So, How's That Constitution Thing Working Out for You?

I wrote the original version of this post almost three years ago (June 27, 2022), and today seems like an appropriate time for a revisit and update ... 

The 55 representatives - all of them male, all white and all privileged members of their society - who attended  the Constitutional Convention of 1789 drafted the United States Constitution to define the parameters of a new form of government for a new form of nation. 

The preamble to the Constitution reads:

"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, 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."

So, how’s that working out now, 236 years after the representatives to the Constitutional Convention slapped each other on the back and went home? Let's see ...

“Form a More Perfect Union.” We survived the Civil War more or less intact, but the union today is being torn apart by political passions inflamed by the power-mad, the ultra-wealthy, and the religion-blinded. At a time when the nation faces huge problems and perils at home and abroad, Congress is driven by an angry and vengeful president to force an agenda that most of his supporters don't fully understand and probably wouldn't support if they did. The Blue and Gray states of antebellum America have given way to the Blue and Red states of modern America, aided by relentless gerrymandering of Congressional districts to ensure control by a particular party, rather than by the people to be represented. 

“Establish Justice.” We have a larger proportion of our population in prison than any other nation. The degree and quality of justice one can expect is directly proportional to one’s ability to hire the largest number of the most expensive, most aggressive, most experienced, and least principled attorneys. If you are black, brown, or poor, good luck. And whether or not you agree with the freedoms once granted by the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions, consider that a strongly conservative Supreme Court ignored 50 years of precedent and - for the first time - used the Dobbs decision to remove a freedom we thought was guaranteed under the Constitution. And as if that weren't enough, consider that Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to write that the Supreme Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [which removed legal barriers to contraception], Lawrence [which guaranteed the right of privacy in sexual intimacy between consenting adults], and Obergefell [which required states to allow same-sex marriages and recognize those from other states]” - three cases dealing with Americans’ fundamental rights to privacy, due process and equal protection under the law. And we haven't even talked about Der Furor's open defiance of the law. If you don't think justice is going backward, you're not paying attention.

“Insure Domestic Tranquility.” You might believe that the storming of the US Capitol by a howling mob of Der Furor's supporters on January 6th, 2021, was a one-time thing, but I wouldn’t bet on it. When a large portion of the population is fired up by a relentlessly authoritarian president and his cowed Congressional supporters, Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, and believes its political opposition is nothing more than Satan-worshiping radical left libtards and pedophiles hell-bent on destroying the nation, domestic tranquility is most assuredly not insured.

“Provide for the Common Defence.” We have the most powerful military on Earth to protect us from external threats. Within our borders, however, we remain under threat from each other, exacerbated by a constitutional amendment that has made us the most heavily-armed citizens in the world, and animated by a belief that personal defense and individual rights trump all other rights and responsibilities. When angry militias are training in the wilderness, storming the Capitol, openly advocating violence against the government and their political opponents, and openly threatening elected officials and other public servants, providing for the common defense takes on a different meaning.

“Promote the General Welfare.” Unless the general welfare runs contrary to the interests of big business and the wealthy, that is. Der Furor's GOP is working hard to do away with what it disparagingly call the “deep state” that ensures your welfare ... that you have safe drugs, wholesome food, reliable products, a stable (more or less) economy, safe working spaces, drinkable water, and breathable air. Good luck with all those as federal agencies are stripped of the regulatory powers that have kept you safe and healthy in the fever dream of Republican fury at the "nanny state" and its "job-killing regulations."

“Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Many people nowadays interpret “liberty” as meaning “my personal liberty," rather than "our shared liberty.” The Declaration of Independence speaks of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as "unalienable rights," but your right to those things has become secondary to the perceived rights of those who want to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, to anyone they choose. Our rights aren't unalienable after all ... just ask Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito.

As a brand new Air Force Second Lieutenant in June of 1973, I swore this oath:

“I, Bilbo, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I swore my oath to the Constitution ... not to any individual. I swore my oath to an idea and a set of fundamental principles, not to a president, king, or dictator, and not to a pope, imam, rabbi, or patriarch.

Our poor, battered Constitution has served us pretty well for the last 236 years, but it's showing its weaknesses - not the least of which is how easily it can be subverted by those bold and wicked enough to openly ignore it or interpret its meaning in new and unsettling - when not blatantly illegal - ways. The weaknesses of the Constitution are, I believe, caused by the fact that its framers were honorable men who did not foresee the willingness of other evil and unscrupulous actors to undermine the government for which the founding generation had fought and died.  

So, how's the Constitution working out for you? If you're smart, you won't take its words of freedom and justice for granted. You'll support political leaders who uphold the grand words of the Preamble to the Constitution, who will work for all Americans, not just those of the preferred color (white), sex (male), or religion ("Christian"*). 

In the (paraphrased) words of former CNN anchor Jim Acosta, do not give in to the lies, and do not give in to the fear. Your country's future depends on it.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* It should be noted that most present-day "Christians" have only the most nodding of relationships with the actual teachings of Christ.

Freedom of Speech Then, Freedom of Speech Now

A major topic of discussion lately is freedom of speech, a fundamental American freedom less valued than the right to pack iron, but nevertheless generally considered to be relatively important.

When most of us think of freedom of speech, we have a mental image of the famous Norman Rockwell painting of an everyman standing up to have his say while his neighbors listen respectfully ...

Nowadays, though, the image called to mind by freedom of speech is more likely to be Der Furor whining noisily about the injustice of being called out by a judge for his hateful and inflammatory rhetoric ...

or American nazis and crazy racists of all sorts exercising their freedom of speech to demonstrate their ignorance of history, denial of reality, embrace of hatred, and utter lack of empathy, and to deny the same freedom of speech to others ...

It's a reminder that while we have freedom of speech, not all of that free speech is worth listening to.

Have a good day, and come back tomorrow when we name the Right Cheek Ass Clown for November. More thoughts then.

Bilbo

The Cognitive Dissonance of Freedom

I've often noted in this space that as I was taught in school - back when they taught such things - there's a difference between freedom (the state of being able to act without hindrance or restraint; liberty of
action) and license (freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility; disregard for standards of personal conduct). It seems to me that what used to be the Republican party no longer understands this distinction.

American conservatives, led by a Republican party which has been hopelessly twisted and corrupted by Der Furor and his enablers*, loudly proclaim that they are the party of freedom, and that their freedom is being infringed by dastardly liberals who are nothing more than wild-eyed socialists bent on destroying the nation. But consider where the limitations on freedom are actually coming from.

It is true that most "liberals" support some degree of infringement of the right to "keep and bear arms" guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The reason for this is obvious given the tremendous level of gun  violence in present-day America, fueled in large part by the staggering number of military-grade weapons in private hands and court decisions which reject limits on the ownership and carrying of firearms. The freedom to "keep and bear arms" has morphed into the license to pack iron of any type, at any time, in any place, for any reason (or no reason), regardless of the demonstrated threat to public health and safety. 

Deeply conservative and ostentatiously religious Americans insist on removing books to which they object from school and public libraries. Should the freedom of American citizens to read the books they choose be limited by the license of a conservative morality police who are offended by certain ideas, behaviors, or lifestyles? In the fevered world of the GOP, it's not an issue ... the freedom to avoid exposure to unpleasant or unwanted ideas gives them license to limit the freedom of others to undertake discussion of difficult or controversial topics, or to live as they choose.

Many conservative parents insist on their freedom to manage what their children learn in school by exercising the license to browbeat local school boards into teaching only what they believe should be taught, imagining anything else to be the hated indoctrination of their children with ideas they do not support. 

The Supreme Court's Griswold v Connecticut decision in 1965, which legalized contraception, and its Roe v Wade decision in 1973 which legalized abortion, gave American women the freedom to manage their reproductive health and the size of their families. This year's decision in Planned Parenthood v Casey gave religious conservatives license to take those freedoms away.

Childhood diseases long since vanquished by advancements in vaccination, like measles and pertussis (whooping cough), are reappearing because some parents insist on the freedom to not vaccinate their children ... giving them license to let their children become ill and to infect others. At the same time, many Americans refuse to accept vaccinations against Covid-19 and its variants - a disease which has killed more than a million people in the United States alone - insisting that their freedom to control what goes into their bodies gives them license to impede efforts to control a deadly epidemic.

Freedom implies a mutual respect for the rights and interests of others; license implies that the rights and interests of others are unimportant and must be subordinated to your own. 

I like to think the Founders wanted to establish a nation that leavened freedom with responsibility and mutual respect. I like to think they understood that if freedom careened off into license, their experiment in self-governance would be imperiled. I think they would be utterly aghast at the state of political thought and discourse in this country today, and how their sacrifices to form a new nation of freedom are being wasted in the service of radical conservatism.

Enjoy the freedoms you are guaranteed as an American. But avoid the temptation to view them as a license to trample on the rights and freedoms of others.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming. 

Bilbo

* If you're interested in the longer-term history of the ruin of the GOP, read Dana Milbank's book, The Destructionists: The Twenty-Five Year Crack-Up of the Republican Party."

So, How's That Constitution Thing Working Out for You?

The 55 representatives - all of them male, all white and all privileged members of their society - who attended  the Constitutional Convention of 1789 drafted the United States Constitution to define the parameters of a new form of government for a new form of nation. 

The preamble to the Constitution reads:

"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, 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."

So, how’s that working out now, 233 years after the representatives to the Constitutional Convention slapped each other on the back and went home? Let's see ...

“Form a More Perfect Union.” We survived the Civil War more or less intact, but the union today is being torn apart by political passions inflamed by the power-mad and the religion-blinded. At a time when the nation faces huge problems and perils at home and abroad, Congress is paralyzed by the ability of an angry minority party to heap sand in the legislative gears and prevent action on all but the most mundane of issues. The Blue and Gray states of antebellum America have given way to the Blue and Red states of modern America. 

“Establish Justice.” We have a larger proportion of our population in prison than any other nation. The degree and quality of justice one can expect is directly proportional to one’s ability to hire the largest number of the most expensive, most aggressive, most experienced, and least principled attorneys. If you are black, brown, or poor, good luck. And whether or not you agree with the freedoms once granted by the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions, consider that a strongly conservative Supreme Court has just ignored 50 years of precedent and - for the first time - actually removed a freedom we thought was guaranteed under the Constitution. And as if that weren't enough, consider that Justice Clarence Thomas went out of his way to write that the Supreme Court “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [which removed legal barriers to contraception], Lawrence [which guaranteed the right of privacy in sexual intimacy between consenting adults], and Obergefell [which required states to allow same-sex marriages and recognize those from other states]” - three cases dealing with Americans’ fundamental rights to privacy, due process and equal protection under the law. If you don't think justice can go backward, you're not paying attention.

“Insure Domestic Tranquility.” You might believe that the storming of the US Capitol by a crazed mob of Der Furor's supporters on January 6th, 2021, was a one-time thing, but I wouldn’t bet on it. When a large portion of the population is fired up by a monomaniac former president and his acolytes, Fox News, OAN, and Newsmax, and believes its political opposition is nothing more than satan-worshiping pedophiles hell-bent on destroying the nation, domestic tranquility is probably not insured.

“Provide for the Common Defence.” We have a hugely powerful military to protect us from external threats. Within our borders, however, we remain under threat from each other, exacerbated by a constitutional amendment that has made us the most heavily-armed citizens in the world, and animated by a belief that personal defense trumps all other rights and responsibilities. When angry militias are training in the wilderness, storming the Capitol, and continuing to openly advocate violence against the government, providing for the common defense takes on a different meaning.

“Promote the General Welfare.” Unless the general welfare runs contrary to the interests of big business and the wealthy, that is. Many Republicans favor doing away with what they disparagingly call the “administrative state” that ensures your welfare ... that you have safe drugs, wholesome food, reliable products, a stable (more or less) economy, safe working spaces, drinkable water, and breathable air. Good luck with all those if federal agencies lose the regulatory authorities that keep you safe and healthy.

“Secure the Blessings of Liberty.” Many people nowadays interpret “liberty” as meaning “my personal liberty," rather than "our shared liberty.” The Declaration of Independence speaks of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as "unalienable rights," but your right to those things has become secondary to the perceived rights of those who want to do whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, to anyone they choose. Our rights aren't unalienable after all ... just ask Clarence Thomas.

As a brand new Air Force Second Lieutenant in June of 1973, I swore this oath:

“I, Bilbo, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

I swore my oath to the Constitution ... not to any individual. I swore my oath to an idea and a set of fundamental principles, not to a president, king, or dictator, and not to a pope, an imam, a rabbi, or a patriarch.

Our poor, battered Constitution has served us pretty well for the last 233 years, but it's showing its weaknesses - not the least of which is how easily it can be subverted by those bold and wicked enough to openly subvert it. The weaknesses of the Constitution are, I believe, caused by the fact that its framers were honorable men who did not foresee the willingness of evil men (and women) to undermine the government for which the founding generation had fought and died.  

So, how's the Constitution working out for you? If you're smart, you won't take its words of freedom and justice for granted. You'll get out between now and November and look for candidates who are truly interested in upholding the grand words of the Preamble to the Constitution, who will work for all Americans, not just those of the preferred color (white), sex (male), or religion ("Christian"*). 

Vote as if your country's future depended on it. Because it does.

Have a good day. More thoughts coming.

Bilbo

* It should be noted that most present-day "Christians" have only a nodding relationship with the actual teachings of Christ.

The Other Freedoms

From the amount of hysterical reaction on the topic, you could be forgiven for thinking that there is only one important part of the Bill of Rights: the Second Amendment. In my opinion, though, the far more important amendment is the First, which reads in its entirety ...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In other posts, I'll talk about the First Amendment's guarantees of the freedoms of religion, assembly, and petition. Today, I want to talk about perhaps the most important parts of the First Amendment: the guarantees of freedom of speech and the press.

The fact that we can debate the actual meaning of the Second Amendment - or anything else - is the result of the First Amendment ... the Constitutional guarantee that Congress shall make no law* "... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..."

I bring this up at this point in time because our freedoms of speech and the press are under attack, and not just from the government. It's no secret that our notoriously thin-skinned president has advocated loosening up libel laws so that he can avenge himself on those he believes have treated him unfairly. But while we expect such behavior from a man like Donald Trump, whose ignorance of the Constitution has been on display all along, we see it also from our fellow Americans ... who should know better.

Consider that many of our elected officials - the Senators and Representatives we elected to be our voice in Washington - are no longer willing to hold public meetings with their constituents, because they are shouted down by angry crowds unwilling to listen to what they have to say. Instead, they send staff members to meet with the people they were chosen to represent.

Consider also that conservative flamethrower Ann Coulter backed out of an invitation to address a gathering at UCLA Berkley because of noisy and potentially violent objections by some students ... a situation described as "liberal fascism" by Faux News and as "a sad day for free speech" by Ms Coulter.

It's not often that I agree with Ann Coulter**, but I agree with her on this.

We may disagree with other speakers, but if we cannot speak freely, we cannot evaluate ideas and make informed decisions. We're sure we're right, and they're sure they're right ... if we cannot listen to each other, if we cannot compare their ideas to our own and weigh their value, we will never advance beyond the bitter quasi-intellectual stalemate we enjoy today. We need to understand each other's positions on issues so that we can find points of agreement - difficult though that may be - and work toward the shared goal of making the country a better place for everyone.

Conservatives and libertarians insist that the marketplace will ultimately resolve every problem, and if you believe that you should also believe that it will regulate the marketplace of ideas as well as the marketplace of economics. If we don't expose ourselves to other points of view, we cannot evaluate opposing points of view and ... perhaps ... change their minds.

Have a good day. Let the other guy talk.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Not that Congress has done much in the way of making laws lately, anyhow.

** Actually, I think she's an idiot who's swallowed too much of her own Kool Aid, but she's got every right to try to convince me otherwise. And she's doing a very poor job of it.

Independence Day, 2016

Yes, I know that today is supposed to be Musical Monday. But today is a special day, and so Musical Monday will not appear this week, but will return one week from today in this space. You'll survive.

Today is Monday, July 4th - the American holiday of Independence Day. It celebrates the day in 1776 on which the Declaration of Independence (from Great Britain) was formally adopted by the Continental Congress. The draft of the declaration had actually already been approved by the delegates on July 2nd, but the formal adoption came two days later. This, perhaps, marks the start of the longstanding tradition of Congress putting off doing the right thing.

The Fourth of July is the traditional high point of summer, roughly midway between Memorial Day at the end of May and Labor Day at the beginning of September. It's a day for parades, speeches, fireworks, picnics, historical recreations, and a general good time as we celebrate the birth of the United States as an independent nation.

This year, I think our celebration of Independence Day ought to be a bit more reflective. We're in a presidential election year, after all, and our ability to be governed by an elected president rather than a hereditary king was one of the reasons we chose to declare our independence from the mother country. Our first President was, of course, George Washington, often called "The Indispensable Man" or "The Father of His Country." With courage, dignity, and foresight, Washington established the parameters and initial traditions of the office that has since been held by such other towering figures as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. And by lesser figures who have diminished it*.

This year, 240 years after the Declaration of Independence and 227 years after George Washington assumed office as our first President, we face a probable election choice between two candidates who share the distinction of having the lowest public approval ratings of any candidates in our history. You'd think that out of a population of 320 million people, we could do better.

But I digress.

One of the traditional themes of Independence Day celebrations is freedom. This is a word we Americans love, but for which we have many shades of understanding. When I was in grade school**, we were required to take Civics classes to learn about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. One of the lessons drummed into us back then was the difference between freedom and license, a difference that is pretty much ignored today. Here are the relevant definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary:

Freedom: (1) The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint; (2) Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.

License: (1) Formal or official permission to do something; (2) Freedom to behave as one wishes, especially in a way that results in excessive or unacceptable behavior.

It seems to me that what many of today's Americans, both on the political right and left, demand is not freedom, but license. Consider the following examples:

- Many on the Christian Right define religious freedom as the right not only to live according to their own beliefs, but to impose those beliefs on others or deny others the freedom to live according to the tenets of different religions.

- Many on the Left call for the legalization of drugs, ignoring their catastrophic impact on society.

- Many on the conservative Right reject even the discussion of any limits on the possession and sale of firearms of all types and on the right to carry them openly or concealed everywhere, ignoring the carnage on our streets and in our homes that's a result of the ready availability of weapons vastly more powerful than those imagined by the authors of the Second Amendment.

- Many on the Left demand a vaguely-defined wage equality, ignoring the fact that some jobs are more responsible or more technical than others, and consequently deserve a higher rate of pay***.

On this Independence Day, 240 years after the declaration of our independence, Americans around the world celebrate not the love of freedom, but the lust for license, draped in patriotic red, white, and blue bunting and paraded to the lively tune of fifes and drums.

I think we need to bring back old-style Civics classes ... but I also think they'd be treated as an anachronism by Americans besotted with the idea that freedom should know no bounds, including those of common sense and decency.

Have a good day. Enjoy your freedoms, and let the rest of us enjoy ours as well.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Yes, W, I'm talking about you. And Millard Fillmore. And James Buchanan.

** Shortly after the dinosaurs died out.

*** A "living wage" is not the same thing, and is worth supporting.

There Oughta Be a Law, Part 2

If, Dear Readers, you are confused because you have been scrolling around looking for Part 1 of this post and not finding it, you just haven't scrolled far enough ... because it was posted on June 18th of 2012. Part 2 is only coming about now because I have recent personal experience with the topic.

If you don't feel like going back and reading the earlier post, here's the Readers' Digest version: a post by fellow blogger Angel had led me to something called Godwin's Law, which hypothesizes that, given enough time, any online discussion - regardless of topic or scope - will eventually include some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis. Here's the actual Law ...

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

This is common enough that there is a new addition to the list of logical fallacies titled Reductio ad Hitlerum, about which you can read here.

My latest brush with this logical fallacy came just yesterday, when I got into an online discussion with an old friend (old boss, actually, from my time in Berlin many years ago). He had posted a meme to his Facebook page which contrasted two quotes - one from Alan West and the other from Hillary Clinton:

I took issue with this as an overly simplistic reduction of a complex argument ... and a complex argument ensued. My point was that showing concern for the condition of the society as a whole is not the same as "feigning to know the societal good," or "dismiss(ing) ... unalienable individual rights." My friend kept trying to pin me down as a hysterically wild-eyed ivory tower liberal, with comments like, "So West's questions have no validity or relevance whatsoever?" and "So we must adopt Hillary's absolute, 'We must stop thinking of the individual...?'." The discussion spiraled around like water down a drain until a new person entered the discussion and posted this ...

... along with the comment, "... how about this comparison? Still think there (is) 'validity on both sides'?".

Yes, Dear Readers, it took exactly eight comments on my friend's original post to reach Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Now, at the risk of putting words in the lady's mouth, I think that what Ms Clinton should have said (and perhaps meant to say) was that it's not a good idea to focus exclusively on the needs of the individual at the expense of the larger society in which that individual lives. Completely unrestricted individual freedom is what used to be quaintly known as anarchy, and the need to regulate individual behavior in the interest of society is why we accept the limitations on our freedom that we call laws. There is, of course, a legitimate argument to be made about which laws are necessary, how intrusive or limiting they ought to be, and where the proper balance between rights and responsibilities lies, but that argument shouldn't rest on silly memes which rest on comparisons between individual gotcha quotes (usually without context). If we're going to resort to firing memes back and forth in lieu of principled discussion, here's mine ...

And just for the record, anyone who compares any present-day American political figure to Adolf Hitler* is utterly ignorant of history.

Have a good day. Think beyond the meme. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* By the way, I'm posting this on April 20th, which - as it happens - is the birthday (in 1889) of Adolf Hitler.

Freedom of Speech

One of our most basic Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms is freedom of speech ... the right to express our opinions directly and forthrightly, without fear of government censure or censorship. Most of us would acknowledge, though, that absolute and total freedom of speech isn't possible or desirable, and we understand that there need to be practical limits on what we say. You can't yell "fire!!" in a crowded theater or incite a mob to riot, for example. Because I hold a security clearance, I understand that there is military and government information I'm not allowed to discuss openly, and there is also proprietary information that my employer doesn't allow me to divulge. There are defensible reasons for such limitations on our freedom of speech, and most of us accept them*.

But how far do we want those limits to go, and who should decide what they are?

Members of some religious denominations believe that criticism of or insult to their beliefs should be forbidden. For an idea of how that works out in practice, look at Pakistan, where you can be condemned to death for blasphemy, and the criteria for what constitutes "blasphemy" are pretty loose.

Some people believe they have the right to shout down a speaker with whom they disagree, or resort to ad hominem attacks. It's always easier to criticize others than to come up with ideas of your own, or to replace rational thought with high volume.

Some people believe that certain words are so offensive that they should never be spoken under any circumstances. We've even coined code words for some of them, such as the dreaded "n-word."

And many people nowadays practice self-censorship ... avoiding any comments that might possibly offend someone. This has its own crippling effect on the marketplace of ideas, as brilliantly noted in this editorial cartoon by Jim Morin ...

Someone** once said that what this country needs is more free speech worth listening to, and I think that is the root of our problem. Everyone wants freedom of speech, but not everyone wants to listen to speech with which he or she disagrees ... indeed, many people don't think there's any value at all in listening to anything that doesn't line up with their preconceived beliefs***. To many, freedom of speech equates to the freedom of other people to say only those things they think ought to be said.

I have always thought that freedom of speech should have as few limits as possible, because it makes it easier to recognize and argue against stupidity. Nowadays, though, freedom of speech often comes accompanied by its undesirable cousin, Ironclad Certainty - the absolute, rock solid belief in the unshakeable truth of ones own position and the complete refusal to consider anything else. Try talking to a far right or far left political adherent, or to a religious fundamentalist if you don't believe me. They're in the transmit mode only, and their clue chutes are close, locked, welded shut, and painted over. If you're not saying what they want to hear, they're not listening.

We've come a long way from the freedom of speech ideal immortalized by Norman Rockwell's 1943 painting, in which a stereotypical common man speaks his mind while everyone else listens respectfully ...

I've often observed that Freedom of Speech is not always accompanied by Freedom of Smart. But if you don't listen with an open and respectful mind, you can't very well evaluate what's smart and what isn't.

Not that it seems to make much difference nowadays ... look at the people we elect.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Unless you take the Edward Snowdon approach to your responsibilities.

** That would be Hansell B. Duckett, about whom I can find no other information beyond credit for this wonderful quote.

*** This probably explains the popularity of Faux News.

Who Speaks for Me?

It's venting time, so this post is going to be a bit longer than usual, and more of a political rant. If you'd rather come back another time, I'll understand.

As you, Dear Readers, know as much as anyone, I’m pretty well disgusted with the current state of political affairs in the US of A. I’ve written about it often enough in this space, and I’ve gotten involved in a lot of political discussions in the office and on Facebook that usually end up with agreements to disagree. And a lot of people accuse me of beating up on the Republican right and giving the Democratic left a free pass.

To a certain extent, I'm guilty as charged. As I have explained ad nauseum, I am, in fact, harder on the GOP than I am on the Democrats, because I think I have a right to expect more from them. While it’s true that both parties share the blame for the current miserable state of affairs, I honestly believe it’s the GOP that bears the lion’s share of the responsibility. And it’s not just my opinion, either. Consider this excerpt from this 2012 article by Thomas E. Mann of the centrist-liberal Brookings Institution and Norman J. Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute …

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

That’s a pretty serious smackdown, especially coming from a representative of the conservative AEI.

I was a proud, registered Republican voter for many years. I cast my first vote for president for Richard Nixon in 1972 and voted Republican all the way through the Reagan years. But then, by the time of the second Bush administration, I started to see things a little differently. The party that stood for the conservative values I supported – individual responsibility, prudent economic policy, strong defense, justice, and respect for traditional American values – was leaving me behind. The party leaned more and more to the extreme right, embracing ideas that were blatantly contrary to the intent of the Founders (such as the bald assertion that the nation was founded on the basis of the Christian religion) and openly scorning not only competing visions of America’s future, but the motivations of anyone who dared to propose other than hard-core conservative ideas. As Mann and Ornstein pointed out in their essay, ignorance of science … and, indeed, of facts and evidence … became the norm. Worship of individual rights became paramount, with no equivalent regard for the responsibilities that go along with them. The GOP became the party that deified Ronald Reagan, but would have scorned him as a RINO ("Republican in Name Only") for his willingness to be realistic and to embrace principled compromise if he were running for office today.

So, what’s left for someone like me – a conservative at heart who doesn't much care for the Democrats, but has been driven away from the GOP by its ludicrous antics? I need a new party ... one that combines the common sense of the traditional American conservative with the social conscience of the liberal. Here are some of the ideas and programs my ideal party would support:

- Legal immigrants absolutely welcome. America is a nation of immigrants, as were my grandparents. If you break the law to come here, you should not expect to be coddled - you should expect to be deported. Period. And a responsible Congress interested in what's best for America would get off it's dead rear end and deliver a comprehensive and realistic reform of our immigration laws that addresses every aspect of the problem ... not just the one that meets the demands of one side.

- Government at every level should be as small as possible consistent with the demands we place on it. This means that the Federal Government ought to deal only with those things that must be done on a national level (defense, international relations, trade, etc), while state and local governments should deal with the programs and services that touch individual citizens.

- Law and order.

- A strong defense.

- A foreign policy based on a realistic appraisal of America's true national interests.

- Absolutely no intrusion of religion - any religion - into the policies of the government.

- Protection of the environment and preservation of our natural wonders. We need air to breathe, water to drink, and natural beauty for the refreshment of our minds.

Who speaks for me and for the people who truly love this country?

No Republican.

No Democrat.

No Libertarian.

Nobody.

Sorry for the rant, but completely and totally fed up with brainless louts who are unwilling to work together in the interest of the greater good, and who believe completely and totally in their own holier-than-thou bullcrap. Screw you all.

Have a good day. More ... and, hopefully, more pleasant ... thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Revocation of Independence Day

Today we celebrate the most uniquely American of our national holidays – the Fourth of July, otherwise known as Independence Day - the day in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Second Continental Congress. Adoption and publication of the Declaration of Independence marked a watershed moment in the movement by many (although not all!) in the thirteen American colonies to break away from Great Britain and establish the United States as an independent nation.

It’s a day marked by picnics, family reunions, and displays of patriotic fervor including parades, the prominent display of flags, consumption of large amounts of hamburgers, hot dogs and beer, and the launching of millions of fireworks.

In honor of this year’s Fourth of July, and in acknowledgement of how well and truly our elected reprehensives are trying to screw up the nation, here is a classic piece of what-if satire, edited by yours truly to bring it up to date (I first saw it back in the early 2000’s) ...

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

A Notice from Her Majesty's Government to the Citizens of the United States of America,

In the light of your demonstrated failure to adequately govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories, except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable David Cameron, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded, and a questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition of the former United States to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. Look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium.” Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as “favour” and “neighbour;” skipping the letter ‘U’ is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell “doughnut” without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter ‘Z’ (pronounced “zed,” not “zee”) and the suffix “ize” will be replaced by the suffix “ise.” You will learn that the suffix ‘-burgh’ is pronounced ‘burra’ e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as ‘Pittsberg’ if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up “vocabulary.” Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed.” There will be no more bleeps on live television. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as “US English.” We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of “-ize.”

3. You should learn to distinguish the various English accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to “Cockney” and “Upper-Class Twit,” and you will also have to learn how to understand regional accents. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is “Devon.” If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become “shires” e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British shows such as “Fawlty Towers” and “Sherlock” will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience with short attention spans, a limited vocabulary, and an aversion to political incorrectness.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, “God Save The Queen.”

6. You will stop playing American “football.” There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American “football” is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays “American” football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football, which for some reason you insist on calling "soccer." Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls, as it is a difficult game and they will be able to teach you. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American “football,” but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2015. You should also stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the “World Series” for a game which is not played outside of America*. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a children's game called “rounders” which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hot dogs.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde**.

8. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle dangerous weapons, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will be required to learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French - they are Belgian, though 97.85% of you (including the chap who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called “crisps.” Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. Speaking of beer, the cold and tasteless stuff you insist on selling under that name is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as “beer,” and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as “lager.” The substances formerly known as “American Beer” will henceforth be referred to as “Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine,” with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as “Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine.” This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

12. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

13. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will correspond with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation.

Have a good day. Be of good humour, and be safe on this happy holiday. Don't drink and drive. Or drink and play with fireworks. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Other than in Japan, which does not count.

** The French word for excrement.

Deadly Weekend

As if we didn't have the arctic temperatures to deal with, the past weekend has been dangerous for other reasons.

In Columbia, Maryland, a man used a shotgun in a crowded mall to murder two people before turning the gun on himself.

At South Carolina State University, two men got into an argument, whereupon one pulled out a gun and shot the other dead.

No other comment necessary. It wouldn't bring anything new to the argument, anyway.

Have a good day. Know what to do in an "active shooter" situation*. The situation isn't likely to get any better.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Isn't it grand that a university needs to put out guidance on this subject?

Think Before Shooting Off One's Mouth; or, Before Using Mouth, Be Sure Brain Is Engaged

From the Department of How Utterly Stupid Can You Get comes this amazing story: Protest Group Plans July 4 March on Washington with Loaded Rifles.

Oy.

Iraq war veteran and Internet talk show host Adam Kokesh is organizing thousands of protesters to march into Washington, DC on Independence Day with loaded rifles slung on their backs. According to Mr Kokesh, writing on his website,

“We will march with rifles loaded and flung across our backs to put the government on notice that we will not be intimidated and cower in submission to tyranny. We are marching to mark the high water mark of government & to turn the tide. This will be a non-violent event, unless the government chooses to make it violent. Should we meet physical resistance, we will peacefully turn back, having shown that free people are not welcome in Washington. . . . We are truly saying in the SUBTLEST way possible that we would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.”

A few thoughts ...

First of all, the thought of thousands of armed extremists does not bring to mind the word "subtle."

Second, Mr Kokesh ... and those who believe as he does ... have absolutely no concept of what tyranny is. If you want tyranny, consider Nazi Germany* or Stalinist Russia or the Uganda of Idi Amin. If tyranny means any set of laws that prevents you from doing whatever you want, whenever you want to do it, without any restrictions, then yes - you are living in a tyranny.

Between 1980 and 1982 I lived and worked in what was then called the city of West Berlin. Those of you who are old enough will recall that West Berlin was a city completely surrounded by a well-guarded wall known to the East German government as the "Anti-Fascist Protective Rampart (Antifaschistischer Schutzmauer), and to the rest of the world as The Berlin Wall. People attempting to leave East Berlin by climbing over that barrier were subject to death ... and, in fact, at least one person was killed by East German Border guards while I lived there.

If you want tyranny, Mr Kokesh, try that on for size.

I know the sort of spittle-punctuated hysterical rhetoric my comments would generate in far-right circles. Too bad. I have written often enough about my support for all of our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights ... not just the much-abused right to "keep and bear arms" enshrined in the Bill of Rights. But as I learned many years ago in grade-school and high-school Civics lessons**, there's a difference between freedom and license***, as much as many people nowadays tend to ignore the distinction. With freedom comes responsibility.

And, in my opinion, equating the rule of law with "tyranny" is irresponsible.

Staging a march by thousands of armed people spoiling for a fight with what they view as a tyrannical government, is irresponsible.

Spouting wild conspiracy theories and political buffoonery without any foundation in history or in common sense, is irresponsible.

The Constitution guarantees us many freedoms. Sadly, it does not also guarantee that a degree of intelligence and personal responsibility will come along with those freedoms.

Six grandchildren I love deeply are growing up in a country full of heavily-armed, hate-filled idiots who have no idea what they're talking about, shouting slogans at each other in a self-perpetuating quasi-intellectual echo chamber that just reinforces their own fears and prejudices.

And that scares me a lot more than the imaginary bugbear of a tyrannical government.

I'm glad I'll be out of town on the 4th of July.

Have a good day. Think for yourself, rather than parroting dumb slogans and irresponsibly twisted historical fantasies.

See you back here again on Cartoon Saturday.

Bilbo

* That would be the real Nazi Germany, that built concentration camps, engaged in genocide, and triggered the war that killed tens of millions, not the imaginary Nazi Germany of right-wing (and left-wing) extremist fantasies, in which anyone opposing what one wants to do is frivolously called a "Nazi" and compared to Adolf Hitler.

** Any of you old enough to remember those? Too bad we don't teach good citizenship any more.

*** One definition: "Freedom that allows or is used with irresponsibility; disregard for standards of personal conduct, licentiousness."

Arms You Can Bear. No, Really!

Yes, Dear Readers, I know ... the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants every American the right to own as many weapons of whatever type as he or she wishes. Even the Supreme Court says so. And the National Rifle Association is standing tall in the vanguard of your defense against the Jack-Booted Government Thugs^TM who are plotting to take all your guns away from you. Pistols, rifles, assault rifles, they're all okay, because you never know when those black helicopters loaded with UN troops are going to swoop down and try to disarm you so they can take over America.

Take off the tinfoil hat for a minute and listen, I've got some good news for you.

A major issue at the moment concerns whether or not to ban outright or limit ownership of certain types of weapons ... specifically military-style assault rifles with large capacity magazines. If you are really concerned that the Big Bad Government is going to take away your rights (and there are some that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights beyond the Second Amendment), you will no doubt be pleased to know that there are a great many weapons it's still perfectly legal for you to own almost everywhere in this wonderful country. Courtesy of the Fiscal Times, here is a list of ten weapons other than ordinary "guns" that you can legally own:

1. Flamethrowers. Assault rifles are for sissies. If you really want to stop a bad guy with a gun, buy yourself a flamethrower. They are legal under federal law, and in 40 of the 50 states. Your fellow gun enthusiasts will recognize you as no lightweight, but as someone who packs serious heat*.

2. Miniguns. Screw assault rifles - get yourself a minigun (a Gatling-style machine gun which can fire 2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute, or 166 bullets per second). Because they're actually machine guns, they're technically illegal; however, if your minigun was manufactured and registered before May 19th, 1986, when the federal ban on ownership of machine guns went into effect, you're in luck! Ammo will be expensive, though, with rates of fire like these. Stock up now!

3. Katanas. A katana is a traditional Japanese samurai sword. It has a razor sharp blade two feet or more in length, suitable for cutting off heads of illegal immigrants, drug dealers, and other violent felons with a single blow. But of course, you'd only use it for weed-whacking, right?

4. Cannons. Black powder cannons are legal and do not even need to be registered with the government, although the black powder must be purchased from a licensed explosives dealer. The amount of black powder you can buy at any one time under federal law is limited to 50 pounds, but the locally legal amount varies by state. A nice howitzer wouldn't keep those UN helicopters away, but it would make the UN troops think twice about storming your house**.

5. Crossbows. Crossbows are legal in most states, although some of them require you to have a license. They're not only good to have on hand when the zombie apocalypse comes (crossbows, not states), but they also shoot silently, freeing you of the unnecessary additional expense of a silencer or ear protectors to avoid hearing damage.

6. Grenade Launchers. Good news - grenade launchers are legal in all states, although they must be registered. Bad news - the grenades themselves are illegal. But what the heck - how cool would it be to tell your buddy who only has a measly AR-15 that you're packing a grenade launcher? You might miss that 14-point buck with a semi-automatic assault rifle and 30-round magazine, but a grenade launcher will not only bring him down, but gut him and cut him into stew meat for you.

7. Nunchucks. The nunchuck is a martial arts weapon that consists of two heavy cylinders of hardwood or metal connected by a chain. They are legal under federal law, although they are banned in some states ... generally for safety reasons, because so many dumbass Bruce Lee wannabees crush their own skulls each year flailing them around as if they knew what they were doing.

8. Umbrella Swords. Yes, bumbershoots with embedded swords are legal everywhere except California, Massachusetts, and New York. The blades average about 15 inches in length, and will let you channel Mr Steed with the best of them. You can even get them with extras, like a handle that doubles as brass knuckles. Bonus: you can stay dry during your battles with the Forces of Evil.

9. Spear Guns. Usually used by skin divers to shoot fish, they are legal everywhere in the United States. If those Jack-Booted Government Thugs^TM come after you at the beach or in a public pool, you'll be ready for them.

10. Chain Whips. Simple chains, often bicycle chains, are traditional weapons of street gangs. Chain whips are weapons used in some Chinese martial arts styles, and frequently have links that are barbed or sharpened; they are swung so as to wrap the chain around an attacker to pull him off balance or break his hold on his own weapon.

And so, Dear Readers, don't worry about losing your right to bear arms ... there are a lot of arms out there you can still bear, without worrying that the Big Bad Government and its Jack-Booted Thugs^TM  will take them away from you. As for me, I'm more partial to bare arms on ladies than to bearing arms, although you have a constitutional right to think otherwise. Just don't expect me to agree that my right to not get shot is less important than your right to own an arsenal.

I'm just sayin' ...

Have a good day and a nice rest of your weekend. More thoughts on Tuesday.

Bilbo

*"For real!", as my granddaughter Leya would say.

** Actually, your house is probably in more danger from real estate developers wielding the right of eminent domain than from UN troops rappelling from black helicopters, but nobody seems too worried about limiting the rights of developers, least of all the Supreme Court. Read about the Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London. You can read the text of the actual decision here.

Constructively Worrying About the Right Things

There have been several very interesting articles written recently concerning the various problems we face today in America. Of course, it's easy to write articles (and blog posts!), but much harder to actually solve the problems; nevertheless, it's not always a bad thing to step back and take a look at ourselves and the country we're making ... or throwing away, depending on your point of view.

Here is a wonderful quote from an Economist article about the foolish idea of the trillion-dollar coin* as a deus ex machina solution to our economic woes:

"The American habit of making a fetish of their written constitution tends to blind them to the fact that power is constrained at last by conscience, convention, and credible threats of social, institutional, and physical reprisal, not paper law."

Hard-core conservatives thunder endlessly about the all-but-Koranic sanctity of the Constitution and the near-Mohammedan wisdom and perfection of the Founders, but I'm not at all sure they understand what it really means in terms of running a country in the 21st century.

At the moment, the Second Amendment is getting most of the attention on the Far Right - a screaming passion that often goes beyond reason and good sense and is based on the perceived need for possession of firearms as protection against the power of a tyrannical government. Consider just two of the things that have happened recently:

A former Marine sent a letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, strongly defending his right to own any type of weapon without restriction.

Ultraconservative talk show host Alex Jones engaged in a lengthy rant on the Piers Morgan Tonight show, excoriating Mr Morgan over his advocacy of gun control. Among other things, Mr Jones said**,

"1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms! It doesn't matter how many lemmings you get out on the street begging for them to have their guns taken! We will not relinquish them! Do you understand?"

There's no question that there is tremendous passion on the part of many Americans for the right to own as many weapons as they wish, of whatever type they choose, and to carry them even in the most inappropriate places. But the argument that the ownership of weapons is necessary for protection against an Evil Government hell-bent on depriving Good Americans of their freedoms is more than a little simplistic. 

Consider this article by Conor Friedersdorf from the Atlantic Monthly: The Strangest Conservative Priority: Prepping a '2nd Amendment Solution.' This excerpt explains Mr Friedersdorf's thesis:

"...we're going to proceed [in this article] as if the arguments above are correct -- that there is a real danger of the U.S. government growing tyrannical; that the people must preserve checks on its power; and that the Framers best understood how to do so. I respect that general reasoning. What I can't respect are the conservatives who invoke it during political battles over gun control, even as they ignore or actively oppose so many other important attempts to safeguard liberty."

What Mr Friedersdorf goes on to consider is the laser focus of the Right on the importance of preserving gun rights, while attempting to impose its own social agenda and ignoring all the other ongoing, more subtle ways in which the government limits their freedoms:

"... the conservative movement is only reliable when it defends the 2nd Amendment. Otherwise, it is an inconsistent advocate for safeguarding liberty. Conservatives pay occasional lip service to federalism, but are generally hypocrites on the subject, voting for bills like No Child Left Behind, supporting a federally administered War on Drugs, and advocating for federal legislation on marriage.***"

He goes on ...

"It's one thing to argue that gun control legislation is a nonstarter, despite tens of thousands of deaths by gunshot per year [Mr Friedersdorf's emphasis], because the safeguards articulated in the Bill of Rights are sacrosanct. I can respect that... but not from people who simultaneously insist that 3,000 dead in a terrorist attack justifies departing from the plain text of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments****, and giving the president de-facto power to declare war without Congressional approval.

"The conservative movement has a broad, textualist reading of the 2nd Amendment... and nothing else."

And my final quote from the article sort of sums it up:

"... if you're a conservative gun owner who worries that gun control today could make tyranny easier to impose tomorrow, and you support warrantless spying, indefinite detention, and secret drone strikes on Americans accused of terrorism, what explains your seeming schizophrenia?"

What indeed?

I have written often enough in this space that I support all of our freedoms, including the right to "keep and bear arms" enshrined in the Second Amendment. But if you think all that matters is the right to pack heat, ignoring all the other ways a government driven by hyperconservative passions would like to limit your other freedoms, you need your head examined.

Read Mr Friedersdorf's article and think about it very carefully.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* You may recall that I wrote about this idea last month ... here's the post.

** Shouted, actually.

*** You may remember the attempt last year by conservative Republican legislators in Virginia to require mandatory invasive ultrasound tests for women seeking abortions, since abandoned in the face of strong opposition.

**** Much less the First.