What Does It Mean To Have Rights?

***Feb 27,2007*** Someone from England Googled into this and it has been a regular archive hit since it was written. I don't think it will seem dated today.

I will start with a disclaimer, an entire library could be written on this subject and I'm not going to.

The US government recognizes some rights, the basic documents of our form of government set some out. These documents begin officially with the Declaration of Independence, there are preceding documents, but this one is officially American. The Declaration sets out two ideas that form this nation's soul, that certain rights precede all forms of government and that when a government no longer serves its people they have the right to change it, violently if needed.

The Revolutionaries fought a long, bitter war against a government they previously had every reason to believe was their own. This experience taught them that their belief in inherent rights could come into conflict with a government's interests and that a government might not represent its citizenry. They had no interest in repeating the experience and tried to pre-empt such a thing's recurrence. They argued long and hard about the Constitution, having failed with the Articles of Confederation to create stability, in order to make a system which was strong enough to withstand the competing interests of its citizenry and flexible enough to meet those interests. Some things like Habeas Corpus they considered basic enough in Law to survive mention in the basic document, the Constitution, others were not so well codified and yet considered of great import. These others composed the Bill of Rights, a formal recognition of rights that were not derived from government, or created by government, but actually superior to government. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence were given codification or enumeration.

The things that they had declared in embarking on war with the most powerful nation in the world was now set out in definite wording. These men never intended that these rights superseded responsibility in action nor that a right allowed the destruction of our fellows, they assumed that simple humanity required an end point to the exercise of a right. They also were more inclined to err on the side of the individual's sense than the government's interests. It is important to remember that these individuals were primarily of English descent or of English Law culture and had watched and finally fought the disintegration of their relationship with their government over a clash of interests. They knew these issues first hand.

When you accept the idea of rights that are superior to and precede governance you have set a high ideal. You put your government out of business in areas where it has almost always interfered. These are areas that the citizenry has strong feelings and beliefs about, areas that governments have always used or suppressed in service to their interests. No one can deny that religion, as an example, is an issue that is of tremendous import to members of society and that its co-option by government is a powerful tool. It is extraordinarily dangerous to government to let it loose for free expression, government takes a large blow to its interests. Each of the rights that were enumerated is similarly debilitating to government and dangerous in the hands of individuals. The Framers were engaging in a risky course of action.

That brings us to us. We are engaged in a risky enterprise, the exercise of rights that all previous governments restricted in one way or another. The government cannot tell us to only praise it with our words, it also cannot tell us not to say mean hurtful things. It cannot tell us that to say one group is unfit to be within society is wrong and forbidden, it must allow us to go our own way. We can say that our elected officials are liars and cheats in the service of unelected elite interests. This creates a possible source of chaos that the government is forbidden to interfere with. The very few limitations the government is allowed to attempt to enforce are those that involve direct deliberate harm to other's rights. Virtually the only protection offered the government is in the transmittal of government secrets. Even in this arena the government treads on very thin ice, it has of late asserted privileges that it may find are specious. Just in the narrow limits of free speech and free press the situation is fraught with risk to order and civility and particularly to government.

It is easy in our modern world to become comfortable and believe we have safe and secure lives and it is a mistake. We live in a system that encourages and supports dissidence, and finally places the tools of rebellion firmly in the citizenry's hands. This systemic deprivation of power of governance is so deep and broad that its beneficiaries often are not aware of it. The tools of sedition range from speaking and gathering together, to having the arms to fight, and protections from governmental investigations. Every direction the government turns it is constrained. This is not the recipe for quiet sedate life if the people do not wish it and frequently despite their wishes it is not.

Because government, the enforcer of societal order, is so constrained it falls on the citizenry to exercise its rights in manners that do not create harm to their fellows. It falls to the citizenry to make informed and reasoned votes for those who represent them. It falls to the citizenry to be responsible for a government that allows and encourages cooperative society. The onus for failure of the system and violent reaction falls on those who have the very things that so constrain their government. There are those who would place restrictions on rights in the name of order and security, they would attempt to undo the system because its own members are failing it. This is misplaced responsibility, if a situation requires redressing it is not because rights are too broad, it is a failure of those responsible for the structuring of our relationships, which is finally the citizens.

We have the most glorious of opportunities, a government restrained and citizenry empowered and that is where we start. Almost a quarter millennia ago we put into operation the most daring and audacious experiment in history and we stand or fall on our own. We cannot blame the hamstrung and hobbled government, we are the power. Let us take ahold with both hands and move this forward, not fall back into the decay and decadence that is all previous governments.

If It Were Halloween

Let's just say it is Halloween and you wanted to hand out Democratic literature to folks in downtown Baker City, Oregon. Let's just say that downtown Baker City does trick or treating at the businesses. You might find yourself looking like this.

Mike Braymen is a fellow Democrat and a friend of mine from just down the street. He also usually is a better looking man than this. Not exactly an online dating picture post most would make.

Thanks Mike for taking your day off and getting out there for Democrats. Baker County Democrats and DPO owe Mike for a lot more than this, especially condsidering he works full time, business travels, and is taking an advanced degree course in an intense field. I've wanted to publicly thank Mike for some time now and this picture gave me the opportunity.

A lot of people who claim to care very much about the political process could take some lessons from people like Mike who put belief into action. Maybe you'll laugh, but this what patriotism looks like.

How Do You Like Your Government, Now ?

There are always political differences within this country, it is to be expected and even encouraged. Then there are the things that aren't political as such, they are a matter of ethics or even law. This isn't about politics.

We have a government that actively lies to its citizens, not puts the best face on information, lies. We have a government that tortures people, not enhanced interrogation, torture. Torture that our opponents in warfare have been prosecuted for by our government. Understand that piece, we have prosecuted people for doing waterboarding to our people. It is against the law, DOJ opinions are not required. We have a government that disappears our citizens, the individual was just recently tried and convicted - after being disappeared. We have a government that actively participates in and encourages war profiteering and corruption. We finance and support the 3rd most corrupt government in the world in Iraq. Our government is complicit in the murder of Iraqis and rape by contractors, immunizing their actions. Murder and rape are committed in our name.

It is unnecessary to list the insults to the Constitution proposed and indulged in by this government. The First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, and the ancient right of Habeas Corpus have been assaulted. A sitting President has written over seven hundred times that he need not obey the law of the land, that he is exempt within the same framework as any third rate dictator. A Congress exists that believes it is powerless in the face of an enhanced executive branch and narrow partisan interests. Sufficiently powerless to allow free passes to the executive on clearly dangerous issues.

America has a few options, ballots somewhat in the future, the streets, and finally rebellion. Ballots and contacting representatives to push them into action are preferable, if your representative is too weak, then there are primaries.

Political Allies * A Re-Post

In the process of moving a politically contentious project through the Democratic Party Of Oregon I learned some things about political alignments, I had further lessons as a candidate in the Democratic Primary for 2nd CD. What I learned is that there are essentially 4 categories of alignment: Friends, Allies, Opponents, Enemies.

We all should know what Friends are, they're close to you and hold to you and support you. You take good care of your friends.

Allies are a little different, they're with you for their reasons. Allies need to be respected, but it also is important to remember that their reasons may not have a lot to do with your reasons. It may require a certain amount of distance or it may require some stroking. An ally may be strong or they may be weak, their motivations may be yours or they may be entirely different. You need to keep an ally close, but you may also have to keep a very sharp eye on him. It is quite possible, for example, for a very left Democrat to have a very Conservative Republican ally on civil liberties - The Bill of Rights, but that certainly doesn't mean the political agendas are suddenly the same, you are allies on an issue. This is not a problem, it simply means there is an intersection of interests in one area and a complete divergence in others.

Opponents are probably one of the more poorly managed alignments, it is important to know what is going on with an opponent, what their motivation is as well as its outcomes. Opponents should be approached with the respect that (Machiavellian speaking) their possible future use is to you. There is a difference between candidates and colleagues, you are trying to completely defeat an opposing candidate, a colleague is someone you will have to deal with in the future. There is every possibility that a current opponent is a possible ally in the future and on that basis should be debated with respect and consideration. A scorched earth policy towards opponents guarantees that they will become an Enemy.

An enemy is probably the safest alignment outside friends, you know where you stand, you know it will be a fight and you know they will be seeking allies, including your weak ones. The best policy is to avoid making enemies, this is the "take no prisoners" aspect of politics. We've seen this aspect of politics from Republicans in the recent past, it should be obvious what the drawbacks are of such management.

This may sound as though principles are optional, that's not the case. The principles of everyone involved in this management scheme are important, but not necessarily an issue. That decision on that issue is determined by applicability to the situation and whether you can be associated with them. The thing to remember is that politics ain't Sunday school, alliances shift, issue overlaps vary, motivations and principles are individual while outcomes are broad. You need to be very aware, but also sometimes need to keep your trap shut.

An Alternate Universe

It has been speculated by various esoteric physicists that there are multiple universes slightly separated by dimensions created by exotic sub-atomic particles. I wonder if we haven't sprung a leak somewhere near Washington, DC. I wasn't too bothered by the spin of the Clean Air Act or Healthy Forests Act being something completely other than what their titles indicated, but lately I've gotten worried about the state of dimensional stability. I was pretty concerned that a guy who'd slaughtered hundreds of humans in Texas for legal offenses found 30 months Federal time too severe for a rat bastard who'd lied to the FBI, lied to a Grand Jury, and obstructed a criminal investigation, something slipped, I thought.



There is the matter of the War on Terror, in what universe does going to war with an uninvolved country and ignoring a heavily involved country constitute a strategy? Assaulting the civil liberties of the very people whose way of life you propose to be protecting seems a contradiction, sufficient to require an other worldly perspective. When soldiers are being killed and injured by people who are dedicated to violence, justifying your strategy as a fight against those ranked as the least of the problem by those fighting the war seems rather Alice in Wonderland.

There evidently is a place where a decrease in income results in an increase and the rich and powerful need real help staying that way. This would be the sort of place where, despite widespread use and a lack of data showing significant harm, possession of marijuana is vigorously prosecuted by the Federal Government. but 12 million illegal aliens is too big a problem and should just be ignored and amnestied despite the demonstrable harm to wages, social services, education, and possibly security. You might even find this to a place where inanimate objects, guns, are blamed for the actions of humans.

I'm sure that talking about a Vice President as a newly minted Non-any branch of government position must require a peculiar view of reality. A person would need to be careful of walking off the edge of the world.

An oddity from the perspective of continuity is the appearance of the phone number of a moral legal enforcer in an alleged hooker's/pimp's phonebook and his acknowledgement of an unspecified "serious sin." His wife, being an ardent supporter of monogamy, must be wondering how exactly homosexual marriage would be nearly as much threat to conventional marriage as infidelity, connecting these particular dots requires a detour through some dimensional warp.

I know full well that hypocrisy is not a new phenomenon, but what makes the theory of dimensional leakage or slip reasonable is that these actions do not alienate every witness. The other assumption would be that people aren't smart enough to get it requires a belief in people too stupid breathe surviving.

The Struggle

A recent post by Pete note's Camus' idea that Sisyphus could at least salvage his dignity by cursing the gods. The author John Gardner (Grendel, Sunlight Dialogues...) had as a recurring theme the idea that the definition of a life was the struggle rather than the successes. This idea seems entirely lost on much of America.The controlling definition today seems to "winning," ie: dollars, elections, media exposure. What you do in life seems subsumed by the outcomes measured in...essentially terms of greed.

It seems that winning an election means you can say anything you like with the ends of winning a particular base and the election. It seems that the measure of a business is stockholder return, criminal hiring practices, shady accounting, outright political corruption do not matter, a $1.00 return versus a $0.75 is what matters, not how it is achieved. A Paris Hilton matters because media exposure matters.

Does Pete Abel have to reform the Republican Party to be a success? If the Republican Party is to succeed, probably, but is that a measure of Pete Abel? Not in the view of Gardner's philosophy, Pete succeeds because he pushed the rock and then pushed again and... Now that is personal, and individual - but - and here's the real thing in the argument, that behavior multiplied has effects: More multipliers more effects.

Now really, consider the outcome of changing the controlling philosophy, taking philosophical responsibility for our actions, their morality, their ethics, their humanity changes the entire picture. People who step back, overwhelmed by numbers and greed no longer do so; these people understand that their life belongs to them and what they do with it counts and they act accordingly. I do not speak of a reward in "heaven," that is an outcome, I'm referring to life, not life after death. A life well lived is its own reward, and the thing is that the rest of us benefit from that.

Is it fair to measure people on that basis? A better question is if measuring them on any other scale is meaningful or fair. Would Mitt Romney as President undo the things he's said? Does the Republican Party staying in its current mess for the next ten years measure the Pete Abels? If we use that measuring stick we are approving the concept that the ends justify the means. The Bush policies regarding searches, torture, Habeas Corpus are of that philosophy. If you could not approve of these things being done to yourself...

Does this sort of philosophy mean that unless you are "Christ-like" you are a failure? Hardly, it is possible to retrieve an untruth by acknowledging it and correcting and apologizing for it. My own life is scarcely spotless, 19 years ago I became clean and sober; that had a whole lot to do with a life that was being very badly conducted, I have corrected that and apologized where I could. I have conducted myself as honorably as I know how, since, and apologize for my mistakes - I own my life and I do not deny it to achieve ends. Yes I measure people on that basis, including myself, and that I won't apologize for.

cross posted from Central Sanity

Speech, Free and Otherwise

One of the more egregious things I've heard said about Imus' firing was that it was a violation of free speech. What Imus had was not free speech, he had compensated speech, he was paid to say things. His employers are in the "saying things" business and as such are in control of what they want said. They, finally, didn't like what they were paying him for, so they quit paying him for it. I'll leave the why of it to others.

Regardless of where or how you say things (or write them) there are consequences of speech, the consequences can be good - I have an audience - it's a well mannered one -I'm proud to have. Sometimes the consequences aren't so hot - Imus. Sometimes the consequences aren't enacted or are delayed - Sharpton. Imus got to pay, now I'm calling for some consequences for "The Rev," he's used race and racism to unjustifiably attack people and even instigate violence, unjustifiably, so it's time he doesn't get to play the "outraged victim." His crap differs from Imus' by exactly two factors - he's black and he hasn't apologized. There is another set of differences, he's been sued for it and lost and as far as I know, nobody has died because of Imus' speech. I've already complained to the networks about holding Sharpton up as a paragon, maybe they didn't hear it enough.

Be under not illusions, if it had been my decision, I'd have warned Imus some time ago to fix his stuff or he'd be gone, this time would've taken me about 5 minutes to figure out how to say, "Get lost." President Bush has earned the appellations of George II and BushCo that I hang on him, he earned them through actions and general behaviors and those were entirely voluntary, not a matter of sex or race. The news media seems to be composed of twits who can't remember anything or research anything regarding a "black spokesman."

I don't do PC, I also don't try to be gratuitously rude. Remember that I'm a hard core lefty who owns and shoots guns and dragraces and defends labor from illegal hiring. I would be an odd representative for PC. If somebody tries to run Imus at you as PC run amok or a free speech issue, I've given you some ammo, not to mention an example of anti-PC that isn't rude.

You're a heck of an audience, you make this exercise in free speech enjoyable.

Take Your Allies Where You Find Them, AFA

Awhile back I posted about the formation of the American Freedom Agenda and said that I would find out what I could. You will find the AFA website here . Do not think that Barr, Keene, or Viguerie have changed their political stripes, they are Conservatives. Yes, with a capital 'C.' On social and economic issues our paths may coincide infrequently, our ideas about the role of government in those arenas is quite different, but here we are in complete agreement. I am going to directly copy and paste their 10 point agenda, so there is no mistaking my words or wishes with theirs :

Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;

Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;

Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;

Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;

Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;

Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;

Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;

Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;

Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;

Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

Since their roll-out was March 20th the website is a little bare yet, but you should see it for yourself to ensure you know what I'm talking about. I am under no illusions about the differences in our Party affiliations, I also am under no illusions as to whether these matters supersede those affiliations. What is at stake is so basic to the structure of the US that our disagreements amount to small change. There is absolutely no point in trying to advance Democratic agenda absent our basic structure of government and law. That amounts to no more than spitting into the wind. The DOJ fight marks a beginning of Congressional interest in this, but is not any more than a first baby step.

The AFA has a Freedom Pledge for candidates, which is at least something. I am interested, but only in concrete pressure our public representatives to redress these grievances. Posturing bores me, quite plainly there is an ass kicking over due and it needs to be an enthusiastic one. This stance will put more stress on the politics of Republicans than Democrats for the obvious reason that Democrats didn't instigate this mess, though the amount of their kicking and screaming about it left quite a bit to be desired.

A little over 200 hundred years ago the instigators of this Constitutional mess would have been taken out and hanged for trying it. Today generating something close to discontent is difficult. It takes no more than the latest details of the affairs of a deceased blond to distract our attention. I will point out that in the face of all the BushCo crap, a NY Democratic Representative has the temerity to bring forward an assault weapons ban just to add to the insult and injury inflicted by the Republicans. Sometimes I really wonder just exactly how such stupid and asinine people manage to get themselves elected and if we really do deserve the kind of government the Framers put together.

Eight years ago I'd have fallen out laughing my butt off if somebody had suggested to me that Bob Barr could be an ally. I ain't laughing, I ain't smiling, I'm flat out pissed off and I'll take his hand, gladly. If you can't, maybe you'd better think over what kind of country you want to live in.

Covering Up Is Stupid

I suppose that anyone paying attention to the US Attorneys mess has heard multiple times, "the cover-up is worse than the crime," and is probably sick of it. There is a real truth in that bromide, and it bears some thinking about it. Most of the things that get attempted covered-ups are the result of over-reaching over-zealous subordinates. Something gets a "I wish" and turns into "I want." Some idiots burgled a Watergate office because somebody said "I wish I knew what they're up to," regarding a campaign that was a walk-over. There was nothing to actually be gained, a tremendous risk, and the act was carried out by entirely disposable subordinates. Covering up a piece of massive stupidity led to the downfall of one of the most politically astute Presidents.

Nixon was not innocent of responsibility, but certainly of having given such an order. His responsibility was the creation of an atmosphere conducive to such stupidity, a bunkered-up enemies list mentality which devalues opposition by demonizing it. The words enemies, traitors, and fifth columnists abounded, it took little stretch to reach the idea that spying on such was a good idea, one that would be supported by the "Boss." It is beginning to look as though the genesis of the Attorney firings was political. How large a reach is it to see an "appointed" president and his Rove looking at shrinking support demographics and a real threat to a permanent majority wishing some of those ne'er do well Democrats didn't vote. A cult of personal loyalty doesn't see independent thinking or decision making as acceptable and an echo chamber effect begins. These guys aren't following our agenda, something is wrong, somebody ought to do something, and we're off to the races. Some things are self-perpetuating and self-feeding. Once the idea is planted and somebody starts to work on it, it begins to look possible and in that possibility lies respectability, "after all they do serve at the pleasure of the President."

While George W Bush is not a retard, he also is not an intellectual heavy weight, if it gets more complicated than I win you lose don't look to him as the instigator. Harriet Meirs (oh you're the bestest...) fingerprints are all over the place along with Albies and it begins to look like Karl's. But even here people were just working over scenarios. Great goobered gobs of stinking mess scenarios, the kind engendered by people in fear of enemies, traitors, ... Then it started looking reasonable as it became more possible. "What use is power to appoint without Senate approval if we don't use it?" Look at how the possibilities for advantage multiply with each little bit of progress. Where did the actual policy enactment come from? At a guess, AG AG, though farther down the line is entirely possible.

I would bet that complete informational access would not place Bush or Rove's fingers in the pie, though their complicity in creating an atmosphere where this could flourish is absolute. The idea of gaining political advantage through use of the powers of the Justice Dept had to be appealing in the world of Republican power politics. These folks long term goals are always so amorphous and their short term ends so entrancing to them that they do not see probable fallout. For example they see "no Saddam" as so attractive that they fail to run alternate scenarios, because the short term end is "good" only their "good" can follow.

I would guess that Kyle Sampson sees himself as the fall guy and will try to hand responsibility back up the chain. The problem is that there may be no evidence what so ever up-chain. Or, if it can actually get handed up to Albie, the sword will be fallen on and that'll be it. No one will make the case that the problem isn't who ordered what, but that the mentality was fostered, that the entire White House is sick.

"Oh no, somebody tried to do that?? Well they're fired," would have put a stop to this entire mess. But they cannot do that. They have to cover, there's a sickness to be kept out of sight. The might be seen as what they are.

Gun Violence

In a comment in the Zumbo article I stated that I wanted to move a discussion about gun violence to another forum and then emailed my thoughts. It was rightfully pointed out to me that much of these discussions is carried on out of sight. So I've put it up. I thought this format leads to long delays and missed communications, particularly since I'm ordinarily unavailable most of the day. We'll try it.

Regarding gun violence, that’s not what we’re actually talking about, we’re talking about violence committed with a deadly weapon, violence by a human being. You can pass all the laws in the world and not affect a gun; it will just lay there doing nothing. The problem is that people pick things up and do things to other people, guns, knives, bats, chains, hammers, etc and that’s what needs to be addressed. We will lock up dopers for long terms and kick loose people who’ve used weapons, this is ridiculous. I have no sense of humor about people who commit crimes with weapons, remember this, I shoot and I hunt; I do postmortems (field dressing and butchering) on large animals killed with gun shots. I know exactly what exploded lungs, shot off limbs, etc look like; it’s no joke. I’m an advocate of long hard time for crimes of that nature, murder or not. We let it go, and then we blame a thing for what we do. What do we tell the criminal world when it’s worse to get caught dealing than to shoot somebody? The law is an idiot.

There is not a single statistic that makes gun owning more dangerous than owning a swimming pool, doctors will kill more people than guns this year (not just die on them, kill them). (Docs against guns got real quiet after those numbers came out) We talk about a thing, we don’t do education, we don’t do actual have a real job, we don’t do punishment, and we don’t do rehabilitation. We don’t do shit about people. Take away all guns and drive-bys will get pretty rare, but up close and personal stuff, nope. Knives are wickedly fast and lethal, and so are a number of other things. It takes time and premeditation to use a gun in a crime, you have to get one and then you have to use it, it’s not a case of just snapping – that involves a beating almost always.

There’s nothing to say people can’t disagree about things, and treat each other with respect. But it pays to remember that gun owners aren’t trying to do something to other people, gun banners are. I can take the most hardcore staunch 2nd A stance and not be trying to do anything to anyone, the reverse cannot be said about even “reasonable” people. What does this current government think is dangerous? The 1st Amendment is dangerous to your security, that’s exactly the same argument broached regarding the 2nd. The government doesn’t get to piss around with the BOR, it’s not their rights, and we have them despite the government. Any other road is counter to the Declaration of Independence and the foundation of the Constitution and those guys understood exactly what it means. They’d just fought a war, they knew how dangerous to government these ideas are, and that’s what they wanted. They fought a bloody war against their natural government, the government they’d known all their lives and for generations and had every reason to believe was their own and they set our government up to be overthrown. That’s the meaning of the BOR, we get to have our freedom despite our government, we can preach, write, yell, get together, and finally shoot them if they don’t get it. It’s a dangerous set up. It’s supposed to be dangerous, just getting to shoot off your mouth is a dangerous idea, back it up with all the rest and you’ve got a hell of a deal.

Safety is a goddamn illusion, here’s how I’m so sure. I was 16 and to take my DL test on Monday, Sunday I’d asked my Dad to let me drive the family home from our boat, he thought about it, said another time, and we set off on our 2 ½ hr drive. Fifteen minutes from home a Semi crossed the center line and hit us, 60 mph each. I was sitting behind the driver’s seat, asleep, with my head against the headliner. For some reason I woke and saw the truck jump the line, it hit the car behind the front wheel well and started coming in, I’d moved my head about 6 inches and the bumper missed it by about an inch. I ate all kinds of glass and impact and body crush. I was minding my own business, asleep, my Dad was driving perfectly reasonably, so was the trucker, he had a mechanical failure at just the right moment to get us. Everybody did everything right and I got to see death from 1 inch, because I woke up, still asleep – dead. If I’d been driving we wouldn’t have been there. It’s not safe, no matter what, it isn’t. Yes you can invite bad things, but you don’t have to and it’s still risky business. People refuse to admit it.

There are criminals in the world, they will be criminal, they won’t care about laws, they’ll do what they want to and find ways to do it. There are guns all over NYNY in the hands of criminals; hell the city licenses criminals (money and influence talks). The who doesn’t have guns is law abiding citizens. That’s how it works; if you don’t care or have money and power you’ll have a gun. Same thing happens in DC.

The government and its enablers will prey on fear and insecurity to have their way with you. I don’t care if it is a D or R Admin, the risk remains. Power and influence are what they are and some are susceptible to it, always have been and always will be. Never ever give unmitigated power to another entity.

*Ok, if you've got something to say please do. But don't troll, you'll waste your time because I'll trash it. Please give yourself a name or handle, Anyoldmouse gets tough after a couple.*

Marriage and All That

Blue Oregon has spun my hit meter real good, and a little article has gotten a lot of play, so I thought I ought to explain some of my reasoning in case anybody stops back.

Marriage is an institution of civic order, I know churches get very involved and god and all kinds of things get rung in but marriage doesn't mean commitment, that's a thing in itself separate but involved. If you love someone enough to stay with them through all life's variables, that's commitment, getting married in these days of common law property and etc doesn't necessarily increase the financial risk but does increase some legal standing. Government needs orderly transfer of property, assets, and child responsibilities, these ordinarily involve the civil contract called marriage. Because governments and religions were so entwined in the past the god business got charge of the civil contract and enforced it with religious oaths and consequences - good for government, by taking enforcement out of their hands. In secular government churches still perform the ceremonies alongside government entities like Justices of the Peace, tradition is preserved for those who wish it and another avenue for those who do not. All good. With an exception; marriage has become, in the popular consciousness, a religious institution usurping the governmental civil role it plays. With that comes religious interference in the civil law regarding spousal relationships.

It is in the interest of civic order for property and other responsibilities and benefits to be transferred in an orderly fashion. If spouses (life partners if you prefer) do not have a civil law relationship things get messy. Inheritance gets complicated, particularly in absence of a will - or even in the face of a will - and property winds up in the hands of lawyers, the tax man, or people the deceased never intended. Child custody no longer is the prerogative of "parents." Hospital visitation, life support options, and a myriad of benefits and responsibilities married couples take for granted become nonexistent or legally complicated. Common law relationships are not recognized if the spousal relationship is not recognized. When the State of Oregon refuses to recognize the life commitment of some of its own citizens it creates a second-class status, both in benefits and in responsibilities and it does so in regard to religious interests.

I neither commend nor condemn religious outlooks on gay life, gay marriage, or any other aspect of gayness, it is entirely the business of religion to relate to it as it sees fit. Belonging to a religion is entirely a voluntary affair, not so with existing as a gay in the State of Oregon in relation to its laws. There now exists a theological bar within civil law. Philosophically I do not like the religious co-option of the civil contract of marriage, it is wrong, it is un-Constitutional, and it is blatantly unfair. Then there is the "BUT."

If this situation is to be addressed within a realistic time frame and without tremendous political difficulties a work around becomes necessary. The creation of a "civil contract" is probably the only remedy. The difficulty presented is that it is a de-facto recognition of the religious interference in civil law. While it may satisfy the legal needs of gay couples it does not address the second-class issue. The all or nothing conundrum presents itself, I have no answer to that.

Gayness is not an issue for me, one way or the other, what is an issue is equal treatment of our citizens, in rights and responsibilities. I have no tolerance for special treatment of members of our citizenry, in either their interest or their detriment. I volunteered to be a "Voice" for Basic Rights Oregon not out of sympathy for the gay lifestyle, but out of the interest of our citizenry, all of them. Institutionalized discrimination is bad for all of us. Last I knew, BRO was still looking for "Voices," if it's something you could help with, maybe you should.

There Must've Been Some Polls

Senator Clinton has had something to say about Iraq, "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will." Oddly enough, up until the CT Primary Joe Lieberman was her bud on this topic. Yes, I do fault those who voted for this war, there were questions that could have been asked, and they didn't. Some of our elected representatives got it right, some of the press got it right, and I got it right. Now, if those people and particularly I could've gotten it right, what exactly was going on with the Yea voters?

I can think of lots of possibilities: incuriosity, blind allegiance, political expediency, poll driven response, stupidity, credulity, oh etc. Any of these sound like Presidential references? Of that bunch, at least John Edwards (out of Senate) said I'm sorry I was wrong.

As for Hillary's bold statement, to track her attitudes on Iraq just check the polls each week for the last 4 years. In case you haven't caught the idea, I wouldn't like Hillary for Oregon Dogcatcher, so NY, please keep her. I keep hoping that some of Dennis Kucinich will rub off on these hacks. That's right starting with Hillary and working your way down the polling scale, hacks. If I can't have a populist like Dennis, then at least give me a resume' like Richardson's. Don't get your Obama knickers in a wad, yes he's a hack, for all his charisma. Go back a ways and see how carefully he parses his stands.

Political Pussies

So the hardy souls over at the US Senate are going to approve a minimum wage bill with *gasp* tax breaks. Small business tax breaks, BushCo tax breaks and the Democrats think it's a good thing because it will pass. Did anybody bother to see who it is that BushCo calls small business? Not a damn chance, it sounds sooooo nice. Most of BushCo's beneficiaries are rich people running S-Corp tax dodges that have not squat to do with Mom & Pop businesses. Do you really think that 41 Republicans give a fat rat's ass about Mom & Pop? In this life time?

There is such a thing as compromise and there is such a thing as rolling over, giving tax breaks to those who've benefited from the Republican agenda of screw the worker is ROLLING OVER. If you can't pass it clean, make sure everybody knows why. Then run it again. And again. Take a stick and poke it in their eye very publicly and do it over and over. Why pass a "gee George, we don't think we quite like a surge thingy," Resolution? Bring forward a Resolution that says exactly what you're getting paid to say and when the Republicans pull a filibuster, stick it in their eye. You can either show the American Public that you GET IT or you can be pussies.

Americans want us out of Iraq, they don't seem to want to do it any more. Write THAT Bill and when it gets stopped kick the snot out of the stoppers. You've got over 1/2 of Americans that want THAT and you've got 2/3 of Americans that are at least real unhappy, what kind of a mandate do you want? Listen you pussies, you're a 250 pound 6 foot 4 incher in a street fight with a one legged half-wit and you need more on your side? Do you think you need a cannon to swat gnats? You take your play to the public and they'll back you - they're your weight and reach in this fight and what? The press will ignore it? They'll eat it up. Fox will yowl and what could be better than for them to come out swinging for the rich and the hawks? You couldn't ask for better political capital and freeeeeee advertising, namby pamby ninnies.

How about putting a capital D in democratic, or are you happy being the democrat party? You happy letting them define you into a corner again? I know, you're too important to pay any attention to a nail bender from NE OR, that's your loss.

More Cigarette Tax

This would be a great time to tell you what a great idea additional tax on cigarettes for children's health care is ... not. Health care for children is a great idea, over due, as is some form of universal health care. Not just great ideas, wonderfully, stupendously, awesomely great ideas. Paying for them with additional cigarette taxes is errant nonsense. These are Oregonian's children, not cigarette smokers' children. On a pack of Camel straights @ $5.00 the tax is 24% of the cost, that's not the tax rate which is 31% and that is on top of the federal taxes. I mention Camel straights because I smoke 1/2 pack/day of them.

I make no claim that cigarettes aren't bad for your health, they absolutely are. There are some real basic problems with some of the claims, but that's small change. It cannot be shown that those costs are not recovered over time, there certainly are some issues about aging vs not that get lost. Even that is not the point. The point is that cigarette smoking has not squat to do with child health care. Yes, you can impose that tax by vote on a minority that hasn't enough votes to challenge it, because you can do something does not make it right or reasonable. It might not bother anybody that most smokers make less than the median income, but it sure seems an odd way to be progressive.

People make "fairness" claims about the social and health costs posed by cigarette smokers, as though voluntary choices like that only include smoking. Maybe those advocates would be well paid to take a look at the consumption of alcohol when they bring up those kinds of costs. It does pose a bit of a problem for the cigarette agenda, smoking pales in comparison. The single greatest hit in those costs is ... alcohol. Yes, there's an elephant in the living room and nobody notices. As far as personal health goes try on liver damage, brain cell death, nerve damage, esophagus and stomach damage, lowered immune system, circulatory damage, and pregnancy issues, then move onto mental health issues, including verbal and emotional components, neglect, irresponsible behaviors . From there add in car crashes, falls, assaults, lost work days. Then go take a look at the prison system and find how many crimes were committed under the influence. This stuff is advertised on TV and in magazines and its use is glorified, yes, in front of children. What works for alcohol is much better lobbying and advertising and a much larger constituency.

*Further disclosure* I don't drink, I haven't for almost 19 years, I do know something about it.

Do I want to duck responsibility for my smoking habit? No. I've smoked for over 35 years, though, and I'm healthier than the majority of the population and you'd better be in outstanding condition if you want to keep up with me. Since I can't afford to retire you don't need to worry about taking care of me in old age, besides I like my work.

If we're going to take on progressive ideas and institute policies on those ideas, let's do that exactly, do progressive things in a progressive manner. I'm sorry Gov. K. this idea sucks, but I voted for you and still would.

Blue Oregon is having a nice argument and they even have a poll. I don't like the idea over there either.

Ideological Purity

David Sirota writes in the San Francisco Chronicle that there is a real problem with people in power not owning what they said about the Iraq War, this is certainly true. He holds John Edwards up as an example of how it should be done - I made a mistake and I regret it. He goes on to note that there definitely is a massive case of CYA going on. This is where it gets sticky, why is this going on?

We all know why the President of the US would state that he never said, "Stay the course." It's politically stupid to do it, but he does have the semantic dodge of what course he was talking about, Nostradamus works well in that respect. There is however the matter of pundits and other pols who beat the warm drum enthusiastically. It is now a generally unpopular stand to take and those who take it publicly will be held to account for that stance. There is such a thing as Conservatism that isn't about god, gays, and guns; I don't subscribe to the philosophy but one of its tenets is military adventures aren't to be done. That used to be a Republican deal, but ideological purity requirements of the past decade silenced that. The political price to be paid for opposing the Iraq adventure on philosophical grounds outweighed principle. You weren't pure in the Bush ideology.

The responsibility for this falls on Parties and voters. Politicians can count. If philosophy loses to Party line the fault is not solely the Party's. This notion of ideological purity driving political discourse is harmful to Parties and to national policy and Republicans are not the only guilty party. There are, of course, issues that in voter's mind's trump ideology. Joe Lieberman is an example, his stance on Iraq cost him the Democratic Primary despite the rest of his political stances. There does, however, remain a blindness to policy and reasoning due to ideology. I will make a personal argument in this arena, I am intimately familiar with it and thus competent. During the Democratic Primary for OR 02 CD I set up policy statements and my reasoning for them, The Oregonian took those and attributed "the most conservative" of the candidates to me. As far as I can tell, there were 3 policies that contributed to that, strong support of the 2nd Amendment, opposition to illegal hiring/illegal immigration, and a stance that one size fits all environmental regulations is doomed. Now I'd be real surprised to find that conservatives exactly agree with my rationales for those stands, they are in fact based on hard left politics. Anybody that hasn't gotten the idea that I regard the 2nd as the final block against people like BushCo hasn't paid attention - and yes, I regard that bunch as exactly that dangerous. Sounds left to me. Illegal hiring crushes labor - I oppose fervently any actions to debase labor, and I don't mean just organized labor and in the 1920's that would've gotten me arrested. I'll fight the establishment of, enhancement of, and enabling of a plutocracy in this country tooth and nail and serfs are a part of that. That's damn left. Environmental policies that are created with the one size fits all philosophy are doomed, public backlash will occur and the very people you need to be partners become enemies. I want success in that arena, long term meaningful success. Left again. That is not the measure that was taken of me as a candidate. I failed the ideological purity test on the surface. Drivng drag cars fails completely.

Reasoning and motive become buried under simplistic labels, the fact that racist xenophobic nutcases oppose illegal immigration has nothing to do with the matter as far as the health and well being of labor is concerned. It certainly is not progressive politics to oppose something on the basis of race, neither is it progressive to participate in the oppression of labor. Pay attention. The fact that the NRA seems to have fallen in bed with some of the worst aspects of the Republican Party has exactly not one thing to do with owning firearms. The fact that Sen Chuck Schumer (D) sees a difference between interfering with the 2nd and interfering with the 1st does not make it progressive to do so, it is in fact absolutely oppressive to restrict liberty. It is not reasoning to ignore contradictions in the name of ideology, it is the pursuit of ideological purity that you've been told exists.

Do the Hillary Clintons pass ideological muster? Certainly on name alone, debate ceases if the surname and (D) becomes all important. The question really should fall on the balance of policy statements, their reasoning and their motives. The timing of her opposition (post mid-term) to Iraq is suspect in my eyes, her stances on gun control have shown no reasoning in light of the Constitution, in point of fact I find her very nearly the most poll driven pol I've seen. I cannot find a single iota of respect for labor in any of her stances beyond the minimum wage and that has yet to play out. Do I find Hillary's ideological purity in question? Not really, I have no idea what her ideology is by definition of action. I don't care if it doesn't look ideologically pure, I care about the outcomes and the reasons for them. Ideological purity is all about appearances and those who'll pass its muster should be deeply suspect. If you've 'stuck your foot in it' apologize for it, state why you were wrong then and why you're right now, people will take the measure of that and make an informed decision. If you're right, stand up for it, the heck with how pure it looks.

Liars, Cheats, and Thieves

The Republicans have been running the show in DC for six years, both houses and the Presidency have enabled them to pretty much do as they pleased. This has included taking us to war, blasting the constitution and ancient English law, and spending us into a huge hole while enriching the very rich. The latter involves one of the most basic of Congressional duties, setting a budget.

Now, they're not going to do it. Nope, they'll pass stopgap spending authorizations and duck out of town. You see, their forever majority evaporated a couple weeks ago and they want it back. They want it back bad enough to leave not only the deficit mess they've made but also not bother with the 2007 budget so the Democrats in their new majority can have that to deal with. To be sure, some of them are talking like deficit hawks, now. You'd be hard pressed to find anything more than rhetoric in regard to their previous votes, but they've suddenly found principles as long as they don't have to deal with them. Now there's a bunch that needed replacing. That solution is a little late, and now they'll play political games with our budget and our nation's health. Isn't it nice to know just how much Americans count in their math (must be some of that Rovian math).

I suppose the title is a little harsh...no I don't. Liars - oh c'mon. Cheats - they were hired to legislate for the nation; party, power, and money don't qualify. Thieves - lobbiests...our children's future financial health - stolen for the highest bidders and the richest blood suckers.

Liars, Cheats, and Thieves - Republican Congress