From a moral standpoint. We ALL advocate and vote for candidates who will employ strategies that will cause the deaths of thousands. If not Iraq then in Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever. Terrorists often argue-and I agree-that each American taxpayer is de facto culpable for the actions of our government. Terror can be a righteous act. Few other methods are available to the militarily weak when opposing the mighty. War is no more of a legitimate exercise than terror. Hence is a civil war-a cultural war-fought outside the rules of law immoral? Should the pursuit of justice be bounded by the artificial constraints of democratic action? What if the majority design the benefit of legality to harm an oppressed minority? Many leftists (Iceman, Zhivodka) believe Bill Ayers had a legitimate right to use violence in opposition to the Vietnam War. Is their belief set correct? If not how does one create meaningful change within an unenlightened society? Some would say love it or leave it. Did Lincoln allow the South to just "leave?" Should the rebellious be forced to live as refugees? Is secession not a God given right granted to a sub-set minority?
Historically, we can see that one of the oversights of the Constitution was not providing for a method of secession, or alternatively, spelling out explicitly that once a state joined the union, secession would be impossible. You need only look at an electoral map to see the absurdity of our current situation. Half Obama's electoral votes, give or take, come from four states. There is something profoundly dysfunctional about 90% of the country being governed by urban dwellers in the northeast, upper midwest and west coast who share little in the way of values with the rest of the country. We need to have a serious national conversation about either revising the way we elect our government or breaking up the country. Would it be a tragedy if California, Oregon and Washington became a separate country? Would our lives change for the worse if the northeast and new england became one or two separate countries? Wouldn't Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota be better served as an independent country or as part of canada? Wouldn't we be better off if we broke up along these lines and retained a loose confederation similar to the EU? There could be shared national defense, freedom of movement and close cooperation on issues like health, food safety, criminal justice and transportation. We have strayed so far off course from what the Founders envisioned that such a proposal should not be considered subversive. It may be the only way to preserve their vision.
I understand your meaning pabst, but the fact is no one is being oppressed. At least to the point where they would care enough to even vote in a different way to stop it, let alone start a war and die for it. As long as the majority of Americans get their football, mediocre cars, mediocre salaries, and get to go to the movies on the weekend no one really cares THAT much beyond anything else. The vast majority of Americans are happy as a clam whether they should be or not.
I'm heartened that one of the people whose opinions I most respect (not just on ET but ANYWHERE) understands the emerging reality. It's fiscal too AAA. Why should California need to beg the Federal government for pennies when their quasi-socialist state sends DOLLARS to D.C. In a new age of entire NATIONS teetering on bankruptcy, i.e. Iceland-when the Treasury meltdown finally occurs-what is left to keep the culturally disparate pieces of America together?
Complacency is about to be rocked Jon. Rape and murder are just one under subscribed Treasury auction away....
Hmm. Why do you think so? Most Americans don't care enough to even vote...you talking about a drastic change in a very short time. How could it happen?
I would add to these truths the number of people, and I know a few, that don't really believe what happens in DC will effect them. Of course, that may be changing now that their retirement funds are vanishing.
For the longest time I've laughed my ass off at those shallow commentators who parrot, "our grandchildren will be paying the price of our excesses". As if the global credit markets will perpetually allocate capital to nations with gross fiscal imbalances. Hell Argentina has "failed" a couple of times with less outstanding debt than our weekly T-Bill auction. Boom to bust comes at lightning speed. One day you're the Great Satan the next day walls are tumbling down and states splintering off in every direction. A balloon without additional air being pumped in slowly deflates. The balloon we keep blowing suddendly bursts. In a millisecond the minutes of tedious inflating are reversed leaving shattered nothing. Barrack Obama will be our next President with a solid Democrat Congress. Last night did he even hint to the imperative need for dramatic cuts to our reliance on Federal spending? We May NOT HAVE TIME for a "scalpel." This isn't going to be delicate, elective surgery. This is going to be an EMERGENCY procedure. As a society/nation we're an overweight, smoking, out of shape corpse in waiting. The country boys though will survive....
Well maybe he's a war monger like you say, then we will just go to war in Pakistan like you said, and then we will be drafted like you said then the economy will be fine. So whats your beef with Obama? He is going to facilitate an economic meltdown or he is going to send us all to war in pakistan? You seem to be saying both are going to happen, but that doesnt seem possible.