Constructive gadfly
Published on April 17, 2005 By stevendedalus In Politics
 American politics has always been pocked with wrong action; still — with its great Constitution — it became the greatest nation of all time by painfully rectifying injustice through initiatives of monumental sacrifice and courage, along with definitive legal decisions by the courts. From the moment George Washington sensed the authoritarian mentality of the people and consequently discouraged resurrection of royalty to the extraordinary civil movements of the ‘60sdecrying war and prejudice, the foothold of totalitarianism of power-sectors was ever knee-deep in harassment. Yet at the same time the egalitarian spirit was never allowed to truly gain momentum because of the metamorphosis of atavistic individualism rather than societally enlightened individuality.

That there are more examples of sociopathic behaviors from the right does not preclude the left from the same branding. Unfortunately, gross behaviors — usually from rubber lips — always steal the headlines from those, who as a rule are tight-lipped and dismissive. Jerry Falwell’s unkindest cuts rank equally with Jane Fonda’s irrational exuberance rivaling Tokyo Rose. Both support their remarks by the emotional distortions of their respective times — an avenging God and an avenging dictator, respectively. Michael Moore is no more outrageous than Ann Coulter.

Since JFK’s assassination, there has been an outcry against guns. The boy on a farm who uses a shotgun to defend the cornfield from crows does not see the connection and he would be right. On the other hand, the licensed hunter who nevertheless defies the law by using an assault weapon against deer fails to connect this defiance is as equal to the terrorist procurement of an assault weapon, in spite of the fact that the former would never aim it at humans. The short of it is that assault weapons belong to the armed services and that sidearms should be registered. Pathology over the second amendment is totally bogus.

The irony of an ex-president of the Actors Guild exercising anti-unionism as President of the United States is lost owing to defective memory chips that would have kept on the screen the legitimacy of a hundred years of unionism protecting the rights of workers. Not to be forgotten is the indiscretion of traffic controllers acting in a time of conservatism when the brotherhood of workers were pathetically weak having been bombarded with charges of crime and corruption even though ninety-percent of unions were innocent. Twenty years later this eventuated in the largest — thanks to the demise of an industrial base — employer of the nation still unscathed by unions. The rights of workers have been stripped because of another irony by consumers who in themselves are also workers, and is indicative of the prevailing myopic mentality of “what’s in it for ME.”

Because the nation is at war, anti-war sentiment is perceived by authoritarian misgivings as not giving a damn for the troops, rather than — and, yes, in the Fonda sense — to save lives in behalf of those who are pro-war! “To go to war as a last resort” is now considered a coward’s way of saying there should be no further “defensive” engagements and a stain on the advocate’s ability to make decisions. When there is doubt, goose-step to the front. This frightening growth of authoritarianism is shown in all aspects of America’s society:

Kick ass is the only diplomacy.

Is better to engage in wrong action than no action at all.

Wal-Mart and McDonald’s are the good heart of the nation.

Riley, Hannity and Limbaugh are the new fireside chatters of the nation.

Almost all of Hollywood marches to Streisand’s tunes.

Liberals are relegated to the exclusive ilk of Kennedy, Moore and Dean. Abortion is the death penalty—in this and the right to die, unacceptable.

Thank the Lord our fighting men and women are mostly Republican.

The point of this war was not WMD but Saddam who masterminded 9/ 11.

GM is no longer the largest employer because it rightfully outsourced to avoid health care negotiated by unions.

Because all dream, hope and work to be millionaires, high taxes on the wealthy is an affront to the individual’s initiative.

Social Security is no longer perceived as a safety net for the agéd, widowed and disabled, but as a pyramid scheme.

Democrats are seen as champions for the shiftless poor and intellectuals.

Republicans are for the return of the six-pack-rugged individual, ostensibly sensitized by religion, together with resurgence of laissez-faire.

The Office of President is grounded in the Pentagon.

The ultimate aim of Congress is to unravel remnants of the New Deal.

 

     On the other hand, egalitarianism is losing the battle to:

Regain the prestige of the public education system.

Enact a single payer health care system for the benefit of all, including business under the burden.

Reasonably redistribute runaway wealth for the general happiness of all citizens.

Curb outsourcing and multinational corporations at the expense of American workers.

Accede to drilling in ANWR but with vigilant EPA oversight.

Reduce “right to bear unlicensed arms except if kept on farm land; prohibit the sale of military weaponry to civilians.

Exhibit real concern for the downtrodden and initiate action in their behalf.

Restore aggressive initiatives to the anti-trust laws.

Reclaim leadership in foreign affairs and national defense.

Build a strong UN alliance among democratic nations from all corners of the world.

Reassure that the separation clause does not preclude moderate religious values in shaping the right to vote.

Fear tactics plays into the hands of authoritarianism which is prone to absorb simplification rather than enlightened analysis. This is the cause of why Bush was re-elected — the fear of 9/11 was played out to the hilt to the point that a war unrelated to this horrendous event, was treated as an acceptable non sequitur. That religion is more and more playing a role in political thinking is not in itself frightening, but that it is exploited through broad strokes of misinterpretation and lead to deadly imposition on others. The Ten Commandments, for instance, had nothing to do with the formation of this nation other than in some of its behavioral codes out of some twenty-five — surely half of the first ten is founded on arguable faith.

Though most agree, including pro-choicers, that abortion is a nasty process, and one who decides on it, however, is not violating life as we know it; to this woman it is the consequence that a new life would have on her who honestly feels she is not capable of facing. No other is in a position to call her flat out a murderer, but this does not rule out a pro-lifer from attempting to gently persuade the woman to do otherwise — but there it ends — even though in the final analysis the woman may suffer remorse. Nevertheless, there is no excuse for pro-lifers to infringe on others the right to condoms and preventive drugs as though all thus engaged are promiscuous villains. Abstinence is an ideal; sex is reality.

That ninety percent of Americans are worshipers do not give them the right to unravel the fibre of politics which since the age of enlightenment — Islam, too, until it shut down its philosophers — has always been secular predicated on humanism. It is worth noting here that the coarse individualist is no longer the captain of his soul as is an enlightened humanist, but rather open to cronyism, peer pressures, and radical authority bereft of reason. In this regard, it is imperative to keep in check encroaching cultism and decrepit cultural values that undermine the general will of secular laws hinged on pragmatic wisdom. There is no question that homosexuality runs across the grain of nature because it defies the law of propagation and in this sense must by reason be assessed as irrational. Yet at the same time, reason must recognize the reality of this aberration without venom and accept it for what it is without, however, encouraging such orientation. By the same token the Catholic Church, too, must give up the ghost of celibacy serving as an impetus for homosexuality within its walls. Evangelism, too must be kept in a box as it is self -evident that Jesus is not on the Supreme Court, nor did he write the Constitution.

It is clear, then, that America is under threat of impulsive value judgments and ludicrous trends that serve no utilitarian values to lift this nation toward a more just society.

 

Copyright © 2005 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: April 17, 2005.

http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com


Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Apr 17, 2005
Beautiful
Sane
Intelligent
Artfully written

Thank you!
on Apr 17, 2005

WOW!  you have been saving up!

And you are wrong.  Especially in regards to the Catholic Church.  The rest is opinion.  That is just wrong.

I will debate more on the morrow. try not to think of the Catholic Church as political,  Then you can see the issue there, and there is an issue.  but not yours. I expected more from you.

on Apr 18, 2005

you are wrong

also an opinion no? 

try not to think of the Catholic Church as political,

once again...you risk disturbing the eternal rest of a whole lotta clements, pius', gregorys, pauls & leos along with ignatius loyola, spellman, cody, sheen and a litany of their brethern by making em laff themselves to a second death.

on Apr 18, 2005
From your article I get that:

~If you were ever in a union, you must support all union activity for the rest of your life.

~That modern day union leaders care anymore about labor than corperate leaders do.

~That entertainment unions and labor unions have more in common than the word "union".

~The current political definition of "assault weapon" and "military weapon" are synonymous.

~That being a blow hard, hypocrite is the same as being a traitor.

~That breaking gun laws is the same as blowing up skyscrapers.

~That the forced redistribution of wealth is not an authoritarian concept

~That gun laws have ever reduced crime

~That having an abortion is a right, but speaking out against it is an infringement of rights

~That a voter who uses his or her religious beliefs as a basis for how they vote is somehow authoritarian in nature.

If your goal was to demonstrate rhetorical extremism by stretching facts beyond logical breaking points, you succeeded famously!
on Apr 18, 2005

once again...you risk disturbing the eternal rest of a whole lotta clements, pius', gregorys, pauls & leos along with ignatius loyola, spellman, cody, sheen and a litany of their brethern by making em laff themselves to a second death.

I never said it was never political.  But the church in today's world is political only when it comes to the doctrine of faith, not when it comes to the geopolitics of the day.

on Apr 18, 2005

just because beer is legal, I have no right to demand that every store sell it.

A perfect case in point right here in Richmond is Ukrops.  They refuse to sell beer or wine and are the largest grocery chain in the market.  That is their right, and they exercise it.

on Apr 18, 2005

By the same token the Catholic Church, too, must give up the ghost of celibacy serving as an impetus for homosexuality within its walls.

As LW said, the rule of Celibacy in the church has nothing to do with pedophelia or homosexual sex.  Those inclined to do so, are not always priests either. So that arguement falls flat on the fact that while the Priesthood is the most scandalized by the acts, it is far from the majority of cases even in this country.

The reason that Celibacy was initially implemented was to prevent a 'royal sucession' of the Papacy.  It is maintained to this day for the reason that no man can serve 2 masters.  I.e., if a priest is going to tend to his flock, he cannot be distracted with tending to a family.  Indeed, the occupation with the highest dvorce rate is among Christian Ministers. 

I forsee women priests long before married ones.  For in reality, there is no doctrinal basis, other than Jesus and the desciples were all males, for excluding them.  And the society that was in existance back when Jesus walked the earth was very Patriarchical, and so the church was as well.  However, women are featured very prominently in all the Gospels, and the actions of Jesus.  And that is why I see that rule falling first.

on Apr 18, 2005
You've forgotten Mary Magdelene, who was also a disciple.


There were many female disciples. I meant apostles. Sorry.
on Apr 18, 2005
That's your opinion, nothing more. Prove to me that the writers of our Constitution had hunters and farmers in mind when they wrote that amendment and I'll reconsider your argument.


The writers of the Constitution certainly had in mind "a well armed militia". I'd bet it never occurred to them that there would ever be anything akin to assault weapons, or that guns would be in the hands of an entire populace and or anyone who would possibly want a gun, including gangs, kids in school, people up to no good, etc. The specifically said, in Article I, Section 8:

Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Addtionally, in the Bill of Rights, Amendment II:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

In other words, the framers of the Constitution and those who wrote the Amendments were contemplating a well armed militia. Not a willy nilly bunch of anybodies carrying assault weapons through city streets. That is a ridiculous reading of the Second Amendment and the Constitution. It's bizarre. The Constitution is a living document. We must keep the core of it pure, but allow for some changes relative to changing times, without sacrificing those core values. Hmmmmmmmm............ Patriot Act comes to mind, wherein those core values have been trampled.......... anyway, I digress.

You're absolutely right whip, the writers did not only have hunters and farmers in mind. They were describing the necessity of a well armed militia to protect this new nation, a militia which today we've sent over to Iraq in an illegal war based on lies and deceipt (but again I digress).
on Apr 18, 2005
Why do you disparage the right by using slang, such as "what's in it for me?", when the formal "self-interest" would do? In short, to be credible, your article needs to be considerably less judgmental, and a lot fairer minded. Finally, weed out jargon and fancy wording; good writing is simple and direct.


Gadfly,

Remember Always Watch What You Drink!
on Apr 18, 2005
Just because abortion is legal, I have no right to demand that every doctor provide it. And just because morning-after pills are legal, we have no right to demand that every pharmacist keep them in stock and hand them over on demand.


I wonder what would happen if some pharmacies refused to carry viagra or some other kinds of penile erectile enhancement drugs, because of some notion that it could enable rapers to rape better? Or maybe, a female pharmacist would refuse to carry it just to get even with her male competition?
on Apr 18, 2005
In other words, the framers of the Constitution and those who wrote the Amendments were contemplating a well armed militia. Not a willy nilly bunch of anybodies carrying assault weapons through city streets.


Considering Gen. Washington (as well as most professional military men) hated the militias and considered them little more than a "willy nilly bunch of anybodies carrying assault weapons through tthe city streets", I'd say that your assumptions about what the framers of the Constitution meant might be a little off. Also, you leave out the fact that the Constitution has nothing to do with what private citizens can and can't do, it is addressed From We, the People to The Federal Government, so whether I own guns or not has nothign to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment tells the federal government that, because well regulated militias are necessary to preserve liberty, they cannot infringe on citizen's rights to own guns.

Any interpretation of the Constitution that is based on the Constitution granting rights to the people is wrong in its inception, because the Constitution doesn't grant rights to any citizen.
on Apr 18, 2005
But the church in today's world is political only when it comes to the doctrine of faith, not when it comes to the geopolitics of the day.


jp2 visited soviet poland and cuba on a whim? those bishops and archbishops who've used their bully pulpit hoping to influence last year's elections were divinely inspired? the church throughout latin america abstains from voicing support for candidates it favors?
on Apr 18, 2005
The reason that Celibacy was initially implemented was to prevent a 'royal sucession' of the Papacy.


actually it was to enable the papacy to control and designate the bishoprics which passed from father to son until the 6th century.
on Apr 18, 2005
Reply By: dabe Posted: Monday, April 18, 2005
Just because abortion is legal, I have no right to demand that every doctor provide it. And just because morning-after pills are legal, we have no right to demand that every pharmacist keep them in stock and hand them over on demand.


"I wonder what would happen if some pharmacies refused to carry viagra..."?

The congressional old farts who mount barely legally babes would not stand for it. Corporate media objectifies women- especially young girls- cosmetic companies conducting cruel experiments on helpless animals, while the unjust American government machine completely and totally controls us in even more subtle ways than depicted in Orwell's '84.
3 Pages1 2 3