Shoot First, Ask Questions Never.

After the Newtown School Shooting, at Sandy Hook Elementary school, I was sure our nation had reached a tipping point, when it came to seeking stronger, more effective gun control measures. The national discussion was alive with references to Assault Weapon bans, stringent background and mental health checks, stricter regulation of ammunition; Furthermore, all of this was coming from both sides of the political theater in Washington, making it seem like a political possibility in our near future. Then the NRA came along and started frothing at the mouth, like a rabid dog about how Obama wants to take their guns, and we should have armed guards in every school.


The NRA went a step further and began proposing more guns on the streets as a way to deter future gun violence. My first reaction is, Are you!@#$% Insane! People in general, here in the United States are unstable enough as it is, and you propose arming more of them? We've seen what less restrictive gun laws produce, look at Florida and the stand your ground law. First Trayvon Martin is murdered, for walking home from the store with an iced tea and a bag of skittles. Next you have studies done by Texas A&M, which shows how Homicides have increased in Florida with the implementation of Stand Your Ground, due to the fact altercations, which normally would have been handled in other ways, are quickly escalating into homicides. 


So my question is, why put more guns in the hands of people? What rational reason could there be to arm more people who will then be in a position to resort to lethal force, whereas they may have avoided confrontation altogether without the gun. Look at Michael Dunn as the perfect example; a group of teenagers were listening to music in their car, at a gas station when Mr. Dunn confronts the teens telling them to turn down the loud music. He then walks back to his car, grabs a gun and fires eight shots into the teen's car killing one of them. He claims it was self-defense, but how would someone need to defend themselves from loud music by murdering a teenager? Isn't this what police are for, to call and report issues such as noise complaints? Wouldn't it have been prudent for Mr. Dunn to have called the police, than to have shot up a car over a loud stereo? I think we can agree the answer is obvious here, but this is a direct example of what happens when more people have guns and laws are loosened to enable people to use those weapons more freely. A further example is Michael Jock, a resident of Petersburg, Florida who shot another customer waiting in line at a pizzeria. According to witnesses, Jock grew upset over the customers complaints regarding the speed of service, an altercation ensued, leading to shoving between the two, with Jock pulling out a revolver and killing the victim.


All it takes is a google search to find hundreds of similar incidents all over the country. As a society, we have gone from an enlightened stage, where we solve differences and conflicts through peaceful negotiation, to a stage where lethal force is now an acceptable first step in conflict resolution. Either our society has completely lost it or civilization is about to completely come apart at the seams, or there is something seriously wrong with these types of laws, as well as the people who staunchly defend them. When I was a kid I was taught, don't hit. As I got older, I was taught don't steal, don't lie, don't fight. Now I see our society, defend thieves, by enabling Wall Street Banks and Corporate Conglomerates to loot the Federal Treasury and our tax dollars. We defend and encourage lying, by voting in the same politicians who praise out of the left side of their mouth, the same things they condemn out the right side. People in our society approach conflict resolution now as an all or nothing game, where anything goes so long as I win. Arming more people, will inevitably lead to more homicides, by people who will resort to lethal force for a myriad of reasons, where they may have avoided conflict altogether before. 


Putting more armed people in our society, such as; Guards, Police, or Security, will only further serve to raise the anxiety level of most people who feel we are moving further toward a police state, encouraging them to have even itchier trigger fingers. Police, who are already suspicious and jumpy would be quicker to pull a weapon and use it, knowing more people will be carrying firearms with such policies. Rent-a-cops who have very little power, would have the ability to shoot first, ask questions later, turning a Police Academy reject, into a want to-be Dirty Harry. 


Imagine an armed guard at a school, who encounters two kids having a fistfight. This wasn't completely uncommon when I was in school. Kids sometimes resorted to fights, it is a part of growing up and learning appropriate behaviors. Now take someone who is armed, who is supposed to be there to protect the kids. They could be an off duty, or even an on duty cop, private security, or even an armed Janitor, as the NRA recently suggested. This person has the ability to bring a lethal weapon into the picture, turning a normal childhood altercation, into a crime scene. High-strung rent-a-cops, have already proven to be a liability with Tasers, if you look at various news articles. From Seventy-year-old grandmothers, to Six-year-old children, we can't trust security officials with appropriate use of Tasers, let alone weapons around our children.  


I don't see the solution laying with more guns on the streets and in the hands of the general public. This would be a recipe for disaster, and has already proven to be destructive and counterproductive in those areas where the laws reflect this approach. The fact a national organization like the National Rifle Association proposes these types of backward policies, and they are supported by Millions in the United States, says a lot about the moral standing of our society today. People who oppose Gay Rights, Claim to Support Life, and use Christian ideological principles to justify their own moral behavior, are the same people who support the Freedom to shoot first, support the use of lethal force first via Stand Your Ground laws, and lord their moral superiority over others. Again, I am amazed at the level of hypocrisy these people show and how far detached these people really are from the teachings of Jesus.


I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't take a Christian to recognize a Jesus from the Bible would not support lethal force first, would not support a political party who acts in direct contradiction to his teachings; helping the poor, being humble, turning the other cheek. Maybe I'm wrong, as I said I'm not a Christian, so I don't know Jesus the way Christians do. My point is, Conservatives and Evangelicals who make up the bulk of the NRA and their supporters, need to do some soul searching while their holding their open carry rally's, and demonizing those of us in society who are actually trying to make a positive difference on the issue of Gun Violence. 


We need more rational, clear thinking heads to combat the problem; people who are willing to sit down, compromise and come up with solutions, which are in the best interests of the general public. People who refuse to compromise, who want to emotionally knee-jerk, or who are incapable of looking beyond partisan divides need to be dealt with by our society. We need to stand up to these people and shame them back under their rocks, into the shadows where they belong, because they are doing more harm to our society than guns ever could. The only way to solve this problem is by working together as a society.                                                                                                                                                    

Our World, Our Decision.

I'm starting to think the human race is mentally deficient, especially after the recent gun violence and listening to both extremes prattle on about how the Gun Control issue needs to be either all or nothing. I responded to comments last night, regarding an earlier article I wrote titled, Gun Control Issue for the Masses, where I broke the issue down, addressed issues on both sides of the debate, and offered common sense, middle ground solutions to some of the problems. The responses I got, were completely off the wall, rants about; how I wanted to ban guns, assault weapons are merely cosmetic, people shouldn't need to be licensed to carry, people should be allowed to have the same level of weaponry as our military, and on, and on.... It was absolutely knee jerk, emotional, irrational, insanity.


This is a problem people, we've all let the extreme, fringe elements on both sides of the ideological divide gain to loud of a voice in the public sphere. We don't do enough to shame the craziest of the fringe back under their little rocks, instead giving them cameras or microphones and we parade them in public for "entertainment". Unfortunately, our society is also made up of sheep, who are very content to be led around without having to use a whole lot of brain power. This makes for a very dangerous combination. 


I think people who say we should ban all guns, are just as crazy as people who say we shouldn't ban anything. The fact our society condones this type of extremist behavior and entertains it, makes me question the mental health of our society in general. How can our species possibly survive, and thrive going forward, if we allow every single issue to devolve into a comparison of extremes, without any hope of rational, common sense compromises to fix problems? I lay the blame directly at the feet of each one of us, myself included, for not doing enough to put people in their place when they sound like crazy bastards. We don't hold people accountable for the things they say, we don't hold politicians accountable for the things they do, and we don't hold the entertainment industry accountable for their shameless promotion of garbage, which contributes to the divides in our society. 


There is a reason I named this Blog, Misanthropic Dissonance, because I love the human race and want so much to see it progress, succeed and grow, but at the same time I absolutely loath our society and what are have steadily become: A civilization of mindless, blind, sheep, following authority, following ideology, with a complete lack of critical thinking ability or common sense. It's disgusting to see people blindly follow, based on knee jerk, emotional reactivity, when people are capable of so much more. It makes me worry for the future of the human race, when our society immediately goes to the extremes of an issue, as important as gun violence, ensuring the problem will go on unfixed. I worry about whether my own children will have a viable future to live and prosper in, whether their children will have a future. We have become such a selfish society, with various demographics in our culture wanting more, or are not willing to compromise or coexist peacefully. 


This type of extremist behavior only serves to push our entire society to the brink of collapse. Do you really think if that happened, the common, everyday people would benefit? Of course not. The wealthy elite would be fine in their swanky mansions, or fortified compounds, while the rest of society would turn cut-throat just to survive. There is no downside to societal collapse for people who have everything, they would simply have more to rule over, while the rest of us were busy fighting to get by. Why is it, do you think our politicians refuse to solve issues, which could be resolved through compromising and common sense solutions? People need to wake up and break from this constant conditioning, the media and our society overall imposes on us, to submit to authority, to conform, to obey. Start questioning things; Why is bullying allowed, why do we condone hazing, why do look the other way when things are happening we know are wrong, why don't we stand up and demand for things to change, why do we assume we have no power, why do we let others tell us what to think, how to look, what to feel, how to behave, why don't we take personal control over our own lives? 


I am continually amazed at how few people in our society actually break from the pack and do stand up as a unique individuals to affect change. It is an encouraging thing to see, but also depressing to notice how the vast majority of people are completely blind to what is going on around them. I wouldn't even know where to begin when it comes to solving this particular problem. I would love to offer solutions, but this is one of those times when you can't help others, they need to help themselves. People have to be willing to open their own eyes and look around, question reality and decide to walk their own path, rather than follow the herd. People have to be willing to open their ears and their minds to the world, and accept the uncomfortable truths about life, existence, nature, and about themselves. Eventually all of us will die, and the only thing that will be remembered of us, is the impact we've had on those around us. Eventually they will die, and after enough time, we will be forgotten from history entirely. Knowing this fact, is it then worth holding on to an extremist position, and slowing the growth and progress of the human race in the process? What good could it possibly accomplish? What kind of legacy will such extremist thinking leave on future generations who will look back and wonder how we were able to even function as a society?



We have one shot to get it right in this life. We could continue condoning selfish, greedy behavior in our fellow human beings, who are only concerned with themselves, or we could strive to make the world different. Our legacy, though one day forgotten, has the potential to contribute to the progress and growth of the human race into something much better. It is up to each one of us to decide how that legacy will affect the course of our species. Will it enable growth and progress toward something better, or restrict our progress and hold us back from becoming what we can imagine of ourselves.

John Adams was a Big Government Democrat

This article will focus on the legacy of John Adams during his Presidency, followed by a review of how those actions affect us today, the contrast between then and now, as well as what we can learn from the History that was The Second Presidency of the United States.

Despite the importance John Adams held during the early days of the revolution, he has been trivialized and ignored for his role as the Second President of the United States. I see the importance of John Adams as being on par with the importance of President Washington. John Adams was chiefly responsible for the success of a peace treaty with Great Britain and for peacefully resolving a conflict with France through diplomatic efforts; however, he is also known as the President who signed the Alien and Sedition acts, and governed over the Fries Rebellion caused by the Direct Tax of 1798.

         
During the first 20 years of our nation’s history we were a fragile country. We were a people scattered and separated by state borders, divided along ideological lines of Federalist and Anti-Federalist, the ignorant and informed, among other distinctions. It was during this period of time where our fledgling nation was the most vulnerable from attack or influence by another foreign power. A peace treaty with Britain ensured the new American nation would not have to defend against British attack any time in the near future. Concurrently, the Diplomatic efforts of President Adams administration with the French brought about a peaceful resolution to what could have been war. President Adams discussed his intention of maintaining diplomatic relations with France, while maintaining the national interests of the United States in a reply to the House of Representatives, several months after his inauguration (Adams, 1797).

Through diplomatic accomplishments with both nations, the United States was able to avoid war temporarily and ensure itself the necessary time to grow, solidify, and build its own protective forces. Had diplomatic efforts failed with either Great Britain or France, it is very likely a conflict would have ensued, which could have strained an already struggling nation into bankruptcy, or an irreparable division upon itself. Efforts of securing peace began with Washington, but were continued and expanded upon by Adams; during his first inaugural address he broached the topic of a system of neutrality and impartiality among the belligerent powers of Europe (Adams, 1797). What Adams was saying here is the United States should not be involved in the long-standing conflicts of European Nations, even if we have been on friendly terms with the French for their support of our revolution and our main focus should and must always be on pursuing a necessary, which ensures our future security and prosperity.

While President Adams may be important for his diplomatic skills in averting war with both Britain and France, he is also known for signing into law the Direct Tax of 1798, and for signing the Alien and Sedition Act into law. The Alien and Sedition Acts were an attempt by the Federalists to quash opposition and curtail free speech; Adams himself never spoke out directly in favor of the acts, although he did sign them into law. The sedition act expired before it had a chance to be constitutionally tested in the Supreme Court; it expired when Adams left office.

The Fries Rebellion is another important example of the Adams administration going to unprecedented lengths to exact control over free speech. Citizens protested an attempt by the federal government to levy property taxes on citizens. President Adams declared the protests an insurrection and used military force to put an end to the protests. This is important, due to the fact it set a precedent for future presidents to use the military against its own citizenry; however, President Adams did grant a pardon to all those who participated in the protests (Adams, 1800).

Much like President Washington before him, John Adams carved out authority for the executive branch, where no authority was given by the constitution. He did help divert a war with Britain until a later time when we were ready, and he also brought about peace with France during a time when the French were embroiled in conflicts with Great Britain. It is very possible without his administration’s hand in the peaceful resolution of conflict with France, the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 may never have happened.

These are interesting facts, when we look at Modern Day politics, because there are many parallels between the two. The Alien and Sedition acts in particular are a far overreach of the Government, into the private behavior of citizens. Similarities exist between The Alien and Sedition acts, The Patriot Act, and the very recent National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, to name a few. Opponents of such acts, consider them to be unconstitutional, and akin to the thought police, where a person can be arrested for having views the government doesn't agree with, and held indefinitely without trial. While this may be hyperbole, the fact remains it is a very real possibility, and with the right mixture of aggressive ideology and elected power could be used as a tool one day to suppress political dissent.

Adams was a Federalist, a person who believes we should have a strong, centralized Federal Government. This runs in direct opposition to many conservative ideological arguments which claim the Founding Fathers preferred power to rest mostly with the states, and the Federal Government would have limited authority. Adams and Washington both were proponents of Federalism. Another point, which has direct parallels with our society today, are the differences between Federalists and Anti-Federalists of the Adams era, and politics today, between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Democrats today believe in the power of a strong federal government, with consolidated authority to ensure equal justice under the law, address the social and economic needs of our diverse society, and provide for our National defense. Republicans do not believe in a large role for the Federal Government, preferring the States to handle most issues, including equal rights and civil rights issues, as well as the economic and social needs of their respective citizens; However, Republicans do support a strong National defense platform, including but not limited to preemptive strikes, and unilateral diplomacy. 

I think with the revelation Adams was a Federalist, who for all intents and purposes would be considered a Democrat in today's society, we can safely say the conservative world-view of the Founding Fathers, as staunch conservatives isn't entirely accurate. There was a similar type of political divide 240 years ago as exists today, between the Founding Fathers. The arguments used by Anti-Federalists of a strong Federal Government being a disguised Monarchic power, in hindsight over the last 240 years have proven to be incorrect. With a Strong Federal Government, we were able to win 2 world wars, grow and expand our influence in the world to become a Super power, and break the bonds of segregation and bring about the Civil Rights movement at a time when individual states prevented equality. We were able to craft the new deal, after a catastrophic financial system collapse, and weather two more financial collapses to be left still standing. Yes we have problems with people on assistance who could contribute to society; However, we also have people hurting due to economic circumstances, disability, mental health or medical issues, as well as the retired and elderly population who live off of very little income. The social programs our Federal Government provides, help states who otherwise would let these people fend for themselves on the streets. 

I think without a strong Federal Government, we would still be battling segregation in many parts of the south, and the relationships between many states would be poor. We are not a country of independent nations, but one nation, or many states. The truth is, we rely on each other and require an even playing field; The Federal Government is meant to provide that. We also need protection from states who choose to suppress their citizens, or states who overreach into the lives of their citizens. If Adams were here I could see him agreeing with this point. States if left to their own devices would become individual fiefdoms, where freedoms no longer exist. Look to the following states for examples; Arkansas allows a man to legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month. Oklahoma made it illegal to have sex before marriage. Alabama legalized incestuous marriages; Furthermore, recently they also attempted to change the value of Pi to 3, Florida has a law making it illegal to kiss your wife's breasts. In Georgia, all sex toys are banned. Mississippi removed fractions and decimal points from the mathematics curriculum in that state. Each state has similar silly laws. Regardless of whether or not these types of laws are enforced, when left to their own devices we can clearly see what happens at the State level, without oversight and protection by the Federal Government. 

Now it's true the Federal Government has been around during the time those stupid laws were created, and that's true; However, many of these particular states have been obstinate in the way they interact with the Federal Government. They were the same states responsible for the United States entering into a Civil War, the same states who made it necessary to have a Civil Rights movement, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That isn't to say all Southern States are the problem, California could easily fall under the opposite ideological spectrum of silliness with their laws. 

The trouble with a strong, centralized Federal Government, is ensuring the elected representatives of that government do not become detached from their constituents, and do not abuse the power they have to become a tyranny of the majority. When it comes down to it, I think this fear of government power held by conservatives is really a fear of infringement into their private lives; However, the reverse is true when conservatives are in power. They routinely enact legislation to infringe in the private lives of citizens. Adams and the Founding fathers recognized the dangers of governmental infringement on civil liberties, which is why they gave us a Bill of Rights.

References

Adams, J. (1797). First Inaugural Address of John Adams . The Avalon project. Retrieved (2010, February 14) from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/adams.asp

Adams, J. (1797). John Adams - Reply to the House of Representatives. The Avalon project. Retrieved (2010, February 15) from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/ja97-07.asp

                                                                                                                                    

Adams, J. (1800). President Adams' Proclamation of May 21, 1800 Regarding the Insurrection in Pennsylvania in 1799. The Avalon project. Retrieved (2010, February 15) from http://www.jamesmannartfarm.com/friesreb6.html

A Touch of Realism about our Society Today

Inevitably, most arguments in favor of wedge-issues such as; Gay Marriage, Gun Control, Abortion, or Governmental Regulation, are met with the same type of opposition. It is an irrational, emotion driven, ideological viewpoint, through which no amount of logic or reason can penetrate. Science doesn't matter, People don't matter, and Facts do not matter for many of these types of people. It is sad how we are unable to have a civil conversation on the national stage over these issues, without it devolving into ideological platitudes of freedom and morality, religion, or outright paranoia.

Such issues and many others of generations past, have always been a part of our national discourse; However, it seems as though over the last 140 years, post-civil war, we are once again entering into a period of political obstinacy, where one ideological party refuses to find any amount of compromise acceptable and is willing to tear the country apart, in the process. We saw this at the beginning of our Nation, when we were picking up the pieces after the Revolution. We witnessed rigid ideological divides and a period of political turmoil once again with the civil war. A milder version of this same behavior emerged during the civil rights movement, tempered perhaps due to the Vietnam conflict. Today a resurgence exists which is threatening to once again bring our society toward the brink of disaster.

Most people expect their elected representatives to advocate on their behalf and to achieve results. In a diverse society, achieving results involves the ability to compromise toward a common ground; However, when you have Ideologues who are elected and refuse to compromise or work together with those whom they disagree, Government is then broken. So whose fault is it when Government is broken, and one political party refuses to cooperate or compromise with another? It is our own fault. We elect those who serve in government, we bare the full responsibility for their unwillingness to compromise, because we are capable of voting them out of office, yet do not..

As a society, we are forced to coexist peacefully with one another, despite all our differences. We may not like each other, we may not even like ourselves, but the fact remains we have to coexist. The problem is, some people do not want to coexist. They want everyone else to bow before their beliefs. They are uncompromising about this fact, unwilling to peacefully coexist, and completely willing to tear the country apart, if it means getting what they want. Many of them believe they are living in the end of times, they are convinced of this so deeply, all the logic and reason in the world, even the stark truth staring them in the face would not waver their resolve. In fact it can be argued that the more proof you show an ideologue against their beliefs, the more entrenched their beliefs will become as a defense mechanism.

How do we then approach this dilemma? We could fight against it; However, as we see with groups such as the Westboro Baptist Church, it only strengthens their resolve when people fight against them. If reason and logic will not work, perhaps an emotional appeal? Well, that wouldn't work either, because these people are already emotionally compromised with their beliefs. We've seen what educating these types of people has done, as they simply refuse to believe the truth of things in front of their noses. How then do we solve this problem?

I think part of the reason this type of behavior has gotten out of hand, is because we have turned a blind eye for too long, as people have used their soapboxes to spout crazy, paranoid, ideologically driven propaganda. We haven't done enough to call out this behavior, we have assumed most people would ignore it because it was so fringe; However, what we are seeing is a culture of undereducated, uninformed people who are closed off from the whole of our diverse society, being led by snake oil salesmen. They are being convinced 24 hours a day, that the paranoid, crazy, ideologically driven propaganda is the truth and everyone else is lying. Fox News is particularly visible in this regard; Although, if you look deeper, you will find a whole profit-driven industry particularly on talk radio, who make a living by spreading conservative propaganda to their listeners, and encouraging their listeners to tune out anything remotely resembling reality.

So the Question should really be, how do we cut the head off the snake of these snake oil salesman? Advertising. We saw the effectiveness of sponsor targeting during the Sandra Fluke incident with Rush Limbaugh and again during the Susan G Komen controversy over Planned Parenthood funding. In fact, if you look through piles of media stories going back decades, you will see the impact of pressuring sponsors to stop affiliating themselves with certain viewpoints. The next step should be an FCC regulation, preventing News Outlets from broadcasting false or misleading news, requiring such outlets to designate themselves as Opinion Outlets. There is room to maneuver on these solutions, but the fact remains something has to change. People should be free to believe what they wish, but that freedom should not cross over into the ability to force others to live under that belief. The truth is, Gay marriage only affects Gay couples, Abortion only affects the Woman and potentially her partner, Governmental Regulations are supposed to protect a powerless population from the overwhelming forces of business, and Gun Control is about reducing gun violence by having a structured system in place to promote responsible gun ownership, while limiting the ability of those who would cause harm from doing so with a gun. If you are against these things, you are free to not marry someone of the same sex, not have an abortion, enjoy the negative effects of pollution to your heart's content, and free to own whatever firearms you want, though with the freedom will also inevitably come the responsibility.

These issues will continue to rage, eventually society will move on to the next slate of wedge issues, and Gay Marriage or Abortion will be looked at through the prism of History, the way we view Slavery today. Educating people from an early age will help limit the harm caused by undereducated, uninformed citizens who blindly follow an ideological shepherds of all stripes. Ensuring people are able to access the news, and not become drowned in lies and misleading propaganda, will help the uninformed become active participants in the diverse world in which they live. Standing up and speaking out against these soap box snake oil salesman, every minute of every day, relentlessly shaming them into the shadows, will drive the serpents from the temples and bring light back into the world.

Caver in Chief Redux

I had the evening all planned out tonight. Watch movies with my family, enjoy pork and sauerkraut, play with the kittens, relax and welcome the New Year in the traditional ways; however, lo and behold to my surprise, to what do my wondering eyes appear, but a Ball-less Caver in Chief, with a fiscal cliff deal pulled out of a horses rear. I reelected The President because he told me he would end the Bush tax cuts on those making 250,000 a year. That is 10 times more than I make a year, and nearly 5 times more than a majority of people make in a year. I reelected him because he promised with a second term he would not cave to Republicans hijacking the government and holding its citizens hostage. He promised to fight for us, to stand up for us and protect us from those who would attempt to let us rot while the rich made off like bandits off the backs of the rest of us. Instead, I ended up reelecting the Caver in Chief.


I think I have a pretty good bead on things in Washington. The way I see things, you have most Democrats who really do care about the country. They care about their voting constituencies, which happen to consist of mostly of the poor and uneducated, to the educated middle class groups, as well as ethnic groups, and single issue groups like the LGBT community, and Organized Labor. In other words, they really, truly do fight for the common person, because that is who their base is. Republicans rely on uneducated poor and middle class rural population centers, as well as Higher Income tax avoiders, the Ultra Wealthy, Business Interests, and the Religious Right. These groups do not make up a majority of Americans; however, they tend to be formidable because of the under educated poor and middle class groups who tend to rely on conservative media outlets for their news, who are lied to on a daily basis and consequently vote against their own self interests.

Clearly, President Obama knows this. It is fairly common knowledge to those who keep up with current events from a wide variety of media outlets. Still, even though he understands a majority of the American People support the positions he campaigned on and would hold Republicans responsible for any failure in the Fiscal Cliff talks, he decided to Cave to Republican demands. The American people demanded the rich pay their fair share, and Obama caves to Republicans who want to take from the poor and give to the rich. How is this leadership?

Either President Obama is out of his depth as a negotiator with Republicans, or the advisers he listens to are Republican shills; Otherwise, the advisers are completely incompetent or Obama is a Ball-less Caver in Chief! Now, even through his first term when I was diametrically opposed to something The President had done, I tried to look at his decision through a prism of the glass is half full. It must be part of a greater strategy, I told myself. Slowly, it grew into more of a dread feeling that the person I voted for would once again show himself as a Ball-less coward. The Fiscal Cliff situation cemented that feeling and made it an unmistakable reality.

Where do we go from here? Republicans like any child who throws a horrible tantrum, smashes toys, bites, kicks, and punches, until they get what they want, have learned they can hold the country hostage in any form or manner they choose, and President Obama will bend over and won't even bother asking for KY Jelly. Even with less power in congress, Republicans now effectively control the Federal Government. On top of this you have Republican state governments openly defying President Obama on what seems to be a daily basis. Republicans can get away with this, because they lie to the majority of their poor or under educated base, and they use single wedge issue voters to drive home an ideology that caters to the Wealthy and Business interest elite. Democrats Cave because they are afraid of even more damage Republicans brag about their willingness to do to the poor and middle class. At some point, as with any child you have to make a stand. Don't power struggle, don't cave to the demands and tantrums. If the child breaks their toys, that's it they don't get a new one to replace it. Republicans need to learn if they are willing to risk the American people in a game of political hostage taking, they should accept the consequences of their choices and be held accountable by the public when we fall off the cliff.

We could always get up again, dust ourselves off and work toward repairing the damage, but unless we allow the Republicans to suffer the consequences of their actions and stop caving to their demands, the new way of American Governance will be as it has been consistently over the last 4 years. Republicans obstruct everything, Democrats Cave, Obama is Ball-less, Republicans cater to the rich, the poor and middle class are thrown to the wolves, Republicans constantly threaten to blow up the country in one way or another, and they get their way because of it. I'm sorry folks, but this doesn't sound like the kind of world I want to live in, and it definitely isn't the kind of America I was brought up to believe in. With that said, the fault of all of this lies most directly with the American People in general, who have allowed politicians to get away with this crazy nonsense. Republicans are not being held accountable for their actions, and conservative media outlets like Fox News of Rush Limbaugh are outright lying to the American People on a Daily basis, 24 hours a day, and not being held accountable for their lies. So while we may have a Caver in Chief for the next 4 years, we all need to look in the mirror and point the finger at ourselves for the state of American Politics in the 21st Century.

A Forgotten Founding Father

Who as James Wilson?

James Wilson was a member of the founding fathers for his signature on the Declaration of Independence; however many do not realize he was relatively new to the America’s, having emigrated from Scotland shortly before the colonies break for independence. During this point in history, many of the founders were generational Americans, meaning they were either born or raised in the colonies. Wilson arrived from Scotland carrying letters of recommendation, which he was able to use to secure a tutoring position at Philadelphia college; this later turned into a professorship, and the college was eventually renamed the University of Pennsylvania (Lossing, 1850).

Wilson’s life is intriguing, because it shows a man with enormous potential who seemed to struggle when it came to finding himself. He attended several Universities, but never graduated or earned a degree. Wilson petitioned for and received an honorary Masters degree from Philadelphia College, where he taught English Literature; he also took up the study of law under John Dickenson and eventually started his own practice where he was able to amass a small fortune (Lossing, 1850). Wilson also dabbled in land speculation; an interest, which would reduce him to poverty later in life.

Wilson’s legal studies and practice of law led to his introduction into Pennsylvania politics. He attended the Provincial convention of Pennsylvania representing Carlisle, and was eventually named to the Committee of Correspondence in Cumberland County. It was during this period where Wilson published a pamphlet titled, “Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament.”, which he had written several years prior. He argued Parliament had no authority to pass laws for the colonies, widely used to justify the separation between the colonies and the British government. Wilson later become an elected representative in the Continental congress for the state of Pennsylvania, and joined some of the most outspoken members of the Continental congress calling for complete and total separation from British Rule.

Wilson won the respect of many in the Continental congress following his pamphlet, “Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament.”; however, he was also respected for his oratory ability. There are conflicting historical reports of the veracity of Wilson’s support for Independence. Based on the sources I have researched I believe Wilson was a passionate supporter of independence, even though he was an elected representative of a state who was still not fully convinced to support independence. I think this led to situations where was seen as passionately in favor of independence, yet expected to vote against it when the time came. Wilson decided he could not vote against the will of his constituents, which could be where the historical confusion comes from.


Contributions to American Independence and the New Government.


During the American Revolution, Wilson moved his family to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and continued his private law practice. He helped support and raise money for the revolution, while also working toward amassing wealth for his family. Wilson also worked with Robert Morris to help secure the charter for The First National Bank.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was split on the issue of Independence. Wilson was able to secure a delay on the vote for the Declaration of Independence, while he attempted to sway Pennsylvania in favor in Independence. Due to this delay and the push Wilson made as an advocate for Independence, Pennsylvania was willing to join an affirmative vote in favor of the Declaration of Independence. Wilson was also the main author of Pennsylvania’s new constitution, arguing for a governor with limited veto power, a bicameral legislature, and an independent judiciary (University of Pennsylvania, 2010).

When the continental congress drafted the articles of confederation, Wilson advocated for several key points to be included; a strong national government, the concept of implied powers, and dual sovereignty of the states and the central government (University of Pennsylvania, 2010). These features were not adopted for the articles of confederation, but helped lay the groundwork for the formation of the United States Constitution.

Wilson offered his legal reasoning skills to the continental congress during the early days of the articles of confederation, when the Constitution of the United States was being formed. His contributions to the constitution are not his only mark on politics during the early days of American government. Wilson almost didn’t participate in the formation of the United States Constitution, as he fell out of favor with constituents in Pennsylvania. Following his opposition to the Pennsylvania constitution, Wilson’s political ideology became aligned with conservatism, which benefited his business interests and allowed him to amass more wealth but it came at the cost of his support among the frontier constituents in Pennsylvania (National Archives, 2010).

This political realignment resulted in his ouster from congress in 1777; although, he was reelected in 1785 when the conservative movement regained power (National Archives, 2010). Wilson’s reelection allowed for his participation in the Constitutional convention. Wilson had the second highest number of speeches given during the Constitutional Convention; however, Wilson’s ambition was not in legislative power, but in the power of the Judiciary. Wilson petitioned George Washington for a spot on the Supreme Court, as Chief Justice. Washington gave the position of Chief Justice to John Jay; however, Wilson was named an associate on the first Supreme Court and participated in the first judicial rulings from the Supreme Court.

One of the most overlooked areas of importance James Wilson played during the founding period of our nation, with respect to the creation of our constitution was the physical creation of the constitution document itself. During this period in history, written constitutions were almost unheard of. Wilson believed a written version of the United States Constitution served two essential functions; it memorialized the primacy of liberty by announcing the authority of government derives only from a free people; furthermore, the written constitution uplifts and refines the character of its citizens and thus helps to constitute a people (Zink, 2009).

Wilson not only served on the initial Supreme Court as an associate justice; he also lectured in Law at the University of Pennsylvania. In a sense, Penn State University has a Law program due directly to the lectures Wilson held during his tenure. Wilson was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1789, but in 1790 he almost single-handedly wrote the new Pennsylvania constitution (Dickenson College, 2010). This shows Wilson was a legal titan, on par with the likes of John Adams, for his legal expertise. He was and remained a strict constitutionalist through the rest of his life. Wilson was not without fault; however, as he frequently indebted himself to the point of being hunted by creditors and even being sent to a debtors prison, while a Supreme Court Justice.


The Importance of James Wilson in our Nations Early Years


Wilson was a nationalist who believed sovereignty was within the people. He supported a strong federal government, but insisted in a separation of powers. Wilson’s nationalistic leanings while he was a member of the Supreme Court are most noticeable in his opinion of Chisholm vs. Georgia 1793. This decision ended the States argument of Sovereign Immunity from suit in the Federal court. Many legal scholars today regard this decision as a pre-cursor to modern day American Legal Jurisprudence.

James Wilson’s understanding of the law, his drafting of the new Pennsylvania constitution and assistance with the creation of the Federal Constitution show impeccable legal credentials. It is for these reasons he was responsible for pushing through the ratification of the Federal constitution by Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania delegates gathered together to discuss the Federal Constitution and Wilson was called upon to argue in favor of ratification. Once again Wilson demonstrated his ability to lead by convincing the other Pennsylvania representatives in congress to ratify the new Constitution. James Wilson can also arguably hold the title of being our nation’s first Constitutional lawyer.

Wilson was a strong believer in a checks and balances system of representative government, in order to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Wilson felt that to leave a government up to the whims of the majority without any sort of check or balance on that power would lead to a mob rule. This legal philosophy is viewed as common sense today, but in the Eighteenth century this was a ground-breaking philosophy.

James Wilson pushed for a stronger central government by urging the states to surrender their western land claims, proposing greater revenue and taxation powers for Congress, and arguing for representation in Congress based on free population (Wright, Jr, & MacGregor, Jr, 1946). I think Wilson understood the need for a strong centralized government; although, unlike most of the founding fathers he believed the people should have control over the election of the president through a direct election, rather than the Electoral College vote. He also was a strong advocate for the election of the legislature by the people, considering it "not only the cornerstone, but the foundation of the fabric." (Wright, Jr, & MacGregor, Jr, 1946).

Many of the legal theories and philosophical revelations Wilson had during this period were foreshadowings of later American legal thought. The size and strength of our federal government, advocated for by Wilson enabled our early nation to defend itself adequately first from French aggression under Adams, through the war of 1812. Had our federal government been less powerful, it is possible these threats would have toppled our fledgling nation; however, through the foresight of men like James Wilson, our nation had the capability of defending itself.

Wilson was a man of compromise who was able to find amicable resolutions in just about any political situation. During his ouster from Pennsylvania politics following 1777 through 1784, Wilson endured scandal which almost ruined his future in American politics. Wilson had opposed the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1776, which in turn led the leaders of the Pennsylvania state government to remove him from congress and his commission with the militia. Wilson then moved to Annapolis, Maryland and was subsequently charged with abandoning his state. He moved back to Pennsylvania the following year and was attacked by a mob, having been accused of hoarding food, and supplies. When the ideological winds changed in Pennsylvania to give conservative politicians more power, Wilson was able to once again win election to the congress and begin the process of reshaping the Pennsylvania and Federal Constitutions.

The fact that our system of government stands today; a three branch government of checks and balances, with a directly elected legislature, and strong centralized Federal government with a formidable executive branch, James Wilson’s vision and impact on early American government has withstood the test of time; even his early calls for the scrapping of the electoral college and a direct election of the President are still echoed today. Perhaps modern day, "Strict constructionists", as well as Tea party Republicans who invoke the founding fathers, should pay more attention to the founders who do not share their narrow viewpoints.

References

Dickenson College. (2010). James Wilson. Encyclopedia Dickensonia. Retrieved (2010, March 8) from http://chronicles.dickinson.edu/encyclo/w/ed_wilsonJ.htm

Lossing, B.J. (1850). The Pictorial field-book of the revolution. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
National Archives. (2010, March 8). The Founding fathers: Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_founding_fathers_pennsylvania.html

University of Pennsylvania. (2010). Penn in the 18th Century. University of Pennsylvania archive. Retrieved (2010, March 8) from http://www.archives.upenn.edu/people/1700s/wilson_jas.html

Wright, Jr, R.K., & MacGregor, Jr, M.J. (1946). Soldier-statesmen of the constitution. Retrieved from http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/wilson.htm

Zink, J. R. , 2009-04-02 "James Wilson on America's Written Constitution" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association 67th Annual National Conference, The Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL Online. Retrieved (2010, March 8) from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p363684_index.html

Modern Day Rome

Since the 1960's and 1970's, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition of progressive ideology, into an insurrectionist party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Gay-sex scandals, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999, two unfunded wars and the stock market crashes of 1988 and 2008.

Prior to the mid to late 1960's following the civil rights movement, the Modern day Republican party was more commonly recognizable as the Southern Democrat party. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery. This is essentially the same Rhetoric used by mainstream Republican, tea-party supported politicians today. It is often said, history repeats itself this just another example of how accurate that saying is.

In many ways I am still waiting for the American people to wake up to what they have done, but I don't expect many of them will until it is to late. When law enforcement starts rounding up non-white, non-christian, non-conservative citizens who are trying to exercise their constitutional rights, because of the law set forth by religious and conservative zealots, people will cry in the night asking, How did this happen.

It happened because of people who chose not to critically think, who blindly followed authority, be it political or religious authority, people who wanted everyone else to live under their particular worldview, but were unwilling to compromise and co-exist peacefully, in a world of diversity. It happened because people were afraid to stand up and fight, or people who fought on the basis of a wedge issue and were blinded to their rights being usurped. It happened in broad daylight, when people had their eyes wide open, and their minds wide closed. It happened with people eating apple pie, singing the national anthem, listening to country music and longing for the good ole' days, which never were as good as nostalgia recalls. It happened because people were bigots, ignorant, selfish, and intellectually deficient, while staunchly claiming self-righteousness.

This has all happened before, Rome is the perfect example. Only this time we live in a world where nuclear weapons can eradicate humanity, all because some people are so afraid, they absolutely cannot stand anyone who doesn't live under their particular worldview, and greed is celebrated and protected for the wealthiest in the world.

Obstructionism

Here is an interesting question to ponder: If Republicans are the party of the Rich, Privileged, and Big Business interests, which is hard to dispute, what incentive would the Rich, or Business interests have in promoting job creation here at home, when doing so will only help President Obama's reelection efforts. We have seen what a struggling economy did for Democrats in 2010, Republicans understand this, which is why the economy has not recovered and why job growth is lack-luster.

So long as business interests and Republican politicians stand to gain politically from a weakened economy, the status-quo will continue without democratic intervention; Unfortunately, many Republicans are single issue or ideologically driven voters, who are misinformed, under-educated, and sheltered from the real world, so they will probably continue voting against their own self-interests, making a Democratic super-majority almost impossible to achieve. As a result, nothing may ever stop the Republican wrecking ball from bringing down our freedom's and civil liberties.

If you want an example of why a Democratic super-majority would be necessary, look at 2008 - 2010, when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. Republicans stonewalled, filibustered, and obstructed every piece of legislation they could, even when it was something they previously supported or was in their constituents best interests to support. They did this to try and thwart any victory by President Obama or the Democratically controlled Congress, thereby setting the stage for the 2010 and 2012 elections, where they would make the Democrats and President Obama look like failures. They more-or-less succeeded with their obstruction tactics, but what they also did with this was to show their deep-seeded intentions.

Republican politicians are determined to force their ideological beliefs unto the rest of the country, by any means necessary and they are willing and prepared to destroy the country as it is today to try and achieve this goal. They are against education, because an educated populace is harder to control, they are against social programs, because their own self-interests outweigh the uplifting of a society by helping those in need. Republicans are unable to win logical or rational debates and must instead resort to bully-tactics or outright lies, including the use of public media and propaganda machine Fox News, to misinform and rally their constituents. They use wedge and single voter issues like Abortion and Gay Rights, to galvanize support from those voters, Throw the word God around to court evangelicals, baptists, and catholics. They act like the Sheriff of Nottingham when they have power, but are rarely held accountable for their misdeeds.

My prediction is a dire one: Things will continue to get worse. Conservatives will continue to gerrymander the law, legal process, judicial system, congress, and anything else they can, and will bring our country to the verge of collapse, because they do not want our society to be a diverse, open, and free society. They do not want equal rights or equal justice under the law, unless those rights and that justice is for them only. They won't stop until everyone is forced to live under their ideological worldview. Business interests know they will remain untouchable for the most part, as they have the power and financial ability to rise above the rest of society and operate according to their own rules. Life as we know it will change, everyone who is not wealthy or privileged, will be beholden to those with power, working menial-labor jobs to barely scrape by, being kept on the brink of starvation, and routinely dosed with fear, making them easier to control. Oh wait, hasn't that already started?