President Obama may have been able to squeeze through watered down healthcare reform. After all, the idea that someone should live or die or live in very poor health without assistance because of their financial circumstances is grossly stupid. If people generally didn't believe in some kind of 'socialised' approached to health, then African famine charities would be a laughing stock. ('Socialised' is an American term. In the USA, anything which smells vaguely of community care or good use of tax revenues is hysterically branded socialism.) He has also had some success with the cause of Immigration Reform, allowing undocumented immigrants potential citizenship and is joining other Western nations by fiddling about with the deficit.
The Deficit Game is a great game! Basically, you pretend that the Western economic system is linked to real-term value. You ignore the fact that if our system wasn't run on millions of credit bubbles, we would all actually be living in thatched cottages - and not the desirable chocolate box ones in the Cotswolds. No, the ones with the rodent infestations and the outside latrines. But voters like the idea that the international economic system runs on exactly the same principle as their Post Office account. It helps them sleep at night. It's a simplistic, dinky toy, Barbie Dreamhouse world they can make sense of. The Conservative Party love The Deficit Game. It allows them to slowly do away with all those pesky things they are ideologically opposed to (the NHS, benefits for those out of work or unable to do so, social spending on the poor in general, contributions to the EU.) If anyone questions anything they do, all they need say is "Don't blame us, blaaaaaaame the deficit!" It's the most useful catchphrase ever. It's like saying "Come on mate! It's Christmas!" or "We were only following orders!" It's a splendid, jolly good wheeze, this government business.
If only Obama could think of some clever way to push through his hilariously limited gun control measures and then blame it on the deficit. "Gun ownership is increasing inflation", "Guns cause death...icits", "Communists LOVE guns." There has to be some way, some argument, some trick to ween Americans off their toys. Of course the idea that he can argue that gun ownership increases murders and high school shootings and gang-related activity and that it's just unbelievably irresponsible for Billy Skidmark to own an assault weapon is just plain naive. Gun owning Americans don't want to hear logic, or reason, or heartbreaking stories of children being mown down by nutcases who would find their slaughters rather limited if they only had access to kitchen knives. What they want is that lovely *BANG* noise as they fire off a few rounds over some beers. The heavy, cold, reassuring weight of a reloadable penis which makes them feel that, yes, they may live in a suburb and work in data entry and their man boobs are getting a bit out of hand, but they're basically still a cowboy. Now, if only someone would break into their house. Pleeeeease. *BANG* Take that commie! It's not guns that stop burglars breaking into houses. It's locks. Really good locks.
Most Americans love the Bible. Most of it is self-contradictory, outdated nonsense of course but you can ignore those bits. It's old. It has words like 'ye' in it and transgressors get a good smiting. They also love the Constitution. It's all yellow and the corners are crumpled. It's old. That means it's true and will be true forever. Of course, owning guns isn't even in the constitution. It was one of the 'amendments' made in 1791 which was branded "The Bill of Rights." It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In those days, grammar wasn't very popular. Neither were standing armies. They hoovered up resources, slapped the local populace about and had to be paid for in increased taxes. The colonists were particularly iffy about plans for a permanent base of 10,000 British troops to be stationed in Nova Scotia. Objectively, this was a sound move. The French had been beaten in North America during the 1760s, but the threat of them and other ambitious European powers was never far off. The British Empire had suddenly almost doubled in size. It needed defending. The colonists thought they could handle it, but reports from the British Army about the performance of the colonials against the French made Parliament think differently.
The colonists, meanwhile, preferred militias. You could raise them, use them to give the French or Injuns a good drubbing, and then send them back home. Even at the time of signing the Constitution, most were dead against having a standing army in peacetime. Hadn't armed militias done the job of wearing down the mighty British Empire? Why not stick with those? Fine. Keep your guns for when you need them. In a matter of years, the new USA realised that they would need a professional standing army after all, even in times of peace. Who would pay for this? The American taxpayer. Post-revolutionary governments always come to resemble the former oppressor. But then, the American Revolution was less a revolution, more a change of management.
The Americans of the late eighteenth century had plenty of good reasons to stay armed. The Brits to the North, the Natives (and even the Russians) to the West, the French and Spanish to the South. The USA was a minor chip in a high-stakes world power struggle. They had good reason to feel paranoid. That's what the amendment was about. It had nothing to do with building compounds in the desert in attempt to resist government drone strikes or shooting beautiful animals in the name of team bonding. It was just a good, workable idea at the time which has since become some religious doctrine. The world has changed. The USA has nothing much to fear for the time being. It's the same reason that Jews don't eat pork. God has nothing personal against pigs, it's just at the time the laws of the Old Testament were being laid down, eating pathogen-crammed under cooked pig was incredibly dicey. Better give it a miss. Why? Err...God said so? Now that pork is safe again, God would totally endorse it. Unfortunately, he's not said much of late. I sympathise. It's been ages since I updated my website.
The idea that some wheezing old man sitting in a deckchair nursing a shot gun on a porch in Tennessee is the only thing keeping freedom alive is the stuff of farce. Most Western nations largely disarmed long ago and yet somehow they haven't got round to installing totalitarian dictatorships. Odd that. Could it be that 99.9% of people in democracy want democracy? Could it be that a majority of people still go into government because they rather like the principles of democracy?
We may take our liberties and democracy for granted, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Our rights to say and do largely what we want have become second nature. Try taking them away from us now, and see what would happen. We simply wouldn't stand for it. The new self-appointed dictator would find their situation untenable. Work would stop, taxes would go unpaid, civil disobedience would be rife. It doesn't take an M16 assault rifle to achieve that. At least, Gandhi didn't think so.
Dictators can't just exterminate everyone. Who would there be left to rule? But that's not what this is about. It's not the realities or practicalities of abstract concepts of 'freedom' or 'democracy' - terms which have been put to good use to invade foreign nations, kill innocents and seize resources. No. None of that really matters. Having a gun is cool. It's like owning an iPhone. If Apple had any sense (particularly with the serious danger of the ever-encroaching Samsung) they would have themselves written into The Constitution.
AMENDMENT XXVII
"The right of the people to keep and bear iPhones, shall not be infringed."
"But pa, I want the new Samsung Galaxy."
"What's wrong with you, boy? It's in the constitution. Why do you hate freedom?"
 |
| Take away credit cards, and this is what you get. |
 |
| This was least posey photo I could find. of someone with a gun. These people have heard of self-awareness but aren't sure how it applies to them. |
 |
| How about 'None of the above'? |
Most Americans love the Bible. Most of it is self-contradictory, outdated nonsense of course but you can ignore those bits. It's old. It has words like 'ye' in it and transgressors get a good smiting. They also love the Constitution. It's all yellow and the corners are crumpled. It's old. That means it's true and will be true forever. Of course, owning guns isn't even in the constitution. It was one of the 'amendments' made in 1791 which was branded "The Bill of Rights." It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In those days, grammar wasn't very popular. Neither were standing armies. They hoovered up resources, slapped the local populace about and had to be paid for in increased taxes. The colonists were particularly iffy about plans for a permanent base of 10,000 British troops to be stationed in Nova Scotia. Objectively, this was a sound move. The French had been beaten in North America during the 1760s, but the threat of them and other ambitious European powers was never far off. The British Empire had suddenly almost doubled in size. It needed defending. The colonists thought they could handle it, but reports from the British Army about the performance of the colonials against the French made Parliament think differently.
 |
| If you're going to be kept in tyranny, you could do a lot worse than these spiffy looking fellows. |
The colonists, meanwhile, preferred militias. You could raise them, use them to give the French or Injuns a good drubbing, and then send them back home. Even at the time of signing the Constitution, most were dead against having a standing army in peacetime. Hadn't armed militias done the job of wearing down the mighty British Empire? Why not stick with those? Fine. Keep your guns for when you need them. In a matter of years, the new USA realised that they would need a professional standing army after all, even in times of peace. Who would pay for this? The American taxpayer. Post-revolutionary governments always come to resemble the former oppressor. But then, the American Revolution was less a revolution, more a change of management.
The Americans of the late eighteenth century had plenty of good reasons to stay armed. The Brits to the North, the Natives (and even the Russians) to the West, the French and Spanish to the South. The USA was a minor chip in a high-stakes world power struggle. They had good reason to feel paranoid. That's what the amendment was about. It had nothing to do with building compounds in the desert in attempt to resist government drone strikes or shooting beautiful animals in the name of team bonding. It was just a good, workable idea at the time which has since become some religious doctrine. The world has changed. The USA has nothing much to fear for the time being. It's the same reason that Jews don't eat pork. God has nothing personal against pigs, it's just at the time the laws of the Old Testament were being laid down, eating pathogen-crammed under cooked pig was incredibly dicey. Better give it a miss. Why? Err...God said so? Now that pork is safe again, God would totally endorse it. Unfortunately, he's not said much of late. I sympathise. It's been ages since I updated my website.
 |
| How do you stop guns? MORE GUNS!!!! |
We may take our liberties and democracy for granted, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Our rights to say and do largely what we want have become second nature. Try taking them away from us now, and see what would happen. We simply wouldn't stand for it. The new self-appointed dictator would find their situation untenable. Work would stop, taxes would go unpaid, civil disobedience would be rife. It doesn't take an M16 assault rifle to achieve that. At least, Gandhi didn't think so.
Dictators can't just exterminate everyone. Who would there be left to rule? But that's not what this is about. It's not the realities or practicalities of abstract concepts of 'freedom' or 'democracy' - terms which have been put to good use to invade foreign nations, kill innocents and seize resources. No. None of that really matters. Having a gun is cool. It's like owning an iPhone. If Apple had any sense (particularly with the serious danger of the ever-encroaching Samsung) they would have themselves written into The Constitution.
AMENDMENT XXVII
"The right of the people to keep and bear iPhones, shall not be infringed."
"But pa, I want the new Samsung Galaxy."
"What's wrong with you, boy? It's in the constitution. Why do you hate freedom?"
 |
| i-Phone have a dream. |
No comments:
Post a Comment