I am currently reading What Would Jefferson Do? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400052092/qid=1129199838/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7999797-2156806?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Thom Hartmann. Chapter 4 is eerie.
Quote from: Hankster on October 13, 2005, 08:18 AM NHFTI am the appointed chair of the Democratic Freedom Caucus in NH which is a movement to restore the party that jefferson founded to his ideals.
I think Jefferson would be starting a revolution, if he was alive today.
Quote from: patmccotter on October 13, 2005, 05:42 AM NHFT
I am currently reading What Would Jefferson Do? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400052092/qid=1129199838/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7999797-2156806?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Thom Hartmann. Chapter 4 is eerie.
You can't leave us hanging like that, what's chapter 4 about????
Does this have something to do with the WWJD bumper stickers that I see all the time?
WWJCD?
Nah!, I'm pretty sure it was WWJD! See it around churches a lot!
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 14, 2005, 12:52 PM NHFT
WWJCD?
Nah!, I'm pretty sure it was WWJD!? See it around churches a lot!
Lloyd that is What Would Johnny Do?
This is the only pic on the web I could find.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=WWJD+red+sox&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ff&oi=froogler
Quote from: Dreepa on October 14, 2005, 01:17 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on October 14, 2005, 12:52 PM NHFT
WWJCD?
Nah!, I'm pretty sure it was WWJD!? See it around churches a lot!
Lloyd that is What Would Johnny Do?
This is the only pic on the web I could find.
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=WWJD+red+sox&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=ff&oi=froogler
Thank, I had forgotten about that one :D
I've always liked: What Would Jesus Drive?
A Pickup Truck, Silly! He was a carpenter!
My favorite bumper sticker of all time, I saw on the bridge connecting Detroit with Windsor about a skillion years ago:
'It Takes Leather Balls To Play Rugby'
As a former Rugby player.... I like that one. ;D
Give Blood: Play Rugby
Quote from: lildog on October 14, 2005, 08:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: patmccotter on October 13, 2005, 05:42 AM NHFT
I am currently reading What Would Jefferson Do? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400052092/qid=1129199838/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-7999797-2156806?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Thom Hartmann. Chapter 4 is eerie.
You can't leave us hanging like that, what's chapter 4 about????
OK, I've scanned it:
WHEN DEMOCRACY FAILED
Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.?SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL (1874-1965),
November 11, 1947
For most of the twentieth century Americans feared the greatest danger to our way of life was communism. We were wrong: fascism was a more potent external menace, and now may be our greatest internal threat. Consider this true story.
The 70th anniversary of February 27, 1933, wasn?t noticed in the United States and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day in 1933. Many commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations against the war in Iraq that had mobilized more millions of citizens all across the world than any in history
The end of democracy started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies that they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation?s leader had not been elected by a majority vote, and many citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn?t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language?reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state? and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. As a young man, he?d joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn?t know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation?s most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified that it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
?You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history,? he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. ?This fire,? he said, his voice trembling with emotion, ?is the beginning.? He used the occasion??a sign from God,? he called it?to declare a war not on another nation but on a tactic: terrorism. The terrorism his country was suffering from, he said, had to have originated with a group of people of Middle Eastern origin who rationalized their acts using religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranienberg to hold suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national eruption of patriotism, the leader?s flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation?s now popular leader had pushed through legislation?in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it?that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people?s homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.? ?
Sunset provisions and gradual increases in terror
To get his patriotic ?Decree on the Protection of People and State? passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a four-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms and rights would be returned to the people, and the police agencies would be re-restrained. Legislators would later say they hadn?t had time to read the bill before voting on it.
His federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts. In the first year only a few hundred were imprisoned, and those who objected were largely ignored by the mainstream press, which was afraid to offend and thus lose access to a leader with such high popularity ratings. Citizens who protested the leader in public?and there were many?quickly found themselves confronting the newly empowered police?s batons, gas, and jail cells, or fenced off in protest zones safely out of earshot of the leader?s public speeches. (In the meantime, he was taking almost daily lessons in public speaking, learning to control his tonality, gestures, and facial expressions. He became a very competent orator.)
Within the first months after the attack, at the suggestion of a political adviser, he brought a formerly obscure word into common usage. He wanted to stir up ?racial pride? among his countrymen, so, instead of referring to the nation by its name, he began to refer to it as ?the homeland,? a phrase publicly promoted by Rudolph Hess in a ~ speech recorded in Leni Riefenstahl?s famous propaganda movie Triumph of the Will. As hoped, people?s hearts swelled with pride, and the beginning of an us-versus-them mentality was sown. Our land was ?the? homeland, citizens thought: all others were simply foreign lands. We are the ?true people,? he suggested, the only ones worthy of our nation?s concern; if bombs fall on others, or human rights are violated in other nations and it makes our lives better, it?s of little concern to us.
Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn?t act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. He withdrew his country from the League of Nations in October 1933 and then negotiated a separate naval armaments agreement with Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Anthony Eden of the United Kingdom to create a worldwide military ruling elite.
His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called ?New Christianity.? Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared ?Gott mit uns?? God is with us?and most of them fervently believed it was true.
Creating a new homeland security bureau
Within a year of the attack, the nation?s leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the communication and coordinated administration necessary to deal with the threat, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus considered to be probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome ?intellectuals? and ?liberals.? He proposed a national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments.
His assistant who dealt with the press noted that since the attack, ?radio and press are at our disposal.? Those voices questioning the legitimacy of their nation?s leader, or raising questions about his checkered past, had by now faded from the public?s recollection as his Central Security Office began advertising a program encouraging people to phone in tips about suspicious neighbors. This program was so successful that the names of some of the people ?denounced? were soon being broadcast on radio stations. Those denounced often included opposition politicians and celebrities who dared speak out?a favorite target of his regime and the media he now controlled through intimidation and ownership by corporate allies.
To consolidate his power, he concluded that government alone wasn?t enough. He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation?s largest corporations into high government positions. A flood of government money poured into corporate coffers to fight the war against the terrorists lurking within the homeland, and to prepare for wars overseas. He encouraged large corporations friendly to him to acquire media outlets and other industrial concerns across the nation, particularly those previously owned by ?suspicious? people of Middle Eastern ancestry He built powerful alliances with industry; one corporate ally got the lucrative contract worth millions to build the first large-scale detention center for enemies of the state. Soon more would follow Industry flourished.
But after an interval of peace following the terrorist attack, voices of dissent arose again within and without the government. Students had started an active program opposing him (later known as the White Rose Society), and leaders of nearby nations were speaking out against his bellicose rhetoric. He needed a diversion, something to direct people away from the corporate cronyism being exposed in his own government, questions of his possibly illegitimate rise to power, and the oft-voiced concerns of civil libertarians about the people being held in detention without due process or access to attorneys or family?
The lies that convinced the people war was necessary
With his number two man?a master at manipulating the media?the nation?s leader began a campaign to convince the nation that a small, limited war was necessary Another nation was harboring many of the ?suspicious? Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation?s most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe? at first?denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine claimed in the past only by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar?s Rome or Alexander?s Greece.
It took a few months, and intense international debate and lobbying with European nations, but finally a deal was struck. Thus Adolf Hitler annexed Austria in a lightning move, riding a wave of popular support as leaders so often do in times of war. The Austrian government was unseated and replaced by a new leadership friendly to Germany, and German corporations began to take over Austrian resources.
In a speech responding to critics of the invasion, Hitler said, ?Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say: even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier [into Austria] there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.?
To deal with dissent, at the advice of his politically savvy advisers, Hitler and his ?friends? in the press began a campaign to equate him and his policies with patriotism and the nation itself In times of war, they said, there could be only ?one people, one nation, and one commander in chief? (?Fin Volk, em Reich, em F?hrer?), and so began a nationwide campaign charging that critics of his policies were attacking the nation itself Those questioning him were labeled unpatriotic, ?anti-German,? or ?not good Germans,? and it was suggested they were aiding the enemies of the state by failing in the patriotic necessity of supporting the nation?s valiant men in uniform. It was one of his most effective ways to stifle dissent and pit wage-earning people (from whom most of the army came) against the ?intellectuals and liberals? who were critical of his policies.
Nonetheless, once the annexation of Austria was complete and peace returned, voices of opposition were again raised in the homeland. The almost-daily release of news bulletins about the dangers of terrorist communist cells wasn?t enough to rouse the populace and suppress dissent. An all-out war was necessary to divert public attention from the growing rumbles within the country about disappearing dissidents; violence against liberals, Jews, and union leaders; and the epidemic of crony capitalism that was producing empires of wealth in the corporate sector but threatening the middle class?s way of life.
His increasing belligerence aroused concern all over the world, but after meeting with Hitler, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain told the nervous British people that giving in to this leader?s new first-strike doctrine for a second time would bring ?peace for our time.?
A year later, to the week, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia; the nation was now fully at war, and all internal dissent was suppressed in the name of national security It was the end of Germany?s first experiment with democracy
February 27, 2003, was the 70th anniversary of Dutch terrorist Marinus van der Lubbe?s successful flrebombing of the German Parliament (Reichstag) building, the terrorist act that catapulted Hitler to legitimacy and reshaped the German constitution. By the time of his successful and brief seizure of Austria, in which almost no German blood was shed, Hitler was the most beloved and popular leader in the history of his nation. Hailed around the world, he was later Time magazine?s Man of the Year.
Most Americans remember his office for the security of the homeland, known as the Reichssicherheitshauptamt, and its Schutzstaffel, by its famous agency?s initials: the SS.?
Two nations take two different paths ? in the 1930s
Today as we face financial and political crises, it?s useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity
Germany?s response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society?s richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, and create an illusion of prosperity through continual and ever-expanding war. America passed minimum-wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced antitrust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and through the WPA (Works Progress Administration) became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.
To the extent that our Constitution is still intact, the choice is ours once more.?
So, sue me!
[mumble mode]Telling me what I can't do. I'll show him what I can't do. Just let me catch him in the alley and we'll just see what I can't do.[/mumble mode]
What property rights! They're all common property.
Quote from: Hankster on October 14, 2005, 05:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: patmccotter on October 14, 2005, 04:58 PM NHFT
So, sue me!
do you not respect property rights?
They belong to the 'commons'.. ;D
How is it any different then people cutting an pasting from a website?
I've heard Thom Hartmann speak. He's best known for his investigation into the origins of corporate personhood, but when he starts talking Jefferson, he paints the man as a total left-winger. Off. The. Mark.
Quote from: Hankster on October 14, 2005, 10:39 PM NHFT
a website is part of the internet commons (social) because it does not charge for access to the content once you access the internet.
a book's content on the other hand is private property via state granted monopoly privilege of enclosing the social commons (copyright) for a limited period of time after which it reverts back to the commons.
the cost of the book that is paid to the author, granted via state privilege (all privileges shift costs) , is a negative externality foisted upon society inorder to eventually enhance the greater common good - that is why state privileges are granted!
Pat has a few years to wait before what was done was not a violation of the private property rights of the author.
I didn't pay for the book, either. I checked it out of the local public library. :P
BTW, fair use allows me to do it. I only excerpted chapter 4 and I attributed it with title and author a link to Amazon.com. I did not say I wrote it.
So, sue me.
Yep, I've stolen from him and from the taxpayers of the City of Concord.
I borrowed the book from the public library.
I've copied 3.3% of the pages from the book.
I've put the title and author of the book in the cite.
I've put a link to Amazon.com for people to easily go to buy the book if they care to.
Did you read the excerpt? Thom is showing the difference between Hitler and Roosevelt with this chapter. I excerpted it to show the ominous parallels between 1933 Germany and post 9/11 America.
"His federal police agencies stepped up their program of arresting suspicious persons and holding them without access to lawyers or courts"
"Playing on this new nationalism, and exploiting a disagreement with the French over his increasing militarism, he argued that any international body that didn?t act first and foremost in the best interest of his own nation was neither relevant nor useful. "
"His propaganda minister orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that he was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across his nation, what he called ?New Christianity.? Every man in his rapidly growing army wore a belt buckle that declared ?Gott mit uns?? God is with us?and most of them fervently believed it was true. "
"Within a year of the attack, the nation?s leader determined that the various local police and federal agencies around the nation were lacking the communication and coordinated administration necessary to deal with the threat, particularly those citizens who were of Middle Eastern ancestry and thus considered to be probably terrorist and communist sympathizers, and various troublesome ?intellectuals? and ?liberals.? He proposed a national agency to protect the security of the homeland, consolidating the actions of dozens of previously independent police, border, and investigative agencies under a single leader. He appointed one of his most trusted associates to be leader of this new agency the Central Security Office for the homeland, and gave it a role in the government equal to the other major departments."
"He reached out to industry and forged an alliance, bringing former executives of the nation?s largest corporations into high government positions."
"With his number two man?a master at manipulating the media?the nation?s leader began a campaign to convince the nation that a small, limited war was necessary Another nation was harboring many of the ?suspicious? Middle Eastern people, and even though its connection with the terrorist who had set afire the nation?s most important building was tenuous at best, it held resources their nation badly needed if they were to have room to live and maintain their prosperity. He called a press conference and delivered an ultimatum to the leader of the other nation, provoking an international uproar. He claimed the right to strike preemptively in self-defense, and nations across Europe? at first?denounced him for it, pointing out that it was a doctrine claimed in the past only by nations seeking worldwide empire, like Caesar?s Rome or Alexander?s Greece."
There were too many of these examples that, instead of excerpting portions of the chapter, I excerpted the entire chapter.
Quote from: Hankster on October 15, 2005, 07:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: patmccotter on October 15, 2005, 07:05 AM NHFT
So, sue me.
you are obviously no friend of property rights...
it is one thing to debate intellectual property laws as it relates to the commons but quite another to steal.
I believe that "Intellectual Property" is an oxymoron.
If you take my chair, I cannot sit.
If you take my chair design, I can still sit.
If I am a chair builder, and I can't build my own designs cheaper/better than someone who "stole" my design, then I don't deserve to stay in that business.
Boy! You've taken a perfectly good conversation about bumper stickers and stuff and really ruined it!
Quote from: Hankster on October 14, 2005, 04:54 PM NHFT
QuoteOK, I've scanned it:
you can't do that Pat.
it is against copyright laws...which Jefferson supported that allowed authors to enclose a portion of the social commons (our written and spoken language) to monopolize the product of their labor for a SPECIFIC period of time (to encourage arts and sciences and add to the common good) and then it reverts back to the commons.
Actually that depends on which Jefferson you're talking about. Sometimes Jefferson didn't believe in copyright laws. Didn't believe in their moral validity. On the other hand he still signed in the copy-right act of 1800 because he thought the government needed to "promote" arts and science over other endevors.
Besically Jefferson was nothing more then another power-hungry politician who spoke good when he wasn't in power but did completely opposite things at times when he was. That applies to his little "war" on piracy/privatiering, his trade embargoes, and his purchase of Louisiana. His copy-right act wasn't his worst offence. At least that was Constitutional.
Tracy
Quote from: Hankster on October 14, 2005, 05:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: patmccotter on October 14, 2005, 04:58 PM NHFT
So, sue me!
do you not respect property rights?
Intellectual "property" isn't worthy of the distinction "private."
Indeed, intellectual property rights -- if applied universally would pretty much forbid me from using my REAL private homesteaded property the way I want to. Real private property like land.
Tracy
Oops! Now you've gone and busted open that rotten egg, now! ;)
Mike has a principle about being non-rivalrous. I just can't remember it right now. ;)
Quote from: russellkanning on October 16, 2005, 10:45 AM NHFT
Mike has a principle about being non-rivalrous. I just can't remember it right now. ;)
I have principles that can't be rivaled. ;D
Quote from: Hankster on October 16, 2005, 07:00 AM NHFT
Quoteintellectual property rights -- if applied universally would pretty much forbid me from using my REAL private homesteaded property the way I want to. Real private property like land.
IP is non-rivalrous whereas land is rivalrous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rivalrous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rivalrous)
That's right. It's precisely because Land is scarce and IP isn't that market systems developed to define property rights for land and they didn't and needed to be legislated and imposed by government force with IP.
You're a complete moron Bill. You've been spouting this drivil for 3 years now, and the only reason you seem to be here is so you can twist every thread you come to into your new Georgist debating ground. And any time sombody comes up with an objection you can't answer you just dance around it.
You're nothing but a troll here.
Tracy
That's because you're an idiot who doesn't understand that a land "patent" is a very different thing from a Patent on an invention.
But a person can homestead property with-out said governmental "patents" and did it all throughout the mid-west where terrotorial governments hardly existed.
I rest my case. You're an idiot.
Tracy
Nonsence.
Quote from: Hankster on October 16, 2005, 11:59 AM NHFT
a title to land is a land patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent)
A wood-framed house is an abode, a teepee is an abode. but a wood-framed house is not a teepee.
A land patent is not an IP patent. Do not equate them unless you can prove it.
People, people! Let's be sure to lock those buttons so they can't be pushed anymore!
Sounds like a ribald rivalry to me.
Quote from: Hankster on October 16, 2005, 12:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on October 16, 2005, 12:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Hankster on October 16, 2005, 11:59 AM NHFT
a title to land is a land patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent)
A wood-framed house is an abode, a teepee is an abode. but a wood-framed house is not a teepee.
A land patent is not an IP patent. Do not equate them unless you can prove it.
the NH land grants (Vermont) were patents.
the principle is the same - state granted privilege that shifts costs distorting the market and violating the labor-based property rights.
I am saying if you are against monopoly privilege of copyright laws to be consistent you should be against monopoly privilege of economic rent even though one is rivalrous while the other is not.
Gotta teach you the use of commas.
Lloyd appropriated all of the commas. He doesn't want them in the commons.
Quote from: patmccotter on October 16, 2005, 12:44 PM NHFT
Lloyd appropriated all of the commas. He doesn't want them in the commons.
Damn, he patented them? That's all right, I'll just pirate them. :)
Quote from: patmccotter on October 16, 2005, 12:44 PM NHFT
Lloyd appropriated all of the commas. He doesn't want them in the commons.
Am thinking. Wondering about taking up a collection. Going to gather up Lloyd's excess commas. Am going to trade them in for a personal pronoun for Mincin.
/nominate KBCraig for Funniest Post of the Year Award
Quote from: patmccotter on October 16, 2005, 12:44 PM NHFT
Lloyd appropriated all of the commas. He doesn't want them in the commons.
Damn Straight!
Quote from: AlanM on October 16, 2005, 12:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: patmccotter on October 16, 2005, 12:44 PM NHFT
Lloyd appropriated all of the commas. He doesn't want them in the commons.
Damn, he patented them? That's all right, I'll just pirate them.? :)
No. I patented the color: Off White
Quote from: katdillon on October 16, 2005, 03:26 PM NHFT
/nominate KBCraig for Funniest Post of the Year Award
I second that!
The Ghost of Thomas Jefferson
by Ross Elliot
"Sir?"
President John Thomas Jefferson Smith turned to his uneasy secret service agents and waved for them to go away, outside, back into the night. He wanted to be left alone, in this dimly lit memorial, in this quiet place.
He turned back to face the statue of his namesake, his lifelong hero. Only an hour ago, in the Oval Office, he had felt an irresistible need to come here, to be in the presence of this towering bronze figure, to contemplate, perhaps to forestall, what was to come.
High above, chiseled into the white granite and encompassing the rotunda?s full sweep were the words that now spoke to him most deeply. He knew them off by heart but looked at each of the words as he solemnly recited them.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility ?"
Then another voice.
" ? against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
The president turned to see a stranger step out from within the statue?s shadow.
"That has always been a favorite of mine," said the stranger, smiling gently.
"Who are you? What is your name?" the president asked.
"My name? Oh, I?ve been called many names. But you can call me friend if you wish, Mr President."
His instinct should have been to summon his guard, but the president, without reason, felt not the slightest danger from this man who spoke so calmly, assuredly, and radiated such a benign aura.
"Well then, friend, how do you come to be here?" he asked.
The stranger frowned slightly. "Well, let me see ? I was out walking, when quite unexpectedly, I found myself in this place." He looked around: "It?s very grand." He looked up at the statue, raised his eyebrows: "Perhaps a bit too grand. Do you mind?"
The stranger did indeed seem out of place, and yet somehow, by his easy manner, perfectly at home. His clothing was simple, unusual, and accentuated his slim, tall figure. His hair was long and tied back. He was of mature years, yet ageless. His face was the face of every man and familiar.
"No, I don?t mind at all."
"Then we are well found," said the stranger.
"Indeed," agreed the president.
The stranger smiled at the president and the president smiled back.
"And, how do you come to be here, Mr President?"
"I have a decision to make. A difficult decision. I thought coming to this place may help."
"And, is it? Helping?
"I fear nothing can help me at this moment."
"You mentioned a decision?"
"Do you pretend not to know?" said the president, unsure if he was being mocked.
"Current events elude me. Please ?"
The president?s demeanor changed, stiffened. The politician in him came to the fore. He stared into space.
"The Senate, the House of Representatives and forty-seven of the fifty states have resolved that a new amendment, the thirty-third, be made to the Constitution. It comes into force at midnight tonight. It gives me certain powers. I must decide whether to assume those powers," the president explained.
"Powers?" asked the stranger.
The president continued as if he was discussing something distasteful.
"Specifically, that in an emergency, I may issue a decree to suspend the Constitution, or any part thereof, indefinitely."
The stranger pursed his lips. "I see. Do you know that the Romans had a similar procedure in times of emergency? During such times the consul was referred to as dictator."
The president bristled, ever more the experienced politician. "This has been done in accordance with the proper constitutional procedures. It is legal," he said.
"Don?t you find it ironic that by using the proper constitutional procedures you can render the constitution null and void?"
"An overwhelming majority support these measures," the president offered.
"Ah, democracy ? and if the majority should vote away my life, must I consider it lost? Are rights not an individual endowment? Am I at the mercy of my brothers? Are they my keepers?"
"Emergencies threaten to overwhelm us," the president continued.
"Yes, emergencies, they do test our mettle," agreed the stranger.
"There were two suicide bomb attacks this week; more than twenty so far this year. God knows how many more to come."
"Will denying the right of free speech or the right of people to assemble prevent such attacks?"
"The economy is weakening. No one is investing in production or employment. The great corporations are failing. People are running scared and crying out for stability."
"Will suspending the requirement for search warrants and for due process allow people to feel more secure in themselves and their possessions? Will that strengthen their confidence or encourage their productivity?
"Violence tears our society apart. Terrible crimes are committed. No person is safe."
"Will denying the people the right to bear arms, to protect themselves and those they hold dear, will that make society safer? And, when criminals and the state alone have weapons, who will suffer then?"
"People will be secure. I would not allow abuses of rights!"
"Rights? Of which rights do you speak, Mr President? The rights you have suspended?"
The president did not answer. He turned away.
"Oh, the declaration!"
The stranger?s exclamation was one of delight. The president, surprised, turned back and followed the stranger?s gaze to the famous excerpt writ large on the wall.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights ?" said the stranger with soft assuredness.
The president?s eyes returned to the stranger and realized that the stranger had not read the words off the wall but had been looking at the president while he recited them.
"Inalienable, Mr President," the stranger repeated.
"That was written over two hundred and forty years ago."
"Does inalienable not imply forever, Mr President?"
"Circumstances change. We must be practical. We need security. Security, safety and stability?that is the constant clamor."
"And you mean to sacrifice independence and freedom of action to achieve security? Will that be the way of it?"
"Surely it is not too much to ask to preserve our way of life ?"
The president?s response was a question, not a statement, and the stranger knew it.
"If man cannot be trusted with the government of himself, how, then, can he be trusted with the government of others?" asked the stranger.
The president knew that admonishment well, had used it himself on more than one occasion. He looked up at the statue then back at the stranger. They seemed to exist as one entity: one a hammer, the other an anvil?and he, caught between.
"I told you, I would not allow abuses."
"When you and your successors are all powerful, which you will surely be, you will have become the incarnation of the very abuse you seek to prevent. All else will follow."
The president stood, head slightly bowed.
"Perhaps I have lost my faith in freedom," he said flatly, finally.
"And in your faith lies your most grievous error. Freedom requires not the ignorance of faith but the courage of enlightened, determined men?men who have the honesty to identify the true basis of human happiness and prosperity. It is our natural inclination to seek safety and security in times of trouble and uncertainty, but it is the manner in which we achieve these things that marks us as honorable or cowardly. As we succumb to the illusion of security there will be those who will use unfettered powers to shackle their fellows and reduce them to slavery. Your current difficulties should illustrate this point well. You can see over the edge of the abyss. Toss away your last remnants of liberty and you will surely be pulled down into it."
"We are already in decline."
"Then reverse the trend. Wherever freedom has taken root, been nurtured and protected, man has achieved greatness in every aspect of his existence. Our phenomenal feats of production and material wellbeing; the wondrous extent and vitality of culture; magnificent works of art, music, theatre, architecture; the life-affirming discoveries of science and philosophy; all of these beautiful flowers have grown in the fertile soil of liberty. When men are free to associate, to trade their ideas and their goods, when their actions are by choice and not by decree, only then does true brotherhood and peace prevail. Do you wish to sacrifice your pride as a free people on the altar of fear? Is that the legacy you wish to leave to posterity? Will you be our first Caesar, Mr President?"
"This is not Rome!"
"No, this is greater than Rome!"
"Yes!"
"But greatness will not save you if ideas are against you."
The stranger spoke truth and the president knew it.
"The Founding Fathers must have foreseen the possibility ?"
"Mr President, the Founding Fathers were men, not gods. I can assure you of that. Alas, their works were not perfect. What they did not foresee is that a man who swore to uphold the constitution and the rights of man would break his oath by renouncing them."
"I have not renounced them!"
The president locked eyes with the stranger, and the stranger saw that the president?s face revealed not anger but pain.
"But you will have the power to do so and that right soon. Yes, a most difficult decision, indeed," said the stranger.
"Is everything all right, Mr President? I heard voices." It was the president?s chief bodyguard.
For a long moment the president continued to contemplate the stranger.
"Mr President?"
The president turned to his bodyguard who was seemingly unaware of the stranger?s immediate presence.
"I?m fine, just thinking aloud. I?ll be along soon."
The guard retreated.
"You could have had me arrested, Mr President," said the stranger.
"You are dangerous, friend, but no threat."
It was a compliment and the stranger smiled his warm smile.
"The hour is late, Mr President. You came to this place to make a decision. Is it made?" he asked quietly.
The president took a deep breath. "Yes, suddenly, yes. This place was helpful ? you were helpful. You belong here."
"We all belong here, Mr President, but in all things we act alone. We are individual spirits and as such we must each, in our own way, find the courage to do what is right and not to give in, not to martyr ourselves, and not to sacrifice others to our own ends. We must act, not out of fear, but with the strength and vigor that freedom allows us. Remember: it was you who came to this place, not I who brought you here," said the stranger.
"Will you walk back to my car with me?" asked the president.
"Thank you, but no. We are being pulled in different directions. Goodbye, Mr President ? and I wish you well."
The stranger stepped back into the statue?s shadow, became one with it, and was gone.
The president turned on his heel and walked back to the world.
By the time President Smith?s cavalcade arrived the next morning, a large crowd of media, officials, dignitaries and ordinary citizens had gathered on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial and along the edge of the wading pool. There was an air of solemnity about the gathering that seemed at odds with the magnificent location and there was only muted applause as the president stepped from his car and walked to the podium at the top of the steps.
A hush settled over the assembly. The president stared into the distance, noticing how the flowering cherry blossoms on the far side of the pool waved in the gentle wind.
"What I have to say will take but few words. We are beset by many problems: terrorism, rampant crime, economic collapse, disillusionment and fear for the future. We have tried outlandish inducements and harsh penalties, convoluted regulations and an army of official watchdogs. We have listened to the proposals of expert committees and the cacophony of the consensus. None has worked. None has reversed our demise. It is time for radical measures."
The crowd fell deathly quiet and even the breeze in the cherry blossoms seemed to die away.
"I have decided to invoke the provisions of the thirty-third amendment," the president began.
Although this had been expected, the crowd stiffened as if in anticipation of a mortal blow.
"I therefore decree, that as of this day, the powers given to me by the thirty-third amendment are indefinitely suspended."
Expecting the worst, the crowd took several seconds to catch the meaning of the president?s words.
Then, in the breathless quiet a lone voice cried out: "Say again, Mr President?!"
"Certainly," said the president, smiling. "I said: the provisions of the thirty-third amendment are indefinitely suspended."
A chorus of cheers rang out and grew louder as he added: "And, let us all have the courage to live, not in fear, but in freedom!"
The president turned around to gaze up at the statue, and the towering bronze figure, touched by the morning sun, seemed to bathe the new day in a golden glow.
If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to The Free Radical?
Discuss this Article (10 messages)
The sadness upon reading that excellent piece, is borne from certainty that it would not happen.
But it was still an excellent piece.
Kevin
Yes, Kevin. And how many will suffer, and die because they will not understand. :'(