|
|
|
August 22, 2009
How outraged should I be?
From actor Jon Voight, an interesting question: Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?I don't know whether he is or not. But I do know that I am against civil war, and against anyone who wants to create one -- whether Barack Obama or his enemies. Civil wars have a poor track record, and it's the last thing this country needs. Voight explains why he asks the question: "We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation."I assume that Voight would be against the civil war he hypothesizes about, but I do wish he would say so. It's one thing to get outraged. I am so outraged so much of the time (in blog post after blog post after blog post!) that I am often just plain sick and tired of being outraged. Yet despite my outrage, I had to pause and get outraged once more over the idiotic idea (that obviously exists in some quarters or Voight wouldln't have mentioned it) of starting a civil war. I think that anyone who wants a civil war is a flaming loony tune, and I agree with Mrs. du Toit's comment here: As long as the people continue to have the right to vote, rebellion is completely out of the question. Corrections to constitutional overreach and abuse is still maintained in the ballot box.Connie also cited Thomas Jefferson, who said this: "A spirit which should... countenance the advocates for a dissolution of the Union and for setting in hostile array one portion of our citizens against another... would prove indeed that it is high time for every friend to his country, in a firm and decided manner, to express his sentiments of the measures which government has adopted to avert the impending evils, unhesitatingly to pledge himself for the support of the laws, liberties and independence of his country; and... to resolve that for the preservation of the Union, the support and enforcement of the laws, and for the resistance and repulsion of every enemy, they will hold themselves in readiness and put at stake if necessary their lives and fortunes on the pledge of their sacred honor." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Connecticut Republicans, 1809I think Jefferson would be outraged by the idea of anyone -- whether Barack Obama or his opponents -- starting a civil war. I'm probably worried about nothing, though. You know the routine. (Another day, another tawdry headline, trying to get me all stirred up....) MORE: Alan Keyes loves to invoke the civil war meme, and the following is typical:
That kind of hysteria doesn't play well in middle America. I may be wrong, but I think the talk of civil war helps Barack Obama. posted by Eric on 08.22.09 at 03:43 PM
Comments
The reality of a civil war is something no sane man should seek or invite. But you'd better believe it's necessary to maintain it as a plausible threat if all else fails. Mrs. du Toit is, of course, absolutely correct: as long as we can vote, and as long as the law protects our right to vote, we have a recourse and no need to escalate to violence. apotheosis · August 22, 2009 09:12 PM So what happens if Acorn gets its way and we don't have fair elections? The Black Panther thugs who just got let off. It's getting ugly out. The GOP needs to grow a pair or we're all screwed. And by that, I mean we're all screwed. Veeshir · August 22, 2009 09:22 PM And yet Jefferson also said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." KODjr · August 23, 2009 03:39 AM Well no one likes war, but it's a good thing some people always keep in mind that sometimes you have to fight wars anyway. Churchill, for example. The short version of the story, of course, is that he saw what was coming in the late 1930s and spoke frankly about it. Does that mean he wanted war? Of course not. Just saying. betsybounds · August 23, 2009 09:17 AM Is the rhetoric over heated? I'm not sure. Currently I do not hear anyone advocating insurrection. What I hear is people warning that the acts of others are potentially sowing the seeds of future strife. We've been down that road multiple times. Sometimes the pollyannas have been right (the Missouri compromise would have been unnecessary without the earlier compromise over the Constitution, etc.) Most times they have been wrong (at least in the short term.) I too see unpleasant patterns forming, like certain States that continue blithely down paths of irresponsibility sure that Federal bailout awaits, coupled with a Federal government all too happy to assume responsibility for that which they have no mandate, to name but two related examples. Do I know exactly what's to come from all of this? No, I merely trust that it will bring major changes and foresee that those changes likely will not be 'settled' without significant disruption of civil society at some time in the future. Do I fear the rhetoric? No, when otherwise reasonable people say such things I consider it akin to the warning track in the outfield of a basebal diamond. It lets us know that we all need to more carefully examine what is going on. ThomasD · August 23, 2009 10:20 AM Bear in mind also that the Tree of Liberty quote was written not so much as advocacy, but as rationalization. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm ***quote**** What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. ***quote*** He thought the Constitutional Convention was overreacting to Shays' Rebellion, and he thought the participants should be indulged, educated, pardoned, pacified. He also disagreed with Washington's later use of force to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. I would tend to agree, but I'm sort of a bleeding heart type. Eric Scheie · August 23, 2009 11:15 AM Read about the Spanish Civil War. Normal people didn't want it. g6loq · August 23, 2009 06:06 PM Just wondering why the near silence on the changes in procedure and oversight of the pending census. Between the census and possible immigration "reform" the ability to vote out the ruling class could become almost impossible. Pax · August 24, 2009 08:21 AM Civil War? No, don't want that. Secession? Not the same thing at all. P · August 24, 2009 10:02 AM Who's gonna secede? There would be a civil war over the secession. A fitting bit of violence for The Funniest End of Civilization Ever. Veeshir · August 24, 2009 01:19 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
August 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
August 2009
July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• "pour in gunk to make the system lock up then gun the motor until it seizes"
• But for a villain, the culture might have been lost • Carbon Market Frauds • The Marijuana Option • the sweet innocence of feral children • New coincidences from Barry birther territory! • A Word For The Sceptics • A US Marine Speaks Up • Protecting the children • How outraged should I be?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
We do have a civil war. The War On Drug Users and their suppliers. It was started by the government. And as long as it only involves mass incarceration and under 10,000 murders a year the people (generally) are OK with it.
Just ask Connie.