Tag: individualism

Suggestion: Watch Dead Poets Society

There are two ways to view anything: collectively and individually. A collective (conventional, traditional) view might keep you from seizing the day and living an extraordinary life!

If you watch, or re-watch, the 1989 movie Dead Poets Society (based on the book by the same name), you will be encouraged to look at things from different perspectives, develop your own understanding of what goes on around you, and seek to live an extraordinary life. Here is the quote that made this movie famous:

“I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way.”

Yes, John Keating, newly-hired literature professor at the traditional Welton Academy for boys, is literally standing on his desk when he delivers the line. And he does not stop there, but tells his students to stand on their desks.

A word of caution: This movie is not for the very young or for the emotionally vulnerable, both of whom benefit from quiet guidance.

There are two ways to view things.

There is the collective view, and there is the individual view. In politics, for example, socialism leans toward collective action, while libertarianism relies on individual conviction. In our choice of school or work or our children’s education, we include how much direction or how much autonomy is available. Some look for collective, directed action. Others don’t.

In poetry, collectivists seek direction in “technique.” In his book The Sacred Wood, T. S. Eliot says,

“Hence, in criticizing poetry, we are right if we begin, with what sensibility and what knowledge of other poetry we possess, with poetry as excellent words in excellent arrangement and excellent metre. That is what is called the technique of verse.”

Romantics like poet John Keats beg to differ. In his letter of February 19, 1818, to his friend J. H. Reynolds, Keats suggests how someone might want to pass the day,

“Let him on a certain day read a certain page of full Poesy or distilled Prose, and let him wander with it, and muse upon it, and reflect from it, and bring home to it, and prophesy upon it, and dream upon it: until it becomes stale—But when will it do so? Never.”

This Just Vote No Blog, whose tag is “Suggestions for Liberty,” stands on the side of considering different perspectives and consequences, and developing individual thoughts and actions.

Of course, how far we lean towards individual actions depends on our innate characteristics (nature) and our upbringing (nurture). But, we can all at least consider it, look into it.

Examples.

Now, how about a couple of examples of folks who could have used some additional perspectives before pontificating.

Dead Poets Society was a fantastic box office success, and received or was nominated for several awards. However, some film critics were unenthusiastic, among them high-profile critic Roger Ebert, who said,

“None of these writers are studied, however, in a spirit that would lend respect to their language; they’re simply plundered for slogans to exort the students toward more personal freedom. At the end of a great teacher’s course in poetry, the students would love poetry; at the end of this teacher’s semester, all they really love is the teacher.”

In that film review, Mr. Ebert advocated for what the movie should have been, not what the movie was. He ignored what could be called the preface of the movie, in which the teacher Mr. Keating instructs his class to dismiss the conventional focus on meter and verse on the introductory page of the poetry textbook (he actually instructs his students to tear off the page!). Mr. Ebert missed Keating’s conviction that poetry should be felt, absorbed as a transforming potion, not studied like multiplication tables.

At the end, the boys in the class clearly see a different perspective to Walton Academy’s decision to fire Mr. Keating, and show their break with collective tradition in no uncertain terms. The assumption should be that those boys have taken to heart Mr. Keating’s urging to find their own voices and make their lives extraordinary.

For fun, search something like “What is the likely reaction of Gen Z to the movie Dead Poets Society.”

Results will mainly show that Generation Z feels frustration with the fact that nothing happens at the end of the movie, Walton Academy’s spirit of conventional elitism remains unchanged. And will show Gen Z’s discomfort with the movie’s dark turn of events toward the end.

A different perspective: An opinion piece from a parent and member of Generation X who convinced her teen and young adult kids to watch Dead Poets Society offers good insights into the difference between Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) and Generation Z (born between 1997 and 2010).

“Gen Z sees inspiring change through a systemic lens, not an individual one: The first thing my 20-year-old said when the credits rolled was, “What? That’s terrible! Nothing changed! He got fired and the school is still run by a bunch of stodgy old white men forcing everyone to conform!” My immediate response was, “Yeah, but he changed those boys’ individual lives, didn’t he? He helped broaden their minds and see the world differently.”

Self transformation comes before societal change.

This quote illustrates Mr. Keating’s call for individual transformation. It has been around for a long time, and comes from folks who changed a whole lot of things!

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…” Romans 12:2

When establishments’ outcasts become leaders

Repeatedly throughout history the risk-taking establishment outcasts do what needs to be done. They often recognize and are instrumental in ending a regime in decay. They often rise to power to start a new cycle in a nation’s history.

It is assumed that any nation would prefer as its leader someone with an impeccable record, free of imperfections.  However, at certain times in history the establishment’s outcast was the one chosen to do what needed to be done.  Reasons vary, but the root cause is constant – the establishment accepted by the dominant power has run its course. 

When the power behind the establishment fails to accept its decay and inevitable end, the agent for change is often the extreme risk taker, willing to suffer tribulations including incarceration, or worse.    

If they persist and survive, agents for change often achieve their objective of ending a decayed regime, and in the process, they rise to power.  Their rise and eventual position of leadership simply indicate that a new cycle is starting.  Whether the new cycle is of benefit to the people of a nation depends on the sincerity and ability of the new leader. 

An interesting report dated May 16, 2018, by the news network France 24, From Prison to Power: Leaders who Served Time, gives five examples of individuals who famously went from incarceration to leadership. Of the five, here is, very briefly, the story of the better-known three:

Nelson Mandela founded the paramilitary wing of the African National Congress with the mission to fight against the South African apartheid government.  After 27 years of incarceration, Mandela became in 1994 South Africa’s president in the country’s first multiracial election.  One of his most popular quotes is, “I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.”

Jawaharlal Nehru’s opposition to British colonial rule in India landed him in jail in 1921.  His continued civil disobedience campaigns alongside Mahatma Gandhi cost him nearly a decade of incarceration.  When in 1947 India finally achieved independence, Nehru was elected the country’s first prime minister, a position he held until his death in 1964.  Nehru’s efforts could be summarized in one of his quotes: “The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all.”

Vaclav Havel was a Czech playwright, essayist, and poet.  He was also a dissident.  During the 1970s and 1980s Havel was arrested several times by the ruling Soviet regime and spent four years in prison.  But December 29, 1989, saw the peaceful overthrow of communist rule. Vaclav Havel was democratically elected president.  The Czech transition to democratic rule was achieved non-violently – the “otherwise” of what Havel once said: “Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can’t be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by the use of force.”

Regimes, like people, become sclerotic.  As time passes, regimes grow increasingly inflexible and unresponsive.  They become wedded to ideologies that might no longer fit time and place.  At some point, the regime simply collapses, as did the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War; or suffers a violent demise, as did the French monarchy during the reign of Louis XVI. 

Agents of change, like the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev or the French Revolution’s Maximilien Robespierre play major roles in ending a regime that is in an untenable level of decay.  Like Mandela, Nehru and Havel, agents often rise to power to start a new cycle.

For clarification, it is useful to note that the organic cycle of regimes from natural birth to natural demise has no relation to forceful takeovers by outside agents.  For example, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire exemplifies a regime’s organic cycle.  Conversely, inorganic takeovers include colonization of other people’s land by European powers starting around the 1500s, or the more socially acceptable “partitioning” of territories as occurred after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, or today’s Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Picture:  Nelson Mandela in Soweto, Johannesburg, South Africa, two days after his release from prison.  Image from In Pictures: 30 years since Nelson Mandela became a free man, AlJazeera, February 11, 2020.

Halloween – Ah, the good old days

Celebrating the good old days at some point in everyone’s life is inevitable – like death and taxes. But, hey, Halloween was once fun. Not only for the little ones lusting after candy from the neighborhood, but also for the candy givers. How many kids came to your door this Halloween?

Do kids come to your door Trick or Treating on Halloween? Do you decorate your porch or window with ghosts and goblins? Or do you even buy Halloween candy? In so many neighborhoods, the answer is “no” these days.

Things have changed from the proverbial good old days.

The good old days. That’s when kids played outside until dark, usually unsupervised. That’s when kids decided on their own whether they were going to jump rope, play hide-and-seek, ride their bikes, or walk to the ice cream shop. Kids in the city cooled off at the fire hydrant, and kids in the suburbs drank from water hoses. And Halloween was time to amass bushels of candy from the neighborhood.

Then things changed.

Today, in some small towns kids still play outside, close to home — maybe they have a basketball hoop, maybe a soccer ball. And come dusk, chances are everybody goes inside.

For Halloween, some neighborhoods have developed supervised Halloween gatherings. Some neighborhoods have patrolled “Treat Trails.” But, the old tradition of kids just deciding on their own how they would roam the neighborhood collecting candy and compliments on their costumes is pretty much gone.

What happened?

Did people get mean or loony all of a sudden? Did government suddenly go berserk making up safety laws? Did the scourge of drugs, ripping up minds and soiling communities, turn our neighborhoods into battlefields. Did the bane of social media force itself upon vulnerable young minds, exchanging reality for mimicry?

Who knows.

Regardless. “Happy Halloween!!” Or should it now be the bromidic “Stay Safe.”

The Rise of “Gender Identity”

In the early days of the gay-rights movement, people fought to gain civil rights. Today, the fight is for social acceptance of a wide spectrum of gender identities. That battle might prove more difficult than the earlier one..

June is Pride Month. Originally, June 28, the anniversary of the Stonewall Inn Rebellion of 1969, commemorated the event that galvanized the gay-rights movement. Since then, civil rights were won, like non-discrimination in the workplace and legalization of same-sex marriage. So the focus of the movement shifted towards full acceptance of the expanding designations represented in LGBTQIA+.

The road to equal protection under the law was steep and difficult. The road to full social acceptance is proving equally steep, judging by the proliferation of state laws intended to limit such acceptance. Pride Month 2023 is witnessing obstacles on several fronts: discussion of sexuality and gender in classrooms, biological males competing in women’s sports, children undergoing gender transitions, the presence of minors in drag shows, the presence of drag queens in classrooms.

To some, the movement has gone a step too far from original intent. The desire to be left alone to be who one wants to be – gay, straight, or anything in between – has turned into desire to impose. Impositions on either side of the conforming/non-conforming divide can turn out badly.

Perhaps a broader historical attitude to what we now call “gender identity” would ease today’s strident rhetoric. Although sometimes there are as many historical accounts of an event as there are people recounting that event, gist is not usually lost. Here is a summary of the Eras of sexual activity.

Mediterranean Classical Era 6th century B.C. – 5th century A.D.

Homosexual relationships were commonplace in the Greek and Roman Empires. But people were not classified as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, transgender. They were just people having varied sexual relations.

An example is the mythical Greek hero Achilles, whose love interests were diverse: Patroclus, Trojan War warrior and comrade of Achilles is portrayed in some stories as his lover. Deidamia, daughter of King Lycomedis of Scyros, enjoyed a love affair with Achilles and bore him children. Briseis, wife of King Mynes of Lyrnessus and one of Achilles’ war prizes, turned out to be the subject of his intense romantic love.

Today, Achilles might be labelled “bisexual.” Seems ancient Greeks felt no need to do so. Achilles’ diverse love life was the rule rather than the exception, especially among the elite and the sundry gods that populated the Greek psyche.

Middle Ages 5th century – 15th century

The Middle Ages also placed attention on sexual acts, rather than on any characteristics of individuals.

The medieval period had no notion equivalent to the modern ideas of homosexuality, of gay men, lesbians or bisexuals. What counted to medieval people was sexual activity, not inclination or sexual identity. Homosexuality in Medieval Europe, World Anvil, undated.

There was relative tolerance for same-sex sexual activity during the Middle Ages, until around the 11th century when non-conforming behavior started to be viewed as serious transgressions – perhaps an influence of the increasingly powerful Church.

However, even well into the 12th century, there is still ambivalence. Evoking past practices, an anonymous poet used two Classical Era darlings to discuss his present. In the poem Ganymede and Helen the two discuss the pros and cons of same-sex vs. opposite-sex relationships. Here is part of a stanza in which Ganymede points to hypocrisy among the supposedly most holy who engage in same-sex activity. For the sake of modesty, part of the last line if left out here,

We know this activity is accounted worthy by those worthy to be counted;
The people with power and position in the world—
The very censors who decide what is sin and what is allowed—
These men are not immune to …

Interestingly, as tolerance waned, gender inversion and cross dressing became popular subjects of theater plays. Here is a comment regarding two of these plays.

In fact, this illusory transsexuality drives home all the more strongly an aspect of gender that both plays present: it is “put on” or assumed and does not necessarily coincide with biological sex…Through a technique of mise en abime, gender is revealed to be a cultural construction, a representation, and ultimately, a performance. Queer Play: The Cultural Work of Crossdressing in Medieval Drama, JStor.org, Spring 1997.

One might ask how does the “put on” transsexuality of Medieval plays compare (or not compare) with today’s drag shows.

The Modern Era 15th century to 20th century

The Modern Era brought the world out of the “Dark Ages” with the printing press, industrial revolution, technology, cultural rebirth in the arts, and re-examinations of science and economics. The Renaissance was a return to Classical values. The Enlightenment was the “age of reason.” But, not much happened to the repressive views of sexuality inherited from the Middle Ages.

Sexual non-conformity was still not a specific subject of deliberation, but simply a part of culture considered at par with other infractions. Labeling or identification (or even the word “homosexual”) as it occurs today did not happen. If any labeling did occur, it was a general category of “pederast,” a word whose origin (paiderastḗs) dates to the ancient Greek traditions of men befriending young boys.

As often happens, most people went about their business immersed in traditional behavior. But there were prominent pockets of non-conformity, especially in the upper classes.

In France, there was the “confrerie,”

Prominent aristocratic figures like Condé and Orléans helped compose the backdrop to a series of scandals involving self-described noble confréries (“fraternities”) dedicated to sodomy. While documentary evidence on these confréries is extremely lacking, and all information about them are derived from outside observers, they appear to represent the existence of a sub-culture defined chiefly by same-sex desire among the court nobility. The Brotherhood : Male Same-Sex Love Among the Early Modern Court Nobility, June 1, 2014.

In England there were famous gentlemen of Victorian times. Two such upper middle-class gents were Ernest Boulton and Frederick Parke, better known as Stella and Fanny. They were sometimes pictured in their gentlemen’s attires and sometimes in beautiful dresses. Harmless enough, although not to some.

At the Bow Street Police Court yesterday, Ernest Boulton, aged 22, of 43, Shirland Road, Paddington, Frederick William Parke, aged 23, of 13, Bruton Street, Berkeley Square, law student, and Hugh Alexander Mundell, aged 23, of 158, Buckingham Palace Road, gentlemen, were charged before Mr. Flowers with frequenting a place of public resort, to wit, the Strand Theatre, with intent to commit felony, the first two named in female attire. Homosexuality in 19th Century England

By today’s standards, to what category would we assign Stella and Fanny?

The Post-Modern Era 1950s +

When did we start labeling people? The consensus seems to be the mid-1960s, with the research of psychologist John William Money.

John Money’s primary interest was research on cultural influences vs. inborn characteristics of sexuality. Believing that discussions on sexuality needed specific descriptive language, he popularized terms such as gender role (what society expects from each gender) and gender identity (the gender in which an individual feels most comfortable).

Money’s interest in cultural and other external forces that shape gender identity led him to research and execution of gender reassignment procedures. Unfortunately, his best chance to prove that gender can be shaped by external intervention ended tragically with his subject’s suicide. Although Money’s work and character became tarnished, he is regarded as a significant contributor to his field, especially the field’s vocabulary.

The vocabulary of sexual orientation, gender identify, and biology continued to expand after Dr. Money started the ball rolling. Expansion can be measured by additional letters on the original LG acronym. What was once LG (lesbian/gay), expanded to LGB (bisexual), then LGBT (transexual), LGBTQ (queer or questioning), LGBTQI (intersex), LGBTQIA (asexual), and LGBTQIA+ (the “+” is whatever was left out).

Many (sexually conforming and non-conforming) use these designations to describe themselves or others in “forever” terms, like “I am transgender because I was assigned male sex at birth but have always felt like a girl.” Others are better described by “+”, which can include impermanence: gender fluid, non-binary, pansexual, cross-dresser, etc.

Live and Let Live

History says varied sexual activity has been with us since the beginning of recorded time. However, emphasis on orientation and gender rather than activity is relatively new. The focus on what an individual “is” as opposed to what the individual “does” might increase the need to defend oneself, and thereby heighten confrontation.

Some will say confrontation is what brings about civil rights. Others will stand their ground on the view that some things are not rights at all. And the squabble goes on. Maybe time to live and let live – on both sides?

Enjoy Pride Month!

And the Soul Felt its Worth

Like liberty, self worth is God given. You either find it in yourself or, to your detriment, you wait for others to decide to give it to you or not. Merry Christmas!

Seems each year that passes, Christmas is getting less exciting. Christmas 2021 is competing not only with the devastation caused by COVID-19 response, but also with the drumbeat of identity politics. Maybe it is time to dial back. Maybe it is time to regain some “Christmas Spirit.”

Here is one way to do both: Sit back and listen to Leontyne Price sing Oh Holy Night. Better yet, also listen to a Price interview, where she is fun, loving, and oh, so self-assured.

Picture above shows Leontyne Price performing one of her most famous operatic parts, Aida. Picture below shows Price in an interview with Anthony Tommasini, chief classical critic at the New York times.

Oh Holly Night and Leontyne Price seem to fit together well. The song talks about Jesus moving people away from desperation to a feeling of self-worth and new beginnings:

O holy night, the stars are brightly shining,
It is the night of the dear Saviour’s birth;
Long lay the world in sin and error pining,
‘Till he appeared and the soul felt its worth.
A thrill of hope the weary world rejoices,
For yonder breaks a new and glorious morn…

Leontyne Price has absolutely no doubt about her worth as a human being or an accomplished singer. She said:

Accomplishments have no color.

To sing is the most human of the art form delivery, more than, perhaps, an instrument which has to be tuned mechanically. You are the tuner; you are the vessel. Everything depends on how you feel as a person. It is for you to hear how beautiful your instrument is.

In Leontyne Price’s interview with Anthony Tommasini, she talks about her voice range. Her point is you need to know what you want to achieve, visualize the result, and be in complete charge of what you need to do to accomplish what you want. In other words, feel your worth.

Like liberty, self worth is God given. You either find it in yourself or, to your detriment, you wait for others to decide to give it to you or not.

Merry Christmas

Leontyne Price with Anthony Tommasini
Leontyne Price in interview with Anthony Tommasini

This Will Be A Difficult Christmas

This will be a difficult Holiday Season. So many without jobs. So many fearful. Thus, just maybe listening to “Joy to the World” or wishing family and friends (whom we are forbidden to see) a “Merry Christmas” could feel like cognitive dissonance.

This will be a difficult Holiday Season. So many without jobs. So many fearful. Thus, just maybe listening to “Joy to the World” or wishing family and friends (whom we are forbidden to see) a “Merry Christmas” could feel like cognitive dissonance. Just maybe, instead, this could be a good time to remember the challenges Mary and Joseph overcame just prior to Baby Jesus’ birth.

Those were great spiritual and physical challenges, the reminiscence of which could be useful regardless of whether we are celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, the Winter Solstice, or nothing at all.

Spiritual Decisions

We all must struggle with poignant decisions at points in our lives. Accepting momentous obligations qualifies as hugely poignant.

And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus …Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? Luke 1 31-34.

Mary, chaste and betrothed to Joseph, accepted her instructions, although she must have known that if Joseph cast her out, her punishment by law would be death by stoning.

Then Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away quietly … But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared onto him in a dream …

A man of faith as well as compassion, Joseph followed the angel’s command. Not an easy task.

The Long Journey

The physical challenges Mary and Joseph prevailed close to Jesus’ birth might be as useful to remember as their spiritual ones.

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the house and lineage of David) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. Luke 2 1-5

Bethlehem is 80 – 100 miles, depending on the route, from Nazareth. It is rough, mountainous, and at the time dangerous terrain. This map shows the route (green dots on the right) Mary and Joseph would have taken, not a direct route but a safer one. The direct route would have taken them through Samarian land, hostile to Jews.

The Story of the Gift of Christmas. Lux Mundi, December 17, 1917

Strong Souls Forge On

Women heavy with child have traveled the overland trails and refugee caravans. Mary forged through as well – probably on foot, not even on a donkey.

And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. Luke 2:1

As the saying goes “What have you done with what you have been given” The Lord of Lords, the King of Kings, the guy who crystalized the meaning of Christianity was born in a bed of straw.

The Soul Must Feel Its Worth

There is one carol that could help if in these trying times of Covid-19 and mandates your business is failing or your children have not received proper schooling since the beginning of 2020. That is the carol that speaks of the soul feeling its worth. Here is a link to the incredible voice of Leontyne Price singling Oh Holy Night.

4th of July: Hotdogs But No History?

In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the importation of slaves into the colonies as an “abominable crime.” Delegates to the Continental Congress of 1776 removed that language and replaced it with ambiguous reference to “domestic insurrections” so as to ensure support for Independence from the Southern colonies. What would you have done instead?

On Thursday, communities across these United States will celebrate 4th of July with hotdogs and fireworks, but all too often without much understanding of what the Founding Fathers aimed to create when they signed the Declaration of Independence.

Understanding requires objectivity, emotional stability, and perspective – all of which in short supply. Students do not study history objectively, people readily respond to sound bites and catchphrases, and single-minded views take the place of perspective of events. Thus, Thomas Jefferson has descended to the level of a mere slaveholder. Thus, schools call for the removal of statues and murals depicting our nation’s history. Once history is erased, there is no way to learn from it, or avoid repeating horrendous acts such as building an economy based on indentured servitude.

So, what is going on? Are voices calling Jefferson and Washington brigands uncovering ugly truths that need to be told, or do such voices represent another agenda?  Let’s compare what the Founding Fathers aimed to create vs. what today’s politicians want to do.

What the Founding Fathers Wanted

When leaders in the American Colonies decided to break with Great Britain, they were faced not only with a War of Revolution but also with a clean slate upon which to design a new nation. They did not wish another Britain or France, but a nation that embodied the ideals of individual liberty and self government. To do that, they needed to codify the ideas contained in documents that discussed such ideals. For example:  The Magna Carta (1215) spoke of curtailment of a King’s absolute power and of limited government.  In his Second Treatise on Government (1690), John Locke discussed natural rights that everyone is born with and the duty of government to protect those natural rights.

Revolutionaries like Thomas Paine (“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”) and Patrick Henry (“Give me liberty or give me death!”) are best known for the oratory that spread the word about Independence. George Washington led the War of Independence. John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison were the principal architects of the new nation. Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft of the Declaration of Independence. All these and many more placed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to create a republic in which the individual was paramount, and government existed only to protect the natural rights of the people.

What Today’s Politicians Want

With few exceptions politicians today want unlimited government, an obedient populace that does not understand government is their servant not their master, and replacement of natural rights with civil rights.

But the words of those pesky Founding Fathers and that bothersome old U.S. Constitution are in the way. Give such politicians a chance and they will do away with just about every single word in the Constitution. However, since they feel that time has not yet come, best alternative is to crank out rules and laws that keep expanding the reach of government and malign those who called for limited government.

Have a Great 4th of July! Here is a Suggestion:

If you are having a 4th of July get together with family and friends, maybe take a moment to reflect on what you are celebrating.  If you want to frame your call for reflection with a topic du jour, pose the question: If you were a Founding Father creating a new nation out disparate colonies, how would you go about changing the structure of colonies whose economy was based on slave labor?

Would you visualize such an endeavor as challenging for the new Republic?  For example:  In his first draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson condemned the importation of slaves into the colonies as an “abominable crime.” Delegates to the Continental Congress of 1776 removed that language and replaced it with ambiguous reference to “domestic insurrections” so as to ensure support for Independence from the Southern colonies. What would you have done instead?

Do you view individuals even possessing the best intentions to be fallible?  Do you see a comparison between the fallibility of today’s politicians who are unable to remedy tragedies such as homelessness and deaths from drug addiction with the fallibility of yesterday’s politicians who failed to end slavery in a rational and peaceful manner?

Enjoy your Independence Day!

patrick-henry-1775-granger

Loss of Liberty and Who is to Blame

The list of sins we commit against ourselves by far outweigh those committed by government against us. Government robs our liberties by our own consent.

Here is an article worth reading:

The State of the Union: These Are Dangerous Times, and the Government Is To Blame, by John W. Whitehead, published on the Rutherford Institute website on February 4, 2019.

The article is worth reading, especially if you still believe all is well with our nation. Sure, the economy looks good at present, we can still vote for candidates and laws of our choice, we still move relatively freely within our nation and in and out of our nation. However, there are areas of concern. The article in question lists a few of these concerns, such as,

* The tendency to consider all citizens suspect – guilty until proven innocent.

* Invasive strip searches, forceful drawing of blood, intimate probes.

* Militarization of our city police.

* A constitutional right to bear arms that applies to government officials only.

* Spying by government and commerce into private lives of citizens.

* Courts more interested in advancing government’s agenda than seeking justice.

The concerns are serious and the events listed above real. However, is the government to blame, as the title of the article indicates? The subtitle of the website on which the article appears is “It’s our job to make the government play by the rules of the constitution.”

That indeed is the job not only of The Rutherford Institute but of every voter and resident of this nation. If we the people choose to vote for candidates and laws that place security above liberty, we are to blame. If we obediently submit to walking without our shoes on airport floors, we are to blame. If we aid the surveillance state by choosing all manner of “smart” gadgets, we are to blame.

The list of sins we commit against ourselves by far outweigh those committed by government against us.  Government robs our liberties by our own consent.

Democracy - CopyAlexis de Tocqueville signaled how a nation descends into soft despotism in his book Democracy in America.  At the end of the devolution are a childlike populace and a “tutelary” government.

Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild …

Alexis de Tocqueville 1805-1859, Democracy in America

A Government by Tweets and Marches

Candace Owens is the latest conservative rising star. Will her Blexit movement liberate those whom she says are trapped in “the plantation?”

We have a government by Tweets and marches; which is fine, since the right to Tweet and march is absolutely guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It says right there in Amendment I,

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.

Marches have brought about profound changes to our nation. Suffragette marches forced in 1920 the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gave women the right to vote. The Vietnam War protests were instrumental in ending in 1975 the U.S. “quagmire.” Tweets are a principal arena in which the political and cultural battles for the heart and soul of voters take place – the Tweet platform is free, accessible, and effective.

Just Vote No is wondering if any such profound changes will result from this year’s (2019) Tweets and marches. Let’s arbitrarily look at one particular march coming up this month, the Blexit Rally in Los Angeles on January 20.

Change vs. Profound Change

Candace Owens

The leader of the Blexit Rally is Candace Owens, originally a liberal, who morphed into a conservative in 2017. She is currently Communications Director of Turning Point, a student organization established in 2012 to “promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.”

The Blexit announcement says that, “The black community will no longer be patronized; there is no virtue in victimhood and we should no longer buy into the myth that we are somehow separate from the American Dream.”

Blexit, as well as Owens’ current mission, can be viewed on two levels: level 1 – bring voters into the Republican Party, and level 2 – encourage Black Americans to look forwards, not backwards. Level 1 is the kind of party-growing effort practiced by every political party. But level 2 could eventually fall into the category of profound change, change that could lead people to abandon what Owens calls “the plantation.” The plantation is a state of mind, not a physical place.

One important caveat, though, is that the point Just Vote No is making with this article is not Republicans good/Democrats bad. The point is to emphasize the harmful results of any, repeat any, politically-created mantra that aims to indoctrinate rather than enlighten, that aims to restrict thought rather than encourage open discussion, and that aims to keep people trapped in dependence.

The Owens Message

There are many articles on the Internet about Candace Owens. However, the best way to understand her message is to listen to what she has to say first hand. Here are a couple of YouTube links:

In her video blog How to Escape the Democrat Plantation, Owens provided some background information on who were the Klansmen, the segregationists, the ones that set the dogs on the civil rights marchers – their political identities forgotten in favor of remembering forever Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society.

At an American Experiment meeging in Minnesota, Owens discussed the breakup of the American family encouraged by the Great Society and the poor results such event entailed, she mentioned that politics flows from culture not the other way around, and she talked about informed individualism as defense against being trapped into a controlled group or being imbued with a culture of victimhood.

The Liberal Culture

Today, especially in progressive enclaves, culture is dominated by supporters of a Great Society type of world. It all starts with indoctrination in government schools, it continues with the profitable divide-and-conquer drumbeat emanating from the media, and it is perpetrated by legislators at all levels of government who pass laws that curb personal initiative in the name of helping an underclass (the poor) that they themselves helped create.

If Candace Owens succeeds in helping the nation to move away from such a culture, we will all benefit.  However, crucial benefit will come to those who at present find themselves trapped in a politically-created plantation.

Can a Republican win in San Francisco?

John Dennis, a Republican, is running for Supervisor in San Francisco’s Supervisorial District 2.  In case there is anyone out there who does not know that San Francisco is solid Democrat, and even leaning Republican is considered cause for alarm, we are here to remind them.  However, Dennis has not only the backing of the local Republican Party, but also that of Libertarian/libertarians.  As proof of Dennis liberty credentials, we note that members of the San Francisco Libertarian Party (Big L — a real political party) are campaigning for him.  More on Dennis