Cries of racism flung by liberal politicos and their media allies deal the race card. Just when you think relative racial calm is at hand, with a post-racial president, along comes an explosion of racial epithets that would sadden black author James Baldwin. A historical perspective on the ups and down of race relations in America . . .with an admonition from Baldwin's "The Fire Next Time."
"God gave Noah the Rainbow sign;
No more water, the fire next time."
– Mary, Don't You Weep, Negro Spiritual
Race relations have been rocky since the first black persons stepped on North American soil. Ensnared by black slave masters in their native Africa, herded like animals, they were put on white European slave ships and brought, literally in chains, to these shores. It was a crime of staggering magnitude, reproducing the historical fact from time immemorial, that "victors" brutally enslaved other human beings. All this proved, as if wars did not, man's base-line inhumanity to man. (If anyone doubts the essence of "sin" or "evil," look no further than the slave trade.)
Growing up white in the far north in the late Forties (yes, a geezer writes here) we kids were insulated, but not quite innocent, nor immune from youthful thoughts about "the problem," the White Problem, as black author James Baldwin (1924-1987) later would describe it in his The Fire Next Time (1963).
We lads in the North, not far from the Canadian border, were a naive bunch of race dummies. President Truman had integrated the military, yet "separate but equal" was the siren's song, a winked-at notion, false on its face, a far cry from the yet-to-come Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision that broiught sea change. It was before Little Rock's Central High School's forced integration (1957). Before USAF vet James Meredith's military-forced entry to the University of Mississippi (1960). Before the murders of civil rights workers on a dark Mississippi back country road (1964). All the racial fury was yet to come in the near future, forming the terrible tableau that race, and race alone, was tearing at the nation's soul. We youthful ones in the Forties would be witness to it all.
James Arthur Baldwin in The Fire Next Time tells his 14-year old nephew, also a James, that the races living side-by-side in constant conflict stemmed simply from the fact that they were black, and whites were not. "You face the future that you face," he writes to his nephew, "because you are black and for no other reason [emphasis his in the original text].
Baldwin, writing in Paris, an expatriate American novelist from Harlem, resolved in The Fire and his other writings, notably Notes from the Underground, to bring us ignorant, unfeeling, clueless whites somehow to a realization that the struggle was to redeem them (us), thereby to help us "escape the myths of racial superiority." He sought for us (whites) "a new maturity" about race leading, he thought, to peace and harmony. His mission in what was originally a New Yorker narrative about life in Harlem, was "to force our [non-white] brothers to see themselves as they are," not a cut above, or obsequious.
Racial division had hounded our nation from its earliest. Declaration of Independence author Jefferson (ironically, he of "all men are created equal" fame) called slavery "a peculiar institution" while partaking of it rather fully. Father of Our Country Washington freed his slaves, to uncertain fates as it turned out, but only in his will, and in theory.
President Lincoln frankly discussed the issue face-to-face with his sometime White House visitor, abolitionist Frederick Douglass, siding morally with anti-slavery forces, in favor of the inherent dignity of man. Lincoln, who paid the ultimate price for his principles, said the nation could not survive "half free, half slave." In those worst of times, he prosecuted the nation's bloodiest war to rid this then-poisoned land, at least minimally, of institutionalized racism as represented in the forever unconscionable Dred Scott decision (1857). (What was Chief Justice Roger Taney thinking?)
Little white kids we were, in pine-forested northern Minnesota, 100 miles from the Canadian border, a destination of the Underground Railroad, what did we know? We were trying to figure out puzzling adult things in an all-white town in the Forties. We were Slavs, Croats, Scandinavians, Italians growing up to be iron ore miners, engineers, shopkeepers, all of us Caucasians far removed from nagging issues of race — except for a benevolence toward local native Americans — as found "down South." Little did we know, the South was a lot closer than we thought.
As curious 10 year-olds we gathered on a tree-lined boulevard across the street from the only "colored" family in our little town of 12,000 souls. We would gawk conspicuously, not peek, to see what "they" looked like, as if otherworldly. Were their skins really brown? Did they speak the our language?
"They" were a young black family – Negroes" then – living in a neat white frame house with a white picket fence. Their toddlers, not yet of school age, had a sandbox in the Elm tree-sheltered backyard. The man of the house worked at the local post office, a World War II vet, we heard from our folks, who kept track of such things. He was said to be a very nice fellow. Sometimes he would wave to us white-skinned interlopers sitting dumbly on the curb. The woman of the house we rarely saw, and then, peeking through drawn window blinds wondering, I suppose, what we kids were up to. No good, perhaps?
After sufficient gawking, curiosities satiated, we'd go about our summer games, a pickup baseball game, maybe hide 'n go seek. Imbued with the fact this "colored" family was, well, mostly like us, we halted our boulevard visits. "They" seemed accepted around town, this family, yet mingled not much with their neighbors. Kept pretty much to themselves.
Deep down in our juvenile nature we were vaguely aware something was amiss. We wondered, owing perhaps to our God-fearing parents, why these "colored folks," or "Negroes" (never was the "n" word used), were treated shabbily in other parts of our nation, notably "down South in the land of cotton," a world apart for us, seen as the setting for "Gone With The Wind."
Racial tensions simmered beneath the artifice of a tranquil surface. Race riots, looting, burning buildings and murdering, those fires next times, were yet to come, in tinderbox places such as Watts (1965), Detroit (1967) and, belatedly, Los Angeles (1992) after the Rodney King verdict.
A kid in our gang whose family had moved to Atlanta (his dad to work for an airline) returned summers to visit his grandparents. Aware of how "they" were treated in his new hometown, we asked him, why? His instant reply I vividly recall still, some 65 years (!) later: "They know their place," he answered. Even as a not-very-precocious ten-year-old, I knew what my childhood sandbox pal said, now marked by the suspicious start of a southern drawl, was bullshit.
Was it true, we asked, the existence of "colored" drinking fountains? Waiting rooms in bus and rail depots? Yes. Yes. Separate cemeteries making for eternal inequality? Yes. Although we did not know the term yet, it was surreal. Things "did not add up."
Baldwin in The Fire, propping up his nephew's ego: ". . . you came from sturdy, peasant stock . . . and, in the teeth of terrifying odds, [you] achieved an unassailable and monumental dignity."
For some us, the dignity of Jim was recalled from reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, a flinty morality tale read to us by our fifth grade teacher, Miss Jones, chapter by chapter, at Horace Mann School, no doubt editing foul language as she went along. Our Miss Jones was a Mark Twain fan, bless her soul.
Late in the sleepy, Ike-led Fifties, I played freshman basketball at a small, northern Minnesota "church college" with a wiry chap from Kentucky. He was a cheerful black fellow, his smile a mile wide. Soon we found ourselves with adjacent lockers, starting guards for a brief and wonderful interlude. He had not a shred of outward hostility to us white boys, or "whities" openly stated. He made a mockery of Baldwin's challenge to his nephew in The Fire: "You were not expected to aspire to excellence; you were expected to make peace with mediocrity."
(Leapfrogging a decade ahead, my then-teammate earned his PhD in chemistry and became a college professor, one with a terrific jump shot.)
The military, if nothing else, had a way of breaking down race enmities, too. Serving with and under black men in "public information" in USAF, I discovered within myself new insights on race, enlarging my thinking about and appreciation of, and please pardon the term, diversity.
In my business career I had not a problem, not at all, with "the racial thing," although blacks were sparse in my chosen fields, first in publishing business magazines, then heading up trade associations. Race tranquility quietly reposed in a corner of the room.
Race seemed less of a factor in the 70s and 80s. Giant strides forward seemed to attend race relations in our United States. With the exception of the Los Angeles riots of '92, in the wake of the Rodney King verdict, relative calm settled upon the scene.
Two years later, hell broke loose. Double murders in Brentwood, a Los Angeles suburb, led to the Trial of the Century. Truth be told, O.J. was guilty as sin. He was seen angrily leaving the crime scene, left his blood there intermixed with that of his victims, in his house, and on his Ford Bronco. It was a slam dunk case. (Where DID he stash that serrated knife he had bought two weeks earlier?)
Every hunk of evidence exposed the black ex-NFL star as the sole killer. He was protected by a "dream team" of artful lawyers, playing the race card, dealing from the bottom of the deck, said one of them, rather candidly. A runaway jury with no regard for truth, and less for justice, let the double murderer walk. Race did the trick. One could get away with murder if a black with ample resources, and a nullifying jury by reason of race.
If the insane verdict was telling, reaction to it, mainly in black communities, was more revealing. Instead of outrage, blacks pumped the air in celebration. Black students cheered the verdict. Seared in memory banks for all time, at least white memories, was the injustice, maybe payback, of this travesty. It set back race relations years, forever for some. Some said: If Nicole Brown had been black, O.J. would hang. Race saved him.
Comes now the year 2010. Racial tempers have cooled, we thought. We live in supposedly post-racial times, all that anger and angst behind us, under the presidency of a popular, well-spoken, intelligent black man. But now comes a new outburst of racial mischief. The target this time is the Political Opposition. And the race card is in play, dealt from the bottom of the deck.
The savagery of these attacks cheapens any discussion of race. The attacks are directed at those who dare criticize a leftist political agenda. Those who object, Tea Partiers included, are labeled "racist." Truth does not matter, same as in the O.J. criminal trial. It's that old race card trick again. It is the lowest of blows.
Politically it must seem good strategy to invoke racism as a tool to hammer one's opponents, no matter how destructive to society. Behind this preposterous strategy, if it is that, lies a vicious yearning to win by smearing, really at any cost. Most mainstream media, not much into into truth-seeking nowadays, serve as megaphones, cheerleaders for the racial slurs. They report phantom racial taunts, such as in a parade of black Congressman. And they rail against an errant Tea Party sign or two.
It started early, this playing the race card, during candidate Obama's run-up to the election. One journalist wrote privately (so he thought) Senator Obama's close ties to his longtime pastor, firebrand race-monger Rev. Jeremiah Wright, would best be countered, at least offset by, branding Republicans as "racist." Heck, just make the accusation and let it ride.
Posted on a private website was the reporter's outlandish admonition to fellow liberal scribblers: ". . . take one of them [say, Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes] and call him racist." This outrage was met only by silence, as if to condone. (Barnes's response was spot on: "Race-baiting is the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.")
Today the race card is played by liberal politicos without fear of renunciation, in ways that would disgust and disappoint Baldwin, whose message of racial let's-get-alongness is spurned. It gives new impetus to the need to heed Baldwin's profound exhortation for racial peace in The Fire Next Time:
If we — and I mean the relatively conscious whites and the relatively conscious black, who must, like lovers, insist on, or create, the consciousness of others — do not falter in our duty now, we may be able, handful that we are, to end the racial nightmare, and achieve our country, and change the history of the world.
Amen.
Just frail words falling on deaf ears? Will we ever learn?
“In those worst of times, he prosecuted the nation's bloodiest war to rid this then-poisoned land, at least minimally, of institutionalized racism as represented in the forever unconscionable Dred Scott decision (1857).”
Actually Gary, while Lincoln did campaign against the expansion of slavery beyond the states in which it already existed; The War of Northern Aggression (as we southerners still call it) was fought over a different reason. After Lincoln’s win in 1860, seven southern states seceded from the Union. Both the outgoing administration of James Buchanan and the incoming administration of Abraham Lincoln rejected the legality of secession, considering it rebellion.
The war wasn’t fought over slavery but over a state’s right to remove itself from federal control if that control oversteps its bounds. Alas though, the victors always claim the right to author history, and they always author it to paint themselves in the most favorable light.
While advances in the civilized behavior of all men have consigned slavery in America to the dustbin of history; and rightfully so I might add. This question of succession remains. Succession may indeed be the only answer to the enslavement of the American population by the federal overseers in Washington DC. Stay tuned.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by IC Politics, katie. katie said: Free Reading !!! Reversals in Race Relations: A Personal Narrative: For some us, the dignity o… http://bit.ly/bkWItK mypsychicsonline.inf [...]
This description of the nature of the servitude of the first blacks to be brought to the Colonies is contradicted by Francis D. Adams and Barry Sanders, “Alienable Rights: The Exclusion of African Americans in a White Man’s Land, 1619–2000” (New York: HarperCollins, 2003), which indicates that many, if not all, had indentures the same as many whites. A novel recently reviewed on NPR’s “All Things Considered” also mentions indentures.
On page 6 Adams and Sanders say that the indentures of blacks were lengthened to make their value equal to that of whites, and in other places, particularly page 23, they indicate that blacks never fully assimilated American culture in any of the colonies. This is likely the root cause of the American race problem, rather than an irrational prejudice against skin color. The black rejection of American culture has now been institutionalized by the Black Power movement and the cult of Blackness. Blacks are an ideal group to lead the march away from the culture that originated the culture that brought forth the principles of the Founders towards a republic based on collectivist principles because they never adopted American culture in the first place. If the repentant radical priest Richard John Neuhaus was correct in saying that a “considered and uncompromising” anti-Communism is necessary for a commitment to democratic principles, blacks are the least committed American ethnic group.
Having given us Stalinists—W.E.B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson—on our postage stamps and by repeatedly and overwhelmingly voting for candidates who are unrepentant for supporting the Communist victory in Indochina—either Clinton, Kerry, etc.—contemporary blacks condone crimes against humanity that make the Atlantic slave trade pale by comparison.
Once again Ark Ashamed of Bill turns to the book by Adams and Sanders as support for his offensive racist conservative b.s. I'm pleased, however, that Ark posts on IC. Clearly, he recognizes that he finds welcome here.
Ark seems to want to deny the existence of black slavery in the colonies and the US by turning to the undeniable fact that some of the first blacks in the colonies were indeed indentured servants, as were many whites. The rest of the book he uses makes very clear–go find it on Google and take a look for yourselves–what both slavery and post-Civil War racism did to American blacks.
Ark's racist thesis is that blacks never really assimilated to American culture. That's a really big generalization. Which blacks? I ask. The phone company worker down the street I lived on when I grew up? All black academics? What about those black conservative academics like Thomas Sowell? Or maybe Sowell isn't really black? I'll bet good ole Ark thinks Sowell has enough 'white' blood to clean him up just fine. What about all those blacks now able to rise in American business, due, of course, to the power of the liberal state, that, as I love to say to unreconstructed rebels, broke the back of legal racism in this country?
Does Ark really have data on the entire black population that shows that they never really accepted 'American' culture? Of course, he probably also thinks that blacks contributed nothing to American culture. Clearly this is a man who likes neither Bird nor Miles nor James Brown, or, for that matter, James DePriest, a noted black classical music conductor. (Seattle Symphony for a number of years). Then there is viola virtuoso Marcus Thompson, artistic director of the Boston Chamber Music Society. But, hey, Ark just or perhaps jes' knows about those blacks. Enemies of America each and every one of them.
So, Ark, glad to hear from you again. Now maybe Mr. Wavering will pay attention when I say something about conservative racism, or then again, from his post, I doubt if he will admit such a thing exists.
Speaking of Mr. Wavering, another unreconstructed rebel, clearly he has not read the declarations of secession passed by the legislatures of the Confederate states. Take a look at 'em; yes, they're on line, and notice the prominent place slavery has, usually about a paragraph or so in. Mr. Wavering still believes in the 'right' of secession, but, mirabile dictu, also thinks slavery was bad. Well, no accounting for taste, or intellectual consistency. Believers in the 'right' of secession subscribe to the notion that the United States is nothing more than a loose alliance of states, to be assembled or dissolved as the states choose. Sorry, but the 'states' are not characterized in the Constitution as the creator of that document. Try reading the Preamble and then tell me who or what brought the Constitution into existence. I know this doesn't persuade an ardent separator (or, as I call them, in much plainer speech, a prospective traitor to the United States), but at least I'd like to read Mr. Wavering's sophistries in reply.
Gestell,
The concept of racial "inauthenticity" is actually a construct of "you liberals", particularly in academia. Let's take a look at the 9,400 Google hits for the search string "Thomas Sowell Uncle Tom" or the 54,700 Google hits for the search string "Clarence Thomas Uncle Tom" and see how many of them link back to "conservative" websites. Or let's think about how many conservatives or Republicans have ever held membership in the Congressional Black Caucus. Or hey, let's see how many political conservatives or libertarians chair the black studies departments at major universities.
So please spare us the sanctimony. Racial identity politics is "you liberals'" stock in trade.
That aside, I'd be very interested in hearing the basis of your contention that the federal government was never intended to be a weak alliance of states, because my reading of the constitution, not to mention the stated intentions of the people who actually wrote it, seem to point precisely to that conclusion. I'd also be interested in knowing what in this statement:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Gives you the impression that the union of the states was intended to be infinite and irrevocable? I'm not sure that conclusion is as self-evident as you present it.
Of course, coming from a logical contortionist with the dexterity to find an inextricable philosophical link between the rights of states to secede from a political union of states and the institution of slavery, I don't doubt your ability. Intellectual consistency, indeed.
Gestell,
Thanks for providing overwhelming evidence proving to all who can read the theories laid bare by two of my fellow contributors here at IC. Your response here proves the writing of Selwyn Duke in “Hello, I’m a Racist, Pleased to Meet you.” And the essay by my good friend Steven Laib entitled “Race Matters – to the Left.”
First off your; “Once again Ark Ashamed of Bill turns to the book by Adams and Sanders as support for his offensive racist conservative b.s. I'm pleased, however, that Ark posts on IC. Clearly, he recognizes that he finds welcome here.” Exactly fits the template of a race baiting progressive. Attempting to give authority to your response that it clearly doesn’t rate by beginning it with a weak attempt to use a pejorative to ‘pre-define’ your opponent. Proof enough that academia is falling hopelessly behind. Even after being reminded less than a month ago about how much power has been ‘removed’ from such language; your reflexive habits are impossible to break.
“Ark's racist thesis is that blacks never really assimilated to American culture.” No this isn’t Ark Ashamed of Bill’s point. It is the conclusion drawn in Adams & Sanders in “Alienable Rights”. A conclusion he happens to support. Your ‘point-of-disagreement’ is with those scholars, not Ark Ashamed of Bill. If you disagree with the thesis, do your own research and reveal it to us. So far, Ark Ashamed of Bill has provided more factual evidence to prove his conclusions than you have to prove yours.
So, now that we’ve dispensed with paragraphs one through five of your six paragraph post. Let’s address this last one, shall we. First off; in a repeat of your attempt against Ark Ashamed of Bill you fire off what you can only believe is a pre-emptive strike by ordaining arguments against your posting I may make as “sophistries”, before those arguments are even articulated. I appreciate the compliment. Whenever one feels the breath of defeat so close to his neck that he must engage in such behavior tells me you see me as much more challenging than most of your other opponents. Attempting to pre-define the opposite side of the debate is usually close to the last refuge of a progressive trapped within the möbius of his own delusional belief system.
I would expect a progressive of your stripe; one who believes in the absolute infallibility of centralized government to not only deny the clear meaning of the words that make up the preamble of the US Constitution, but to also reference them as actually supporting your clearly incorrect diagnosing of what those words mean as well. Thank you for providing yet another clear example of what can only be describes as the continued bi-polar belief system that one must ascribe to in order to be a progressive. Of course it’s not the states, it’s the people. Although I must point out here that you yourself and your fellow progressives hold individuals in even less esteem than you do states. Your hierarchy is federal government, judiciary, military power, academia, media, then states and finally the people.
As to the actual reasons the Southern Alliance enumerated, it matters not. That they exercised their clear right as states to declare succession and that the Northern Aggressors declared succession to be rebellion is the fact at hand.
The sovereign right of a state to secede was first documented in the Declaration of Independence, and confirmed in the original Articles of Confederation. Historian Maury Klein best described the situation as; “the case can be made that no result of the war was more important than the destruction, once and for all … of the idea of secession"; although; I happen to disagree with Mr. Klein in this regard.
Madison and Webster had an ongoing debate over the natural right of revolution versus right of secession known as the Nullification Crisis. It was debated whether states possessed a natural right to secede or rebel from ‘intolerable’ oppression. Would southern states being forced to accept the outrageously low prices offered by northern textile manufacturers while being simultaneously blockaded from shipping raw cotton to European manufacturers that were offering better prices qualify? I believe it would. This is why both Lincoln and Buchanan considered the succession of the Southern States to be rebellion. They believed the southern states were present only to serve their northern mercantile friends; and Lincoln would slaughter over a half million men to serve that purpose.
Between the unconstitutional provisions of health care legislation, failure to carry out the constitutional provision to defend citizens from foreign invasion (the neglect of immigration enforcement0 and other blatantly unconstitutional moves of this administration; I wonder how many your Obama would sacrifice once Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, and Florida all get tired of his crap and decide to leave?
As a descendent of white indentured servents I have had issues feeling sorry for black slaves. A slave is a slave! Anyone thinking that indentured servents could just buy their way out are disengenuous at best morally corrupted at worst.
By the way, the other side of the family came from the group much worse treated that black slaves…the Irish. Any doubts figure out why the hedgerow schools existed into the 1900s. Ireland was an attempt at genocide which still goes on in the north.
It is time for those that are crying about their lot in life to get off their asses, get an education, get a job, and actually show up for work!
Mickey G,
“It is time for those that are crying about their lot in life to get off their asses, get an education, get a job, and actually show up for work!”
Mickey; would those incapable of following your abovementioned advice be considered as the people who; “…never fully assimilated American culture…” that Ark Ashamed of Bill writes about? In other words; people who would rather blame history, or slavery, or racism, or inadequate expenditures on poverty programs instead of laying the blame squarely where it belongs, on the inferior attitude and work ethic of those involved?
“It’s too hard to take responsibility for my own mistakes. Sure, I didn’t pay attention in school, dropped out before graduating, had three kids with my girlfriend, and only possess the skills to wear a paper hat, stick my head out a window and ask; “Would you like fries with that?” This cannot be my fault; it’s gotta’ be ‘the man’ keeping me down.”
It’s like that old Carlos Mencia bit about the kid that says: Gee, why is it I have to work at Ta-Ta-Ta-Taco Bell?”
To which Carlos replies; “I don’t know; maybe it has something to do with your Re-Re-Re-Report Card! Look at it; it’s all ‘D’s”! What does that spell? Duh, duh, duhduh, duh!”
Hmmm,Bill I was trying to be politically correct but your have nailed the target demographic.
Two comments: one brief, one not.
Mr. Larson's piece is the sort of contribution an old-fashioned pro-civil rights liberal might have written. Since he's a conservative, I also want to remark on a major omission: he neglects to tell his IC readers that James Baldwin was a hard-core leftist and openly gay. Mr. Larson must be a really tolerant guy to claim to learn something from Baldwin.Maybe he's one of those CINOs.
Now on to some red meat:
Reply to Mr. Wavering:
Ark Ashamed of Bill maintains that blacks remain unassimilated into American culture. This thesis would require an immense amount of data and very careful analysis. One example of a black who has come to share American culture would destroy Ark's ridiculous thesis. Of course, Ark doesn't know this. From your own silence and refusal even to discuss my criticisms of Ark on this point, I infer that you share his belief. Or maybe you don't even see it as a belief—it may have for you the status of a self-evident truth. In which case your own racism is at least as virulent as that of Ark.
Now Ark supposes, as do you, that his thesis is maintained by Adams and Sanders in "Alienable Rights." This is very odd. The book in question is simply a history of the status of blacks in the US, from slavery through to the present day. It touches all the familiar bases any competent historical study would have to touch. And, what's more, its authors are garden-variety academic liberals, exactly the sort you and Ark despise. How Ark can derive from this book the thesis that blacks have never embraced American culture is beyond me. Here are a couple of quotations to give you the tone of the book. On p. 313 the authors explain how, in their opinion, Reagan "reassured whites of the rightness of their most shameful feelings, restoring a comfortable and accustomed racism to white middle-and working-class Americans." As I say, garden variety liberals. And on pp. 319-320, on how blacks continue to view American society: "American society often seems to them a vast conspiracy aimed at depriving them of their self-respect and a chance for a decent life." Hardly the writing of authors whose ideas could nourish a racist like Ark. Further along on p. 320, the authors opine that racial progress has been made only "when a committed militant minority—abolitionists, Radical Republicans, civil rights activists—stirred the nation, pressing it to change." One could hardly ask for a better statement of the standard liberal view.
Since you have evidently not deigned to look at the book, you seem to think it contains mountains of data showing how blacks have not become real Americans. No, it has nothing of the sort. Its assessment of racial conditions in this country is actually more pessimistic than mine—and I'm an avowed liberal. The entrance of blacks into all areas of the American economy is undeniable–except maybe by Ark, who doubts they could assimilate enough to be bank branch managers, EMTs, or, dare I say it, soldiers.
By the way, it's amusing that you can claim Ark has presented, in your words, "more factual evidence" to support his conclusions than I have. Yeah, by making up his own interpretation of a book whose authors aren't even interested in the point he thinks they make. Ark needs some more book learnin' than he's picked up so far; he needs to learn how to read books with big words. It's even the case these days that recent survey data show a majority of blacks NOT blaming white America for all their problems. So where does this sort of development leave Ark? Well, I'll tell you. It leaves him, and probably you, sobbing in your beer about how much better things were back in the Old South. Want the URLs for some good old white supremacy websites? I've got 'em, but, hell, you know all this already.
Now, as for your broadsides in my direction: We each regard one another's claims and arguments as defective because we are on opposing sides, no more, no less. Why should I not begin by characterizing your comments, in advance, as 'sophistries'? What 'rule' of political warfare have I violated? After all, you bluster about how my language has had its power removed, presumably by some of the contributions of your fellow IC folks. If you can say that, then clearly I can characterize your utterances as I choose as well. Or is your polemical game one that only you on the Right can play? I've run into this before as well. It's like saying: "Let's begin by stipulating that I'm correct." Your debate coach would rap your knuckles for doing that.
Now down to the Constitution and secession. As a celebrant and defender of the Old South, of course you need to think that your side is justified. You break off even trying to discuss the Constitution by larding in typical conservative boilerplate about my alleged belief in the "absolute infallibility of centralized government." Nowhere in any post on this site have I defended anything as clearly silly as this. "Centralized governments" have committed all sorts of horrors. While a liberal like me thinks that the Soviet gulags, torture chambers, and the Nazi death camps are examples of such horrors, the first thing many conservatives come up with is the hot school lunch program. Be that as it may, you don't seem to have really thought through what the implications might be for your positions if the Constitution is NOT correctly viewed as a sort of alliance document created by the states. By the way, the Articles of Confederation are irrelevant to the secession discussion. In case you haven't heard, they're no longer in force.
You trot out the secessionist position with such verve and spirit that it is clear you'd like to be among the first to destroy this country. If only you had some military units of the US Armed Forces to join you in your fantasies of treason! Keep working at it, though—you may be able to suborn a few.
You join the once-fashionable Marxists in your analysis of the ultimate causes of the Civil War. I noticed that you didn't deign to comment on my mention of the mentioning of slavery in the declarations of secession of the states. And your side still deceives itself that slavery wasn't an issue! Have you forgotten that Southern politicians, before the war, had done everything they could to prevent the United States government from preventing the importation of slavery into new states? Well, yes, you have, conveniently. This is why your protestations of good will and innocence with regard to slavery ring hollow. Of course you learned from liberal teachers when you were young that slavery was evil, but you never understood the connection between that truth and the wrongness of the side you so passionately prefer and defend. I can't help it if you don't get it. As you said of me, "your reflexive habits are impossible to break."
The entrance of blacks into all areas of the American economy is undeniable–except maybe by Ark, who doubts they could assimilate enough to be bank branch managers, EMTs, or, dare I say it, soldiers.
Your powers of inference are on the level of a psychic. You should really consider changing fields.
So where does this sort of development leave Ark? Well, I'll tell you. It leaves him, and probably you, sobbing in your beer about how much better things were back in the Old South. Want the URLs for some good old white supremacy websites? I've got 'em, but, hell, you know all this .
it is clear you'd like to be among the first to destroy this country. If only you had some military units of the US Armed Forces to join you in your fantasies of treason!
It's like saying: "Let's begin by stipulating that I'm correct." Your debate coach would rap your knuckles for doing that.
What would your debate coach have to say about spewing invective and ad hominem attacks and proclaiming your opponents to be morally defective by virtue of their political self-identification as the premise for your entire argument? Is it really better to say "Let's begin by stipulating that my opponent is a conservative morally inferior racist traitor; but I repeat myself"?
Gestell,
All I did was point out how your pre-emptive response is straight from the progressive debate playbook. Please consult your dog-eared copy of same. Reference the chapter on indefensible arguments. Pointing out the weakness of your tossing up the word racism is an excellent example of how progressives repeatedly fail to advance the conversation because of their ‘win-at-all-cost’ style. It was July 26th that you yourself said; “Just what I've been looking for all along since I started visiting this site–a real conservative who gets it.” In a post to Selwyn Duke’s “Hello, I'm a Racist, Pleased to Meet You.” A piece that directly pointed out that persons such as yourself have over-used the term to such a point that it no longer carries any stigma, but is rather a signal to all who hear it that the accuser feels as if his debate is lost. Yet, here we are seven days later having to remind you that the ‘racist’ arrow in your quiver is no longer effective. You really must do something before that short-term memory loss begins to affect your professional life.
I notice that with regard to the US Constitution; we’ve decided NOT to attempt further defense of your deliberate mis-reading of same. The federal government was always envisioned by the founders as a weak federal government of few, specific, enumerated powers and the states to be ascendant. The federal government was to be answerable to the states and to the people, not the other way around. However; such an arrangement makes impossible the social justice platform of progressivism which can only be called ‘Defining Prosperity Down’.
The founding documents of this country; DoI, AoC, and USC. Are all relevant as they illuminate the historical path. As I said in my previous posting; the War of Northern aggression was fought over succession because the successful succession of the southern states would have destroyed the current federal government and its belief that it was the ultimate authority in the nation.
Succession doesn’t destroy the country, it destroys the government; two very different things. The federal government, especially in the last two years has made quite a bit of headway toward destroying this country. Consider the unpayable debt saddled upon the entirety of the people by a few idiots inside the beltway. Consider the violation of due process present for all to see when the POTUS puts the arm on a corporation to ‘demand’ that company fund a ‘give-away’ program to the tune of $20 billion without any judgment other than public opinion. Consider the politicization of the DoJ when we decide to try enemy combatants as routine felons, or when the Attorney General deliberately fails to pursue civil right violations because of the race of the perpetrators. Suing a state for attempting the Constitutional provision to defend themselves from invasion by having a federal judge decree that the federal government’s decision to intentionally ignore its Constitutional duty to uphold the law takes precedent. These sir, are all examples of government run wild. A government bent on destroying the republic in the name of social justice.
We may see the beginnings of the succession movement in our lifetime. Already; state legislatures and state Attorneys General are busily filing suits and passing laws prohibiting the federal government from mandating such blatantly illegal actions such as requiring all citizens to purchase a government identified product. Or attempting to regulate the manufacture and sale of products specifically earmarked for consumption within the specific state itself. You government won’t’ get away with this long. Succession will slash the tax base from which the government extracts its wealth hurrying the fall. The newly organized states will return the Constitution to its rightful place and you to yours as well. It will no longer be possible for the federal government to forcibly extract the wealth of hard-working people in order to give those who could not spell the word ‘CAT’ if you were to spot them a ‘C’ and a ‘T’ the same life as others earn for themselves.
The federal government will fall and succession is the key. The T.E.A. Party is just the tip of this iceberg. For we believe that if we change local and state government, the federal government will have to listen. If they fail to listen, well we’ll have strengthened the state enough to do what is right by the people. The progressives in Washington see more than you do. They know where they are taking the country. They want a revolution. They’ve almost completely turned the tables. They began in the 60’s as the bomb throwing radicals. Over the last two generations they’ve altered tactics. They no longer seek to beat the man; they have almost become the man. All they require is an extremist revolutionary fringe to point to as a dangerous threat to what they’ve wrought in order to seal the deal.
They might be able to demonize and isolate a grassroots movement, but they cannot demonize a state government. You really need to look around outside your ivory tower and see what is happening in state governments and legislatures. The national races are the decoy; it’s the governorships and state houses we intend to control. This is where the talk of possibly seceding will begin. And with 90 days until election it’s already too late for the progressives to pivot. Progressives never thought states would amount to much. They always put their money behind federal government and federal judges; believing in rule by decree. If you really want to see how it shakes out read “10 More Reasons Dems are Toast” http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-30/bush-blame-democratic-strategy-wont-win-midterms/?cid=bs:archive8 pay special attention to reasons four and five. The progressive movement will fall in November and any kamikaze session of Congress after the election will just cement its demise.
reply to Mr. Mulligan,
I hardly need psychic powers to understand Ark's position. His position is that blacks have never truly assimilated to American culture. He continues to misread and distort a book in defense of his thesis. I will continue to call him on this.
As for Mr. Wavering, his defense of secession rests upon an interpretation of the Constitution that I doubt is shared by any leading conservative constitutional scholar. Please identify one such if you know of one. His silence concerning Ark's position is completely compatible with support of it, and so I have no reason not to assume that he is as much a racist as Ark is. Belief in the moral and political rightness of the CSA and its attempt to destroy the United States is, of course, a constitutionally protected belief, as is racism. I'm pleased to find conservatives so willing to put their cards on the table. I'm sure the coming years and the political triumph of the Right will give all of you cause for celebration. Maybe then you won't have to be subversives.
Gestell,
You got a lot more specifics out of 3 paragraphs than I did, let's just say that. I can't pinpoint a position like "Ark believes that no black person in the history of the United States has ever held, or ever could hold, a position of prominence in the field of business or music because they are racially inferior" from a relatively vague statement like: "blacks never assimilated into white American culture." Ironically enough, black academics and activists, among them the venerable First Lady, then-Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, have been chiefly responsible for advancing the idea of the distinction between white and black American culture and the failure of blacks to accept and assimilate into "white America". Consequently, I can't help but find the knee-jerk cries of "racism! racism!" from "you liberals" when the same position is advanced by a white person who has failed to frame their argument through the accepted liberal paradigm of white oppression rather comical. Irony is typically lost on the ironic, so I'm not surprised that you continue unabashed in this line of rather tortured logic. It only enhances the humor when you proclaim your own self-righteousness and continue mindlessly calling names and leveling personal attacks while indignantly nit-pick others' argumentative style as hubristic or juvenile. If I didn't know better I'd think maybe some cheeky conservative was using your username as a sock puppet to caricature the "stereotypical liberal".
With that said, although I believe there are circumstances under which state secession from the federal government is both politically and morally justifiable, I would be willing to match my money against Bill's that an attempt at state secession will not occur in either his or my lifetime.
Here's a funny question: if the Northern states had seceded from the Southern states in protest of slavery and a show of solidarity for abolition, would Gestell still find the practice objectionable and "racist"?
Gestell,
“His silence concerning Ark's position is completely compatible with support of it, and so I have no reason not to assume that he is as much a racist as Ark is.” Assume all you like; it’s still a free country for now. While I’m certain I meet your criteria for being a racist, you criteria is personal and has nothing to do with reality. Racism is defined as; “…the belief that race is the primary determinate of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority.” That’s certainly NOT what you define a racist as. Your definition is anyone who decries your politically correct way of thinking. Just because I have no time for your hand-wringing, desperate , fracas regarding the achievement of social justice. Actually; I’m fairly positive that, as far as you are concerned, anyone not immediately acknowledging the superiority of your flawed thought process; is in your mind, a racist. This is exactly why the term is no longer of any use. It has been timeworn, much as you yourself have been.
The CSA did not attempt to ‘destroy’ the US; they fought to defend their right to withdraw from an oppressive government. The CSA could not have cared less if the north continued to proceed just as they had been all along; they just didn’t want to go where the government demanded they go.
I’ve pointed out to you on more than one occasion that there is a difference between bringing down a government and destroying a country. That you refuse to acknowledge such a difference speaks volumes. You obviously believe the United States and the federal government to be the same entity, inseparable. In your world, wherever that is, the term are interchangeable. It is impossible for you to separate one from the other. The states do not require a federal government to remain united in cause. There were certain things that the states felt should be represented as a united front. The making of treaties and the setting of tariffs, for example. That’s why there was a weak federal government of strictly limited and enumerated powers created.
James Madison, explaining the constitution, in Federalist Paper 45, said, "The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. … The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=535 No one can reasonably argue that the current federal government has way overstepped the boundaries originally placed upon it. Under those conditions, no reasonable person can argue other than the states have a duty to their citizens to formally withdraw from that ‘subversive’ government.
As for being ‘subversive’ myself; once again a personal evaluation of your own. The definition of such is; “A systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political systems by persons working secretly from within.” My name is clearly here for all to see, as are my beliefs. My name will readily yield an address & telephone number. There’s nothing secret, nor is there a group. More than anything; this definition of ‘subversive’ when modified by the word ‘regime’ is more of a complete description of the current administration you seem to favor so avidly.
I see nothing subversive in the belief that one should have the right to one’s own property. Rather, I believe that it is ‘subversive’ to hold the opinion that someone else, who has not lifted one finger to attempt to earn a life for himself, would vote to use the force of the federal government to extract property from me in order to award it to that layabout.
As for publications regarding the right of a state to secede, here are two. I wouldn’t want to take up much of your summer session. Be careful while you’re reviewing them; you never know when clicking on a certain link might conjure up a fleet of those black helicopters!
The Inalienable Right To Secede. By Scott Lazarowitz
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/lazarowitz2.1.1.html
Happy Secession Day. By Thomas J. DiLorenzo
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo103.html
reply to Mr. Mulligan,
You ask: "f the Northern states had seceded from the Southern states in protest of slavery and a show of solidarity for abolition, would Gestell still find the practice objectionable and "racist"?
That's easy: The very terms of your hypothetical–'solidarity for abolition'–make it absurd to consider such a practice 'objectionable and 'racist.' NO, it is only when secession is undertaken by slave states that I would call the move 'racist.' The Southern belief in the rightness of and the necessity for slavery is inherently racist.
As for secession itself, I am opposed to it, agreeing with many constitutional authorities that states have no such right under the Constitution.
You folks may or may not know of the Hartford Convention of Dec. 15, 1814-Jan. 4, 1815. This was a convention called by the New England states, in which large numbers of citizens were opposed to the War of 1812. Secession was considered at this meeting, but eventually rejected. However, the New England states refused to send their militias into the war. Some scholars contend that pro-abolition sentiments were at work as well, although this seems to have been a minor footnote to the event at best. Several amendments to the Constitution were proposed which New Englanders believed would lessen what they regarded as the excessive congressional power of the South under the Constitution. All of this was made moot by the end of the war. And, yes, I think secession was a lousy idea then, as well.
My sort of liberal regards the United States as an actual nation-state in the classic Westphalian sense. While the form of our government is federal, it is not truly confederal–that is, the government of the United States is not simply an instrument of the states, nor is it an alliance. We take the supremacy clause seriously (Art.4,para.2). The pro-secession position is really a pro-revolution position. On this ground, the DoI's doctrine of revolution is understood to apply to states in actual or potential opposition to the federal government, and the same natural rights argument used in the DoI to defend the colonies' break with England is believed to be extendable to the states in perpetuity. Jefferson's language certainly supports this view, but neither the Declaration nor Jefferson defend a 'right' of secession. So, my conclusion is that conservatives, unhappy with liberalism and in intellectual rebellion against the very idea of the US as a nation-state, are on sounder doctrinal ground if they urge revolution than if they preach secession. Revolution in its proper political sense cannot be separated from violence, and so the practical question remains: how far does the Right really want to go down the path of revolution? A real revolutionary must be willing to fight, kill, and die for his beliefs. Other Americans, of course, will be willing to do the same to preserve the nation. Is this really the legacy American conservatives want to leave for our country?
Hmmm, seems to me that the history scholar should be aware that three states have the right to leave based upon the agreements made when they joined up. Others require an actual attempt at break up which looks to be a very good idea right now and into the forseeable future, particularly considering the problem states of NY and California would then have to find a way to support themselves.
The very terms of your hypothetical–'solidarity for abolition'–make it absurd to consider such a practice 'objectionable and 'racist.
True enough to the rational observer, but contradictory with every position you've put forward in this discussion up to this point. You have taken the position that secession of states from the federal government is intrinsically "racist" as well as "subversive" and "treasonous". It's refreshing to see that you can recognize this absurdity.
reply to Mr. Mulligan,
You're getting pretty desperate here. Thus far, until your hypothetical, the only secession scenario under discussion has been that of the Confederacy or some updated version of this scenario. If anyone had proffered a pro-abolition scenario, I certainly would not have called that a 'racist' secessionist proposal.
Today a right wing secessionist dream includes a racist element because its advocates seek a return to a states' rights standpoint, from which a rejection of the very idea of universal human rights can be achieved. For secessionist conservatives, there would be nothing whatever wrong or undesirable about a Confederation of American States in which legally protected human rights would vary considerably from one state to another, depending upon the whims of a majority of voters in each state. Such Balkanization might be great for conservatism, but it is absolutely lethal to the notion of the United States as a single nation.
. Thus far, until your hypothetical, the only secession scenario under discussion has been that of the Confederacy or some updated version of this scenario.
That's because, in response to a minor historical quibble about secession in the context of the civil war, you introduced the idea that conservatives wished to revive a modern confederacy based upon the institution of slavery, which is patently absurd.
Today a right wing secessionist dream includes a racist element because its advocates seek a return to a states' rights standpoint, from which a rejection of the very idea of universal human rights can be achieved.
Ahhh, well now it all makes sense. Conservatives believe that states should be allowed to make their own laws in cases where the constitution does not enumerate federal control of the issue, kind of like, uh, the constitution says in amendment number 10, and consequently it is an official pillar of conservative philosophy that states have a right to re-institute slavery and other violations of "universal human rights", even though you don't believe in natural rights or universal rights, both of which would be required philosophical foundations for a concept of "universal human rights". Pretty desperate indeed.
reply to Mr. Mulligan:
Within my lifetime, some of the most prominent American conservatives–Bill Buckley, Wilmoore Kendall, Mel Bradford, and, in general, the editors of "National Review"–have assented to the proposition that states have a right under the US Constitution to deny blacks the right to vote, as well as the right to impose a system of legal discrimination that has popular (=white) support. The Constitution, as interpreted from an originalist position, did not allow the federal government to eliminate slavery–war was required. (And now Mr. Wavering will charge in, saber drawn, to tell me that, no, the war in question was really just Lincoln's power grab in service of Northern economic interests, but that's another story.) Nor will it do for you to invoke the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, since they were ratified by Southern legislatures that were not permitted by the victorious North to act freely.
So, here's what we're left with: If today's Southern states seceded, they would have no reason, by definition, to pay any attention to any federal law or court decision because they would no longer be subject to the US Constitution. Secessionist states would be independent sovereign states (which might or might not choose to form an alliance). It follows that, if the populations of these states so desired, that any sort of oppressive system of control could be imposed on any segment of that population by a majority. Are we to believe in all seriousness that a secessionist regime in charge of any state of the Old South would have some reason to continue to abide by federal laws and court decisions to which many of its citizens objected? The fact that conservative secessionists can't figure this out attests to their extraordinary obtuseness. The whole point of being a sovereign state, again, by definition, is that no other government controls your government. So, if a majority wanted slavery, slavery it could have.
So, Mr. Mulligan, why is it that we should expect racial harmony in a secessionist (former) American state?
t is an official pillar of conservative philosophy that states have a right to re-institute slavery and other violations of "universal human rights", even though you don't believe in natural rights or universal rights, both of which would be required philosophical foundations for a concept of "universal human rights".
As for my views, why in the world do you think I reject universal human rights? If anything, many of my comments should make tolerably clear that I buy into the whole agenda of liberal universal rights. Whether such rights are 'natural' or not is a serious philosophical question, as is the question of whether belief in God is necessary to believe in human rights. The history of debates about these issues contains virtually every conceivable alternative, and philosophical agreement is nowhere in sight. In practical political terms, I view rights as being related to needs, as do most social liberals. If this belief is accepted (and conservatives clearly don't accept it), then the door is open for such things as new discoveries about human beings to become a basis for a rights argument. For example, it is now pretty clearly understood that a host of developmental issues in children is related to inadequate nutrition. Does this mean that human infants have a 'right' not to have their brain development adversely affected by poor nutrition? I have no problem in saying 'yes' to such a question, although my answer alone doesn't point in a specific policy direction. As we liberals look at it, that is a collection of pragmatic issues to be worked on. A conservative's position should be something like: "Well, life's unfair, and kids whose brains don't function optimally are just going to have to get along as best they can."
Gestell,
God I hate these one day in-and-out business trips! And I hate them for more reasons than one. I go away for one day and Gestell picks that very day to begin self-medicating once again.
“Today a right wing secessionist dream includes a racist element because its advocates seek a return to a states' rights standpoint, from which a rejection of the very idea of universal human rights can be achieved.” This is unmitigated bovine scatology! There is no way that anyone can provide a racist connotation to a strong belief in State’s rights!
First of all; as an avowed left wing progressive I would say it is impossible for you to understand the mind of a right winger other than to assume (and we all know the definition of that word) that a right winger holds all the opposite beliefs that you do. You also have to ‘assume’ that all your beliefs are correct. Hubris!
I even went so far as to provide you with the definition of racism, which I will repeat here. Racism is defined as; “…the belief that race is the primary determinate of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority.”
Your above comment is specious at best. Seeking to return to a strong ‘state’s rights’ position has no racist connotations. One of the central pillars of such a return is that most state’s rights advocates have lived their entire lives by careful financial planning and the avoidance of accumulating staggering amounts of debt, and saddling future generations with such, in such a cavalier, uncaring manner. Nowhere in the provided definition is there any mention requiring persons who disavow a belief in income re-distribution, social justice, or progressive tax rates to be defined as ‘racists’. That requirement exists only within your own muddled thought process.
My fervent belief that I should be allowed to remain in possession of the property I buy, and the wealth I generate, is not, and could never be defined by any reasonable person as racist.
You further state; “For secessionist conservatives, there would be nothing whatever wrong or undesirable about a Confederation of American States in which legally protected human rights would vary considerably from one state to another, depending upon the whims of a majority of voters in each state.” without bothering to give example. There is a legally protected human right to an abortion is there not? While I may philosophically disagree with such a provision; I don’t have the right to interfere with another’s choice to pursue such a procedure. I may only demand (yes demand) they pay for such out of their own pocket as I have a right to ensure my hard earned dollars don’t go toward a procedure I disagree with. Same with affirmative action. My Irish ancestors were persecuted upon their arrival. That documented persecution doesn’t buy me anything. It shouldn’t buy anyone else anything either. It seems what you decry most is a return to the original idea that we ensure equal opportunity for all as opposed to equal outcome for all.
“Such Balkanization might be great for conservatism, but it is absolutely lethal to the notion of the United States as a single nation.” I could not disagree more. You cannot attempt to unite this nation under an umbrella of entitlement. We constantly hear, particularly from the present administration that this is a democracy and that they are only trying to encourage more democracy. This is a republic. A democracy is mob rule. It is three wolves and a single sheep casting ballots on what’s for dinner. This is what we currently have. When 47% of the people in this country pay no federal income tax, yet may vote on program after program to add additional comfort to their already too comfortable lives; such a nation is already teetering on the brink of dissolution. You cannot ‘unite’ a country by making ‘entitlement slaves’ out of all of society’s productive members, forcing them to contribute to your schemes, in order to provide a façade of earned dignity to those who deliberately choose not to attempt to provide that dignity to themselves.
For instance health care. I walk into an emergency room for treatment and present my insurance card. The first thing the triage nurse asks for is the deductible. Barack Obama may provide all citizens with insurance by decree. But that ‘façade of dignity’ isn’t going to do that public uterus any goo when she walks into the emergency room and demands treatment for her ‘Daddy’s baby’ only to discover she is five tricks away from earning the $100 deductable.
The finality of this is that conservative beliefs cannot be defined as racism; and we no longer give credence to those that insist such is so.
Does any person who is blessed to be a citizen have possession of the natural rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Of course, as long as his pursuit of those rights does not interfere with any other person’s pursuit of those same rights. Expecting me to pay your rent, your food, your utilities, or your health care is you interfering with my rights; especially if you are refusing to attempt to provide these for yourself. That is not racist; it’s only common sense. It is nothing more than Darwin’s Theory. I’m certain you ascribe to Darwin: Then why eschew its most common manifestation? Whether Black, White, Brown, or Yellow; color makes no difference. These people fail the test of survival and the gene pool will not miss them. Unless you feel as if these people cannot possibly make it by relying on themselves. That they are ill equipped; mentally, physically, or emotionally, to fend for themselves and it is attendant upon the balance of society to carry them along, allowing them to bask in the false dignity we provide them through our own efforts. Who’s the racist now? The bigot that tells an African American aspirant that we’ll give him ‘extra’ credit for correct answers on the SAT/ACT. Or is it the bigot that tells the single mom with five kids by four different men that it’s not her fault she has ‘round heels’; society will care for your little ones.
Allow me to refer to one of the Ten Principles of Freedom http://www.freedomvrights.com/tenprinciplesone.html
Specifically principle 4: “No one person, group of people, or institution howsoever constituted (including government), has any authority, natural or otherwise, to compel another person, without that person's consent, to labor for any other person, group of people, or institution (including government), or to compel any person to surrender all or part of their labor, income or property to any other person, group of people, or institution (including government).” Period. To live by this is to embrace liberty, not racism.
The whole point of being a sovereign state, again, by definition, is that no other government controls your government. So, if a majority wanted slavery, slavery it could have.
The same could be said of the federal government we already have, or any other government anywhere, local or federal, foreign or domestic. Repeal two amendments to the federal constitution and presto-chango, you may constitutionally hold slaves again. That's why this red-herring argument has no real validity unless you accept the premise that everyone who lives below Connecticut harbors 200 year old racial animosity and wishes to re-enslave blacks, and that they are plotting to secede from the union in order to accomplish it. If you operate from that rather paranoid/delusional assumption, then secession becomes a purely racial issue, which makes for a convenient excuse to shout down an entire group of people as "racist" and dismiss any actual discussion of secession from a philosophical, legal, or modern political context.
why in the world do you think I reject universal human rights? If anything, many of my comments should make tolerably clear that I buy into the whole agenda of liberal universal rights. Whether such rights are 'natural' or not is a serious philosophical question, as is the question of whether belief in God is necessary to believe in human rights.
I'm sorry if I was presumptuous; I drew my conclusion based on the fact that you have explicitly repudiated natural rights theory many times on this very website. If rights are not "natural", if they are merely constructed, then they cannot by definition be "universal". I believe, though I'm not certain, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that you also rejected rationalism, which is the most commonly substituted secular explanation for "natural" and "universal" rights.
But really, let's cut through the rhetorical manure. Call them whatever you want, what you really object to is the idea that a modern secessionist state might institute laws that do not conform with your particular conception of non-natural, yet universal, fundamental, "human" rights like universal access to government-provided housing, healthcare, public transportation, food, daycare, university education, or any number of other programs designed to benefit one group at the expense of another. Slavery is nothing more than a strawman to justify your appeal to the necessity of an extra-constitutional federal government in modern politics. I wish you'd just be straight for once and admit it rather than put ridiculous arguments into the mouths of "conservatives" in general, and particular members here at this website, and then proceed on name-calling tirades based on arguments that were not advanced by anyone but yourself.
Patrick,
I have a question. Since Gestell says; “In practical political terms, I view rights as being related to needs…”
So; according to this theory, if we determine that we ‘need’ reasoned political discourse on the issues at hand, then we automatically have a right to such: Which would, in turn, actually preclude Gestell from ever posting comment to any article here ever again? To say that rights are ‘needs’ based is patently ridiculous! Almost as ridiculous as stating; “[I]t is an official pillar of conservative philosophy that states have a right to re-institute slavery…” wouldn’t you agree?
The crux of the argument here is that Gestell’s constant cries of racism and his repeated attempts to connect conservatism with slavery are Freudian in nature. Persons will most often accuse others of what they themselves would most readily do.
Gestell believes in slavery and you pegged it in your last post. All producing members of society are to be ‘enslaved’ to the moocher class to provide; “universal access to government (read looter)-provided housing, healthcare, public transportation, food, daycare, university education, or any number of other programs designed to benefit one group at the expense of another.” In other words; the looters will force the producers to support the wants of the moochers. This is Gestell’s democracy.
To say that I disagree with Gestell's concept of "rights" would be a monumental understatement. This is why a discussion with him of rights and the proper role of government is virtually impossible – we disagree too fundamentally on our basic assumptions. Needs-based "rights", or "positive" rights, are a farce if one understands, as all classical liberals (conservative or libertarian) do, the purpose of rights as protecting individual liberties from external intrusion (it is upon this conception of rights – negative, individual rights – that the United States government was conceived).
I mentioned this in another recent piece here where Mr. George Shadroui was advocating compromise between conservatives and liberals in modern politics. There are issues where compromise is impossible because each side's competing concepts are mutually exclusive. In the case of Gestell and the framers of the constitution, there is scarcely and issue where this isn't the case.
reply to Mr. Wavering:
Herewith a few responses to some of your criticisms. I'll put quotation marks around your comments.
"There is no way that anyone can provide a racist connotation to a strong belief in State’s rights!"
It wasn't all that long ago that a "strong belief in State's rights' was very clearly coordinated with racism in the South. Clearly, you weren't around when 'states' rights' was very plainly understood as the banner of pro-segregationists. In other words, the 'connotation' isn't something I invented; it was right back there in the 1950s and 60s—and furthermore, if you're half as smart as you claim, you know this as well as you know your own name.
" First of all; as an avowed left wing progressive I would say it is impossible for you to understand the mind of a right winger other than to assume (and we all know the definition of that word) that a right winger holds all the opposite beliefs that you do. You also have to ‘assume’ that all your beliefs are correct. Hubris!"
Now you're being difficult and refusing to play by even your own rules. It's very clear that you understand the minds of left-wingers—you say so all the time. And, it's clear, again from your own posts, that you do indeed hold "all the opposite beliefs" to mine. If you don't, then whyinhell are you writing your stuff? As for 'assuming' that all my beliefs are correct—after which you write "Hubris!", all I can say is Golly gee, you mean you don't assume all your own beliefs are correct? Isn't that what you say in post after post?
You manage to confuse 'states' rights' as a political position with personal thrift. What you really mean with this is that 'states' rights' just means whatever you happen to approve of.. You probably think that brushing your teeth after every meal is a 'states' rights' position too.
As for my alleged evil views, I've never said anything on IC to indicate that I favor income redistribution, and in fact I don't support it. Income redistribution is a huge, unwieldy, ineffective blunt instrument for social policy—it's like you using your .50 caliber handgun to kill mice. As for 'social justice,' I know that's an evil term for conservatives, but just try explaining to an average American citizen that your political persuasion calls for the elimination of government programs attempting to promote social justice. That will go down really well.
"My fervent belief that I should be allowed to remain in possession of the property I buy, and the wealth I generate, is not, and could never be defined by any reasonable person as racist."
Indeed, and I never did call it 'racist.' Now, is what you really mean that you should pay no taxes whatever, to any level of government? The 4th point from the list of 'Freedom' principles in your final comment makes your position very clear. You want to enjoy the benefits of the government—although you don't want to admit you get any—but don't think you should have to pay for any of them. There are a lot of words one could use to label that position, few of them complimentary.
You criticize me for not giving an example of what in fact does not yet exist, namely, a confederal system in which states are free to enforce varying sets of policies on human rights. Fortunately, I don't have to speculate, because one of the positions that some anti-abortion proponents (e.g., Justice Scalia) have long argued is that, in their view, the US should be a nation in which some states allow for abortion and others do not. What I'm saying is that the underlying principle that justifies such a condition has no built-in limitation. Why wouldn't some states just make homosexuality illegal and a capital offense? Why couldn't some states—in your new confederal America—make Judaism or Catholicism or racially-mixed marriages, or hazel eyes, illegal within their boundaries? You don't have a 'states' rights' argument against such a possibility. And, since confederal America would have nothing like the Constitution's supremacy clause, and certainly wouldn't have a Supreme Court that could hold laws of state governments unconstitutional, there would be no institutional recourse whatever for anyone unlucky enough to live in a state whose majority just might, one day, vote away his 'right' to exist at all.
As for abortion, haven't you heard of the Hyde Amendment, which has been in force for a few decades now? The feds can't pay for abortions. I'm pleasantly surprised when you write, on legal abortion:: "While I may philosophically disagree with such a provision; I don’t have the right to interfere with another’s choice to pursue such a procedure." This alone shows that your conservative credentials are a little shaky, although you're on fine libertarian grounds with your position. Many real conservatives think that it is precisely the task of government to interfere with someone's choice in this area. That's why we liberals like our (admittedly simplistic) slogan for conservatives: "Keep government out of the corporate boardroom, and get it back into the bedroom, where it really belongs." I wonder if James Dobson would even get this joke.
As for abortion, haven't you heard of the Hyde Amendment, which has been in force for a few decades now? The feds can't pay for abortions. I'm pleasantly surprised when you write, on legal abortion:: "While I may philosophically disagree with such a provision; I don’t have the right to interfere with another’s choice to pursue such a procedure." This alone shows that your conservative credentials are a little shaky, although you're on fine libertarian grounds with your position. Many real conservatives think that it is precisely the task of government to interfere with someone's choice in this area. That's why we liberals like our (admittedly simplistic) slogan for conservatives: "Keep government out of the corporate boardroom, and get it back into the bedroom, where it really belongs." I wonder if James Dobson would even get this joke.
"It seems what you decry most is a return to the original idea that we ensure equal opportunity for all as opposed to equal outcome for all."
Nowhere in any of my posts have I defended the impossible position of 'equal outcomes' or 'equal conditions.'The argument in Aristotle "Politics" (book 3)against a policy of constant equalization of wealth of citizens is actually far better than many later conservative takes on this. Nor does affirmative action require anything more than ensuring equal opportunity for all. When 'affirmative action' started being interpreted as requiring 'racial quotas,' it lost its original purpose.
I'm fairly sure, however, that you will find many things to object to about any policy that actually IS aimed at ensuring equal opportunity for all. I'm probably on safe ground in assuming that you dislike the Americans with Disabilities Act because it requires business owners to serve the disabled, put in handicapped parking, ramps, and other evil intrusions of the nanny state. I'm sure you find that the ADA interferes with your freedom so much you can hardly wait until you can abolish it. Just send those greedy cripples to the back bedroom where they belong! Hey, maybe you can get some Tea Party friend to put that slogan on his sign!
Next time you go to an emergency room, read the little sign that explains that you have a 'right' to emergency treatment regardless of the source of your payment, or whether you can pay at all. The law that set that requirement up was signed by none other than the Ultimate Dead Conservative, Ronald Regan. I guess the guy really was a covert Communist, after all.
I thought the new conservative wisdom was that progressives were the original eugenicists—Jonah Goldberg bloviates at inordinate length on this claim in "Liberal Fascism." Your comments on those who "fail the tests of survival" shows that conservative eugenics is alive and well. Would you like to go back to the policy of forced sterilization that many states had until fairly recent times? If Goldberg is correct, then you'd be joining the Left with such a move.
"Does any person who is blessed to be a citizen have possession of the natural rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Of course, as long as his pursuit of those rights does not interfere with any other person’s pursuit of those same rights."
You missed a chance to get to the real issue: What does 'interference" consist of? For you any and all taxation appears to constitute 'interference.' So, I guess this means that the part of your tax dollar that supports research into the possible effects of solar coronal mass ejection on the nation's energy grid, the Internet, and computers just pains you so much and you just want to be able to decide where each of your tax dollars –if any—should go. And God forbid that any of your tax dollars goes to assist anyone who has suffered economically because of the Gulf oil spill. And while you're at it, you probably want to call back that escaped tax dollar that made it into the small business loan that the guy down the street got from the gubment.
I'm old enough to remember the mocking that "National Review" writers used to hurl against liberals in the 1960s who wanted to hold out the percentage of their income tax that they thought went to the Pentagon as a protest against the Vietnam war. Unpatriotic! UnAmerican! How dare people refuse to be responsible for supporting their country! Now why shouldn't we liberals turn around and bite conservatives like you who seem like they're operating with the same set of ideas?
I apologize for my cut and paste error that duplicated one of my paragraphs. Hey, twice as much for Mr. Wavering to object to!
Gestell,
My first question would be; is there a difference between a segregationist and a racist? The MSM has already bent itself into a pretzel trying to establish that the rantings of King Samir Shabazz cannot be racist because a black man cannot be racist. Second question: If King Samir Shabazz’s statements regarding the killing of ‘crackers’ and urging blacks to kill both the ‘crackers’ and their offspring, I wonder what his position is on segregation is, huh?
I believe you are confused over my opinion regarding state’s rights and personal thrift. What I’m attempting to outline is not a prejudice against a particular race, but a prejudice against an attitude or mind set. My belief is that the fifty states do indeed have the ability to refuse a federal mandate.
As for taxes; I don’t mind paying what would be constitutionally considered as my fair share in accordance with the ‘equal apportionment’ clause; but we both know that is not enforced. Reports of 47% of the citizen population not paying income taxes last year are all over the news sites. This is a figure that is not in dispute. It has been said that, under the right circumstances, a family of four making $50,000 per year can pay no tax.
“The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.” http://20smoney.com/2010/04/08/how-a-family-of-four-making-50k-can-pay-zero-income-taxes/
I payed $1,458 last year on an AGI of $21,800. So I figure I’m already paying fairly. My beef is with what the federal government spends those tax dollars of mine on. Common defense; fine. Congressional salaries; OK why not. Department of Education; definitely not. The Dept. of Education has bought us nothing but mediocre results and more highly centralized control.
There were over 177,000 individual school boards in 1944; there are just a few more than 17,000 today. A reduction of 90%. The average amount of money that the Department of Education contributes to any one school district amounts to @ 7 cents on the dollar. The overwhelming amount of budget money for these districts comes from county residents. Yet the federal government mandates a plethora of programs, edicts, and social engineering issues that school districts must participate in; just for that 7 cents. On top of that, the results we get out of our schools is appalling. I don’t have to really go any farther than asking you to check out how much the remedial programs have expanded in your own institution and how much you’ve had to adjust curriculum to accommodate students in the last generation.
You say that you personally do not favor income redistribution. Social justice includes income redistribution by definition. “Social justice – The fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.” Is wealth an asset?
“Fortunately, I don't have to speculate, because one of the positions that some anti-abortion proponents (e.g., Justice Scalia) have long argued is that, in their view, the US should be a nation in which some states allow for abortion and others do not.” I agree with this statement of Justice Scalia entirely. Abortion should have always been a state’s rights issue. Some states would have generated extremely liberal abortion policy. One could reasonably imagine a ‘laboratory of liberalism’ such as California allowing the state sponsorship and state payment of abortion services all the way up to partial birth. Other states, such as Utah may have outlawed the procedure altogether. Still others would have fallen in between these two extremes. People could have voted with their feet, moving to the state whose law best reflected their personal feeling. That would have been an exercise in liberty. But no, that’s not what happened! We got a ‘one-size-fits-all’ national solution that severely curtails my philosophical belief. But what we got was an exercise in judicial mandate; and over half the nation was alienated.
“As states roll out their newly mandated high-risk pools under Obamacare, a troubling trend is emerging. Pennsylvania and Maryland initially announced on their websites that their plans would cover elective abortions. Additionally, New Mexico posted a draft summary of its high-risk pool services that listed elective abortion as a part of its covered services.
The reaction from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the White House was complete silence. It was not until the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) called out those states that a spokesperson for the HHS announced that abortions will not be covered in the federally funded high-risk pools, except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the mother would be endangered.” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38291 No mention of that damnable Hyde Amendment until forced to do so.
Neither these states, nor the federal government bothered to qualify these statements regarding abortion funding until forced to do so. One could reasonable conclude that they would gladly fund such procedures if they could just get those awful ‘right-to-lifers’ to shut the hell up.
With regard to your question of homosexuality; some states probably will not allow sanction to such relationships, some will opt for civil unions, and some will opt for defining it as marriage. Once again people of all political and sexual persuasions can vote with their feet and move to the area that best represents their view. I fail to see the problem; other than the fact that you feel that if a gay couple wants to reside in a gay restrictive state that it is incumbent upon all 3 million in the state to shut up, ignore their philosophy, and accommodate that specific couple. I say “Road apples!” This is nothing more than the tyranny of the minority. Let’s make three hundred, or three hundred thousand, or three million uncomfortable so that two or four may feel included.
If that is really the way you feel, travel to Tehran (where they, by the way, say homosexuality doesn’t even exist as it is only a Western ‘problem’) and demonstrate for gay rights. If you have no problem forcing tens of millions of people to part with their beliefs in order to please only 7% of this nation’s population, well Iran’s population is only a little north of 70 million. An easier challenge than 52% of 310 million wouldn’t you say?
We both know the real reason you refuse to show the courage of such a conviction, and it has little to do with the price of airfare. It does however; have everything to do with the distinct habit of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his followers of tossing such protestors off of ten story buildings.
The progressive political philosophy is constantly insisting that we forcibly contribute to help all who merely stretch out their hand, regardless of true need. Any perceived need qualifies. Such a philosophy may be compared to the burden of proof in capital murder cases; “It is better that ten guilty men go free than we execute one innocent man by mistake.” “It is better that ten who scam the system extract benefits than to allow one who truly need them to fall through the cracks.”
This is nuts. I remember what it was like when most charity was local. My mother saw a child at our bus stop once that did not have a brown bag lunch. She made an extra lunch each school day for the next three months and it was my job (I was in second grade) to ensure that child got that lunch each day. The rest of the neighborhood would routinely place bags of groceries on the door step of that house until their father found another job.
There were also persons who lived down by the tracks in tents. We called them bums. They didn’t’ get a lot of assistance from the community; in fact there were vagrancy laws on the books to ensure they kept moving.
Today I don’t have to go too far to find families taking advantage of our ‘assistance’ programs. Families who routinely brag about how they can ‘juice’ the system for help with rent, food, medical care, telephone, and many other things. They say “Why should I work? All this stuff is free!” I say they should be living under a bridge somewhere, and subject to those old time vagrancy laws. Moses said; “Mount your ass and load your camel and I will lead you to the promised land.” Obama says; “Sit on your ass and light up a camel, this is the promised land!”
“Why wouldn't some states just make homosexuality illegal and a capital offense? Why couldn't some states—in your new confederal America—make Judaism or Catholicism or racially-mixed marriages, or hazel eyes, illegal within their boundaries? You don't have a 'states' rights' argument against such a possibility.” I most certainly do. Once again, with persons able to vote with their feet, how populated would a state be today if run by the Taliban?
As a state loses population; it also loses the ability to continue to be viable. All the above exclusions you outline could only occur, and indeed do occur, in Islamic countries. I think it goes a little over the top to equate conservatism with Sharia.
“Nowhere in any of my posts have I defended the impossible position of 'equal outcomes' or 'equal conditions.” Once again; social justice encompasses these. So unless you are ready to eschew the premise of social justice, we can do nothing else other than to ascribe such things as falling under your umbrella of belief.
“I'm probably on safe ground in assuming that you dislike the Americans with Disabilities Act because it requires business owners to serve the disabled, put in handicapped parking, ramps, and other evil intrusions of the nanny state.” Yes I do object to the ADA, because it requires a business owner to ‘serve’. No one should be able to tell a business owner how to run his business.
“43 million are disabled, about 17% of 250 million; almost 1 out of 5 persons
are disabled given these figures.” http://codi.buffalo.edu/graph_based/.demographics/.statistics.htm
Should the US government mandate that all businesses in the US ‘serve’ the 17% of the population that requires it? The building I work in had such accouterments when I began working here in 2000. The ramps have never been used by a handicapped person. So the question is; how many tens of millions of dollars should be spent to make each and every building in the US handicapped accessible? If persons who own businesses want to make the investment because they are shooting for that demographic customer base fine. Also if disabled persons decide to spend their money where they are accommodated and withhold purchases from businesses that don’t accommodate them, that is fine also. It is a decision that each business/property owner and business patron may make. But to mandate such across the country, just in case a disabled person might choose to wander by one day is, in my opinion, supercilious.
“Next time you go to an emergency room, read the little sign that explains that you have a 'right' to emergency treatment regardless of the source of your payment, or whether you can pay at all.” So, then why do we need nationalized health care?
There is a difference between eugenics and Darwin. Darwin, as previously stated is ‘survival of the fittest’ and a natural process. Eugenics is a human guided process. Eugenics is more rightly what a person such as Margaret Sanger; both a eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood I might add might promote.
“And God forbid that any of your tax dollars goes to assist anyone who has suffered economically because of the Gulf oil spill.” Agreed; that sounds like BP’s issue, not mine.
I also don’t know why you want me to be concerned with a potential solar CME. Because of where we live, we’re already mostly self sufficient. We have a well, a septic system and an emergency generator that will provide power as we see fit. Frankly, I live so far outside town that all we can get is dial-up and I don’t use that but maybe once a month. I don’t think a solar CME would hurt us at all; we’ll keep picking vegetables out of the garden, slaughtering and smoking meat, drinking from the well, and muddling along just as we’ve always done. Now you city folk; with only a three day supply of food on the market shelves, and with limited back-up potential for the reservoir pumps might be a little more concerned about a solar CME. Well, pay for the study. Me; I don’t much concern myself with it. I invested in my emergency back-ups already; and didn’t ask you to help with the well or generator. Why should you have the right to say; “He’s taken care of himself, now he has to help take care of me too!” No I don’t. All I need after everything else is the ability to ensure that those that didn’t’ plan for the emergency stay the hell off my property; something I’ve also ensured I have the ability to do.
Gestell,
“Fortunately, I don't have to speculate, because one of the positions that some anti-abortion proponents (e.g., Justice Scalia) have long argued is that, in their view, the US should be a nation in which some states allow for abortion and others do not.” I happen to agree with this statement from Justice Scalia. If abortion had been left to the states some would have opted for very liberal interpretations; allowing abortion all the way to partial birth and allowing for the state to pay for such procedures. Other states would have severely restricted both the circumstances of abortion and the funding mechanism. People could have voted with their feet, moving to the states where their personal philosophy was most clearly reflected. Instead; we got a ’one-size-fits-all’ solution that ignores the ideological and religious feelings of tens of millions of people. I’m fairly certain this causes you no concern as it is not your ox being gored.
The same with homosexuality. If left to the states, several different interpretations will emerge. Just as in abortion; there is no reason to force the tyranny of the minority on a majority of citizens. Proposition 8 passed in California by 52%. 52% of the US population is 161,200,000. Should all those people be forced to abandon their ideological, political, and religious beliefs in order to accommodate the feelings of a group that makes up no more than 7% of the present population?
“Nowhere in any of my posts have I defended the impossible position of 'equal outcomes' or 'equal conditions.” You are a proponent of social justice are you not? Social Justice, in the most basic of terms, may be defined as; “…the fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.” Are you now going to back away from your support of social justice?
“I'm probably on safe ground in assuming that you dislike the Americans with Disabilities Act because it requires business owners to serve the disabled…” Once again you are correct. The ADA is not about opportunity. The ADA requires business owners to comply with arbitrary regulations regardless of their personal business strategy. If a business owner wants to pursue that demographic, he will accommodate them. Likewise; a disabled person will patronize the businesses that choose to accommodate him. The answer is NOT to force private business concerns to make tens of millions of dollars worth of alterations on the outside chance that, one day, a disabled person may stroll (or roll) by. I’ve been working in the same building for over a decade. We have two handicapped ramps that probably cost us in excess of $30,000 to construct in order to be ADA compliant. The only person I’ve seen use this ramp is the guy that fills the soda machines in the break room, and he looks fairly healthy.
Finally; “So, I guess this means that the part of your tax dollar that supports research into the possible effects of solar coronal mass ejection on the nation's energy grid, the Internet, and computers just pains you so much and you just want to be able to decide where each of your tax dollars –if any—should go.”
Let me tell you something. I could not possibly care less about a solar CME; for several reasons.
• We live so far out in the country I have to use dial-up, and I only engage that about once a month.
• We have a well, a septic system, and our own emergency power system.
• We have 50 gallons of diesel, 50 gallons of regular, and 500 gallons of propane on site
• We raise a significant portion of our own vegetables, and our own meat as well.
I don’t think a solar CME is going to disturb us at all. The EPS fires itself (and yes the regulatory circuits are in contained in a Faraday Cage). Chances are good our vintage 1960 Chevy truck will still run as well.
We’ll keep pumping water, flushing toilets, taking showers, drinking water, picking vegetables, and smoking meat. You, on the other hand may have a genuine concern regarding this solar CME because there is only two days worth of food on the store shelf and no water or sanitary systems once your power goes out. I’ll begin to fret over what may become of you right after you ensure my house has broadband, OK?
You missed a chance to get to the real issue: What does 'interference" consist of? For you any and all taxation appears to constitute 'interference.'
In the same way that, for you liberals, wearing a pair of unseen boxer shorts with a small "t" that could possibly be confused with a crucifix appears to consist of state endorsement of religion. If we're just going to hurl around mindless caricatures, there you have it. All small "t's" are religious symbols to liberals, and all taxes are infringements of individual liberty to conservatives. We let babies die in the streets of malnourishment, you show children pornography in public libraries and send people to jail for praying. No wonder politics is so divisive. Who shall save us?
I'm old enough to remember the mocking that "National Review" writers used to hurl against liberals in the 1960s who wanted to hold out the percentage of their income tax that they thought went to the Pentagon as a protest against the Vietnam war… Now why shouldn't we liberals turn around and bite conservatives like you who seem like they're operating with the same set of ideas?
Because, being enamored as you are of centralized government with the unlimited and exclusive power to tax and spend at its whim, you might just end up looking like a bunch of silly hypocrites?