Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TheKentuckian

TheKentuckian's Journal
TheKentuckian's Journal
July 28, 2012

Return to intent, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

I also think that people should re-commit to the militia (though participation is not required to keep and bear) by neighborhood, then, community, and then a national organization. Knowing your neighbors and having common cause would potentially bring people together and foster more integration and less characterizing each other while building organization in case of "unimaginable" events and natural disaster.

I'm betting that a Katrina situation (on the ground) would be a lot less likely to happen in such circumstances. People leave strangers behind not members of their unit.

Liberals need to internalize that our job isn't to reduce the rights of the people and even in such an necessity, never to transfer that power to the few but rather to in great and pressing need remove it entirely.
I don't favor civilians with nuclear arms but then I'm against the military having them either and the prospect of individuals with such stuff would straighten out some thinking and keep people from hiding behind authority to justify backing insanity.

If the people cannot be trusted with power then no one can. The people are the source of all power in a democracy (whatever brand it is be it direct or representative). Any power and authority the government has is held in stewardship on behalf of the people. The notion that the government grants our rights is anti-liberal, deeply right wing, and wrongheaded and sure as hell isn't in the neighborhood of liberal.
Of course the modern "progressive" movement has authoritarian elements. In fact just as authoritarian as many in the far right but with a predilection to use the power of government to compel their agenda rather than going at it from the perspective of the anti-government agenda though the two can team up to degrade our civil liberties for "safety" or to foment the drug war or to censor/monitor communication by tapping our phones and having internet kill switches.

The authoritarian "left" is an anchor around the wider movement and in fact controls the agenda. We'll make little real progress and probably go backward on the net as long as we allow this folks to be a driving force.

July 3, 2012

For most people that is the only option.

One may make a choice worse than the other but in any event there will be considerable efforts against their interests.

You can't play labor party when every time we get into power we are literally itching to put a new "free trade" agreement in place and took an epic meltdown to get off the deregulation bandwagon and then only to a degree.

Hell, it was like the first order of business was to go after the teachers, second was shelving card check and union supports, next thing we know we are leading the charge benefits traded for in years of painful concessions, then on to freezing pay for Federal workers, and then on to push Bush's stalled "free trade" deals before getting to work in earnest on a new secret, super "free trade" deal.

All the while we've had several Democratically initiated austerity commissions proposing all kinds of nonsense with all kinds of concessions offered, saved by TeaPubliKlan intransigence until finally an automatic trigger promises to make a start and the banging away can continue after the election. "Eat your peas" isn't a big seller.

You also can't be a labor party and be openly disdainful of it or give the impression that turning wrenches, or working the assembly line, or being a tradesman is lesser or not a career. Even the constant focus on college degrees probably is a turn off, even for those who value a higher education. There is Yuppie-centric air that has been cultivated and it doesn't connect and allows the party of the wealthy to talk folksy, chop wood, go hunting, drive trucks, and talk about God and actually make a better connection though it isn't a millimeter deep.
Many voters failing to see a definitive difference to their lives will vote for the person they identify with regardless of wonky policy proposals (that sound like a screw job or are confusing) that are both essential and promise to change nothing, soaring rhetoric, or how fiercely fingers are pointed (even when deservedly so).

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jun 6, 2008, 03:47 AM
Number of posts: 25,026
Latest Discussions»TheKentuckian's Journal