-Of what avail will be a prosperous state of commerce, when the produce of it will be at the absolute disposal of an arbitrary and unchecked government, who may levy at pleasure the most oppressive taxes; who may destroy every principle of freedom; who may even destroy the privilege of complaining.
Thomas Paine, letter to the people of Pennsylvania 11/30/1787.
I received this quote this morning while I was going over the myriad of political events that occurred the evening of 6/10. My friend Ted sent it along to me as, like I, he sees how profound a statement it really is and how easily it can be applied to today’s political climate, on all levels.
Any person with even the most basic of logic skills can see the correlation to Mr. Paine’s Observation and the results of Tuesday night’s elections as well as, the State and Federal political situation.
Look closely to the Bond that was voted in statewide and ask at what cost do we create this Prosperous state of commerce? I fully understand the need to have good roads and bridges, but do we not collect enough revenue from the taxpayers of Maine to support the maintenance of said items?
The answer is yes, but because the Legislature has pilfered the highway fund recklessly and has misspent your tax dollars on other projects we now are told that we need to borrow millions of dollars to maintain the basics. This Bond will force the legislature to impose even more taxes and fees, as a bond is a loan, a loan that bears interest and must needs be repaid. Debt is a funny thing eh?
We have already witnessed “an arbitrary and unchecked government” in the 123rd Legislature’s handling of LD2477, the Dirigo funding scheme that we are all going to suffer many years into the future. Our “Representatives” chose to ignore an insurance reform bill that would have cut costs for insurance across the board, and chose to levy at pleasure the most oppressive taxes. This act in of itself, though egregious, is not enough to shout out the axiom “Taxation without Representation” but it comes damn well close, for the people are now left with but the hopes of a petition to get a referendum on the ballot. Those in the State House who decided to tax their constituents, who are already under a terrible burden as is, did not and do not represent their people. No, this one act does not allow us to call it out, but how many more have gone before it of the same character?
One may argue that our institutions are guaranteed by the principle of checks and balances, and they would not be totally incorrect. However, when the only recourse we as citizens have left at our disposal to protect our rights, traditions, and yes money is to vote out the very same person who swore to defend and uphold our needs, I say such a situation calls into question what balance there is in our Government as a whole.
Lastly, we must look to the concept of dissent and how it is handled and perceived today. A fine example for such a discussion is the Obama campaign. I use this only because it is one of greatest practitioners of the tactics in dealing with dissent and opposing views. If you take but a moment and look locally, perhaps a town meeting, or planning board, you will more than likely see the same.
“Who may destroy every principle of freedom; who may even destroy the privilege of complaining”
The first Amendment of the Constitution guarantees our right to free speech, so long as it does not promote armed rebellion or uprising against the State or Federal Government. To dissent is as natural to Americans as is breathing, eating and being human. There have been in the past, abridgements to this most fundamental of rights passed through the Supreme Court and the Congress, but they are usually overturned by the people. For the most part though, our government shies away from questions on the First Amendment as they know how strongly Americans feel about anything that hinders their right to express themselves “Appropriately”.
Over the past 15-20 years though, the right to speak ones mind has been curtailed through the use of George Orwell’s frightening “Doublespeak” of 1984 fame. What has happened is we as a people have allowed Political Correctness to become so pervasive that to question, let’s say Barack Obama’s associations, or his anti American rhetoric, you are labeled a Racist, or Bigot. If you voice dissent over your town councils Budget proposal, you are labeled a right wing trouble maker, etc. etc. etc. These assaults on ones personal character are so common place that we now find ourselves giving due to those who deserve it not out of fear. No one wishes to be called a racist anymore than one wishes to be called a Nazi, and rightly so. However, this tactic is not only inappropriate as it makes the questions at hand personal, but also because it hinders free speech, thus undermining one of the most basic of rights we enjoy and destroying “ the privilege of complaining.”
Allow me two examples;
About a month ago I saw report on the news that stated, the African-American (Black) community would feel that if Senator Obama did not get the nomination then it would be due to racism. How so could they not only come to that conclusion, but how would they be able to prove such a factor actually caused him to lose? There is no evidence to back it up nor is their any truth to the accusation whatsoever, but there it was on national TV. The same went for Hillary’s failed campaign, the day after she acquiesced to her Party’s wishes there was a panel of women on CBS talking about how sexism was what caused her to lose.
How does this apply? By using Race as the main factor the person arguing Obama’s case places the label of possible racist on those who agree not with their views. The opposition party then must be “extra careful” not to say or discuss anything that might be remotely, and I mean remotely, construed or twisted into a racist or biased statement. The debate becomes watered down and discourse hindered as each team dances around the fringes in an attempt not to offend. I am not saying one should go out and make racist or bigoted statements, I am saying that we as a society have allowed ourselves to become so attuned to “Doublespeak” that we can find the word Articulate given as a compliment, as racist. I call this “Hypersensitivity”. The same applies to the accusations of sexism in Hillary’s case. This type of behavior and societal acceptance creates a very real barrier to true honest discourse and dissent.
Even those who see this tactic for what it is, speak not often for the fear of the resulting attack that would sure to follow.
Thomas Paine’s words have truly passed the test of time, and if we look at them with “common sense”, another famous phrase he coined, we can take the lesson within them and try to retain the fundamental freedoms and privileges that so many have sacrificed for. Common sense is sorely lacking, but if more and more try to use it perhaps we have a fighting chance.
As my friend Carla says:
If Common sense was food, then there would be a lot of starving people around here.
Slainte’
Blighter
Thomas Paine, letter to the people of Pennsylvania 11/30/1787.
I received this quote this morning while I was going over the myriad of political events that occurred the evening of 6/10. My friend Ted sent it along to me as, like I, he sees how profound a statement it really is and how easily it can be applied to today’s political climate, on all levels.
Any person with even the most basic of logic skills can see the correlation to Mr. Paine’s Observation and the results of Tuesday night’s elections as well as, the State and Federal political situation.
Look closely to the Bond that was voted in statewide and ask at what cost do we create this Prosperous state of commerce? I fully understand the need to have good roads and bridges, but do we not collect enough revenue from the taxpayers of Maine to support the maintenance of said items?
The answer is yes, but because the Legislature has pilfered the highway fund recklessly and has misspent your tax dollars on other projects we now are told that we need to borrow millions of dollars to maintain the basics. This Bond will force the legislature to impose even more taxes and fees, as a bond is a loan, a loan that bears interest and must needs be repaid. Debt is a funny thing eh?
We have already witnessed “an arbitrary and unchecked government” in the 123rd Legislature’s handling of LD2477, the Dirigo funding scheme that we are all going to suffer many years into the future. Our “Representatives” chose to ignore an insurance reform bill that would have cut costs for insurance across the board, and chose to levy at pleasure the most oppressive taxes. This act in of itself, though egregious, is not enough to shout out the axiom “Taxation without Representation” but it comes damn well close, for the people are now left with but the hopes of a petition to get a referendum on the ballot. Those in the State House who decided to tax their constituents, who are already under a terrible burden as is, did not and do not represent their people. No, this one act does not allow us to call it out, but how many more have gone before it of the same character?
One may argue that our institutions are guaranteed by the principle of checks and balances, and they would not be totally incorrect. However, when the only recourse we as citizens have left at our disposal to protect our rights, traditions, and yes money is to vote out the very same person who swore to defend and uphold our needs, I say such a situation calls into question what balance there is in our Government as a whole.
Lastly, we must look to the concept of dissent and how it is handled and perceived today. A fine example for such a discussion is the Obama campaign. I use this only because it is one of greatest practitioners of the tactics in dealing with dissent and opposing views. If you take but a moment and look locally, perhaps a town meeting, or planning board, you will more than likely see the same.
“Who may destroy every principle of freedom; who may even destroy the privilege of complaining”
The first Amendment of the Constitution guarantees our right to free speech, so long as it does not promote armed rebellion or uprising against the State or Federal Government. To dissent is as natural to Americans as is breathing, eating and being human. There have been in the past, abridgements to this most fundamental of rights passed through the Supreme Court and the Congress, but they are usually overturned by the people. For the most part though, our government shies away from questions on the First Amendment as they know how strongly Americans feel about anything that hinders their right to express themselves “Appropriately”.
Over the past 15-20 years though, the right to speak ones mind has been curtailed through the use of George Orwell’s frightening “Doublespeak” of 1984 fame. What has happened is we as a people have allowed Political Correctness to become so pervasive that to question, let’s say Barack Obama’s associations, or his anti American rhetoric, you are labeled a Racist, or Bigot. If you voice dissent over your town councils Budget proposal, you are labeled a right wing trouble maker, etc. etc. etc. These assaults on ones personal character are so common place that we now find ourselves giving due to those who deserve it not out of fear. No one wishes to be called a racist anymore than one wishes to be called a Nazi, and rightly so. However, this tactic is not only inappropriate as it makes the questions at hand personal, but also because it hinders free speech, thus undermining one of the most basic of rights we enjoy and destroying “ the privilege of complaining.”
Allow me two examples;
About a month ago I saw report on the news that stated, the African-American (Black) community would feel that if Senator Obama did not get the nomination then it would be due to racism. How so could they not only come to that conclusion, but how would they be able to prove such a factor actually caused him to lose? There is no evidence to back it up nor is their any truth to the accusation whatsoever, but there it was on national TV. The same went for Hillary’s failed campaign, the day after she acquiesced to her Party’s wishes there was a panel of women on CBS talking about how sexism was what caused her to lose.
How does this apply? By using Race as the main factor the person arguing Obama’s case places the label of possible racist on those who agree not with their views. The opposition party then must be “extra careful” not to say or discuss anything that might be remotely, and I mean remotely, construed or twisted into a racist or biased statement. The debate becomes watered down and discourse hindered as each team dances around the fringes in an attempt not to offend. I am not saying one should go out and make racist or bigoted statements, I am saying that we as a society have allowed ourselves to become so attuned to “Doublespeak” that we can find the word Articulate given as a compliment, as racist. I call this “Hypersensitivity”. The same applies to the accusations of sexism in Hillary’s case. This type of behavior and societal acceptance creates a very real barrier to true honest discourse and dissent.
Even those who see this tactic for what it is, speak not often for the fear of the resulting attack that would sure to follow.
Thomas Paine’s words have truly passed the test of time, and if we look at them with “common sense”, another famous phrase he coined, we can take the lesson within them and try to retain the fundamental freedoms and privileges that so many have sacrificed for. Common sense is sorely lacking, but if more and more try to use it perhaps we have a fighting chance.
As my friend Carla says:
If Common sense was food, then there would be a lot of starving people around here.
Slainte’
Blighter
No comments:
Post a Comment