The most fascinating of these abilities is their use of “Obi-Wan Minus the Force”. Read about that here… “Not the Global Warming Liars You are Looking For”.
Then there’s the lying to cover up you true feelings. This is a bit more understandable. It’s a bit more common in human nature and a survival instinct. You want to be accepted for whatever reason within a group, so you lie to fit in or at least not be ostracized. The only problem is this works just fine with individuals but is harder to pull off as a group. The reason is simple. Every now and then one of the group thinks there among trusted friends or one of the group gets a little tipsy and spills the beans. With liberals, it happens all the time.
It happened with Obama in San Francisco when he was explaining to his kind of people the mentality of the peasants in the small towns of fly-over country. “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” That was never meant for the peasants to hear…
A recent case in point… Liberals hate the Constitution of the United States of America. Yeah, I know, hate is probably too strong a word for some of them… but at best they think it is antiquated and should be revised and/or interpreted to fit this new enlightened era we live in.
This is in direct contrast to conservatives AND much of the voting public who see the U.S. Constitution as a timeless document, that has seen us through 200 years of peace and prosperity; a document as relevant today as the day it was pinned.
Liberals can’t come out and say this… it hurts election chances. They must pretend to revere the Constitution as they do the flag, or the pledge of allegiance. If only the peasants could see how antiquated all this patriotism is…
Recently the New York Times decided it was time to try and nudge the peasants along. Maybe some of this reverence for the Constitution could be torn down. The article stated that the U.S. Constitution isn’t used as a model anymore when other countries are writing founding documents. It just doesn’t guarantee the rights that the world takes for granted in these more enlightened days.
A Professor Law from the New York University Law Review sited lots of reasons not to use the U.S. Constitution. He cited the old fogies on our Supreme Court having the gall to interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning as sending a signal that it is of little use today. He compared it to Windows 3.1 in a Windows 7 world. He said there are “newer”, “sexier”, “more powerful” constitutions to choose from out there today.
What a moron? This is the kind of professors we have today in the likes of New York University?
Of course that’s not all, recently Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in Egypt (in early Feb. 2012), smeared our founding document by saying, “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.β She cited several other recent documents that would better fit the times.
What it comes down to is this. The left thinks the U.S. constitution is a very flawed document. That is why they try to tear it down. That is why they try to weaken it by declaring it a “living” document”. That is why they depend on their judges to read into it things that are not there. If they had their way, they would replace it with something completely different; a foundation of “rights” and guarantees to food, shelter, medical care, abortion on demand, free marriage, all provided by an unfettered federal government. They would do away with that pesky 2nd Amendment enjoyed by rednecks and other buffoons. That is what their actions would be if they had a choice.
And it also comes down to this… the left can’t be honest about what they would like to do; what they would do if they thought they could get away with it. They must pretend to respect and even revere the Constitution; while chipping away at it with activist judges, and subversive New York Times articles quoting unqualified Supreme Court Judges and morons from Ivy League ivory towers.
Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. — Robert A. Heinlein
Interesting quote. Seems to me that both major American parties want to control people; one socially, one financially.
But, in fairness, I can’t imagine how a party would exist that didn’t want to have some control over people (call it influence, if you like). I just don’t think it would attract enough people to exist as a major force (the lament of the Libertarians).
People want to control other people — or perhaps be safe from them, is a better way to say it. So Heinlein’s quote is thought-provoking, but, I think, not practical.
(But it does make me want to go re-read his stuff. It’s been a while.)
>Yeah, I know, hate is probably too strong a word for some of them⦠but at best they think it is antiquated and should be revised and/or interpreted to fit this new enlightened era we live in.
It does need to be revised, now and again. And there’s a process for that: Get 2/3 of the full Congress to agree, and get 3/4 of the States to ratify it, typically within seven years.
That’s nearly impossible to do… and maybe that’s for the best. But there is some silly, antiquated crap still around that I wish we could amend more quickly, like the electoral college. We’re the only nation in existence that still uses one to elect our leader. It’s silly, and antiquated, and got GW Bush elected. That’s reason enough to ratify an amendment in support of a popular vote. π
We’ve had three Amendments ratified in our lifetimes. Only one was meaningful (26th: 18 years olds can vote); the other two were about tweaking the process of presidential succession, and senator’s salaries — nothing that really impacted the typical American.
It’s time to make some more, truly meaningful adjustments that reflect majority American values, just as we’ve made changes to allow women to vote and slaves to be free. The obvious example: Equal rights for all adult citizens/non-felons, regardless of sexual orientation.
>Maybe some of this reverence for the Constitution could be torn down.
I see the Constitution as important and worthy of respect, but not reverence. God didn’t create it; people did. Many of them prayed about it while crafting it, and I consider that a good thing, but I don’t like the trend of turning the Founding Fathers into the Disciples, and the Constitution into the Bible. That’s the sort of thinking that turned Iran from a place of commerce and intellectual advancement into the theocratic dump it is now.
So, I don’t hold it against Ginsburg that she would go with something more modern. The Founders did exactly that. They didn’t copy their Constitution from the Magna Carta. They took the better ideas from it, and made something new that suited their time and place.
It reminds me of the reverence many Christians feel for the 1611 translation of the Bible (we call it the King James Version, but the Brits call it the Authorized Version). That, in its time, was a modern/progressive translation. They used the most recent scholarship, and put it in the common langauge of the day. There was nothing stilted or noble about it; that was the way people spoke English at the time. Not keeping it in Latin was considered blasphemous by the majority of Christians at that time. And, they continued to update it, in 1614, etc.
Now I love that translation, because it’s beautiful, especially to read aloud. And it’s what most of us think of when we think “biblical.” It was *the* Bible for English-speaking people for 300 years… but it would be foolish to lock ourselves into the early 17th century as the end of Bible scholarship or translation. We’ve found better source docs since then, and we’re better at translating Hebrew and Greek (eg, we know now that Moses didn’t have horns, and that there were no unicorns in the Old Testament). And, most Christians and Jews have just come to accept that some parts of it don’t work anymore — like the stuff about not giving women positions of authority over men. Can’t have a Sarah Palin if the conservative base follows that advice.
I honestly believe there is a way to stay true to the values of a docment or tradition — whether legal or religious or cultural — without turning into the Amish or some other kind of luddite, clinging to an old idea or way of doing things that just doesn’t work anymore. If we did that, we’d still have slaves, and college baseball players would still use wooden bats.
OK, I admit, I like the sound of wood better… but you can’t cork an aluminum bat. π
But, before I forget — thanks again for the thought-provoking stuff. I have been doing User Acceptance Testing all day, and while waiting for a server reboot, really needed something more sophisticated to put my mind to. π
I think you and I are way apart on this issue.
>> It does need to be revised, now and again… nearly impossible to do… and maybe that’s for the best…
We don’t want a Constitution easily amended. (Texas has that and it’s a mess.) I think the process put in place is about right. Stuff has to be thoroughly vetted before it makes it in. Not that it’s been perfect at keeping crap out.
>> It’s [electoral college] silly, and antiquated, and got GW Bush elected. That’s reason enough to ratify an amendment in support of a popular vote.
Man, I wish that was the biggest problem we were facing… I remember an interview with Bush where the question of electoral votes vs. popular votes came up. I liked his answer. Hey we looked at the system and based our campaign on that system. If the system had been based on popular votes; our campaign would have been completely different and who says we wouldn’t have won that. I promise you Al Gore’s guys did the same math… they just lost.
>> It’s time to make some more, truly meaningful adjustments that reflect majority American values… Equal rights for all adult citizens/non-felons, regardless of sexual orientation.
Exactly why we need a process that takes time and vetting. Of course I disagree that there should be an amendment grating homosexuals what you would call equal and I would call special rights.
Do you want to change the requirements for amending the Constitution to something easier? There’s no way the homosexual agenda would pass the current process. I doubt it could even garner the votes in the Congress; much less the states. If there was any chance of that, the homosexual groups would be all over it. Their only successes have been with leftist judges who twist the Constitution to meet their ends and a few leftist state governments in the North-East. Even the Messiah Obama himself has to publicly pretend to be against gay marriage.
And interestingly enough, this is exactly why the founding fathers gave us a republic instead of a democracy. They knew instant majority rule was a dangerous thing that would trample on the rights of the minority.
>> I see the Constitution as important and worthy of respect, but not reverence.
I would disagree. Of all man made documents in existence it has granted more freedom to more people than any other. No the Founding fathers were not Disciples and the Constitution is not the Bible… but the fact that the Founding Fathers were good men (not perfect) and the Constitution was based on Judeo/Christian values is largely responsible for why it was so effective and why it should be revered.
>> So, I don’t hold it against Ginsburg that she would go with something more modern.
She’s just doing what the rest of the world thinks she should do. I do hold it against here that she does not see the wisdom behind the simplicity of our founding document.
Her new Constitution would be meaningless; because it would stand for everything… another say of standing for nothing.
>> I honestly believe there is a way to stay true to the values of a document or tradition — whether legal or religious or cultural — without … clinging to an old idea or way of doing things that just doesn’t work anymore.
That’s my whole point and I think where we disagree. The Constitution works brilliantly. It was designed to limit the necessary evil of government. It is as relevant today (if not more so) than when it was penned. It was written in such a way as to protect us from ourselves, even when we think we’ve grown past needing that protection. It’s the left that doesn’t see that and resents the Constitution for hindering their agenda. It’s the right to realizes tyranny is just as possible today as it was 200+ years ago and thank God we have such a limiting founding document.
>> If we did that (sticking to way that don’t work anymore like in the days of Constitution written), we’d still have slaves, and college baseball players would still use wooden bats.
We did stick to the Constitution (as best we could) and yet managed to find a way to end slavery and allow baseball to be baseball.
>> But, before I forget — thanks again for the thought-provoking stuff.
I too appreciate the discussions… Thanks π
>I remember an interview with Bush where the question of electoral votes vs. popular votes came up. I liked his answer. Hey we looked at the system and based our campaign on that system.
And that’s fine and correct. I was just joking about the outcome of that election. Not an Al Gore fan, not a GW Bush fan. Would have preferred other options.
>the Constitution was based on Judeo/Christian values is largely responsible for why it was so effective and why it should be revered.
Hmm… not sure that it was based on Judeo/Christian values as much as the Englightenment.
In the Constitution, it’s about “We the people…” no “under God” in there. Just, people, choosing and defining their own fates. There is no mention of God anywhere in the Constitution, or in any of the amendments, that I’m aware of.
Now you may see lots of influence there, and that’s fine… but that’s a creative interpretation that borders on what psychologists call “projection.” Just reading it, as it is… it is not a Judeo/Christian document.
The Declaration of Independence, likewise, makes it clear that governments created by men derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from God. (Otherwise they’d have supported King George’s ultimate authority — which was that God chose him.)
So this, to me, is an example of where American social conservatives see not just God, but their rather modern and specific version of God, everywhere, even when he’s not mentioned at all.
>> He’s (God) not mentioned at all… Now you may see lots of influence there, and that’s fine… but that’s a creative interpretation that borders on what psychologists call “projection.”
Not creative, logical; and thus having nothing to do with the subjective βscienceβ of psychology.
Being creative would be true if the founding fathers were a blank slate… they’re not. You’re ignoring the words, writing, and character of the Founding Fathers themselves. That is the evidence by which one can logically make the conclusion of influence.
>> Just reading it, as it is… it is not a Judeo/Christian document.
Yes it is… because without the Judeo/Christian beliefs of the founding fathers it would never exist as it is. I shudder to think of its content if based on nothing more than secular beliefs or even worse Islam.
Yes, the founders had such a bitter taste of state-run religion that they went to the extreme not to mention God in the Constitution. Who can blame them? Still, the influence was there.
Even early on the Declaration of Independence mentions that we (man) are endowed by our Creator (not government or other men) with certain rights. This implies that those rights cannot be taken away by men or government; though they can be unjustly denied.
When they finally got around to the Constitution the first thing they did was the Bill of Rights so as to lay down βHereβs how we’re going to protect those Creator endowed rights.β
>Being creative would be true if the founding fathers were a blank slateβ¦ theyβre not. Youβre ignoring the words, writing, and character of the Founding Fathers themselves. That is the evidence by which one can logically make the conclusion of influence.
By that criteria, everything written by a Christian is a Christian document.
I’m not saying the Founders were not Christians. I am saying that the nation they were founding was not a Christian nation, as today’s conservative movement proposes. If it were, they’d have mentioned God somewhere in the founding document.
This core concept is cemented in the Treaty of Tripoli, submitted in 1797 by President John Adams, and unanimously approved by the Senate.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,βas it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,βand as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli
Today’s conservatives would have had a full-bore conniption to see such a thing in the Senate. The Founders didn’t blink an eye. This is the core difference. The modern conservative movement is based on a fantasy superimposed on the Founders, who would not have fit in with the current evangelical movement… except with some very, very creative thinking.
Now, would those same Founders have granted gays equal rights? Of course not. They didn’t even grant black people or women that. I’m not trying to turn them into modern liberals. But they were, likewise, not modern conservatives.
>Even early on the Declaration of Independence mentions that we (man) are endowed by our Creator (not government or other men) with certain rights.
Yes. And its primary author, Thomas Jefferson, also retranslated the New Testament, stripped out the miracles, and left Jesus dead in the tomb. It’s called the “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” If that’s not a secular mind, I don’t know what is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Now, was Jefferson influenced by Christianity? Of course. All English and American (and French and German etc) people were. It was at the core of Western Culture. But that doesn’t make every writing or work of art de facto Christian.
To go that far, you’d have to call algebra and Arabic numerals “Muslim.” Uh oh, better make up some Christian math. π
Now, you could argue that we, as a nation, need to turn back to God, that we’ve gone too far, and lost our way. That’s a different argument, and it is indeed Christian. Just don’t base it on the idea that the Founders were right there with you, saying “Amen.” Most were not evangelicals, in the modern sense of the word.
At the core of the arguments that the Constitution is fatally flawed and should be easily amended is the presumption that the linkage between tax revenue and spending does not matter. Almost every request to amend the constitution reflects a desire to define a desired social outcome or to extend federal power as an “equal rights” issue. This is a much easier argument to win if you can minimize the perceived cost for the benefits. If the cost of this new social outcome is suitably vague or a politician can convince the people to assign the cost to an unborn generation, it is almost impossible to argue against extending the benefits. History has shown us that although countries exist in this condition from time to time, they do not stay in this blissful state for very long. Most of time the linkage between tax revenue and spending does matter, the costs become readily visible, and as a result the politics and trade-offs are much more complex. Lenders to less developed countries have a simple, direct relationship. They expect to be paid back and have the leverage to get political change. Sometimes this works. Sometimes the countries choose to default instead. In recent years this lender leverage does not exist in more developed countries even though more serious situations exist. It is fascinating that the United States and most of Europe appear to have been exempt from these trade-off debates for the last 80 years and it is assumed that “free” benefits will go on forever. Since the funding for most of these “free” benefits were very dependent on the wages of a growing working class, it was inevitable that this would fail. Eventually there will not be enough workers or wage growth to support the benefits.
If we assume that the political fight over tax revenue and spending is normal then for most of our history we had a more difficult political environment than today. In fact our founding fathers might never have convened the Constitutional Convention were it not for Shay’s rebellion in 1787. Shay’s rebellion was an embarrassing affair in which Massachusetts raised taxes to pay their share of the Revolutionary war debt and ended up confiscating property of former soldiers who were still owed back pay from serving in the Revolutionary war. Four people died and twenty people were wounded. George Washington was so dismayed by this event he came out of retirement to go to the Constitutional Convention. This event highlighted the inability of the Articles of Confederation to form a government that could provide the most basic of government services, collect taxes, pay its debts, and work out grievances. In a second attempt to form a more perfect union, the Constitutional Convention formed a government that not only provided the basic services but could pass the test of time. In addition to providing an expanding array of government services our government successfully changed power without killing people and deflected the best efforts of would be tyrants. When you look at the French Revolution and other revolutions that failed, this is quite an accomplishment. It is something the Egyptian constitution writers envy.
>Almost every request to amend the constitution reflects a desire to define a desired social outcome or to extend federal power as an βequal rightsβ issue. This is a much easier argument to win if you can minimize the perceived cost for the benefits
A quick review of the Amendments shows that very few were about equal rights (but those I fully support; freeing slaves and letting women vote are good things), or involved costs to taxpayers, with the exceptions of the 7th (jury trials cost money) and the 16th (the establishment of an income tax, boo…).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Ratified_amendments
Perhaps you’re talking about the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, which died 30 years ago? Other than that, I don’t see it.
>In fact our founding fathers might never have convened the Constitutional Convention were it not for Shayβs rebellion in 1787.
Good point about Shay’s Rebellion. I taught a high school lesson on that, long ago. Very interesting, shaky time for the new country.