History 101

Predictably, my History 101 class is not going well. I'm getting good grades at the expense of a likely ulcer.

Each and every chapter is a new lesson on ...European settlers' evil; slavery, expansionism, etc. Not necessarily inaccurate, but certainly incomplete information. The heroics and wonders of the founders are glossed over at every opportunity.

‎...and I quote from the textbook:
"The Know Nothing party disappeared, but nativist hostility to new immigrants did not, as we clearly see in the current opposition to Mexican and Central American migrants".
===
Regardless on where you stand on the question of illegal immigration, this is pure propaganda, being presented as Academic Fact.

===

The Know Nothings were a group within the Whig's, who felt their views were controversial enough that when asked, they should respond that they "know nothing" about it. I think the textbook, much like the media, should simply present the facts; and all of them! The good, the bad and the ugly.

Sadly, both the media and Academia can no longer be counted on, much less expected to, deliver the facts without bias and spin.

 

Visible Vote - Main

Visible Vote - Main

Double-Speak

Y'all have heard me moan about govt double-speak for quite a while. You've read my words that govt passed laws mandating the auto makers build crappy little cars that nobody wants, then screams "mismanagement" when the crappy cars don't sell. Then they take over a large portion of the industry.






You have heard about the govt mandating the banks to provide home loans to folks who can't afford them. When, predictably, the loans go into default, the govt screams "mismanagement" and takes over a large portion of the industry.

You've read other examples on my page as well.  Let's add another. Govt mandates oil companies to drill far away from shore, where it is easier to manage a burst pipe or a leak. So the oil companies go miles off shore, have a leak, and the govt screams "irresponsibility!" What do you think the plan is now?

TEA Movement - Hijacked!

I'd like to start my comments by saying that I am not automatically anti-Union. Many decades ago, when the labor movement was first born, it was by people that I hold in a similar reverence to a soldier.  These people fought, died, and sometimes killed to obtain the job conditions we all enjoy to this day

The problem began when the politicians got involved and corrupted an honorable movement by the people.  You see, I don’t think the Democrats shared any significant ideology with the Labor Movement.  I think they recognized a large block of voters and latched on. The Unions have grown more corrupt as more government and party dollars came into play.

Anyway, I see a similar phenomenon happening right now with the Republicans latching onto the TEA Party movement and claiming it as their own. I don’t think they share any significant ideology, rather they too have recognized a large block of voters and are trying to claim them as their own. I fear this will also lead to the sort of corruption that is born out of large amounts of government or party money. You see, I don’t believe the Republicans favor “lower” spending, rather I think they favor “different” spending.

Civic Disobedience

What is the duty of a citizen? When something, morally questionable or even morally wrong, is sanctioned and even actively supported by the government, where does the duty of the citizen lie? Does the citizen oppose the government outright and thereby jeopardize his livelyhood and his families welfare, or does the good citizen obey the government? Is the answer somewhere in between?
===

I am 47 years old and have grown quite cynical over the years. I see such hypocrisy on both end of the political spectrum, that this question becomes difficult to answer without relying on a lot of “ifs” and “ors”. I find myself unable to answer the question of a citizen’s duty without first examining the hypocrisy and contradictions of the recent past. For the sake of this discussion, I will be forced to generalize somewhat, referring to the “left” and the “right” as if both camps walked in lock step. I know this is not accurate, but it should help the conversation move smoothly, and I am disclaiming it now; I understand there are a wide varieties of opinions and beliefs among both the “left” and the “right”.

My main topic will be the current war in the middle east. I remember clearly how the Bush supporters were so aghast that anyone would dare disagree publicly with a US President during a time of war. President Bush even went so far as to outlaw many forms of war protest through Executive Order (Livingston, 2007). President Bush proclaimed “I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004." Of course, the “left” howled (Livingston, 2007)! This editorial I cite includes an Editor’s Note, which reads “Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one.” I clearly remember in 2003, when the Left was going after Bush with everything it had – remember Bush lied and people died? – it fell to Hillary Clinton to defend political speech. She said. “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic.” She went on to say that dissent is perfectly proper no matter what administration is in power. Well, that was THAT Clinton and that was then (Woolley, 2010). Now, with a African American from the “left” holding the office of President, while largely running his war policy in largely parallel with Bush’s, Dissent Is No Longer Patriotic…It Is Racist (Harvey, 2008).

To address the question of the duty of the citizen, as it relates to non-compliance with government wishes, I believe we would be better off as a whole to listen to our own individual sense of right and wrong. For too long, people have simply fallen into lock step with their political party of choice. I don’t believe it to be patriotic to blindly adhere to government wishes or laws. I don’t believe it to be patriotic to automatically support or oppose the government based on which party is currently in power. Because of the incredible power of our federal government, I believe dissent or outright disobedience must be a matter of personal conviction.

Works Cited:
Harvey, M. (2008, November 6). Yes indeed. Stalin and Lenin and Marx would be proud. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from Canada Free Press: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6108


Livingston, D. (2007, July 20). Bush Outlaws War Protest - Citizens Face Full Asset Seizure. Retrieved July 1, 2010, from rense.com: http://www.rense.com/general77/asset.htm

Woolley, L. (2010, April 18). Clinton VS Clinton -- Dissent & Patriotism. Retrieved July 01, 2010, from The Lynn Woolley Show: http://www.belogical.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=361:clinton-vs-clinton-dissent-a-patriotism&catid=20:secretaryoflogic&Itemid=83