Rebane's Ruminations
November 2011
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

Two prominent Democrat pollsters argue for ‘The Hillary Moment’ in 2012.  They make a compelling case for Reid and Pelosi to pick up the phone and call Obama to ask him to take the Truman/Johnson moral high ground and bow out.  Their well-stated arguments revolve around The Community Organizer’s horrible record in office, and his harm to the Democratic Party as he continues to play the only card he has left – a devastatingly negative campaign against the Republicans that offers nothing new for his second term.  To this I would add that anyone paying attention will have noticed that Obama has become irrelevant to the important issues in today's national debate.  It's hard to see how he will regain his 'presidential voice'.  Meanwhile, there is the loyal, strong, and experienced Mrs Clinton, the one who can bring both sides together to make the hard decisions required to again move the country forward.  Hmmm …

An email from our ‘designated reader’ forwards a copy of a post and related comments on another blog that once more with feeling denounces RR and its view of the world.  The best I can make of the lament is that the worthy representatives of the Left, who regularly read and comment on RR, have not been able to change a hair on the heads of the reprobate Right who also frequent these pages (mine notwithstanding due to haircut).  Their frustration is understandable since they see no weakness in their collectivist ideology or its buttressing arguments.  In the past they have often relinquished the field, only to regain their strength, if not their composure, and then again leap into the breach.  The door is always left open and the welcoming light is on.

At this writing, the Dow is down about 300 points on what the WSJ calls “debt disappointment” resulting from the Congressional Kabuki’s imminent demise.  It is forever a mystery to this commentator as to what alternatives did those stockholders expect – that the Dubious Dozen would come up with some solution to our runaway spending programs and economy killers??  Mind boggling.

Are the Occupiers’ tent cities free speech?  Have to wonder about the strength of their message if they have to resort to repeatedly breaking the law.  It's clear that those who can’t or won’t do not comprise their vaunted “99%”, and their message ranges between muddled and maniacal.  This is not the correct way to start the revolution they seek.  Why these street idiots have not been organized into a coherent and forceful voice is something to ponder.  Are they being viewed by the unions and the Democrats as an uncontrollable and embarrassing election year liability.  Save from bullhorns of the far Left, the message to them from both sides of the aisle seems to be ‘Eat S#!t and Die!’

Posted in , , ,

106 responses to “Ruminations – 21nov2011”

  1. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Civil disobedience may be an inconvenience to some but I view it as a healthy aspect of a free society. George, from your perspective was the civil disobedience associated with protesting bus seating segregation in the civil rights movement a similar example of “breaking the law” to acheive a stated purpose. What is your position on civil dissidence ?

    Like

  2. bill tozer Avatar
    bill tozer

    Revolutions are messy. At least we don’t break windows of businesses, set things on fire, throw used condoms on the sidewalk or shit on cop cars. We are civilized, unless of course, you are on the streets of Oakland. Even in Oakland the Mayor of that cash strapped city gave every public servant on payroll a paid day off so they could go out and break windows, shit on cop cars, and carry signs promoting Pro Lice. Egypt, where the people on the streets are protesting FOR democracy are fleeing for their lives as the troops moved in and stampeded headlong into the tents guns blazing, firing tear gas and lethal projectiles indiscriminately as the poor folks fled in great haste. In the last couple of weeks alone, 3 Socialist Governments of civilized Europe have been routed by their citizens and shown the door. Guess the 99%ers patience wore too thin with all the BS socialist governments promised with their flowery speeches and love fests. Citizens of those 3 democracies are more pragmatic than their community organizing leaders. The people voted with their feet and ousted the idealists and put some adults in charge. Yep, revolutions are messy, but exciting nonetheless.

    Like

  3. RL Crabb Avatar

    Ah, yes. The proprietor of the Sierra Foothill Report continues to parrot the claim of being in the middle, although his middle position is that the Dems can do no wrong and it’s the pesky Repubbys that are the cause of all our woes and gridlock.
    No one here at RR suffers under the illusion that there is any such animal as middle ground. The fact that you are all right wing dingbats is evident every day.

    Like

  4. Mikey McD Avatar

    The most important ‘votes’ are placed with wallets (if you don’t like big banks, don’t use them).
    Civil disobedience is not defecating on police cars, burning private property, beating fellow humans.
    Paul Emery: “Civil disobedience may be an inconvenience to some but I view it as a healthy aspect of a free society. “

    Like

  5. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Civil disobedience is fine as long as it s civil.

    Like

  6. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Crabb, what is a dingbat?

    Like

  7. bill tozer Avatar
    bill tozer

    Thanks Mr. Crabb. Being called a dingbat is indeed an honor and a whole lot better than some other titles. I am quite fond of the title. Dingbat is rather affectionate, kinda of cute and cuddly. Thanks again, and I hope the noises in my head are not bothering you, kind sir. Heads up, I’m tossing a bone your way as well. God bless you and your family in this season of Thanksgiving and warm fires and goodwill to men. Bless you again.

    Like

  8. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    On the Hilary Moment
    Intriguing speculation George but not very well founded in truth. Actually Obama’s popularity is pretty stable at around 45% with little change in the last few months. Bush in the same polls dropped to the high 20’s in his last years. Now that’s unpopular. Romney is the only Repub with a chance to beat him in an election and that’s a fact. The Newt is the smartest and most qualified but he needs a personality transplant and is a bit too weird for most voters. He would be a handful in a debate though and it would be interesting. I doubt if the TP’s will stomach Romney who I will refer to from now on as The Flipper since he seems to believe in nothing. The rest are a sideshow who will have occasional cameo’s on slow news days.
    The Repubs have no where to go with their economic positions because they are playing to their base and have made too many promises,(Norquest etc) The Dems can spin new ideas that will make the Repubs look stiff and unimaginative.
    Look for the Wisconsin Gov recall to make big news and be successful.

    Like

  9. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Mikey, you are amplifying isolated incidents to make your point. Most demonstrators and demonstrations are peaceful. Yes, breaking the law to protest injustice is a part of the way laws are changed. Remember, it was the FBI that ignited many violent incidents during the Anti War demonstrations and the Civil Rights Movement. This cannot be denied and was a tactic to discredit the demonstrations.
    Yes the “movement” is disorganized and without focus. What will come next will have more precision, discipline and organization for sure.
    Todd
    Do you think that breaking the law with sit in’s and the occupation of busses and lunch counters during the Civil Rights Movement was an inappropriate way to demonstrate the unjust laws they were protesting?

    Like

  10. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 302pm – Rosa Parks did indeed break the law in her civil disobedience. She was vindicated by that it was an evil law, and more so when thousands then millions rushed to her side. The occupiers are breaking laws that no reasonable person considers evil. But ultimately, when you disobey a law, civilly or otherwise, you had better be willing to suffer for your cause all the retribution that the state can deliver and politically survive. (Also see my piece on Par Force.)
    PaulE 423pm – “not very well founded in truth”??? I will take the word of the authors of the cited piece, both of whom are well-known and respected Democratic pollsters and election analysts. But there is nothing to be gained on this in a premature debate; we learn more every day.

    Like

  11. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    George
    Yes indeed, civil disobedience does require commitment to go the distance if you are arrested.
    I essentially disagree with the positions you quoted form the opinion piece. If Obama was in the low 30’s you’d see an urgency for alternatives but most Dems will stand by their man when the time comes.

    Like

  12. Russ Steele Avatar

    No, No, No Hillary! Make “The One:” defend his socialist legacy! Make him defend his current 9+ percent unemployment and economy is total decline. He cannot win on his record.

    Like

  13. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Paul is indeed a piece of work. You have confused free speech, civil disobedience and law breaking. Rosa Parks was trying to obey the same rule as the other folks around her and she had a right to do so. If there is a law that states there will be no camping in a park overnight, or defecating in public and the law is for all, then anyone who breaks that law is simply breaking the law, and deserves to be run in if they do not obey the lawful order of a police officer in his undertaking of upholding the law. No one is denying the OWS crowd their right to free speech. Their message is and can be disseminated freely by legal pamphleteering, marches, internet messages, ads and so on. To say that they have a right to break an unrelated law in the course of trying to convey their message is to say that they have a right to gang rape a woman whilst screaming out their political views. Tents=free speech is ultimately the same as breaking any other law=free speech. If the left espouses a political view and the rest of the country tells them to stick it up their ass, they have no right to start causing civil unrest and mayhem to further their point. They can certainly try and they will end up with pepper spray in their snoots. Or worse. Just don’t start crying about police brutality.

    Like

  14. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Rosa Parks was BREAKING the law, she was arrested for being violation of Chapter 6, Section 11 segregation law of the Montgomery City code. Four days later, Parks was tried on charges of disorderly conduct and violating a local ordinance. The trial lasted 30 minutes. Parks was found guilty and fined $10, plus $4 in court costs.

    Like

  15. George Rebane Avatar

    Thanks SteveF, there was no contention in this comment stream about WHETHER Rosa Parks broke the law, as PaulE and I established in above comments – she did indeed. The question revolves around the (moral?) nature of her disobedience to the law?
    BobRL 340pm – I and others are still patiently waiting to hear your expansion or definition of the charge that I am a “rightwing dingbat” and not middle of the road (I’ll absolve the others of that. BTW, has anyone defined a/the ‘middle of the road’ ideology to which everyone refers?) Which of the tenets of my well- and oft-expressed ideology relegate me to a compound so labeled? And if possible, please skip over the ones which are judged by some (you?) as “codewords” or “yes, but I know what you really meant”. These are at best tiresome and out of place here.

    Like

  16. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    I too am waiting for the definition and explanation of what a “rightwing dingbat”is from Crabb.
    I always considered myself a conservative person who is not real uptight about certain social issues. What is fascinating to me is now the left, the ones that have moved real close to the socialist/commie philosophy (like Frisch, Pelline, Thornton) claim we are “far right” and/or extremist right. That tells me we are in the right place. Since we extoll the Constitution and individual rights, what does that say about the liberals? So, for those MOTR phony balonies, I am very happy to be a conservative as are more than 40% of America.

    Like

  17. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    ” Rosa Parks was trying to obey the same rule as the other folks around her and she had a right to do so.”–Scott
    Ms. Parks was actually disobeying the rule–not obeying “the same rule as the other folks around her” She was ordered to move, and under the rule she was obligated to do so at the order of the bus driver.

    Like

  18. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    The U S Constitution is the law. Rosa did nothing to break that law. Whites could sit where they wished. A white rider ordered her to move and the bus driver then ordered her to the rear. The law regarding camping etal applies to all citizens. It is Constitutional. OWS crowd has no basis to disobey the law. They are breaking an unrelated law in the course of their protest. Rosa’s defiance of the local law WAS the basis of her protest. She was breaking the local law she was protesting. Apparently the left is saying that not allowing camping in local parks is the reason that there is income inequality in this country. Try to think, folks.

    Like

  19. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Steve: The example of Rosa Parks demonstrates the difference between natural law and positive law. Just because positive law exists does not make such positive law the Truth. Different laws based on race, against which Rosa Parks fought (in this instance violation of Chapter 6, Section 11 segregation law of the Montgomery City code), is an example of a positive law that is not the Truth…and Rosa Parks was absolutely right to disobey the wrongful law which was a violation of natural law.
    Comparing Rosa Parks to OWS is a like comparing apples and Ford Pintos.

    Like

  20. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Just a reminder of the history of civil disobedience during the civil rights movement
    “The US Civil Rights Movement (1942-68) restored universal suffrage in the southern United States and outlawed legal segregation. The movement’s overall strategy combined litigation, the use of mass media, boycotts, demonstrations, as well as sit-ins and other forms of civil disobedience to turn public support against institutionalized racism and secure substantive reform in US law. Thousands were arrested in nonviolent protests as images of the confrontations inspired widespread public support for the movement’s objectives. Hundreds of thousands more participated in marches, boycotts and voter registration drives throughout the US South. The movement helped spawn a national crisis that forced intervention by the federal government to overturn segregation laws in southern states, restore voting rights for African-Americans, and end legal discrimination in housing, education and employment.”
    Assuming you believe that the end justified the means in this situation doesn’t that set a precedence for civil disobedience being used as a tactic for social justice?

    Like

  21. RL Crabb Avatar

    Okay, I’ll spell it out, but it will take more than a few sentences and I have other pressing duties at the moment. I’ll try to get my response posted here by Thanksgiving.

    Like

  22. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 858pm – first, are you asking if every ‘good end’ justifies any means to achieve it? And second, if not, then did the current ‘good end’ of civil rights justify the means to achieve it?
    BobRL 906pm – that’s good news. I’d like to post your piece on this under your name so that it can launch a dedicated comment stream in which we can discuss your ideas.

    Like

  23. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Rosa Parks resisted an unlawful (by the Constitution and, I’d say, civil contract law) order by a bus driver to give up her seat to a white who didn’t pay any more than she did.
    A bunch of kids/demonstrators at Davis resisted multiple and apparently lawful orders to leave by campus police (State cops, equal in authority to CHP or Park Rangers) and attempts by the campus cops to physically remove them. After the pepper spraying, the campus cops managed to break the chain and successfully arrested them. Some or all were charged with misdemeanors.
    I cannot believe the inanity of those trying to draw parallels between the two events.
    There will be plenty of time in court to sort out who the bigger jerks were; I would not bet big money against the cops, who apparently did try to muscle the demonstrators apart before reaching for the pepper spray which, while unpleasant, did no damage to the demonstrators and allowed what was going to happen to happen without inducing any sprains or coronaries among the police.
    I remember older friends in high school, heading off to the East LA riots in ’70 to catch whiffs of tear gas, they got what they wanted. Provoke police, resist arrest, all well and good but don’t whine when you get the reaction you were trying to provoke.

    Like

  24. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Paul, the sit ins and marches were all Constitutional. Whites could ‘sit in’ at the lunch counters and were allowed to march with permits that the blacks were denied. So the anti-segregationists were only doing what the society tolerated otherwise. The OWS mob are blocking traffic just for the effect of blocking traffic. No one is allowed to block traffic, regardless of their national origin. Again, if tents=free speech and gang rape doesn’t, you tell me the dividing line exactly and why. How about tents for months at your house? Filth and sewage on your yard for months? No? Oh, so you are against free speech! In the case of the segregationists movement, the ends WERE the means. The means WERE the ends. Are you still claiming that prohibiting camping in city parks causes income inequality? Your insipid repetition of the civil rights movement shows a dodging of the issues raised here. Try to stay on the topic and answer my questions.

    Like

  25. bill tozer Avatar
    bill tozer

    Paul, civil disobedience is as American as apple pie. No argument from me. Non violent civil disobedience is what Gandhi was all about as was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Had Dr. King not pressed, urged, prodded, demanded non violence and non retaliation, the Civil Rights Movement could have denigrated into one big Watts Riots with heavily armed Black Panther insurrection in every American city. Luckily, this did not happen per Dr. King’s leadership and non violence preaching. I do take exception to comparing brave souls such as Rosa Parks to sleeping in a park. “This land is my land, this land is your land,” was a popular song in the 60’s, but the court ruled the OWS crowd had to remove their tents. Part of the ruling was that even through Z Park was open to the public, it was privately owned, thus the property owners could place reasonable restrictions on maintaining the property. The Courts have historically interpreted the Constitution as free speech and other rights vs the government and have not extended free speech to privately owned property. Paul, if you see OWS as the seeds to a movement which will swell in ranks and clout in the coming years, then perhaps you can make comparisons to Rep. John Lewis being beaten in Selma during a peace march. Right now I don’t see OWS fighting to sit where they want on a bus or check in any hotel they choose and can afford. No, I see OWS as a group that wants a free room at the hotel and a free ride on the bus. Time will tell. Alot of socialist movements sprung out the Depression years and I suppose they looked like sustainable movements at the time. Time will tell.

    Like

  26. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “Assuming you believe that the end justified the means in this situation doesn’t that set a precedence for civil disobedience being used as a tactic for social justice?”
    Even Machiavelli himself never believed ‘the end justifies the means’, and as far as I can tell, none of the civil authorities bearing the brunt of OWS demonstrations actually had any role in what was being protested. Unlike the bus driver trying to roust Rosa Parks off to the back of the bus.
    Then there was the spectacle of the Downtown OWS mavens conducting business in the atrium of Deutschebank, where it was nice, warm and quiet, despite Deutschebank actually being the sort of international banker 1%ers who they were supposedly there to change, and their unwashed brethren left behind to suffer without a voice in the decision making.
    ‘You’ve been here for 8 weeks and you already have a ghetto?’ … Priceless.

    Like

  27. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Yes – I should point out I’m not justifying anything that went on in the name of civil rights. Only the peaceful claiming of what was theirs by due process and equal treatment under the law. The Black Panthers and others that turned to violence and murder were counter-productive to the cause. The OWS have legal avenues open to vent their anger and have their case heard. They have zero right to start blocking traffic, breaking unrelated laws or harassing other citizens.

    Like

  28. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    “No one here at RR suffers under the illusion that there is any such animal as middle ground. The fact that you are all right wing dingbats is evident every day.” -RL
    All right wing dingbats? I think there are also left wing dingbats and a borderline radical middle anarcho-dingbat or two.

    Like

  29. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    What is a dingbat? Greg, that was great! Scott you give an excellent history lesson and your conclusions are right on the mark.

    Like

  30. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    In an interview Sharon Angle gave with conservative talk show host Bill Manders in last years Senatorial campaign Angle conspicuously proposed “Second Amendment remedies” to deal not just with the supposedly ever-growing “tyrannical” U.S. government, but to replace her now general election opponent: Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
    From the interview
    Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who’s in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical…
    Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.
    Angle: Well it’s to defend ourselves. And you know, I’m hoping that we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.
    Is this an acceptable use of Civil Disobedience if groups are so inclined to believe that the threshold of infringement on liberties has been reached? Can you show me where any OWS proponents have advocate such a solution. She was of course the Repub candidate for US Senate from Nevada.

    Like

  31. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    PaulE, only a liberal could take her statement of “I’m hoping we’re not getting to Second Amendment remedies” and turn it into “Second Amendment remedies”. That is why no one trusts you and your lamestream media types to report the news anymore. Thank God for the internet and FOX News.

    Like

  32. Mikey McD Avatar

    OWS ‘solutions’ require the government to use force/guns ON ‘its’ citizens/(subjects?)
    OWS’s countless acts of violence (anti private property, setting fires, fighting cops, fighting humans, destroying public parks, etc) have already occurred. Angle’s comments are philosophical pontifications for discussion purposes.
    There is not an action (from eating to banking) we take that is not micromanaged from the central planners (tyrants).

    Like

  33. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Huh Todd? She said exactly that. Please explain to me what she meant. This was an exact quote.

    Like

  34. Scott Obermuller Avatar

    Paul you are dancing all around the fact that the OWS crowd hasn’t had any of their freedoms taken away or threatened in any way. If they want to protest and espouse a point of view – they have ample opportunity to do so. They have no right to break any laws of any kind. None. If they want to protest by ‘civil disobedience’, how does that strengthen their argument? It doesn’t. It just makes me think they’re costing me tax dollars to have their temper tantrum. How about I ‘protest’ in front of your house and if you don’t agree with me, I start smashing your property up until you do? Very intellectual, I must say. Conservatives discuss things as adults and weigh opposing opinions by presenting facts to support the various arguments. The left just rants and swears and then starts trouble. Have fun, kids!

    Like

  35. Mikey McD Avatar

    Look familiar?
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Like

  36. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Well quoted Mikey
    That’s what Sharon Angle was referring to I’m sure. Mikey, from your viewpoint when would the “Second Amendment Remedy” be appropriate and who has the right to exercise that option. Isn’t that what McVey used to justify his action in Oklahoma City?

    Like

  37. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    PaulE, my post stands as written and I am unsure why you can’t figure it out.
    Scott, you make an excellent point about civil disobedience. If the OWS was truly serious about their points on Wall Street, what would they do that affects the Wall Streeters more than yanking their money and stocks out of the place and putting it under their mattresses? That would of course be legal but if they tried to put it in a safe deposit box, that would be illegal. Anyway, I would suggest these OWS folks, most children of well off folks, to convince mom and dad to convert their dollars and bonds into a real currency, like say gold or silver and keep it at home. They of course would have to use their Second Amendment rights though to keep the scofflaws from coming and taking it by force.

    Like

  38. Mikey McD Avatar

    Posted by: Paul Emery | 22 November 2011 at 03:58 PM
    “when would the “Second Amendment Remedy” be appropriate”- when a super majority of Americans (dems and repubs) agree it is time and are willing to die for an anti-tyranny cause.
    “who has the right to exercise that option.” The People.
    “Isn’t that what McVey used to justify his action in Oklahoma City?” Yes. One man, a small mob or a super majority can fight tyranny. I don’t know McVey’s back story. I do know that the means he chose had zero positive affect towards the ends he desired. A revolution takes numbers. Though his cause can be ‘understood’ the means he chose were evil, despicable, and unacceptable.

    Like

  39. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, go down to briarpatch and try to buy some raw milk. Rumor has it that the feds confiscated all of it… I guess it’s bread and water for breakfast. #tyranny

    Like

  40. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    So Mikey I want to follow you on this. Basically any individual or group has the right to armed revolution against the government if they are so inspired. As for just cause, that is in the eyes of the beholder. We have the right under the Constitution to possess firearms to give us the firepower to revolt if we chose to do so. So then the Weather Underground was within their Constitutional Rights to use violence as a tactic to destabilize the government because it was their opinion that it was necessary to do so.
    Violent revolution, as the ultimate expression of dissent therefore is catered to in the Constitution.
    Fascinating topic for sure.

    Like

  41. George Rebane Avatar

    “Violent revolution, as the ultimate expression of dissent therefore is catered to in the Constitution.” PaulE, I think you’re beginning to understand the legacy of the Founders. You will find my analysis of this entire issue here –
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/files/ParForce080331.pdf

    Like

  42. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Now I thought Jefferson put the Revolution in the DOI. I don’t think it is in the Constitution. So it would appear PaulE has a problem with the DOI?

    Like

  43. George Rebane Avatar

    ToddJ – I don’t believe that you are under the impression that the Second Amendment is about duck hunting?

    Like

  44. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Correct. I think it was worded to allow the individual protection and the conglomerate protection.

    Like

  45. Mikey McD Avatar

    It is indeed a fascinating topic. Consider the title “Declaration of Independence”… could Britain not accept such a divorce ‘peacefully’? One could argue that it was Britain who chose bloodshed.
    Was Britain acting in the best interest of the people or the crown? The same question could be asked of any contemporary government act.

    Like

  46. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Yes indeed . From my perspective the main function of the Government is to serve the ruling class which enables it. Occasionally you have a revolution that upsets the order for a while before it corrects itself and serves whatever new order is in control. Sometimes voting and Democratic elections gives the people different options of the same ilk. In our country we have Democrats and Republicans both controlled by the same special interests. A certain amount of variation is allowed between the two but not enough to make a real difference but it maqkes people feel they are in control.
    The latest nail in the coffin is the so called “open primary” in California. No longer will Libertarians or Greens or other small parties be represented in the final elections since it will be only the top two primary vote getters which will be of course Republicrats.
    The most powerful change we could make in our election process would be to allow “none of the above” to be on the ballot. No elections would be final until someone received a simple majority (50% +1)
    It’s Nun of the above according to Crabb

    Like

  47. George Rebane Avatar

    PaulE 830pm – what a grim view, but in the broad strokes I have to agree. The “simple majority” rule would require provisions for the existing order to remain in charge until a simple majority is achieved. And I wonder if such an electoral procedure could be gamed by special interests, especially the well-funded ones.

    Like

  48. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    I’m sure it would be gamed but the “none of the above” provision would make them work for it. So far the ruling class always eventually prevails.
    I remember when I was in Yugoslavia in 1982 shortly after the death of Stalin. I asked a person I was drinking with at a tavern in Dubrovnic why there were so many identical black Mercedes with long radio antennas in the parking lots of the fanciest hotels. “Communists” he said. He was surprised that I would be so naive as to even ask the question. Indeed the ruling class.

    Like

  49. Mikey McD Avatar

    Paul, adding “drinking in a tavern” to get our attention, well played :). I 2nd the “none of the above” option; do we have a quorum?

    Like

Leave a comment