By the Few, Despite the Many
I hate when these thoughts start bouncing around in my head…
I just listened to a moment of Rush on the radio. His opinion (so I am sure it is shared among many) is that President Obama’s administration purposely leaks information that has to do with the “kill list” and drone strikes in order to make Obama appear stronger and tougher.
If true or not doesn’t matter; what really gets me is the wide gulf that separates me from people who think like Rush. It’s not that I’m “liberal,” it’s that I am sane and believe I can peek at lasting legacies of policies and the logical path of action. A kill list and remote drone strikes does not speak to me of strength and a popularity ploy; it is resonate of the very scary country in which we are beginning to live in.
I will elaborate.
How many wars are we currently involved in? That number varies officially, but dramatically increases when you consider the vernacular of politicians and pundits. We are not only at war in Afghanistan, etc., but there is also a “war” on drugs; a war on women; a war on coal; a war on oil; a war on religion; etc. Never has there been a time that Orwell’s perpetual war is more true - just maybe not in the way that many interpreted.
Now, consider, Obama’s administration has authorized the use of drones to take highly sought after targets out. THIS HAS INCLUDED THE DEATH BY DRONE OF U.S. CITIZENS. Now, there is little doubt that Anwar al-Awlaki & Co. were bad dudes, but they were still U.S. citizens and is entitled to due process.
Except that the Obama administration and DOJ has stated any U.S. citizen “at war” with the United States forfeits due process. Now re-read two paragraphs above this.
We are on a precipice that threatens freedom of action and thought in our country. We are re-defining war to include domestic issues and killing by drone those “at war” with the U.S.. When will the drones be used domestically (for other than spying which is a current use) to target U.S. citizens “at war” with the U.S.? And how broad will our definition of “war” expand?
Our government is attempting to strip away the 4th amendment of reasonable privacy by preemptively gutting cyber laws which will allow for multi-layered spying on United States citizens. Soon is will be nearly impossible to not fall under the scope of one of the U.S. domestic spying programs: drones, FISA, Pat Act, CISPA (if allowed to pass), NSLs, etc. Once you trigger one, baby, you are going to be in the system and there will be terabytes of information archived on you - guilty of anything or not.
Now I ask you… imagine The Crown with this ability and technology in the mid 1700s. Imagine those criminals in ideological “war” with England. Criminals like Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams. Those domestic terrorists all waging “war” on the country.
Our government is supposed to be “by the people, for the people.” Things are changing to government being by the few, despite the many.
Disband the Fourth Estate. It’s Useless.
The Theory of Relativity of Life
I read many books on physics and the cosmos and the like. I’m not good at calculations and the mathematical principles of physics, but I have a pretty decent mind for abstract concepts, so pulp physics books like A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME, HYPERSPACE, THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE, etc., are perfect for me.
It dawned on my just recently (I am sorry if this does not seem profound), that Relativity applies to more than just explaining the cosmos or quantum particle interaction; it also gives us the blueprint to understanding each other.
If the results of time passage and light observance are relative to position, movement, and perspective of the observer; and if multiple observers based on their position, movement, and perspective can each verify results of an event with a different answer (an object’s movement in time through space); then the solution, as has been established, is that all observers are correct from their perspective in relative terms.
So goes day-to-day life, right?
Politics for example: A person’s strong belief is developed by his position relative to the issue. Another person might have a just as strong but different belief derived from her position to the issue. Both beliefs may be equally valid, the difference only being the perspective of the individuals.
Would it not, then, be of paramount importance for us, as society, to stop trying to invalidate the equally correct solution (in many cases) of others?
I think where we swing and miss as a people is that we do not argue the strength of a position dear to us, but immediately dismiss and try to disprove the opposing position.
If an opposing position cannot be “defeated,” that is where, politicly, junk science, lobby groups, misinformation, media wars, and other wholly inadequate processes step in and, more or less, try to disprove relativity; or rather attempt to prove one perspective wrong.
And that is why politics do not make a lick of sense. We’ve stopped working on a unification theory and instead spend billions through various outlets trying to change universal truths. Then, in frustration of being unable to do so, become less and less inclined to recognize the perspective of another as valid in anyway.