We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, February 17. 2014
"Oppressing everyone to avoid oppressing anyone is the egalitarian ethos gone mad."
Of course, we are talking about the sorts of insoluble problems that arise in a non-totalitarian society, problems rooted in the many "flaws" in human nature. Another quote:
No society or culture can be conflict-free, nor can even any family or tribe or anything. We must be humble when thinking about "solutions" of all sorts. It has been said that Conservatives like me temperamentally embrace the Tragic View of life as contrasted with utopian views, and there is something to that. It is, indeed, the story of man's fall - broken from the very start.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
And, now we come to the subject of "reconciliation". I believe in truce. I believe in trying to understand the other side's concerns. I refuse to believe that "reconciliation" works. What works is a balance of power. Tribalism prevails. Did then, does now, and possibly always will. If we acknowledge that, we will be better able to design solutions that provide for better outcomes. For a more honest way of acknowledging our situation. For me, when the bully, the thief, the abuser demands "reconciliation" before they will stop the abuse I cannot believe that that makes much sense. it is not logically a possibility, most especially if reconciliation means the evil doers will not be punished, or even do not have to publicly acknowledge their deeds. No. If those are the terms there cannot be "reconciliation" it is only a strategy to buy more time for the thieves and abusers to continue their abuse.
It is important to stop looking for keys under the street lamp, where the light is better, instead of where you dropped them. Regulating moneymaking and socially punishing intolerance are fairly simple, and so the left multiplies solutions in that direction, hoping that the next crackdown will bring in the kingdom. The net is cast wider and wider, with the hope always being (in the words of Bullwinkle) "This time for sure!"
Yet somehow the problems persist.
Gosh darn it. If we could only break corporate power, like they do in the Muppet movies, and really, really take it to the 1%, we could all have dune buggies.
Here is a comment of police behavior in that most enlightened city of San Francisco.
I wondered if the young man is gay. That's what San Francisco is all about, I'm told. Hostility to the wealthy is on the rise there, I hear. Tom Perkins has commented from what I believe is personal experience.
"Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom."
I compare trying to deal with reality from a leftist perspective as like trying to do cosmology with crystal spheres. No matter how intelligent the practitioner, the intellectual tools are lacking, and the result is failure.
We may not have a police state, quite yet, in the full definition, but we have genocide, or if the word is offensive, then call it for what it is, mass murder.
There are 440,000 people dying in our country from preventable medical errors. These do not include the figures which are hidden or the gray figures that never made it as part of the statistics. Depending on what article you read, the figures could be anywhere between 750,000 and 1,000,000. This is genocide. Why? Our government is so corrupt they refuse to acknowledge this is happening and are ignoring it. The difference between genocide in the United States and elsewhere is, nobody is singled out. Babies, children, young, old, black, white, all are dying across the board.
Our country passed laws preventing Americans from getting justice and accountability. Americans can not even have the right of due process under our 7th Amendment Constitutional Right. Yet, we preach to the world about "rights" under the guise of respectability. The fact is, we are corrupt and have lost our humanity years ago. We sold our soul to the company store.
Sending you a link to show you the best medical care given in our country could possibly be the veterinarian clinics. Maybe the most merciful way to end a patient's suffering would be pulling the trigger. You judge.
If you find yourself in Texas, make sure your life insurance policy is paid in full.
If you are in NYC, avoid the doctor mentioned. The Texas Medical Board failed to police after their own.
Thank you for your time,
A Texas nurse and US Army vet.
Daniel makes some interesting points in this article. I give him credit for recognizing the fact that the policy differences between democrat and republican are few in number and narrow in significance. However, the gist of his argument is flawed. Daniel argues that America is not yet a police state, just a state overrun with police. He supports his claim with curious statements like this, "We don't have militarized police forces, TSA agents and NSA eavesdropping because the government is afraid of us, but because the government's policies have made life unlivable without them." He further claims that if it was a police state, the government would have people informing on us. I am not convinced of Daniel's argument. First, Daniel's definition of a police state is very limited. East Germany is used as his template and as everyone knows, East Germany was poor, technologically backward and isolated. Just because the U.S. is rich, technologically advanced and connected to the world in a million ways does not immunize it from tyranny. As for the informants, Daniel is flat wrong. There are likely more informants per capita in the U.S. than there was in E. Germany. Has Daniel forgotten about the war on drugs and the massive use of informants in that endeavor? Does anyone really believe the police don't collect non-drug related information from those informers? Of course they do. For one thing, they use that information to help identify people they think they can set up for a drug bust. Aside from the informers, the police use technology to snoop on the people. They cruise the internet pretending to be everything from child molesters to terrorist sympathizers. They use their unlimited wiretap powers in any way they choose. I offer as proof the fact that requests for wiretaps were never denied in the state of NJ even BEFORE the requirement to ask was dropped. And, there are the drones. What is a police state? Is it not a state where the police do as they please and privacy is an illusion? We have that. Is it not a state where private property is seized at the whim of the government? We have that. Is it not a state where the rule of law means guilty until proven innocent? We have that. If you doubt it, spend a few evenings in any municipal court in the land and witness the rule of law first hand. Daniel says the government is not afraid of the people. But, so what? If it is true the government does not fear the people, what does that indicate? It suggests to me much of what I have been commenting about for some time, that the government is subsidizing/controlling everything. That is what it suggests. How many readers would, if given the choice, abandon all the government benefits they now collect or hope to someday collect? NOBODY? I thought so. The government has nothing to fear as long as it can print the money to grease all of the gears. The U.S. is rich, E. Germany wasn't.
What is a police state? Is it a state where the government controls the institutions of society? We have that. There isn't a single institution of any significance the government does not administer directly or via subsides. Daniel says we can't live without the government policies which have made the state of police a reality. Of course, that is the point of a police state. We enjoy the wealthy version, but it's a police state nonetheless. Cheers.