather than later, to make up for their lack of courage at the time. So, the document was formed, it was built to be amendable, and the very first amendments were made as a first set of guiding principles to be shaped. That freedom of speech, press, and worship should be the first guiding principle should come as no surprise; in line with that, the second being the right to maintain arms should not shock us either. Having established freedom and liberty for all, it was important to ensure its defense.

Now, we look upstream from the 1780's and 1790's to the start of the 21st Century, and we see that a necessity of the previous era is no longer such at our current point in time. The United States of America is the sole, preeminent superpower on Earth. Our arsenal of weapons, our standing ground,  sea, and air forces, our bases strewn across the face of the globe, make us unrivaled and unmatched. What was true in Lincoln's time, for he foresaw it even then, is clearly true now: no foreign power could take a drink from any river in our nation, nor trod one foot upon it, save where they could eliminate every single American at a stroke, a formidable and seemingly insurmountable task.

Where does that leave the Second Amendment? Dying. It dies of necessity, decaying through the inevitable shift of our nation from shaky confederation to powerful unity. Two world wars armed us, and every conflict since has honed us. Thus, an amendment born of necessity for defense, now lies withering on the vine of liberty. It is kept feebly alive by a faction among us who still believe in inevitable tyranny, though they believe it preparing to strike from within and not from without. They are certain that their government will soon be battering down their doors and marching in to strip them of their only defense. These are not the hunters and sportsmen we are talking about; these are people who see shadows on every street and eyes peering around every corner.

Our nation is supreme in its ability to defend itself; for that purpose, the Second Amendment is now obsolete. Does that of necessity mean we should not be able to bear arms? No. What it does mean is that unfettered, unregulated access to weapons is now a greater threat to us than all our "enemies." Like a seemingly mighty tree, our outward appearance is of strength, but the core is slowly rotting away, chewed up by the increasing frequency and devastation caused by the carnage of military grade weapons in the hands of people who have no business having them. They have these weapons, because the Second Amendment has been elevated to the status of a Commandment by a minority of Americans who feel threatened by their own government. Tapping the power of their sycophantic paranoia to wield legislative power on a national scale, unchecked and unopposed by rational Americans, they leave us all vulnerable to the vagaries of those unwilling or unable to control their rage.

Now, however, perhaps the slumbering mass of Americans awoke, stirred from its torpor by the horror of one person slaughtering innocent children in a school. We may be forgiven for momentary skepticism, because why should it have taken this horrific moment to finally change the direction of the narrative, given the number of such horrible events before now? We cannot belabor that point, though; we must now work on focusing the outrage and ire of the American citizenry over this into a laser-like beam, scouring our nation of the forces that would continue to plant the seeds of slaughter in our midst while turning their back on the carnage such a crop reaps.

The Second Amendment no longer does what it was intended to do. We must now have the courage to fix it.

In The Shadow Of One Gunman

28 people are dead. One gunman, the gunman's mother, six staff members and twenty children from an elementary school in a quieter part of Connecticut, a town that many of us might drive through or past on our way to anywhere else in New England.

This event is nothing new, not even in recent memory. It joins a litany of such events that have happened in many parts of the nation, in many publicly accessible places, and to many types of people. Every time it has happened, every time the wailing of frightened victims has mixed with the flat crack of high-velocity projectiles and the attempts of some to stop or prevent greater carnage, a nation gasps, horrified, shakes it's head, mutters "never again," before casting its glance back down to rectangular screens, where they read stories of young, black men gunned down on street corners by white men who were "standing their ground."

Only now, there is a barely subsumed rage at work, a primal enmity that for most years floated below the surface of economic woes, Presidential elections, real estate crashes, foreign wars, falling buildings, celebrity breakups, and cable television, barely managing a ripple. It breaches the surface, shouldering aside all other thoughts and cares, resplendent in the bright of day, a stately leviathan whose mass is undeniable in its presence. All it took was the death of white suburban six- and seven-year-olds.

It may seem coarse to break that moment in Newtown, Connecticut down this way, and I, like many others, am tinged with a pain that will not seem to ebb, but it must be little consolation to the parents of all those massacred before or the families of those murdered on streets and in homes every day to share their grief with so many new families. The common denominator, here as with all that came before is simple: guns. Circumstances, time of day, place, mental health, upbringing... all these things may be different, but there is the commonality of readily and easily available weapons to those who perpetrated the crimes which so shocked us at the time. At some point, in some manner, people who have lost a connection -- or may never have had it -- with human society take these devices for dealing death and spray their unhappiness, their despondency, their rage, their phobias, their hatred over a broad swath of the rest of us. People, who rose that morning to another new day, do not live to see the sun set again.

One is left to ask: when were we going to act? What about the murder of Abraham Lincoln did not change our society? Or John F. Kennedy? Or Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or Medgar Evers? Or the attack on President Ronald Reagan? The rampage at Columbine? Virginia Tech? The attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords? The death of Trayvon Martin? What among these events did not say to us: "That is not our way. This is not acceptable."?

These deaths of innocent children are but the tip of a very long spear that America carries because the Founding Fathers could not conceive of weapons with torrential rates of fire and bullets designed to rend and tear and ruin. They wrote the Second Amendment at a time when the nation was young, ill-formed, nascent, vulnerable, and they wanted every American who wanted to, to be able to have a gun, with the express purpose of being able to raise state militias in the face of invasion by a foreign power. The War of 1812 was an example of the necessity: America was not yet strong enough to repel an invasion  and it was only through the judicious use of militia forces that battle could be tipped in America's favor.

While it may be that the Founders had the forethought to equip America with the ability to fight battles upon its own shores as the nation slowly rose in strength, they did not have the precognitive ability or personal will to place limitations on what the Second Amendment implied. Thus it was left, its language making perfect sense in the 18th or 19th Century, but inconceivable in the face of the 20th Century and the Tommy gun. And no doubt, it was this insurance that well-armed militias could be raised at a moment's notice that allowed The Civil War to be fought, as Southern militias rose from the fields to take on a U.S. Army welded to the Union. Even when that was over, General Ulysses Grant and Abraham Lincoln were loathe to take the arms of every Southerner, for their now deposed nation was so ravaged that hunting would be necessary to feed families.

The gun has gone from liberator to protector to terror. Now, the tip of the spear has wounded our nation's heart, by slaying 20 of our most innocent. We must hold a personal amount of shame, each one of us, that none of the earlier tragedies pushed us toward action, but to fail now, fail to let this pain slough off the shell of inaction that prevented us from seeing clearly, would be criminal. Whatever else must come from this, there must be a final recognition that the unfettered access to guns is not the solution to the further protection of a nation, but is too much a path of destruction. Abraham Lincoln noted it, that the chances were very small that our nation would be crushed by a trans-Atlantic foe, but that we would commit suicide as a nation. He said this, even as the United States was embroiled in a war whose outcome seemed none too certain.

The Second Amendment was tailored toward the protection of the nation as a whole; it was never meant to establish the right of personal protection beyond that ownership of arms for national protection. That is the construction of those who see guns, not in their proper context as weapons, but as dollar signs. An industry that feeds on war cannot live by war, and so it must sow its deadly seeds where peace was meant to reign. To do this, has required a vast and complex interlinking of factors: the disenfranchisement of minorities, the lowering of educational standards, an increase in poverty, the creation of the idea that young, black men are a "dangerous" group in and of themselves, the spreading of abject fear through outright lies and petty obfuscations, and so on. By the gun lobby wrapping itself in the Second Amendment, the American flag, branding themselves as patriots, co-opting the National Rifle Association to be their confidence men, and allying themselves with the Republican Party mainly, the arms industry has planted seeds of self-destruction that people like the shooter in Newtown were all too happy to reap.

If there is any silver lining to such a virulent tragedy, it is that perhaps now the public is finally galvanized to action. Combine that with the hard fought Presidential election, and perhaps in the air now wafts the scent of organization and action required for Americans to take back control of their country from the special interests and parties that seek to turn it into their own personal fiefdom. Maybe now, a healthy dose of common sense can be taken in by a deep inhalation of that scent. and finally, after the drowsy slumbers of past decades, we can awaken the United States of America to the threat in its midst.

If we do nothing -- again! -- then we set a steady course for the dissolution of our nation in a hail of bullets, a self-inflicted wound that will bleed away individual freedom and liberty here for all time. We stand in the shadow that gunman and it is time to come back into the light.

Blind Squirrel

Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has a unique ability to find the one thing you care about, speak to it, get you to rabidly follow him, all the while ensuring that you don't notice the full panoply of pernicious and quixotic positions he holds. His brand of what I term "Constitutional nihilism," combined with his ethical hypocrisy and Libertarian leanings should be enough to disqualify him from becoming county dog catcher, let alone President of the United States.

And yet, as we saw in New Hampshire, there are those who would boil out of the woodwork to worship at the feet of the man, as if he were some political messiah, sent to them by providence to restore the balance in government. They are attracted by the relatively healthy ideas he has, legalizing marijuana, stopping wars, etc., but most are none too familiar with his remaining cavalcade of rather troubling ideas, banning abortion, eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency, returning to the Gold Standard, etc. Perhaps, as is said, ignorance is truly bliss? To find a candidate who seems -- on the surface -- to care about the one thing you truly care about is enough for these people?

His obstreperous supporters aside, the litany of political claptrap that is the building material of the Ron Paul campaign platform, while snaring those who choose to focus on minuscule portions that warm their soul, is a wholly unsupportable and rickety mass with a limited lifespan outside the Republican/Libertarian womb. While he may have youthful enthusiasm on his side, it is aged guile that will be the undoing of his campaign. The 'Baby Boom' generation, now starting to reach the time of Social Security and Medicare, will not support someone whose intent is to dismantle those entitlements, no matter how much marijuana they would be allowed to smoke. The Military Industrial Complex will certainly not be in hurry to promote someone seeking to mitigate their profit flow through the cessation of American combat and non-combat involvement overseas. Decent, rational Americans, will not hand the reins of power to someone who talks about reducing the influence of Federal government, even as he is using it to force women into gestational slavery and removing the programs that have attempted to create equity in an inequitable, WASP-centered society.

In short, if you wish to be the leader of a Republic, stating that your avowed goal is to strip that Republic of everything that makes it worthwhile, and will do it in the name of the document -- the Constitution of the United States -- that is actually antithetical to your stated intentions, while reducing nearly seventy-five percent of its citizenry to second class status (if they are not, in fact, already there), invalidates your claim that you would make the best candidate for President. A Republic cannot -- and should not -- be run by a man whose stated intention is to tear it down. No patriot, living or dead, would stand for it.

America, The Incorporated

Even more ridiculous than the idea that a fertilized human egg is a human being, is that large, amorphous agglomerations of people can form a person. A company, a corporation, an interest group... that these clusters of people, brought together by similarity of thought or by economic necessity, are artificial creations, a form of human breccia, which cannot be construed as having a homogeneous mind and singular being. They are aggregated together from disparate portions of society, and are entities whose existence is totally dependent on human law for definition. They did not arise spontaneously from a primordial ooze, nor were they birthed by some titanic polyglot mother.

This is an important distinction, in that such groups of people in their various forms, believe that somehow their mere existence provides them the same access to rights and privileges that a natural-born person enjoys, namely in the area of freedom of speech, and under that, the ability to influence elections based on their desire for certain outcomes. The absurdity of this notion is lost upon corporate boards and self-important leaders, alike; their belief in the rightness of their cause or business is such that it blinds them to fact.

They Pledge Allegiance...

Of late, we note the spate of candidates for, and holders of, high offices in our nation signing pledges, to groups and organizations, that they will not raise taxes, that they will ban same-sex marriage, that they will repeal the health care law, and so on. They are all in earnest, believing that such pledges make them exemplars of what it means to govern the United States, that they are willing to commit such action to paper and place their name upon it.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Know Your Rights

An interesting thing happened this morning: a candidate for public office was revealed to have a very incomplete knowledge of the Constitution. During a debate with her rival Chris Coons, Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell, darling of The Tea Party, was perplexed by the idea that the separation of Church and State was explicitly spelled out in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It apparently came as something of a shock to her. She was further knocked off her game by a question about whether she would repeal the 14th, 16th, or 17th Amendments, confessing: "I'm sorry, I didn't bring my Constitution with me."

To be part of a party that claims the present administration is subverting the Constitution, and wanting desperately to "restore" it, wouldn't it be nice to know exactly what's in it?

End Big Government Excess

Yes, that's right -- it's time to end big government's grip. It has done nothing but make us slaves to our own country. Take this health care bill -- just another attempt to pick our pockets to pay for those who cannot support themselves. That's not what America is about; we're about independence, charting our own course, exceptionalism. So let's repeal this bill, before it takes our hard-earned money and gives it away.

And while we're at it... let's do away with some other big government excesses!

Let's take back the auto industry bailout; those companies made their messes, let them clean them up. If a few hundred thousand more people are unemployed, well, serves them right for not working harder, better, and cheaper.

Let's take back the T.A.R.P. funds; those banks should have just been allowed to fail. OK, so it would have plunged us into a depression, but people just need to hitch up their bootstraps and hunker down.

Let's get rid of S.C.H.I.P.; I'm sorry your kid can't get decent health care, but that's your problem, not mine.

Let's repeal Medicare and Medicaid; why should our taxes be paying for health care for the old, the disadvantaged, for the developmentally disabled? What have they done for us? They should be paying their own way, like everyone else.

Let's repeal the Civil Rights Act; there's no reason we can't live separate-but-equal lives in this country. Why should we be forced to live in the same places, eat at the same restaurants, and shop at the same stores that they do?

Let's tear up the Interstate Highways; we had perfectly good roads before, that went where we wanted to go. There isn't enough money to build and maintain them -- it's another government boondoggle.

Let's be rid of Unemployment Compensation; if you lose your job, that's a shame, but if you did your job, your company would never have let you go. Don't be taking money out of a company's pockets to prop up a bunch of freeloaders.

Let's dissolve Social Security; if you're too lazy to save for your retirement, there's no reason the rest of us should be helping you. If you end up poor, it's your own fault for not planning better.

Let's knock down Hoover Dam; the government had no business building a dam to generate electricity, when we have abundant coal and oil resources.

Let's tear up sidewalks and bridges built by the W.P.A.; what was the government doing, giving away tax money to unemployed layabouts to build these things? They took jobs away from good union labor.

Let's repeal the 19th Amendment; giving women the right to vote was a mistake. They were better off doing what they were told by their husbands and fathers.

Let's re-impose slavery; look at how many lives were lost in The Civil War, just to free a bunch of people we brought here to serve us. Waste of lives and money.

Let's give back the Louisiana Purchase; what business did the government have, buying up all that land, when they didn't even know if it was going to be worth anything?

-----

The purpose of our Federal government is to ensure the essential rights, freedoms, and liberties of all Americans, not just those we like or agree with. What applies to one, must apply to all. To "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," requires a central government, to oversee these sweeping needs, to coordinate them, and to ensure that every American receives the fullest measure of the rights and privileges given to them by the Constitution. For a central government to work, it requires the people to take ownership of that government, provide it with the resources to carry out these duties, and install people capable of managing the government effectively and efficiently. While the government must be "of, by, and for" the citizens who created it, it must also be willing to go beyond the will of the citizenry, to ensure that the greatest number of Americans receive the benefits of liberty.

The world, and the societies that inhabit it, are subject to change, both from internal pressures and external forces. No society can remain static in the face of change; it must, of need, flow like water, around obstacles, seeking its level. A society must change with its times, and a government must ensure that its citizens are not subject to the vagaries of change, where it can. It is there to ensure that all its citizens need never fear that their way of life will be destroyed by forces beyond their ken or control. Government is protector and defender, educator and jurist, mother and father, champion of liberty and denier of oppression. If our government fails at these things, it is only because we, the people, the stakeholders in this enterprise, have let it happen. We have not reasoned critically, we have become apathetic, content to send the same shirkers, malingerers, and power-seekers back time-and-again, to take our precious resources and squander them. We have the power, granted us by the Constitution, to hold our elected officials to account, and to remove them when they fail us. If we do not do this, we have only ourselves to blame.

Like it, or not, we are in this together. Every person who is a citizen of the Unites States, has a duty and an obligation to ensure the proper operation of the Federal government. Every citizen is accorded the same rights and privileges, without exception, and no one must be allowed to prevent this. We are many, and we are one, and while we are not all alike as people, we are all alike as citizens, and should all be accorded the same level of respect. Our personal inclinations aside, if we are to be a Union, a nation united, then that uniting must be greater than our individual differences. We must speak with deference, agree to disagree where we must, and in the end, we must do what is best for us all. Only in that way, do we honor those who brought our nation into being, and perpetuate their dream of "a more perfect Union."

The Tyranny of Ignorance

We do not know tyranny in the United States of America.

There are some who may argue this point. They believe that the current administration is "destroying the American way-of-life" and "tearing down our freedoms" and "making us a socialist state."

They have no idea.

You see, if America were currently undergoing a radical transformation via a tyrannical government, they would not be around to be outraged or shocked, or even to scream out their rage at the government. Their freedom of assembly would be curtailed, their freedom to speak snuffed out, their weapons taken, and likely, they would be imprisoned without charge or trial.

And yet, there they stand, in defiance of "tyranny."

We do not know tyranny in the United States of America.

We do not know the banging on the door in the middle of night, the pistol-whipping of a family, being dragged into trucks and driven away, never to be seen again.

We do not know the subterfuge of an election held, results announced, then overruled by leaders on high, who impose their own will on the people, and stifle opposition by arresting and indefinitely detaining the leaders of that opposition.

We do not know the slaughter of protesters seeking redress of their grievances, being gunned down wholesale in the street by mobs loyal to the government.

We do not know the deprivation caused by unscrupulous government agents taking relief supplies earmarked for the starving and destitute masses, and turning them into profits for themselves.

We do not know tyranny.

We live in a free society, as free as one can be short of anarchy, where government makes rules, based on the will of the people, tempered with the desire to do the most amount of good for the greatest number of people. Those rules must pass not one, but three tests, as there is a balance of power, each branch of government reinforcing and regulating the other two. The Constitution provides the unshakable bedrock upon which all of society's laws are made, ensuring that in the end, no rule may harm the basic freedoms of an American citizen.

The people of this country are given myriad ways to alter the functions and fit of their government at every level, from whom they elect to represent them, to what powers those representatives have, right down to altering the Constitution itself if that is required. Any citizen may petition their representative to consider their view in crafting the laws of the land, and the people of this country can hold their elected leaders to account, via the ballot box.

And none of this has changed.

The Constitution has not been struck down or defaced. The branches of Federal government are intact. Martial law has not been declared. People are not being rounded up. The press is still allowed to report the news.

There is no tyranny, unless you count the tyranny of ignorance. It is not helpful to be mired in the past, to claim somehow that America was "better" or "truer" at one time, and that somehow the nation we now inhabit is a shadow of its former self. For the nation that is America today, has been built on the foundation of our Constitution, shepherded through good times and bad by our government, and is still a republic of, by, and for the people. So long as we can come together, work through our problems constructively, without malice or bitterness, our nation can continue to be strong. If we continue to wallow if partisanship, if we allow our fear to overwhelm logic, if we choose to trade barbs rather than ideas, we stand to lose everything we have built here, and for which so many have sacrificed so much.

We must remember that, despite any differences between individuals, we are one nation, conceived in liberty and bound by the desire to live our lives in peace and freedom. The price for this is putting down our preconceptions, finding compassion within our hearts, and making compromises to further the general welfare. If we cannot do this, then yes, out country will no longer be the one we recognize.

Shout Out

The easiest way for consensus on an issue to be reached is through discussion and debate, a laying out of facts and a critical examination of the effects of changing systems to alter those facts. The idea, is to reach a solution to a particular problem by incorporating the ideas of all parties in such a way that, no matter the outcome, all parties feel they have had their say and can agree to compromises on their position. It was this process, adopted by the Founding Fathers, that led to the formation of the United States, the layout of its government, and the process through which problems affecting the citizenry were to be solved.

Was the system perfect? No. The founders chose to leave the issue of slavery for another day, codified it in the Constitution, and thus, in the end, a civil war had to be fought to iron it out. It did, however, lay out a perfectly effective groundwork for solving problems moving forward, if you were willing to live with the occasional flaw.

The founders would not recognize their system now, mainly because it has been co-opted by partisanship. Republican, Democrat, Liberal, conservative, fanatical religionists, secularists, men, women, young, old... rather than debating issues, battle lines are more often drawn. Each side has their say, but at a distance, through the media, or the Internet. Groups talk at each other, not to each other. Rhetoric, vitriol, and spin are orders of the day. It is far easier to call names than to call for hashing out problems. Each side in every "debate" has become so entrenched, that any issue takes on the characteristics of the Somme or Verdun, where shells are lobbed, skirmishes are fought, but in the end, no ground is gained or lost.

Stalemate.

Currently, this is exemplified by the current problem of health care reform. "Current" is the wrong word, for the health care system in our country has been broken since probably the early 1980's, and no one has been in a rush to fix it. It has gone from being a necessity of life to a free-market big business. It has also become so entwined with employment, that economic downturns only swell the ranks of those unable to afford quality health care, causing them to utilize emergency services for even the most routine medical complaints. And this goes around and around, swirling and twisting as the economy writhes in pain form the short-sightedness of Wall Street barons.

If you are lucky to have a job, be independently wealthy, or be part of some organization, then you no doubt have access to quality health care. If you are poor, destitute, or perhaps have a chronic condition, you don't. The vast majority, as with anything, lie in the middle, swinging between having health insurance and not, between good health and sickness, between simple co-pays and staggering bills. There is no solid ground to stand upon -- one day you have a job with excellent benefits, the next you don't, and while they offer you the ability to take your health benefits with you when you go, the premiums are astronomical for someone now on unemployment insurance.

And so, our government is trying to change that. Well, some in our government. There are those, bolstered by market forces, the pharmaceutical industry, health insurance providers, and their own inability to see the forest for the trees, who oppose changing the system, who have fallen back on the cant of "let the free-market handle it." The free-market has been handling it for some time now -- and that's how we got into this mess. Remember all those foreclosures and bank failures?

The preamble to the Constitution states that part of its intended purpose is to "provide for the general Welfare." Tied to the ideas laid out in the Declaration of Independence, about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness," this would seem to indicate that the founders thought it important that the Federal government ensure that everyone who is a citizen was cared for, not just in the fact of having established rights, but having available those services which would further the lives of Americans as a whole.

This frightens some people.

This idea, that everyone should have general access to quality health care scares big business, which is making it's living off the lives of Americans. Medical care is essential to the health and well-being of every person, but people have now been reduced to statistics and actuarial tables. People are a risk; if we insure you, you might get sick, that would cost money, and we need to maintain our profit margins. It scares conservatives, who see it as socialism, a system whereby the State treats all citizens as equals, when we all know that some are more equal than others. It also scares ordinary citizens, not because they understand the problem, but because they have been told it should scare them. Fear-mongering has generated irrationality in the citizenry.

So now, when we should be coming together, to discuss our concerns, discuss our needs, discuss the costs (both human and financial) of leaving so many without health care, we find movements to shout down those who are for change. Rather than engage in honest debate, hear all sides, build consensus, there are those urging thuggery and mob tactics, to disrupt the discussion rather than take part in it. It has gotten so bad, that meetings have been cancelled, and elected representatives have received death threats.

Irrationality carries the day.

A wise man once said, "all we have to fear, is fear itself." At this time, those words ring truer than they have in a long time, not because there is normal fear of the loss of jobs, homes, health care, dignity, but because there are those who would use abject fear to stall, delay, diminish, and derail the ability of the American system to tackle a problem and solve it, as we have so many times in our nation's brief history. Fear has become the new coin of the realm, and those forces who would deny the average citizen their right to a peaceful, prosperous, and healthy life are spending it. They do not want discussion, debate, or consensus, for if the light of truth is shone on their prevarications and obfuscations, then the American people will see for themselves, that the Emperor truly has no clothes.