Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Civil Rights, Constitution, Government, Guns, Religion, Society, Violence
(I posted this over on dKos, thought it might be of interest to people here.)
* * *
xxdr zombiexx’s diary on Thursday provoked a lot of good discussion, and brought out in high relief some of the differences here on the left regarding attitudes towards guns. One very insightful thing he said in the 3rd update to his diary particularly got me to thinking:
The point is that I do think that some people take this “right to own guns” bit too seriously and have elevated it to a religion.
OK, let’s use that as the launching point for an analogy. It is not a perfect analogy, but I hope it is an illustrative one – please keep an open mind, and give it a chance to work. My intent here is to explain, not argue.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution states:
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.
I want to focus on the first two parts of that, concerning religion, which are commonly referred to as the “Establishment” and “Free Exercise” clauses.
(I am not an attorney, and am not trying to argue legal history – I just want to provide a basic premise for the analogy.)
We tend to think that these clauses mean that an individual American has the right to believe (or not believe) as he or she sees fit, and to exercise their belief freely, without the interference of the government. And by & large, this is true. There are disputes concerning what constitutes any kind of government recognition or support of one religion or another (things like having the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses, et cetera), and there are problems which occur with how some people exercise their religion (as in considering otherwise illegal drugs to be a sacrament). But for the most part, you can believe as you see fit, and exercise that belief within the normal constraints of the law. This is how the vast majority of Americans live their lives.
[Here comes the speculative part. Bear with me.]
OK, now consider how most people would view the Democratic party if it had a history of supporting limitations on the exercise of religion. Let’s say that during the 1960s, following the death of President Kennedy, there was an effort made to promote Catholicism, in respect for the religion of the slain president. After all, a substantial number of Americans at the time were Catholics, including a large percentage of the working-class base of the Democratic Party in the big cities of the North East. Oh, you could still believe as you saw fit, still be Baptist, or Jewish, or Mormon – but let’s say that there was legislation proposed that would make the Pope the nominal head of all religions in the US, just as a sign of respect to President Kennedy.
Of course, such legislation would be seen as completely inappropriate, there would be a backlash, and Democrats would pay a heavy price in following elections. After wandering in the political wilderness for a generation, most Democrats would know not to get involved in such a mess, to leave religion well enough alone.
Time passes. But then along comes a new religion. A bit of a weird one. Scientology. A lot of people see it as a cult. Its power and influence is seen to grow, though in fairly limited ways. Still, it makes a lot of people uneasy. Several European countries decide that it is something of a threat, and pass laws against it, some harsher than others.
A new Democratic president decides to do something, and is instrumental in passing a new law in an effort to protect people from perceived dangers of Scientology. But the wording is sloppy (as any such effort to limit a religion while trying to stay Constitutional would be), and as more people become aware of the implications of the law, the more different religions seem to be threatened by it. Over the course of a decade, even though the Democratic president and his Republican successor don’t really use the law to do anything against most people, the general consensus comes about among believers that this law should be allowed to lapse when it comes up for renewal.
And still, even so, there are those Democrats who think that Scientology is a real threat, and they lobby hard to keep the law. Their intention is completely honorable – all they want to do is have what they see as reasonable limits on this one particular ‘weird’ religion. But their actions remind people of the ill-fated (though again, well-intentioned) efforts to promote Catholicism, no matter how much they profess that *that* is not what they mean to do at all. Fed by the Republican noise machine, fear of Democratic interference in the free exercise of religion is kept alive, even while the anti-Scientology law is allowed to expire.
A new Democratic president comes on the stage. He seems to be honest, and forthright, and has a lot of messes to clean up from his inept Republican predecessor. He says that he has no interest in limiting anyone’s religion, that he is a non-Catholic himself, and most people believe him. But he did slip up once during the campaign, and made an unfortunate comment about small-town Americans bitterly clinging to religion. That made a lot of people nervous, even good Democrats who were people of faith. And he had been on record previously in supporting the anti-Scientology legislation. And someone remembers that he was raised an atheist. A couple of his top cabinet members make comments which can be understood to be hostile to Scientology, perhaps to religion in general. Oh, and his official government website says that he still supports making the anti-Scientology law permanent.
Then, still very early in his administration, there are several high-profile instances where Scientology is in the news and seems to be as much of a threat as ever, if not moreso. Demands on left-leaning political blogs increase for a renewal of the anti-Scientology law, as poorly written and ineffectual as it was. Some vocal atheists weigh in, say that the problem goes well beyond just Scientology, that it is religion itself that is the problem, and that we should all just grow the hell up and get past this infantile fascination, be more like the Europeans. People of faith – not just Scientologists, but all those who remember what has happened in the past – start to eye the Democrats with increasing unease and suspicion.
Jim Downey
Filed under: ACLU, Civil Rights, Government, Politics, Predictions, Privacy, Society, tech
Huh, a couple of weeks ago I complained about this:
The city of Columbia has installed a cluster of four surveillance cameras at Ninth Street and Broadway as a demo for a larger project to monitor and deter downtown crime.
Well, seems that my bitching (along with a lot of others), had an effect:
Council kills surveillance camera plan
In a move that surprised city staff and the downtown business community alike, the Columbia City Council last night on a 6-1 vote denied a transfer of funds that would have allowed the lease of surveillance cameras for downtown streets.
The mobile camera units, perched on trailers at downtown intersections for the past month during a trial period, will soon be hauled away, Assistant City Manager Tony St. Romaine said.
What started out as a transfer of funds from one account to another to cover a budgeted expense became a lengthy discussion of privacy, safety and civil rights among council members and members of the public.
I’ll be damned. Maybe there’s hope for us, yet.
Jim Downey
Filed under: Bruce Schneier, Emergency, Failure, General Musings, Government, Health, Politics, Predictions, Preparedness, Science, Society, Survival, Terrorism, Violence
The annoying cold I mentioned the other day seems to be trying for an upgrade to bronchial infection, perhaps with delusions of becoming pneumonia. So I’m not feeling particularly creative or insightful. Maybe I used up too much outrage yesterday. Anyway, since I am a bit under the weather, let me just post an excerpt from something you ought to read. This is the closing of The Most Dangerous Person in the World?:
Security itself is an illusion. It is a perception that exists only between our ears. No army, insurance policy, hazmat team, video surveillance or explosive sniffer can protect us from our own immune system, a well-intentioned but clumsy surgeon, failing to look before crossing the street, an asteroid randomly hurtling through space or someone willing to die in order to do others harm.
In this sense, the only things that can truly make us more “secure” are not things. They are the courage to face whatever comes with dignity and intention, and the strong relationships that assure we will face the future together, and find comfort and meaning in doing so.
Imagine, then, what might happen if we simply quit listening to the scaremongers and those who profit from our paranoia. Imagine what the world could look like if we made a conscious choice to live out whatever time we have with courage, compassion, service and joy.
Terrorism is an act of the weak. But so is walking through the airport in our socks.
We can make better choices.
Go read the whole thing.
Jim Downey
(Via Bruce Schneier.)
Filed under: BoingBoing, Civil Rights, Government, Politics, Privacy, Society, Terrorism, Travel, YouTube
So, there was a convention in St. Louis weekend before last. No big deal – just the sort of regional thing that is held in cities around the US regularly. This was a political convention, for a group which is a little out of the mainstream, but just a bit: Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty. Not my cup of tea, but like I said, no big deal.
And at this convention they sold the usual books and bumper stickers and t-shirts you might expect, and there were probably ticket sales to special events and whatnot. All this is standard fare. Following the convention, one young man who had responsibility for handling some portion of the sales receipts was trying to get home, and went to the airport to catch his flight back to Virginia. There, going through the security checkpoint . . .
Oh, wait – first, let me give a little bit of background. See, recently there was a big flair-up here in Missouri over a government report issued by the Department of Public Safety which caused a huge uproar. The document, titled “Modern Militia Movement”, was sent to law enforcement agencies around the state, outlining what potential threats might come out of right-wing groups. Problem is, a lot of people took the report as being hostile to legitimate political groups. Here’s the relevant passage:
Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with third party groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.
This created such an uproar that the the governor intervened and told the head of the DPS to correct the problem. From a newspaper report on the 24th:
In a letter dated March 23, Public Safety Director John Britt told third-party presidential candidates U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party that he was ordering the “Modern Militia Movement” report altered to delete their names and the names of their political parties as possible indicators of militia involvement.
* * *
The inclusion led members of these parties to fear they would be profiled by police based on political bumper stickers or other paraphernalia.
Britt, who oversees MIAC, writes: “Portions of the report may be easily construed by readers as offensive to supporters of certain political candidates or to those candidates themselves. I regret those components were ultimately included in the final report issued by MIAC.”
Britt also wrote that any characterization of the three presidential candidates or their parties as possible militia members was “an undesired and unwarranted outcome.”
OK, so there’s that. Now, back to our story.
. . . Steve Bierfeldt was stopped. He had a metal lockbox which contained Ron Paul & Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers, and $4700 in sales receipts. He was asked why he had such a large sum of cash. He asked whether he was required by law to answer the question. Things predictably degenerated from there. Here’s the TSA’s version of events:
Incident at St. Louis International Airport
At approximately 6:50 p.m. on March 29, 2009, a metal box alarmed the X-ray machine at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, triggering the need for additional screening. Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.
Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.
Now, take a few minutes to watch the following video. Yes, it is a clip from FOX News. My apologies for that – but it contains about 70 seconds worth of recording from the event itself, which clearly gives an indication of the type of tactics and behaviour being employed by the TSA:
Let me sum up for those who don’t wish to watch the video. Mr. Bierfeldt is repeatedly asked why he has such a large sum of money. He in turn asks whether he is *required by law* to answer that question. He is then told that he will be “taken downtown” and turned over to the FBI and/or DEA if he doesn’t answer the question. He is further threatened with missing his flight, arrest, et cetera for not cooperating. One of the four or five TSA officials in the room even states directly “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
This evidently went on for the better part of 25 minutes. At the end, a plainclothes police or FBI official came into the room, whispered to the TSA officials, who then gave Bierfeldt back his things and got him on his scheduled flight.
* * *
OK, several things. If you want a very enlightening insight into the functioning of the TSA mindset, go look at their official blog post and read comments from multiple TSA employees, who make incorrect claims about the law about transporting money saying that such a large sum gives them the right to investigate, that they are required to watch for drug law violations, et cetera.
It is *not* illegal to carry large amounts of cash. I would even say that $4700 doesn’t even qualify as a large amount of cash, though that’s more than I ever carry. Detaining someone for having that kind of money on them is nothing short of harassment.
Was Bierfeldt singled out for his political beliefs? Remember, that Missouri Department of Public Safety bulletin was still fresh, and had only been ‘rescinded’ a week previously. I think a reasonable person could conclude that there was a likelihood that it played a part.
Did Bierfeldt ask for this kind of problem? Wouldn’t it have been easier for him to just answer the stupid question and be done with it? Yeah, probably. But I consider the man a hero for sticking up for his rights. More of us should.
While I have some libertarian leanings, as I said at the beginning of this post Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty are not my cup of tea. And I find it a bit telling that only now when a nice white kid gets hassled by the TSA during the Obama administration does FOX News find it worth covering. But I certainly do hope that this is the start of people becoming more aware of what kinds of threats we all face to our liberties by the ‘security theater‘ which is the TSA. After all, what threat to airline security is presented by someone with a wad of cash?
Jim Downey
(Via BB and Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Artificial Intelligence, Connections, Expert systems, Feedback, Predictions, Science Fiction, Society, tech
The term “bump” has been used online for at least the last couple of years, particularly on larger group blogs when someone who administers the site wants a specific post or comment to get more attention or not be lost in the flow of information.
Curious now that there’s an emerging use of the term pertaining to another aspect of information: “bumping” technological tools to share specific information. From a column by a friend sent me:
From University of Chicago, a bump joins networking grind
It is fitting that University of Chicago business school students would develop an iPhone app that works by bump.
After all, it was a former U. of C. professor, President Barack Obama, who helped to popularize the fist bump.
The new iPhone app, called Bump, transfers data from one iPhone to another simply by bumping. When two people holding iPhones bump hands, detailed contact information or just certain data, such as a phone number, can be shared.
I bumped an iPhone with an iPod Touch and contact information was transferred between the devices in about 5 seconds. Both gadgets asked for confirmation.
As my friend said in the email:
Not quite as handy as the handshake in your book, but on its way.
Well on it’s way, indeed. For those who don’t recall (or who haven’t yet read the book), the standard tech people use for my novel contains a palm ‘key’ which is linked to a worn (actually, embedded) personal computer. Among other things, this key allows people to just shake hands and exchange business-card type information, which is automatically filed away for reference by your personal expert system.
As I’ve said before, it’s always fun to see the technology developing as I predict in Communion.
Jim Downey
Filed under: ACLU, Civil Rights, Government, Politics, Predictions, Privacy, Science Fiction, Society, tech
I’m becoming a crank.
Yeah, yeah, I know, what do I mean “becoming?”
But seriously, I am starting to worry a bit. Why? Because I am having a probably unnecessary overreaction to a couple of bits of news here in my hometown. I think it’ll become obvious what I mean, when I tell you what they are:
The city of Columbia has installed a cluster of four surveillance cameras at Ninth Street and Broadway as a demo for a larger project to monitor and deter downtown crime.
Watchtower Security is stationing security cameras on Broadway.
The cameras, which are suspended in the air on a post and resemble black fish eyes, were installed Monday by Watchtower Security, a St. Louis-based manager of surveillance equipment. Each camera has “pan, tilt and zoom” capability, allowing a viewer to read a license plate number or identify facial features from several hundred feet away.
* * *
Each of the camera groups is a fixed to a mobile pole that can be installed anywhere with a 110-volt outlet and moved as crime activity dictates. The cameras will all be placed downtown — the Special Business District contributed half of the $50,000 budget for the project — at intersections or alleys.
That was last month. Here’s this month’s:
City negotiates deal for camera use at red lights
Although negotiations on red-light cameras for Columbia have been stop-and-go for more than a year, city officials have given the green light for a contract with a new company, and test cameras could be up by July 1.
* * *
Another feature unique to Gatso was the “Amber Alert” camera setting. With the flick of a switch, St. Romaine said, the cameras can scan every license plate that passes through the intersection and look for matches if an abductor’s plate number is known.
“It’s not only for Amber Alerts, either,” St. Romaine said. It could be used “if there was a bank robbery and we could get the plate number. It’s a feature that’s not been out long. It was introduced in Chicago in the last four or five months. They would bring that added value to the system.”
I must admit, I agree with the comments of our local head of the ACLU, who last week said this about the Downtown cameras:
ACLU finds camera plan ‘creepy’
Where Columbia city leaders and some downtown businesses see added security and comfort in new surveillance cameras planned for downtown, others see government invasion of personal activities.
“It makes my skin crawl that we would just accept this so unquestioningly,” said attorney Dan Viets, president of the Mid-Missouri chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
* * *
“It boils down to safety,” police Capt. Zim Schwartze said. “We’re going to use every tool we can that the budget will allow. … It’s unfortunate that people think we’re trying to watch them just to watch them. You’d be amazed how many cameras are in the city right now in private businesses, out in the mall, bank, grocery stores. … People are being watched and have been watched for a long time.”
Ah, yes, “safety.” Of course, that makes everything OK. Same excuse has been given for the red-light cameras. It’ll stop people from running red lights, doncha know. And the ability for the “Amber Alert” feature, which will allow the cameras to scan *every* license plate that passes through the intersection? Well, that’s to protect the children. We must do everything we can to protect the children, right?
And yes, there are lots of cameras in private businesses and at the mall, or in the parking lot at Sam’s & WalMart. That bugs me enough as it is. But all of those are private property – not public streets. And they are not being monitored by government agencies.
See, right there – I’m becoming a crank. I’m becoming one of those guys who is a bit paranoid of his own government, even though I am friends with one of our city council members, and on good terms with at least two others. Even though my wife serves on an important city government board, and I’m involved in the city government at the neighborhood association level. Why am I becoming a crank?
Because I value my privacy. No, I don’t have anything particular I wish to hide. My life is entirely too boring, and has been for a long long time. But while I am happy to comply with government requirements for paying taxes and getting licenses, making sure my car is inspected and properly insured, and obey driving laws to an absurd degree, I don’t want my government, even at the local level, to be able to track my movements around town. I don’t want to have myself monitored if I choose to go for a stroll downtown (which is now less likely – seriously, I *avoid* this crap when I can). Oh, sure, I’m a former downtown business owner, and a solid member of the community – a white, middle-aged guy who respects cops and is on a first name basis with the mayor. I’m not going to be hassled, and I won’t be targeted for increased scrutiny.
But why should any law abiding citizen be subject to this invasion?
Jim Downey
*From the 2006 Census estimates. Title refers your choice of dystopian, authoritarian futures as outlined in countless books and movies. Cross posted to UTI.
Filed under: Depression, Gene Roddenberry, Health, Science, Science Fiction, Society, Star Trek, Survival
Back in the 1960s, salt was just salt. Known to be necessary for healthy life in most mammals, including humans, people didn’t give it a lot of thought beyond that. Oh, sure, sometimes people would worry about a salt deficiency – I remember taking salt tablets regularly the summer I worked as a hot tar roofer – but otherwise, it was no big deal. In fact, one of the early episodes of Star Trek had the M-113 Creature, as ‘salt vampire’ which killed by sucking the salt out of humans.
Then came the 1980s. And the start of the great salt scare.
Salt was tied to hypertension. Salt was found to be overused in all kinds of prepared foods (since it augments flavor and increases food density – what the industry calls “mouthfeel” by saturating food with more water). We were told that salt kills – and that you had damned well better cut back on the amount of salt you ate. Anyone with high blood pressure or heart disease was told to go on a low- or no-salt diet, using salt substitutes or just going without.
What wasn’t really discussed by the public health officials who got this bandwagon started was that only some people are salt-sensitive, i.e.: react to excess salt in their diet. I’m not going to dig back through all the research papers now, but I remember that it was estimated that for the US this was about 30% of the population. For those people, salt could indeed pose a problem. But most people didn’t have this kind of reaction – their system would just flush excess salt out through normal kidney function. Here’s a passage from the Wikipedia article on salt which addresses this:
Sodium is one of the primary electrolytes in the body. All four cationic electrolytes (sodium, potassium, magnesium, and calcium) are available in unrefined salt, as are other vital minerals needed for optimal bodily function. Too much or too little salt in the diet can lead to muscle cramps, dizziness, or even an electrolyte disturbance, which can cause severe, even fatal, neurological problems.[29] Drinking too much water, with insufficient salt intake, puts a person at risk of water intoxication (hyponatremia). Salt is even sometimes used as a health aid, such as in treatment of dysautonomia.[30]
The risk for disease due to insufficient or excessive salt intake varies because of biochemical individuality. Some have asserted that while the risks of consuming too much salt are real, the risks have been exaggerated for most people, or that the studies done on the consumption of salt can be interpreted in many different ways.[31] [32]
Now, from a public health perspective, it makes sense to try and limit the average intake of salt. As noted, many prepared foods have a *lot* of salt in them. If you can stop 30%, or one third, or one quarter, of your population from developing high blood pressure without causing problems for the rest of the population, then why not? And I think that this is probably the reason and rationale behind the extensive public health campaigns to get people to cut back on salt intake, though I bet it would be difficult to get most public health officials to admit that this was the case.
But . . . what if a decrease in salt presented problems for that other portion of the population that is not salt-sensitive?
Salt is ‘natural mood-booster’
University of Iowa researchers writing in Psychology and Behavior say salt may act as a natural antidepressant.
Tests on rats found those with a salt deficiency shied away from activities they normally enjoyed – a sign of depression.
* * *
The tests carried out by US researchers found that when rats were deficient in salt, they shy away from activities they normally enjoy, like drinking a sugary substance or pressing a bar that stimulates a pleasant sensation in their brains.
Psychologist Kim Johnson, who led the research, said: “Things that normally would be pleasurable for rats didn’t elicit the same degree of relish, which leads us to believe that a salt deficit and the craving associated with it can induce one of the key symptoms associated with depression.”
Now what? Risk hypertension, or fight depression? What is the biggest public health concern?
As I’ve noted before, I *do* have problems with high blood pressure (though thanks to changes in lifestyle – specifically, getting regular sleep and exercise – combined with drug therapy, it is now coming down to close to the “normal” range). But I don’t seem to be salt-sensitive – drastically cutting my salt intake makes no difference in my blood pressure. My doctor doesn’t worry about my salt intake, saying that other factors are likely much more important in dealing with my hypertension.
But what about depression? Or just worrying about whether you’re going to die from too much salt?
I think Gene Roddenberry was right: sucking all the salt out of us is like sucking the life out of us. Or at least the joy of living.
Jim Downey
In a letter to [Treasury Secretary] Geithner yesterday, Liddy agreed to restructure some of the payments. But Liddy said he had “grave concerns” about the impact on the firm’s ability to retain talented staff “if employees believe that their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.”
Bwahahahaha!! *sniff* Hehehehehehe… Go on, pull the other one:
AIG officials say that some of the upcoming bonuses are relatively modest once they are divided among employees. About 4,700 people in the company’s global insurance units are receiving $600 million in retention pay. In addition, about $121 million in corporate bonuses will go to more than 6,400 people, for an average payout of about $19,000, according to AIG.
“These are not Wall Street bonuses,” said one AIG executive, who was not authorized to speak on the record. “This is an insurance company.”
Heh. Hehehehe.
>wipes eyes, catches breath<
Whew. Gods, I’m glad that those are not Wall Street bonuses. I mean, who in this economy can begrudge a mere average $19,000 bonus for the middle-managers there at AIG? Not to mention the average $127,000 retention pay to the upper management? I know if *I* didn’t get that kind of bonus annually, I’d just leave. I mean really.
Heh.
OK, in all seriousness, if these people have contracts stipulating these bonuses, without some kind of escape clause pertaining to the performance of the company, then it would probably cost us more in lawsuits for violating those contracts. Yeah, I said “us” – because we’re talking about AIG, which has received some $170 billion (and which as a result the US government owns 80% of). Does that make you feel better about the whole thing?
No, me neither.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Daily Kos, Emergency, General Musings, Government, Politics, Predictions, Preparedness, Society, Terrorism, Violence, YouTube
This is what I was afraid would happen.
And it makes me, well, worried. Very worried.
Prompted by 9/11, we watched the fairly rapid curtailment of civil liberties during the Bush administration (though supported & enabled entirely too much by Democrats in Congress). The Patriot Act. The expansion of FISA. Warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. Legal opinions which effectively gave the president dictatorial powers, and which allowed for torture of terrorism suspects.
Coupled with this was a dramatic rise in rhetoric on the right, to the effect that failure to get in line -completely- with the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” was called nothing short of treason. Anyone who objected to the “temporary curtailment of civil liberties” was likely to be painted as a traitor, or worse. It was not a good time to be a civil libertarian, or a liberal, and for eight long years many felt that we were under seige. I half expected more violence or even some excuse to suspend normal civil law and elections. And I was hardly alone.
But the elections were held, and changes were made. A new president, with a very different concept of the rule of law, was elected and has taken office. Granted, it was during the worst economic crisis we’ve faced in 70 years, but a lot of us had hope for the future. Hope that we could indeed start to work together as a nation.
Of course, the losers didn’t see it that way. Oh, some did, and there has actually been a substantial increase in the popularity and public support of Obama since the election and since he took office. But the core of the right has just gotten wound tighter and tighter, to the point where the rhetoric has taken on violent overtones. It started back during the election, with Gov. Palin’s characterization of Sen. Obama as “hanging around with terrorists” and the sentiments that engendered among her audience. Since then, it has only gotten worse.
Former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes (who has run for a variety of offices under the GOP banner) via YouTube:
“Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it’s true. He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
And
“I’m not sure he’s even president of the United States, neither are many of our military people now who are now going to court to ask the question, ‘Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?’ We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don’t stop laughing about it and deal with it, we’re going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war.”
The ‘civil war’ theme has been picked and run with elsewhere on the right. There were the Glenn Beck “War Games” scenarios recently, which played out the idea of widespread civil unrest leading to civil war. You’ve got Chuck Norris writing an insane column for a major right-wing website promoting the idea of secession. Here’s a bit of that:
For those losing hope, and others wanting to rekindle the patriotic fires of early America, I encourage you to join Fox News’ Glenn Beck, me and millions of people across the country in the live telecast, “We Surround Them,” on Friday afternoon (March 13 at 5 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. CT and 2 p.m. PST). Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation. You can host or attend a viewing party by going to Glenn’s website. My wife Gena and I will be hosting one from our Texas ranch, in which we’ve invited many family members, friends and law enforcement to join us. It’s our way of saying “We’re united, we’re tired of the corruption, and we’re not going to take it anymore!”
Again, Sam Houston put it well when he gave the marching orders, “We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish. It is vain to look for present aid: None is at hand. We must now act or abandon all hope! Rally to the standard, and be no longer the scoff of mercenary tongues! Be men, be free men, that your children may bless their father’s name.”
“Cell groups”? Really?
Sheesh.
But that isn’t what worries me. Well, it does, but I’ve got bigger fish to fry here. What really worries me is that this kind of rhetoric has prompted a backlash on the left that was entirely too predictable: a desire to use the powers of government already put into play by the Bush administration to quash this perceived threat. Not everyone agrees, but just look at comments in any of these different discussions and you’ll see what I mean. There are a lot of people who are fed up with the nonsense from the right, who say “shit, man, we put up with Bush for 8 years and you’re whining after only 8 weeks of Obama??? Fine, let’s take care of this now, using the tools you gave us.”
It’s a completely understandable reaction. But it is also extremely dangerous. It is, in fact, a poisoned well, and we drink from it at grave risk to ourselves and our Republic.
Because if we use those tools – if we employ the power of the government to suppress the freedoms of our enemies – then we legitimize all that the Bush administration did. And if that happens, I’m not sure there is any turning back. And down that path lies madness: violence, martial law, suspension of the Constitution, the whole crazy nightmare. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Communion Of Dreams 