It has been an interesting five days since the 2016 election. Taking another swing at this blog after another extended absence. Thoughts and views haven’t changed much so a lot of the older content is still accurate, the only difference being the current roster of miscreants and demagogues have changed to match a world two years on. Here’s to seeing what happens next.
Tag: current-events
The Congress shall have power to…
I have been gone for awhile. I have several unpublished posts from the last year that are all too dated to publish. It’s been a weird road, watching the nation go on, watching the ups and downs, and not talking about it. I was comfortable writing thousands of words, critiques on the matters of State, and deleting them because, honestly, I was vain and empty. The world, I believed, wanted flash. Shining lights bright colors in streamers at the bottom of the television set. Well dressed hosts in $5,000 suits quantifying matters of international concern one moment and then tittering about puppies the next.
It is grotesque, and will continue to be so because they have the money, the advertisers, and the professionals that pour through reams of data that tell them this is exactly what their viewers want. I was fine with this. It is their money, it is their channel, and their viewers. I can go without that. I have disagreed with their tactics, but that is theirs, and there are bigger fish to fry.
The link above goes to an article from CTV News regarding the President’s bid to expand the American military presence in Iraq. The president and his “legal team” have attempted to craft a legal maneuver around the restrictions of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution and War Powers Act of 1973 and a host of international standards regarding national sovereignty and international war.
I am not fond of snippets. However, the scope of the section I will post the relevant text of the enumerated powers from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have power…to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.
It is a fundamental thing. A simple idea that the people of a nation, not a single man or woman, should decide when and why the nation goes to war. It was the desire to remove the absolute authority of the king that prompted the declaration of war to be put in the hands of the people and their representatives in the Legislative, rather than Executive, branch.
We have seen challenges to this power time, and time again. From The Gulf of Tomkin to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As a matter of fact, scholars have spoken on this very matter:
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne…
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
Granted the speech is from the buildup to the second Iraq War, and if the word choice and tone sounds familiar, it should. President, then Senator, Barack Obama delivered this address on October 2nd, 2002. The most poignant words of his speech apply just as much to his actions as Commander in Chief as they did to President George Bush when he was decrying the impetus by the Executive Branch to to follow the unwise course of action that would, eventually, embroil the American military in one of it’s longest running military actions:
Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair. The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
Since that time we have followed through on practically none of these issues. ISIS/ISIL is loaded with young men from Saudi Arabia. Their government wonders how we, not they, will stop ISIS/ISIL from arriving at their door because they have, for decades, done exactly what was warned against decades before, and elucidated by President Obama when he put pen to paper in 2002.
Here we stand twelve years later. Still beholden to the rampant policies of the Middle East. Policies and movements rooted in religious bigotry rather than rational discourse. National well-being discarded in lieu of perceived religious bias. Our nation, weary from two, decade-long wars that have claimed the lives of thousands of countrymen, and countless civilians. What fruit have we seen from these wars? None.
A broken nation stands, still fighting with itself. A region that is progressing further into chaos because of selfish policies set decades ago, and being overseen by petty dictators. Armies without parent countries formed from the most zealous, uneducated, and blood-thirsty. We, as a nation, failed to step up onto the world stage and engaged in statesmanship rather than showmanship. We negotiated with the sword rather than with an olive branch, or bread basket. We remain the most powerful solely because of “investment” in a military that’s purpose is to project the promise of violence. We have deferred diplomacy in lieu of the capacity to annihilate those who stand against us.
Have we used these powers judiciously, to an extent. We have destroyed with one hand, but in the other there should have been honest cooperation with those who remain. To allow nations to decide how they would rule themselves instead of listening to the Young Turk who believes they know all. Here we stand, here our President stands. Seeing, hopefully, all the follies we have committed, and, hopefully, learning from them.
Limited action against ISIS/ISIL has been successful, but the time of Presidential operation without the purview of the electorate is at an end. The notion that lawyers are working around the clock to further stretch the President’s capacity to operate without the consent of Congress, and by proxy the people, is a distasteful indication of a desire to operate outside of the realm of the Constitution. A need to push the letter of the law as far as it can go, knowing that those who would punish in the case it breaks are firmly in your pocket. It dishonors the spirit of the law, and the notion that the representatives of the people should decide when we are to go to war. It was the firm notion 227 years ago that no President would ever have this nations army at his beck and call for extended use. If this is to be another war, let it be a war America chooses, rather than the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I would prefer even to fail with honor than win by cheating
It’s a cheap shot today and return after a long absence.
The Primaries are going on today in Virginia. So far it looks like a par for course run; the races that are close are going to be driven by the grassroots support that is drummed up during these off-season primaries while strong incumbents and those who are historied within the wall of their respective parties will clinch their nominations with little difficulty. That doesn’t bother me. Shenanigans bother me, and I’ve been listening to them for months.
The purpose of the Republican Primary was to ensure that there was ‘purity’ in the selection of the candidates that were chosen last month. There was the need for this to be ‘honest’ and ‘clear of meddling’. Rush Limbaugh refers to these yet to materialize, and oft worried about, efforts at tampering ‘Operation Chaos’. The gist is simple: open primaries mean that Democrats can roll in to the polling station and supposedly pick the weaker of two candidates, effectively setting up their “strong” candidate with an easy win. If the yarn sounds familiar, it was kicked around in 2008 when McCain was winning much to the chagrin of the Republican party. It was rolled out again in 2012 when Mitt Romney was facing supposedly impossible odds against the titanic political powers of Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, and (seriously?) Rick Santorum.
Therein lies the problem. Since the end of the Primary, and the wretched result that has me wincing each morning I have to listen to John Fredericks talk about the latest train wreck of a video someone has dug up on the Virginia Lieutenant Governor nominee E.W. Jackson, the discussion has shifted from the need for purity in the selection process to encouraging our team to go out and vote during the open primaries for the other side. Granted, there are primaries today for Republican candidates, and to those I say go nuts, have a ball. For the Democratic candidates and races I wonder where the wagging tail ends and the dog begins.
Now, I enjoy Mr. Fredericks’ show, and have so since I discovered it on a drive to work one morning last year, but I take pause with his notion that voting in the Democrats open primary is perfectly acceptable after our party went to such great lengths to prevent such actions. It is, of course, his choice, and he chose to exercise that, and in no way am I saying it’s bad. I’ve met Senator Northam, at the end of election night where I was working for the team that was trying to take his seat, and found him most agreeable, articulate, and, to borrow common vernacular, very real. As Fredericks said, and so I shall reiterate, what you see from Northam is what you get. No, I have no problem with his selection, but I’m saying the action of voting for a democrat after you’ve selected your Republican candidate feels…awkward. It invites analysis by others, and recognition of the inherit weakness of the primary system; any Tom, Dick, or Harry can roll into a polling station and vote for a rep from their state or district.
After the utter, pardon the following, shitcan mess that was the Republican primary in May, why on earth would we advertise, nay, encourage our huddled masses, who were terrified of the bogeyman of cross-platform voters, to go out and do the very thing we decried as fouling the process? It is hypocritical to demand a pure representation of a party, then to encourage our team to go out and muddy the waters for the other side. There is no honor in it.
Stars out of the eyes, I understand that, mathematically, the Republican turnout for a Democratic primary is going to be low (maybe 0.25-0.5% of the Republican voting block, so 0.10-0.35% of the overall voting block for the district), but the notion is noxious to me. If we are going to claim moral high ground it means constant diligence. Moral strength comes from the ability to act consistently, and in the political world consistency, if measured in gold, would be worth the national debt and a few dollars more. Lastly, if Mr. Fredericks is going to champion the notion of selecting a candidate based on his authenticity and amicable nature in working across the aisle, maybe closing a post out by talking about the unique opportunity to take Senator Northam’s seat in a special election should probably be saved for another day. Especially when you are reminding folks that Northam’s vote, if taken, would tip the balance to 21-19 in favor of the Republicans who, at the moment have a very, very weak candidate running for the coveted tie-breaker known as, you guessed it, the Lt. Governor of Virginia. I would be remiss if I didn’t tell you, Mr. Fredericks, to cover yourself; your machinations are showing.
Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.
A recent discussion between friends had me pondering a well-worn topic covering the Westboro Baptist Church. While I am loath to give this repugnant organization any more lines in the massive universe of online and paper text I feel that the notion they were positing was not the best course of action.
It is the standard argument that crops up each time there is a tragedy and these vultures, nay ghouls, crawl out from their miserable crypt and threaten the world with their mere presence. The subsequent ballyhoo over these vile, barely passing for, human beings feed into their hopes of either 1) spreading their woefully misguided message of monumentally ignorant hate with little understanding of their source material, or 2) getting someone worked up enough to do something irrational enough to warrant a lawsuit that will fill what has to be dwindling coffers.
However, I believe, and have argued, that the desire by the masses to simply ignore these individuals, or to refer to them in some offhand way that does not recognize them directly (such as ‘they who shall not be named’) does not retract from their capacity to continue these repulsive acts. If anything, I believe it encourages them.
They are not deterred by legions on Facebook or twitter from referring to them as ‘those wackos’, but those who attend these services and stand in direct opposition of them and their message. The Patriot riders who lined military funeral processions and revved their bikes so loudly that the WBC packed their things and left because they could not be heard. The hundreds of students who mass against a planned protest on a college campus to face off against the WBC when they came to picket, or more likely celebrate, the death of a gay student.
Our society has picked up this notion that an evil ignored dies on the vine of ignominy. We forget that terrible thoughts and hideous acts must be met with thoughts and actions in opposite. Where there is truly misguided hate and disgust, there must be compassion. Where praise of violence against the soldiers or against the children, there must be the solemn respect for the deceased and those still suffering from the loss.
The quote above is from one of my favorite authors, Terry Pratchett. I won’t go into his fiction, and how it should be read by all who can spare the time, but I want to point out that in this scenario we are the darkness.
We contain the ever-present capacity for humanity to care, to feel, and to have compassion in times of our own suffering as well as the suffering of others. The WBC may think they will get there first, that they will be the loudest voice, but the light, as is not often stated, only illuminates the area around it, leaving the rest into darkness. Is it not too much to hope that the darkness is not the evil of the universe, but that which is all-encompassing. That compassion for the injured, physically and mentally, the wounded, and the deceased fills the void that their ‘light’ would so like to dispel.
In that vein, should that light die, to turn a phrase on Dylan Thomas, I doubt there will be many that rage against it, but until it fails, until the abomination that is the WBC is stripped of its undeserved title as a ‘religious’ institution, and crushed under the heel of both judge, jury, and social executioner it should not be forgotten. No evil that is forgotten dies. No evil that is unchallenged shrinks. if history has taught us anything, it is that.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
A curious note was passed my way regarding a recent court decision to prohibit the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors from holding a pre-meeting prayer that included the name Jesus. Couple that with the knee-jerk reaction from some state representatives in North Carolina who submitted a resolution to establish a state religion, and it’s another spin on the ‘religious freedom’ movement.
Going back to Virgina first, The article regarding the court decision can be found here and the ACLU has it’s own take here. In short, the County Board of Supervisors had deviated from the religious neutral prayer that most government organizations insist upon at the beginning of meetings for a clearly identifiable Christian one. This raised the hackles of one Mrs. Barbara Hudson, and she informed the Board that what they were doing was unconstitutional…which it is. The board more or less told her to shove off, and, true to form, the ACLU became involved. Mediation failed, and ‘lo the Judiciary is brought in to lay the smack down.
A similar incident occurred in North Carolina, in the district the that is represented by the state congressman that presented the resolution. The judicial response to the prayer is what inspired these two representatives, one of which wears the tea party badge with honor, to file this amazingly unconstitutional piece of legislation.
The ground level I’m getting to is this: They were informed that it was unconstitutional, and when informed of such they didn’t bother to research their position nor did they take it under consideration. They blew the challenge off for self-indignant or self-righteous reasons, failed to come to a compromise in court mandated mediation (a simple acquiescence would have sufficed), and in the end cost the taxpayers significant time and energy better spent addressing the issues of their respective county as well as the thousands, if not millions, of dollars in legal fees that will be assessed after the dust has finally settled.
The need, not desire but flat-out need, to invoke God at public government events also makes me wonder, as I have many times before, about the personal relationship with God that the believers are suppose to have, but seem very eager to show off in public. My understanding was that it was a deeply personal, one-on-one kind of relationship. One that cannot be impressed upon by the government, and, through that same clause, cannot be impressed upon others.
The comments on other articles claiming this is another attack on religious freedom by the Judiciary, the resolution goes on to itemize how these decisions are just that, but here’s the thing; the government, any government beholden to the Constitution of the United States America, cannot endorse any religion. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution overrides state Constitutions and local legislatures. Its not an attack on religion when those affected are asking that the rules that apply to the situation be enforced accordingly. Somewhere along the line those who are pushing for “religious freedom” forgot what it was about.
The Representatives from North Carolina, short on civics lessons or long on sleeping in class, fail to realize that the federal government does have a say in what the states do. The power of the states lies in their people and the states capacity to represent themselves at the federal level. They rage about judicial oversight with regards to these, and many other social matters (and religion is a social matter), but fail to recall that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are to balance each other. Should the legislative, or we’ll say the most representative body of the electorate, get a wild hair up it’s ass, it is up to the Judiciary (since the executive cannot directly interfere on state affairs) to apply the law as it is interpreted.
Does that mean that the “majority” might get a black eye supporting specific causes, yes. I’d point to school integration, inter-racial marriage, interstate commerce, property rights, voting rights, freedom of speech, and several thousand other decisions made by the Judicial branch that have in some respects hindered the majority from being a collective dick to a select group of people, but also protecting the body politic from those in both the state and federal realms from doing long-lasting harm.
There isn’t a gun being held to their heads saying that they must worship Allah, Amaterasu, or Cthulhu because there are explicit protections prohibiting the government from enforcing a state religion. That protection, however, does not guarantee that a specific religion will remain in the majority over the existence of a nation, or that the majority religion receives any special privileges or protections because it has the most, or most influential, followers. It appears that those that normally decry religious freedom forget that the government is designed to protect not only those practicing a religion from government interference, but also to protect those of us who don’t share their beliefs from being steamrolled by the them.
A moment of reflection
I heard about the shootings in Connecticut in passing. I didn’t get the full weight of what had occurred until Patricia called me and asked if I had heard about the hideous body count. A little research, and quick check of Facebook (which I was not surprised to find quite a few pages for the shooter, and how he was a great guy and a fantastic photographer), and I was up to speed with the rest of America. What bothered me further was the comment section under every news article, and a few Facebook posts.
In short, I unfriended someone today. Not a monumental accolade or something that need be noted in the archives of WordPress history, but it was the statement that summed up the illness of it all. In short, a man I knew some time ago, and considered intelligent, reasonable, and tolerant stated on his page that he was not surprised that this occurred because it happened in a nation without a soul. He then went on to give a paltry wave of the hand and condolences to the families that lost loved ones, but the first statement. “A nation without a soul” stuck hard in my craw like a jagged pebble.
There are now millions, if not billions, of condolences of perfect strangers floating across the world-wide web. Fundraisers are going up by the hour to help with relief efforts, pay for grief counselors, etc. We, as a nation, are painted in a muddy hue of soullessness because we do not adhere to the tenants of a self-declared ‘militant’ christian. My only response would be that the longer you look down the irons of the rifle you believe is protecting you, the more everything begins to look like a target or an enemy. That immediate attachment of this incident as an indictment of our nation as a whole is disgusting, ill reasoned, and ignorant.
Couple that with the almost instantaneous prattling of fear over gun control legislation, and how the President will steal away our automatic weapons before he has even had a chance to speak on this tragedy (which he did eloquently by the way) lends further to the stereotype that the right is so desperately trying to fight. My only request is that we stop worrying about our own fears for a moment, and think on others. Know for a moment that your family is safe, and, for those of you who have children, might dote on them a little more this evening; be inclined to hold them a little tighter tonight before they go off to bed. For those who lost a child or a loved one today, my deepest condolences.
The die has not been cast with regards to why this wretch took those lives, but the evidence piling up appears to indicate that there were issues at home (at last report his brother was found dead at the residence). In the days and weeks to come we will know everything about the gunman, his name being avoided here as I do not want to recognize the monster outright. No, we will find out the why, what, where, who, and when of everything in this case, then it will fade. My only request would be that we allow that process to be completed before we begin the process of trying to address the results.
Access to firearms and mental health are going to take front stage. Let us, for a change, be informed before we go into political battle and rattle our sabers for our cause, and decry the boogeymen of the opposition. This is, as has been stated by many public figures today, a time where consensus can be reached with little thought. The only matter in that case is giving the people time to grieve and learn what happened. Then, and only then, can we find a true answer that may very well prevent future incidents like this one.
Old Jeffersonian 