Tyranny words

 

I am about fed up with the events of January 6, 2021 still being framed as an insurrection.  The charge is laughable on its face, but the lock step media, and those that suffer its' enthralling abuses, continue to cling to that word, and try to use the word itself, in lieu of any legal charges, as a way to influence legal and political events.

After years of trying to convince folks of how dire the misuses of that word are, the legal ramifications that misuse triggers, and having precious little success, I think it is time for a different tack.

Instead of trying to simply awaken the zombified consciences of folks who joyfully countenance the years long incommunicado incarceration of fellow citizens (most of whom, if guilty, are guilty of nothing more than misdemeanor trespassing), it might be constructive to look at why those Patriot Act measures were enacted in the first place.

The Patriot Act was passed in the immediate aftermath of 9-11.  The reason behind its' sweeping powers to deny due process, Habeas Corpus, and most other constitutional rights to people detained during a terrorist attack or some kind of serious insurrection is so that the detainees will not, since they are denied normal rights, be able to get released on bail and go to their superiors to inform them about what all they were questioned about.  Allowing our enemies to receive normal judicial process would enable them to use our legal system against us, not only returning captured combatants back to almost immediate combat, but also giving the enemy a serious advantage in the realm of military intelligence.  While the Patriot Act has some real problems, the idea of neutralizing and silencing enemy combatants during the heat of either invasion or insurrection makes a lot of sense.

Now let's take another look at January 6^th.  It is possible that some actually feared some kind of insurrection might be taking place that day.  Destruction and violence were in the air that afternoon.  By the next day, however, no honest person could say that an insurrection was underway.  Remember the purpose of the Patriot Act, which is to thwart any ongoing violent attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.

By noon on January 7, no one could say that they saw some kind of insurrection happening.  No government buildings were being stormed, anywhere in the country, no bullets were being fired, no demands were issuing from some hidden headquarters of the insurrection.  All of that is because there never was an insurrection, but there was a silly rally, followed by an extremely foolish call for a spontaneous, un-permitted parade followed by a stupid riot which might very well have been incited by government agents.

Insurrection is still being hurled as a political weapon though, and the liberal public that supports that call are the ones being as stupid as the rioters on J6.  They just chortle with glee at this charge, clinging bitterly to this means of punishing fellow citizens for their political opinions.  They don't seem to realize that those constitutional protections they rejoice at withholding from MAGAs, or whoever, are actually being taken from all of us, themselves included.  What stops the authorities, maybe folks like Dick Cheney in office next time, from declaring the latest Antifa action an insurrection?  Or more likely right now, the latest pro-Palestine blocking of a road, or storming of a building, or violent attack on some Jewish owned business.  All of those and many other political actions of the last few years are as much or more insurrections as the riot of January 6 was.

Nothing stops those in power from misusing language and the law in this way except the resolve of the people.  If we can't find the conscience and courage to stand up, as one people, and demand that our constitutional rights be honored, those in power will not be deterred from taking even more rights from us.  In other words, all you on the left, and those on the right too, had better wake up and smell the encroaching tyranny.

Let's Start Making Sense

 

The way we communicate these days is a big problem, and something needs to be done, or at least said, about it.  Seemingly every instance of group discussion or free speech these days almost instantly devolves into a disordered cacophony.  Usually sound bite words like, racist, nazi, commie, fascist, oppressor or some such language triggers a flood of visceral reactions, followed by some kind of hysteria dominating the discussion, and nothing constructive or informative ever being said or written.

There are undoubtedly a number of good ideas for how to restore us to some kind of reasonable, constructive and unifying national dialogue, but one thing cries out to be said.  That is for us to realize that some ideas are big and complex and don't lend themselves to the sound bite logic this national cacophony forces us into.  So let us consider, in the hopes that we might somehow regain some sanity, how some ideas can resemble a certain form of architecture.

The architectural concept being referred to is the form known as a Roman arch.  This is a way of building arches; for doors in buildings, bridges, aqueducts and similar structures.  The stones or bricks that form the arch are mortared into place in a way that resembles a rainbow, or a semi circle.  Each stone is placed so that when all of them are in place the weight of the stones presses them against each other.  Over the course of time, as other kinds of door openings or bridge structures fall apart due to the force of gravity, the Roman arch becomes ever stronger due to that same force of gravity.

So even though the Roman arch takes a lot more effort to put together than other forms of doors or bridges, the complex, time involved effort is more than worth it in the long run.  Some Roman built arches, more than two thousand years old, are still standing.

The way this analogy applies to our current national cacophony is this.  While building some doorway or bridge, if the more conventional techniques of just starting with two columns of stone and laying one strong stone between them to form a door or bridge is used, it can probably be accomplished even if some opponents are trying to stop the construction.  After all, it just takes three steps, set up one column, set up another column in proper relation to the first, and then slam the head stone into place.  One, two, three, job done.

On the other hand, setting up a Roman arch takes a lot more steps than that, so if someone is harping on and working to prevent its' construction, they probably can.   First, the first column has to be set up, and then the second column set up in precisely the proper location and height related to the first column. Then the truly complex part begins, because a wooden form must be set up, in the shape of the arch being constructed.  Then the stones of the arch must be fitted and mortared into place.  The the mortar must be given time to set properly.  Then the forms can be removed.  The arch is made.

This glimpse into the world of architecture might aid us in restoring order and meaning to our national dialogue in the following way.  Just as a conventional bridge, with its three part construction, is easy to understand and execute, the only “solutions” that make it through our national cacophony are the simplistic, easy to understand and easy to execute kind.  Build a wall on the border, forgive all student debt, provide guaranteed national income, or prohibit / legalize all drugs.  We don't need or want no stinking nuance or wisdom.  We want instant, easy solutions (or more precisely, that is the only kind of  “solution” that gets a full presentation amid our deafening national cacophony.)  Thus we are attracted to simplistic, emotion laden solutions that, like the easily built bridges will be easily understood (difficult to ridicule unlike a Roman arch which looks unworkable and foolish when it is half built), easy to execute and are likely to fall apart quicker than a poorly constructed bridge.

To find the complex, lasting solutions that our complex national problems need, we have to change modes of communication.  We have to allow truly nuanced, complex solutions to be voiced, in full.

While it might be nice to seek a simplistic solution to even this problem, some kind of government edict allowing only experts to express large ideas, the real solution lies within each of us.  Try letting other people express complete ideas, even if you don't agree with the first thing they say.  We all must start actually listening to learn what the other is saying, and not just listening to respond, tuning them out while composing a rebuttal to their first thought.  Who knows, if we improve out own personal way of communicating in this way, the whole nation might get smarter and more unified.  We might start making sense again.

 

Use Laptops at Hearings

 

I saw something during one of the seemingly endless string of congressional committee hearings the other day.  The testifying witness, some mid level functionary in some government bureaucracy, was asked by, I think, one of the Senators, when his office was going to receive the documents from a FOIA request his office had submitted a month ago.  He added that one of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle had received his copy of the same documents within a few days of requesting them.  The functionary replied with seeming concern that they would get right on that, and get back to the Senator's office.

What in the actual heck?  Are we not in the year 2023, and in the middle of an information revolution.  How is it that these office holders are allowed to delay like that?  Where is the laptop, which everyone uses these days.  Lawyers use them in court, teachers use them in class. Preachers use them at the pulpit.

Why don't these bureaucrats show up to hearings with laptops in front of them, and given the importance of congress people being informed and getting timely information, why isn't there a full staff on the other end of that laptop to give almost instantaneous response to a congressional request? 

Or does this question answer itself?  Is the real agenda to be able to slow walk anything that doesn't conform to the political agenda of the deep state?  Using our high tech capabilities in a non-partisan way to facilitate the nation's business doesn't, apparently, fit that deep state agenda, so congress allows its business to be done in a way reminiscent of the late 1700's.  At the same time, we can rest assured that the latest technology will be used to unconstitutionally spy on Americans in their homes, and track their every movement.

You see, this fits into what I think is one of the overriding questions of our times, which is:  Is our high technology going to be used to liberate the people by informing them and allowing us to reach deeper understanding with each other, or is that same technology going to be used against the people, to oppress, isolate, indoctrinate, divide and eventually enslave us?

In this regard, I think at the very least congress should demand, that's right DEMAND, under penalty of a contempt of congress charge, that any administration official called to testify before any committee show up with a laptop, and the ability to respond to any congressional request or question on the spot.  And don't give me any bull about cyber-security issues.  That might be an objection the first hour, but if our high tech experts can't resolve any security issues about testifying at the capitol within the first day the issue is presented to them, maybe we should get new cyber-security people. 

Or am I the only getting completely fed up with the constant diet of BS coming out of DC? I don't think so.