Friday, August 13, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Nationalism, American Acceptionalism and Beyond
What is Nationalism in the 21st Century? Is it any different than it was in the 20th, 19th, 18th etc. centuries?
Websters New Explorer College Dictionary says:
Nationalism: loyalty and devotion to a nation especially as expressed by praise of one nation above all others and intense concern with promotion of it's culture and interests.
Nationality: the fact or state belonging to a nation {a person of French nationality} 2: political independence or existence as a separate nation 3: a people having common origin, tradition and language and capable of of forming or actually consisting of a state B: an ethnic group with a larger unit (as a nation)
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition:
Nationality: That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or a state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.
Of course the definition of words can change quite often. How many times has Websters been revised? The first Black's Law Dictionary was published in 1891 and I was quoting from the 6th edition there, the 9th edition came out just about a year ago. Who is it that changes these definitions and by what authority? By what set of principals can anyone change the original definition of a word and what purpose is there behind doing so?
Unfortunately I do not have previous editions of either Black's Law or Webster's dictionary to see if previous definitions of Nationality and Nationalism were the same as the ones I just quoted. I do not have newer editions of either to compare and see if the definitions of Nationality and Nationalism have changed since Webster's New Explorer College Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition were published.
If Webster's definition of Nationality or Nationalism have changed I would not be quite so concerned. But when I consider that nearly every lawyer, judge, district attorney, law school and political office in America has a copy of Black's Law sitting about, as an American citizen naturally born within it's borders that concerns me greatly. Anyone who has ever stepped foot in a court room can tell you that simple wording means everything in a court of law. In the local municipal building, at the State Capital & Governor's Mansion, in the Halls of Congress, at the White House, at the G-20 and G-8 Conventions and NATO and the UN simple and even more importantly complex wording mean everything. It's not like telling a joke and getting the punch line wrong with no harm no foul, in the official capacity simple wording is critical. So what is Nationality or Nationalism in a court room or in a governmental arena? I would wager they are dangerously ever changing concepts.
George Washington: Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Edmund Burke: "In effect, to follow, not force the public inclination; give a direction, a form, a technical dress, and a specific sanction, to the general sense of community is the true end of legislature."
If we live in a nation that is truly representative of the people than it is up to the people to decide what Nationality and Nationalism mean within this nation's borders. It is not the government's choice to make. It is the people that dictators, public servants and leaders fear most of all and this is the way it should be. It is the people who pay the taxes that build the governmental buildings and maintain them. It is the government that the people should command government to do what is in the people's best interests. It is the people who pay their taxes and it is the people who are sent off to war to fight and die, not the politicians. It should be the right of the governed and the obligation of the government to see to it that the tax payer's dollar is spent properly and that wars, if to be fought are waged in the best interests of the people.
A true sense of belonging starts at home and with family, then it progresses to the community with neighbors and friends. Then it progresses even further to the state or provincial levels and ultimately it should progress to the nationalistic level. At this stage in history the question should be do we wish to expand upon that further? Some would say that without nations and their borders there will be no need for armies to defend them and without armies there will be no war and we will all live in a much better and more peaceful world. We will live in a more just world when we all have the same rights and freedoms and we all have our fair share of the pie and nobody has a bigger slice or a smaller slice than they need.
But who will determine what the definitions of justice & equality are? How will they enforce their definition of justice and equality and to what links will they go to do so? Cultural and religious convictions and values will have to be sacrificed for the good of all will they not? Who will determine what religious and cultural convictions and values are acceptable and what is not? One could only draw the conclusion that in order to do this effectively a lot of power would have to be put into the hands just a few and they will need instruments of force. Why that would almost give someone god like power to have such power over the entire globe would it not? Please tell me who is so close to perfection in every way that we should give them such power, I'd like to meet him or her or them. If they are so close to perfection they must be quite benevolent right? Maybe even more so than God Himself?
Pretty much very form of strong centralized political power on a national level has failed miserably through out history sooner or later. I find it ironic that here in the US as our Federal government has weakened the sovereignty of States and individuals alike in order to consolidate power this country has gone further and further into the toilet. It's a mere shell of it's former self politically, socially, economically and morally speaking. A stronger more centralized Federal government has been the primary culprit behind most of the decay. Decades of bad domestic and foreign policy along with idiotic spending have effectively killed a super power by now. If the United States had stayed within it's Constitutional guide lines and taken seriously the writings of our Founding Fathers and adhered to their principals the story would have been far different these days.
John Quincy Adams: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters."
The United States of America is like a bloated sickly whale washed up on the shore and will die unless it gets back to a lawful Constitutional government and sound economic policy which includes doing away with all ties to foreign treaty organizations, socialistic programs, empire building and a mammoth military propagated by the military industrialized complex. We need to start thinking less as a nation and more like 50 individual states bonded together for the common purpose of prosperity, liberty and defense. This was the vision of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and 234 years after the Declaration of Independence it is just as sound of a vision as it ever was. Consolidating power beyond the Nationalistic level is a recipe for disaster. The mere utterance by "Public Servants"of such nonsense should be deemed as grounds for charges of treason.
Nationalism has it's purpose but can be a dangerous tool if not used wisely. Nationalism brings pride and love of one's home land. But nationalism can be a dangerous concept as well. The very idea of American Acceptionalism has it's roots in nationalistic principals and has been a tool of the military industrial complex since World War One. The belief in American Acceptionalism means that Americans are essentially superior to all other nations and nationalities. There for we must have the world's strongest and most powerful military. It is American Acceptionalism that says it is our moral obligation to go around saving the world from dictators and other villains like some sort of a nation of Supermen without blemish or flaw. Thanks to American Acceptionalism we must utilize our economic strength and military might to stick our noses in every other nation's foreign and domestic policies. After all if we are without blemish and flaw and are some how genetically superior to all others we must use what God gave us to make the world better for the less fortunate non Americans right?
Let's see how acceptional America seems when your car dies in Washington DC's ghetto (not far from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) and some fool robs you at gun point for all you got. I am sure President Obama will come running to your aid with a shotgun (yeah right). When is the last time you saw a Mardi Gras parade with half a million degenerates acting like perverted drunken fools? Consider we spent 45 years fighting the Soviets in a Cold War against Communism just to turn into everything we fought against in the 20 years since by our own hands. Have you heard America's #1 musical export: rap recently? When you consider we are $13, 185, 421,969,171. 91 and counting in debt how acceptional do you feel now America?
As Americans we should all feel acceptionally stupid right about now for letting it go from what we had to what we now have. Don't blame the government, don't blame G.W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Barrack Obama,, Bill Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, Ted Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, the military industrial complex or the Federal Reserve for it all untill you look yourself in the mirror and ask what you did for your country or what you were doing while it all slipped away. After all it's "a nation of the People, by the People and for the People". So where should the finger pointing begin and who is going to fix the damned mess and return this country to where it should be if anyone at all ever will? It's the people!
Websters New Explorer College Dictionary says:
Nationalism: loyalty and devotion to a nation especially as expressed by praise of one nation above all others and intense concern with promotion of it's culture and interests.
Nationality: the fact or state belonging to a nation {a person of French nationality} 2: political independence or existence as a separate nation 3: a people having common origin, tradition and language and capable of of forming or actually consisting of a state B: an ethnic group with a larger unit (as a nation)
Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition:
Nationality: That quality or character which arises from the fact of a person's belonging to a nation or a state. Nationality determines the political status of the individual, especially with reference to allegiance; while domicile determines his civil status. Nationality arises either by birth or by naturalization.
Of course the definition of words can change quite often. How many times has Websters been revised? The first Black's Law Dictionary was published in 1891 and I was quoting from the 6th edition there, the 9th edition came out just about a year ago. Who is it that changes these definitions and by what authority? By what set of principals can anyone change the original definition of a word and what purpose is there behind doing so?
Unfortunately I do not have previous editions of either Black's Law or Webster's dictionary to see if previous definitions of Nationality and Nationalism were the same as the ones I just quoted. I do not have newer editions of either to compare and see if the definitions of Nationality and Nationalism have changed since Webster's New Explorer College Dictionary and Black's Law Dictionary 6th edition were published.
If Webster's definition of Nationality or Nationalism have changed I would not be quite so concerned. But when I consider that nearly every lawyer, judge, district attorney, law school and political office in America has a copy of Black's Law sitting about, as an American citizen naturally born within it's borders that concerns me greatly. Anyone who has ever stepped foot in a court room can tell you that simple wording means everything in a court of law. In the local municipal building, at the State Capital & Governor's Mansion, in the Halls of Congress, at the White House, at the G-20 and G-8 Conventions and NATO and the UN simple and even more importantly complex wording mean everything. It's not like telling a joke and getting the punch line wrong with no harm no foul, in the official capacity simple wording is critical. So what is Nationality or Nationalism in a court room or in a governmental arena? I would wager they are dangerously ever changing concepts.
George Washington: Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Edmund Burke: "In effect, to follow, not force the public inclination; give a direction, a form, a technical dress, and a specific sanction, to the general sense of community is the true end of legislature."
If we live in a nation that is truly representative of the people than it is up to the people to decide what Nationality and Nationalism mean within this nation's borders. It is not the government's choice to make. It is the people that dictators, public servants and leaders fear most of all and this is the way it should be. It is the people who pay the taxes that build the governmental buildings and maintain them. It is the government that the people should command government to do what is in the people's best interests. It is the people who pay their taxes and it is the people who are sent off to war to fight and die, not the politicians. It should be the right of the governed and the obligation of the government to see to it that the tax payer's dollar is spent properly and that wars, if to be fought are waged in the best interests of the people.
A true sense of belonging starts at home and with family, then it progresses to the community with neighbors and friends. Then it progresses even further to the state or provincial levels and ultimately it should progress to the nationalistic level. At this stage in history the question should be do we wish to expand upon that further? Some would say that without nations and their borders there will be no need for armies to defend them and without armies there will be no war and we will all live in a much better and more peaceful world. We will live in a more just world when we all have the same rights and freedoms and we all have our fair share of the pie and nobody has a bigger slice or a smaller slice than they need.
But who will determine what the definitions of justice & equality are? How will they enforce their definition of justice and equality and to what links will they go to do so? Cultural and religious convictions and values will have to be sacrificed for the good of all will they not? Who will determine what religious and cultural convictions and values are acceptable and what is not? One could only draw the conclusion that in order to do this effectively a lot of power would have to be put into the hands just a few and they will need instruments of force. Why that would almost give someone god like power to have such power over the entire globe would it not? Please tell me who is so close to perfection in every way that we should give them such power, I'd like to meet him or her or them. If they are so close to perfection they must be quite benevolent right? Maybe even more so than God Himself?
Pretty much very form of strong centralized political power on a national level has failed miserably through out history sooner or later. I find it ironic that here in the US as our Federal government has weakened the sovereignty of States and individuals alike in order to consolidate power this country has gone further and further into the toilet. It's a mere shell of it's former self politically, socially, economically and morally speaking. A stronger more centralized Federal government has been the primary culprit behind most of the decay. Decades of bad domestic and foreign policy along with idiotic spending have effectively killed a super power by now. If the United States had stayed within it's Constitutional guide lines and taken seriously the writings of our Founding Fathers and adhered to their principals the story would have been far different these days.
John Quincy Adams: "America does not go abroad in search of monsters."
The United States of America is like a bloated sickly whale washed up on the shore and will die unless it gets back to a lawful Constitutional government and sound economic policy which includes doing away with all ties to foreign treaty organizations, socialistic programs, empire building and a mammoth military propagated by the military industrialized complex. We need to start thinking less as a nation and more like 50 individual states bonded together for the common purpose of prosperity, liberty and defense. This was the vision of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and 234 years after the Declaration of Independence it is just as sound of a vision as it ever was. Consolidating power beyond the Nationalistic level is a recipe for disaster. The mere utterance by "Public Servants"of such nonsense should be deemed as grounds for charges of treason.
Nationalism has it's purpose but can be a dangerous tool if not used wisely. Nationalism brings pride and love of one's home land. But nationalism can be a dangerous concept as well. The very idea of American Acceptionalism has it's roots in nationalistic principals and has been a tool of the military industrial complex since World War One. The belief in American Acceptionalism means that Americans are essentially superior to all other nations and nationalities. There for we must have the world's strongest and most powerful military. It is American Acceptionalism that says it is our moral obligation to go around saving the world from dictators and other villains like some sort of a nation of Supermen without blemish or flaw. Thanks to American Acceptionalism we must utilize our economic strength and military might to stick our noses in every other nation's foreign and domestic policies. After all if we are without blemish and flaw and are some how genetically superior to all others we must use what God gave us to make the world better for the less fortunate non Americans right?
Let's see how acceptional America seems when your car dies in Washington DC's ghetto (not far from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.) and some fool robs you at gun point for all you got. I am sure President Obama will come running to your aid with a shotgun (yeah right). When is the last time you saw a Mardi Gras parade with half a million degenerates acting like perverted drunken fools? Consider we spent 45 years fighting the Soviets in a Cold War against Communism just to turn into everything we fought against in the 20 years since by our own hands. Have you heard America's #1 musical export: rap recently? When you consider we are $13, 185, 421,969,171. 91 and counting in debt how acceptional do you feel now America?
As Americans we should all feel acceptionally stupid right about now for letting it go from what we had to what we now have. Don't blame the government, don't blame G.W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Barrack Obama,, Bill Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, Ted Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, the military industrial complex or the Federal Reserve for it all untill you look yourself in the mirror and ask what you did for your country or what you were doing while it all slipped away. After all it's "a nation of the People, by the People and for the People". So where should the finger pointing begin and who is going to fix the damned mess and return this country to where it should be if anyone at all ever will? It's the people!
Expert Opinion...
It seems the world is full of experts these days. Or at least the world of Network News is full of experts providing "expert opinions". Every time there is a big national calamity such as a terrorist attack or mass shooting or something else that gets a media splash the "experts" come out of the wood works on the news networks. I do not know if it is just me but anymore I am convinced that "expert commentary" is the equivalent to spreading manure 9/10 times. Only there is a purpose to spreading manure. Spreading manure will enrich the earth and fertilize it and make for crop yields for the farmer. The "expert's opinion" may be full of smelly bull shit and it may attract flies just like the manure but ultimately it yields little fruit for the harvest, more like weeds, flies and a great stench are all "expert opinion" seem to yield.
I have seen enough experts after the wake of the Waco siege, Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine and other shootings, 9/11 attacks, Superbowl's, NFL drafts, wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, presidential elections and so on to have formed some what of an expert opinion on experts. My expert opinion on the experts is that the term expert is a synonym for idiot.
I'd like to be the guy on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC C-SPAN, Al Jazeera or the BBC with a bullshit detector and a cattle prod and a wiffle ball bat every time they bring the so called "experts" out. I'd like to have a wiffle ball bat for every time the so called "expert" said something completely redundant or just plain idiotic. I've got a pretty good bullshit detector. I wager I'd go through more wiffle ball bats and more cattle prods than anyone in the history of cattle prodding or wiffle ball. I could probably get endorsements from Hotshot and become their number one spokesman for cattle prods and I'd be open to negotiations for the highest bidders who'd like their wiffle ball bats endorsed as well. Lets see how many speaking engagements the "experts" book after that, and lets see how many books these manure spreaders sell after that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
