Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Cognitive dissonance



You would think that John Lewis, who once was on the business end of Bull Connor's fire hoses, would understand why it's not such a good idea to let the government have a monopoly on force. I wonder what Laquon McDonald would think about it.

Update: Iowahawk cuts to the chase:

16 comments:

Bike Bubba said...

I think Lewis is under the mistaken impression that since "his side" appears to be in control, it's safe. Really, any number of positions Lewis has could be horribly abused in the wrong hands.

Or are already being abused in the "right" hands. Let's just say any sane evaluation of government help in Lewis' district shouldn't come up with the conclusion that these programs are working as advertised.

Paul said...

I will disagree with you on this so I will just say I think this protest is great. I am not sure if anything will be done, but one of the by-products of this sit-in is Voldemort's speech was pushed down to second place. That is awesome!! Also, I find the MLK posting by IowaHawk weak as it has nothing to do with what this protest is about. But again, I know I will be in the minority.

Mr. D said...

Paul, the Iowahawk posting has everything to do with what it's about. You couldn't be more wrong. What these privileged protesters are calling for is the end of due process. They are demanding that a means to exercise a fundamental right, self-defense, can be curtailed or even denied if you happen to be on a government list.

Maybe this will help you understand -- picture a world with a President Trump. Do you think he'd be capable of maintaining a list or two? What right are you willing to give up if you happen to end up on one of his lists? And don't you think that, since you've been publicly mocking him at every opportunity (I know, because Facebook tells me you've done it pretty much on a daily basis), he might find a way to get you on the list?

Or, to put it in Star Wars terms. . . this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause.

Any time your lead argument is "enough is enough," which is what we're hearing out of the Democrats, you can easily see that reason has been pushed out of the equation and that it's all based on pure emotion. You're being herded, good sir.

Bike Bubba said...

Put more simply, Paul, do you trust your political enemies with the power to take away your rights on evidence that will not stand up in court, and without giving you an opportunity to challenge their decision?

I don't. I'm pretty sure I don't even trust my political friends with that power.

R.A. Crankbait said...

The Supreme Court has just said that it's ok for the police to stop you when you're not even suspected of a crime and search you illegally, and that anything they find can be used against you - poisonous tree or not. So, ultimately, there's no reason for them not to stop you if they want to, and if in doing so they uncover an old unpaid traffic fine or other minor offense, they can search you and your vehicle and use anything they find against you.

Unrelated to this post? Ok, now just imagine if you have lived a completely infraction-free life and paid all your taxes on time - yet you fell afoul of a law, or better yet - an executive order - that allows your name to be put on a watch list and then you get stopped. Even if your name was mistakenly put on the list you are still subject to what could be an unpleasant interrogation and possible arrest. And if you, in your righteous innocence, become irate in the course of the encounter, you're likely to get tased and cuffed. And as many innocent folks have already discovered, getting your name off of a list, even if it doesn't belong there, is a nearly impossible endeavor.

Maybe these archaic civil liberties are outmoded in this day of electronic surveillance, facial recognition software and elites ruling with impunity. What could possibly go wrong when the government can make up laws and put its enemies on lists and then collect these enemies at its leisure. Sure, governments have done this from time immemorial - it's the nature of the beast. Their capability to do so has never be greater or easier. Without the robust defense and regard for the protections of our Bill of Rights, the people are ever more vulnerable, which Justice Sotomayor (on the "wrong" side politically for me) still recognized in her dissent.

Mr. D said...

Before I forget, this comment merits particular attention:

I am not sure if anything will be done, but one of the by-products of this sit-in is Voldemort's speech was pushed down to second place. That is awesome!!

So if I'm reading this correctly, wiping your ass with the Constitution is awesome if you win the news cycle?

Mr. D said...

Without the robust defense and regard for the protections of our Bill of Rights, the people are ever more vulnerable, which Justice Sotomayor (on the "wrong" side politically for me) still recognized in her dissent.

Justice Sotomayor has had a better week than most people in Washington.

Paul said...

Before everyone gets their undies in a bundle, let's be realistic about what was happening. Everyone knew the bill would not pass. The sit in and the protest were made to make a point that gun violence. Because the NRA has donated to 270 some Reps & Senators and we keep going through the same idiotic nonsense from the NRA every time there is a shooting somebody has to say something. From a strategic point, it was a brilliant move. Now, did the bill lack something in constitutionality - yep! But everyone knew it would not pass.

And as long as we are being crass, I would much better have the protesters wipe their ass with the constitution then give Voldemort any microphone to shit on a document he has no damn idea what it means.

Paul said...

Oh, and going after Voldemort on FB was my way to get my anger out at him. But I have not done it for awhile not that the press and his fellow Republicans have started doing their jobs.

Mr. D said...

That might be the single most disheartening comment I've read on this blog. At a minimum, the notion that our elected representatives would knowingly attempt to pass a bill that they know is unconstitutional suggests a complete abdication of responsibility and decency. It's shameful. And for you to applaud it makes me profoundly sad, because I know that you have been a man of great integrity in the past. I hate Trump, too, but I sincerely hope that you think about what you're applauding.

Paul said...

WTF?! And how many times did the Republicans vote on Obamacare knowing it would not pass? Is that OK to do as well knowing that is wasting time and taxpayer dollars from doing something meaningful instead? Maybe that is why Congress' approval rating is so low, because they have not been responsible with their time and have "a complete abdication of responsibility and decency". And they withhold voting on a Supreme Court Justice nomination when that clearly IS their constitutional duty - hoping Voldemort wins. THAT is shameful!

Politics is a game and always has been one. Sometimes there tends to be morality involved. Was this gamesmanship? Yes it was. There is even one Democrat said it was to raise campaign funds. So was the Republicans and their faux constitutional outrage over Obamacare. Also, if it had a chance to pass I would have spoken out against it, but even the at the beginning of the protest the Dems said it had not chance to pass so I did not worry about it.

However,in this case it was also about the gun issue and the forces not willing to be honest enough to discuss it - not because they are so moral, but because they want to be re-elected. Fighting to have some sort of discussion and some sort of moving forward shows far more integrity than doing nothing. And maybe, just maybe, the debate might move forward.

Mr. D said...

1) There's a difference between voting in the normal course and conducting a sit-in, which stops the business of the House. There is no such thing as a filibuster in the House. I would hope you understand that. Had the Democrats conducted their game out on the Capitol steps, I wouldn't have said a word. But this was different.

2) There's nothing that's "faux outrageous" about opposing Obamacare on constitutional grounds. We'll be studying what John Roberts did for years. If you can't see the difference between the gun laws, which are directly tied to the Second Amendment, and Obamacare, which lives because of Roberts, you're not thinking it through.

3) And if you're still not clear about it, my issue here is due process. I don't want the government to be able to rule via list, especially if there's nothing clear about how you end up on the list. Both Ted Kennedy and John Lewis(!) were on the no-fly list and had significant difficulty because of it, but they have held positions of power and could work around it. Some average schlub who happens to have a similar name to someone else and ends up on the list may not be able to find their way through the problems as easily. I can't reasonably stop the feds from compiling lists, but I sure the hell want there to be an easy and quick adjudication process for people who end up on one. The Republican bill in the Senate addressed those issues, but the Dems voted that down. Once you decide due process is optional, it's going to bite all of us in the ass. We're talking about a lot more than the stunt itself -- we're talking about whether we can effectively limit the federal government's power at all.

Bike Bubba said...

Regarding Voldemort, a quick review of what Hilliary has been doing--falsifying just about every document associated with her disastrous tenure at State and with her foundation--it occurs to me that the title belongs not to the boy from Manhattan, but the girl from Chappaqua.

And really, exhibit A for that is Voldemortette's support of ending civil rights protections in one important area. Many of those sitting in OUGHT to remember that the biggest gain of the civil rights movement is access to the courts for blacks--and a bunch of Democrats who OUGHT to know better are trying to reverse that.

Paul said...

1) Protests happen all of the time and there are always new ways to do them. People are always upset when it happens for one reason or the other. Usually though it is because they did not think of it first.

2) Hell yes it is faux outrageous! Voting 100 times or whatever the number was is such a political stunt it is laughable - and pathetic. If you know it will not win then why do it? To earn political points - that's all. It is not defensible.

3) I agree about the due process - if it was a real threat. It is not and never was so let's not make it bigger than it is. And if you think I don't get that, please remember I was a History Major and have been arguing against Scalia, Thomas and others for their disregard for due process and civil liberties for years.

4) Regarding falsifying documents, I have not seen all of that info so do not know enough to comment on that. I would be fine calling her Voldermotett as I am not voting for her either. The image of Bill in the background as the "First Gentleman" horrifies me - along with many other reasons.

Mr. D said...

Protests happen all of the time and there are always new ways to do them.

I'm assuming you've heard of what happened in Wisconsin in 2011. This ain't new. The difference here is that the government is protesting itself and having a picnic -- at least the goon squad that took over the Capitol in Madison didn't have catering.

People are always upset when it happens for one reason or the other.

What does that even mean?

Usually though it is because they did not think of it first.

Actually, someone did. The difference was the House was already adjourned. And I'd add that Nancy Pelosi was a lot less charitable than Paul Ryan was.

Hell yes it is faux outrageous! Voting 100 times or whatever the number was is such a political stunt it is laughable - and pathetic. If you know it will not win then why do it?

The business of the House is to consider and propose legislation. If you cede that business because you suspect the president will veto such legislation, then you no longer have a House of Representatives. Are you sure you really want that?

I agree about the due process - if it was a real threat. It is not and never was so let's not make it bigger than it is.

If you say so. What would be a real threat, then?

And if you think I don't get that, please remember I was a History Major and have been arguing against Scalia, Thomas and others for their disregard for due process and civil liberties for years.

While I appreciate your self-appeal to authority, your argument is a red herring -- we're talking about what's happening now.

Bike Bubba said...

Paul, you're illustrating well how vandals are running both political parties right now. And it's scary as anything.