An Open Letter To My Fellow Citizens of The United States of America:
(cross posted from (Parenthetically Speaking) because I thought the content appropriate for SEB)
I am sick of the endless debates about the fucking flag. I’m sick of the ribbons and banners. The parades. The fucking holidays. I’m sick of wars that, as Wes Mendell so elegantly pointed out, have their own theme music and logos. I’m sick of politicians who wrap themselves in the red, white and blue, setting themselves up so that any criticism of them or their ideas is a criticism of America itself.
You’re being fucked up the ass with the giant dick of patriotism and all you can say is, “harder, harder.” It’s a distraction, that’s all it is. Magicians call it misdirection. Hey, look over there, so you won’t notice what we’re doing over here.
You think you live in a free country? Bullshit. They’ve been systematically taking away your freedoms for a hundred years and most of you haven’t even noticed. It’s not new and it’s not partisan. It’s all about power.
Take a look at the Constitution. All those rights that you were guaranteed? How many do you think you still have?
The first amendment covers your right to free speech. Take a look, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The very existence of the FCC blows that one out of the water. Seems somebody decided that if it’s broadcast, it’s not covered. Ask George Carlin, he’ll tell you.
And your freedom of religion? Doesn’t apply if you don’t have one, or your religion doesn’t include a supreme being. At least that’s the case in seven states, where someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of god is prohibited from holding office.
Want to assemble peacefully? You might need a permit for that. Depends on the situation and the law that covers it, even though any law covering such assembly is, well, fucking unconstitutional.
How about the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms? Would you like to try counting the number of laws that infringe on that one?
The fourth amendment says this, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Patriot Act took care of that one. For our safety. I refer you to the words of Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
Do you still think you’re free?
In a free society, you’d have the right to put anything into your body that you chose. Drug laws make that impossible.
You’d have the right to end your own life at the time of your choosing. Sorry, against the law.
Want someone other than the government and corporations to fuck you up the ass? Forget it, sodomy is illegal in 24 states.
And can anyone give me any reasonable justification for the laws against prostitution? As Carlin said, “Selling is legal, fucking is legal, why isn’t selling fucking legal?”
Land of the free my ass.
These laws and many others exist for one reason, to control us. To make us into good little sheep while the powerful live their lives of privilege, content in the knowledge that all it takes to keep us bent over is a little flag waving and a couple verses of the fucking national anthem.
It won’t change. You’ll keep voting for them, supporting them, gladly giving up your freedoms for a little more peace of mind. So when they take away your smokes, your red meat, your candy, don’t worry about it, it’s for your own good.
And when they start banning your games because they’re too violent for your children, well, that’s okay too. After all, we have to think about the children.
Any other freedoms you can live without? Speak up. I’m sure they’re listening……
About the Author: KPatrickGlover
I write things.
KPG,
I agree that the Patriot Act has restricted some rights. Whether it has done so constitutionally or unconstitutionally is contested and has been taken up in the courts. The court has yet to rule on most of the provisions. That said, the Court is arbiter of what is and what is not constitutional. Until it does, I think your unconstitutional claim is an educated opinion rather than a statement of fact.
My main issue had to do with the statement comparing the rights to 100 years ago. Having said that, I think that may have miscommunicated your position in the first post. When you say that there are laws that take away our rights, I am contrasting that with the unlawful behavior of the cop. Both are attempts to violate rights. Yet, as you indicated, it is your belief that neither restricts the right granted to us because the right is constant, never changing, and always existing. I don’t see the distinction. Both are just attempts to violate our rights at different levels, but as you indicated you didn’t want to discuss the value of one right versus the other.
The only way I see to translate that is to take it that what you really mean is that you believe our rights are more impinged upon today because there are more attempts to violate them than 100 years ago. I’m not sure if you believe this on a federal level or at all levels. Furthermore, I’m in no position to claim knowledge about the number of attempts to violate our rights, how to count them (proportionally or by sheer number, at federal or federal and state and local, etc.). As it stands with respect to that statement, I lack the requisite knowledge to take issue with it.
Unless you think of the level of which your rights were infringed upon, which courts have to do on a regular basis.
Also, who deserves greater compensation, somebody who’s been locked up for 20 years due to prosecutors suppressing evidence at his trial, or somebody who spends a few hours in a lock-up on a bullshit disorderly conduct arrest? Your black/white perspective may say, “both their rights were infringed upon, end of story,” but realistically, the courts will set damages according to the level and type of infringement.
Alright, having more carefully examined this highly entertaining (and illuminating) thread, it is evident that a score of nuances, previously ignored by yours truly, have asserted themselves left and right. KPG wins the argument apropos First Amendment issues hands down, but Benior’s subsequent posts (not to mention a select few points from our friend Consi) have raised some very pertinant and very real questions concerning the legitimacy of some of KPG’s claims. For example, I can’t say I fully agree with the following cut-and-dried statement:
Of course, it would be wonderful if this were the case. I believe in absolute freedom as much as anyone else who values liberty and equality. But we’re not talking Shangri-La here. Mississippians are quite free compared to residents of 1996-2001 Kabul, but neither group is as free (in a civil libertarian sense) as those living in San Francisco or Amsterdam.
Granted the full meaning of the 1st amendment is still soaking in for some people (and for the FCC) but the Comstock laws suggest freedom of speech has always been a problem.
To seriously say the Patriot Act is not unconstitutional is absurd. Consi, you don’t need the courts to tell you if you are free or not. You live in Fucking USA. As long as you are a citizen then are by that nature free. The Patriot Act clearly infringes on our rights due to the Gov’s ability to now search without a warrant and to look at our library records, and it goes on and on.
If you need the courts to tell you the above makes you less free than something is wrong. A Gov should fear it’s people…
I agree with Webs here, if only to the extent that, if the arbiters of what is constitutional is the Court, then:
-if what is constitutional is reliant upon freedoms, then the court is redefining what the word freedom means with each amendment to the constitution.
-if what is constitutional is not reliant upon freedoms, then that amendments are made they may be made without respect to freedoms.
To either extent, the degree to which an individual is subject to infringements of their person versus a previous ruling is essentially what KPG is getting at.
That was just gnarly. Spicoli has nothing on your bitching legal analysis dude. Seriously.
Ding! Ding! Ding! The only freedom that one has in the United States are those granted to its people by the people. By the people (vis a vis their representatives in our republican form of government) being the key phrase. The people are free to change those rights and/or responsibilities contained in the Constitution at any time.
When was the last time the secret service interviewed your parents ?
As a composite nation, America is less about hyper-nationalism verging on fascism than it is about a society championing a set of ideals/world-view. The founding-theory of our federal government is that CityOnTheHill, that set of ideals—ultimately understood as a progressive interpretation of Truth. But, sometimes that seed of Progressiveness can become a rancid prism thru which we view this bold societal experiment.
The oil of American society is: our condition can always get better with enough effort and fair-play. The American view of the future has always been, by and large, a positive vision of the future. It greases our economic and civil expansion at a hugely impressive rate when compared to others in history. But that asset can, on occasion, become a rancid oil, best not eaten.
America has never claimed to be perfect, just dedicated towards trying. Our nation’s history is rife with many (some say too numerous to count) infringements on our Core Ideals (i.e., “American Freedoms”). But, i think we can all agree that in the scope of, say, 1850-2007 there has been a *much* greater expansion of those Freedoms than not.
America sometimes struggles to explain that “Things Can Always Get Better” mind-set, even between generations, but it is what makes this nation wholly unique and, as an idea, the best manifestation of what we understand to be good governance saddled with such an expansive and diverse people whose demographics have *always* been in flux.
America is currently struggling to meet the demands of its historic mind-set in the face of a new contrary ideology (Radical Islam), but so long as the original post’s author is allowed to ague and mobilize and organize and help others to do likewise, then all is right and progressing.
rob@egoz.org
Rob, in but a few paragraphs you’ve captured my feelings about my country wholly and completely. Thank you.
Lot of good information concerning law. So any idea’s on how to fix this mess?
Register, vote, become a candidate for local political office, etc. Of course, that opens you to the temptations of corruption, et al. Did anyone think this would be easy???
Ah, if only it were that easy. I’ve registered. I’ve voted. Things just don’t seem to be turning out the way I have wanted them to turn out – and I do pay attention to the candidates for which I vote. As for becoming a candidate, some of us have just had a little too much fun in our lives, and besides, far too great a portion of American citizens can’t get over themselves long enough to vote for those who would/could actually do some good. They want the guy whose hand looks best on that there Bible.
Personally speaking (as an non-american):
I think a significant part of the problem has always been your belief in american exceptionalism.
Goverments/states/societies have always been evil fucks – the issue is you guys fell for it.
I’m not denying tom paine, franklin etc. believed what they said, but I do think any kind of society, government etc will be subverted by elites.
I (personally) find it amusing that a country that was set up to avoid religious persecution should now be attempting to set up a de-facto religion (white protestant christianity), even though that is both against your constitution and the raison-de-etre of your country.
As a cynical brit, I trust my goverment as far as I can throw them – unforunately the alternative are worse.
I’m with ya, JTFM, except for that part. Right now we’re being subverted by C-student types, not by elites.
Are you claiming that our Generous Master may not be elite?
He’s an elite nincompoop, I’ll say that about him
It says a lot about USian Kultcha that it’s the current tyranny of ‘tards hoi polloi feel most comfortable with.
I reminded someone recently that the planet is ruled by the representatives of 50 million people who voted for The Coward POTUS … twice … and 6 billion people didn’t get a chance to vote for the fucker who affects their lives like no other one person.
Boy, you got that right. Time magazine listed their “influential people” and included Rosie O’Donnell but left out GWB. Rather poor signal-to-noise ratio in the connection to reality.
That can’t be right. Where’s your evidence?
Oh. *gulp*
“The Constitution in Crisis: The State of Civil Liberties in America.”
While some (if not most) of the parts about essential freedoms being taken away are true…
“…Seven states that you cannot hold office unless you believe in God” – well, I say cry.
The Constitution was originally founded on the religion of this country, as well as the intention that the people’s rights be clear, observed, protected.
It’s not entirely that way anymore, but you’re talking about how the constitution was warped; how Americans simply “wrap themselves in the flag” and make every insult directed at them or their beliefs an insult towards America. But the point stands; the original religion here was Catholicism/Christianity. To bitch and whine because you used one of the core freedoms of the US – freedom of religion – you’re not in Iraq, getting beaten down and tortured for not believing in Allah, you’re not over in India getting the shit kicked out of you for accidentally bumping into a statue of Ginish – no, you’re making your thoughts, your feelings on it public – with little to no risk of reprisal from anyone. Even as much flag-bashing as you do in this article, and you still speak your mind; you weren’t picked up by SS or have your door busted down because of the “Patriot Act” – even if the P.A. itself *is* highly unpatriotic in the original spirit of this country. Just keep in mind that if you were somewhere else, this same amount of expression – Hell, the Internet (China for example) in some places just doesn’t exist in the same form or spirit in any way. And while we *are* becoming sheep, it’s because of two types of people – the people who sit back and take it, and you – the people who do nothing but sit back, tear it down, bitch about it, expect *this* *this* and *this* to be done lickety-splits because they think it’s “unconstitutional” – well, a lot of people think a lot of things are wrong. But it’s due to this want for control and want for power, this want for…omnipotence, almost, that seems to be corrupting the American society, the “good old-fashioned values” of the U.S., causing corrupt-ass people to twist the constitution to their will.
No, it was founded on the idea that human beings deserve some bottom line, or are entitled to at least some set of things. The constitution was the framework for enforcing that. So when you say:
… are a part of the problem, then it becomes clear to me that you are a part of those people who would encourage:
… because what you really want us to do is
and not
. Well, I’m here to tell you what you should already know: We bitch and complain because we can, because if we don’t make our opinions known, we can’t assemble communities of common interest who fight for what we want. It is not enough to know that
because we agreed on a set of basic rights of American citizens when we founded this country.
There’s another quote from a friend of mine who sums it up nicely:
Before Rummy and Shrub threw all the pieces in the air, Iraq was, comparatively, one of the most religeous tolerant countries in the middle east, far freer that Bush’s chums in Saudi. Tariq Aziz is Christian, he changed his name to fit in better, but didn’t convert. Baghdad had a synogogue. Bin Laden hated Saddam for his secularlism.
The religeous loonies are now there because Rummy ignored day+1 in his planning, against the advise of US and British generals, and the attempts of Bush’s few allies to get some semblance of post conquest policy from him.
Interesting viewpoint on this one, guys.
I’m not saying we should sit back and take anything. And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t bitch and complain – after all, complaining is one of the driving forces of change.
All I’m saying is that the constitution was founded on some clear, basic principles that shouldn’t be infringed upon – by anyone. I believe that the constitution should not be as open to interpretation and change as it is – or at least, have some sort of (efficient) system of cross-checking for it, to help preserve the original intent and spirit of it.
George Washington would be rolling in his grave nowadays, is all I’m saying.
OK, what exact parts are you bothered about being interpreted? You do know that that cross-checking you mention is actually part of the checks and balances of the three branch government right? Congress makes laws, the Courts determine the constitutionality of those laws, and the Executive enforces the laws.
The ability to amend the Constitution is built in, so I’m not entirely sure what additions you might be taking issue with, but my curiosity is piqued. Especially when you say it should not be interpreted, but we should preserve the original intent and spirit of the document (which does require some interpretation as parts of it are not as straightforward as maybe they should be).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyN2jhWjeVw
I suppose what really bothers me is the twisting of the interpretation of the Constitution by the “elitist” people mentioned several times throughout these comments.
I do know about checks and balances, yes. However, any system is flawed when there’s CICO – Crap In, Crap Out. Corrupt people, power-hungry people are everywhere, searching for more power, more control – this is the very reason for the corruption of the Constitution.
I just feel that the changing of the very basis of the Constitution (for example, gay marriage) is inherently wrong. If something NEEDS to be changed, due to a necessity of the people, then so be it. But who is to really decide, anyway? The people in power, the people most likely to be corrupted…
As it was once said by a famous author, George Orwell I believe, “Power corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.”
I’m not for the “man”, and I’m not for the “anarchist” – I’m for what’s right. Perhaps my views are convoulted, conflicted even – and perhaps I don’t really know 100% what I’m talking about. But hey. That’s life, I guess.