| | Ted:
Clearly you and others have a radically different view of the world than I do. Things that I see as achievable trends with serious consequences you apparently believe are practical impossibilities. I see long discussions here about all sorts of issues that I find to be of relative unimportance when compared to that of the current state of indefinite lock-down of prisoners without charges and with no recourse to council, torture and rendition and warrantless searches, to name just a few. These are all very real things that have been achieved in this country over the past eight years. But instead of being outraged at these actions and arguing desperately for their repeal, there is a calm silence. And when I bring up these issues, John says:
The civil liberties that have been curbed today is small potatoes when you compare the kind of liberties that were denied during past events. [...] a little historical perspective can ground these runaway fears.
I'm at a total loss to argue against this viewpoint. I guess I'm just one of those crazy kooks that doesn't get a warm and comfortable feeling from knowing that my freedom is being secured by historical precedent rather than by a rigid application of constitutional restrictions on the government's actions. You cannot understand what fact leads me to believe that censorship is a real possibility in this country? We have warrentless searches now and I haven't seen the great majority of Americans cry out against this. And the courts that you believe are our line of protection have not slapped this down. If that is possible, what check to you see on taking the next steps, ultimately resulting in censorship? No, I'm not saying that I believe that there is an inevitable trend that is leading us to censorship. I'm saying that the checks and balances that I rely upon to protect me from this eventuality have been seriously breached and this makes the future troublingly unpredictable.
You say that the repeal of right to an abortion is "absurd", but Stephen points out the obvious: the packing of the Supreme Court with justices that can and will eliminate this right with the stroke of a pen requires only one more pro-choice voice which is very likely under a McCain/Palin presidency. Often I get the feeling that our politicians are master magicians. They manage incredible acts of sleight of hand, misdirecting the public with one while conducting their real business with the other. You ask why I don't vote Democrat? Because I'm a single issue voter, and my issue is freedom, something that neither party understands any longer.
But what really surprises me is that everyone seems to think that voting vs. non-voting is an important issue. I personally could care less what people do. What is important to me is whether anything is being done to stem the tide that is eroding our freedom. I happen to believe that voting is a pacifier for the masses, letting people "feel" like they have a role to play in the direction of government when the truth is that their individual votes are of infinitesimal consequence. If it makes people happy and feel empowered, by all means, have at it. But I suspect that this outlet then satisfies most people's need for "action" and diverts them from protesting in more effective ways.
What I truly care about is the long view. To draw another comparison to Atlas Shrugged, John Galt didn't sit around trying to figure out whether it should be Wesley Mooch or Mr. Thompson that was in charge in Washington. Instead, he was trying to determine how, in the long run, to get the country back on the right track, and chose the method of having the men of minds go on strike. Well, there are two strategies to striking: withholding ones services and vocally presenting ones views and demands. If most people believe that it is yet too early to engage in the withholding, there is still the option of the vocal protest to raise awareness of the issues.
Regards,
--
Jeff
(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 9/12, 11:26am)
|
|
