These past couple weeks, Washington has been rocked by numerous reports of potential improper use of power by the Government at the IRS targeting certain political ideologies, Department of Justice seizing records of the Press, the admittance that drone strikes have killed US Citizens without due process or were accidental and accusations of false reports to the People and Congress in regards to these and others events.
I am working on a couple of these and how they relate to the Constitution so I will not go into detail about them at this time, rather I do want to make a quick point about one other troubling aspect to me. It is those who are defending the accusations themselves as being "legitimate", not denying that they occurred. In other words it is "okay" for Government to target certain political positions it does not agree with or government sees as a threat, it is "okay" for government to seize records with out the required due process the press is safeguarded under by the First and Fourth Amendments because of "National Security". It is "okay" for Government to deceive or mislead the people to protect information, regardless if the revealing of that information has any actual effect in policy or safety.
My question to those who contend it IS "okay" for Government to do this, would you feel confortable to have the opposing side in power and use those same powers tactics or methods against those it opposes, being you? For me this is the simplest and most effective way to determine what the limit of ANY government power should be. Would you feel at ease, or under duress if those who oppose you had that power to use against you? If you cannot answer yes, then it is a power NO GOVERNMENT must ever have. If the power is available to Government, those in power may not use it today against the people or its adversaries, but history has proven someday someone will come along who will. The goal for a free people should be, to NEVER let government have that power in the first place, and when it tries to seize it, NOT defend those actions, but even if you oppose who it is being used against, speak out against those who wield it. Because if you do not, one day you will be on the other side of the table and by not speaking when it first happened, you have already condoned not only the power, but that acts to come at your expense.
I am working on a couple of these and how they relate to the Constitution so I will not go into detail about them at this time, rather I do want to make a quick point about one other troubling aspect to me. It is those who are defending the accusations themselves as being "legitimate", not denying that they occurred. In other words it is "okay" for Government to target certain political positions it does not agree with or government sees as a threat, it is "okay" for government to seize records with out the required due process the press is safeguarded under by the First and Fourth Amendments because of "National Security". It is "okay" for Government to deceive or mislead the people to protect information, regardless if the revealing of that information has any actual effect in policy or safety.
My question to those who contend it IS "okay" for Government to do this, would you feel confortable to have the opposing side in power and use those same powers tactics or methods against those it opposes, being you? For me this is the simplest and most effective way to determine what the limit of ANY government power should be. Would you feel at ease, or under duress if those who oppose you had that power to use against you? If you cannot answer yes, then it is a power NO GOVERNMENT must ever have. If the power is available to Government, those in power may not use it today against the people or its adversaries, but history has proven someday someone will come along who will. The goal for a free people should be, to NEVER let government have that power in the first place, and when it tries to seize it, NOT defend those actions, but even if you oppose who it is being used against, speak out against those who wield it. Because if you do not, one day you will be on the other side of the table and by not speaking when it first happened, you have already condoned not only the power, but that acts to come at your expense.
Yippie, it works now...................again
ReplyDeleteNow knowing this, my thing with this is not people or languages, but something totally different. As a people as a Nation I firmly believe we must have a common language. So we can always enter the arena of debate and ideas and talk with each other, work out our differences, learn from each other from all our pasts and experiences and better ourselves as a people and individual. We are looking at a National Identity song (I do not care who wrote it as long as they loved our nation and freedom). Because I desire to have common language (note not ONE language, COMMON language) so we as a Nation can talk with each other, I believe it is most appropriate to be that common language in our national things like this, so it is something we all as a people and nation can all partake in as a common item.
ReplyDeleteI can see WHY Coke did this, to acknowledge our diversity, but I can also see WHY others would prefer not to have it done like this. For me it has nothing to do with the people or languages, it has to do with the desire for us to celebrate our commonality in our national identity. We are from many many backgrounds and traditions, to form us into one common nation. This to me is the melting pot, melting all these into one new nation of people thing using all of what we have to make it as good as we can.
Neither statement is true. Tmff has the same say as anyone by choosing to not associate with those with which he does not agree. That can be as simple as not talking to them and up to not letting them work for his private company. Doesn't mean he has to go out of his way to offend them or even dislike them. Coca Cola is affected by the "say" of everyone. If its campaign offends more folks than it entices, the ad campaign fails and coke changes its message.
ReplyDeleteIf I may... Re your first point: American 'culture' is a construct of society's evolution in later centuries. It's among the first heterogenous societies in which the 'culture' is constructed from multiple sources and not the homogenous, organic product of society's gradual evolution from a seedling. Because many in our society (and Canada's) bring a familial background with origins elsewhere, the 'common language' idea is anathema to their upbringing. I'm not agreeing with this so much as just describing the 'problem', as it were. Your point is very important and it reflects a wide swath of reactions to the ad. I think the visceral, immediate reaction is noteworthy because it was unfiltered and reflects the true beliefs of many of the supposed 'silent majority' that remains even in spite of their lack of media exposure.
ReplyDeleteCoca Cola has decided to "embrace the controversy" for now. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/coca-cola-embraces-controversy-will-run-longer-ad-during-sochi-opening-ceremony/
ReplyDeleteNo publicity is bad publicity, eh?
ReplyDeleteI would love to respond to you here, but I do not know if you are agreeing or I need to elaborate on my thought.
ReplyDeleteI am agreeing with you. I am also highlighting the source of the inertia to both the accepting of a multi-lingual American society as well as the motivation and importance of a common language as the basis for the constructing of a common culture as America evolves and grows. We're still so incredibly young. We're the most revolutionary society on Earth.
ReplyDeleteI hope you understand my position, you do not have to agree with it. But I also hope you see it is not at all how you portrayed it and how your attack could therefore be very insulting.
ReplyDeleteHave you watched the ad? What do conservatives find controversial about it? If anything, it's just another example of the way in which capitalism adapts to new markets. See Margaret Halter, Shopping for Identity: The Marketing of Ethnicity.
ReplyDeleteI just watched the ad again. Still can't see what's controversial about it.
ReplyDeleteThe desire to have a common language. That simple, nothing more.
ReplyDeleteHow does a multilingual ad threaten this desire?
ReplyDeleteDid you read what I wrote above? It explains you questions.
ReplyDeleteAs an observer, for me it highlighted some innate fears and apprehensions about the changing of a society from a Protestant-derived, secular, particularly Western society into one that incorporates Eastern religious and cultural norms. It amounts to a sea change in what 'America' is. That scares some people.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say TMFF is scared. He's not. But many who share his opinion are fearful. Just as many on the Left disregard that fear. Disregarding the apprehension at what incorporating new societies into the amalgam of 'America' means is just as myopic, in my opinion.
Just observing, not on either side.
I read it and still do not understand.
ReplyDeleteMany Americans remain too far divorced from the more multi-cultural areas of the country. These segments of American society are slowly becoming more aware of the idea that America is evolving and they are not happy that it is out of their control. Many fear this is 'taking away' their country. Fear is a terrible motivator. Again, this isn't TMFF at all. Just others that reacted to the ad with anger. I am not among them, of course. Nor am I among the other side that sees the ad as reflective of what 'should' happen. I see the ad as a typical boat-rocker. Publicity by a corporation.
ReplyDeleteBut anyone who has studied American history can see that sea changes have happened before. The Irish, Italians, and Jews who came over 100 years ago were considered unassimilable. Now they are entrenched and view the new generation of immigrants as unassimilable. T'was ever thus.
ReplyDeleteI am not going to compare Canada US like that. I understand the French-English combination. If that works or not for Canada great. We are still two different societies, my one and only concern that traverses boarders is freedom. I have NO issues with a multi-lingual society, stop portending I do. I simply desire a common language, and it so happens English is the best choice for a variety of reasons if it was Swahili or mandarin for the same reason so be it. It is when we come together as "Americans" to exclaim we are American and proud to be American, my preference we do it in one unified voice, nothing more. I have no issue with what languages people can or normally do speak (BTW, did you know I was polylingual?) If Canada wishes to use French and English, great for them!
ReplyDeleteBut in the end, it is a simple difference of opinion and preference. I cannot force it, nor would I ever try to if I could. NOR does it in any way shape or manner mean I deserved to have the line of insults, accusation or stereotypes thrown at me as you did.
I do understand your preferences and opinions. They're principled. You understand the how freedom of speech works as a protective measure against state intervention. (I've read this website before.)
ReplyDeleteBut let's not be disingenuous: there are a lot of unprincipled bigots out there who make a mockery of the founding fathers' intentions. And I have every right to call them out on their hatred. My beef with you is that you do not acknowledge that these people exist.
English was and is the lingua franca of America. Never official but ipso facto. From 1789 onwards. Where's the threat?
ReplyDeleteYou are missing the forest for the tree.
ReplyDeleteyou mean Spanish?
ReplyDeleteI never said they did not, and have said they DO on this site in numerous areas. But that in turn for you does NOT mean everyone who disagrees with you are even has a certain POV MUST be them. You are casting a wide net that does nothing productive. You catch more bees with sugar then vinegar. There are a lot of unprincipled people in al walks of life of all opinions, including from your side (look at the crap MSNBC has gotten itself into over race the past few months). If you are just trying to rally the troops throw red-meat. But if you are really trying to change minds, be persuasive put up an argument where they answer themselves into you position, not insult entire peoples just so you can call out the bigots.
ReplyDelete"Insulting entire peoples." The conservative response to the Coca-Cola ad can reasonably be construed as an insult to entire groups of people. Yet, in the end, what your conclusion is that I'm the bigot because I don't make careful distinctions between types of conservative thought. Well, if more conservatives dared to call out the extremists in the movement, I'd have a lot less trouble distinguishing between them.
ReplyDeleteTwo wrongs make a right, huh? I am sure there are those who disagree for the WRONG reasons, but that does not mean all who disagree do believe those wrong reasons. Here is my question. What makes your statement LESS bigoted. You stereotyped an entire group of people based on the voice of a few, and deemed all them "bad or wrong" in some manner. How is this not as bad? You doing unto others what you are trying to call out on and do not even see it! How is this any better?
ReplyDeleteDo you seriously believe there are no shortminded-closeminded-bigotted liberals or progressives? Do you think it is only one side that has these types of issues? What is extreme, simply someone who has a principle that is not yours? You do not even see it, but you are doing exactly what say you hate, trust someone who was on the receiving end of it and undeservingly!!!
Deflection. Playing the victimization card. Calling for compromise while never giving an inch. Impossible to dialogue on this. At least we have the Blackhawks.
ReplyDeleteWhat am I deflecting, I agreed and acknowledged I am sure their are some who have wrong reasons. I have stated I totally understand the motive of Coke and never said I thought it was poorly motivated, only I disagreed? You say I do not give an inch, you have yet to acknowledge once you offended and insulted people, instead say they a just "playing" the victim. I think I understand, you are not allowed to offend someone, unless they disagree with you. And YOU are the open-minded tolerant one.
ReplyDeleteI want nothing more than to have open and two way dialogue. When we disagree as a people to discuss it, maybe learn from each other, like what is going on here. We do not have to agree in the end, that is fine and frankly good to stop group think. But we need to stop immediately resorting to the insults and mockery that are all over. Everything is being truncated to a 30 second sound bite, not a discussion. Look at FB the news everywhere. It is who can get the best one liner mocking those who oppose them. The conversation is stopping, THIS needs to be reversed. Their is no reason this discussion digressed as it did, and both sides are to blame for that. NOBODY is innocent in this, we all have had a part somehow. We need to get back to talking and stop this one-liner business.
ReplyDeleteI agree. So let me give you some background on myself. I teach Jewish, mostly Holocaust, history. (I was raised Mennonite but my great-grandmother was Jewish.) So I am not tolerant when it comes to intolerance. If I catch a whiff of discrimination, I turn on it hard and quick. And I don't avoid harsh language. I learned from Nazi Germany the danger of using euphemisms to hide or twist the truth.
ReplyDeleteI am a critic of conservatism as it operates today but am no fan of leftist extremism either. I don't toe the party line, even if I am considered to be left of centre in my politics.
I also think comedy can be used for serious purposes. (One of my courses deals with the history of Jewish comedy and its origins). Like good journalism, Jewish comedy was often used to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable.
In the future, may I ask that you at least bother to watch one episode of the Daily Show before commenting on it. If you already have, my apologies for assuming otherwise. You did call him "John" Stewart so I surmised that you don't tune in very often.
In any case, I agree that one-liners are not good enough to maintain a serious conversation. The level of political discourse in the United States is disgracefully lowbrow. But it's becoming that way in Canada as well. Rob Ford, the crack-smokin' mayor, had a talk-radio show where he and his brother browbeat liberals and espoused the virtues of Tea Party-type politics. They're bullies and hypocrites (zero-tolerance against drugs, unless they do them.). And too many people like them are driving the agendas of North American politics.
So let real dialogue occur. Let the moderates call out the extremists. Otherwise, our countries will experience something much worse than multiculturalism run amuck.
Whether one is Conservative or Liberal is a personal choice and I have no issue with it or how one choses, provided those beliefs do not interfere with another's ability to exercise their Unalienable Rights. It should not matter to me or you how another person believes, but it does and to me for the wrong reasons. People and government is too authoritative, it nor you or I should have ability to make our personnel beliefs an issue in how another lives their life. To me it is about Freedom and Liberty and non interference in the conduct of them, up UNTIL the point of effecting another's ability to use theirs. I do not care if their beliefs are "extreme", it should not matter to you or me.
ReplyDeleteYes I have watched Jon Stewart, sorry I cannot remember how to spell everyone's name, I have to look up how to spell Montesquieu's every time. But I will never cite him as a credible source on opinion. Everything he does is satire, regardless if he is totally in line with his own beliefs.
Not all disagreement is intolerance, and you cannot treat it as such, nor cast such a wide net to in the end cause intolerance. Your statement did nothing for me to consider your POV, rather it made me much more apt to disregard it due to its front. Believe it or not, BOTH sides are doing an outstanding job at causing the other to hate them even more. I can't watch FNC or MSNBC in volume anymore because of this, BOTH slant things to such a degree or distort things or flat out misrepresent it is adding to the destruction of our dialogue in favor of the 30 second red-meat soundbites. Honest discourse is gone, and IMO far more gone on MSNBC, they do not even have honest dissenting POV's much anymore.
I agree re Fox and MSNBC. They don't allow dissent.
ReplyDeleteHas nothing I've written in the last few hours made any impression beyond the first one?
No, it certainly has and I am also not saying I disagree is large parts. I simply feel at the common point, our nationality as a people, I prefer us to be in one common voice for the reasons I stated.
ReplyDeleteI still don't see the threat to English. Perhaps you could provide some evidence that English is in jeopardy. And some historical context, perhaps, to show that it is now under greater threat than it has ever been.
ReplyDeleteIf all you have an opinion, or a feeling, I will not be swayed.
I am not saying nor have I said it is a "threat" to English. It is simply my preference in those specific type of settings not because of a threat, but for the Unity of all of us together as one.
ReplyDeleteSo we're back to "National identity songs." You realize that the ad begins with the phrase E Pluribus Unum? And that English is the language that begins and ends the song? And that before you can get to Unum stage you have to start with E Pluribus?
ReplyDeleteYou know what I think of your opinion? I think it's not very well thought out.
So, we just simply disagree which is fine. Name calling was not needed to be able to understand each others POV, even if in the end neither shift. But the discourse was open and civil and we understand the genesis of each others position. This can ONLY help things out, now if the rest of society could only do this.
ReplyDelete.
Oh, and LET'S GO HAWKS!!!
.
What do you think of my little hobby site here?
Go Hawks!
ReplyDeleteInteresting site. I've been here before. Were you at SCH? Before TCI.
One suggestion: clean up the typos. You misspell interpretation right at the top of the main page.
I repeat: GO HAWKS
I will fix that.
ReplyDeleteFixed,
ReplyDeleteYes I was at SCH.
I thought so. Well I have to get back to work. I'm presenting tomorrow on a book called Outwitting History: the amazing Adventures of a man who rescued a million Yiddish books. By Aaron Lansky, director of the National Yiddish Book Center in Amherst, Massachusetts.
ReplyDeleteA terrific book. I'll send you a copy if you give me a mailing address
Send me an e-mail and I will get back to you.
ReplyDeletedueckg@queensu.ca
ReplyDeleteYou will not hurt my feelings telling me you do not like or agree with the content of my site! lol
ReplyDeleteTmff, I need to read the content carefully first. Don't want make the mistake of lumping you in with other originalists, some of whom I'm suspicious of.
ReplyDeleteFair enough
ReplyDeleteThat's a lie. A lie. A straight-up lie.
ReplyDeleteNow we have been playing nice, a lot nicer than on TCI at times! lol
ReplyDeleteI like this place.
ReplyDeleteHoly shit! You guys have a secret hangout?
ReplyDelete