Thursday, November 18, 2004
Who's this about?
I started this a while ago and now I'm finally getting around to finishing it:
By George (Curious, not Bush... OK, so they're the same), the Lovely and Gracious was right! The Constitution of the United States does indeed start:
"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 [sic], 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. "
But I must remind the Lovely and Gracious that she wasn't included in that WE and either were minorities. Why? Because it was all about them. It was all about the white protestant male and how to insure their interests (and moreover their pockets) were protected.
On this note, in order to form a more perfect Cronkitezine, I propose WE change the title to:
It's all aboout WE...
Idealistic? Yes. Unrealistic? It doesn't have to be. It frightens me that the truest statement made during this campaign season came from a despot (no, not Bush this time)...
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands."
As much as I may hate to say it, bin Laden is right (he and Nancie have obviously read the Constitution). WE THE PEOPLE empower our government; they exist because WE PERMIT them to lead US. Unfortunately, the "Haves" have managed to convince the "Have Nots" (lest WE forget, the "Have Nots" represent the majority in this country) that they are powerless (how many people have said they don't vote because it doesn't mean anything?). Majority rule has transformed from the ideal of power of the people to power of the pocket. WE're continually approached with either pandering or condecension. WE're either (a.) glad-handed and told what WE "want to hear" or (b.) brushed off and told that things are just too complicated (i.e. we wouldn't understand, let the pros take care of it). OUR representatives repeatedly confound and convolute the American polity with legal-ese and B.S.-bureaucracy. This brings me to a quandry I have: why do WE continually elect lawyers, the least trusted profession (and least productive), to lead the most powerful nation in the world?
With Osama's words fresh in our minds: When was the last time that WE excercised our First Amendment right? I'm not talking about freedom of religion, speech or of the press, but the freedom to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Maybe it's just my bias, but I think I've seen an electorate with a laundry list of gripes they'd like rectified. I once worked with a guy who said he didn't vote because he felt the system was sound enough that everything would be OK (i.e. everything balanced out over time) and IF the government got out of line, the American people wouldn't stand for it and they'd reform the system. Let's prove him right. Let's stop willingly becoming disenfranchised and become enfranchised. Let's make Superman's tag of "Fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way" mean something again. Let's show bin-Laden that WE know that our security and the power of our country lies in OUR hands. Let's stand up for ourselves and make government work FOR US!!!
By George (Curious, not Bush... OK, so they're the same), the Lovely and Gracious was right! The Constitution of the United States does indeed start:
"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 [sic], 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. "
But I must remind the Lovely and Gracious that she wasn't included in that WE and either were minorities. Why? Because it was all about them. It was all about the white protestant male and how to insure their interests (and moreover their pockets) were protected.
On this note, in order to form a more perfect Cronkitezine, I propose WE change the title to:
It's all aboout WE...
Idealistic? Yes. Unrealistic? It doesn't have to be. It frightens me that the truest statement made during this campaign season came from a despot (no, not Bush this time)...
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands."
As much as I may hate to say it, bin Laden is right (he and Nancie have obviously read the Constitution). WE THE PEOPLE empower our government; they exist because WE PERMIT them to lead US. Unfortunately, the "Haves" have managed to convince the "Have Nots" (lest WE forget, the "Have Nots" represent the majority in this country) that they are powerless (how many people have said they don't vote because it doesn't mean anything?). Majority rule has transformed from the ideal of power of the people to power of the pocket. WE're continually approached with either pandering or condecension. WE're either (a.) glad-handed and told what WE "want to hear" or (b.) brushed off and told that things are just too complicated (i.e. we wouldn't understand, let the pros take care of it). OUR representatives repeatedly confound and convolute the American polity with legal-ese and B.S.-bureaucracy. This brings me to a quandry I have: why do WE continually elect lawyers, the least trusted profession (and least productive), to lead the most powerful nation in the world?
With Osama's words fresh in our minds: When was the last time that WE excercised our First Amendment right? I'm not talking about freedom of religion, speech or of the press, but the freedom to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." Maybe it's just my bias, but I think I've seen an electorate with a laundry list of gripes they'd like rectified. I once worked with a guy who said he didn't vote because he felt the system was sound enough that everything would be OK (i.e. everything balanced out over time) and IF the government got out of line, the American people wouldn't stand for it and they'd reform the system. Let's prove him right. Let's stop willingly becoming disenfranchised and become enfranchised. Let's make Superman's tag of "Fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way" mean something again. Let's show bin-Laden that WE know that our security and the power of our country lies in OUR hands. Let's stand up for ourselves and make government work FOR US!!!
Comments:
<< Home
Some might think it impossible to knock the Founding Fathers AND praise Osama bin Laden in the same post, but you've exceeded our wildest expectations, Tim. Congrats, I suppose. Do you have to get specially-made pants to accomodate the enormous girth of your brass balls?
On a side note, Osama may have been right, but for the wrong reasons. His business about our "security" being in our hands wasn't him helping us Speak Truth to Power (TM) or anything; it was him imploring the U.S. to vote against Bush. Which reminds me: I personally thought that it was hilarious to hear Public Enemy #1 run through Michael Moore's talking points.
On a side note, Osama may have been right, but for the wrong reasons. His business about our "security" being in our hands wasn't him helping us Speak Truth to Power (TM) or anything; it was him imploring the U.S. to vote against Bush. Which reminds me: I personally thought that it was hilarious to hear Public Enemy #1 run through Michael Moore's talking points.
While I commend you on your respect of my gargantuan manhood, I obviously have to spell out a few of the more subtle (?) aspects of my post to you, Spratling. OK, knock the founding fathers? Not quite, what you seem to have missed is that I am trying to illustrate that this nation has always been miopic and self-centered. I'm tired of people jumping on the back of my generation telling us we are spoiled and selfish and our values are all wrong. And what disgusts me even more is the fact that some of my peers buy into it! The framers of the Constitution wrote one of the single greatest documents in the history of mankind, but they didn't know it. They didn't even mean most of it (it's kind of hypocritical to say all men are created equal when you are going to the docks to check out the latest shipment of Africans). It took another hundred years for them to realize that "We the people" meant something more than just the white guys (or as your movie post would suggest, the "good guys"), but that's the beauty of it... it's grandeur. It was way ahead of their time and we are still struggling to understand it.
As for Osama, I guess it was confusing when I wrote, "It frightens me that the truest statement made during this campaign season came from a despot... As much as I may hate to say it, bin Laden is right." Now, to say that he was trying to get voters to elect Kerry is absolutely ludicrous. I don't even think Bush would buy that whopper! What bin Laden was saying in the quote was that our government is deceiving us (if you read the actual transcripts, you might have read where he spelled that out... unless it was on Fox News, I have no clue what their creative writing... er... I mean translators came up with). HELLO!!! How many lies do we have to hear coming from Washington before we wake up. I'm not just talking about the right, the left is just as guilty, but I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
I apologize if my belief that the power should actually belong to the people and gov't should serve our needs and wants is too radical for you, but it is what the Framers wrote unless you prefer that 18th century interpretation that allowed people to be sold into servitude and kept women from voting .
As for Osama, I guess it was confusing when I wrote, "It frightens me that the truest statement made during this campaign season came from a despot... As much as I may hate to say it, bin Laden is right." Now, to say that he was trying to get voters to elect Kerry is absolutely ludicrous. I don't even think Bush would buy that whopper! What bin Laden was saying in the quote was that our government is deceiving us (if you read the actual transcripts, you might have read where he spelled that out... unless it was on Fox News, I have no clue what their creative writing... er... I mean translators came up with). HELLO!!! How many lies do we have to hear coming from Washington before we wake up. I'm not just talking about the right, the left is just as guilty, but I guess that depends on what your definition of "is" is.
I apologize if my belief that the power should actually belong to the people and gov't should serve our needs and wants is too radical for you, but it is what the Framers wrote unless you prefer that 18th century interpretation that allowed people to be sold into servitude and kept women from voting .
Yes, Willi-san, I'm afraid that I deliberately overlooked some of the, er, nuance, of your post, but honestly, how am I supposed to resist the claim that the Founding Fathers were only out for their own good while bin Laden is an astute political observer? And because you apparently weren't aware, many of the framers were against keeping slavery legal, but knew they needed the support of the southern states in order to preserve the Union, thus forcing them into an uncomfortable dilemma.
You seriously don't think that bin Laden is anti-Bush? Not only that, but you refuse to accept that anybody, even Bush himself, would believe that? Do you also suppose that the timing of the Madrid bombings was just a coincidence as well, and not aimed as a political attack on the then-leader of Spain, the pro-War on Terror Jose Aznar? Huh.
And the government serving our "wants and needs"? Um, yes, because it's the government's job to do everything for us. Oh, wait, no it isn't. It's the government's job to secure our life and liberty, so that we'll be free to pursue our own happiness. Government should take care of only a very few of our needs (as few as possible), and let us fulfill our wants on our own. You can't say in the same breath that "power should belong to the people" and "government should serve our wants and needs"; these ideas are mutually exclusive. A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.
Oh, and the FOX News digs are tiring. Not that I have a pony in this race at all-- I can't stand watching any TV news, since it's so bland, condescending, sensationalistic, etc-- but I always have to laugh whenever people attack FOX News. Mostly because all the biggest journalistic scandals of recent times didn't involve FOX News in any way whatsoever. They didn't knowingly underreport Saddam Hussein's atrocities in order to keep a bureau in Baghdad (CNN), or have a veteran employee act as a 21st century Tokyo Rose by apologizing for Hussein (Peter Arnett from MSNBC), or employ a serial plagiarist for months and months (The New York Times), or illegally coordinate with the Democratic party to use blatant forgeries to slander a sitting President (CBS).
Post a Comment
You seriously don't think that bin Laden is anti-Bush? Not only that, but you refuse to accept that anybody, even Bush himself, would believe that? Do you also suppose that the timing of the Madrid bombings was just a coincidence as well, and not aimed as a political attack on the then-leader of Spain, the pro-War on Terror Jose Aznar? Huh.
And the government serving our "wants and needs"? Um, yes, because it's the government's job to do everything for us. Oh, wait, no it isn't. It's the government's job to secure our life and liberty, so that we'll be free to pursue our own happiness. Government should take care of only a very few of our needs (as few as possible), and let us fulfill our wants on our own. You can't say in the same breath that "power should belong to the people" and "government should serve our wants and needs"; these ideas are mutually exclusive. A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.
Oh, and the FOX News digs are tiring. Not that I have a pony in this race at all-- I can't stand watching any TV news, since it's so bland, condescending, sensationalistic, etc-- but I always have to laugh whenever people attack FOX News. Mostly because all the biggest journalistic scandals of recent times didn't involve FOX News in any way whatsoever. They didn't knowingly underreport Saddam Hussein's atrocities in order to keep a bureau in Baghdad (CNN), or have a veteran employee act as a 21st century Tokyo Rose by apologizing for Hussein (Peter Arnett from MSNBC), or employ a serial plagiarist for months and months (The New York Times), or illegally coordinate with the Democratic party to use blatant forgeries to slander a sitting President (CBS).
<< Home
