Taxation with Representation

One of the blogs I follow with some regularity is maintained by my father; the blog, 'Desertpeace', presents a variety of articles about the situation regarding the plight of the Palestinian people at the hands of the Israelis. It is an anti-Zionist website that often presents political cartoons by associate bloggers, as well as other articles by journalists who regularly post to the site in an effort to share their views with as large an audience as possible. In a post that appeared on the 8th of August, a post that was a cartoon entitled the 'Boycott Toon of the Day' a comment was posted regarding the conviction of Sherry Jackson for failure to pay her taxes. While I read a few articles pertaining to the Jackson case, that is not what this post is about, nor am I claiming to be familiar with the particulars of the case. What compelled me to write this was a comment suggesting that no law exists in the United States compelling its citizens to pay taxes.

Many times people question the legality of taxation in the United States without realizing that there are, in fact, laws stipulating that it is legal – lawful – for the government to collect taxes from the citizens of the nation. First, ratified in 1913 is the 16th Amendment of the Constitution – an obscure, often unused document that is usually only used when Americans want to protect their ‘right’ to carry a firearm (without having to serve in a militia).

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” If that isn’t explicit enough, there’s more … but it will only upset you (it isn’t from the 16th …).

Title 26 of the US Code is also known as the Internal Revenue Code and contains the statutory tax laws of the land, including the tax rates according to level of income (which demonstrates that Americans are being taxed at the lowest rate since long before Ronnie Ray-Guns).

So, yes Virginia, it is lawful for Americans to ‘pay their fair share’, it is part of the law of the land to dig into your pocket and help pay for the roads others use and pay for the health care that someone else consumes – why – because that’s what makes a country great – that’s what allows a country to continue.

The fact that the country’s taxes are also spent, unfortunately, on the machines of war is something that must be addressed by the influence of the public through the ballots they cast and the pressure they put on those who represent them in Washington. As soon as you say ‘nothing we do will make a difference’ you are right: nothing YOU do WILL make a difference with that attitude. Just remember, a ‘community organizer’ with ‘no experience’ managed to galvanize enough people when he shouldn’t have (according to the ‘experts’) and did what ‘shouldn’t’ have been possible.

As it was said at the beginning of the movie ‘Armageddon’: It happened before, it will happen again.

Americans have to come to the realization that they have been lied to by people too lazy to read the law: Taxation, with representation, is the law of the land. What must be addressed is the representation part – the taxes are necessary to make the nation function. Would you rather not have things like fire departments, schools, and other things funded with public monies? Who are you going to call if your house is burning or someone has had a heart attack and you need to access the 9-1-1 service? This is one of the great positions of Libertarians – it’s great to believe we can ‘do for ourselves’ and ‘stand on our own’, until you can’t – until you need the help of someone because you are in a position that requires assistance. That is the way of humanity. It is why we live in communities with other people – note the word ‘community’ – the root word being ‘commune’, people coming to live together for the ‘common good’ – sort of like ‘communism’ or ‘socialism’.

One of the functions of Government is to make the ‘community’ in which we live run smoothly, focusing on the needs of the people rather than the profits of a few select organizations. That is what we need to address. Stop the obscene spending on military expeditions that are unnecessary and inherently racist and focus on the needs of the people. But, if your income fits into one of the taxable brackets established in the tax code, pay your damn taxes – and raise the rates for the highest bracket to an appropriate level that is more in line with what is fair and proportional to what they are able to pay. That way there will be enough for everyone, especially if those with the most pay their fair share. If everyone would pay according to what they could afford it would be possible for everyone to have what they needed to live.

Hold onto the Dream

Yesterday was the 46th anniversary of the now infamous 'I have a dream' speech, delivered by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. at the March on Washington. While I was not born until 1968, both of my parents - strangers to each other in 1963 - traveled to Washington to hear Dr King speak. [As an aside, my mother traveled on a bus with my grandmother and, when they arrived in Washington D.C., from New York, my grandmother broke her ankle when she stepped off of a curb and miscalculated its height ... but, she stayed for the event.]

This post came to being as a response to an article posted by DesertPeace, on his blog. He was at the rally as well and, yes, he is my father (though I have wondered on occasion if there could be a mistake, then I see my hairline and these thoughts are immediately dismissed ... not to mention the 'duck waddle' ... there is a predisposition in our family to 'walk like ducks' ... but I digress. Suffice it to say, I have not questioned issues of paternity for a long time).

As a result of his article I posted the following reply, but I decided to turn it into a post of its own, with some minor changes.

You may see a video of the speech here (it will open in a new window).

There are many people who are convinced that the dream espoused by Dr King is dead. As dead as King himself. There may be cause to believe this; at times the United States gives one the impression that it is going to implode upon itself, finally reaching a critical mass that cannot exist for one more minute and which must destroy itself lest it destroy everything in the surrounding area. The alternative is to allow this seemingly ever-increasing organism to continue to lash out at other nations as they try to get their way in political matters. This path has led the United States, over the past eight years, to travel down a path of war against a nation that had nothing to do with attacking them, torturing political prisoners for questionable information about potential attacks that could not be verified by other sources, and a litany of other offenses that make the term 'civil rights' appear to be an umbrella phrase for the types of things that the government is going to limit or take away, all in the name of 'security' and the 'protection of freedom'.

The protection of freedom, however, can only exist when all people share the freedom. There cannot be freedom for a portion of society when another portion languishes in any form of inequality. This is as true today as it was during the time of slavery, or back when the Catholics expelled the Jews from Portugal in 1492. Freedom cannot discriminate, it must be universal in order to exist. So long as there are people in the United States who are oppressed as a result of their economic standing or because they are perceived as being lesser than the rest of the group to which they are being compared, freedom will only be an ideal to which people aspire but which is not achieved. The simple reason that this is that the nation is unable to confer the same rights and freedoms to all when it knows that this involves something more basic than any legislation could deliver or any march could confer, it requires the education of the public.

Once the population of America learns that they are EACH afforded the same rights and opportunities, guaranteed by LAW (something that you can only learn if you stay in school, which the ultra right count on not happening to those who they want to keep down), what can stop people from actively pursuing a future that does not have anything to do with the perpetuation of the stereotypes that have kept them locked into poverty since the end of the Civil War?

Image Copyright by Ben Heine
The Dream must not be allowed to die, it is far too important, far too vital, and far too essential to the future of America. The Dream must be revitalized, taken to its extreme, and it can be, if only people would stand up and demand from their elected officials the things that they asked for during the election campaign. A president will only do what they believe the people want, if the electorate seems to be turning away from the core message, what does that tell the administration? Many from the Civil Rights 'movement' voted for Barack Obama - seeing him as a direct result of the dream. Now is the time to continue with that vision; now that he is in office, continue to write to him and encourage him to maintain his focus, to not abandon his agenda and to fight for the rights of those that elected him. A silent majority is, quite frankly, useless.

Dreams can only die when the dreams are allowed to be forgotten. Just imagine what would have happened if everyone who was at that march went back home and became a genuine agent for change. Rather than just talking about 'having been there' and reminiscing about how wonderful it was they could have used the event as a rallying cry to galvanize their cause, to collectively join together - both black and white, Jew and Gentile, to create the America that was dying to be born.

After the death of Martin Luther King, Jr. the dream didn't die, the man did; the dream, however, became something of a hallowed fantasy that was more spoken of in whispers of awe rather than in the tones of something that could actually be accomplished. Even with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, after the assassination of JFK, a bill that was brought to fruition with the help of a junior senator from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy, there was not as much support as there should have been for the simple reason that the 'movement' found it difficult to separate their hatred of Lyndon Johnston and his involvement in Vietnam.

Once Martin Luther King, Jr. was out of the way the civil rights movement was right where the south wanted it; instead of having a galvanizing force to keep the blacks, whites, Jews, and other colours of the rainbow working together for a single cause there was now a myriad of agendas competing to be heard. This allowed the southern states to react to the new laws without worrying about pesky 'leftists' from the north as they were seemingly less interested in risking their lives now that their guiding light had been removed from the picture.

Perhaps that sounded cynical; good, it was supposed to sound cynical. There is nothing worse than taking something like the messages delivered by Dr King and dismissing them, saying they have not been achieved, or will not be achieved, without asking the very serious question: why not. What is the cause of the failure? Where there not enough people invested in the cause that this should not have succeeded with flying colours? Of course, the answer is that it should have been an overwhelming success; there is no reason on earth for the cause of civil rights to have been stalled in the United States, unless there is an inherently racist nature in a certain part of the nation that is resistant to the entire prospect of civil rights and liberties. In fact, one might actually begin to believe that there is a portion of America that would be perfectly happy to re-institute the old lynching laws where it was legal to hang 'colored' folks from trees if'n there was a witness to the wrong doin', especially if one of them dared to look at a white girl askance, or was uppity enough not to step off of the sidewalk when white folk were approaching from the other direction.

God forbid these colored folk learned their letters. You know what they says about 'educated Negroes', don't you? Well, actually, I can't recall, but it can't be good, can it?

Give me a break. The end of the Jim Crow laws was the best thing to happen to America since the end of the Civil War, until the rise of the Civil Rights Movement - but when that movement did not, en masse, renew itself and turn out to support the initiatives that came out - the Civil Rights Act and the Voter Rights Act - they lost their vision, they lost their teeth, they lost their cause.

Certainly, there was great merit to the Civil Rights Movement morphing into the 'Peace' movement, and the 'Anti-War' movement - but, unfortunately, the organizers were very narrow minded in the focus and could not see the forest for the trees. They did not understand that there was a marked difference between the domestic policies of a government and their foreign policies. Was Johnson involved in an outrageous, unlawful war in Vietnam? Certainly - it was horrible and should not have been allowed to continue. However, what he was trying to do on the 'home front' was an entirely different matter and that, regardless of the war, deserved the support of those who had been fighting for the rights of others; those pieces of legislation proved to be fundamental for the future of the advancement of Civil Rights in America, regardless of whether or not 'the movement' was there to support those who created the legislative language. They simply missed the boat.

History is often a recounting of the stories telling us about lost opportunities or seemingly unique occurrences that led to a totally unlikely outcome. In the history of the Civil Rights Movement the name of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. will never be easily forgotten, but the acts of his many followers - after his death - will go down as one of the greatest losses of potential political power the United States has ever known.

It reminds me, very much, of what happened when a 'community organizer' rallied the support of grass-roots individuals, using the Internet and anything else at his disposal to create an irresistible atmosphere that countered anything his opponents could muster. People have been intent on trashing his presidency without giving him a chance to do his job, but it is always easier to judge than to allow someone the opportunity to do what they have promised. After all, before he was elected, did the previous president include the spending on the war in the numbers on the debt? No. Why? Because it looked bad; on the other hand, this guy has - but it looks bad - yes, it does, but it is truth. Now he gets blamed for it; how sad. Short memories make things like George W. Bush possible.

It also makes the passing of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. even sadder for we forget how often the dream is invoked, and then forgotten. Why forget? Pick it up and carry that dream; it encompasses all that America has not yet achieved, all that it can be, all that it should be, all the promise that has not yet been fulfilled by those words, 'We the people,' - a declaration that rings hollow if it does not represent all of America, not only a select part of the nation.

That is a tragedy from which there may be no recovery.

Edited: October 21, 2009.

Proper Criticism vs Anti-Semitism

During the first day of an anti-racism summit at the United Nations a number of nations walked out during the speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he called the State of Israel a “cruel and repressive racist regime” to a conference on race. Now, before we get carried away by the rants of the Iranian President, who may need a medication adjustment, take one moment to consider this: the United States decided to not attend this conference when some nations proposed that “Zionism” be considered as a form of racism. Canada joined several other nations who were too cowardly to consider this truth, including Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands ... oh, and Israel.

The important thing here is that Ahmadinejad made his comments, prompting about forty of the delegates – mostly from western European nations – to leave their seats in protest, but his message was still heard by many and reported to the world. Unfortunately, the reporting of this event is coloured by President Ahmadinejad's past comments in which he has denied facts about the holocaust. The walkout was prompted by Ahmadinejad's description of the relationship between the State of Israel and the Palestinian people, “They resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering.”

Another thing that was said seemed to be just about as concise an observation of the situation taking place in the State of Israel as anything else that has been said in the past sixty years: “... [I]n compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.” Not unexpectedly, the United States condemned the comments as being “vile and hateful” while the Vatican, an organization with 2,000 of human rights atrocities as their gift to humanity called the speech “extremist and unacceptable.”

But is that all there is to this? Should we dismiss the comments of Ahmadinejad simply because we want to think of him as some crazy Islamic fanatic? No, that is not how it ends; it cannot end here. The problem is, Ahmadinejad is right. No, the Holocaust happened, of that let there be no doubt, but the idea that the State of Israel is supposed to be the representation of God's promised land to His people, that is a myth that must be dispelled, along with the idea that the Zionist agenda is anything less than a form of racism with the genocide of the Palestinian people as the ultimate goal in order for the Zionists to ultimately cleanse their “Holy Land” of all non-Jews.

Before going any further into this discussion and allowing any confusion to set in, lets establish something of a foundation as to the difference between being critical and voicing that opinion and being hateful towards something or someone. Ask yourself this question: can you be critical of something or someone without hating them? Be honest, now, can you look at someone you love and tell them that you disagree with them and then explain why? What if one of your friends, or a relative, committed some heinous crime, would you encourage them to turn themselves in – to do 'the right thing', even if it felt like a difficult thing to do? These are difficult things to ask, but they go to the moral core of who we are as people. As moral beings we learn from the mistakes we make through life and from the critiques and criticisms that we receive from the teachers and others around us who care enough to point out what we can do to improve ourselves, to make us better members of society and better citizens.

Could you imagine for one second that when your mother or father corrected you, dare I say criticized you, as a child, did that diminish their love for you? Of course not – in fact, people usually only take the time of criticizing things that they really care about, otherwise they wouldn't bother taking the time to do so. If you were critical of the United States during the Bush administration (or any presidency) does that make you an anti-American or are you merely in opposition to certain policies of the government of the nation? Personally, I am a Canadian and I have been in disagreement with the policies of the Canadian government on many issues over the past several decades, but that does not change my love for this country, nor would I want to live anyplace else; it merely means that I want this country to be better than it currently is, I want Canada to live up to the promise that could be, if only the politicians would stop their partisan bickering and started putting the people first rather than the special interests that put them into power.

If you are honest and are able to say that you are at odds with a particular government and not the people then you are well equipped to judge between authentic anti-Semitism and the vile rhetoric used by many to protect inherently evil positions. It is important to understand that this is the true foundation of democracy; knowing that you are allowed the right to voice your ideas and opinions about the laws, leaders and the operation of the government without fear of reprisal for having an opinion that may be contrary to the official beliefs of the government, and that you, as an individual citizen, have a voice in the choosing of that government through your vote. Any nation that cannot suffer the indignity of facing criticism or being examined for its domestic policy, a policy that includes apartheid-like activities, active military oppression of a civilian population living within their borders, and multiple incidences of civilian “collateral damage” taking place during “defensive” operations, should seriously consider the century in which they live and the actions which they have been taking for the past several decades. There is no place in this wired world in which we live for the type of secrecy that allowed tyrants like Hitler and Stalin to carry out their malicious acts under a curtain of silence. It is no longer possible to control the flow of information as was done during the time of the Second World War and the cold war when people transmit news to websites and blogs at the speed of “twitter”, virtually as quickly as it happens. Propaganda has become something that once was called “spin”, often pathetic attempts by “official spokespeople” to put the “cat back in the bag” after the world has already seen the live images from several sources. It does not work.

If the State of Israel, and those who profess to be Zionists (or their supporters), had their way in regards to the flow of information at the U.N. conference in Geneva, Ahmadinejad would have been stopped in his tracks: the uttering of anything that could even be remotely interpreted as being “anti-Israel” would automatically be classified as being racist and, as such, would not permitted in a U.N. conference, let alone a conference on the elimination of racism. However, the glaring truth of the matter is that Zionism IS, in fact, a form of racism in several ways and, particularly in light of the recent events in Gaza, it has been demonstrated as an ideology devoid of anything but self-interest in their agenda coupled with a near manic defense of their “right” to protect their homeland from the people from whom they stole that land.

There is a serious problem when you begin to examine the Zionist position of “defense” of their land as a justification to use violence against the Palestinian people. It seems difficult to argue against the desire to retaliate when someone has launched a rocket into your settlement and it lands in your backyard or crashes into a school. These are terrible, tragic events that must be stopped; innocent lives lost are never things that seem justified, and they can never be compensated, nor can any act repay the loss that the survivors may be feeling. While some may desire revenge that can only lead to more acts of aggression and that, in the end, only leaves more innocent lives ruined, more people mourning, and more people seeking some sort of retaliation. Ultimately, if you follow the saying “an eye for an eye,” the entire world is left blind. It is time to restore the sight to the blind.

The idea that Israel is carrying out the violence against Palestinians to defend their land is laughable on several levels, especially if you have seen any of the photos or videos that were taken from the most recent Gaza conflict. What weaponry did the Palestinians have to threaten the Israeli Army and Air Force with? With what could they have hoped to shoot down an IAF F-16 or F-15, planes that can fly faster than the speed of sound, drop laser guided munitions (stand-off weapons – the plane does not even have to be near the target to drop the bomb), and other “smart” weapons that land within a few metres of their targets? An AK-47? Even if there were thousands armed with the ubiquitous AK, they could not scratch the air force; unlike the movies, it is not possible to shoot down a jet with a machine gun (unless the bird is flying about 500 feet off the ground and you are the luckiest shot in the world).

Let's face it, if you are critical of the ACTS of the Israeli government that does not make you someone that hates Jews. An anti-Semite is, by definition, someone that hates Semites. Semites are people of Semitic descent: Arabs and Jews. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Semite is defined as 1a “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs b: a descendant of these peoples 2: a member of a modern people speaking a Semitic language.” [Aramaic, Arabic, Amharic, and Hebrew] Now, if you hate Arabs for whatever reason, you are an anti-Semite (don't say, “but, I have an Arab friend ...”). You cannot hate some and like one as a token. Hatred is hatred, it is insidious, entering our being until it controls our every thought and action, guiding our lives until we our its slave. This is the root of Zionism: hatred of the Palestinian people.

The lessons of the Holocaust came at such a terrible price, the highest that could be paid, but what value are those lessons if they are squandered by those who have inherited that which came out of the ashes? The idea of creating a place – a safe place – for those Jews who wanted to leave Europe after the Holocaust seems now like an idea that may not have been the best conceived idea. One must ask, why would people who had just escaped extermination merely for being who they were not want to live in peace with their new neighbours? Why would they choose to adopt national policies that seemed more related to what they had just escaped rather than aiming at developing a true democracy in which every person living in the State was granted equal rights under the law, all the rights granted to a Jew: anything less is something called institutional racism and, quite frankly, is disgusting as it mirrors what was done in Nazi Germany after the Purification Laws were passed. Jews were denied all basic rights as German citizens, even if their families had been living in Germany for generations and had served in the military during the First World War. With the stroke of a pen, and a crooked cross, they were all disenfranchised. They became un-people.

This is the case, today, in the State of Israel. As a result of the placement of the settlements throughout the land that was promised to the Palestinians it is virtually impossible for these un-people to travel freely without being harassed by the countless Israeli checkpoints. They cannot travel to their jobs, to school, and there have been several cases where patients have died because they were denied access to essential medical care. Does this sound like the actions of a modern democratic nation or like some monstrous, “cruel and repressive racist regime.”

Image 'copyleft' by Carlos Latuff
Ultimately, the criticisms of Israel must not be dismissed under the flag of racism by labeling them anti-Semitic. There happen to be many Jews out there who do not agree with the actions of the State of Israel, we are not being anti-Semites ... I do not hate myself. As for President Ahmadinejad and his remarks, we must be careful; he was correct in what he said, but he is also someone who plays to the extremist movement in his country and is running for re-election in June and has been receiving criticism for the floundering Iranian economy. All of the anti-Western and anti-Israel rhetoric is fine for the press coverage, but it hasn't done a thing for the global isolation of Iran, resulting in high inflation and unemployment. For Ahmadinejad to earn the votes of the most radical voters in Iran he must continue to spew his invective and racist brand of anti-Semitism, if only to show that he is a leader that should not be underestimated. Unfortunately it only turns him into a caricature.

More than that, because a world leader mixes legitimate criticism of Israel with such highly charged language and denial of such historical things as the holocaust it makes the job of criticizing Israel all the more difficult for the rest of the world. We must show that our criticism is based on facts, not emotional reactions to things. Calling people names does not accomplish anything, save for demonstrating the level of maturity that is not present at the time.

Now we must find a way to clearly communicate to the world that the message is not about the Jews, nor is it about Israel, the message is about the way the government of the State of Israel is handling (or mishandling) the situation with the Palestinian people. Why are Palestinians not allowed the right of return when they have lived there for generations? Why are their homes seized and destroyed, without appeal, to make room for illegal settlements? Why to so many questions ... and so few answers. Ultimately, the answer is: things must change. They must. Not, “yes, we can”, but, “we must change, we must”.

Ultimately, there comes a point in time where something either change its ways and adapts to a new way of life which allows it to move on and survive, or it fails to adapt to change and it subsequently dies. We must change, we must.

Is America Ready?

For the past week I have been preparing a special post for this blog that is almost finished, but before posting that I must post this, inspired by something that I found at BlondeSense. Of course, I should not be at all surprised by what is contained within the short video, but it is nonetheless disheartening to hear so many examples of neo-conservative thinking that simply defies logic. But I am getting ahead of myself … you don’t know what I am talking about if you have not watched the video that is just below this paragraph. Go ahead … I’ll be patient for the few minutes it will take … it is worth your time to watch the video, and you will not regret taking the time. You may need to lean close to your monitor to read all of the quotations.

There you go ... pretty horrible, right? Well, welcome back.

Before this presidential race began, so many months ago, the question as to whether America was “ready” for a woman president or an African-American president seemed to be on the lips of everyone and their dog. The arguments were impassioned, vexatious, and mostly spurious; an individuals qualification for political office has nothing to do with the colour of their skin or of whether they sit down or stand up while going to the washroom. What qualifies someone is their mind, their ideas and ideals, and whether there are enough other like-minded people around who are willing to support them in their run for that office. That is the ultimate qualification for the job, not their colour or sex.

Of course, many elements in the media did not get that memo. While the leering eye of Chris Matthews is sadly pathetic, as are his comments from the debate regarding how important cosmetics will be, the comments from the representatives of “Fixed Noise”, which is also known to some as “Fox News” seemed to have a stranglehold on the best of the worst comments, something that is best represented by their flagship personalities: Bill O’Reilly, Hannity & Colmes.

That the United States is 68^th in the WORLD when it comes to female political representation should not surprise; in a nation that allowed 20,000 Florida voters to be disenfranchised (in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14^th Amendment AND the 15^th Amendment of the United States Constitution) there should be no surprise when the majority of the population receives the least amount of representation from their government, nor that they are routinely treated as second-class citizens.

The “downside” of having a woman in the White House? one “man” is asked: “… the PMS and mood swings?” How much more of a cheap, gutless attack could you make at someone? This is the heart of the ad hominem attack, a device used by people in an argument who have reached a point where they are unable to come up with anything relevant with which to support their point thus forcing them to rely on personal attacks and fictionalising. It is a sign of desperation and usually indicates that the individual has conceded the argument insofar as their ability to continue shall only last for as long as they are able to invent more lies and unrelated mudslinging.

How is being a woman any less of a disadvantage to being a male senior citizen (one who has, by the way, been demonstrating some serious cognitive impairments while delivering his prepared remarks … something that would seriously concern me if I was a supporter of said septuagenarian)? Arguing that the voice of the candidate reminds men of their wives, that it makes one fear for their privates (that was Hannity of FN), that everything she wears is calculated for effect, all perpetuates the myths that men are so easily ensnared – that she is something of a Jezebel seeking “our power”.

Hilary Clinton did not become a Senator because her husband had an affair. She became a Senator because she wanted to [eventually] run for the office of the president of the United States. For Chris Matthews to suggest otherwise is not only pathetic, it belies his political astuteness that is, quite honestly, something that I ordinarily have a great amount of respect for. One does not make a run for the office of the nation’s Chief Executive without having first been proven in another branch of the government; after all, her husband had been the Governor of some hick state, no? The reason Hillary chose to run for the New York Senate seat should be well known to Matthews: Daniel Patrick Moynihan had announced his retirement in 1998 after serving as the Senator from NY from 1977 (his term ended in 2001). Many prominent figures in the Democratic Party urged the former First Lady to enter the race, so the Clintons purchased a home in Chappaqua, New York, in 1999, establishing her legal residence requirement to run for office.

To imply anything else diminishes the entire Senate as an institution, not to mention Chris Matthews and his network’s credibility for allowing such libelous ideas to be broadcast without being taken to task.

This is not journalism, it is the blatant smearing of women, not just Hillary Clinton; it is violence against women, all women. This is the worst sort of male chauvinism and only serves to remind us that, more than anything else, America is in desperate need of real change; not just of its political leadership, but of its fundamental attitudes.

America, we have seen what you really believe in your heart, we have heard your opinions and have been exposed to the vitriol and the fear you harbour at losing control, of losing power, and it is an ugliness that defies comprehension; an ugliness that defies definition, and yet it defines so many who call themselves “American”.

Is America ready for change after the end of George W. Bush’s second term as president? Judging by the comments in that video, they deserve whatever change they get, but that is not really what I wanted to say; my first response had been … and, alas, still is, that (after watching the miserable excuses of men that could not keep their idiocy to themselves) I feel ashamed to be a man. If that is the perception of how “real men” think, then yes, I am ashamed; ashamed that more people do not have an opportunity to hear real, enlightened opinions on these matters, ashamed that the only voices that seem to get heard are the most asinine rather than the reasonable and responsible.

I feel ashamed because it becomes too easy to sit back and let others carry the banners while these frauds continue to spread their lies without any opposition. But, now that I have shared this, that shame is somewhat mitigated and I feel slightly more proud to say that I am a man and that real men would not speak that way about women.

Real men would not show such disrespect to women, after all, our mothers are women and to disrespect your mother is an act too despicable to contemplate. When men disrespect women they demonstrate that they are small-minded, impotent, weak-willed creatures that are incapable of carrying out healthy, loving relationships. Their lack of respect is emblematic of the psychological scars that prevent them from developing normal relationships with women and, subsequently, they lash out at them either verbally or worse, with violence.

It is time for all the real men to take a stand and say they are not afraid of standing up against the sexism being perpetrated against women in the media. These misogynistic acts must be stopped and they can be, if enough viewers demand that the stations broadcasting this trash change their broadcast standards. This is not about censorship; it is about the freedom to be who you were born to be, it is about the freedom to be a man or a woman and to celebrate the differences. Is America ready for that?

The Dream Lives On: 40 After MLK

While I do not usually post articles so quickly after such a lengthy post, this is a special case as this is a special day. On this day, forty years ago, one of the greatest humans to have walked the face of the earth, the Reverend Martin Luther King Junior, had his life snuffed out by the callous act of assassination; an act that, to this day, remains in the minds of many an act as unresolved as the assassination of that other icon of the 1960’s, JFK. The death of this great man came only a few short months before my birth, in August 1968, and I grew up with the collective memories of my parents and their experiences with MLK being recounted to me virtually from the day I was born.

“I have a dream,” was not something that I heard repeated as only a detached phrase, as something without meaning or context. My parents were careful to explain the importance of this “dream”; they took great pains to instil in me a respect for my fellow man, regardless of their race, religion, sex, or any other consideration. Colour blindness was something to be proud of in our house as it was evidence that we looked at the world the way it should truly be seen; looking at people the only way they should be seen, without regard for their race or religion.

The dream of Martin Luther King became something that, as I grew up, I longed for as well; longing to see a day when peoples in countries like South Africa, Chile, Israel, China, the Soviet Union, and the United States could live in true freedom, not just the surface freedoms spoken of by the talking heads that spoke for their governments. It amazed me to see, as a child, how black people in South Africa and America shared so much in common; both peoples living in a state of apartheid, though one was technically ended by Lyndon Johnson when he ended segregation and passed the Civil Rights Act.

Learning about the legacy of Martin Luther King, as a child, was something that was as normal for me as was learning about the other important things in life; the idea of how important it was to not use violence for the furtherance of one’s goal was not merely King’s message, it was the message, and yet, how much has that message been heeded? After forty years how much more is needed before that dream is realized?

Illustration © by Ben Heine

In the United States, some would say, this is the year of a dream, the year in which a woman and a black man are contending for the opportunity to contend for the highest office in the land. At the same time the very fact that I have identified one of the candidates as a black man has done a great injustice to that man, a man who is far more than an “African-American”, or anything else anyone may want to call him in an attempt to diminish what Barack Obama stands for. An article that appeared on Ben Heine’s excellent site poignantly expressed this issue in a way that far exceeds that I could hope to, so I shall direct you there (please come back!). Remember, we are more than the sum of our parts, we are more than anything that can identify us as being simply “black” or “white”, as being “Jews” or “Palestinians”; we are the culmination of all the experiences that have gone into developing our character, and it is our choice as to what that character is going to look like to the rest of the world when we are faced with adversity. Are we strong enough to follow King’s dream?

So, in the words of the Reverend King, just how far is the United States from having that “dream” of his from coming to fruition? The very fact that the remaining two candidates for the Democratic Party’s nomination for presidential candidate do not fall into the classic model of the American politician would seem to be indicative of the great number of changes that have taken place over the past forty years, but it is barely a beginning. With the signing of the anti-segregationist laws during his term in office Lyndon Johnson galvanized the Southern electoral districts so far away from the Democratic Party that they barely show up on the political radar screens these days. The extreme right, the political extremists, the racists, the “Christian” right and the various other flat-earth mentalists decided that the Republican way better represented their ideals, so long as it kept “them” out of their back yards. Founded in 1973 by conservative minister Jerry Falwell, the Moral Majority was born out of the hatred of anti-segregationism, having turned to the likes of Senator Jesse Helms at the beginning of the organization’s history.

More must be done.

The wisdom with which Reverend King spoke transcended his time, and indeed, it has transcended all time. The speech he delivered to so many supporters in Washington is a perfect example of the type of thinking that needs to be echoed, loudly, by today’s leaders, ideas that must never be allowed to be forgotten, and that must be put into practice around the world. Rather than creating strife by focusing on race it is time to forget the colour of the individual standing – or living – next to us. Their struggle is, truly, our struggle, regardless of the backgrounds that make one person so different from another.

“We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone.” (Complete speech here)

One short paragraph from a long speech, and yet it speaks volumes: whites were there with the blacks, side by side. They understood that the struggle for equality was one that was not borne alone by the black man, but a shared burden; so long as the black man was persecuted in America no one was free. No one is free.

If there is one thing that Americans love to talk about more than anything else it is “freedom” and the “price” of said freedom. They love to invoke the blood shed for their right to live in America and all that other jingoistic stuff that ignores the most essential facts regarding the history of the violation of rights that has taken place in the past and is currently taking place under the umbrella of “national security”. For the first time in American history the black man is probably marginally less maligned in the eyes of the institution for the sole reason that the post 9/11 racial profile doesn’t include anyone wearing an afro.

Given the number of individuals that have been detained, sometimes for months or even years, merely because they were travelling on a passport from a “suspect” nation, or they “looked” suspicious (read: they were wearing traditional Arab dress, were reading a Qu’ran, were praying, or conducting themselves in any number of other overtly threatening ways), it would seem that the “dream” has a long way to go before it is fully realized.

We can do more. We cannot walk alone.

The Trouble with Remembrance

Once again the day that has been set aside for us to remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of freedom is upon us and I am left with an uneasy feeling: what, exactly, are we remembering these days?

While it has never fallen upon me to take up arms to defend my country (for which all Canadians should be grateful as my skills are surely best served without things like an M24 in my hands … though it does have an interesting appeal at times) I have always observed Remembrance Day with a sense of solemnity, making a point – wherever possible – to watch the services from the National Memorial which is always broadcast on television.

The thing that has triggered my question this day stems from the modern face of war and the ways in which we have managed to sweep aside the conflicts in the name of political expediency. We do not want to offend our neighbours to the south, I’m sure, so in the service today you won’t hear (I’m quite sure – this is being written before they take place) any condemnations of the “immoral” or “illegal” war that is currently taking place. You won’t hear a single word spoken about the war of “revenge” and “retribution” that has cost now more American lives than the acts of terrorism that, ostensibly, caused them to be started. God forbid we should remember those who have been killed in this unholy war.

When the various ministers pray today we will not hear them plead to God for the nations that posses the wherewithal to intercede in the ongoing genocide taking place in Darfur to extract their heads from their stinking self-interests and begin the job of serving humanity rather than paying lip-service to lobbyists representing the special interest groups that have dictated everything that appears on the government agenda.

So what are we remembering this November 11th? Those soldiers who were killed in the great war of royal insanity; a war triggered by the assassination of an insignificant member of a family significant only for the fact that democracy had not visited itself upon the “empire”. The fact that this sparked a conflagration that sucked in virtually the entire world is testament to the fact that humanity is virtually incapable of standing idly by when a good fight is taking place.

Are we remembering the 69th anniversary of Krystalnacht (Nov. 9th), the millions of Jews, Russians, Poles, Hungarians, homosexuals, disabled people and other “untermenschen” that the Nazis murdered in the concentration camps, or are we only remembering the soldiers? Frankly, I have never been able to remember the one without the other: the great sacrifice paid by the soldiers must be remembered, to be sure, but dare we forget the victims of what began as a democratically elected government?

The “police action” of Korea – a war that, to this day, technically has not officially ended (a cease fire doth not a treaty make).

Which (if we exclude Vietnam which Canada didn’t “officially” participate in) brings us to the “current” conflicts. The peace keeping efforts in which Canadians have died are numerous and, alas, truly worth remembering.

It has always made me smile (and proud to be Canadian) when I think that those blue-bereted UN Peacekeepers exist because of a Canadian proposal and that Canadians have served in virtually every peacekeeping mission since the inception of the force in 1956, at the suggestion of then diplomat and future Prime Minister of Canada, Lester Pearson.

Our nation has a proud one of being there when it counts, when we are outnumbered and outgunned; but time and again Canadian soldiers have fought with tremendous courage and valour that belies the size of the forces deployed. Not willing to be the sacrificial lambs tossed into the waiting jaws of death, Canadian servicemen consistently demonstrated that they were more than “up to the task” of dealing with the enemies that were laying in wait for them. The roles played by Canadians in WWI and WWII, in which a combined number of over 100,000 died, is a terrible reminder of the costs of war.

Perhaps on this Remembrance Day it would have been fitting for the Chaplin to have summoned the courage to speak words that truly reflect the gravitas of the times in which we live rather than serving up the piece of ecumenical pap that was broadcast across this great nation. In closing I am now going to do something that I do not normally do in this blog – I am going to openly pray. If this is offensive to you, scroll down to the end of the post to see the final pictures of the poppies (my own photos) that are included in this post.

Heavenly Father, we gather here today
to remember those who paid
the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live in this land
with the freedoms that we enjoy on a daily basis.
Lord, we ask you to forgive us;
for we have squandered the great price
that these brave young men and women
offered through the letting of their own blood,
just as we often squander the gifts that
You have given to us when do not live
in peace with our neighbours.

We pray, Lord, that even while we remember
those who have fallen in past conflicts
You would raise up a force that would prevent
the further loss of life in places like Darfur, and that
You would put an end to the meaningless conflict
that is being fought in Iraq.

We pray for our Peacekeepers, Oh Lord,
not only in Afghanistan but wherever
their services may be needed,
even unto the ends of the earth.
Above all else, we pray for peace
in every corner of the world;
in all of Africa and Asia,
in all nations that see each other as enemy
rather than brother and sister,
and within each nation as well,
that every conflict may be settled by
the simple word of love.
This I pray in the precious name of Jesus,
Y’shua HaMoshiach; Amen.

Perception is Everything

New World © by Ben Heine
Let’s face it; you only get one chance to make a first impression. Your mother told you that before you went out to meet little Miss What’s-her-name, before your first, and very forgettable only date that never amounted to anything (save for a great amount of taunting and whatnot in the locker room the next day at gym). First impressions are even more important when we have sloughed off the immaturity of youth and taken on the airs of an enlightened maturity. Even though we are supposed to be non-judgemental in our assessments it is still an inherent part of our nature to judge, and most of that judging takes place when we are first introduced to someone.

Perhaps it comes as no surprise that a recent survey by the BBC bears out the nature of impressions on a global perspective, in a poll that sought out the answer to the question as to what country in the world had the most negative image. More than 28,000 people were asked to rate twelve countries as whether or not they had a positive or negative influence on the world. The list of countries was: Britain, Canada, China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, North Korea, Russia, the United States and Venezuela, but the results were not in that order.

We must remember that the world is a different place today: thanks to world news and the efforts of those on the Internet it is impossible for something to take place in public domain and remain unseen (for very long).

As a result of this it is no surprise that Israel came in dead last with 56 percent of respondents saying it was a negative force while only 17 percent indicated it had anything positive to add.

Iran came in 9^th, with 54 and 18 percent respectively (the respondents obviously rated each nation rather than ranking each nation, thus numbers that will add up to more than 100 percent, so don’t bother writing, I didn’t do the survey and it’s an easy enough thing to figure out if you take a second).

Big surprise, in seventh place … or, in other words, the third WORST nation in the world: The United States of America received 51 percent negative with 30 percent positive while North Korea received a 48 percent negative rating but only 19 percent positive.

At the other end of the spectrum comes (dum-da-da-deeee) the Dominion of Canada, the Greatest Nation in the World, with a 54 percent positive rating and only 14 percent negative. The European Union, as a whole, was seen as being 53 percent positive and 19 percent negative (they obviously don’t adhere to the eschatological beliefs of the EU being the reinvention of the Roman Empire, and the future source of the Anti-Christ … of course, neither do I … but, then again, that was when the EU was limited to less than 14 countries, not the current 25 … so much for “modern” prophecy).

Suffice it to say, I’m proud to be Canadian (thanks Mom and Dad for moving here!), and … damn! it’s cold outside! (yes, that was worth two exclamation marks)! (or three)! …!

Creativity: the Origins of Speciousness

No. This is Not really about Anna Nicole Smith.

Nor is it about the recent outbreak of violence in Jerusalem, though I would offer that a few well placed Neutron bombs would put an end to that situation for good … I figure that if you can’t live together in a place in peace, nobody deserves to live there. Period. That’s all: you have one hour to leave, the bombers have been dispatched. Take your friends, take your pets, this patch of land is going to be a night-light for the space shuttle for the next fifty years.

Now … don’t get your panties in an uproar … as I said, this ISN’T about those things … I’m not advocating the destruction of Israel/Palestine (just fantasising about it), and I certainly wouldn’t suggest that killing a bunch of ignorant, intolerant fools would be a way to solve some problems … oh, maybe it would … but that’s not the point of this post … creativity is … or is it? Well, I guess you’ll just have to find out. Actually, the 2^nd Amendment is the ultimate target … that’s right, friends, I’m taking aim at the right to bear arms (and its winter … I’m wearing long sleeves). I also fire shots across Holy Scripture and a number of other things … but all in good time … all in good time.

A great deal of my time of late has been devoted to the contemplation of issues relating to creativity. This is not really unusual for me given that I am a composer and writer, but in this particular case it is the result of an invitation to contribute a chapter to a textbook that is being written; my contribution, in short, is to write about creativity and mental illness. In researching this topic many things have been coming across my radar screen, much of which is totally irrelevant to my topic, but happened to come up through searches (or appeared in journals and books with material that I am using for reference).

It isn’t surprising, of course, to find things that aren’t related to your research when you are digging around for something very specific, but it never ceases to amaze me that humanity has now crested a new millennium and yet it seems completely backwards when it comes to so many things that could have been … or should have been brought into “modern” times long ago.

Of course, I may merely be expressing my naïveté regarding what I have always felt was a promising future for the human race; a future of enlightenment and civility in which all nations are able to set aside their petty differences and live together in peace, where nations of the world do not invade other nations in order to install their version of “democracy” while the country disintegrates into a violent civil war. Or, it could be merely be an expression of the repressed rage that has been building up within me for decades, a rage that has never been given a voice with which to have its grievances appropriately vented … either way, I am amazed at the level of ignorance that is being perpetuated in the western world on so many levels.

While my research has supposed to be primarily related to the realms of creativity and mental illness, it is part of my nature to be easily distracted (thus this blog, the fact that I compose, write, write poetry, paint [though badly], and have a variety of other outlets for the creative energies that seek expression in my life). I have found a variety of interesting and not so interesting lines of divergent pieces of information that can easily distract me from my goal … and may well do so if I’m not careful (thus this hopefully cathartic post giving voice to some of these grievances).

Something that continues to amaze me beyond all else is the way in which the political systems of the west have been systematically hijacked by the neo-conservative right wing movements that stand behind the Bush regime in the United States. It used to be possible to say that Canada was a politically independent nation, a country that had its own political process that was separate and distinct from our neighbours to the south (as well as different spellings of certain words, such as honour, neighbour, favour and flavour which serves to add another dash of distinction to our two nations).

Today, on the other hand, the language that is spoken in the land is virtually the only thing that serves to distinguish “us” from “them”; that and the fact the “we” aren’t embroiled in a psychotic and false anti-terrorist war in a nation that never attacked “them”. Now that Prime Minister Harper and his (neo)Conservative minority government is pushing ahead with its surreal agenda it appears that the 19^th Century doctrine of Manifest Destiny is well on its way to being fulfilled. While Manifest Destiny was initially introduced by the Democrats around 1845 under the leadership of Andrew Jackson, it has been under the guidance of George W. Bush that the true fulfilment of American Colonialism has reached its apex. Thanks to the cloning technology used on Stephen Harper “we” are now well on our way to becoming just like “them”.

No, I’m not even going to cite any specific examples … I shouldn’t have to: if you are of the wont to agree with this sort of thing then you know of the sort of things that have been going on in the Canadian press of late, such as the recent visit to Israel by Peter MacKay, our Minister of Foreign Affairs; a visit that managed to turn a blind eye to every violation of human rights taking place in Israel and crimes being perpetrated against innocent civilians in the name of “national defence”.

Okay, so I did cite an example … sue me (blood … stone … water … desert … luck … none … chance … fat … honest … politicians [this gets too easy after a time]…).

Then there is the rampant and continuous perpetuation of the myths that simply will not be allowed to die. Anti-Semitism, for one thing: why is it an act of anti-Semitism to be hateful towards Jews, yet it isn’t anti-Semitism to be hateful towards Arabs? In case this confuses you, read the Book of Genesis. Abram and his TWO sons: Ishmael, the firstborn and Isaac, the second. It is a result of a lack of faith that resulted in the creation of the covenant between God and the children of Hagar (Ishmael): a lack of faith that would also appear in the bloodline of the Children of Israel when their disobedience to God led them to disregard His commands when they arrived at the Promised Land (too late now … can’t fix what you didn’t do 5,000 years ago).

After 9/11 there were acts of horrific examples of just how Neanderthalic certain elements of humanity could be when a number of violent attacks against Mosques and individual Muslims took place as acts of retaliation, sometimes against Sikhs who weren’t even implicated (except in the bigoted minds of the White American Paranoids who are convinced of the conspiracy theories that propose alternate theories for 9/11). In none of those cases were the words “anti-Semitism” or “anti-Semitic” used, and – to my knowledge – in cases where someone was charged with a crime (in the United States) they did not invoke the “special circumstances” clause of the penal code by adding “hate crime” to the indictments, a clause that would make the charges far more serious and result in stiffer sentences in the case of a conviction.

Anti-Semitism is something that continues today in too many forms, from the streets of our cities to the Halls of Justice, from our institutions to the very governments that should be protecting us from this cancerous intellectual violence. Yet the government itself promotes this new anti-Semitism, they promote it by taking sides in a conflict between a first world nation armed with modern weaponry against impoverished peasants with a spattering of terrorists with unguided model rockets as their main weapon. Even the footage on the news this morning was a perfect example: Israeli police decked out with shields and high-tech weaponry while they faced off against civilians [idiots] armed with rocks. Yes, the violence was idiotic, but symbolic of a much larger issue, and it demonstrates that something must be changed.

Live together in peace or go somewhere else. Period. Either that or nuke them all, that would be one way to get rid of some of the stockpile.

Of course there is more to it than that … life is always more complicated when you try and reduce things down to a short article, and yet, how difficult is it to explain the issue that people are unwilling to share the space in which they live? How is it that someone can be so deluded by their importance and their place in the grand scheme of things that they feel entitled to live in a place where they are so insulated from the world, kept away from anything that may be offensive to their senses? God forbid that someone not of “their kind” should be permitted to be their neighbour, even though that “neighbour” and their family may have been living there for generations, until their land was stolen from them, reclaimed by the State of Israel.

Prime Minister Harper believes that his being a staunch supporter of Israel makes him a better Prime Minister than anyone else currently vying for the job … and yet, I am still hopeful that we will find a political leader who will find the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the truth, regardless of whether they offend B’nai Brith and the JDL … or (God forbid) AIPAC.

For decades now there has been an outcry whenever the words “conspiracy” and “Jewish” were used in the same phrase, but I am going to say something that may shock and anger some … or most … but you must continue reading so that it isn’t taken out of context: there isn’t a “Jewish conspiracy”, but there is a Zionist conspiracy; a Zionist conspiracy to capitalize on political fear-mongering in order to ensure that their ideology is promoted while their opponents are condemned.

Zionist fascism (the link takes you to a letter by Albert Einstein and refers to his concern over the “Freedom Party” in Israel, Tnuat Haherutand, which ultimately became the Likud Party) and their ilk have grown out of this abuse of political influence, and it has resulted in Israel being allowed to murder and maim with impunity while the rest of the world turns a blind eye to their actions. Israel has been allowed to construct an apartheid state, complete with a wall of shame, and western politicians praise the brave actions of “Israeli democracy”.

The irony of this is that it has demonstrated the height of creative expression to me, though not through music or painting: the ability to manipulate reality into something that bears no resemblance to the truth is quite a skill, especially when that “new reality” is turned around and used to convince the government and an entire nation that it is essential to invade a country that had nothing to do with the largest attack on American soil. I have learned that the ability to obfuscate is a talent that is beyond all others, especially if you have any aspirations for public office: the greatest skill cultivated by the political beasts in power today is their ability to weave a tale that bears precious little resemblance to the truth.

Of course, this shouldn’t arouse any surprise when one considers the source of the majority of the obfuscations: when a nation elevates their constitution to the level of Holy Writ and then finds it necessary to bastardise the meaning of the words by carefully removing portions of phrases from their proper contexts, it can be no surprise that lying is an inherent talent possessed by American (and, by extension, Canadian politicians … and of their world-wide colleagues).

Take, if you will, the example of the Word of God. Americans love God … at least, that’s what they say, and what their money says (and who doesn’t … everyone loves a good scapegoat when things start to go wrong). They also love to quote the Bible … when it is expedient and they can use a phrase to manipulate someone over to their point of view. For many people there is nothing wrong with the phrase “money is the root of all evil”. We have heard this supposed “scripture” spouted often, and with great authority and zeal by the religious wrong in their attempts to perpetuate the desperate economic disparity between the lower class citizens who bear the majority of the tax burden of the upper class parasites.

Sorry, wrong answer. Thanks for playing. Collect your parting gifts at the outer nave.

The truth of the matter is that this is all a lie; that isn’t what is written at all: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10 NKJV). Why should this be of any importance in the grand scheme of things? For the simple reason that if these obfuscating politicians have no problems lying about what is written in Scripture, why should they have any difficulties when it comes to something as mundane as their constitution, or the Bill of Rights?

The fact of the matter is that there is no difficulty. There is no such thing anymore as a conscience being “seared” by guilt for doing the wrong thing. The “wrong thing” is now measured by “grey areas” in an endless gradation of “harmless” white lie to “scandalous” offence (if discovered).

The great “God given” right that is shouted about at every opportunity by the denizens of the Right relates to the right bear arms, “guaranteed” by the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution. It is a myth that the 2^nd Amendment grants ordinary citizens the “right to bear arms” as has been shouted from rooftops by the National Rifle Association and their maniacal supporters. In fact, the 2^nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with an individual’s right to carry a weapon.

To understand the true meaning of the amendment we must understand the mindset of the man behind the words. Federalist James Madison was concerned with the young republic’s ability to defend itself (1787 Philadelphia Convention) from the threat of marauding hordes invading from the renegade Loyalists that had fled into what would eventually become the Dominion of Canada. Madison was particularly concerned about the ability of the new nation to muster an army large enough to fend off the Red Coats in the event of their attack.

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

In light of this, Madison drafted what would eventually become known as the 2^nd Amendment, but the text that we have today is radically different than what was originally written … and yet, even without getting into the original, which you can see here, it is possible to see the point of this by examining the text carefully: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right to bear arms is inexorably tied to the first clause of the amendment: a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state. If you want the right to bear arms that right shall not be infringed, however, you must be IN A MILITIA. The RIGHT to bear arms in the United States of America is wholly intended as part of the process emplaced by the “founding fathers” to ensure the security of the nation in a time when that security was threatened by a very real foe. This is no longer the case … and yet, the “right” to bear arms is still harped after as though their very lives depended upon it, which is not the case.

This is an example of pure, unadulterated ignorance, and it represents one of the death knells of true creativity: it represents how easily we allow ourselves to accept falsehoods as truth without question for the simple reason that “millions of people” can’t be wrong. Yes; yes, millions of people can be wrong, and often are. Just because 300 million people say the sky is green does this suddenly mean that the sky is green? Of course not, but according to this line of irrational thinking that is exactly what it means. If thousands of constitutional experts and hundreds of judges and dozens of supreme court justices have declared that the 2^nd Amendment preserves an individual’s right to bear arms OUTSIDE the stricture of a well regulated militia, does that make it right?

Not in one hundred trillion years. The meaning of the words does not change for the sake of convenience, nor does it change depending on the political flavour of who sits in the White House. Of course, if the Supreme Court decided to reverse its position and actually adhere to the letter (and spirit) of the law it would probably be accused of pandering to the left-wing liberal “pansies” … so, can you win? Political rhetoric is enough to make you choke at times, which reminds me of the Bard’s famous line: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” (Henry VI, II) [… then we get the politicians …]. Oh bother … (not the Bard, just a cute bear).

E=MC² © by Ben Heine
Is it really that hard to ask for people to follow a simple rule … I’ve been trying to live by this for most of my life, and it has saved me a tremendous amount of heartache, if only because I don’t have to remember who I’ve lied to (besides, my mother has always been able to catch me in a lie … so she thinks): say what you mean and mean what you say. It is simplicity itself, and yet it is as complex as the Unified Theory of Everything (or one would think so given the way things are in the world). When we are speak freely, knowing that we have nothing to fear because there is nothing to hide, we can do something that seems quite unusual these days: we can communicate with others and actually understand what is being said to one another without needing an interpreter.

Either that or we can continue on this perilous path and end up in a situation in which it is impossible to trust anything said by anyone … ever.

Oh well … time to get back to the important things in life … maybe a bit of research into Anna Nicole … how about something about the true master of the absurd, Michael Jackson? Nah … I’ll just go bang my head against the wall until I pass out … that will hurt less. Enjoy your day.