|
Phoenix
|
Ahh, one I can't resist squawking some commentary about. Tab, you do find great discussion material. 
Well, the whole flag-burning rant to me just sounds like attention-whoring and rationalization. In the Bible the apostle Paul talks about eating food that's offered before idols, and how there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it because, after all, idols aren't real gods (and why waste the food) but if it causes a fellow believer grief by doing so, it's best not to do it in front of them. This is the attitude I take toward flag burning. Sure, people have the right, but if you know it's going to hurt someone by doing it, why do it? Must people go out of their way to cram "their rights" up other people's noses? This is the biggest problem I see with people's attitudes today. We live in a "ME FIRST" world, where people make demand after demand, and give nothing in return. People only care about what they want, and very often do not consider the consequences of their actions in regards to how it will affect other people. I have every right to burn a Koran, but why would I do it? It's just a book to me, it holds no value, yet I know to someone else it's something sacred. I wouldn't take a chainsaw to a totem pole, nor would I burn the Iranian flag (though I'd like to burn the Iranian leadership). Someone who burns a flag "because they can", to me, is showing nothing but their absolute inconsideration and apathy toward those who hold it sacred. It certainly speaks volumes about the person.
As for the Federal Government, let's not forget recent history. Bush isn't doing anything worse than any other US president as far as I can see. Let's not forget who sold reactor technology to North Korea, who sold missile technology to Communist China, and who took bribes from the Chinese government and made China the US's most favored trading partner while the Chinese were stealing nuclear secrets out from under his nose. That same China is now sabre-rattling about invading Taiwan in 2 years, and they'll have the military might to do it and I doubt the US would really be able or willing to engage in a full-scale war WITH China to protect a small territory that far away, especially with the US military fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan (something I'm sure the Chinese are counting on). All governments fo bad things, and all presidents make very bad decisions, but I'd say giving your enemies the technology to annihilate your citizenry is downright treasonous whereas appointing an oil man to the EPA seat could just be considered very poor judgement. Strategically the US is in a very bad spot right now, but this did not happen overnight.
At the same time, we have to keep in mind that the US economy seems to be the Sacred Cow as an election issue, and any president is now going to do everything to keep that going, no matter what it takes and that includes circumventing environmental laws. Remember than in the 1990's the election slogan was "It's the Economy, stupid." The entire concept of "free trade" has pushed money out of the US and into the pockets of foreign countries. At the same time US stock market balloons, the US population lost manufacturing jobs as they were shipped offshore. The entire US economy shifted from being industrially based to being consumer based. Now the fatcat shareholders have become addicted to the +10000 Dow and that attitude is going to steamroller any environmental concern every single time. There's also bad environmental policy, like the Kyoto treaty which does absolutely nothing to regulate the major polluters in the world, such as the Chinese and third-world countries that are in the process of industrializing. All it does is punish the US, which already has some very strict laws regarding environmental emissions. They just had a recent scientific report that the air is actually cleaner now than it was 10 years ago, and they're saying this clean air is allowing more sunlight to reach the ground, making global warming worse! So which is it, pollution causes global warming, or clean air? You just can't win, no matter what you do. Not only that, but these "carbon taxes" would stifle economic development of new technologies, like hydrogen-based fuel cells and hybrid vehicles, which it's mainly US environmental regulations that are pushing auto makers toward these technologies. It's just a bad treaty, there are other and better ways to help the environment. I also just read a report about windfarms killing my fellow birds of prey so not all "green" technologies are good ones. Logic - not emotion and feel-good rhetoric - need to drive these decisions. Sadly, that's rarely how it works.
It is true that the US government is a Constitutional Republic. There's a reason for this the article author misses entirely. Pure Democracy is majority rule. It's MOB rule when you get down to it. If every person has the same say, then minorities get shut out. You'd have no Civil Rights movement, no Dr. King, no Malcolm X that could affect opinion enough to change the law. You'd have to change the opinions of the majority of the population instead, so what is right and just would always fall in favor of what is popular. The US is also a federation of separate states. It was originally agreed upon that states would have many more rights and the Federal government would have almost no power. Well, the old Confederation (prior to the South's Confederacy, this is prior to the US Constitution) was failing miserably so the US Constitution was drafted in such a way that states and individual citizens would have all rights not specifically granted to the Federal government, but the Federal Government would be able to regulate interstate commerce (one of the major pitfalls of the original confederation) as well as protect the entire Union. The idea behind representation was that representatives could be elected and dismissed by the people on a regular basis. The author was correct in his assessment there. Unfortunately the politicians managed to weasel more and more power away from the people and the states. Ever hear the term Gerrymandering? Politicians rezone voting districts in ways to ensure they will stay in office. Because they get a hefty enough salary and lifetime pensions, and wield tremendous power, they have a good incentive to stay in office. Benjamin Franklin was opposed to hefty Congressional pay, he wanted them to receive the common man's wage so that only those who really wanted to serve would be weeded out from the fatcat powermongers. Well, we know how that went over.
The biggest problem with any government is human nature. Power corrupts, and corruptible people are drawn to power. No system of government is perfect, and historically mankind has done a poor job governming himself. Government has historically always trampled on the rights of the populace, eventually the populace gets sick of it and revolts, or the people become so apathetic that the society collapses from internal and external pressures. This is why the founders of the United States wrote the Bill of Rights and wrote as many protections as they could think of into the Constitution was to try to protect against tyranny and oppression, at the same time protecting against mob rule and knee-jerk emotional reactionary decision making. The President was given decision making authority in times of crisis because committees are slow and indecisive, but in peace time that's exactly what you want - slow, careful thought, so the President's powers are checked by the Congress and the Court. Partisanship, lobbying, and the basic nature of corruptibility is what's dragged the system into becoming the bloated bureaocracy that it is today, and now the Courts pretty much rule over everything because nobody can challenge their decisions (see the Supreme Court fight that's going on for proof of that). Bush's government isn't any more or less corrupt than administrations prior, we just have more critical voices at this time, especially with the explosion of blogging. We have just as many voices critical of the other side of the aisle. That's a far cry from true facism. Look at what Nazi Germany, and the USSR did to political dissenters. As long as people can still speak out I'd say there's a great deal of freedom left. If they start rounding up bloggers, pundits, and Joe Citizen for having an opinion contrary to whoever is in office, Republican or Democrat, then it's time for an armed revolt. That is, if you can still bear arms by that point.
|
