Feb 16: Lame Bushism Post
I know it's passé and lame to make a whole post out of a Bushism...
...so, I guess I'm lame:
Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat.
—Washington D.C.; September 17, 2004
I know it's passé and lame to make a whole post out of a Bushism...
...so, I guess I'm lame:
...so, I guess I'm lame:
Free societies are hopeful societies. And free societies will be allies against these hateful few who have no conscience, who kill at the whim of a hat.—Washington D.C.; September 17, 2004
Jan 30: The Federalist Papers
I've bene slowly reading the Federalist Papers over the past few months. In case you don't know what the Federalist Papers are, here's a short description from the linked page:
The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.
They're basically an in-depth argument for the US system of government written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As I read them, I find myself frequently thinking that it'd be a good idea if some of our current leaders would read them (they should probably check out the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence while they're at it, too).
Anyway, I'm going to start posting a blog entry when I come upon a section that really strikes me. Like I said, this has happened a couple of times, but I'm not going to bother going back and trying to find where they were. Also, I'm not planning to comment on them much, but may as my whims dictate.
The first one comes from Federalist #10, which continues #9's topic of The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.
Here's the section that really struck me (with the preceding three paragraphs for context):
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
I think the relevancy to today's environment of terrorism and the reactionary liberty-smothering of the government is obvious.
I've bene slowly reading the Federalist Papers over the past few months. In case you don't know what the Federalist Papers are, here's a short description from the linked page:
They're basically an in-depth argument for the US system of government written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As I read them, I find myself frequently thinking that it'd be a good idea if some of our current leaders would read them (they should probably check out the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence while they're at it, too).
Anyway, I'm going to start posting a blog entry when I come upon a section that really strikes me. Like I said, this has happened a couple of times, but I'm not going to bother going back and trying to find where they were. Also, I'm not planning to comment on them much, but may as my whims dictate.
The first one comes from Federalist #10, which continues #9's topic of The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.
Here's the section that really struck me (with the preceding three paragraphs for context):
I think the relevancy to today's environment of terrorism and the reactionary liberty-smothering of the government is obvious.
The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.
They're basically an in-depth argument for the US system of government written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. As I read them, I find myself frequently thinking that it'd be a good idea if some of our current leaders would read them (they should probably check out the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence while they're at it, too).
Anyway, I'm going to start posting a blog entry when I come upon a section that really strikes me. Like I said, this has happened a couple of times, but I'm not going to bother going back and trying to find where they were. Also, I'm not planning to comment on them much, but may as my whims dictate.
The first one comes from Federalist #10, which continues #9's topic of The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection.
Here's the section that really struck me (with the preceding three paragraphs for context):
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
I think the relevancy to today's environment of terrorism and the reactionary liberty-smothering of the government is obvious.
Nov 8: Best Day Ever
Isn't today the best day ever? The Republicans have lost control of the House and probably the Senate and now Donald Rumsfeld is resigning!
And on the technology front, Sun is open-sourcing the Java programming language and releasing it under the GPL! (this probably won't mean much to most of my readers, but believe me, it's a good thing)
What a day!
p.s. Why doesn't anyone ever post comments to my political posts?
Isn't today the best day ever? The Republicans have lost control of the House and probably the Senate and now Donald Rumsfeld is resigning!
And on the technology front, Sun is open-sourcing the Java programming language and releasing it under the GPL! (this probably won't mean much to most of my readers, but believe me, it's a good thing)
What a day!
p.s. Why doesn't anyone ever post comments to my political posts?
And on the technology front, Sun is open-sourcing the Java programming language and releasing it under the GPL! (this probably won't mean much to most of my readers, but believe me, it's a good thing)
What a day!
p.s. Why doesn't anyone ever post comments to my political posts?
Sep 11: Attacking Iraq was a foregone conclusion
Cheney admitted as much to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" yesterday:
Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct
Asked by “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.
“He’d done it before,” Cheney said. “He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in ’91.”
After selling the idea of attacking Iraq to the U.S. public on the basis of Iraq being a threat to us because they had big nasty weapons, we're now told that it didn't matter one way or the other? Basically, the weapons were just a sales pitch to dupe us, the ignorant people. What's wrong with lying to the people if you're right, right?
The U.S. invasion “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing,” he said.
Of course, there were also claims of ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, although they've recently denied making these claims (the denial is, again, a lie).
This administration is sickening.
Cheney admitted as much to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" yesterday:
Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct
After selling the idea of attacking Iraq to the U.S. public on the basis of Iraq being a threat to us because they had big nasty weapons, we're now told that it didn't matter one way or the other? Basically, the weapons were just a sales pitch to dupe us, the ignorant people. What's wrong with lying to the people if you're right, right?
Of course, there were also claims of ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, although they've recently denied making these claims (the denial is, again, a lie).
This administration is sickening.
Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct
Asked by “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes.
“He’d done it before,” Cheney said. “He had produced chemical weapons before and used them. He had produced biological weapons. He had a robust nuclear program in ’91.”
After selling the idea of attacking Iraq to the U.S. public on the basis of Iraq being a threat to us because they had big nasty weapons, we're now told that it didn't matter one way or the other? Basically, the weapons were just a sales pitch to dupe us, the ignorant people. What's wrong with lying to the people if you're right, right?
The U.S. invasion “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing,” he said.
Of course, there were also claims of ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, although they've recently denied making these claims (the denial is, again, a lie).
This administration is sickening.
Sep 6: How Hitler Became a Dictator
I just read this fascinating article discussing the events that led up to Hitler becoming a dictator.
How Hitler Became a Dictator
While there are significant differences in the state of Germany in 1932-1934, the similarities that do exist are scary.
From the article:
Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history — that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for “security.” And that’s exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis.
Note that I'm not putting forward the idea that the Bush administration had anything to do with the September 11 attacks; but they do understand, and have taken advantage of the fact that people are willing to surender liberties during emergencies. In fact, they're willing to swallow all sorts of things that would normally be rejected; a preemptive war, perhaps?
The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, “For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:
Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted, “Germany will be free, but not through you!” When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against, giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution. On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act” made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.
Many people think that something like this could never happen here in the U.S., but I'd bet that most people thought the same thing in 1930s Germany. Also, like current laws eroding civil liberties, Hitler's reign started slowly and only ramped up to the real atrocities over time:
For their part, the German people quickly accepted the new order of things. Keep in mind that the average non-Jewish German was pretty much unaffected by the new laws and decrees. As long as a German citizen kept his head down, worked hard, took care of his family, sent his children to the public schools and the Hitler Youth organization, and, most important, didn’t involve himself in political dissent against the government, a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.
They probably thought the same thing that a lot of people today do: the government only goes after 'bad' people and if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide, so who needs civil liberties anyway?
The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country.
"Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country." So, the goverment got rid of civil liberties to fight terrorists and the citizens ate it up. Sound familiar?
I just read this fascinating article discussing the events that led up to Hitler becoming a dictator.
How Hitler Became a Dictator
While there are significant differences in the state of Germany in 1932-1934, the similarities that do exist are scary.
From the article:
Note that I'm not putting forward the idea that the Bush administration had anything to do with the September 11 attacks; but they do understand, and have taken advantage of the fact that people are willing to surender liberties during emergencies. In fact, they're willing to swallow all sorts of things that would normally be rejected; a preemptive war, perhaps?
Many people think that something like this could never happen here in the U.S., but I'd bet that most people thought the same thing in 1930s Germany. Also, like current laws eroding civil liberties, Hitler's reign started slowly and only ramped up to the real atrocities over time:
They probably thought the same thing that a lot of people today do: the government only goes after 'bad' people and if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide, so who needs civil liberties anyway?
"Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country." So, the goverment got rid of civil liberties to fight terrorists and the citizens ate it up. Sound familiar?
How Hitler Became a Dictator
While there are significant differences in the state of Germany in 1932-1934, the similarities that do exist are scary.
From the article:
Why would Hitler and his associates turn a blind eye to an impending terrorist attack on their national congressional building or actually assist with such a horrific deed? Because they knew what government officials have known throughout history — that during extreme national emergencies, people are most scared and thus much more willing to surrender their liberties in return for “security.” And that’s exactly what happened during the Reichstag terrorist crisis.
Note that I'm not putting forward the idea that the Bush administration had anything to do with the September 11 attacks; but they do understand, and have taken advantage of the fact that people are willing to surender liberties during emergencies. In fact, they're willing to swallow all sorts of things that would normally be rejected; a preemptive war, perhaps?
The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, “For the Protection of the People and the State.” Justified as a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state,” the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:
Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted, “Germany will be free, but not through you!” When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against, giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution. On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the “Enabling Act” made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.
Many people think that something like this could never happen here in the U.S., but I'd bet that most people thought the same thing in 1930s Germany. Also, like current laws eroding civil liberties, Hitler's reign started slowly and only ramped up to the real atrocities over time:
For their part, the German people quickly accepted the new order of things. Keep in mind that the average non-Jewish German was pretty much unaffected by the new laws and decrees. As long as a German citizen kept his head down, worked hard, took care of his family, sent his children to the public schools and the Hitler Youth organization, and, most important, didn’t involve himself in political dissent against the government, a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.
They probably thought the same thing that a lot of people today do: the government only goes after 'bad' people and if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to hide, so who needs civil liberties anyway?
The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away, that so much of culture had been destroyed and replaced with a mindless barbarism, or that their life and work had become regimented to a degree never before experienced even by a people accustomed for generations to a great deal of regimentation.... The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans and a newly arrived observer was somewhat surprised to see that the people of this country did not seem to feel that they were being cowed.... On the contrary, they supported it with genuine enthusiasm. Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country.
"Somehow it imbued them with a new hope and a new confidence and an astonishing faith in the future of their country." So, the goverment got rid of civil liberties to fight terrorists and the citizens ate it up. Sound familiar?
« previous page
(Page 2 of 8, totaling 39 entries)
» next page
