Bringing class to protests
Bookworm on Aug 07 2009 at 2:45 pm | Filed under: Free speech, Health
For the eight years of the Bush presidency, we saw almost non-stop protests. These protests were characterized by speakers being shouted down; fake blood; fake waterboarding; crude, obscene and violent picket signs, etc. Not the American way we said. Freedom of speech is one thing. Ugly, violent, obscene speech is something else.
We need to keep that in mind, especially now that Obama has called out the SEIU thugs. We are the classy protestors. The ones who come armed with facts and dignity. We are not the people of death threats and swear words, nor are we opposed to free speech.
The Anchoress says it best. I’ll quote her at some length, but please be aware that this is only a part of a longer, more thoughtful post on her blog, and one I think all concerned citizens should read:
Of course we should be vocal, but not violent, not shrill, and not so emotional as to allow ourselves to be goaded into behavior which the Dems and their press would love to edit and broadcast.
That has not happened yet, but clearly the introduction of union strongarms and the deliberate attempts to exclude protesters from townhall meetings are partly meant to provoke emotionalism and outrage. I realized then that -because these protests are so grassroots and disorganized- they have no common ideal by which they can protect themselves from being baited into bad behavior. Attempting to find such an ideal or tactic, we joked at first that the protesters need to -when they are not being listened to, and are being disrespected- break into a Rickroll, singing and dancing both to cut tension and to shock-and-awe their Reps.
Then someone suggested that the protesters, about 2 days before congress reconvenes, encircle the capital 10 deep and refuse to allow the reps back in “until they until they stop Teh Stoopid.”
Mockery is, of course, very effective, too.
What is needed, I think -particularly under a White House who (rather than thinking seriously about how to create jobs and shore up our crashing tax revenues) wants its minions to “punchback twice as hard”- is to take a few pages from the playbook of Dr. Martin Luther King. Classic civil disobedience has a strong commitment to non-violence and passive-resistance, and that tactic works, because it unmasks the opposition and exposes them for the crude tyrants they are. When Bull Connor (Democrat, btw) turned his hoses and dogs on the peaceful marchers in Birmingham, Alabama, it was the beginning of his end, and a turning point in the civil rights movement. The injustice of his act was more eloquent than a Shakespearean soliloquy.
So, I think protesters should consider attending these meetings and teaparties with the understanding that they WILL be provoked, but that they are committed to answering provocation only through non-violent means. No matter the provocation, no matter the injustice, the protesters should simply keep to their purpose and not respond-in-kind. It is as powerful as a Tai-Chi move; you turn the opponent’s energy back upon himself to defeat him, or (as Jesus said) you “heap hot coals upon their heads.” Either way, you win. But of course, bring your cameras. Expect no hint of fairness from the press.
The other useful reminder at the same post from the Anchoress came from one of her readers. Saying “no” is only the beginning. The fact is that there is a problem with health care in America, and that problem is sky-rocketing costs. Part of the problem is tied to the fact that medicine has moved beyond leeches and cupping. Scientific sophistication is going to cost you. But the other part of the problem is that there are no incentives to save money, and that’s true whether you’re a provider, an insurer, or a patient.
The answer that Obama & Co have to rising costs is simple: let’s just transfer all control to the government. It won’t cost less (in fact, it will cost much more), and the medical care you receive will degrade significantly, and innovation will vanish, but the important thing is that citizens won’t see the money being spent at the doctor’s office. (Never mind that it’s being sucked out of their pockets through sky-high taxes.) After all, we’re dumb little sheeple and, when it comes to money, out of sight is out of mind, right?
No, not right! Anchoress’ reader lisap comes up with a wonderful mnemonic for remembering several simply economic approaches to cutting costs significantly:
I was thinking of an easy way for all to remember talking points…We should be pointing out an alternate version–not just a NO to their ideas…
I was reading David Limbaugh’s column today and he quoted from an article by Sally Pipes “To 10 myths about Health Care and had suggestions…I put them down as follows…V ouchers for working poor
I ndividual tax breaks much like employers
C ross state lines to purchase insurance
T ort Reform
O wn health savings accounts
R emove excessive state-mandated treatments
Y es! We the People CAN!
Related posts:
- Bringing immigration reform to a level we understand
- Pictures of protests
- To the media, not all protests are equal
Email This Post To A Friend
42 Responses to “Bringing class to protests”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t know, Book… these guys are *thugs*.
I believe at a recent town hall meeting/protest of health care, an independent photojournalist showed up to tape the proceedings. He was pummelled by the Obama supporters who are now being organized to show up.
He said he had never been treated more roughly, anywhere, before. His camera equipment was ruined, his glasses ruined, clothes dishevelled and I believe torn, he may have been injured. Not sure yet.
I continue to believe in self-defense. You must fight back. Protest itself need not turn violent, but if they initiate the violence, I do not believe in turning the other cheek.
Some Obama supporters will simply show up to indicate that they support him still. However, others are clearly engaging in force to initiate repression. *These* are committed fascists of the worst sort. They enjoy violence and will sleep well at night, after having bloodied noses, twisted arms, pushed, shoved, punched, and bruised. A day’s good job well done, to them. They’ll not be turned aside by peaceful quiet mumblings. And they will not doubt their rightness.
I’d fight back.
Apologies – I meant “oppression”, not “repression”.
It’s a rather funny image, engaging in force to initiate repression. Beating yourself into a bloody pulp while saying “No! I do *not* want that extra piece of chocolate cake! No!” Over and over…
You can clearly hear these words as the guy with a camera went up to the two Black Panthers standing in front of the poll station.
“You got my back right”
You need a body guard for these protests, if you want to photograph or take video of the thugs in action. Why? Because they’re not going to let you get away with evidence, unless there’s like 5 cameras going on once or something or if you have a blocking force.
What these people will soon do is to send agent provocateurs infiltrated amongst the protesters, and then start inciting violence against the police, which will be called in by the Democrats with the express knowledge that their employers in the crowd will rile things up. The media will then take pictures of violent protesters, Democrats will get the protesters in trouble with police, and the police will be authorized to use tear gas and other anti-riot procedures.
That’s what I would do if I wanted to break up Union strikes or political protests. And it’s not far from what the Democrats will do, either. But that is only one option they have. They can do many other things.
Here are some pointers.
If some guy pulls a gun, jump him, put your fingers into his eye sockets, put your foot on his throat and keep stomping until he lets go of the implement or is rendered non-functional. These people are either fanatics or crazies, and you don’t want them disrupting the citizen’s organization. Big propaganda value to the Left.
That’s the extreme example. The less extreme example is a social altercation between people on the streets, whether Democrat goons or paid provocateurs.
Here you want to be very careful you don’t knock them to the ground. If they hit their head with enough force, they’ll die and we’ll be slapped with the political charges.
Take their fingers and break them, instead. You want to hear the crunch sound or some kind of loud scream. That’ll be when you know something is working in your favor. Don’t fight with fists. Subdue with either numbers or pain. Don’t just grab for people’s hands. He has to be either immobilized by 3 or 6 men, or you have to cause a spinal reflex first (like a testicle strike).
This is very important to understand. Do not fight with fists swinging on the concrete streets in front of cameras, in a crowd. The guy can often times die accidentally. Again, if the situation can be resolved with subduing em, then just jump em. If he is armed, don’t hold back on the injuries just cause there’s numbers. You may be the first to see and react. The only one to see and react.
If you see somebody surrounded by Democrats, extract them. Use your body and hammer into em, pull the guy or gal out. An easy way is to get your elbow and ram it through somebody’s eye socket. They won’t be standing in your way for long. The temple regions are also good, but again, if he gets knocked out, he can be either stampeded or cranium fractured. It depends.
These situations are very bad in terms of tactical options, and more dangerous than bar fights. You can walk or run away from a bar fight and avoid the confrontation. You really can’t here. You can perhaps save yourself, but what about the rest of the crowd?
And another thing, if somebody is getting crushed by a stampede, you need to yell very loudly for people to freeze. People in a crowd only seeswhat is in front of em, and can’t hear very well. You have to be very very loud. Even if the people stepping on em stop, it won’t stop the ones behind em.
We’ll be able to handle the agents provacateur within our midst.
Just remember to engage people around you in political discussion.
The agents-P will have eyes that glaze over when you present facts. They’ll try to act conservative and pro-independent citizenry, but you’ll spot the fakery easily.
Just engage em in discussion to easily identify them. And then, when they start to act out, stop em.
I like the VICTORY acronym…
Here’s another solution offered by Krauthammer. Not as short as VICTORY, but not very long either…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/06/AR2009080602933.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Regarding protests, astroturfing and the like I give you Helian Unbound. Check all his links but especially this one at Iowahawk and you will see Pelosi’s astroturfing at work, problem is it is her side doing the astroturfing.
Yes theirs is not the class, but the lies are theirs. As are the thugs.
Really, all of this is just getting too silly.
I have doubts about evoking the example of Rev. King. I doubt our side has the courage to take the first punch, much less the second, third or hundredth punch.
Moreover, I doubt the efficacy of the tactics of Ghandi in the context of present day America. Ghandi knew that the British were too decent and civilized of a people to engage in the ruthlessness of Lenin or Stalin. Had the British the will to act as Lenin or Stalin or Hitler, India would not have gained its liberty without a far greater effusion of blood. Perhaps it would not have gained it at all.
I do not have the faith in the American left that Ghandi had in the British middle class. When I think of Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi, I don’t know where they’d stop. We know from history where those like Winston Churchill stopped. What about a Barack Obama?
Earlier generations were willing to take a bullet for Liberty. I’m not sure that is an inherited trait.
A comment on one of the Anchoress’s statements. Paraphasing, “Things could not get stranger in America in 2009. It’s like looking at history though a fun house mirror.”
I am afraid things are going to get a lot stranger in America. And it will look more and more like history repeating itself. And the view just may reflect the horror in a “fun house”, rather “mad house”, mirror.
The industrialists in pre-Nazi Germany thought they could control Hitler. They went along with his initial policies because they believed they could profit from them.
There is a news report out today that some of the drug manufacturers are funding ads to support Obama’s health care proposals. Apparently the thinking is that if 30 million people are added to the health insurance rolls, that means more people will be able to buy medicine.
My own “Republican” Congressman voted for the Cap and Trade bill because several large companies told him the bill would allow them to make more money. He did not say which companies told him this.
I realize I’m getting a bit strident. My bride just said I am banging on the keys like a madman.
The evolving forces in the country seem to be paralleling events in Germany in the early 1930′s.
I agree with the thoughts of others that we are not confronting a foe with a conscience.
Ghandi would not have prevailed against Hitler, and total passive resistance may not prevail against the “Green Shirts”.
Al
>>The evolving forces in the country seem to be paralleling events in Germany in the early 1930’s.>>
If your worst nightmares come true, who will they target? Jews are easy because they are an identifiable group. They can’t very well target blacks or mexicans. Virtually all of them are old whites. So who’s the lucky group?
I’d expect the result to be more Stalin oriented, with politically correct thoughts being the measure of potential elimination. Of course, that requires constant monitoring by _many_ monitors…which means very intense citizen participation.
Lovely. You won’t be able to trust anybody.
Well, they’ve already targeted the youngest—50+ million children in the womb—and now they’re setting their sights on the eldest (old white legislators excepted) via Obamacare.
No, they won’t target blacks and Latinos. Those populations are mostly docile and have been pacified via welfare, affirmative action and gold-plated victimhood. The occasional outlier, like a Thomas Sowell, would be fair game, though.
American Jews have already co-opted themselves. Some—maybe even many—will make it across the divide between statists and freemen, but their subsequent persecution will not be based on their nearly non-existent religious practices but on their politics, as suek points out.
Who will the fascists come after? It’s been pretty clear to me for several years: the Catholic Church, evangelical Protestants and Mormons. We had a foretaste of that in the post Prop. 8 thuggery against those groups by militant homosexuals. Those churches’ opposition to abortion and sodomy, two linchpins of progressive thinking, their defense of the elderly and their refusal to give the state greater honor than God rankle the fascisti and drive them to heights of hatred and anger.
The difference between us and Germany is that Germany did not have a civil war because of Hitler. If Obama pushes too hard—and I fear he or his handlers will—we will have a civil war. If or when we do, it would be good to remember that we are the Union and that Obama and his thugs are the seccessionists.
>>If Obama pushes too hard—and I fear he or his handlers will—we will have a civil war. >>
Maybe. There are some serious organizational problems to accomplish that end. On the plus side, however, Obama has moved to rapidly. They would have been wise to consolidate their position until they had the 20-40 age range securely in their control and the military re-formed in their image.
You may have called out their fatal flaw, suek. It does take extreme patience to grind down the opposition and to complete “the long march through the institutions.” If you were a 60′s radical who managed to get tenure at a university in the 1970s, you started out with the idea that you would help build the foundation for a Marxist enterprise that years later might be strong enough to openly attempt the destruction of America. But you probably never imagined that the day your hateful machine would cough to life and start rambling over the landscape would ever come in your lifetime.
But now that day is here. Like most Marxists, you do not believe in God, or an afterlife, or any objective purpose for your existence except your own will to power (and access to coeds). This means that the only reward you will ever have for the life you’ve led is the chance to enjoy the thrill of total power over other humans.
That tends to make you impatient. You don’t really give a damn about the people who will come after you, since they are essentially as meaningless as you. Whether the society you want to create will be good for them is immaterial. You will do now what you can to make your Marxist dream come true. So what if you overreach? It’s now or never, dammit, and you want yours before you die!
Maybe, maybe not. If everybody gets “paid off”, who’s going to be left to complain?
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/08/08/obamas-health-care-czars-to-seize-congressional-power-key-to-achieving-a-single-taxpayer-system/#more-25953
Heh. Not that it’s a surprise…but still:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/aarp-in-cahoots-with-the-seiu
MLK is not a good analogy. He had a hell of a lot of help. Most people were on his side, including the entire federal apparatus, all the newspapers, all the radio and TV networks and local outlets, and all the national opinion merchants. Not the case in the present instance.
I’d love to believe there’s some point to a set of tactics that “exposes them for the crude tyrants they are” – but I don’t see it. Is there an adult who doesn’t already know they’re crude tyrants? (“Adult” – not democrat.) Is it going to come as a surprise to someone that they’re crude tyrants? Is it necessary to “expose” this to someone?
Of course not. Everyone, even the intellectually dishonest, know it. (The intellectually dishonest don’t care, but even they know it.)
So, what do you accomplish by being polite, reasoned, and altogether lovely people? So far, you accomplish being elbowed out of the room and out of the discussion. You accomplish, in other words, precisely what Chamberlain accomplished with Hitler: Not much. You are effectively silenced, through your own excess of manners. You lose.
I regret that it seems to be the case that the archaic concept of “shame” is apparently gone. Setting a swell example is a meaningless tactic in this day and age: Nobody cares. (Maybe, if you are of a certain age, your mom does.) You can only be shamed if “shame” is on your list of recognized concepts, and this country permits itself to be led by Obama; Emanuel; Pelosi; Reid; Fwank; Boxer; the entire CA delegation; the fat drunk from Massachusetts; Durbin; Biden… come on! You think you can shame or embarrass these people by a display of correct behavior? They don’t have the concept. They have moved so far beyond the concept of shame – and any idea that it might apply to them – that they can’t see it on a clear night with a telescope. They cannot be shamed.
So if trying to “expose them for the crude tyrants they are” is anyone’s idea of a useful tactic, well – good luck. I hope you brought your lunch, it may take a while.
Every bunch of protestors started out to be non-violent. A fight was the last thing Jefferson, Adams, or even Washington wanted – but they recognized it when it was upon them.
I don’t know whether you win any more by simply and calmly stating your case over and over. I think mostly what that gets you is out in the hall. It would be lovely to think otherwise, but the times have changed – and this is an ignorant generation.
It’s a strange world where Iran is an Obama-friend, Chavez is an Obama-friend, Zelaya is an Obama-friend, the murderous Palestinians are Obama-friends… but fellow Americans are the targeted Obama-enemy. Targeted for punches, targeted for oppression.
It’s a strange, strange world.
Ariel, you shouldn’t reduce entire segments of the English vocabulary to one word: silly.
I would like to add my support to George, Al, Charles and Tiresias above.
Union thugs have targetted fellow Americans before only when going after scabs. I think this may be the first time they’ve gone after other Americans purely on a matter of politics, purely in support of a politician… rather than focused on a jobs issue.
Even when they were damaging foreign cars in the late 70s and early 80s, you could draw a parallel to the fact that it was auto union workers doing the thuggish damage, tying it to their jobs directly.
We’ve never seen them come after fellow Americans solely based on politics before. This is, genuinely, something new.
Thank you, Obama. Thank you, you miserable piece of…
It’s a strange, strange world.
It is how it has always been, until the advent of American Exceptionalism.
This is the norm. It only seems strange and unique because America wasn’t supposed to be this way. It wasn’t this way before, after all the riots and civil wars cleared things up.
I don’t know whether you win any more by simply and calmly stating your case over and over. I think mostly what that gets you is out in the hall.
MLK had Malcom X, and Malcom X had the Nation of Islam (who ordered his assassination when malcom X started seeing MLK’s labors bring fruit).
All insurgencies, and to be honest that is what Obama is treating Americans as, must have two faces: the active Black Ops branch that does the wet work and on the other hand, the public persona face of politeness, legitimacy, and reason.
Those two things go hand in hand, just like diplomacy and a .50 caliber pistol. Nobody would want to make deals with MLK if they believed his was the only game in town. Then people could wait. But if there is a Malcom X sitting out on the side lines, waiting to take over, then people will often talk and deal with MLK because they don’t want to deal with the fanatic, the Wet Work specialists.
You must present a legitimate and peaceful face to the public, in order to convince the muddy middle to give support to you. And then you use that support to funnel funds and resources to the Active Operations branch, so that the active operations can be taken to the enemy, the people you really really want hit hard.
I keep hearing, over and over again, from both sides, that health care is too expensive. Balderdash and fipplestew.
I’ve spent 50 years in engineering and technology. I know this to a certainty – the last one percent improvement in results costs as much as the first 99%. There’s no cheap way to make our health care better.
As to the “cost”. In the last two generations we have become as rich as Croesus. When I was a youth cars were good for 50,000 miles, tires 10,000. A single song on a 45 RPM record cost, in today’s money, $10. Long distance phone calls were a major event and lots of people still had party lines. Only the rich and famous ever rode on an airplane. If you lived near a big city you got 5 fuzzy TV channels in black and white. Only the swells had “high fidelity” record players and FM radios. Everybody knew what the seasons were for fruits and vegetables. The movie theaters were packed to overflowing on Saturdays. The movies weren’t any better than today but they had air conditioning. I could bore you to tears, perhaps I already have, but you get the point.
Now that our reasonable dreams have come true what could be more important to us than our health? You want an extra pair of designer sneakers or a hip replacement so you don’t hobble around in pain for the rest of your life?
The wheel of time turns… There used to be a wing of the Republican Party I called the Jack Benny Republicans. Every penny spent by the government caused them anguish. Now it’s the Democrats whipping us with that Calvinist cat-o-nine-tails.
Take heart, my friends. There is a mood in this country that I have never seen before. It is not a revolution. It is more about throwing the usurpers from the castle walls. What’s tougher than a hockey mom? My neighbors.
It is horrible that SEIU would attack unemployed black men trying to make an honest living.
I looked at the video, of course. The injuries weren’t injuries and they weren’t severe. Minor contusions, no concussion, lacerations, wouldn’t constitute serious injury in my lexicon. Then again, that’s my lexicon. He had to go to the hospital, of course, for a check up. That’s a wise thing to do. There’s your healthcare for ya. Obama’s thugs put you in the hospital and the charity of citizens will save you. That’s ObamaCare.
The behavior of the thugs is a good thing people. What it means is that the thugs are untrained and they also lack the intent to kill or to cause harm. They are there to intimidate. But intimidation is a pale man’s imitation of violence. I know that very well, and people should also know that very well. Derive confidence from it, for what it is.
Look at the guy holding his shoulder. I believe he landed on the ground. He’s kind of beefy. He must not have realized how much it hurts to fall on the concrete, even a slow fall.
Well, I know how much it hurts. In point of fact, if you throw someone correctly into the concrete, you can shatter their skull. Something you just can’t do with your own muscular strength. Even the world champion weight lifters would find it hard to do, except in precise circumstances, because your fist isn’t quite as hard as someone’s skull. If you hit him hard enough to break his skull, it would also shatter and break your fist.
This is a good thing, people. It means the thugs are only a factor in intimidation. They won’t be able to handle things when it gets busy. They will try to bring numbers to bear.
The anger we see here is also good. One of the most effective propaganda methods to bolster morale in a fight is to get people angry. It’s one reason to get them to fight. Without it, they might start to doubt themselves, their mission, their leaders. They might start thinking about their fear of failure more than their wish for success.
Anger is a good motivator for freedom fighters.
For a background context on why I say such things are good, just take a look at the graphic and (perhaps disturbing) video shown here.
lInk
And keep in mind, that’s the inefficient way to do it. Done by untrained people. But still effective, in the end.
>>Long distance phone calls were a major event >>
You betcha!
In 1958, I was in school in Wash DC, and boyfriend was in San Bernardino, Ca. Three minutes = $6.00. You had to save up a _lot_ of quarters.
Oh yeah…we only had access to pay phones for outgoing calls. We had a dorm phone in the hall to receive incoming calls – everybody’s incoming calls. When a call came in, you yelled (or went to the person’s room) to see if the person called was available.
>>The movies weren’t any better than today>>
Yes, they were. Still are.
Tiresias, beautifully said. I think you’ve made an important point: These people have no shame. There is nothing internal to stop them from doing what they do.
I don’t hold out hope it will get beter. For example, at some point Nancy Pelosi will be officially excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. (According to canon law, she has already excommunicated herself because of her verging-on-fanatical support for unlimited abortion.) I have no doubt that when the church finally takes that step, Pelosi, rather than being shamed by that decisive act of repudiation, will join with others of her ilk in calling for the prosecution and persecution of the church.
They have no guilt. It is untrue that they have no shame. They have quite a bit of shame. It is just that they don’t feel any guilt or shame so long as they think they can convince most people that they are innocent.
You see, in the traditional Western guilt culture, if you believe you are innocent of a charge, you will defend yourself against it. But in an honor and shame culture, so long as nobody knows about the crime in question, then you don’t have to defend yourself.
Pelosi doesn’t have to feel guilt, because it doesn’t matter what she did, when she can convince herself that only the Right knows about them. Her people don’t. Her people refuse recognize it or call her to account. That’s enough for her to say “it doesn’t matter”. Mind you, she doesn’t say “I am innocent of the crime in question”. She claims the crime didn’t occur at all.
When people called the Left traitors and un-Americans, the Left knew this was true. But they pretended to be shocked, and thus used the guilt of Republicans, for charging someone of guilt without evidence, against the Repubs. And the Repubs, being generally weaker in propaganda, backed down. Put on the hair shirts and cowered in shame at their actions. And thus the Democrats were absolved. It no longer mattered whether their conduct in the War for Iraq was treasonous or not. They had convinced the population that it wasn’t, so it wasn’t.
This is partially why they believe in the power of words, because the power of words could make a murder like Tookie “innocent” simply by convincing a select number of people that he was.
It is also why honor killings exist. Since no amount of “talk” will convince the Arabs that your daughter didn’t do something inappropriate, you must kill your daughter.
The Left and the Arabic terrorists had much more in common than they allowed you to see. It wasn’t just because the former are traitors and the latter are homicidal idiots, either.
Ted Kennedy for example. A normal man would be eaten up by guilt, because he knew he was responsible for that girl’s death. Ted Kennedy? He’s a proud peacock. He’s living it. He feels no guilt. No shame, because his family and connections made people drop the charges.
These are the kind of sociopathic mass murderers people have voted into Congress and the Senate (but mostly the Senate).
Ymar #20: Wonderful points about the nature of insurgencies. Thanks! I am particularly reminded by your commentary, of the IRA.
And for #22, I appreciate the clarification that the black fellow was not seriously injured. Still, I am concerned that this is only the beginning. I am reminded of a typical bar fight that starts with shoving and words – and it either escalates or doesn’t. (Usually the non-escalation is because they don’t really want to fight and are waiting for their friends to step in and pull em apart.) Will the Democrat brownshirts escalate? Or will they call a halt to it?
I’ll have to get the complete story on the photojournalist who said he was much more severely treated, and had his equipment ruined. And isn’t it interesting that they know which media they have in the bag, and which they don’t… and therefore attack? This is something that they *know*, folks!
An amusing aside on “falling to the concrete”. One morning a few months back I woke in darkness and was in too much of a rush to get to the shower. In the hallway (still darkened) I forgot about the dog gate and walked right into it, falling over it to the carpet (and against the wall). My shoulder hurt deeply for weeks even though it was a slow fall.
As to guilt vs shame (#28)…
I have an amoral approach to speeding in my car. If I get caught, I don’t feel guilty, nor do I feel shame. I pay the penalty for breaking the law (and getting caught) and I just move on. I wonder if there’s an insight there for me into the nature of Democratic politics? Perhaps, in their ravenous pursuit of power, especially as they seek to take over vast sectors of our economy, they approach all of this, all of their actions with the same amorality with which I approach speeding…
If that’s true – if their focus on power leads them to be amorally blind to the Constitution, to freedom, to liberty, to individual rights, to the very rule of law – it is rather startling to me to consider the depths of actual depravity that that would lead to. When you really focus on what it would mean for how they think.
with the same amorality with which I approach speeding…
I don’t think they approach it with the same as your approach. You can’t bribe the officers. They can. They can also make laws that favor the officer’s families in return for favors. You can’t.
So you see, it’s not quite the same ; )
I pay the penalty for breaking the law (and getting caught) and I just move on.
That’s not amoral. That’s moral. You know the rules, you break the rules, you pay the penalty of the rules.
If you didn’t feel guilty, you wouldn’t pay the penalty. Because you would think you had done no wrong and thus had no need to pay anything. Like Gates.
Still, I am concerned that this is only the beginning.
Remember the opening title to Babylon 5? And So it Begins.
And so it does.
My shoulder hurt deeply for weeks even though it was a slow fall.
It doesn’t take much to dislocate the shoulder. A percentage of you body weight is sufficient depending on the leverages.
The difference between a TFT Joint Break and a normal sprain is that the former shatters and tears out the connective tissues, the ligaments and tendons (you know, the popping sound), while the former simply stretches them beyond their normal elasticity and flexibility.
Obviously, the former is nastier than the latter. But even the latter takes much longer to heal than normal muscle injuries.
Actually, Ymar, I do still think my approach is amoral.
It’s based on the cost of the fine and being responsible within the flow of traffic.
If the flow of traffic on the highway is light – as it was this morning at 7 am, I’m opening it up. I merely try not to be the *fastest* traffic on the road, in the hopes that someone else traveling faster than me will get pulled over, not me.
The posted speed limit scarcely enters into my considerations, aside from the severity of the fine. That’s money talking, not morality nor ethics. The law is the law, I’m deliberately breaking it, and I don’t care. I’m constrained by the fine… and by the fact that getting repeatedly caught in a short period of time has escalating costs I don’t want to pay. That’s fear of punishment, not morality.
I think I’m clear on the fact that in this one area of my life, I’m deliberately amoral.
But those wonderful Dems… I’m wondering just how amoral they are in their approach to pretty much damn near everything, when it comes to maintaining their grip on power. I really am beginning to wonder. I know the Tom DeLay crowd was awfully ruthless about power… and look where that got the Republicans as 2000 rolled on into 2008. A GOP that had lost all semblance of a party that I could trust.
>>He feels no guilt. No shame, because his family and connections made people drop the charges.>>
Hmmmm. Maybe. I see two possibilities: first, she was just one of the “little” people – she didn’t count. It doesn’t matter any more than you’d worry if you kill a fly. Or two, he does in fact feel guilt at having been responsible for her death, and that’s what motivates him to try to push through all the legislation to benefit the “little” people – the have nots.
He’s wrong either way, but at least the second way – as wrong as I think it is, with the wrongness of condescension that it requires – it would indicate a conscience and a need to make amends.
Mike, I continue to see it differently.
Amoral is the state in which no morality is considered at all.
While it is certainly true that if a person does A instead of B simply because of threat to self, that can be considered immoral, it should not be considered amoral. The entire reason you are defying the speed law can be derived from a moral judgment weighing pros and cons.
Meaning, you break the speed laws because you don’t see that you are doing anything wrong. But if you broke the speed law and killed somebody cause you were traveling too fast, that would figure into moral calculations. So unless you just didn’t care who you killed or caused to crash, your decision to speed is a decision made from moral weight. As it calculates moral luck and possibilities. If you say you made such decisions on the wrong things, the money issue, then that would be immoral. As in a wrong decision made from wrong reasons.
A lot of people don’t follow the law to the letter because of certain human behavioral elements. It doesn’t mean they are immoral. It just means they are willing to take the moral luck and gamble. Whether they are immoral or not seems irrelevant really. That’s what the law is for.
Moral luck is a phenomenon wherein the same person, in two alternative universes, ends up with two different experiences. One person dropped his car keys and so was 10s late in starting up his car and going, the other person didn’t drop his car keys and went. The person that dropped his car keys ended up hitting and killing a girl that stepped out unto the road. While the same person, in a different universe that hadn’t dropped his keys, went past the girl on the sidewalk. Thus moral luck is defined as things you are responsible for often due to luck. You didn’t intend for it to happen, but dropping your keys ended up with it happening. The same would be true of speeding.
Amoral would be a person who doesn’t care about right or wrong. Immoral means someone is making a decision for the wrong reasons.
Obama, I would say, is amoral. At worst, Mike, you would be immoral. Making decisions for the wrong reasons and the wrong causes and the wrong considerations, thinking them right or okay. If you did something and you know you are wrong to do so, that’s 1. recognizing immorality and 2. immorality.
The law is the law, I’m deliberately breaking it, and I don’t care.
If a person believes that the law is unjust, they can be perfectly ethical and moral to break it. I’m just presenting the alternatives. The law is not the same as morality.
Sue,
Ted Kennedy, after that 1969 incident, also voted to cut the funds of Vietnam. He liked to see those ‘little people’ struggle under the knife, I suppose.
If you read the wikipedia entry on the drowning, you will see just how in self-denial this Teddy Bear was and still is in. That much self-deception and denial is enough to block off guilt entirely. Because if it wasn’t. Ted should have committed suicide. But he hasn’t. Nor has he given away much of his wealth or privileges. Wind farms, remember? The little people need power, but he won’t give his view away to wind farms.
“Little” people don’t really count, Y.
I guess I count him in the first group as well, but fortunately, it’s not my job to pass moral judgments on people!
Do you think maybe his resistance on Vietnam was due to a fraternal kind of thing? Brother became a hero – little brother wanted to stand against what his big brother obviously excelled at? I mean – war is always a bad thing…but he was in a position to know what was going on – so why the resistance? Maybe just a way at the time of standing out in the crowd? Two brothers – actually three – why such different positions? Having 4 sons, I know the fraternal fighting that goes on – I have to wonder if that wasn’t at the heart of the matter instead of actual political beliefs.
I’m going on more than I planned on this topic… but I will consider again the difference between amorality and immorality. As to the speed limits, that would be a rationalization on my part. (I detest rationalizations; the way to morally handle a law you consider unjust is to get it changed, not to break it.) I think the government has the right to set speed limits, and here in Texas they do a perfectly fine job of setting reasonable speed limits, so I don’t have that excuse.
And I never speed in urban areas, only on rural-area highways, and only when in my best judgment it’s safe. For what that’s worth… On yesterday’s return trip in the afternoon, the highway was often actually congested, and few of us were speeding. I certainly wasn’t. It would have been inconsiderate at best, dangerous at worst.
I agree with you to some extent, Mike. I don’t think laws attach any morality. The cause for the laws might well do so. In other words, why do speed laws exist? first for safety reasons, secondly, for gas economy, third, for income. Safety is defined in terms of the driver himself and also in terms of other drivers. Personally, I think my safety is my concern – none of the government’s, and I feel free to behave accordingly. I _do_ have a moral obligation to drive in such a way that I don’t endanger anyone else though.
The gas economy speed laws were put in place under pressure by the feds during the 70s when OPEC decided to limit the amount of oil available. It made sense as a temporary measure. Drilling for our own oil makes more sense. Since the Feds don’t seem inclined to permit that, I don’t give a hoot whether I save gas or not – at least from a national loyalty standpoint. My own pocketbook is a different issue. The States set the speed limits to comply with the Feds so they could get money from them. They enforce it to fill their own coffers. No morality involved.
I keep hearing, over and over again, from both sides, that health care is too expensive. Balderdash and fipplestew.-roylofquist
[snip]
http://www.futurecasts.com/book%20review%207-4.htm
We may be arguing different points, but given the rate of utilization Medicare is poised to swamp the federal budget.
When implemented, Medicare was projected to cost $9 billion in 1990. It cost $90 billion. Until we recognize that Medicare is mostly welfare and not insurance we are doomed to continue on our path to hyperinflation as the only solution.
Real wage growth is also mostly an illusion. Our increase in standard of living has come from cheaper stuff– some of it due to to increased efficiencies of production, advances in miniaturization and technical advances from cheaper materials, but a large part of it is from cheap foreign labor, IMHO. We’ve made a poor choice of shipping our manufacturing base overseas, in exchange for cheap stuff.
Let’s suppose I can afford the payments of a Chevy Impala. My payments are $400, and it fits into my budget quite well. The Cadillac Catera is certainly a better car with lots of additional technology in addition to more luxury but no matter how the benefits are presented, I can’t afford the $800 a month payments.
The democrats understand the looming insolvency of Medicare and their solution is to nationalize health care insurance and by doing so control costs by price controls and limiting procedures. In the proposal is $500 billion in Medicare cuts which has seniors hopping mad. That’s the future if universal health care is adopted.
I heard a CNN commenter talking about the debate say “do we want the government making our health care choices or the insurance industry? Yikes Are those the only choices?”
There is a third way, abandoning the third party pay system and involve the patient more in their health decisions.
There is a proposal in congress- The Patient Choice Act. It deserves an honest hearing, though any real solution will never seriously be considered, since any real solution will involve pain on all sides.
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=b8876db7-2be0-4c84-b833-3d77dc4afa83
The Patient Choice Act depends on Health Savings Accounts (HSA) as the method of empowering patients.
It isn’t coincidence that the proposed democrat plan will do away with HSA’s, which were implemented as part of the Medicare prescription drug plan in 2003.
This leads me to believe they must represent a potential future threat to democrat plans if they want to kill the concept before it has a chance to grow.
V ouchers for working poor
I ndividual tax breaks much like employers
C ross state lines to purchase insurance
T ort Reform
O wn health savings accounts
R emove excessive state-mandated treatments
Y es! We the People CAN!
By the way, much of this is incorporated in the Patient Choice Act.
By the way…the health care bill as passed by the House, also includes access to your bank accounts by the government.
Unbelievable, but true.
Of course, that _could_ result in our getting back on to an all cash economy…! _That_ wouldn’t be all bad…
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf#page=58
http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf#page=59