A popular “question” raised by the conservatives in light of the G20 protests is, why aren’t the Democrats and liberals criticizing the G20 protests like they did the 9/12 protests? Of course, the answer from the conservative mind is that the G20 protests, some of which were violent, were liberal protests. In other words, conservatives say the liberals agree with the G20 protests. Furthermore, conservatives are using this unanswered “question” as an example of Democratic and liberal hypocrisy.
Well, the Democrat leaders did criticize the Town Halls and 9/12 protests. They (with whom I agree on the following point) believe the 9/12 Patriot movement is bringing the fringe into the mainstream and stirring up anger based on false claims and misleading fear tactics. The final result of fueling the far-right conservative fire, many fear, is violence; a fear that is justified by far-right rhetoric and references to “revolt” and “taking back the country.” I think there are some dangerous ideas flying around throughout the conservative movement (I hate calling them ‘conservative,’ since they are not really conservatives, but rather traditionalist Christian nationalists, or simply ignorant pop-conservatives), and I think we should criticize it so that we are aware of it. But, to the conservatives’ favor, this movement has yet to become violent and remained peaceful during their 75,000 person march on D.C.
The G20 protests, however, have not been as peaceful. There have been a great deal of protests taking place without permits, and some serious confrontation has taken place. Yet, there has been no criticism of the protests from the left. So, why not? Well, I’ll tell you why and it’s not because the protests are liberal, as the pop-cons want you to believe.
Every major meeting of the world’s leaders brings out every political movement or protest you can imagine, not just “lefties.” In Pittsburgh, it’s no different. They range from liberal activists such as socialists, environmentalists, human rights activists, and fair trade supporters to rightwing activists such as pro-lifers, religious groups, anarchists, fascists and anti-socialists (and by fascist, I’m actually talking about those who identify themselves as fascists, not the politically diluted term thrown around all the time), and isolationists. And, of course the most prominent, those protesting globalism: from the left, it is those who protest global capitalism, and from the right, it is those who protest a global political community. Finally, the protestors aren’t just Americans; there are many people and political activists that travel the world to protest.
So, that’s why the Democrats aren’t criticizing the movement. (1) It’s expected at the G20; (2) the protestors range from the liberal to conservative activists, and; (3) they aren’t all Americans.
Last night a friend of mine hypothesized, “Don’t you think that if Obama, or any politician, would just speak in the terms of the common man, explaining exactly what’s going on, then they would be much more appreciated or successful?” Sure, look at Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. They appeal to the “common man,” with the idea of “common sense” government.
Both Palin and Beck have appealed to many people who want “common sense” government. Much of the attraction to Sarah Palin is that she “speaks to the common person.” Beck wrote a book, a rip from Thomas Paine, Common Sense. However, the underlying problem with this whole idea and/or desire for “common sense” is the simple fact that, well, governance is not common sense.
The idea of ‘common sense’ government lacks reality in that it appeals simply to naivete and broad, unfounded assumptions. Government is aghast in conflicting variables and ideologies. It is strategic, tedious, and experimental. It involves foreign policy and defense, theories of justice and law, economic speculation and theory, intelligence, ideology, and leadership. It is, perhaps more than most leadership fields, so meticulous that the very idea of ‘simple solutions and common sense’ is nothing but empty, stupid words.
We can’t have people leading government, the United States, on their own ‘common sense.’ Just because you don’t understand political science theory or the role and impact of government, doesn’t mean that government has become to ‘complicated,’ and thus we should return it to ‘common sense.’ No, it means either you should learn more about government and political science, so maybe you can understand what policy makers are saying
So lots of attention has been given to the Obama birth certificate controversy lately. Perhaps it is a sign that this intellectual movement is gaining some serious momentum.
The issue of concern is fundamentally whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States, and thus whether or not he is qualified to be the President of the United States.
During the presidential election campaigns, the issue was addressed by Obama’s team who released a copy of Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth. Naturally, skeptics believed it was not legitimate–in fact, a forgery.
So, Factcheck.org decided to take on the issue. Factcheck.org staff members traveled to Chicago, inspected and photographed the COLB, confirmed its authenticity of its authenticity and concluded Barack Obama is, in fact, a natural born U.S. citizen.
Despite Factcheck’s efforts, some of the birthers maintained their skepticism by arguing the Factcheck is liberal and bias, and in the bed for Barack Obama. Others forged ahead claiming that the COLB is a short-form BC (as opposed to a long-form), and thus insufficient evidence of Obama’s U.S. birth. Finally, the State Health Department of Hawaii issued several statements concerning the skepticism, saying the Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that the COLB is a legitimate and legal Birth Certificate.
But still, many aren’t buying it.
Several reputable news organizations such as CNN, Politco, and others have addressed the issue, while bias political entertainers who consistently promote falsehoods have continued to promote it.
Then recently, this happened and has since received a ton of coverage:
What I find to be most interesting is that the birthers, such as this woman, are demanding a long-form BC with the doctor’s name, hospital, and witnesses, as well as school records and a bunch of other ‘evidence.’ They are hard to impress; they need undeniable evidence that BO was born in the US. But… in the last part of her first statement:
He is not an American citizen. He is a citizen of Kenya.
What? Really? Given the birthers strict standards for what evidence is considered sufficient for proof of citizenship, I can only imagine that they must have overwhelming evidence of Obama’s Kenyan birth and/or citizenship.
A translation that supposedly suggests that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said she was present for Obama’s birth in Kenya. That’s all the evidence you need? A translation, which has been reported as a false (or at least misunderstood or distorted), is the solid proof the Obama was born in Kenya.
I just have to say, what the fuck?!
I mean how one-sided and hypocritical can you be?! You are skeptical of the Hawaii Health Department, a legal and legitimate COLB, Factcheck.org and other evidence, but a translation of an interview with Obama’s Kenyan grandmother that can be interpreted (if you know what you want to hear) as her saying Obama was born in Kenya is all the evidence you need to conclude Obama was born in Kenya.
Give me a break. I don’t know if it is racism, fear of difference, or just lack of critical thinking skills (combined with gullability) that makes people buy into this bullshit; but I do know that this movement is scary, ignorant, and irrational.
I just want to point out the type of discussions The Fox Nation incites. Do tell, is this really safe to foster such hateful discussion? Is it okay to feed people’s fear, anger, and delusions with disinformative headlines and misleading information?
Look at how these people talk about the President. Look at how people talk about liberals (which, quite frankly, is anything left of the very far right), homosexuals, blacks, and Muslims. I support free speech, but a News organization ought to have some integrity. Making political, social, national and international affairs into tabloid material of the likes of celebrity gossip is very, very dangerous. Headlines and comments follow Read the rest of this entry »
Since I only have your attention for a few seconds before you decide whether to continue reading or to leave, I’m sparing an introduction to my discussion and telling you right now what I am going to argue.
Pure laissez-faire capitalism, constitutional libertarianism, and libertarian-anarchy are not practical political and economic theories.
Now, if you have decided to stay and read, I hope you feel inclined to comment, question, and/or challenge my argument after reading it.
This is a President. Integrity. Pride. Intellectual Honesty.
“What makes the United States special, and what makes you special, is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy; even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when it’s expedient to do so. That’s what makes us different.
“So, yes, you’ve got a harder job. And so do I. And that’s okay, because that’s why we can take such extraordinary pride in being Americans. And over the long term, that is why I believe we will defeat our enemies, because we’re on the better side of history.
“So don’t be discouraged by what’s happened in the last few weeks. Don’t be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we’ve made some mistakes. That’s how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that’s why you should be proud to be members of the CIA.”
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a male or female person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. (U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984)
Now, a lot of people are arguing that it wasn’t torture, or that there should be an exception because it is a matter of national security. That may be fodder for good debate, but let’s get one thing straight: if those of you who believe these methods were not torture, or that there should be an exception, I hope you aren’t also someone who defends “American Values,” because if so, you are in some hot water.
Glenn Beck has outlined the American Principles and Values in the now infamous 912 Project.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
And, to support this principle we have a quote from a founder:
“I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson
To elaborate on this principle, let’s look at our favorite founder, George Washington:
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.” – George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
And….
“‘Treat them [prisoners of war] with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army in their treatment of our unfortunate brethren who have fallen into their hands,’ he wrote. In all respects the prisoners were to be treated no worse than American soldiers; and in some respects, better. Through this approach, Washington sought to shame his British adversaries, and to demonstrate the moral superiority of the American cause.” -George Washington to his troops regarding prisoners of war
And so, you have it. Torture is not an American Value, it is illegal internationally and in the United States, and Glenn Beck tells it like it is: if you commit a crime or break the law, you accept the punishment. Justice is blind.
Unless, “When the President does it, it is NOT illegal” – Richard Nixon
Besides the usual daily commentary throughout the week, I will also be posting a new article each day. So come check them out and give me your thoughts.
Tuesday: Who John Galt is Not, practical economic policy and conservatism in relation to Austrian economics and the growing libertarian movement in the United States.
Wednesday: The Moderate, political and ideological polarization in the United States and why we must inject Aristotelian moderation in the mainstream exchange of ideas.
Thursday: Be Wary of Attacks on Academia, academics and educators are facing a wave of attacks from ideologues, a sign of political collectivism that must be stopped…or else.
Friday: The Weekly Top Five Distractions, a list of the week’s top five winners, losers, and the good, bad, and ugly talking points.
The Top Five of the Week! Every Friday I’m putting together a Top Five list of the winners, the losers, the good AND bad talking points of the past week.
It’s been a pretty crazy week in the world and I hope to do some justice (or complete injustice) to all of this week’s events. So here it goes…
