Scottish Nous

Gearing Up For the Fourth

Hear the words of Frederick Douglass, from a speech given on July 4, 1852:

Fellow Citizens: Pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here today?  What have I or those I represent to do with your national independence?  Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?  And am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? ...

What to the American slave is your Fourth of July?  I answer, a day that reveals to him more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim.  To him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages.  There is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these United States at this very hour.

Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel through South America, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival ... - (as quoted in Zinn's A People's History...)

While Douglass is speaking of one particular injustice perpetrated by the American people, I think many of those with some remnant of moral conscience remaining, some acquaintance with the facts, and some ability to think rationally, will find them still fitting.

Is "Bad Cop" Redundant Yet?

Unfortunately, while Andrew Glover is preparing to sue over cops breaking into his house and ripping out his catheter, he likely won't be very successful.  First, the city will try to settle with him to ensure that there is no real basis for reprimanding the violent police officers they employ or changing the culture of violence and brutality they are promoting.   Second, there will probably be ridiculously low limits on how much the city and/or department can be held responsible for.  These limits exist to ensure that groups of people who employ violent criminals don't have to bear any significant financial responsibility for the barbarians they enlist and train as thugs.  Third, whether or not he reaches some settlement or wins a case, it is highly unlikely that the animals who assaulted him will receive more than a slap on the wrist from some illegitimate "internal review" which exists for the express purposes (as it exists in all police departments) of covering up the highly criminal acts of the gangsters in blue.  This "review" might result in something as drastic as temporary reassignment to a desk job or paid leave.  Finally, it is a given that the these trained thugs will lie as hard as they possibly can, pleading that their use of reasonable force was justified, as it undoubtedly was when three pigs tased this 82 year old man.  From the comments thread at Majikthise, we have some meathead who sounds like he "served the people" defending the tasing of hospitalized and bed-ridden dementia sufferers on oxygen who wield pocket knives:

You may not be able to approach and use a manual disarm.  A Taser allows you to lessen the threat level and not increase the risk of damage. Some WATB will whine that police are paid to be injured on the job. Yes, there are risks. But I'll do my level best to reduce the harm to myself and others.  In the Bad Old Days we'd either beat them senseless (coup and countrecoup) or shoot them.  Tasers are the lesser evil.

Served them a heaping pile of pain, that is.  If this guy is serious, one has to speculate that his brain was manually disarmed by his parents/guardians.  It's hard to see how you could get this stupid, or be this much of an asshole, without taking repeated coup-countrecoup injuries over the course of your entire childhood.

Yeah, Well, It's Your Set of Laws Buddy

Former House member Randy Cunningham is whimpering in prison due to federal laws he can only hold himself and his ilk responsible for:

I am human not an animal to keep whiping [sic]... I hurt more than anyone could imagine.

Should have thought about spending more time reforming a perverse justice system which every day inflicts immeasurable harm on citizens and non-citizens alike.  Instead, you spent your time figuring out more ways in which to swindle tax payers out of their money.  How do you like it now?  Can you say the words "zero sympathy"?

Amazing Supplement to My Previous Post!

My last post was underwritten by considerations just such as these.  An excerpt:

Thanks to the ceaseless fear-mongering of this Administration, we are becoming – excuse the grotesque imagery -- a Nation of Jonah Goldbergs, scared and lazy creatures who sit around believing that the Government is justified – even obligated – to act literally without constraint against the Bad People, the ones who are deemed to be Bad not pursuant to any "procedural niceties" but simply by the unchecked decree of the Government. These Jonah Goldbergs love to talk tough. But they are repulsively coddled and effete, whining about every perceived petty injustice which affects them but breezily endorsing the most limitless abuses of others, as long as the "others" seem sufficiently demonized and far enough away.

Glenn Greenwald makes very explicit the connection between violating the legal rights of the antecedently condemned in the name of "plain moral commonsense" when overstepping those rights will bring about some perceived good or eradicate some perceived evil.  This  "plain moral commonsense" attributed to "Real America" by JCN appears to be one of Strip Search Sammy's judicial principles.  One more excerpt:

After all, we’re dealing here with people whom the State says it suspects, but has not yet proven, are "drug dealers." With those people (and, of course, with "suspected terrorists"), anything goes, even before a trial and without any due process of any kind. All of this can be done strictly on the Government's say-so, even if the Constitutional "niceties" which exist to prohibit such behavior haven’t been complied with. "It may be wrong," spits out Jonah, but we should do it anyway, because these people deserve it.

Ugh.  This turns my stomach.  I hope "Real America" thinks that the JCN is an abominable organization.

It's Illegal To Annoy People Online

Trolls beware.  See this article.  Fortunately, I blog onymously, so if I happen to annoy somebody, I can't be imprisoned.  That is, the law applies only to people who annoy others without disclosing their identity.  But anonymous blogger friends: take warning.  The government may be seeking your head!  The relevant section of the law:

Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Strictly, the law criminalizes "intent to annoy...".  But how does one assess whether "intent to annoy" is present, really?  I suggest you head over to Annoy.com and send an anonymous annoying message to someone for the heck of it.  This weak little demonstration, while unnecessary, may be amusing.  And remember, when you're proving that you will disregard the unjust laws of an unjust state, don't be a jerk.  It shouldn't be a criminal offense to be a jerk, but you do know better.  Also, in other news relevant to our unjust state, Senator Bill Alter (R-Missouri) is a genius.  He got the great idea to ban convenience stores from selling cold beer from a fifth grader:

"The only reason why beer would need to be cold is so that it can be consumed right away," said Alter, adding that his idea for the legislation came to him from a fifth-grade student in Jefferson County.

The cold beer contributes heavily to drunk driving, you see, a fact the consideration of which suggests it's perfectly reasonable to inconvienence millions of law abiding citizens with ridiculous legislation.

Be Part of the Insurgency!

While voting is on the table, let's consider another devious ploy utilized by ignorant statists.  As our example, we'll excerpt the following from a Reuter's feed:

Supporters of the charter were quick to portray the vote by Sunnis, who mostly boycotted January's election, as adding legitimacy to the U.S.-sponsored process, even if they voted against; critics say a document intended to foster unity risks tearing the nation apart along religious and ethnic lines. [Yahoo] (Emphasis mine.)

The homegrown situation is isomoporhic with the Iraqi case, so we'll focus on a local analouge.  Left libertarians like myself would like to see the government, in its current incarnation, destroyed.   This is not unpatriotic, folks.  Instead, it's the apogee of patriotism.  Those of us who have any sense of patriotism left are sick and tired of a country of apathetic weaklings who defend the right of a bunch of morally deficient cronies holed up in Washington to force their will, backed by guns, on the masses.  But I will not further defend this position here.

Now consider the left libertarian who votes.  (Many libertarians, because they want to make a point about the futility of the voting process and the delusion it gives rise to, namely that the part you play by voting both counts as a helpful and legitimate contribution to the democratic process as well as absolving you of the right to rebel against that process.)  Still, some libertarians go to the poles and vote nonetheless.  According to the point of view expressed in the above quoted passage, these libertarians would be thereby "adding legitimacy to the U.S. sponsored process" of voting.  I call bullshit.

When I drink a diet pepsi, I don't thereby support anything about the Pepsi Co. except, possibly (and depending on how I acquired my Pespi and where it would have otherwise ended up), their bottom line.   Now for the sake of argument, I can grant that matters might well be different were I to buy that diet pespi instead of merely drinking it.  But merely drinking a diet pepsi need not commit me to anything.  I claim that voting is analogous.  Libertarians who vote need not thereby support either the voting process or the greater political system to which voting is essential.  A ballot is not a contract that binds you to "support of the system".

It is a strange use of logic indeed to suggest that those who, ex hypothesi, do not "support the system" somehow manage to support the system (by voting).  After all, surely those who parrot these pithy little slogans won't deny them their vote, will they?  If they cannot be stopped from voting on the basis of their position for or against the system, then their voting cannot constitute any support of the system just as their failing to vote cannot constitute any rejection of the system.  One might vote for many reasons, none of which include an explicit or tacit desire to support the system.  Or so I claim.

Now it is of course true that those who eagerly vote, that is, those who vote because they want to participate in the process for participation's sake, do lend some support to the system.  We can see how they, in some way support the system, by pointing out that they have less reason to complain than the principled non-voter.  Yes, I maintain that those who do not vote because they are repulsed by the entire disgusting mess, the teeming millions who blindly sacrifice their freedom on the altar of "participation", have a greater reason to complain than the eager voter.  (See here on rights - not reasons - for complaint.)    For after all, it is the person who refuses, for principled reasons, to vote, who is governed most unjustly.  He has nowise given his consent to the state and so cannot fall under its jurisdiction.  Indeed, the only r eason he has to obey the state is a prudential one: they will unjustly punish him if he does not do as they demand.

Another Judicial Animal

What did a (quite possibly false) suspicion of looting $63.50 of unitemized goods earn a 73 year old woman in New Orleans?  A sixteen day trip to the state pen backed by $50,000 bail.  Why is the judge responsible for setting that bail not now in prison, I ask?  The story here.

Happy Voting, Slave

The delivery of five hundred thousand British military ration packs (MREs) was suspended for several days  by the worthless and useless U.S. government.  This is what electing (read: begging) villians (read: the sort of people who run for office) to lord it over you gets you (read: denial of food).  But why is this worthless and useless government permitted to cause such problems? Whence does it derive its power?  Who is responsible for the injustices committed every day in this corrupt country?  I'm not entirely sure how blame should be divvied out, but political hacks and the rabid teeming minions  who throng about them in repulsive, politically active hordes deserve most of it.

The problem is just that we have far too many happy little slaves (read: democrats and republicans) running about in this country.   But these deluded folk don't consider themselves to be slaves.  This is, I think, because everyone indoctrinated into our  first past the post system finds themselves locked in a two-party power struggle that effectively stymies any rational, public discourse about the demerits of that system.  There are just too many donkeys and elephants in full battle dress fighting an unjust war of their own to make questioning the system itself an option.  If  you do question it, you not only offend the fundamentalist, patriotic nationalists whose recurring wet dreams never fail to involve kissing the Constitution and burning flag burners, but you undercut the only hope of power the more mundane suited up animals have.  Changing the system wouldn't let them seize control!

Back to the slave theme.  Instead of the monkeys  donkeys and elelphants honestly assessing themselves as the slaves they are, they take themselves to be indentured servants, happily worshipping the system while biding their time until they can seize power and force others to comply with their demands.  Of course, almost all of them will die a slave after having spent a lifetime continually begging the government to allow them to fork over their money for almost anything whatsoever, no matter how much blood is shed, how many lies are told, or how much corruption, ineffeciency, double-dealing, backstabbing, and violation of basic human rights is involved in the process.   Yet this doesn't stop them.  They would rather die a slave to an unjust system for their children, who won't thank them, than fight for real justice.   

These cretins are easily spotted by their methods.  They pledge allegiance to a political cause and then begin to incessantly whine, groan, and squeal about  the shortcomings of their necessary counterpart, crying:  "We could do it better!  Give us the rod and the sceptre! "  If they squeal long and loud enough, an uneducated citizenry may in fact - horror of horrors! - beg them to be their king:

When this takes place, you will complain against the king whom you have chosen, but on that day the LORD will not answer you.  The people, however, refused to listen to Samuel's warning and said, "Not so! There must be a king over us.  We too must be like other nations, with a king to rule us and to lead us in warfare and fight our battles. - I Samuel 8:18-20

So much for the Enlightenment.  Like an ancient barbaric tribe of religious zealots, most of my fellow citizens can't seem to live, or even contemplate the possibility of living, without someone to tell them  what they can and can't eat.  And I mean that literally, not metaphorically!  Who was responsible for the USDA and the FDA?  Those same departments, created by morally depraved excuses for human beings,  are the reason the British MREs didn't make it to the streets for days and days.  Not that anyone was starving, but since when does the government have a right to tell people what they can and cannot put into their bodies!  Since the donkeys and elephants decided it would be a good idea?  These animals need to go extinct.

Subsidizing Some "Beneficial Services"

There was  a very good article in this week's edition of Bouler's intelligent but usually bleeding heart liberal paper Boulder Weekly.   Ari Armstrong's article, entitled "Corporate Welfare for Jesus", defends the obvious position that religious organizations are not entitled to taxpayers' dollars.  No shit!  If only more people would realize this and extend the principle to any organization whatsoever, the government included.  Here's an excerpt from Ari's interview with Bill Korte (Vice President of Marketing and Sales) of the state subsidized ($115,200) religious organization Group Publishing  (stated purpose: "we're on a mission from God... to help people build their friendship with Jesus Christ):

Ari Armstrong:  So what are your views or your company's views on corporate welfare?

Bill Korte:  Corporate welfare?  You define that for me, and then I'll answer.

AA:  Well, it's money that the state gives to a corporation, such as Group Publishing, Inc.

BK:  Our view would be if we are providing services that benefit Colorado, then it would be something that we would participate in, and see if, in the eyes of twhose who have the grants, we qualify for.

AA:  So Thomas Jefferson said the following: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propogation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."  Do you agree or disagree with Mr. Jefferson that to take money for this sort of corporate welfare is sinful?

BK:  I guess I would have no comment on it.

Smack down!  Of course, the application of TJ's principle extends much, much, much further than the religious organizations Ari applies it to.  Ari follows the interview(in print) with "How about this for a comment? 'Thou shalt not steal.'"

Explanation

As you can possibly tell from the tone of my several recent posts, I've been experiencing a week of intensified moral outrage directed towards our political system.  This outrage is, I believe, largely heightened by the attempted politicization of the response to Hurricane Katrina.  Unfortunately, since quantities of moral outrage do not simply sum, nor even increase linearly, this has caused a massive mental disturbance that I can barely keep in check with good books and blog posts.  Let me explain. 

Those on the left who are trying to leverage the response to this disaster as a means to replace politicians on the right with officials of their own choosing are incurring about as much of my wrath as the current criminals who have usurped power in this country.  I think the solution is obvious: get rid of the criminals.  Unforunately, most people don't see eye to eye with me here.  They think that the people I call criminals are, for the most part, decent members of a gang essential to the functioning of an enlightened society.  Such people are, of course, the real political conservatives, whether they be liberal or not.  But if political conservatives want a gang of intellectually unimpressive (and, I contend, probably morally deficient) people running their lives, they should expect to be constantly dissapointed (as they were with the government's response to Hurricane Katrina).  We might point out: you got just what you should have expected.  Congrats!

No private business could be run like the government and hope to succeed, unless that private business, like the government, had the means to force people to subsidize their inefficiency and waste.  The board of directors would be fired.  I like the analogy, and I think it holds.  Why aren't the Members of Congress fired?  When are people going to wake up and decide not to let a wasteful, inefficient, and immoral government continue to violate their rights?  It's so damned lonely over here on the libertarian left.  ::sighs::