Getting Clarity in 2020 - Coronavirus and the responsibilities of individual rights

This last week was a classic case of "Didn't see that one coming!'", eh? Global Pandemic, travel options being shut down, panicked shortages over what were considered the most trivial of products just a week ago, schools, concerts & conventions being cancelled, social distancing and self confinement being strongly suggested, 'soft' quarantines being applied in cities & counties and the threat of real quarantines in the offing, businesses, bars, restaurants being shut down in several states and economic catastrophe in the wings. Just wow. And of course there is the politics, with plenty of people who're screaming that:

• "It's the 2nd Coming of the Black Death!', or
• "Hoax! It's not a crisis, it's no worse than the common cold, they're just grabbing power!", or 
• "Hoax! They're just trying to hurt this President!"

, and I really have no time for any of them. In the first case the issue is alarming enough without piling hysterical alarmism on top of what is already alarming enough; and in the second & third cases, the notion that this is only political spin & machinations requires such an effort to evade and fake reality as to make the wildest of 'Illuminati!' conspiracy theories seem rational in comparison - as a friend said, 'They're two sides of the same woke coin'. Are politicians & media trying to take advantage of a crisis? Of course they are, they're politicians & media, aren't they? Yes they will do their damndest to not let 'a good crisis go to waste', yes they must be rebuffed, but not at the expense of ignoring the real dangers that will actually follow from a too rapid spread of the Coronavirus disease (see the 'Flattening the curve' links below), or from a mis-identification of what our individual rights are, and require of each of us.

There's no doubt that COVID-19 and the responses to it are going to cause real personal hardships and economic devastation - a hint of which I got to experience myself on Friday 13th when I was let go from my job, and as my wife is a flight attendant, I can see that there are all kinds of ways for things to get much worse, in terms of health & finance - personally, locally, nationally & world wide.

I get it - believe me - if money, yours and your community's, is front and center in your thoughts, with rising concerns over jobs, income, BILLS, liberty, health - everything is slamming into our minds at the same moment... what are we supposed to do with that? While I'll suggest that going into a panic buying spree of toilet paper & disinfectant wipes wasn't the wisest of moves, those who had been paying no attention to the news and went to purchase them yesterday because they were running low, that wasn't the wisest position to have been left occupying. Somewhere between those two extremes lies a more practical course of action, but permit me to suggest that thinking about our current situation in only the economic terms of how best to allocate scarce resources, is also going to lead you way off in the wrong direction - economic thinking is not the type of thinking you need to be thinking your thoughts through right now. Ditto for 'critical thinking'.

In order to be able to take a moment to gather your thoughts, to put them in perspective and order so that you can make good judgments, you've got to be thinking a level above the chaos of the moment. The type of thinking we need to be engaging in right now, is not on the level of how to drive and get gas, because that won't tell you where, if anywhere, you should be driving to. The thinking we need more of right now, is what clarifies the mental map & compass... or GPS if you prefer, to get a grip on where we are, and where we should be going.

So back to basics. First... what should we be thinking about first? Which is a different question from asking about what naturally comes to mind in a crisis, or about what is rightfully a major concern in your life right now; instead it's asking what should we, as human beings, as family, as friends, neighbors and citizens, what should we be thinking of first? And how should those first thoughts, give order to, and prioritize, the secondary considerations of economic thinking?

Those first order thoughts aren't going to be found in the economy. Politics either. Or even in worrying about what you are free, or are not free, to go and do.

Those are important considerations, but something else needs to put them into a proper perspective, and that's got to come from higher on up the mental mountain. I'm sure that many of you are thinking that religious thinking is what should come first (and those tempted to laugh at that, you ought to do so quietly so as not to wave your foolishness about you like a flag), that may well be so, but that still leaves some mental ground between the clouds and your boots on the ground, that needs to be covered. Between theology and economics is philosophy - ethics & political philosophy in particular - and that's where your thinking can find the clarity to order your thoughts for acting in the here & now.

You can't jump right into issues such as Quarantines either, without having given some thought to what makes them justifiable or unjustifiable, and issues about the constitutionality & legality of such actions, are also secondary to understanding why any such actions can and should be thought of as proper or improper, and so guides what goes into federal & state constitutions and laws. Worrying about those issues first, without having first oriented your mind around true north, so to speak, is going to have you wondering off the map. What is most important to be thinking about, is thinking in terms of your being a human being, living in society with other human beings, and the first issue to consider in that context, is what responsibilities you have to yourself, and to your fellows, given the circumstances that we are all facing.

Lets start by leaving COVID-19, and the various letters of the laws, out of it. I've put some worthwhile links at the bottom of this post, but for the moment let's try and come at the issue of responsible actions from a very different direction.

Shifting perspectives
If a person was accidentally drugged & suddenly psychotic, a visible danger to themselves and to those around them, that person would in this situation be blameless, but whoever the people are that are around them - family, friends, bystanders, police - matters little, someone should restrain them (or at least alert someone who can) for their own safety and that of others, shouldn't they? Those people would themselves be blameworthy if they did nothing to restrain them. Is there anyone who'd argue otherwise?

If that person had somehow consciously incapacitated themselves, got stumbling drunk by chugging a fifth of bourbon for instance, while that person in this case is no longer blameless, that would not change what those same people around them should do in acting to restrain that person from driving home - right? If you were unlucky enough to not have those people around to save you from yourself, and your drunk driving caused injury or death to others, those actions would be your responsibility, right? Is there anyone who'd argue against that?

Let's add a bit of the crazy unknown into the mix: Let's say that you're about to leave from lunch at a friend's house, and they've just told you that there's a strong reason to believe that they may have accidentally used hallucinogenic 'Magic Mushrooms' instead of Morels mushrooms, in the meal you just ate, and that it'll take about 15 minutes or so to know for sure whether or not your meal is going to take you for a ride. It would be irresponsible for you to shrug your shoulders, get in your car and begin your long drive home through neighborhoods and past schools and into heavy traffic, wouldn't it?

Those scenarios may be odd, but the issues they raise are fairly clear cut and easy to grasp, right? If you are a threat to others, intentionally or not, you should either exercise self restraint, or be restrained by others, from putting anyone in danger of being harmed or even killed, by you. It would be criminally irresponsible for either you or those around you, to do nothing.

Ok, lets make the issue murkier. Let's say that the police, on the basis of solid information from very credible complaints, are aware of a wildly drunken party by escaped criminals, from which several cars were seen leaving, and are presently driving towards them down a single two lane road. The police would have good cause for stopping cars coming down the lane and for checking the drivers out, correct?

But what if while the police had received very credible complaints, there was no certainty about where the party was located, or which roads the likely drunk driving criminals would be heading down; in that case the police might have good cause to alert people in the city to the potential danger, but they would not have cause to stop all cars on any and all roads, correct?

And finally, what if, with no information, no complaints, just an awareness that it being Friday night and the likelihood that there are parties & drunks & criminals out & about somewhere, the police just decide to set up roadblocks on all roads to stop all cars, test all drivers, search them for any sort of incriminating info, on the off chance they could catch someone at something... most people would say that would be an improper and irresponsible abuse of power, right?

The context and knowledge of the issues, changes what actions are responsible to take, right?

Recognizing the Context
So now lets bring the COVID-19 back into it the mix. If you, through no fault of your own, were exposed to this extremely communicable disease, which, with good reason to suspect you could endanger your community - what is your responsibility to yourself and to your community? You have credible reasons to believe that you might be a danger to others, do you not have a responsibility to protect your fellows from catching and communicating that danger that you might be carrying to infect still others? You can do at least as much, and very likely more, damage to your fellows, and it'd be even worse doing that while sober, than drunk, right?

If you were confirmed to have the virus, wouldn't knowingly exposing others to it, be highly negligent behavior? Wouldn't you be responsible for their illnesses and the effects of them? If your family, friends, bystanders, police, were aware that you were infected, shouldn't they do whatever they can to restrain you for your safety, theirs, and the safety of others?

Now what if you know that there's a likelihood that maybe someone, somewhere is infected, is it right, is it responsible to accost any and everyone for that?

Unlike an analogy of people being drunk, we aren't mentally incapacitated, but we also don't know whether we are infected, or whether or not we are bumping into someone who is, and so passing it onto others. In that situation, it would be wrong for govt to treat everyone as if they were 'guilty', but a responsible person who's aware of the potential problems, should limit their contact with others, because there is a very real possibility that they could be a danger to them. It is right, it is responsible, to advise people to restrict their unnecessary activities, to leave space, to wash & wipe - while it's still questionable whether or not people are infected.

It would be wrong for communities not known to be heavily exposed to the virus, to treat everyone as if they were guilty/infected, without strong reasons for believing otherwise. OTOH, areas around Seattle WA, do have good reasons to believe that large crowds are going to contain several carriers of the virus, and they do have good reasons to take actions that in normal conditions would be egregious abuses of power - the context of the situation matters.

A libertarian minded Facebook friend commented that '...rights don't have asterisks after them saying you can't exercise your right in certain conditions', which is another example to me that he's never given any real consideration to what rights are, and a symptom of a far more worrisome viral infection of our understanding of individual rights, that stems from the J.S. Mill school of 'liberty' meaning nothing more than 'freedom from restraint'. Your individual rights are yours by nature of being a human being, and that, so long as you're of sound mind, your having the power to exercise your rights is beyond challenge. But your ability to exercise your rights, most definitely is affected by the context of the situation that you would be exercising them within. What actions you have the power to exercise, changes from one situation to the next, even in normal circumstances, depending upon the context of the situation. Your power to speak your mind on a soapbox in the park, becomes restricted when in a theater full of people who have paid to peacefully watch a show without interruption, and your power to exercise that right is even more restricted in a hospital where patients' health depends upon their being able to rest, and those powers are still further restricted in a war zone where what you are saying out loud, could give a lethal advantage to the enemy.

Your power to exercise and enjoy your individual rights, is most definitely affected by the context of the situation you find yourself within. What powers the state is able to exercise over you, also varies with the context of the situation.

A policemen cannot claim to be exercising his powers responsibly, when stopping cars for no reason, subjecting people to blood alcohol tests without cause, or searching you or your property without just cause, but if you are weaving across the road and sideswiping parked cars, if you smell of alcohol and slur your speech, if a description of your car and you match that of an assault that was reported around the corner just moments ago, then the police most definitely have cause to detain you, test you, and search you and your things, and it would be irresponsible of them not to do just that.

Context matters.

The St. Louis area, for instance, as of yet (and that could change within hours) has no reason to believe that 'the infected are among us' in worrisome numbers. However because of how the virus is known to spread, and is known to be spread by people who have as yet no reason to think of themselves as being carriers, people should be making an effort to reduce the likelihood of spreading the virus to others; businesses should be making an effort to reduce the likelihood of providing a means to the spread of the virus, and it would be irresponsible of them to ignore that. The government should be making an effort to encourage individuals and businesses, to help slow the spread of the virus, and it would be irresponsible for them to not supply guidelines for that. But while making suggestions is appropriate in the current context, taking action, at this stage, to order businesses to close down, is unwarranted.

In the current context.

But once it does become a reasonable probability that any sizable gathering would contain numerous carriers of the virus and spread the disease to those most endangered by it, then if people fail to responsibly restrict themselves, authorities do have the responsibility - and the police power - to protect the public and limit, close, or quarantine them. They also have a legal responsibility to conduct such quarantines with due process - in normal circumstances. If emergency situations escalate, that may very well be determined by that context as well.

When President Trump shut down travel into America from Communist China and other countries which had large numbers of populations infected, that was the right, responsible, action to take. When President Trump was advising people to limit their activities, that was the appropriate and responsible thing to do. Trump engaging private companies in the process, Trump reducing or removing penalties & burdens from daily norms, from regulations to taxes & IRS due dates, is appropriate for him to do. Romney, Cotton, Trump, offering 'Cash for Corona'... those are not appropriate or responsible actions for government to take - removing burdens is good, increasing govt burdens on us all, is not! Govt shutting down govt colleges & public schools, that is appropriate (permanent would be better, but... that's me). But New York, Illinois & St. Louis, San Francisco, shutting down restaurants & gatherings... is not - yet - appropriate or warranted actions to take.

But honestly, I'm less interested in turning thumbs up or down on what responsible people, private and public, are attempting to do. I'm interested in you, We The People, giving careful thought to what is, and is not, appropriate and responsible behavior. What is your responsibility, what is your right, what power is it just for you to exercise? If you don't have that understanding, can those you elect to office be expected to understand - or care about - limiting governments powers to respecting and upholding your rights? If your answer isn't no - then why the hell not?!

Knowing what your individual rights are, the reasoning for them and for recognizing and defending them, and having some clarity of mind regarding the actions and circumstances where exercising them is responsible, and when it is not, is of fundamental importance, and the fact that your school may not have bothered teaching you that, is no excuse for your not making yourself more educated upon the matter.

You cannot truly enjoy your individual rights, if you don't consider the context of the situations you are exercising them in, and your not doing so endangers my ability to enjoy those rights as well. You, as a citizen, are responsible for knowing what your individual rights and responsibilities are, and not being aware of that, is inviting a dangerous context where all of our liberties could be lost to us, and to our children, and their children as well. That's the 'disease' that scares me the most, and I heartily wish there were a way to quarantine that.

References:

• Dana Loesch: Interesting Wuhan Coronavirus/COVID-19 Links
• A research paper "Balancing Individual Rights and Public Health Safety during Quarantine", provides a wealth of references to court cases & opinions over time on how those driving state & federal govt have seen their roles, and how the courts responded.
• Yes, our Founding Fathers (and those following after them) forcibly quarantined their fellow Americans: "A brief history of quarantines in the United States"
• The exponential growth curve of the Coronavirus: "Why outbreaks like coronavirus spread exponentially, and how to “flatten the curve”"
• A doctor explains the importance of flattening the curve: "I'm a doctor at Nebraska Medicine. Here's what I'm telling my family about COVID-19"
• Less Govt is a healthier way to combat disease: "South Korea Preserved the Open Society and Now Infection Rates are Falling"
• Coronavirus Live Update of cases
• How Bad Is the Coronavirus? Let’s Run the Numbers

Trump's Tweets and the Serious Consequences of We The People (a rant)

rant: Look, you might as well go read the very sensible comments upon Trump's Tweets, which Charles C. W. Cooke had to say (H/T Dana), or go to Lindsay Graham to hear what will please the Right half of you, or go to CNN to hear what will please the Left half of you, because all I have to say is what none of you want to hear.

Don't believe me? Ok, here ya go: So... lemme guess... you're all stirred up because Trump tweeted, or by those he tweeted at. Again. Huh.

And you're shocked about that? Seriously? And you expect me to be shocked? Please. I really don't care whether you support Trump, tolerate or oppose him, or are a NeverTrump'r, I'm sorry/not-sorry, but your shock and outrage at him, or at his critics, or at those he was critical of, is disingenuous, pathetic, and deplorable.

What's that? There are anti-American representatives in Congress? Ya know what it means if there are anti-American representatives in Congress? It means that there are a hell of a lot of Anti-American Americans in America, that they represent!

CLUE!

Listen up buttercup: We The People (that's all o' y'all) have been making some consequential choices for a very long time - and with those choices, habits, and educational standards, in Art and entertainment preferences, et-friggin'-cettera, we've chosen to move on from:

• Plato, Aristotle & Aquinas, to Descartes, Rousseau & Kant;
• Homer, Shakespeare &The Federalist Papers, to textbooks, modernistic drivel, and the Green New Deal;
• Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste Say & Frédéric Bastiat, to Marx, Keynes & Paul Krugman(!);
• Civility, manners & polite regard, to hostility, sarcasm & rudeness;
• Ward Cleaver to Al Bundy;
• Wally Cleaver to Bart Simpson;
• Annette Funicello to Miley Cyrus;

And no matter how fair it isn't, what all of those choices mean, is that we've mandated that presidents such as Silent Cal Coolidge, are no longer an option in America, they're now a thing of the past, because we've 'progressed' - and guess what: What that 'progress' looks like is Donald Trump Tweeting, and those he's tweeting at.

And you want me to get all upset over the pitiful handful of a few whoevers that you think are our 'real problems' today, while all o' y'all busily ignore the rest? Please. Maybe tomorrow. But for now, have a chair.

And don't give me no Left, Right, or Libertarian finger-pointing B.S. - We The People, and that's all o' y'all, have gotten into the habit of making the choices that we've been making, and the consequences of those choices (and the ideas that drive them - or fail to), are what have brought us to where we are today.

Choices have consequences. Don't tell me you haven't made those choices yourself, that's a lie, and whether you're lying to me or to yourself, lying by commission or omission, I really don't give a damn - you either knew that the choices you've made, or not objected to, were wrong, or you suspected they were and didn't bother to find out why, or if you understood why you didn't do all of what you needed to do about them. Same difference. And no, I don't excuse myself from that, although I've renounced (most) of them, and have done (some) of what I could about them, at one time I too explicitly made them, or enabled them by default. By choice.

Those choices have consequences. Those consequences are not optional. The world we find ourselves in today, is one that we've all chosen to bring about.

If you want to change the world, if you want to make the world great again, start with yourself, and change what you think and why, change how you treat others, and change what examples you teach others by.

In the meantime...as the consequences of what all o' y'all have chosen are continuing to come home to roost upon our faces, just shut-up about it already. Go do something to create better consequences, and get the hell off of my lawn.
/rant

Do you want to play 'The Enemy of America Game'? - The only way to win....

Would you like to play a game? Careful now, because if you choose to play, you could lose... and then you might end up as the enemy you are so loudly seeking after. You sure you want to play the game? Well, ok then... let's start.

You will probably have heard of some of these recent headlines:

Trump calls 'Fake News' the enemy of the people!

, many of whom turn around and call him that right back. Fun, eh?

• Mitch Albom: If a free press is the 'enemy,' then who is your friend? Detroit Free Press-Aug 4, 2018
• Letter: William P. Macaux: It's Trump, not press, who is America's enemy The Providence Journal-17 minutes ago
• Misinformed gullibility is the true 'enemy of the people' Chicago Tribune-Aug 7, 2018
• Trump calls 'fake news' media 'the real enemy of the people' over Putin ... ABC News-Jul 19, 2018
• 'Enemy of the people': Trump's phrase and its echoes of totalitarianism The Guardian-Aug 3, 2018
• Researchers Asked 1000 Americans Who's Really the Enemy of the ...Inc.com-Aug 6, 2018

(I've gotta say, I snickered at this part:)

"...Let's recap. Only 10.7 percent believe the press is the Enemy of the People, but 36.5 percent agree with the statement: The Press is the Enemy of the People.
I pause for your frowning, head-scratching and booking of tickets to Canada or New Zealand. ..."

One-Third of Americans Think News Media Is the Enemy of the People ...Newsweek-6 hours ago

Now, we should try and clear up some of the confusion involved here, because sometimes who the 'enemy' is, and is of, or even what an 'enemy' is, is a wee bit muddled. Sometimes it's asked enemy of, and completed with 'the people', 'America', 'the republic'... maybe it'd be good to start with some basics of popular definitions.

en·e·my - ['en?me] - NOUN - a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.

people. plural people. 1 plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

na·tion - ['naSH(?)n] - NOUN - a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

Interestingly, to find a definition for 'America' that didn't take paragraphs to get passed the geographic landmasses of North & South America, and the Indians, and an ancient Rock Band, I had to go to a British Dictionary definition for 'America'

"America - noun - short for the United States of America"

Or diving down into Merriam Webster's 'Definition of 'American' for Students'

American 1 : a citizen of the United States

More sadly amusing, only Merriam Webster's 'b' definition of Republic is correct,

republic - 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit the French Fourth Republic

Of course if you know me, you may be able to see where I'm heading with this, that in the context of what we're talking about, 'the people', and 'America', and 'the state', and 'the republic', are all by one or more legs, and boiling either up or down, ultimately referring us diligent players back to the American Constitutional Republic, and specifically to the Constitution by which it was formed.

Can 'The Press', or Trump, or 'The People' for that matter, be enemies of that? I'd say, yes indeedy they can... but are they? And of those, who is more so?

Well, lets look back at what constitutes an 'enemy', shall we?:

"a person who is actively opposed or hostile to someone or something"

What would that, er, constitute in this context? Speaking for myself, I'd say that refers to those who are actively opposed or hostile to a key 'someone', which in this context would refer most correctly to the people as a whole, who are its sovereign, or to the leader of that Republic which they elected by its lawful rules to govern it, which would be President Trump; or in the case of the 'something', referring to the Republic, which has its being from the Constitution which formed it, our Constitutional form of law. This gets a bit trickier.

Are the Press generally hostile or actively opposed to the idea of government limited to the express powers of the Constitution? Um... yes. I'm not in the mood to argue the obvious right at this moment, but if you've heard the likes of The New York Times, or Rachel Maddow, or Brian Williams, sniggering when talking about 'constitution', or the foolishness of adhering to that 'out moded' document, you know what I'm referring to - and if you wish to pretend that you haven't, I've no time for your merely pretending to play by the rules of this game. And of course, if you are one of those in the public, or wacademia, who want, or yearn for, undermining or overturning it, if you are in the habit of openly praising systems which you hope to put in place of it (ObamaCare, Universal Basic Income, the unfettered authority of Administrative Agencies, etc), which are antithetical to its words and spirit, if you speak respectfully or yearnfully of 'socialism' for instance, or the Administrative State, then, yes, that makes you an enemy of our American Constitutional Republic.

If you have so little regard for it, that you prefer what has come to replace it, to it - administrative agencies, super national organizations such as the U.N., WTO, EU, etc., legislation that ignores it, Judges who pronounce their own judgments over it, and in opposition to it, then yes, that puts you actively opposed to it as well, and so you too, by your own words and intentions, are an enemy of America.

If you teach that the origins of its culture and system of laws are invidious evils, patriarchies of tyranny, if you scream at the top of your lungs "F America!", tread upon, spit upon or burn its emblem, the flag,... then, yes, you also qualify - by your own words and actions - as an enemy of America.

If you march about in menacing disguises - whether 'antify' or 'kkk' or their many likes - beating or sucker punching people for their opinions, using unprovoked violence (for the triggered: This means provoked by imminent threats of actual physical violence, not words you dislike. Sorry. Penalty points to you for that), if you complain about and call for the repeal of all or part of the Bill of Rights, especially in regards to the 1st Amendment and those individual rights of religion, freedom of speech and the press (and no, no irony here), of petitioning govt and assembly that it protects, or the 2nd Amendment's protection for the individual right of self defense without which they cannot exist (if you don't have the right to defend your rights, you don't have the right to exercise them either), if you deliberately and violently disturb the peace, intimidate passers by, destroy property, while expressing your dislike and hatred for everything that America is and stands for, then... yes... you do qualify as an enemy of America too.

If you demonstrate embarrassingly little care for its fundamental laws, though perhaps while speaking warmly of it, habitually show affection for 'Americana' and the traditions associated with it, you are committed to defending it but aren't all that committed to confining your exercise of political power in accordance with its, or are generally careless of, its laws - and you 'conservatives', 'principled!' Libertarians and Union people opposed to 'Right to Work' while using political power to force the association and support from your fellows as a condition of work: I'm looking at you - all of you... well... calling you an enemy... may a bit much, but, certainly, you show yourself more of a 'sunshine patriot' than a steadfast friend to it - and hello to you too Mr. President - you all might want to tone the rhetoric down just a tad. Or at least the tweets.

So... who ISN'T an enemy of America?

Are you in a position to answer that?

Do tell.

Strange game. The only way to win, is not to play.

Trumping Alinsky pt 1 - Ward Cleaver meets Al Bundy

Have you wondered how it is, that the pro-regressive's best tried and true tactics, tactics that have proven so highly effective at hamstringing their targets over the course of the past 50+ years, have suddenly begun to fail them so publicly? And although, so far, they've been unable to lay a solid glove, or even a lasting tweet, on Donald Trump (and no, second hand rumors of Russians do neither), he's hardly the only example, just the most persistent day to day one. Think Brexit, Trump, the body slamming Montana maniac, Rep. Gianforte, or James Comey being fired, or James Comey leaking his own memos, or James Comey attempting to sabotage Trump, and fingering former Attorney General Lynch, instead, which even Chris 'thrill running up my leg!' Matthews had to admit, has made their entire Russian angle, go bust.

What's up with that?

If you wonder on that long enough to ask some questions, and long enough to move on from those initial questions, to still other questions (and I do mean questions, mind you, not merely doubts), you might find that they will bring you face to face with some interesting clues and questions, which, if you're willing to follow them, will lead you into taking a closer look at who it is that we, and you, are. True, they might not provide the full answer, and what they do provide, might be a little unsettling, but the clues are at least easy enough to find, and to follow, and, as the examined life is not worth spinning, you might as well.

Right?

For instance, to give you a clue just how easy it is to find these clues, just turn on the News. Take a look at the media spokespeople who're telling you what's going on - man, woman, Maddow, local, network, web or cable - it doesn't matter, just take a look, and then ask yourself this question:

'Does the way that these news sources communicate to you - not what they communicate, but how they present themselves and the way they present their information - seem to you to be normal for this day and age?'

With one or two rare exceptions, which prove the rule, the answer to that will be: No. And I'll betcha that if you ask yourself what group, place, or time period, that they do remind you of, I'll bet that the 'when' in time that they remind you most of, is some sort of throwback to the 1950's, maybe early 1960's.

Don't they?

And the answer to why that is, is a big clue to why Trump is winning. And yes, he, at least, is still winning. Even now. And you don't need to be a Trump supporter - I'm certainly not (and by that I only mean that he has no history of displaying the manner and commitment to ideas, that I can support) - in order to see this; it's just right out there in the open, if you open your eyes and look.

Those that we are in the habit of looking to, for information about our world, look like they do, because the media, Left, Right and center, have consciously formed themselves from a template derived from a 1950's 'Leave it to Beaver!' world of Ward Cleavers - as have the more popular means of manipulating (or attacking) the world we perceive around us.

Just look at what is deemed to be 'edgy' today - think Vagina costumes and pink pussy hats. They're only conceived of as being 'edgy', in relation to those things that would shock that old 'Leave it to Beaver' world view - do such fashion choices shock the generations raised in a world of 'South Park' or 'The Simpson's'? I'm gonna say, nope - in fact, they're far more likely to laugh at and mock it (another big clue).

Nope, the stuffed shirt shock and outrage of the estab...but no, 'establishment' doesn't quite cut it.

A question for 'REAL Conservatives'™

I've got a question for my 'REAL Conservatives'™ friends out there. While I've come to think of myself as more as more of a Liberal Conservative - Politically Liberal (Not Leftist, but Liberal in the classical sense of advocating for liberty), and culturally Conservative (not socially conservative, but seeking to conserve the ideals and treasures of Western Culture) - I like to think of myself as someone who has an understanding of the nature of Principles, to the point of preferring Principled thinking, over attempting to think with prefabricated store bought 'principles' (IOW I can get a bit obnoxious over it).

Between Scylla and Charybdis

I like to think of myself as someone who has an understanding of the nature of individual rights, the vital role that property plays in upholding them under a system of justice based upon the Rule of Law, which restrains and restricts the necessary power of government to defending the lives and rights of its people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I've spent a lot of time thinking through how those abstract rights, follow from perceptual realities, in a conceptual chain that is perilous to abridge. And while I rarely find politicians who think as I do, I do seek out and support those who at least show a deep regard for our rights, for the rule of law, and the structure and purpose of our Constitution.

Given that focus, I couldn't find a way to support Donald Trump in the Primaries, because I didn't see any evidence that he understood, or gave much thought or regard, for what I did. I couldn't exactly support him in the general election either, although I strongly advocated for casting your vote, as I did, with his name on it, as the most effective means of defeating the greater evil facing us, from the Pro-Regressive Left.

My question for 'REAL Conservatives'™, is this: Why is it, that with all the 'REAL Conservatives'™ we've supported and elected over the decades, why is it that this billionaire, Twitter headed, Reality T.V. star, Donald J. Trump, is the ONLY one to propose the type of budget measures he has, the ONLY one who's moved to slay the Hydra of the Administrative State, the ONLY one who's used his executive powers to attack it, the ONLY one whose told the hell hole of North Korea that the era of 'strategic patience' is at an end, and the ONLY one to begin to pull back from the Charybdis of suck that is the United Nations?

That seems like a question that might be worth giving some thought to.

"...President Trump took an ax, gave the Govt Agencies 40 whacks..."

Here's another case of my 'partial good/potential bad' take on Trump, that has me both cheering, and sighing, at the same time. A friend brought it to my attention that, along with his many other recent actions against regulatory excesses, Trump's people are apparently planning on severely reducing the size, or even existence, of a number of federal agencies.

As you might expect, that makes me cheer! But the reported reasons for it... 'budget savings', leaves me somewhere between a 'meh' and a sigh.

As I commented to my friend, IMHO, the budget should not even enter into the question, and if it does, then they either don't understand the question, don't understand the budgets, or are weakly using budgetary reasons as excuses to cut what they feel some vague ideological compulsion to do.

But I'll take it!

But if it was me that had the power to swing the ax, the very first ones that I'd cut, would be the National Endowments for the Arts, and for the Humanities. They'd be the first to go, because they are the most extreme examples of why they all should go (with the possible exception of the 'Community Oriented Policing Services', and 'Civil Rights Division (though I strongly suspect a cursory examination would show them to be worthy in name only)), which is because the Federal Govt has no justifiable purpose or power for involving itself, and us, in them.

And also because, above almost any other institutions in society, I care about the Arts and Humanities the most. The inevitable result of political powers involving themselves in the arts, is the contamination, degradation and corruption of them that has to follow from the politicization of artists and their art.

As to all of the other agencies, I'd gleefully sever them from the public teat, because they are ideological perversions of the public trust, justice and the rule of law, which operate under the barest pretexts of furthering 'the greater good'. These 'Federal Agencies' are blights upon the land.

Whack.

So, to sum up, this is unfortunate:

"Some of President Donald Trump's planned budget cuts appear to be targeted more at undercutting Democratic priorities than at shrinking the national debt."

, but this sure as hell isn't!

"the following 17 ... federal agencies reportedly on the chopping block..."

1. Corporation for Public Broadcasting
2. National Endowment for the Arts
3. National Endowment for the Humanities
4. Minority Business Development Agency
5. Economic Development Administration
6. International Trade Administration
7. Manufacturing Extension Partnership
8. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
9. Office of Violence Against Women
10. Legal Services Corporation
11. Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department
12. Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Justice Department
13. Overseas Private Investment Corporation
14. UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
15. Office of Electricity Deliverability and Energy Reliability
16. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
17. Office of Fossil Energy

Suh-Weet!

The Donald becomes The President

Ok, so, a few quick comments about Trump's inaugural speech. It was simple, direct, unpretentious, even pithy in its restatement of those themes he campaigned upon, which, given his reputation, is all the more striking, as he apparently waved off the speech writers who customarily put words into our president's mouths, and wrote his speech himself. Personally, I thought it was a good speech; I have some concerns about parts, but in comparison to the soaring rhetorical pap and constitutional horror shows of Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush...?, this inaugural speech was a tonic.

That being the case, of course, the Left hated it, hated it in pretty much every way it could be hated, and not surprisingly, some of the more interesting things about his speech, from an event perspective, are what Leftist's have been saying about it. I won't waste space here going over their reactions, but I urge everyone to read NPR's attempted fisking of it - an exercise in tag team biased editorial commentary, arrogantly dressed up in 'annotated' drag. What's amusing though, is how much they manage to reveal about themselves through the lines they comment upon, what they say about them, and even more so through what they skip right on by without comment. It gives us a fine illustration of why the left lost so badly in the last election, at every level, across the nation.

It's easy to find the theme of his speech reflected in multiple passages (which, BTW, is what good speech writers strive for, yet often fail to do), and they indicate both why he was elected, and why the media's go-to buzzward of the day on Friday was "Dystopian". :-)

This one passage sums up both why the Left is so upset by it, and why the Right was so not:

"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another.

But we are transferring power from Washington, D.C., and giving it back to you, the people."

The Pro-Regressive Left, conceived as it was upon the intent to centralize power away from the people, and under the watchful eyes of agency experts in Washington, absolutely hates that! Yet as much as I enjoy the imagery which that evokes, it is also conveys the 'partial good/potential bad', that most things Trump do. See if you can see what I mean, as he continues:

"What truly matters is not which party controls our government but whether our government is controlled by the people. January 20th, 2017 will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again.

The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer."

Right on the face of it, those are very satisfying, even reassuring sentiments. Also welcome, was his reference to the 'Forgotten Man' (which NPR completely whiffed). The Forgotten Man was a term from an essay at the opening of the 20th century, describing how one group of men in society are made to bear the brunt of that society's demand that they struggle and pay for the benefit of another portion of society, are made to follow the orders of yet another, smaller, self aggrandizing portion of society who take the credit for those efforts, while that first group of men who made all of their plans possible, are taken advantage of, abused and forgotten by society. Amity Shlaes, in her book "The Forgotten Man", detailed how FDR twisted that term to the purpose of expanding govt power, making the true 'Forgotten Man', even more forgotten (maybe NPR left it out because they remembered).

Of course, if Trump even partially succeeds in righting that (and his movements out of the box on the ACA, the EPA, TPP, and pledges to drastically cut regulatory controls, are extremely encouraging), that'll be a very good thing.

But righting society in that way isn't exactly what he said, is it? That's not what 'returning power' and '...become rulers once again' mean, or could be played out as. What he did say... well, not quite 'say' exactly, but what he evoked, was the idea of government deriving its power from the consent of the governed, and that they will not be ignored, and will regain their power - an admirable sentiment to be sure - but... that's also where the slope begins to get slippery, and a host of potentially bad things begin to loom before us.

For instance, how do you 'return' power to the people?

You can't, of course - if you were to try, which people would you return it to? Sure, most common sense people, and perhaps even Trump, would assume that meant stopping the government from usurping the powers which rightly belong to the people, but however it was meant, I assure you that politicians and bureaucrats mean something very different. A phrase like that evokes in them numerous committees, studies, oversight boards and commissions, because their livelihood, their very political futures, are rooted in power, and that is derived from extending favors or fears. At best, they'd set about picking some few to be empowered to 'return' powers to this neighborhood committee, or that economic forum, etc, all at the expense of everyone else, which is unlikely to be an improvement for them, and will surely put a burden upon still others, who will in turn become a new crop of forgotten men.

Of course, if Trump does cause the federal govt to cease and desist in usurping those powers which the Constitution doesn't give it the power to claim, that would be a very definite good - but the fact is that that isn't what he said, and what concerns me, despite the very middle class tenor of the passage, is that he spoke of 'Rulers', with the people becoming '...rulers once again'.

(You should check out the Gigapixel)

That's something that may be benign, but it could be much worse. Political power is a dangerous thing, it is why we do not have rulers in the United States of America, and keeping a vigilant and wary eye on those 'could's', is extremely important to keeping rulers out of the United States of America. Instead of 'rulers', we have a representative system, which, when adhered to, is very much about not giving We The People such power; rather, it is designed to separate the Sovereign, which is 'We The People', from the reigns of power, and it is also intended to separate their hired management team (our elected officials), from having full control of the reigns of power as well. Our Constitution is all about mediating political power, between powers, by means of laws derived from our Constitution, and in concert with it (Larry P. Arnn, president of Hillsdale College, has an excellent, and extraordinarily brief book explaining this aspect of our system, called 'The Founder's Key'. Highly recommended).

It is an ingenious feature of our Constitution that it derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, but even more ingeniously, it does not give either they, or their representatives, direct power. Any opening that enables the bureaucracy to do end-runs around it, even with the pleasing sound of 'returning power' to the people, however that might be accomplished, will inevitably further short circuit the Constitution's structure, balance and purpose, and lead to the further powerlessness of We The People.

The next section is problematic as well,

"...For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left. And the factories closed."

The first line there, is of course true, and detestable, as is the last, but the second line opens up the rhetorical gates. How could 'the people' be made to "share" in the nation's wealth, without redistributing it? Now relax Trump supporters, I'm not saying that Trump is proposing to pull an Obama by seeking to 'spread the wealth around'. But the nearness to an open door that this edges towards, is concerning to me; it is concerning to me that he apparently doesn't notice that the good intentions he feels over the wrongs he sees, just might intensify those same wrongs, through an unanticipated angle - and that won't be a good either.

That double edged sense flows and stirs throughout the rest of the speech, as in the next section,

"...At the center of this movement is a crucial conviction -- that a nation exists to serve its citizens. Americans want great schools for their children, safe neighborhoods for their families and good jobs for themselves.

These are just and reasonable demands of righteous people and a righteous public."

Again, there is a positive sense evoked, a very welcome sentiment, that the citizens are the reason why the nation exists - and issues of family, good jobs and educations are reasonable expectations, but if they are made into demands, they will soon transform their reasonability into something a great deal less reasonable. Does the nation exist to serve 'them'? No, in a very important sense, it most emphatically does not exist to serve them. Our constitutional government exists to uphold and defend the individual rights of its citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic, but there is a sense where casting its purpose to be 'serving' its citizens, can, has, and will easily continue to abuse their rights in the name of providing them that 'service'. BTW, this is not simply speculation on my part, the fact is that the first solid fractures in our Constitutional government, the first instance of the federal government intruding upon the states with carrot and stick mandates (soon followed by laws and regulations) came upon us through exactly what he is focusing upon here: the notion that great schools and good jobs, are something that Govt should have an active hand in.

That particular good intention, which I've often gone into before, such as in this post, was originally proposed by Republicans, back in the 1860's, and it spawned both the Dept of Education (yes, in the 1860's, not 1960's) and the Dept of Agriculture, and all of the 'brooding monstrosity of American educationism' that we battle today, sprang from those very fertile weeds. It has helped to destroy the concept of Education in this nation, transforming it from the community efforts to provide the exemplars and information which best aid in becoming a moral, self-governing person capable of making intelligent decisions... into becoming economic chits in the workforce, something for businesses to order up by the bushel with these or those skills.

These are not good things, but they are easily and very understandably taken to be as such, by those who are too quick to reach for the apparent good, without further reflection, and a sense of direction that is rooted in a framework of our laws, and the concepts behind them.

And this, finally,

"...At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice...."

This is as it should be, America should be the first concern of Americans, and with a patriotic commitment to individual rights defended by the rule of law, there is no room for the hateful and stunted notions of prejudice. And of course our politics should devote total loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America, but that is only possible, through an understanding of, and adherence to, the Constitution and the concepts it was derived from. If we understand those, and their purpose, and we strive for those, we will reawaken and reanimate the greatness that is inherent in America... but without that... like unskilled miners, we are more likely to chase the fools gold of populism and nationalism, than the real thing of constitutionalism.

I am not a Trump supporter (though I certainly used his name on my ballot to help defeat the greater threat facing us in Hillary Clinton), but I am also, most definitely not a NeverTrump'r, or an anti-Trump'r. I do not buy into the easy lies and delusions that have been served up by all the various forms of media, as well as by other more well intentioned observers who are nevertheless so eager to find failures and offenses in Trump, that they will sully their perceptions of reality with pleasing bits of half chewed principles, petty illusions and sad to say, outright lies. If your argument hinges upon portraying President Trump as a dullard, a narcissist, a puppet of Russia, then your argument lacks an argument, it substitutes self delusion, credulous reporting spun from 'sources say', and flagrant propaganda, where its premises should have been. And frankly, both the Trump supporters, and the NeverTrumpr's, are speculating on his coming actions, for good or ill, on the basis of their own emotional evaluations, based largely upon the hearsay that resonates most with their own preferred enthusiasms/fears. I have no use for such 'arguments', or the peddling of them.

Of course I'd have preferred to have had someone with a track record of commentary on constitutional ideas and positions so that I could have something to base my evaluations and expectations on, but just because we don't have that, doesn't mean that I'm now going to conclude that I should buy into all of the ginned up fears about him that come along - but.. yes, I'm also very conscious that that too is based upon my hopes and off the cuff evaluations of him. The die is cast and we will have to see what we see, and respond accordingly.

But leaving the hysterics aside, there is much to be wary of in a Trump administration, but not because I think that he's a fool, a crook, or a Russian puppet, but precisely because I do not think he is a fool, a crook, or a Russian puppet. I do believe that President Trump loves America and wants to improve it... but I'm also painfully aware that such good intentions, without a solid respect and understanding for what is essential and primary to what truly does make America great, can, especially in the hands of a skilled manager and showman, easily, unintentionally, become every bit as dangerous as the actions of those who do mean to do us harm, and his supporters should not ignore that.

Still though, despite the best efforts of the masked thugs of the fascistic pro-regressive Left, his inauguration is past, and we have yet again been able to thank God for the peaceful transfer of power, from one worldview, to another - and that is damned near miraculous!

Now let's keep an eye on that power, and let's be especially on the lookout for any well, or ill-intentioned moves that might tarnish America's luster even further, and let us all hope and pray that President Trump is able to help de-grime, de-clutter, and pollish up America's greatness once again.

Red, White and Inaugural Blues - a Rant

On Friday, the 20th of January, 2017, the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J. Trump, a man I did not support in the recent election (though I opposed his final opponent, with him), will be sworn into office, and with that oath of office, he will become my, and every other American's, President.

‘On each national day of inauguration since 1789,
the people have renewed their sense of dedication to the United States.’

- FDR, 3rd Inaugural Address, 1941

We're told on the eve of his inauguration that somewhere in the area of 70 Democrat members of Congress are declaring that they will not be attending the inauguration, as a means of protesting the man who will occupy the office of the President of the United States.

These are elected representatives of the government of the United States of America. They were, and are, elected to represent their constituents in the upholding and crafting of the laws of the land, under that very government, whose laws, and governance of them, impacts every one of our individual rights and lives.

To explicitly attempt to delegitimize the peaceful and complete transfer of power, to the person duly elected by We The People, in accordance with our laws, to the office of the President of the United States of America, for partisan political purposes (whether from the Left or the NeverTrump'r Right), is, at best, extreme political negligence, and it is undermining to not only the peaceful transfer of political power, but to the preservation of every value which these 'lawmakers' supposedly believe in, and were elected to represent.

That, in my book, is despicable, it is disgusting, and they, and those who blithely see that as somehow being worthy behavior, should be ashamed of themselves.

Yet people are converging upon Washington D.C. to protest, they are churning out gimmick after gimmick to shout down those they differ with, even calling them 'nazis!' , in order to 'protest' ... what?

[Note to SJW Snowflakes: The real Nazi's spent years taking it to the streets, marching and verbally and physically abusing people, intimidating the populace until they feared holding any 'politically incorrect' positions, forcibly paving the way for them to come to political power - it is you who are following in their footsteps!]

Whatever distractions they might flood social media with, what they are actually protesting, is the lawful, peaceful, election of the 45th President of the United States of America. What they are protesting in the name of 'Democracy!', is the democratic election of their fellow Americans in accordance with the laws of the land, in a peaceful political contest which is understood upon entering into, that one side is guaranteed to lose, and so by their own actions they show themselves to be immature, dishonest and uncivilized wretches, who are made all the more repulsive by attempting to drape themselves in the spirit of 'Democracy!', while deliberately undermining the democratic process.

Who needs Russians when you have Pro-Regressive Leftists!

Who needs Russians, when you've got Pro-Regressive Leftists?! They lost the electoral argument, and yet they feel entitled to protest, deride, and even to refuse to abide by the decision of their fellow Americans, with these cheap, juvenile, theatrics. Some of them, friends of mine and even relatives of mine, I'm ashamed to say, have even characterized these protests and pledges of 'not my President!' as, and I quote: Beautiful.

There is nothing beautiful in people treating the solemn and peaceful transfer of  political power, as if it were some sort of cheap piece of roadside performance art.

A Presidential Inauguration is the ritualized transfer of the reigns of power - that pure, dangerous, deadly, political power to penalize, punish, put to death and mandate actions and make war - this immense power is not being wrested away by violent slaughter, but is simply, boringly, being signed over across a sea of vastly differing and turbulent political viewpoints, peacefully, according to law, in a ceremony that has been solemnized by 228 years of tradition, under our Constitution which has been proven more successful and enduring than any other system in all of human history.

These protesters see nothing remarkable in that. They see nothing disturbing or dangerous in delegitimizing that. They see nothing admirable in this incredible and historic track record which we in America have, of binding down the powers of violence and ambition, by nothing more than the cords of law. They seem unaware that our laws don't gain the strength to do that by the paper they are printed upon, but by being written upon the hearts of We The People of this nation, as they were for We The Peoples and any who show the 'wrong' beliefs and allegiances.

Fascists projecting fascism

at least least two centuries. What these 'beautiful protests' ominously trumpet to the world now, is that that writing is fading from the hearts and minds of We The People; a people who are foolish enough to think that those laws can be made to fade away, and yet somehow imagine that those ever lurking beasts of ambition and brutality which they've made to stir with temptations of escape, will simply remain docile, tame, and quiet as they are unleashed, rather than break free and do violence to

Good Lord People, our Government, IS US - it isn't in our buildings, or in our courts, in our military or even in our written laws, but is in our understanding and respect for them. Our Government lays in our self-government, our willing agreement to set aside the resort to use of force, or the encouragement of it, for peaceful and reasonable dispute and agreement and our willingness to abide by reasonable judgments, even and especially when we 'lose' the dispute. If we lose that IN US, then it all falls apart, and cannot do otherwise.

For those hysterical supporters of 'Democracy!' who are out to overturn or undermine the results of a democratic election, and the Rule of Law, in order to force the rest of us to comply with their desires, you should keep in mind, that for all of your claims of caring about this or that disadvantaged minority such and such - if our respect for our laws, and our expectations of being able to rely upon those law to subdue the violent passions of ourselves and our fellows - if We The People are made to feel that a just government can no longer be counted upon to provide justice and order, then it's not the powerful who are going to suffer - no, that only happens under a system of laws - it is the weak, the weird, and the non-conformist, who will be made to feel the brunt of the powers unleashed by your discarded and forgotten respect for individual rights under the Rule of Law.

No one who is weak or in need of assistance, will survive that - and especially not any snowflakes.

Think.

/rant

Burning our Freedom of Speech in action

In light of all the uproar last week over Trump's questioning of whether burning the flag should perhaps be protected as 'freedom of speech', or not, I'll exercise my freedom of speech by questioning some common assumptions about what freedom of speech is, and isn't.

To get the easy part out of the way, here's Trump's tweet that started the latest round of 'discussion':

"Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

, now, even allowing for his 'perhaps', the notion of losing your citizenship over burning the American Flag, or being imprisoned for a year, is, IMHO, silly, and further sensationalizes a subject that is already too saturated with it. But, that being said, what we associate with the 'flag burning issue' is something that needs a lot more consideration than the two existing poles of 'Burn it!' and 'Revere it!', tend to permit, especially since the burning of the flag is the least important aspect of it, and more often than not, it is a distraction from what the real issue is: our Freedom of Speech... and the rest of the 1st Amendment.

As much as I disrespect those who disrespect our flag, it's not the burning of the flag that I have an issue with, from a legal standpoint at any rate. What I do have an issue with, is what has become one of those default 'givens' that we hear and have heard over and over, from all sides, for so long, and so often, that we no longer get around to seriously questioning it, and that 'given' is the idea that the action of destroying property in as inflammatory a means as possible, can be considered 'speech' - let alone constitutionally protected speech. For decades I've heard that position being asserted (from the Left, and now even from the Right), and while I've heard objections to it being ridiculed, I've rarely heard the assertion really being questioned, and it seems like maybe it's about time to begin doing just that.

Here's the text of the 1st Amdt:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Simply reading the text of it isn't enough though, you need some understanding of what the idea is, and why it was considered important to prevent the Govt from infringing upon it, before you go attributing your own preferred meaning to it. If it's been a few years since you've done anything of the sort, here are a few links worth reading, beginning with the ideas and debates that went into writing it, up to the case most often referred to in flag burning discussions, Texas v. Johnson:

• This links to the text of the 1st Amdt as well as a number of links to arguments, debates, cases, comments, speeches (especially Montesquieu's, John Marshall's , relating to the original debates over the Freedom of Speech (Madison introducing his draft to congress) and James Kent's commentaries, the right to peaceably assemble and to address your grievances to your government(related links), as well as regards Religion, that went into writing the 1st Amdt, and its implementation
• , and from the last of those, which is especially worth reading (all the way through) Justice Joseph Story's comments on what it was that the 1st Amendment secured the freedom of,,
• , and finally the text of the Texas v. Johnson case, and key cases it references and builds upon,

  • U.S. v. O'Brien,
  • W.V. State Board of Education v. Barnette,
  • Boos v. Barry
  • and Stromberg v.CA

In reading these cases and comments, and thinking about what is meant by 'Freedom of Speech', it seems to me that most of the judgments attributing the actual burning of flags (or draft cards, etc) to being a form of speech protected under 'freedom of speech', or to 'symbolic speech', are not only inappropriate, but they cheapen, degrade, and dangerously blur that concept of speech which the framers of the amendment were seeking to preserve and defend. The treatment of the action of burning objects as that were equivalent to speech, waters down and weakens our understanding of what Freedom of Speech is and was meant to be, which I think jeopardizes our hold on this fundamental right far more than even an authoritarian government ever could.

Examples of just that are easy to find in our recent news headlines, with masses of people

The Vote is upon us - Please be sure that your grandchildren's lives fit within the context of your vote

So. Where do you start your consideration of how to vote from? I've posted time and time again over the last decade, on how easily being 'Principled!' in voting, can cease to be principled... such as When acting 'on principle' is unprincipled behavior - part 1, and Part 2 here, or It's time to vote - Why?, and numerous other times over the years - if you'd like a more in-depth treatment, of the matter, look there.

But for the moment now, this will have to do.

Painful as it is for me to say, the only principled choice in this election, is the GOP Nominee, which happens to be Donald J. Trump. If you wish to make a principled decision, then cast your ballot for Donald J. Trump, as the only effective electoral means of defeating the greater threat to liberty and the rule of law, Hillary Clinton. Period.

Some of you might be taken aback by that. I suggest that you examine your principles, before once again consulting them.

What are they derived from?

As I've often said, Principles are a guide to thinking, not a substitute for it. Are you using your 'principles' to think, or to evade that?

Principles are derived from an hierarchical view of reality, from what is understood to be true within a given context, and by applying timeless truths to the moment within time, to determine what are the most moral and the most practical actions to take - if you assume the two are contradictory, you need to give your mind an acid wash and cleanse it of the muck of modernity (clues here)!

If your principles do not adjust to significant changes in the context of a situation, then they are no longer principles, they are merely positions, and to confuse the two is both unprincipled, and deadly dangerous.

To re-purpose an old Buddhist phrase:

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!.'

For you coders out there, what this means is that you've taken the intellectual equivalent of an abstract class for managing reality (a principle), and hard-coded some fixed parameters within it, hopelessly tying it to one narrow particular situation. For the rest of you: Don't litter your generalities with specifics - you only transform them into rigid rules that are irrelevant and useless.

IOW if your 'Principles' do not direct you to adjust your actions, when the context of the situation has significantly changed, then they are no longer functioning principles; you've corrupted and zombiefied them, likely by emotionally attaching them to particulars of the moment.

For instance, for me, as my relevant 'principles' are derived from an understanding of the meaning of America, the candidate that I actively endorse and support needs to be someone who demonstrates an understanding of, and respect for, our Constitution and the Individual Rights it was designed to uphold and protect, through the Rule of Law and limited to that purpose. Those principles led me to choose Sen. Cruz over Trump in the primaries, because Cruz's experience demonstrated an understanding of, and his polices were compatible with, my principled understanding (rooted in Individual Rights, Property Rights, under Constitutionally limited govt) of what the President of the United States of America is supposed to be the Chief Executive of. On the other hand, Trump... I'd no idea what he stood for,let alone what his principles were, beyond some managerial skills and popular charisma aligned with a vaguely 'pro-Americana-ish' sensibility.

But Ted Cruz lost the primary, and the primaries are over. Which meant that key, significant aspects of the context of my vote and the election, had radically changed.

My principles towards who I can support and endorse have not changed, but the new phase of the election is not about my choice for who would be the best candidate to run for POTUS. Instead, the election in question is now about selecting a candidate from those options which the electoral process of the nation - of which I am a citizen of - has placed on the ballot, and from which one WILL be selected by the voters as POTUS.

If your principles did not enable you to adjust with that context, if your 'Principles!' have instead urged you to ignore the actual potential outcomes of the election, and have instead led you towards some form of personal self-gratification in the voting-booth, then what you are following are positions, not principles.

The fact is, that the context has changed, and you must choose anew from the available options. While Trump is still an unknown and flamboyant player, he is one of the two leading candidates from which the winner will be chosen. If the two front-runners shared fundamental principles of mine, then I'd choose from the best able to further them. However, they don't. Neither one matches up with what I consider important. However, one will be elected, so the next question to be asked is not how can I wash my hands of this choice, but does one of them pose a greater threat to that which I value, and which is the purpose of this election: the nation, our system of gov, and all of the people living under it?

For the answer to that, see my previous posts, especially "Perverting Progress into Poison - the Doppelganger Strikes Back - The Rule of Law in Progress or Regress pt.9b", and "Progressively Doing away with Truth - How Pro-Regressives see Regress as Progress pt 9c", is yes, the Pro-Regressive 'Progressive' Leftist candidate is by far, the greater threat. While I still can't endorse Trump or offer my support for his unknown qualifications, I can, and must, oppose that greater threat, with the most effective means electoral means available, which, from those options available to select from, as provided by the nations electoral process, of which we are citizen participants in, that is the GOP nominee, who happens to be: Donald J. Trump.

If you grasp the context, the principles involved, and the threats to them, then there is little reason to quibble, and no room for any of the 'adult' whining about it that I've been painful witness of. The only viable option, is Trump. Done. Grow up, cast your vote and move on.

Hopefully you'll join me, beginning the day after he is elected (fingers crossed), in working to educate the electorate as to what ideas, principles and considerations they should have a more solid understanding of, but until then, we go to vote with the ballots we have.

Would I prefer to have a candidate that I could feel confident would understand, support and defend the Constitution? Absolutely. Sadly, tragically, that is not the option, IMHO, that the American people have left us with. The reality is that we do not have anyone available, conceptually and electorally, who I can see fits the bill, not in the two major parties, or, even if they were electorally viable, in any of the third party candidates. Still, there will be an election - Tuesday - and one candidate Will win it. If this were a cycle with generally pro-American candidates, whose main differences were simply policy, then we'd have an election with someone to vote For, and without having to be too concerned with if they lost (again, sadly, we haven't seen an election like that in over a century).

But that is not the reality we're facing.

We have a front runner for the Left who is possessed of an anti-American philosophy, and if you need a reminder, these are just a few of the founding ideals of the 'American Progressives' that Hillary identifies herself as being:

• "Each year the child is coming to belong more to the State and less and less to the parent."
• "The tradition of respect for individual liberty, Gladden preached, was "a radical defect in the thinking of the average American."
• "...Individuals, Ross maintained, were but "plastic lumps of human dough," to be formed on the great "social kneading board.

Those are the fundamentals which guide here in the laws and policies that she will implement.

If elected, she will have not only enjoy the support of the bulk of Congress behind her in her efforts, but the wide landscape of the judiciary, to which she will deliberately add more equally anti-American judges to the Supreme Court, not to mention the entire bureaucracy of all the administrative agencies, such as EPA, FDA, IRS, etc, that will be behind her as well.

Outside of govt proper, she will also enjoy the full support of academia, the educational bureaucracy, the media, Hollywood, etc. In 8 yrs, Obama has transformed the bulwark of our Constitution, into little more than something of a fundraising talking point for a few of those 'on the right'... and that's about it. And the culture of our nation has slid at least as far down and to the Left. That is where a Hillary Clinton presidency will be starting from. She will Not stop at the level of economic policies, she will do everything in her power to extend govt power past what we can do, and into what we will be allowed to think and hope of doing.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I see the Left gaining power at this point in time, as an Evil, and a far greater one than is posed by Trump, no matter how foolish or corrupt he might be.

The Left Must be slowed. Period. And the most effective means of doing that, sickeningly, is with the GOP nominee.

I don't like it one bit. I've disliked Trump since the 1980's, but this isn't about my preferences or sensibilities, but about attempting to keep the greater evil from gaining power.

Once again, I in No way am a supporter of Trump - I'm an opposer of the pro-regressive 'Progressive' Left. I have no basis in reasoned experience to believe that Trump will succeed in accomplishing anything good, I have reams of information and understanding that the Pro-Regressive 'Progressive' Leftist candidate, is the most vicious believer and operator the Left has fielded in a century.

I am not supporting Trump, I'm opposing the Left's Hillary Clinton.

To treat this election as if it is simply a choice between policy options, is ignorant, and borderline insanity, and the habit of treating the left as just another policy choice, is what has had a great deal to do with the Right's failure over the last many decades; failing - refusing - to confront the meaning of their policies, and I'm speaking of those who think in terms of defining their 'principles', which Are anti-American, has been a futile, foolish policy of 'competitive appeasement'.

By anti-American, I don't mean they are bad people who kick puppies and are mean to all - I've far too many friends and family who are leftists, who I know to be wonderful, kind, generous people, to give that a moments consideration. But then I don't define America by is boundaries or 'baseball, hot dogs, apple pie...', but by the ideas that first made it possible, and which our founding documents embody. That means ideas that recognize and uphold individual rights, property, and a rule of Law that recognizes their being upheld, as its purpose. To deliberately infringe upon, or negate those principles, Is to advance ideas and positions that are, necessarily, anti-American.

And by evil, I mean that the driving philosophy behind the Left, is opposed to even recognizing that reality can be known (see Kant), is deliberately intent upon imposing their will over and against what is real and true, and because they prefer their wishes to reality, they feel justified in having 'experts' and legislators 'force us to be free', which goes back to Rousseau, and as this quote indicates, has persisted from then, to Joseph Stalin, and has certainly not been denounced in our day,

"...We will mercilessly destroy anyone who, by his deeds or his thoughts—yes, his thoughts!—threatens the unity of the socialist state..."

as well as every PC re-education program anyone had ever been sentenced to, is alive and kicking in the left.

Finally, it is the intent and deep desire of the Left, to not allow people to live their own lives, but to use govt power to live their lives for them, and I most definitely do see that as being evil.

Tomorrow, don't react,; think, before you vote, vote as if your grand children's lives depend upon it..