Inalienable

You could be forgiven for thinking Rights are as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Declaration of Independence. We'd like to believe wholeheartedly that what we feel within our bodies and souls as a nation is how it stands: our Rights are "inalienable."

The first definition of the word that the American Heritage Dictionary, Fifth Edition, gives is:

That cannot be transferred to another or others

And, of course, the example just below it is "inalienable rights."

Think, however, about what that means.

The second definition is perhaps more to our liking:

Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable

The example there is "in inalienable birthright."

Even there, though, there's something missing. Cogitate upon it a second. You'll see it... or more precisely, won't see it.

The word "taken" does not appear in the definition.

Now, you can claim that's just semantics, but I want you to think hard about the implications of that word not being part of the definition. It speaks to the larger issues of the day, as we watch almost daily as hard-fought Rights are literally taken away from groups of citizens in this country by a government that has decided that the Preamble to the Constitution no longer means anything, and by a Supreme Court that has ceded its oversight power to the Executive Branch, no longer defending even basic Rights given to American citizens by the very document they are sworn to protect.

So, Jefferson and Franklin using the word "inalienable" to discuss the Rights of individuals to freedom and justice (for which they notably forgot to include anyone who was not a white man) is an anachronism, for they lived in a time where the imprimatur granted to an individual's faith or political views was much stronger and varied than it is now. There could be differences in how people saw the world, but they could at least come together, to some degree, and admit they had a common bond that lay beneath any differences (again, with some glaring omissions). That was the only way thirteen fractious Colonies could come together to form a union and create a nation.

The Constitution that would come later sought to codify a government that would put the interests of the People first. The problem, invariably, is that once in government, the members of the branches thought they were the People, and tended to discount the variety and breadth of the actual citizenry, aligning the laws with their views, which did mostly represent those of the rest of the country. Through 250 years, the divide between representatives of the People and the People themselves has become a chasm, wherein the person running for office pays lip service to the cares and concerns of the citizenry, only to brandish their own personal agenda in office.

In other words, those who represent us, do not represent us. This is true, no matter which side of the political spectrum you sit on. The reason we are here is that the American electorate simply abdicated its responsibility to elect competent, decent people to represent them. We heard what we wanted to hear, and that was enough. Even as things got worse and worse, we would send mostly the same people back to Washington, D.C. over and over again, to make even more egregious mistakes. We never spent any time or effort in paying attention to what they were doing, and those among us who did, were often ignored as we jumped up and down and exclaimed "Do you see what they are doing?"

Like a car, government must be maintained in order to function well. When lights come on on your dashboard noting that things are not going well, ignoring them usually leads to bad outcomes, and we more often than not rush our cars to the mechanic to have the underlying problem fixed. American government, over the last six decades, has been a car where virtually every light has been on, and we've blithely ignored the warnings, because we're mistakenly convinced "voting does no good," or "both parties are the same," or "nothing ever changes," or "it will all be OK." We're good at convincing ourselves that the only time we need to pay attention is when there is an election, and even then, we don't put as much thought into as we should. We think in terms of ourselves, and not the knock-on effects for others in our community, our state, or the nation as a whole.

"General Welfare." "Common Defense." Phrases like that in the Preamble to the Constitution are there to remind us that it isn't just about "us," but ALL the People. Whatever thoughts or views of the world you may have, when you decide that your thoughts and views take precedence over the freedom and liberty of all others, you are inevitably asking to have your Rights stolen. Condemning others to live poor, inadequate, and sullen lives while you continue to reap the benefits of our society is selfishness of the worst kind, and profits you little, because ceding control to fanatics invariably means they will find something wrong with you, and decide to make your life less comfortable.

So, no, no Rights are "inalienable." They can be taken from you. Maybe not immediately, maybe not all at once, but one day you may wake up to find that you no longer have them, as you found it convenient to think yours were untouchable. In every century, when autocracy rears its ugly head, people who sympathize with it invariably find themselves on the wrong end of it at some point. Once the "enemies of the State" are vanquished, the meat grinder still demands a sacrifice, and they will come for you next.

It's why, 250+ years ago, people who did not have much, and people who did, fought to establish their own government without a King to rule over them, because they always wanted a say in their governance. That it takes only that amount of time for the People who gained those Rights through the blood of true patriots, to toss them aside for the flash and rattle of artificial "patriotism" speaks to the weakness in our hearts and minds when we do not consider being part of a larger whole. Your Rights are everyone else's; they do not make you different or more important. Taking away the Rights of others means yours are forfeit when the machinery of autocracy decides it needs to be fed. Right now, its maw is wide open, and it is consuming large swathes of our freedom daily.

When are we to fight for our Rights again? When will we rise up against the oppression? Ask yourself, not what your Rights mean to you, but what do they mean to everyone. Ask yourself what this country means to everyone. Ask yourself if you can continue to stand idly by as people are dragged away to sites unseen, or murdered in the streets for nothing more than protesting the oppression, and how long do you think it will be before they come for you?

There is little time left. An election is coming, and though many think it will turn the tide, the forces of autocracy will not simply allow themselves to be overthrown. The signs are already there. The plans are already in motion. The steps are already being taken to ensure that our Rights do not interfere with their power. It frightens us to think of losing all we have if we stand up and voice our dissent, but, realistically, they are going to take it from us anyway, piece by piece. You can huddle in a corner of your home and hope that it all works out. Or, you can stand up, encourage others to stand up, gather, merge, unite in defense of what we have left. That is your choice. Choose wisely.

Blackout In The Age Of Information

If you are reading this today, January 18th, 2012, then you are lucky. These words, saved on a server somewhere, accessible by typing a name into or clicking a link on your web browser, which sends a request to that server for the information over the various interlinked computers that comprise the Internet, are being displayed before you for your perusal, having survived an arduous journey at incredible speeds through various and sundry networks and via any number of different types of wires or conduits. To you, the user, the reader, it is virtually instantaneous, and you are left unaware of the sequence of events that must transpire for this information to reach your eyes.

As Arthur C. Clarke once noted (paraphrasing), any sufficiently advanced technology would appear as magic to us. No doubt, the Internet and all the things that are on it, appear to arrive magically at the window that sits before you now, with just a few mouse clicks or keystrokes or swipes of a finger on glass. Not unlike a car, the mechanics of what transpires do not enter in to our minds when we turn the key on the Internet. It is just there, ubiquitous, waiting for us.

What if it that were not so?

Return To Hooverville

It was the laissez faire economic strategy of Herbert Hoover that led to the implosion of the United States economy after the crash of the Stock Market in 1929. It was his ambivalence toward government intervention and his unwillingness to use government to aid American citizens that caused the country to slide into depression. The most he could muster was begging and pleading with businesses to stop laying off workers, but at the time, it was everyone for themselves. When World War I veterans marched on Washington, D.C. in 1932 (the "Bonus Army") and demanded redemption of their service certificates, so they might use the money to survive, Hoover ordered General Douglas MacArthur to clear them out of their encampment, one of the derisively-named "Hoovervilles." A cavalry charge and gassing later, fifty-five veterans were injured; one hundred thirty-five were arrested. One 12-week-old child died after the gas attack.

Flash forward to 2011, when an economic malaise brought about by a collapse of the housing market engineered by Wall Street, leads to demonstrations across the nation. Occupy Wall Street brings forth collections of the disenfranchised and desperate, making the displeasure heard through civil disobedience, in cities all throughout the nation. They want The Monied Powers and their retainers to see the damage they have done to the American Dream, and they want government to recognize that it has failed them, failing to protect them and their livelihoods and their finances from the rapacious greed of the money-changers on Wall Street. Then, last night, October 26th, the mayor of Oakland, Jean Quan, gives her tacit approval for the Chief of Police to move in and drive out the protesters, which he chooses to do by assembling overwhelming force and using tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash grenades. The attack leads to dozens of arrests, and the hospitalization of a two-tour Iraq veteran, who had managed to survive that war without a scratch before being assaulted with a teargas canister, leading to serious head trauma and a trip to the hospital in critical condition.

Those who do not learn the lessons of history...

People Who Don't Belong In Government

1. Those who think government is evil
2. Those who think government is incapable of solving problems
3. Those who think government should not be solving problems
4. Those who think government has no obligation to support its citizens.
5. Those who think their form of worship is superior to the works of humanity and want to impose it on all citizens

Government is only as capable as those who run it. Placing people incapable of accepting government for what it is in positions of importance, is the surest way to destroy a nation. We need people who can be open-minded, fair, reasonable, compassionate, and who will compromise to get work done, not party sycophants or fear mongers or power grabbers. America suffers, where it cannot follow the precepts outlined for it by its founders: that each of us is equal and each of us is responsible to ourselves and to our fellow citizens. Those who cannot see themselves as part of a greater whole cannot possibly work toward the greater good.

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.

We Do Ordain And Establish

The Establishment is not the problem.

Those who are elected to run The Establishment are the problem.

The Parties Are Over

There may be no "I" in "team," but there is in "independent."

If you look up my voter registration, it will say "Democrat," but only because there are no open primaries in my state. Frankly, I'm not sure why there should be primaries at all, but I avail myself of the system that exists, a system that, frankly, shouldn't exist.

The Constitution of the United States makes no mention of political parties, minority whips, or any of the other baggage that has been dumped on the floor of the House and the Senate, or at the door of the White House, or in the vestibule of the Supreme Court. There are no Articles pertaining to how power shall be apportioned between political parties, or how parties can manipulate the Rules of Order and Procedure to create, maintain, or thwart power. The system in place now -- the unwritten system -- that lies atop those actual rules supplied by the Constitution are fabrications of the political parties that run the nation.

It's time for the parties to depart.

You Get What You Vote For

The hyperventilating, pontificating, and obfuscating is now over. As with any good compromise, the bill that finally allowed the debt ceiling to be raised in conjunction with budgetary cuts, was met with unhappiness in all directions. The Tea Party was certain it did not go far enough. Republicans grumbled over defense cuts and the loss of a balanced budget amendment. Democrats were unhappy generally, over the whole "crisis" even having arisen, the lack of solid revenue increases, and the President's willingness to sit on the sidelines while they tried to do the heavy lifting, only to "stab them in the back" by giving the GOP much of what it wanted, in terms if not in substance.

As the sound of gnashing teeth and exhaled breath finishes washing over the nation, it's best to take a moment and look closely at what the debt ceiling "crisis" outcome really was, and more importantly, what it all actually meant.

What Justice Comes From Silence

Last week, we were forced by circumstance to engage the help of a lawyer in righting a wrong -- my son being unable to join his peers in their 8th Grade graduation ceremony, even though he had finally passed. It had been a rough year, and it looked like he might be held back, but through the good graces of some of his teachers, he was able to make up the necessary work to obtain the grades necessary to go to high school. Even so, the administration believed it would not be in his his best interests to allow him in the ceremony, saying it would "set a bad example." We thought just the opposite -- he had shown that their faith in him was not misplaced, and that when he put his nose to the grindstone, he could do the work.

After the school administration and the school district superintendent not only minimized out outrage over the snub, but were condescending about it, we hired legal counsel. Our lawyer, acting swiftly, as there was only hours until the ceremony at this point, was quickly able to determine that the district had violated its own rules regarding the situation, and was in breach. Fear of a potential lawsuit forced their hand, and we won. We got to see him graduate and mark a milestone in his life we both wanted to see.

The legal code of our nation, and the system of justice provided for therein, was a carefully crafted work, intended to provide the average citizen with legal protections from unreasonable government mandates and actions, to ensure that no person was made guilty before they could receive a fair hearing, and to allow even the most heinous criminal the privilege of a day in court. The system of jurisprudence that we have, flawed though it may be in some areas, still affords the vast majority of Americans the protection of their inalienable rights and the right to be heard where they stand accused.

What Anthony Weiner Says About Us

Representative Anthony Weiner has resigned as of this afternoon.

God help us all.

Shortfall

As the battle for the budget builds into ever-widening crescendo of rhetoric, let us stop to consider, for a moment, how we really got to this point of being so far in debt. Let us critically examine what our government owes us, and more importantly, what we owe it. Not just in monetary terms, mind you, but in our adherence to the responsibility we were given for our government by those created it over two hundred years ago.

I, Citizen

I am a direct descendant of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, Thomas Paine, John Hancock, and their peers. My bloodline passes down through the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution of the United States and The Bill of Rights. My family lineage is filled with saints and sinners, sages and snakes, mountaineers and mountebanks. It is passed to me through the generations, and it is in this that I am granted title, the most powerful royalty of any nation: Citizen of the United States of America.

The title is not a hollow one, though, for it carries the heavy responsibility of maintaining, protecting, and defending the freedom, liberty, and justice of the nation and its citizenry, from all aggressors, foreign and domestic. I am given the broad and discretionary power to write and re-write law through the auspices of representatives of my choosing, and to install those who would be charged with overseeing the vitality and vigor of the nation in the office of the President of the United States. It is a duty not to be taken lightly, for shirking it endangers not only myself, but all my fellow citizens. We must, together, raise a nation and keep it safe from the vagaries of the world and from our own inner demons.

What To Do With A Law Like Sharia

It is ridiculous to think that any group could simply come to America and impose its will. Americans are a proud, stubborn, and above all suspicious lot, who are not liable to take well to anyone trying to make wholesale changes to their law and culture. Given how the United States is run, from local all the way to federal governance, there is little chance that laws could be changed sufficiently to create a fiefdom in the middle of the country which is subject to some other law. When groups have attempted to create their own laws outside the rubric of the normal avenues of governance, these attempts have usually ended badly.

So it is a bit puzzling, this wave of ballot measures in various states and municipalities, seeking to ban the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, as if there were some epidemic of it spreading throughout the land. It is, in part, fear-mongering, taking a queue from the waves of anti-Muslim sentiment that roll through the nation on a regular basis. More subtle than that, though, it is a reflection of the creeping ignorance that permeates the fabric of the Unites States, and is perhaps a poor reflection on our own educational system, that so many do not know enough about law and jurisprudence in our nation to realize that it would be virtually impossible to simply write Sharia law into the books.

Pay No Attention To The Money Behind The Curtain

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has a small problem – the curtain has fallen away, and the citizens  of Emerald City are getting a good look at the “wizard” ruling over them: The Monied Powers. His strings are being deftly pulled by those who seek to gain the most from the economic nightmare, the financial vultures that pick over the carcasses of Middle America. Three weeks in, and his shadowy masters commanded that he end the stalemate in the State Legislature by whatever means necessary. And so, on March 9th, 2011, Governor Walker set aside consensus building, government by and for the people, and prudent governance, by relying on a parliamentary trick to pass the bill he has been trying to get through for so long, stripping it of all financial materials, leaving the naked ambition to break the unions behind, and passing it quite easily in the State Senate. The bill, already passed in the House, will now wend its way to his desk for signature.

In one fell swoop, Governor Walker has undone the compact – first lain down by our Founding Fathers and the reason for the blood spilled during The Revolutionary War – that stated that he was enjoined by the people of the State of Wisconsin to uphold, protect, and defend the State's Constitution and the citizens of Wisconsin. He has, instead, thrown his weight around, directed by those who hold his purse strings, the ones who can lend him the nearly unlimited funds to continue his Governorship. There is no longer any pretense; the people of Wisconsin have been sold to the highest bidder.

Shots Unheard Around The Nation

In what can only be considered ironic, news from around the world about the uprisings in Middle Eastern and African nations, normally relegated to obscurity, are front page news. Normally, the American attraction to news from overseas is tepid; if it is not happening in our back yard, we scarcely think it matters what happens to people thousands of miles away. Of course, the easiest explanation for the wealth of coverage is that these uprisings affect the one thing that Americans cannot live without: oil. So the health and stability and democratic leanings of oil-rich nations are, for once, in our best interests.

The shame is that these events are overshadowing far more momentous events right here in our own nation, for a different kind of revolution is under way, a revolution that once more finds Americans throwing off the long arms of tyranny, and rebelling against forces that would take what matters most from them, without giving them anything in return. The current epicenter of this revolution is Madison, Wisconsin, and the people there have banded together to parry the thrusts of big money, and to wrest their lives from its selfish and self-serving grip. They have fired the first volley, and like their compatriots from two hundred thirty-six years ago, their defiance of ruling power stands to change the course of our history for a long time to come.

The Entitlement Problem

Some amongst us, in this time of economic crisis, refuse to play fair. They stand firm in their refusal to do what is best for the rest of us. They whine about the inequity and unfairness of being asked to make sacrifices, and ask why they should be asked to part with even more of their money. They flex their muscles, wielding the only power they have, trying to stave off the rising tide of ill sentiment toward them from some corners of the nation. The conspire to bring government to a halt, rather than be placed in the position of having to give more than their fair share.

I speak, of course, of the ultra-wealthy conservatives in America.

Speech Is Not Free

Although we constantly talk about "freedom of speech," we have to be careful exactly what we assign to that concept. As personified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is delineated this way:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This only states that the Federal government shall not pass laws which limit the right of the individual citizen to express themselves freely. Simply put: you can say what you like. What it does not do, is take away the absolute right to prohibit speech, as the oft used example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater illustrates. In essence, you are free to speak your mind, as long as that speech does not directly endanger the welfare of others.

This broad scope of speech means that we are subject to dealing with people who are more than willing to fill the air with all manner of tripe: homophobia, racism, antisemitism, abject ignorance, conspiracy theories, and the like. These things may make the blood of decent Americans boil, but it is intrinsically important that people holding such socially contrary views be allowed their freedom to express them, for that is the price for our freedom of speech. We cannot, of good conscience, suppress the right of others to express themselves, then claim it solely as our own. To work, freedom of speech must apply equally to all Americans.

What many fail to realize, when it comes to freedom of speech, is that the speech is never really free. You may say anything you wish, within reason. In return, those who have heard you may say anything they wish, including professing outrage at what you said. If you accept that the First Amendment guarantees your right to speak your mind, you must tacitly accept that it also provides that right to others, especially where they want to speak their mind about you. More importantly than that, if others choose to take actions based upon what you said, unless they are civilly or criminally punishable acts, they have every right to do so.

The First Amendment's ultimate goal, was to ensure that the people could speak out against the government, without fear of reprisal. The Founding Fathers wanted the Federal Government to face the music, and be forced to listen to voices of dissent, even where those voices of dissent spoke from ignorance or prejudice. It was important to them that the voice of the American people never be capriciously silenced by a government in the throes of wreaking havoc with civil liberties and the law. That same idea was implicit in all manner of speech, whereby those who could raise their voice to expound one point of view, could not simply deny those who would oppose them a means of counterpoint.

So it happens that, when someone expresses an opinion that the public finds rude, insensitive, racist, classicist, offensive, or otherwise, there is recourse to call out these statements, exposing them as such, and allowing the rest of the citizenry a chance for rebuttal, through whatever means are at their disposal. Far from being injurious to the right of freedom of speech of the initial speaker, it is, in fact, the successful application of the principle of free speech, wherein others have the right to refute what is said by someone else.

Those who operate in the mass media (television, radio, blogging, newspapers) are not entitled to some superior form of First Amendment protection, merely because of the medium in which they operate. After all, the company that hires them is free to fire them or not renew their show; free speech is not compromised because their position is at the behest of someone else, and they are subject to other strictures. A company may seek to save its reputation, which affects the advertising dollars it reaps, by removing someone who has made controversial statements. Of course, in our current society, they are more like to hire someone because they make controversial statements, in order to attract listeners/readers.

Those who claim censorship because their statements lead to their downfall, are better off looking to the question of why their statements caused such ire in the public realm. They might discover that the reason for the outcry against them may have something to do with their narrow-minded view of society, and their lack of a true connection to humanity. Simply because a person has an opinion, does not mean the opinion is relevant, factual, or important. That someone has access to a public forum to disseminate their views, does not automatically imbue them with the gift of truth. It is as possible now, as it always has been, to open one's mouth and look the fool, rather than keeping it shut to avoid the appearance. The most important facet of freedom of speech, is knowing when not to speak.

Look, Up In The Sky!!!

Modern telecommunications caused the death of the phone booth. No more do these boxes dot the landscape, with their large, boxy phones, and Yellow Pages on a metal arm, with a door that can closed to lock out the rest of the world so you can make a phone call and hear the other person, keeping your private business, just that: private. Gone, like the milk man, the ice man, and the lamplighter.

As such, this is not doubt why President Obama has not stopped the oil leaking from the broken pipe in the Gulf of Mexico. With no phone booths available, he is not able to leap into the nearest one, strip off his suit, revealing the blue union suit with the large, stylized "S" on the chest, and the red cape and boots. Unable to divest himself of his mild-mannered alter-ego, he must watch helplessly as tar balls litter the beaches and oil continues to gush into the crystal waters of the Gulf.

It is becoming increasingly apparent, that those in both the conservative and liberal camps are quite disappointed in President Obama's response to the Gulf Coast Oil Disaster. You knew the conservatives would be, because, frankly, they don't like anything he does that undermines the spirit of their attempts to plunge the nation into the serfdom of large corporations, or that points out the many failures of the previous administration. Mind you, they are circumspect enough not to mention their hands in creating this disaster from whole cloth, by allowing the oil industry free reign within the Department of the Interior.

What is more troubling is the liberal rhetoric, declaring that the President is being too lethargic, is not "in control" of the situation, and has not done all he can do to see it resolved, as if he is required to take personal command of the situation, like Roosevelt handling WWII, or Lincoln, The Civil War. The prior administration set the bar so low that it was easy enough for the current administration to surpass, but doing so without the fanfare and fireworks that was the Hurricane Katrina disaster. Resources were mobilized, the Federal government got in with BP to monitor their attempts to stem the flow of oil, and various agencies began assessing what was being done and looking at short- and long-term impacts of both the spill itself and the attempt to stop it. As with anything, Federal agencies are ponderous and slow, and yes, while much could be done to speed them up, caution must be applied, for to go too far in a zealous attempt to solve the problem could result in making it far worse.

All of it, not good enough.

In the realm of expectations, President Obama has literally been in a no-win situation since his candidacy. Besting Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries set a large number of people on edge. When it was clear that he was making headway against John McCain, people became cautiously optimistic, especially when he showed flashes of being Presidential that the older war hero could not muster. And when, on that November day, he was vaulted into the history books, a mantel was placed on his shoulders that swiftly became the a yolk, turning him into a modern Atlas, suffering under the weight of the world. Suddenly, groups that only maintained vain hope of seeing their causes addressed, were now sure that President Obama would ride into the White House, and sweep away the detritus of eight years with one long, swinging motion of his hand. Things would be set right instantaneously, as if he were a time traveler, come back to alter the time stream and erase the malfeasance of an evil counterpart.

The collective amnesia of the electorate can be excused, in as much as his election to the office was a sea change of epic proportions. Any doubts that things would be different were stowed away. He had to be better than his predecessor.

What the electorate failed to remember, in the haze of victory, is that the President is a solitary figure, and only one-third of the Federal government. While a Presidential candidate is required to talk a good game, in order to get elected, the landscape is very different when one occupies the Oval Office. President Obama no doubt intended to change the culture of Washington, D.C., but found that it was not quite as easy as he'd made it out to be during the campaign. It did not help that a Democratically-controlled Congress could not get out of its own way, sabotaging his agenda at every turn, in an effort to settle scores with the Republicans.

So, now, we have the Gulf Coast Oil Disaster, and the President is being vilified, taken to task for decisions he had no hand in, rules he did not formulate, and for a lack of control, control he cannot actually exercise. When people complain that he is not doing enough, they fail to see the whole picture. Anger has a way of clouding judgment, and any person in President Obama's position would no doubt be tarred-and-feathered the same way. To expect any one person, no matter who they are, to be able to instantly and effectively take command of a situation on this scale, and to see to every detail, is ludicrous. To hold a man to account because he cannot do it, ridiculous. Even when men went to the Moon, it took hundreds of thousands of people to get them there, and the President was not one of them, in as much as President Kennedy set the ball in motion.

While the President is the nominal head of the nation, he cannot undertake everything himself. He must work in conjunction with the other branches of government, and must rely on the skills of those appointed to roles within his administration, as well as the civil servants who serve the country no matter who lives in the White House. It goes even further, for at the heart of our nation, are we, the people, those who make this nation run at its core. Together, as one nation, we can solve this problem. Recrimination has no place while the problem exists; there will be time for that later. Right now, we must all put our best efforts into seeing this through. There is something each of us can do, even if it is only a little thing.

Ultimately, the true cause of this disaster is the insatiable desire of our nation for energy from fossil fuel, and even as we struggle to stem the spewing fountain of oil in the Gulf, we must do more to stem the tide of oil required to run our nation. Instead of wasting energy in pointing fingers and placing blame, let us do what it takes to lend a hand, if in no other way than by reducing our consumption of oil and gas. Let us recognize that serious men and women, right on up to our President, are struggling to set this right, in conditions that make our ordinary travails seem trivial. History will tell us how and why, but it is up to us to ensure that this never happens again.

Specter Of The Gun

At two events which the President of the United States attended, someone outside in the crowd came armed. In the first instance, at a town hall on health care reform in New Hampshire, it was a man with a loaded sidearm. More recently, in Arizona, at a celebration for veterans, a man came with a sidearm and an AR-15 assault rifle. In both instances, the men were carrying legally registered weapons, and had every right, by state law, to carry them.

They were there to make a point.

Their intended point was to indicate that President Obama is in the process of "taking away the people's rights," that health care reform was just the first step to curtailing the freedoms of all Americans.

Ludicrous, I know.

Their unintended point was to show, unequivocally, that reactionary elements in this country are mobilizing. They have been given life by the election of the first African-American President, and simmering hostility, for years kept behind closed doors, is now out in the open. They have also been given a voice by news outlets, using the opportunity to gain fame for themselves and a TV/radio audience for their platform. They know how to play the game, and have played it well.

Now, the Second Amendment has been analyzed and interpreted since its inception, but the intent of the amendment was clear: the Founding Fathers felt that in order to ensure the safety of the fledgling United States, and to make mobilization in case of invasion by a foreign power easier, that American citizens would be entrusted with the right to keep their arms. It was a warning to other nations, that attempting to attack the United States on its home soil would be folly, given the number of armed citizens capable of forming local militias in short order. George Washington had already proven that militiamen and citizen soldiers could, in time of war, been honed into an effective fighting force.

Two hundred and twenty plus years later, the idea that any nation would attempt a direct land invasion of the United States is considered fantasy, given the strength of our armed forces, the weapons at our disposal, and above all, our nuclear deterrent. The armed citizen militia is the very last line of defense, and if it comes to that, that would tend to indicate that America has suffered a mortal blow.

So now the need for an armed citizenry is less pressing, but still, the right is woven into the fabric of the Constitution, specifically as part of The Bill of Rights. While an amendment can be repealed or even superseded by a new amendment, The Bill of Rights has taken on a stature that makes it seem inviolate, as if the mere suggestion that any of its provisions be struck down is madness. For better or worse, the Second Amendment is here to stay, and it's more important than we learn how to handle it, than to bemoan its existence.

For those who are decent people, who take the use and ownership of weapons seriously, and have taken great pains to handle their weapons with respect, the idea that gun ownership should at least be regulated, should not cause them any great concern. Yet, gun groups, most notably the National Rifle Association, stand staunchly against the idea of registering and regulating firearms, as if it some sort of affront, as if they are being told "we don't trust you." It is a peculiar stance for an organization to take that says it is protecting the right to bear arms, because by doing so, they allow firearms to fall into the hands of those who most decidedly should not have them, weakening their position. Just as there are laws that say yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not free speech (per the First Amendment), it would seem to make sense that saying convicted felons cannot own guns, or that guns are not allowed within city limits, would be just as constitutional, per the Second Amendment.

This fetishizing of firearms, coupled with the idea that the basic rights of Americans are under siege, is leading to an inevitable collision, which will not go well. That these men brought weapons within easy range of the President is disturbing, of itself, but not nearly so anxiety-producing when one remembers that our President is escorted everywhere by one of the most elite paramilitary forces the world knows, the United States Secret Service. No doubt a person carrying an overt weapon was identified as a potential hostile and treated accordingly, and would not be given the chance to create mayhem.

The flip side of that is that while an obvious firearm would be engaging the attention of authorities, an unobtrusive weapon could still be in the crowd. It's never the devil you know, but the one you don't, that inevitably catches you off guard. The presence of those weapons was a clear sign that tensions are escalating, and that someone with ill intent may very well try to assassinate the President, given an opportunity. This ramps up the tension further, to the point that soon, a person carrying a legal firearm to a rally or protest where the President is scheduled to be, may find themselves on the short end of a killing shot for making a gesture that, in a split-second, could be interpreted as brandishing their weapon.

It is fine to make your voice heard, to protest policies you feel are not in the best interests of all Americans. It should not require a gun to make the point.

Taxation With Representation

If the Founding Fathers were irked at the idea of having to pay taxes to The Crown without fair representation in Parliament, just imagine how they would feel now. The government they worked so hard to put together has taken the idea of taxation and turned it on its head. While I'm sure they would agree that tax revenue collected by the Federal government was to be used for the good of all Americans, I don't think they'd be too pleased with how that is accomplished and how the money is apportioned.

I am sure they would see the Democratic point of view, which says that the money needs to be spent towards the general welfare, to ensure that no American should suffer through life with a lack of food, shelter, and education. I am also sure they would see the Republican side of the equation. Government must do these things effectively, efficiently, and above all, with as little cost to the citizen as possible. Large government benefits no one if its size is not a function of what it does but how it does it.

All that said, I'm sure the Founding Fathers would look upon the current system and see that it is a shambles of their original model. No doubt they would be horrified at the inefficiency and waste inherent in the current budgeting process. What would have them no doubt even more perplexed is how so much of the money is being misspent and misused. Despite representation, it is as if the whims of Congressmen are more important than the needs of the people.

For the American Republic to work, it must provide equal access to all, access to those things that are the fundamental right of citizens: health care, food and shelter, education. It must provide defense of the nation without becoming embroiled in every petty foreign war. It must show other nations through deeds and words, how the lamp of democracy may be lit by the people of a nation. Mostly, each and every citizen must do their share, whether they would agree with the policies of the government or not. Elections are held to give the citizenry a chance to change the course of the nation when they feel it is headed towards the shoals.

For all of this to work, the sweat of the American brow must not be spent perpetuating the same tired policies based on self-aggrandizement, appeasement, and chest-thumping. The taxes we pay must come with their own price tag: the promise by all our legislators that they will treat them with care, will portion them out to provide for all, and will ensure our safety and security, all this without the rancor and partisanship that has so mired us in the mud for so long. Perhaps it is too much to ask, but ask for it we must, each and every time we pay our taxes or go to the ballot box. We must hold those we elect to represent us to the highest standard, until it becomes clear to the establishment in Washington, D.C. that they work for us.