Random Fate

A suitable follow-up to the passage of the anti-flag burning amendment...

...can be found here:

High court OKs personal property seizures
Majority: Local officials know how best to help cities

Thursday, June 23, 2005 Posted: 1450 GMT (2250 HKT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- -- The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses -- even against their will -- for private economic development.

It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

In other words, eminent domain now trumps private property rights, even when the private property is being seized to give to a developer so the developer can make money.

So, those of you who wonder why I always complain about expanding the power of government and my loud cries of "foul" any time I believe the basis of our rights are being eroded, do you have any questions why I make such noise?

The preservation of property rights has been a foundation for our robust economy. Without certainty, you cannot plan for the future.

China (the mainland part) seizes what would be nominally private property at whim.

We are not to that point yet, but we have started down the same road.

Government apparently now ALWAYS triumphs over the individual, because government "knows better"...

Welcome to 1984 and Animal Farm. Just pray that you are one of the animals that is more equal than the other animals.

Confusion regarding writing, and a concurrence upon the role of government in "marriage"

John Cole, at Balloon Juice, has had a similar problem as I believe I have had recently, where what I wrote was confused and misinterpreted to mean something different, and this applies to topics beyond that of "gay marriage" which John Cole refers to in his post.

Regarding the confusion, he writes:

I think you can chalk up part of the confusion to my rambling prose and my splenetic writing style (it has been said the written language here at Balloon Juice is 'high dudgeon,' and toss in the fact that I have written so many damn posts on these topics that it may seem like I think all those things. But it just ain't the case.

I cannot find a better way to express what I feel has happened in the case of my writing, especially in the cases where those I feel are good friends have not interpreted what I wrote in the spirit that the posts were written.

Regarding the topic (and confusion/misrepresentation/misquoting) that prompted the post by John Cole, his summary very well encapsulates what I believe regarding this "issue" which in my mind is a non-issue if we are to remain true to our fundamentals behind our Constitution:

And for the record, if I could have my way, I wouldn't have government legalizing gay marriages- I wouldn't have the government granting any marriages. I would like the government in the civil union business, and gays and straights would be treated just the same, with the same rights. Churches could then grant marriages, and be free to decide whether or not their sect wants to grant gay marriages.

All I can add is, "What he said."

Technorati Tags: fundamentals, opinion

From the father of the Constitution...

...comes a concise statement of the mistrust of government, any government, that I hold:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
   -James Madison

More on this later, when I answer a question posed in response to my definition of "moderate" and how it is different from "centrist".

Technorati Tags: fundamentals, opinion, quotes

A deeply held belief in the concept of "honor"

UPDATE: For those coming here from Blackfive, I have a correction to his assertion, "Jack at Random Fate seems to believe that we're not better than those that oppose us and wants Gitmo shut down." After you read my original post below, please be sure to see my response to the incorrect statement that I place a moral equivalence between the US and the terrorists:

A correction to what Blackfive asserts I "seem to believe"

---

This has been a very difficult post to write.

It is not intended as a simple partisan screed but instead tries to describe something that strikes to the heart of my beliefs.

Those who will understand need no elaboration by the time they finish reading. Those who do not understand need far more explanation than I can give by mere text in less than a book-length dissertation on the concepts and emotions that are the foundation of what I am writing.

Let me start with the foundations before I get to the heart of the matter.

I have written recently on what it means to be a moderate, and how what I mean when I use the word "moderate" is not the same as "centrist".

In my definition of "moderate" I did not outline what they might believe other than this:

A moderate can be of any political stripe or agglomeration of beliefs. The defining characteristic of a moderate is a willingness to acknowledge that beliefs other than those held by the moderate cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand.

I did not choose to define a centrist because of lack of time. I did admit the need for additional discussion, however.

I am both a centrist and a moderate in many matters, using the definition of a centrist as someone who does not adhere to the extreme views of either the left or right wings in many issues.

However, there are some concepts upon which I could reasonably be described as extreme.

The one that lies behind the origin of this post is the concept of honor.

I was raised in the South of the United States, specifically the region around Memphis, Tennessee. I visited the battlefield of Shiloh as a Boy Scout before I was a teenager, exposed both to the rugged landscape upon which that terrible battle was fought and initiated into the tragedies that accompany any war that prompts brother to fight against brother.

Even now, the concept of honor still exists in the South of the United States, perhaps more than in the rest of our great nation, at least in my experience.

However, it is not taught formally, or even informally.

I can never recall my father ever saying the word "honor" to me.

I can never recall my father ever saying to me that I had to uphold some kind of ideal that he held.

Yet, I saw him uphold what he held as honorable.

I saw him do things that were directed towards larger ideals than his immediate gratification, or to the immediate benefit to his wife and children.

I have seen my father's pain, while not expressed in words but instead shown in other, more subtle ways, a pain of the soul caused by the betrayal of his younger brother to the honor of our family when that man disappeared, abandoning his wife and children for a secret life he had constructed.

From these lessons I have learned of a concept of honor that I cannot deny or reject, all the more so because it was taught by actions and not words.

So to me, what is honor?

It is difficult to describe in mere words, but I will try because it is truly important to get to the final point that I wish to show; the entire reason I am writing this.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than those of everyday life.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than is convenient for the moment.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals than might be beneficial even in the long run.

Honor is the adherence to higher ideals...

If you haven't gotten the message yet, honor is the adherence to ideals beyond the self, beyond immediate gratification, beyond retribution upon those who offend us, beyond the exigencies of the moment.

So, to those of you who claim that moderates or centrists have no deeply held beliefs or ideals and only sway with the prevailing breeze, I completely and utterly refute you, because I do indeed have ideals that go beyond what is popular and what is current, and yet I am still a moderate and in many ways a centrist.

As a consequence, I am about to call out someone whom I list as a brother even though he and I have never met, because I feel he has gone against one of the ideals I thought we had in common, the ideal of honor.

Again this raises the question, what is honor?

What are these so-called "higher ideals"?

I can only describe what they are to me, but mere words cannot convey the concepts nor the deep feelings I have about them.

Honor.

There are certain lines that are not to be crossed.

There are certain actions that are unacceptable.

There are certain attitudes that cannot be held.

What are these lines, what are these actions, what are these attitudes?

Here is what they are to me:

You should always act in a way that is honorable, regardless of how others behave or act.

You should always try to respect other people, because they are human, just as you are.

You should always try to understand others, because they are human, and just as alone in the world as you are.

You should always try to avoid passing judgment independent of a jury-based court system, because you are as fallible as anyone else.

You should always remember that you are human, and you have no more and no less insight into the mind of God than anyone else.

As a consequence, a post by the Average Tobacco-Chewing Joe at Cadillac Tight disturbed me, because I had always thought that he and I shared a similar concept of honor.

The post: one called "Ditto" where in the comments I asked:

I want to be entirely clear on this:

Are you saying you don't care or not if we hold ourselves to higher standards than those (or lack thereof, rather) that we see in our enemies?

I want to be very clear if that is what you are saying, because upon first, second, and third reads it appears this is exactly what you are saying.

If so, expect a response with both barrels.

If not, I'll listen to what you ARE saying.

The reply to my query:

Go ahead and blow a gasket, Jack.

If you can look at that little girl's picture over at Dean's World, and still worry about our standards in relation to theirs, when the question involved is mishandling a fucking BOOK, and you still want to blow a gasket, be my guest.

Especially in light of this report:

All the headlines about "Abuse of the Koran at Gitmo" are absolutely accurate. Brig. Gen. Jay Hood's internal investigation has uncovered some shocking incidents. On at least six occasions, Korans were ripped up. They were urinated on three times, and attempts were made to flush them down the toilet at least three other times.

Why aren't millions of Muslims rioting in response to these defilements? Because the perpetrators were prisoners, not guards. As John Hinderaker notes on weeklystandard.com, the most serious desecrations of the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility were committed by the Muslim inmates themselves.

So they rip up, piss on, and attempt to flush their own book, then they want to piss and moan when a couple of incidents involving guards who are supervising TERRORISTS occur?

And in the meantime, they're blowing up children and flying planes into buildings.

No, I don't care about Koran "desecration". Not one damn bit.

From my reading (and Joe is free to correct me if my reading is wrong), because a few self-proclaimed Muslims have chosen to desecrate their own holy book, and because a few self-proclaimed Muslims have chosen to commit atrocities, we should feel free to act however we please towards that which is held sacred by millions of other Muslims who have not committed these acts?

This is coming from a man who appears to equate desecration of the American flag, which by NO MEANS WHATSOEVER is regarded as a religious symbol, to desecration of the Qur'an?

This is coming from a man who posted a link from Donald Sensing where it is explained how the Qur'an is the literal word of God to Muslims?

This is coming from a man who speaks out for the honor of our armed forces upon every occasion on which they are impinged?

I am sorry, Joe, but your statement of:

So they rip up, piss on, and attempt to flush their own book, then they want to piss and moan when a couple of incidents involving guards who are supervising TERRORISTS occur?

And in the meantime, they're blowing up children and flying planes into buildings.

No, I don't care about Koran "desecration". Not one damn bit.

speaks of a moral relativism that I see decried repeatedly by those on the right-wing, and is completely opposite of my concept of honor.

It does not matter how others react to these actions.

We must behave honorably regardless of how those in our custody behave, including respecting the religion held in deep faith by millions who do NOT behave as those in custody do.

Otherwise, why should they not hate us, for if we are to take the acts of individuals as condemning the entire society, then our actions at Abu Ghirab are more than enough to condemn the entire West according to the eyes of Muslims...

According to those millions of devout, non-offending Muslims the Qur'an itself and any printed versions of it are the literal Word of God...

...and you say it is OK to piss on it because a few bad actors in our custody do so.

Is that the zero-sum game you want to play?

Is a "tit for tat" mentality truly your idea of behaving honorably?

I cannot believe that it is, Joe, and I can only hope that you were speaking out of anger, for if that truly your method of thinking, then we are not the brothers I thought we were.

I may strive to be a moderate, and I may endeavor to be a centrist, but in matters of honor, I readily admit to being an extremist.

We MUST behave honorably regardless of how dishonorably our foes may act.

In this case, I am an extremist, and if we diverge on this, I truly regret it, for this is a matter upon which I will not budge.


UPDATE: Joe has responded on his own blog, and I recommend you read his response in full.

My reply in the comments to his response:

So you say it is OK to desecrate the Qur'an because a few people who call themselves Muslim desecrate it?

That is the gist of your post here and the one I linked to.

Therefore, it is OK to say that *all Christians* are evil based upon the acts of a few who call themselves "Christian".

Therefore, it is OK to say the *entire* US Army are torturers based upon the acts of a few who have been convicted in Courts Martial.

THIS is the stance you are defending.

No straw men here, none other than the ones YOU YOURSELF are presenting.

So, defend away the actions of the US Army and the Christians since you are so ready to condemn *ALL Muslims* and accept desecrations of what THEY hold holy based upon the acts of a few, but use the SAME standards as you do for the Muslims, otherwise, you can draw your own conclusions regarding YOUR honor and honesty...

Otherwise, your condemnations of desecrations of the American flag ring rather hollow...

I normally try my best to find a middle ground, but in this case, I cannot because it involves what I see to be the honor of my country.

The honor of my country does not allow for accounting of how badly our enemies behave, otherwise using any standard of equal behavior we would be beheading those in Guantanamo by now.

We must BE better than those who oppose us.

A short addendum to "What is a moderate?"

I recently wrote "What is a moderate?" in an attempt to clarify how being a moderate does not mean being devoid of deeply held principles, but instead being willing to listen and discuss instead of engaging in knee-jerk reactions and dismissing anything and everything that does not fit in with the pre-conceived notions.

I am gratified that "What is a moderate?" generated some discussion on other weblogs, but unfortunately, many seemed to make no distinction between "moderate" and "centrist". I did not address this difference because I felt it was obvious; apparently this view is not shared.

A "moderate" is not a "centrist", although a centrist can be a moderate, just as a centrist can be an ideologue, although this species of political animal is vanishingly rare.

The fundamental point that needs to be made is this:

A moderate can be of any political stripe or agglomeration of beliefs. The defining characteristic of a moderate is a willingness to acknowledge that beliefs other than those held by the moderate cannot and should not be dismissed out of hand.

Additional discussion is needed on the distinction between centrist and moderate, and I hope to post more on this topic in the next day or so.

What is a moderate?

Moderates are in the unenviable position of having rocks thrown at them by ideologues and extremists from both sides of the political spectrum, but there are far more moderates than are realized.

In fact, most are moderates without knowing they merit this designation, and they are in danger of allowing the ideologues and extremists to define moderation into an evil.

What do I mean?

First, who am I calling ideologues and extremists?

According to dictionary.com:

ideologue: noun - An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.

That definition is inadequate in our current political climate. My personal definition is this:

An ideologue is someone who advocates a particular ideology and defends that ideology beyond all reason, up to and including excusing the hypocrisies and crimes of their fellow-travelers, the very same hypocrisies and crimes they condemn in any and all who do not follow their beliefs.

In alignment with that definition, an extremist is merely an ideologue whose views and beliefs are so removed from the mainstream of the right-wing or the left-wing that their influence is solely due to their vehemence rather than any positive outcomes that would result from implementation of their agenda.

Next, let me list what a moderate is not, at the very least to counter the accusations of the ideologues and extremists who use negative connotations perhaps to make their own outrageous positions and inflexibility more palatable.

A moderate is not someone without deeply felt and held principles.

A moderate does not always compromise at the expense of principles.

A moderate is not "squishy" or unwilling to defend their principles.

A moderate does not believe they hold the sole truth or the only "proper" way to think about the world.

Now, to the heart of the matter, what is a moderate?

A moderate does have deeply felt and held principles.

A moderate will defend those principles if they are attacked.

A moderate recognizes that there are other beliefs and opinions and indeed, deeply felt and held principles, and is willing to listen to those advocating other beliefs and principles and weigh them against his own beliefs and principles and acknowledge when his come up short.

A moderate understands that if a diverse population is to live together (and even the population of the early United States was diverse, there were more loyalists than the hagiographic histories we are taught as children acknowledge), then listening, open and honest discussion, and compromise are not only necessary, they are the only path to avoiding the mutual murder that is so easily advocated by extremists, as has been illustrated with indisputable clarity in the Balkans and Rawanda, just to name two of the most egregious examples of the past two decades.

In other words, strongly held views are not an obstacle to being a moderate, not if the fact that other views may also have merit is acknowledged and those views are considered and discussed.

So, in essence, those who refuse to have knee-jerk reactions to every development but are willing to put in the effort and skull-sweat necessary to think about how events fit into their world-view, and how their world-view might actually need to change based upon events and what they learn as they go through life, those are moderates.

The ideologues and extremists are the ones who excuse crimes and advocate actions that lead to atrocities.

There are many who claim to think their positions through and evaluate opposing views; however many of those claims are proven spurious when crunch time comes.

There are some who claim to be absolute conservatives or liberals who do recognize that other, equally legitimate views exist that are not in perfect alignment with theirs, and they do not call for the destruction of those others. These are the ones I believe are true moderates, even if they themselves do not think so.

And you, are you an ideologue or a moderate?

Answer carefully, because the only one you will be lying to is yourself if you do not answer honestly.

Irony arising because the world is turned upside-down

The thesis posited here, "Liberalism is not a death wish", highlights exactly the issues we should be discussing, and the solutions we should be debating.

I disagree with the thrust of the paper extensively quoted, because upon first reading it seems to put far too much trust in the benevolence of government.

That is the irony today, conservatives in the United States, who once mistrusted government to an almost pathological extent, now advocate laws, restrictions, and regulations that place an immense amount of responsibility upon government that if abused, which is a probability rather than a possibility in light of past behaviors shown by governments throughout history in a host of infamous egregious acts, could create the most repressive system yet known in the tragic narrative of civilization.

"Conservatism" in the United States in this respect is coming to resemble the far-right brand of "conservatism" in Europe, which would be much to the horror of those US conservatives if they but realized it.

I need to consider further the full implications before writing more on this topic, but I still strongly believe what Benjamin Franklin said two centuries ago holds true even today:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

A fundamental question: How do we protect free speech while avoiding a dictatorship of wealth?

The consequences of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law are coming home to roost, notably in potential Federal Election Commission regulations on weblogs that write in support of candidates.

Our Constitution is founded upon the principle that "all men are created equal" and that any political speech should not be regulated or restricted by the government.

It is undeniable, however, that those with a great deal of money to call upon have a distorting influence upon both elections and in setting the agenda not only for discussion in the media, but in the end what is discussed and voted upon in Congress.

The fundamental dilemma: How do we protect the right of freedom of speech while avoiding a dictatorship of wealth?

In other words, how do we not suffer the fate described in a different context in the last lines of the George Orwell book Animal Farm:

All animals are equal But some animals are more equal than others...

I can only hope we find answers that do us credit, for the solutions we impose will affect our nation, and our heirs, for good or for ill, for a long time.