current event
by Academics and malcontents in Vermont have written a secessionist manifesto (available in paperback) declaring that the "...U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable — it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens." This is similar to Quebec's secession attempt, when the province sought to renegotiate sovereignty and a new association with Canada.
In numerous interviews, movement spokesmen such as Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession have alleged "Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war. If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what's left of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire."
The movement has been gaining ground slowly in Vermont, with a secession convention in the statehouse, and even an appearance on the O'Reilly Factor.
It is unclear what association, if any, Vermont would seek with the US "empire," or how an independent state would deal with losing federal funding for institutions such as the universities where the secessionist movement's founders are employed.
Add a Comment (69)
Email This
Message Author
Good riddance. Add California, Massachusetts and New Jersey onto the list, and maybe, just maybe, this country will have a shred of a chance of surviving the internal moral decay that is bringing it down. Probably need to throw Manhattan, Chicago, Seattle and Miami in with them, if thats at all possible.
Some will chastise me for advocating the crumble of our Republic, but I contend that its too damn late. The politicians are in fact corrupt. The political system borders on broken and is only kept afloat by the momentum of the past century. The concept of service to the nation is dead - these secessionist support the preservation of "any kind of representative system" only for their own self-serving good. The liberty and morality this country was founded on has become twisted and confused over the past forty years, and that momentum will take decades to reverse.
Puh-lease.
The "internal moral decay" is in the damn White House.
The "internal moral decay" is in the damn White House.
Scott, it goes beyond the White House, it's everywhere. Take this as an example. The mayor of Portland actually chastizing the government for arresting illegal aliens. Why, the audacity! can't you just see how getting rid of the cheap, non-english speaking, illegal labor will just bring our economy to its' knees.
It's not just immigration laws, either. Our entire politcal system is bloated and panders to all sorts of special interest groups; ranging from big business, to the NIMBY people who want things like electricity and gasoline to run their cars, and prisons for lawbreakers--they just don't want the facilities responsible for these things to be in their back yard.
Nope, the whole system is corrupt and falling apart; just like the Roman Empire. What is that line from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long (Thank you Robert Heinlein)?
"When people realize they can vote themselves Bread and Circuses, They Will."
We have done just that.
Yes. There are social problems. Is this a new phenomenon? Nope. They've been with us forever.
My main reaction was to the anti-"city-slicker" mentality that romanizzo was spouting. The "moral decay" we're experiencing is much the same as that which brought down Rome. But that decay is of a different sort than most seem to think.
Rome didn't fall because of drunken orgies. The "moral decay" wasn't that sort - it was a decline in civic virtues. The growth of Christianity caused the citizens to focus inward - to look to their "heavenly" salvation, and to ignore their earthly problems. Instead of sending their sons to the army, they hired barbarian mercenaries, who eventually decided that they'd rather be giving the orders than taking them.
Our problems aren't the "depravity" of big city folk. It's the "yes-man" stupidity of the "simple country folk" who voted for the kind of imperialism that the Vermont manifesto decries. It's the folk who aren't outraged by the administration's civilian wiretapping programs who're causing the "internal moral decay". It's the ones who think habeas corpus is a nice idea, but one we could do without, if it might prevent a terrorist action.
It's the mentality that creates a lynch mob when the president gets a blowjob, but re-elects the president who lies to create support for military conquest of a sovereign foreign country. This is our loss of civic virtue. Don't point to Manhattan and Los Angeles, point to Poughkeepsie and Bakersfield.
The growth of Christianity caused the citizens to focus inward - to look to their "heavenly" salvation, and to ignore their earthly problems. Instead of sending their sons to the army, they hired barbarian mercenaries, who eventually decided that they'd rather be giving the orders than taking them.
This isn't the first time you've made that assertion, so I decided to look it up.
Reasons for the fall of the Western Roman Empire (the Eastern, or Byzantium lasted until the sack of Constantinople in the 15th century):
- Decay-- "But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and, as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight.... The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed, and finally dissolved, by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of Barbarians."
- Christianity-- "Although the path from Pagan to Christian Rome had a few more hurdles, it was from the time of Constantine that Roman Christianity is dated. At this early point, however, the emperors retained the power to appoint bishops. Over time, Church leaders became influential and took away power from the emperor. Christian beliefs conflicted with the working of empire. "
- Vandals and Religious Controversy-- "Roman citizens living outside of Italy identified with Rome much less than their Italian counterparts. They preferred to live as natives, even if this meant poverty, which in turn meant turning to those who could help -- Germans, brigands, Christians, etc."
- Leadership Problems-- "Because the East survived when the West collapsed, institutional weakness and barbarian invasions, conditions common to both halves, are insufficient explanation for the Fall of Rome. Instead, Elton says the cause of the Fall of lies financial difficulties only the West faced. The best single explanation would be poor leadership rather than military failure."
- The Dole and Barbarians-- "Millions spent on bread (including pork by the end of the second century) and circuses for the non-working poor. Barbarians ruled Rome and even when a Roman, Diocletian, regained control, he was influenced by the East. With Constantine came a barbaric Christianity and the move of the Empire's center from Rome to Constantinople."
- Economic, Military, Gradual-- "economic (lack of circulating currency and trade deficit, and other factors not clearly economic, like environmental change and decaying infrastructure), military (citizenship granted to all reduced the incentive to join the army), and gradual transformation (it never fell or fell to Islam)."
- Economic - Hoarding and Deficit-- "One of the primary catalysts to the deterioration of the economy was the lack of circulating currency in the Western Empire. Two reasons for the lack of funds are wholesale hoarding of bullion by Roman citizens, and the widespread looting of the Roman treasury by the "barbarians". These two factors, coupled with the massive trade deficit with Eastern Regions of the Empire served to stifle the growth of wealth in the west"
But you're right, it was probably just Christianity.
That list wasn't intended to be a laundry list of forces that were probably involved. It was a list of various historians' theories. So some historians suggest "decay", some suggest Christianity, some leadership problems, and so on.
Christianity is a common thread in them - half of them do note a strong connection with the rise of Christianity. Some of the others simply haven't taken the next step of concluding that the proximate cause they identify was itself caused by the religious issues. "Leadership problems" is a cop-out, and could easily mean the exact same thing as the "Christianity" item lists.
I agree - the detailed causes of the fall of the Empire are complicated. I think it's preposterous to believe that Christianity didn't have a major influence. The Empire's history is early Christianity's history. Christianity was invented a mere century after the Empire came into being - less if you believe Jesus was a historical figure and date it from his alleged birth. The Empire thrived for a few hundred years.
The standard date given for the end of the (western) empire is September 4, 476. One of the most notable dates in early Christianity was in 313, when Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christianity and ending the persecution of Christians under his predecessor, Diocletian. It was Constantine who summoned the first Ecumenical Council, the Council of Nicea - that council wrote the original Nicene Creed, a sort of Christian "pledge of allegiance", which (after a couple of edits) most Christians still recite today. I could (unfortunately) probably still recite it entirely from memory.
So, Christianity came to real temporal power in the mid 4th century with Constantine, and the Empire tanked a century later. As Christianity grew more powerful, the Empire grew less powerful. When Christianity succeeded, the Empire failed.
Of course, correlation doesn't prove causation. It could be coincidence. It could be that there's some third factor that caused both the rise of Christianity and the fall of the Empire. It seems less likely that the fall of the Empire caused the rise of Christianity - the Empire was still pretty healthy when Christianity came to power. I think, on the whole, to dismiss Christianity as being a significant cause of the Empire's misfortunes is intellectually dishonest.
Also, you might throw this into the works... over in the thread on Fox News, we had some discussion about media bias. Historians are traditionally biased positively towards Rome and negatively towards the medieval period that followed it. This is probably because the Romans were such wonderful record keepers and those damn medievals didn't leave them enough material to work with. And, of course, the entire western world was biased in favor of Christianity (at least until relatively recently).
Given a bias both towards Rome and towards Christianity, might it not be likely that many historians simply under-emphasize the role Christianity had in bringing about the fall of the Empire?
Frankly, I don't care whether people accept that Christianity is what hurt the Empire - at least for the purposes I brought it up (both here and the other time you mentioned). My real point is that when people start talking about "moral decay" and the fall of the Empire and then try to draw analogies to the US, they're almost inevitably getting the facts wrong.
As I pointed out more carefully last time I mentioned this, the historian who's responsible for the "moral decay" theory of the fall is Edward Gibbon, in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, one of the first important works on the subject.
Most people who mention the "moral decay" theory want us to think that it's Hollywood, or Vegas, or the sexual revolution that's indicative of this decay. They want us to make the mental connection between "moral decay" and the Bacchanalia, those famous Roman orgies.
But the "moral decay" Gibbon was talking about wasn't the Bacchanalia - that was much more typical of the Roman Republic, not the Empire - it was "civic virtue". He basically said the Romans got soft and lost their "martial spirit". They didn't want to serve in the army, which led to the army's reliance on mercenaries. It was those mercenaries who ultimately deposed the emperor.
I stand by what I said. Our "moral decay" isn't Britney Spears, it's the neo-conservative destruction of America's real values. They concentrate on reminding us we're "one Nation, under God" and try to make us forget that we're "one Nation, with liberty and justice for all".
Many of the eloquent reasons that you found and listed seem to just boil down to the real underlying problem that Rome developed due to its sheer size. Rome became so large that ultimately it was unable to communicate with itself in an effective manner, and so eventually one hand didn't know what the other was up to. We don't have this problem of communication anymore, as can simply be witnessed by the existence of this website alone.
Rome didn't fall because of drunken orgies. The "moral decay" wasn't that sort - it was a decline in civic virtues. The growth of Christianity caused the citizens to focus inward - to look to their "heavenly" salvation, and to ignore their earthly problems. Instead of sending their sons to the army, they hired barbarian mercenaries, who eventually decided that they'd rather be giving the orders than taking them.
As to 'civic virtues', one of the biggest problems I see today is the lack of engagement by everyday citizens in the political process. From a simple lack of involvement in issues(except on rare occasions as exampled by the Pennsylvania legislators voting themselves a huge pay increase two years ago.) relevant to society.
Certain issues do coalesce voters--abortion, gun control, and lately immigration. But, this attention to issues only lasts as long as the next sound bite in the media. By the time the elections roll around, low voter turnout and the tendancy for those who do vote to simply vote along some antiquated sense of duty, so they vote their 'party' affiliation, keeps the same-old political parties (for the most part, there are exceptions) in power, and the same old politicians in office. Even though I consider myself a conservative, I vote with my conscience, and not along any single party line. My votes tend to go across the spectrum.
While social has been a continuing downfall in our society but lately it has been exacerbated by issues like the whole hanging chad debacle in FL, Clinton lying under oath about his penchant for diddling young interns, allegations of voter fraud across the country in elections ranging from local to national in scope, problems with these electronic voting machines---The list is endless. However, this just illustrates that the biggest problem with voters is the general malaise they feel because they feel their votes do not count.
You contend that the 'internal moral decay' exists only in the White House, I contend that romanizzo is correct in his assertation that it exists all throughout society. While his rhetoric about California, Manhatten, et.al. seems a bit extreme--indeed secession is a bit extreme, he is correct that the liberty and morality that founded this country (and lets leave the religious discussion out of this--I'm referring to honesty and integrity here) has gone by the wayside to be replaced by everything being about 'me'.
We write books on 'exit strategies' from companies we work for, asking questions like 'What Color Is Your Parachute'. Loyalty--in both directions--is long gone. Neither side is loyal to the other, we can't even be loyal to each other longer than 5 minutes.
On the whole, I agree with you. I just take exception to one (relatively minor) thing.
Clinton lying under oath about his penchant for diddling young interns
This kind of thing simply shouldn't be on the radar when talking about our society's problems. I, personally, grant Clinton total forgiveness for lying under oath - simply because he was answering a question that never should have been asked. His sex life was simply none of our business - it's only the ultra-conservative moralizing busybodies who think it should be.
In all the rhetoric that surrounded the impeachment, we seem to have forgotten what the point of the investigation was: misconduct in the Whitewater land deal. One of the reasons we forget that is that we all know the real reason - it was a partisan witch hunt.
The OIC failed to find evidence of wrongdoing in Whitewater, so they extended the investigation to include charges of sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Nothing there. So they manage to catch him in a lie in which the truth was entirely irrelevant, and turn it into cause for impeachment. One of the more shameful examples of partisan politics in American history, IMO.
Clinton's blowjob was never important. Bush's WMDs are a whole different story. To all appearances, the administration completely manufactured evidence to create support for the Iraq invasion. This matters - Lewinsky doesn't.
he is correct that the liberty and morality that founded this country (and lets leave the religious discussion out of this--I'm referring to honesty and integrity here) has gone by the wayside to be replaced by everything being about 'me'.
I agree with the sentiment, but again, not so much the detail.
The problem isn't the "me" generation. The problem is that we no longer hold our government responsible. They lie to us daily and we bend over and take it.
And I do place a substantial amount of blame on religion. Not so much on religious belief per se, but in the "fake" religion that's so predominant. Many more people seem to merely pay lip service to religion than actually believe it - the strong evidence for this is the sheer ignorance most Americans have on the subject. I've been reading Stephen Prothero's Religious Literacy, and he makes a really relevant point:
The effects of this exodus remain with us today, notably in our collapsing of religion into "values" and "values" into sexual morality, which in turn functions as an odd sort of circular reasoning as a proxy for religiosity. At least in popular parlance, what makes religious folks religious today is not so much that they believe in Jesus' divinity or Buddhism's Four Noble Truths but that they hold certain moral positions on bedroom issues such as premarital sex, homosexuality, and abortion.
This kind of religion is, to my mind, much more responsible for that "moral decay" than anything Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan can do.
To all appearances, the administration completely manufactured evidence to create support for the Iraq invasion.
Come on, you don't really believe that, do you? As smart as you are? (And I don't say that sarcastically) Did Bush and his homies also manufacture the evidence that the British, French, Germans, and Russians had, as well as go back in time to manufacture the evidence Clinton had that caused him to not only bomb the crap out of Iraq in 1998 but also make regime change the official US policy?
Come on, you don't really believe that, do you? As smart as you are?
Well, I'll be honest. I don't at all consider myself especially well-informed on the details of who knew what when. Here's what I base my conclusion on...
The 9/11 Commission (the official body we convened to investigate 9/11) pretty clearly said there was "no credible evidence" of Hussein's government assisting al-Qaeda in preparing for or carrying out the attacks. Yet, in the days leading up to the invasion, all of the political rhetoric was focused on the invasion as an essential part of the "war on terror", and it was very clear that we were expected to believe that we were invading Iraq because of a connection to al-Qaeda.
I also believe that creating that association in the mind of the people was absolutely essential to getting support for the invasion. I don't think it would have been possible to get sufficient popular support if it had been nothing more than Iraq's grandstanding with the UN inspectors.
So, yes - I believe that the Bush administration intentionally misrepresented the facts in justifying the invasion of Iraq.
I even believe that many of the key players personally justified it with a kind of "manifest destiny" argument. They buy into the neocon philosophy that America is destined to rule the world. I think they believed that we could invade Iraq and achieve a quick, decisive military victory there, and they believed that would spur support for the "manifest destiny" argument and prepare the way for subsequent invasions of Iraq's neighbors. I think Bush saw lasting peace in the Middle East, through military conquest, as his legacy.
Don't get me wrong - I'm proud of our military. I think we easily demonstrated in both Iraq wars that we can kick any ass you want to point out. And that's what it's supposed to be able to do. I think if we could give the military a real goal, they could almost certainly carry it out. But we don't have a concrete goal in Iraq. We have some kind of fuzzy "help the Iraqis" thing going on.
Our military isn't going to "fix" what's wrong over there. To do so through the military would probably mean annexing Iraq as a US "protectorate", establishing a US-enforced martial law (our laws, not theirs), and then arresting and imprisoning those clerics who are currently inciting the violence - with Gestapo-style door-to-door searches, if necessary. We don't have the political will to do that, and I don't think it'd really be the right thing to do.
The current policy of trying to keep the lid on a pressure cooker that's been trying to boil over for more than a thousand years is doing nothing but wasting the lives of our soldiers - and we owe them better than that.
I should have been more specific--as far as I am concerned he could have lied under oath about his birthday; it is the fact that he LIED under OATH. I realize that politicians and statesmen frequently lie to us. Sometimes, in the interest of National Security, they must. Having served in the military, I understand the need for secrecy ergo I understand there is a definite need for lies. It doesn't mean I have to like it, but I accept it. Facts of a partisan witch hunt not withstanding, about that one fact, he should have simply either refused to answer, on the grounds that the question was irrelevant, or admitted the action. Instead, he chose to obfuscate and evade and that is where I draw the line. There wasn't any need of 'National Security' so he should not have lied. Period.
The problem isn't the "me" generation. The problem is that we no longer hold our government responsible. They lie to us daily and we bend over and take it.
Oh, I think it *is* exactly the 'me' generation. We're so busy worrying about 'me' that what the government says to us is of little or no concern, unless it directly affects 'me'. Most of the things our government does will not individually affect us, so we don't care. We should, but we don't. So, in your words we simply 'bend over and take it'. I prefer to think that we simply ignore it.
Take the PA raises I cited as an example. This was no simple small raise--this was upwards of a 34% raise in a state where the budget is already strained. This obviously meant higher taxes, ergo the voters mobilized and it was repealed. Why did they mobilize? There was a direct effect on the individual voter. If it hadn't affected individuals, they would have never mobilized. Many of those who voted in favor of the raises were still voted out of office. Of course, since the state constitution forbids taking raises away from State Court Judges, they all got to keep theirs.
Not so much on religious belief per se, but in the "fake" religion that's so predominant. Many more people seem to merely pay lip service to religion than actually believe it - the strong evidence for this is the sheer ignorance most Americans have on the subject.
I believe I can agree with you here. We could go onward about this, but I think you said it eloquently enough.
Clinton's blowjob was never important. Bush's WMDs are a whole different story. To all appearances, the administration completely manufactured evidence to create support for the Iraq invasion. This matters - Lewinsky doesn't.
Well.....to me, anyway, I would like my leader to be fairly squeaky clean--not just for appearances, but for the whole possibility of blackmail as well. Secrets can be used to glean favors. I am well aware that many of our leaders have not been squeaky clean, but most at least appeared so.
As to the Bush WMD thing..Part of me still believes Bush was in the dark (but then, I believe he's in the dark about a lot of things---or he's an extremely good actor) about the WMD's, and just listened to the fabrications. Some of me also believes this might just have been a Cheney-created incident to grant Halliburton an unquestioned number of huge no-bid contracts in that arena. However, most of me just believes that our intelligence agencies have been so emasculated over the last thirty years, give or take a couple, that we truly couldn't KNOW the truth, so we just guessed--and we guessed incorrectly.
Some small part of me also wonders if the WMD's didn't exist, but that they just had time to move them out of the country.
At the risk of upsetting many of the veterens in Omninerd--I respect the Presidency, but not many of the men who have held that office, and frankly I don't trust the ones I don't respect.
I should have been more specific--as far as I am concerned he could have lied under oath about his birthday; it is the fact that he LIED under OATH.
Yep. I got that. And to make it perfectly clear, I approve of his lie. I think the circumstances under which he was forced to answer that question under oath rendered the oath invalid. They had no right to demand a truthful answer to that question.
We're so busy worrying about 'me' that what the government says to us is of little or no concern, unless it directly affects 'me'.
Well.....to me, anyway, I would like my leader to be fairly squeaky clean--not just for appearances, but for the whole possibility of blackmail as well. Secrets can be used to glean favors. I am well aware that many of our leaders have not been squeaky clean, but most at least appeared so.
I think these are, like romanizzo's original issues, red herrings. They let you tsk tsk over superficialities that can't be changed while ignoring real issues that can.
Maybe it's my atheism, but I've got more trust in people than that. People aren't apathetic because they're not interested - they've seen our liberties steadily eroded over the last few decades in the name of the "war on drugs" and now the "war on terror", all the while with those salt-of-the-earth, backbone-of-America types cheering it on, voting single-issue and party-line stances - an easily manipulated group that effectively stripped the electorate of its power.
What we need is a real candidate. What we've got are candidates who may as well have been cloned in a vat somewhere.
What we need is a real candidate. What we've got are candidates who may as well have been cloned in a vat somewhere.
As long as we have a system governed by 'political parties' that will never happen. The parties will never allow it to happen; because they want 'cookie cutter candidates' who stand for what the party stands for. The 'party' has deluded itself into thinking that it represents the people, when in reality, they only represent the special interests that spend time courting favors.
Yep. I got that. And to make it perfectly clear, I approve of his lie. I think the circumstances under which he was forced to answer that question under oath rendered the oath invalid. They had no right to demand a truthful answer to that question.
That's where we have to agree to disagree. Had Clinton in fact answered 'I do not feel it is any of your business; nor do I see any revelence in the question, so I choose not to answer.', then I would have been perfectly fine with that answer. But an oath to tell the truth is simply that; and by violating it with his lies and obfuscation, he lost my respect as commander-in-chief.
In truth, I really don't approve of any lies. I can forgive them, but I don't approve of them. For example, I understand the need for hiding the truth in matters of National Security, so I can forgive those. But, even in that instance lies aren't necessary; the truth works fine. "Sorry, I cannot answer that for reasons of National Security'.
The OIC failed to find evidence of wrongdoing in Whitewater, so they extended the investigation to include charges of sexual harassment of Paula Jones. Nothing there. So they manage to catch him in a lie in which the truth was entirely irrelevant, and turn it into cause for impeachment. One of the more shameful examples of partisan politics in American history, IMO.
Well put Scott,
The hypocracy of Clinton's GOP detractors on Whitewater is amazing given their silence over George W's dealings as a director of Harken. He actually ran it like a model for the Enron collapse doing all the same things on a smaller scale. In particular, hiding debt by using wholly owned subsidiaries to purchase the debt ridden parts of the company, and selling large volumes of his own shares as the company was going down the toilet.
I know Dilly, I have to provide the sources for this extraordinary claim. Give me a few days.
Here is a whole list of possible sources. Unfortunately, all of the boston.com, as well as the Yahoo News articles have been 'removed'. I know the Salon.com, Guardian, CNN Money, and Washington Post articles still exist.
Bush isn't squeaky clean either, and I've never really defended him, except on a couple of issues. I voted for him the first time, but that was because of Al Gore--I couldn't in good conscience vote for anyone connected with the Clinton White House. I didn't vote for him the second time, because I felt he was an ineffective leader.
Not so much on religious belief per se, but in the "fake" religion that's so predominant. Many more people seem to merely pay lip service to religion than actually believe it - the strong evidence for this is the sheer ignorance most Americans have on the subject.
Here, here.
It's the mentality that creates a lynch mob when the president gets a blowjob
I don't remember a lynch mob. Rather, I remember the reaction, in general, being a soap-opera-like interest in the drama, but an overall apathetic attitude towards the fact that the President cheated on his wife. The act was portrayed as controversial, but yet somehow "progressive." The President was "hip" for being sexual.
In the end, though, the sexuality isn't what bothers me about it, but the dishonesty. Yes, I think it immoral to engage in such behavior outside of wedlock, but it matters more that a President is honest and respectful. Keeping marriage vows and the manner in which one carries his/her personal relationships is just as good of a "litmus test" for such as anything else of which I can think.
Even so, I still think people put too much stock in the event. If Clinton was performing his official duties adeptly, his personal life really matters very little in comparison. Yes, it would be good if I could tell my (future) children to emulate the President, but children also need to be taught that just because a person makes a good President (or boss, teacher, friend, etc.) doesn't mean their morals are desirable. No doubt there are aspects of their personality which allow them to succeed in what they do, and those aspects should be admired, but they are not necessarily representative of the entirety of their morality.
I don't remember a lynch mob.
Really? The impeachment proceedings sure seemed like a lynch mob (at least metaphorically) to me.
Wasn't the impeachment charge perjury (i.e., not "receiving oral sex from someone other than your wife")?
Yes. That's why I called it a lynch mob.
As I said in another part of this thread - we forgot what that "investigation" was supposed to be about. The crime Clinton was supposed to have done was connected with the Whitewater land deal. Nothing came of that - nor did anything come of the expanded investigation into alleged sexual harassment. But the lynch mob was so determined to find something to pin on him, they focused on an instance of perjury in response to a question (about the blowjob) that had no relevance - one that never should have been asked.
It would seem the U.S. government's conclusion agreed with you, then, seeing Clinton was acquitted.You can argue the votes should have been different or the investigation should have concentrated on different things, but I think your lynch mob statement is an exaggeration.
I'm trying to decide if your ego is matched by your naïveté. Probably not.
Our problems stem from the greed and decadence that has consumed our culture. The vast majority of the people in this country care about just one thing - their own pampered little selves. The pursuit of the next shinier cell phone and whining about whatever "injustice" the media has made the pet project of the month means more to your average American than the concepts of honor, integrity or service to the country. Gone are the days of "I regret I have but one life to give for my country" or "ask not what your country can do for you." What we have instead are politicians who's sole purpose in life is to make it through the election to keep cashing that paycheck. Never would they make the hard decision to do whats right for their people - instead they do what is popular.
And, at the end of the day, our average self-serving American will complain about how horrible it is that we're holding terrorists without trial. They complain not because they really care, but now they can go to sleep with a clear conscience, believing that they have in some way supported a purer idea.
But in the end, they sleep peacefully because somebody - that very President that tapped your wires - realizes that the world is not a friendly place and has set about trying to secure our way of life. All the little sheep back home can go about their lives blissfully unaware of what the real world is like, and guys like scottb can complain about "imperialism" and "military conquest."
Our problems stem from the greed and decadence that has consumed our culture.
On the contrary, our very success stems from that greed and decadence.
The pursuit of the next shinier cell phone and whining about whatever "injustice" the media has made the pet project of the month means more to your average American than the concepts of honor, integrity or service to the country.
And we couldn't possibly blame that on a government that itself has no honor or integrity. It's a two way street, bucko.
And, at the end of the day, our average self-serving American will complain about how horrible it is that we're holding terrorists without trial. They complain not because they really care, but now they can go to sleep with a clear conscience, believing that they have in some way supported a purer idea.
So you say. I say they do care. Those "purer ideas" are what founded this country. While we're throwing around patriotic quotes, let's add this one: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
But in the end, they sleep peacefully because somebody - that very President that tapped your wires - realizes that the world is not a friendly place and has set about trying to secure our way of life.
The classic arsonist/fireman. My "way of life" was pretty damn secure without the Military Commissions Act or the Patriot Act. It sure seems a lot less so with them.
All the little sheep back home can go about their lives blissfully unaware of what the real world is like, and guys like scottb can complain about "imperialism" and "military conquest."
I've been out in that "real world", and I do have a picture of what it's like. You don't get to paint me with that "parochial American" brush. I've lived in Europe and Asia - something like 15% of my life has been spent overseas. And guess what? They don't much care for that imperialism and military conquest either.
I'm sick of people like you decrying the "moral decay" of America in one breath and then defending those who most directly suborn those American values in the next.
On the contrary, our very success stems from that greed and decadence.
Really? I think the Amish and Mennonite cultures are pretty successful overall, and they decry greed and decadence. I'm not saying that I would like to live that way, but they do have something to offer in the way of values.
I find it interesting to note that, here you seem to applaud greed and decadence, yet here you discuss the need to 'pay for' the right to emit greenhouse gasses using 'Carbon Credits'. I don't think you can have it both ways. Our 'greed and decadence' (read decadence=disposable society) may have made us one of the wealthiest countries on earth, but it has also given rise to the pollution we create. Beyond Greenhouse Gasses, look at the other pollutants--from simple garbage, to complicated things like pesticides, pharmaceuticals, even the flouride we treat the water with for our teeth is something of a pollutant.
And we couldn't possibly blame that on a government that itself has no honor or integrity. It's a two way street, bucko.
I don't think he's saying that, rommanizzo says here:
Gone are the days of "I regret I have but one life to give for my country" or "ask not what your country can do for you." What we have instead are politicians who's sole purpose in life is to make it through the election to keep cashing that paycheck. Never would they make the hard decision to do whats right for their people - instead they do what is popular.
He's decrying the dishonorable government because they are only interested in continuing to receive their welfare payment from us. If the job paid nothing (or next to nothing) then it would be a position someone wanted because they felt they could make a change, not just as a way to strike it rich, or to have a virtual guaranteed job for life. How many in our nations politcal system have been there for more than a single term? How many got there not by "doing what is right" but rather by "doing what is popular"?
What's 'popular' to the average person on the street is security--and to a large percentage of Americans, most of whom do not understand the implications, legal maneuverings like the Patriot Act or Military Commissions Act are just fine with them. Naturally, if it directly affects them they would then cry 'unfair'.
Come to small town America where I live, and you'll find most people here agree with these actions. We've had numerous discussions about them in the coffeeshop where I go for my morning java (black please, no foo-foo latte/mocha for me) and quite frankly the average person who comes in there actually agree with giving up a few freedoms to fight the 'Towel Heads'. (their words, not mine..some words are far stronger). I've heard business and political leaders of my community actually support rounding up all the 'foreigners' and sending them all back home--legal or illegal residents--and the elderly are far more vitriol about it than many of those in my age group or younger. Small town America votes too--and 59% of them voted for Bush. They probably voted for those senators and congressmen loyal to Bush as well.
The classic arsonist/fireman. My "way of life" was pretty damn secure without the Military Commissions Act or the Patriot Act. It sure seems a lot less so with them.
Really? Tell that to the 3000+ who died in the WTC and Pentagon and on the planes. (I'm not going to get into the 'conspiracy theory debate' either) Their 'way of life' wasn't secure. In fact, we had been attacked before---and had intelligence indicating that *something* was being planned, yet we chose to ignore both and keep going as though nothing could or would happen. Don't get me wrong; I'm not agreeing with those Acts, I'm just saying that our security was (and is) an illusion. We're no more secure today than we were before 9/11; we just have more restrictions placed on us.
I'm sick of people like you decrying the "moral decay" of America in one breath and then defending those who most directly suborn those American values in the next.
I don't disagree with you there--but the change has to happen within the people first--who will then elect those leaders who will actually LEAD and not just follow the party line.
As I said here, I think we need to get rid of the political parties, and focus on issues only. No democrats, republicans, green, libertarian or any other party. Just run on a platform of issues and let that be the peoples' guiding star.
Really? I think the Amish and Mennonite cultures are pretty successful overall, and they decry greed and decadence. I'm not saying that I would like to live that way, but they do have something to offer in the way of values.
I'm not sure what really qualifies them as "successful" - they contribute essentially nothing to the world. No industry, no art, no culture. I suppose if you want to evaluate them in terms of how "spiritually fulfilled" they are, you might make an argument - but then again, ask the typical Amish teenager if they wouldn't be happier if they could be just a little less "spiritually fulfilled".
But that's irrelevant. I didn't say that the only way to "success" is greed and decadence. It's just the the "American way" to success.
I find it interesting to note that, here you seem to applaud greed and decadence, yet here you discuss the need to 'pay for' the right to emit greenhouse gasses using 'Carbon Credits'. I don't think you can have it both ways.
Nor do I want it both ways. I'm not at all convinced that the carbon credits system can work - in the places you cite, I was really just trying to explain what the theory behind them is. The theory is sound, but you probably can't put it into practice because the playing field isn't level. We can't ask Africa to remain pre-industrial and expect them to do it. But nor can we ask Americans to cut back their "decadence" enough to allow the African nations to make the industrial progress they want. It's a lose-lose situation.
Also, just because greed and decadence has worked for us so far doesn't necessarily mean we should continue it.
I don't think he's saying that
His comments (the Kennedy quote) were to the effect that people are ignoring their duties to the country - I counter that the country (in the form of the government) is very much failing its duties to the people, and so forfeits its claim to such duty.
Come to small town America where I live, and you'll find most people here agree with these actions.
I'm not quite sure what your point was with that part.
If the job paid nothing (or next to nothing) then it would be a position someone wanted because they felt they could make a change, not just as a way to strike it rich, or to have a virtual guaranteed job for life.
Don't believe that for a minute. The reality is that those jobs really do pay "next to nothing", comparatively. It's not like the people who hold those high offices would be working in McDonald's if they weren't politicians. They're lawyers and bankers and "captains of industry" and the like. Congressmen (both House and Senate) make $168K/year as a base salary. The six top leadership positions get more. The President makes $400K/year. Sure, it's a lot of money, but it's less than most of them would make if they weren't in office. Almost every Fortune 500 CEO makes more than the President - most of them make millions each year.
People don't run for office for the money. My observation is that very many, maybe even most, of the people who do run for office do it because they think they can do good. Many become disillusioned by the "system", and quit - they don't last. Others get jaded and go over to the dark side. And there are a few who are just in it for the power. So you get a lot of bad eggs, and they're the ones who stay, too.
Really? Tell that to the 3000+ who died in the WTC and Pentagon and on the planes. (I'm not going to get into the 'conspiracy theory debate' either) Their 'way of life' wasn't secure. In fact, we had been attacked before---and had intelligence indicating that *something* was being planned, yet we chose to ignore both and keep going as though nothing could or would happen. Don't get me wrong; I'm not agreeing with those Acts, I'm just saying that our security was (and is) an illusion. We're no more secure today than we were before 9/11; we just have more restrictions placed on us.
Our way of life was, and is pretty secure. Despite 9/11.
The risk of being involved in a terrorist attack is ridiculously small, and 9/11 didn't really change it in any significant way. It scared us and very many of us have responded by throwing away our freedoms.
You pointed out the real problem: we failed to act appropriately to intelligence we had. That's something that can be fixed without the draconian measures we've taken. We don't need to taser a woman for carrying a water, or riding a bicycle. We don't need to throw out the bill of rights.
But when people get scared, and it's easy to scare them, they'll make bad decisions. That's why those "small town" folks you talked about are so willing to "round up the towel-heads". And the current administration plays on those fears. Keith Olbermann has on more than one occasion pointed out just how heavy-handed the Bush administration is in using fear to manipulate public opinion.
You're right - we're no more secure today than we were before 9/11. I think we're less secure, and it's not because of 9/11, it's because we've allowed the Bush administration to run roughshod over our liberty.
As I said here, I think we need to get rid of the political parties, and focus on issues only. No democrats, republicans, green, libertarian or any other party. Just run on a platform of issues and let that be the peoples' guiding star.
I've got rather mixed opinions on the party system. Obviously, we've got a problem with the current system - only the Republicans and Democrats can field candidates who have any shot at all. But even if we got rid of the "official" role of the parties, there's still political advantage to be had in forming coalitions.
We wouldn't end up with no parties, we'd end up with a bunch of parties, and only the well-financed ones would be meaningful, anyway.
I'm not sure what really qualifies them as "successful" - they contribute essentially nothing to the world. No industry, no art, no culture.
I disagree--I believe they do contribute culture to the world--the culture of living simply. As to industry--all of my late spring through fall produce, as well as the cheese and baked goods that I buy are Amish or Mennonite produced. I shop the farmers markets where they sell their goods. Look at the amount of tourism they generate for Lancaster County PA, and other places where there are high concentrations. BTW..as to art---have you ever seen an Amish quilt?
His comments (the Kennedy quote) were to the effect that people are ignoring their duties to the country - I counter that the country (in the form of the government) is very much failing its duties to the people, and so forfeits its claim to such duty.
Ok, I'll buy that, partially. Our duty doesn't erode because the government fails us; rather out duty is to try to ensure we elect those who won't fail us.
Don't believe that for a minute. The reality is that those jobs really do pay "next to nothing", comparatively.
Ah but the perks they get can equal or exceed that of any CEO and leaving office they frequently get hired by companies they've extended favors to, or helped in some way.
We don't need to throw out the bill of rights.
You're right, we don't--but with the fear mongering you comment on, people think we do. We agree there.
We wouldn't end up with no parties, we'd end up with a bunch of parties, and only the well-financed ones would be meaningful, anyway.
Then you don't allow coalitions either--and you limit campaign spending to a set amount-depending upon the office you are running for. Make that amount easily obtainable from donations--disallow the use of candidate personal fortune and any grroup/corporate donations. Make all donations anonymous to the candidate, and disallow anyone who donates from saying they did, or how much. Limit the amount any one person can donate. Make all ad time free on the airwaves and in print--but limit the TV and Radio runs to three times a day--say between 6-7am, 12-1pm, and 7-8pm. You get to make ONE commercial and run it 3 times a day for 6 months. That's off the cuff, but you get the point--limits..limits..limits.. Outlaw lobbyists altogether, and along with the SIG's too.
This is all off-the cuff, but represents things I've thought about and discussed before.
have you ever seen an Amish quilt?
I'm plenty familiar with the Amish - my grandparents (both of German descent) lived in York, PA, all their lives and I was actually born there (though my parents moved away almost immediately afterwards).
The Amish do not "contribute the culture of living simply" - they're simply lost in a time warp. If they never existed, we'd still understand what primitive (17th century) life was like.
Then you don't allow coalitions either
You can't prevent them. It's not like there's a "coalitions office" that has to issue permits for them or something. A coalition is nothing more than a few conservatives saying "ok, we all agree that gays are evil, so we have that in common; you north eastern guys don't need farm subsidies, but we midwesterners do - if you vote yes with us on the farm subsidy, we'll vote no with you on the new shipping tarriffs."
You can't even realistically limit campaign donations the way you propose. After all, nothing prevents a wealthy citizen or even a group of less wealthy ones from deciding to make a short video urging voters to vote for a particular candidate, and then to purchase a commercial time slot on TV for it to run. That's just the exercise of free speech.
Ultimately, "campaigning" is nothing more than the exercise of free speech. It's the candidate saying "here are the reasons to vote for me". The campaign funds just give him access to forums in which he can reach larger numbers of voters.
The same with lobbyists and SIGs. How are you going to outlaw them? They don't have any official status, anyway. A lobbyist is someone who tries to convince someone in office to vote a particular way. In what way could you seriously prevent me and a group of like-minded individuals from hiring someone to try to, say, convince Congress to repeal the tax exemptions given to churches? And if we decide we want to hire someone in that capacity, wouldn't we be right to find someone who's got a track record of being able to get access to Congressmen and of being able to persuade them to vote favorably to their issues? Wouldn't it make sense for us to work to find out what we could do that would make those Congressmen consider our arguments favorably? That's all a lobbyist is.
The problem isn't campaign spending or lobbyists or special interest groups - those are a necessary part of the system, freedom of speech in action.
Frankly, I think the real problem is the widespread anti-intellectualism we see today. We distrust "smart" people. Our elected officials end up unable to evaluate the information they're presented with. That's why you have school boards ruling that "intelligent design" should be taught alongside evolution. It's why congressmen listen to special interest groups - they can't accurately judge whether the lobbyist speaks for a significant group or not, and "the squeaky wheel gets the grease".
If we insisted our elected representatives were intelligent and well-informed, rather than ignorant and pious, if we cared more about where our leaders went to school and less about where they go to church, we'd be much better served by them.
The Amish do not "contribute the culture of living simply"
We'll have to agree to disagree there, I think they do.
A coalition is nothing more than a few conservatives saying "ok, we all agree that gays are evil, so we have that in common; you north eastern guys don't need farm subsidies, but we midwesterners do - if you vote yes with us on the farm subsidy, we'll vote no with you on the new shipping tarriffs."
I'm not talking about 'in office', I'm talking about before they take office. I don't think you can stop it when they're in office; that's all part of the process.
Ultimately, "campaigning" is nothing more than the exercise of free speech. It's the candidate saying "here are the reasons to vote for me". The campaign funds just give him access to forums in which he can reach larger numbers of voters.
But you can limit the money they spend and the amount of access they have--that's not impinging on 'free speech'..Have all the debates over the issues you like--just keep the playing field level, allow everyone to have only a certain amount of funding. And disallow all of the 'mudslinging'--limit commentaries to the issues and not candidates private lives, etc..
You can't even realistically limit campaign donations the way you propose. After all, nothing prevents a wealthy citizen or even a group of less wealthy ones from deciding to make a short video urging voters to vote for a particular candidate, and then to purchase a commercial time slot on TV for it to run. That's just the exercise of free speech.
No, but that's not the CANDIDATE saying anything..and IIRC we do have limits on when and how those commercials can be run. You can also ensure they state openly that this is their personal endorsement, not the opinion of the station/paper etc..etc..etc. We do that now.. I'm talking about the candidates actually doing things..I'd prefer to see more debates, and less commercials.
A lobbyist is someone who tries to convince someone in office to vote a particular way.
Sure they are...but they do it through means that I find deplorable..If they were truly hired by 'the people' and not 'Corporate America' they would be great..but the majority of them are just the voice of Corporate America. There has to be a better way that does not involve any corporate monies. Up until the 19th Century, 'lobbyists' didn't exist. The people had the ears of those in Washington. I think government has gotten wayyyy to big and tries to do wayyyy too much..not sure how I would change it, I haven't given that part much thought, but I'm sure there would be ways to eliminate a lot of what is there now.
If we insisted our elected representatives were intelligent and well-informed, rather than ignorant and pious.
I don't want them ignorant, but I also don't want them amoral either. We have to agree to disagree again; because I can't vote for anyone who claims any affiliation with anything other than a Christian ethic; but I also won't vote for them if they don't have a mind. Sometimes, I don't vote for anyone for a particular office at all.
But you can limit the money they spend and the amount of access they have--that's not impinging on 'free speech'.
How is it not infringing on free speech to say that someone like Bloomberg can't use his own wealth to get his message out? For that matter, how is it not infringing on free speech to say that Bloomberg can't give Giuliani a bunch of money, which he then spends on his own campaign?
If they were truly hired by 'the people' and not 'Corporate America' they would be great..but the majority of them are just the voice of Corporate America.
Well, that's who has the money to pay them. It's easy to just decry the evils of "corporate America" - but who do you think runs those businesses? Mostly Americans. And why shouldn't a business owner be able to hire a lobbyist? You may not agree with what the business owner wants to do, but he's entitled to lobby just as much as you are. The only real difference is he has the means - but that's capitalism.
Up until the 19th Century, 'lobbyists' didn't exist.
I'm not sure I buy that notion. The structure of society in the early parts of America was rather different. The Victorian "middle class" didn't work for a living, and could afford to be much more involved in government than we can today.
Beyond that, our government was something relatively unknown in the world at that time - there's a learning curve. It was inevitable that people would find increasingly efficient ways to manipulate the system.
I don't want them ignorant, but I also don't want them amoral either. We have to agree to disagree again; because I can't vote for anyone who claims any affiliation with anything other than a Christian ethic.
And here's where I think you're part of the problem. It's simply false that someone who doesn't believe in Christ is amoral. And it's even more false that someone who does believe is therefore moral.
Face it, virtually every Congressman and Senator, as well as the President and Vice President "claim affiliation with a Christian ethic". If I remember right, there are exactly three people in that group who do not.
Unfortunately, as I mentioned elsewhere (and you and Brandon both agreed with me), for the most part, today's "Christianity" means you buy into a particular set of stances on a few bedroom issues - premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, and so on. But these aren't "real" political issues.
None of them are going to change, no matter who gets elected. Being gay will still be legal, so will abortions, so will premarital sex. You can't change these things no matter who you elect, because the current laws pretty accurately reflect the average American's values.
Voting based on these issues is dumb. They're trotted out every election because people like you automatically shut off their brains when they're brought up. If a candidate says, "I think it's proper that abortion remain legal", they instantly lose your vote. Even though the other guy cannot and will not change the fact that it's legal.
What matters much more is what a candidate plans to do about Iraq, and what church they attend and how often have absolutely no effect on that.
How is it not infringing on free speech to say that someone like Bloomberg can't use his own wealth to get his message out?
Again, I'm not saying he can't---I just want spending limits placed. Obviously, Bloomberg has more wealth; and more access to wealth than my next door neighbor--but maybe my neighbor might make a more effective leader. That's a deliberate exaggeration, but the point is this: Money does not equal an ability to lead. There isn't a a level playing field, and that's where the problem is. Without sitting down for hours and hashing out a plan, I can't give a simple answer, but some thoughts might be:
- Make it so equal access to media is given--at no cost.
- Make it so that commercials are produced--at no cost.
Each of those has the problem, that media outlets and production facilities are private entities; to make the access no cost would cause a loss of profit, naturally.
- I mentioned before limiting the runs of commericials/ads. Perhaps we even limit the number that can be produced.
I don't think there is an easy answer, unfortunately, to campaign finance reform--any answer given has the appearances of limiting free speech.
Well, that's who has the money to pay them. It's easy to just decry the evils of "corporate America" - but who do you think runs those businesses? Mostly Americans. And why shouldn't a business owner be able to hire a lobbyist? You may not agree with what the business owner wants to do, but he's entitled to lobby just as much as you are. The only real difference is he has the means - but that's capitalism.
Again, that's where we differ. We didn't need lobbyists 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago. Every person in office has a local office where people can go to voice grievences, make suggestions, etc. And, they all have e-mail. Get rid of the lobbyists, put in more staffers to read e-mail (unpaid positions--use college interns) or hear the people at the local office, and arrange things by issues so that the person in office can see how his consituency wants him to vote. Simple, and effective. It doesn't eradicate anyone's right to free speech, just gets rid of any appearances of improper behavior--or at least mitigates the appearance.
And here's where I think you're part of the problem. It's simply false that someone who doesn't believe in Christ is amoral. And it's even more false that someone who does believe is therefore moral.
Again, we'll have to agree to disagree--my faith tells me differently; it tells me not to accept wise counsel from those who do not believe.
for the most part, today's "Christianity" means you buy into a particular set of stances on a few bedroom issues - premarital sex, homosexuality, abortion, and so on. But these aren't "real" political issues.
Premarital Sex and homosexuality--while I agree they aren't 'real' political issues (just sins, and we all sin)--I have to disagree with you on abortion. That's just killing of an innocent and I have to take a stance against that. After all, it is illegal for me to walk up and kill an innocent person, why shouldn't it be illegal to kill a baby? I'm not going down the argument on 'life'..I believe it begins
Federal funding by Anonymous :: NR0 :: on 14 June 2007
Surely each state receives approximately the same amount of federal funding as it pays in federal taxes? Forwarding money directly to the universities instead of going via central government should be more efficient.
RE: Federal funding by Bortnyk :: NR6 :: on 14 June 2007
I don't know, but I would think it's a matter of public record. Are there any civics nerds out there who know how to access this information?