Cowboy Confessional

“Stipulated that it is illegal to kill your congressman,” Bill began using his typical cynical grin and creepy, sinister tone.  “But is it immoral?”

I keep Bill as a friend because he forces me to think, often in extremely unpleasant ways.  If you ever meet Bill I encourage you to discuss religion, politics or philosophy, but avoid sex.  You simply don’t want to know what is on his mind regarding the last subject.

He was insistent on the question of the morality of murdering members of congress, framing his inquiry in the mechanics of personal privilege.  Bill’s weak suits are law and history, and thus he was exploring as much as pontificating.  In the end we concluded that capping your congress critter was indeed illegal, but in certain circumstance morally justified if not actually an imperative.

(Disclosure:  I am in no way, shape, form or processes advocating killing your congressman, congresswoman, senator or any other office holder.  However, I would not shed a tear if some specific members of congress were suddenly speechless due to being suddenly breathless, and I might even crack open a fresh bottle of Jack Daniels upon the demise of some others).

I must begin this disquieting disquisition by reviewing the subject of slaying.  Homicide, in its strictest definition, is the killing of a hominid, i.e. homo sapiens.  Denuded of the concept of human, a moral creature infused with humane beneficence, hominids are then just a species of animal.  Killing a hominid is mechanically no different than killing a cow except that cows make better hamburger.

Where law and morality untie is that most hominids are also humans.  They imbibe in benign or benevolent behavior, causing harm to nobody in particular.  Thus it is deemed immoral to kill them because they are spiritual kin.  Most species don’t idly kill their own kind because of the obvious Darwinian downside.  Homo sapiens do violate this rule, but on small scales and often with good reason (see below).  Only once in a while, typically under the direction of politicians (see above) is when wholesale homicide is committed.  If it were not for governments, bloodshed would be relatively minimal and we would spend our excess time and wealth killing cattle instead.

(To my vegetarian friends, please note that one must spend a fair amount of time, as I have, around cows to dislike them enough to enjoy continuously eating them)

We recognize three distinct forms of homicide: felonious, justified and meritorious.  Felony homicide is the unwarranted killing of another hominid, and is the stock and trade of street gangs everywhere.  Most governments, police departments, courts and jails are initially constructed to deal with perpetrators of these and equally vile acts.  Executing a prisoner convicted in court of a heinous crime is merely society’s way of outsourcing the work.  After all, lynch mobs and ad hoc burials are sloppy and take away from prime television viewing time (of course, if lynching thugs were televised, you might have the ultimate reality show).

Stipulated then is a moral justification and occasional imperative to homicide, with instigators of incivility being dispatched.  Then killing bad actors by individuals (as opposed to outsourcing the effort to government) falls into the realm of justifiable homicide.  You and your neighbors approve of such killings under well defined circumstances, and have codified these shared beliefs into law.  If someone tries to kill you, you can kill them back.  If they try to kill someone else, as a good neighbor, you can intervene with fatal force (.45 ACP being the preferred means to vacate violent criminals).  There are many other justifiable homicide circumstances, including in most states the prevention of rape.  Thus, it is legal to commit homicide if it is justified, and in a well ordered society, it may be essential – left unchecked, criminals might get elected.

Meritorious homicide is the most interesting mode because it is the most perplexing.  Meritorious homicide is an extension of justifiable homicide – a recognition and appreciation for maintaining civility and public safety by eliminating those who don’t.  But justifiable homicides are in defense against acts by hominids who commit documented crimes.  In cases where individuals lawfully cause civil disorder and endangerment, homicide may be both felonious and meritorious.  By killing such individuals, one can save a vast swath of people from harm, but will by order of law be processed by The People’s crime control outsourcing organization (i.e., jailed, tried and executed).  These are rare instances where someone has a medal pinned on them right before the executioner throws the switch.

Stipulated that the concept of justifiable homicide exists so that any person can maintain their safety and freedom, and protect the safety and freedom of people unable to defend themselves.  Stipulate also that when congress enacts unconstitutional laws that endanger the safety and freedom of The People, the people have the right and possibly the moral imperative to defend themselves.  When we meld in Bill’s observation that it is technically illegal to kill your congress critter, we land squarely at the intersection of felonious and meritorious homicide – that it may be a service to your country and your community to cap a congressman, but it will most likely land you in jail.  You may have a medal pinned to your chest at a most inopportune moment.

This all assumes that the law remains the law.

John Locke, the original libertarian and a man whose influence over the construction of the American Constitution was pervasive, concluded that times arise when the covenant is broken and that rubbing out rubes in the rotunda is perfectly appropriate.  While opining upon the nature of government, Locke lobbed this rhetorical hand grenade at the establishment:

“ … whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”

The “common refuge” is a rifle and a few rounds of ammo.

Bill’s question – if it was immoral to kill your congressman – fits rather nicely with the established law and Locke.  Violence may rightfully be used in self defense, which includes defense against enslavement, as any underground railroad worker would attest.  Should legislators endeavor to stray from the Constitution, and by such straying, take property or liberty from anyone, then removing the congressperson from the gene pool is morally justified.  In the mechanics of revolutions (such as the little, obscure one of 1776) such actions will be considered felonious by the government, but justified and meritorious by everyone else.

In other words, The People and the government disagree, and The People win by default.

Which brings us to Obamacare and my earlier prediction that some congressman, somewhere, will eventually leak.  Ideology aside, when the government dictates what non-destructive activities the people can and cannot do, they reduce The People to slavery under arbitrary power.  No sane person (which excludes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid) can argue that Obamacare is not an arbitrary exercise of power, or that it does not deprive people of property and self-determination, and hence reduces some or all of the public to a state of slavery.  No less of a man than Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (and there is no lesser man) clearly stated that the reason for the legislation was to address the comically alleged “mal-distribution of income in America.”  Stated a bit more bluntly, he wants to use force (the IRS, federal prison) to take money from one person and give it to another.  Since the person providing the money (you) has no choice in the matter, no way to opt-out of the process, you have become a slave.  Your labor is not for your own benefit, or for the service to all residents (such as funding a police force) but to the arbitrary and capricious direction of the government.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid and Baucus have just annihilated 147 years of America being a slave-free nation.

Locke said that given these circumstances The People are “absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”

Bill, your original assumption is incomplete.  Stipulated that the government deems it to be illegal to kill your congressman, but stipulate also that The People are no longer subject to obey that law.  Also stipulate that our ancestors killed red coats, mainly for the fun of it, but also because Locke was right.  Doing so again may be justified and meritorious.

Bookmark to:

One well plagiarized line is that there are three forms of homicide: felonious, justifiable and meritorious.

I fear the latter will be enacted upon one of more congress critters in the coming months.

Poll after poll shows that better than 50% of Americans oppose the insurance castration proposal being voted upon tonight.  Somewhere south of 35% want it passed.  Anything remotely resembling a democracy, or the higher form of government known as a constitutional republic, requires the government to obey The People.  On this issue, The People have been vocal, coming close to blows with their elected servants during summer town hall meetings.

The next step, regrettably, will be the real thing.

I may not be the best student of history, but on the mechanics of free men, and that specific species known as American Roughneck, one thing is perfectly clear: when pushed into a corner by an arrogant government, bullets start flying.

Several of my ancestors shot Red Coats, mainly for the fun of it, but also to liberate themselves (shamefully, a few of them went on to own slaves, making their initiative incomplete).  One need not read much history to see that their primary problem was that promises of self governance were broken, and the king’s soldiers in the colonies were indifferent to protests.  In the  modern context, the promise of a free society are being broken and Obama plans on employing hundreds of new IRS agents to force people to buy or provide products they otherwise would choose not to.

Free men are again being pushed into a corner.

Being a peaceable man, I know I won’t throw a punch, though my congressman richly deserves it.  I have no idea who will, or if they will opt for something more permanent than a clinched fist.  But the unequal and opposite public reaction is as predictable as a bronc bucking.  Some congressman, somewhere, will be leaking.  Let’s pray that the incidents are few and isolated, and that the government relents to the express will of The People, for only revolution lay in the other direction.

UPDATE: Boy, can I call ‘em or what?  Less than two days after my prediction, the Hill is buzzing over a number of acts of vandalism and a passel of death threats.

Things will get much uglier when the congress critters return to their home districts.

Bookmark to:

Monthly, Men’s Health magazine tallies cites by a certain attribute, ranking the 100 largest bergs in America.

This month, it is booze and Men’s Health statisticians have obviously been drinking themselves.

Foremost is the fact that Boston somehow bottomed the list, allegedly less alcoholic than Colorado Springs.  A city littered with Irish who long suffered under Teddy Kennedy cannot possibly be more sober than Seattle, where the cold and rain keep people far from bars.  I have had the experience of visiting Boston more than once, and I’m unsure I met anyone unblitzed.  Not even the nuns.

If we assume that the rest of Men’s Staggering List is anywhere near accurate, one oddity emerges from the failed city side of the roster.  The ten most intoxicated towns have three entries each from Texas and California (and strangely, my San Francisco is not on the list, which clearly means I need to work harder).  Granted, California and Texas are big places with even bigger egos, so they each have statically better chances for bad behavior.  Yet for 2/50ths of the states to claim 6/10ths of the Drunks Hall of Fame not only bends the curve, it ties it into a neat little knot.

Of course we need to judge each city by its individual ethos.

Getting drunk in Fresno needs no explanation – it is the only alternative to experiencing Fresno.  Riverside, on the other hand, is so boring that imbibing might be the only way to feel anything, if regurgitation is a feeling.  California’s last detox destination is Bakersfield, which at least has the advantage of being further away from Hollywood than Riverside.  One would think the sobriety quotient would thus kick Bakersfield off the rummy roster.  But it has been said that Bakersfield combines the worst elements of So Cal, the desert and Sierra hillbillies, so perhaps Bakersfield has a corrupt city-wide gene pool.

Texas, never to be out done, shoved Lubbock, Austin and San Antonio onto the chart.  San Antonio simply makes no sense, aside from being pouty because Houston blocks their view of New Orleans.  The town is simply too tidy to tipple totally.  Lubbock, being a cheaper version of Bakersfield, gives reason to suckle bottles, but not much more.  Austin is infinitely more understandable.  The town is the live music capital of America, and has more open bars than anyplace outside of New Orleans, and with equally good music.  It is also a left-of-center city in a right-of-Reagan state, so it suffers from isolation syndrome and needs a good belt … hourly.  Worse still, Austin is the state capital, and as Ray Wylie Hubbard sang in his tune Screw You, We’re From Texas, their “politicians are swindlers and loco.”  Such a high concentration of elected sleaze will drive any populace to partake.

The other three non-Texas and Non-California cities make and don’t make much sense.  There’s nothing wrong with Tucson, Arizona that moving it to Phoenix wouldn’t fix.  Reno, Nevada is perpetually drunk, but then again is was designed precisely for that purpose.  That leaves Billings, Montana.  Having 34 square miles and a mere 104,000 people means you have drive somewhere just to see other humans aside from those that live with you.  Given what winter in Montana is like, you may be stuck with your family all season long, which now that I think about it is a swell reason to swill.

Bookmark to:

Everybody is the media.

Like any ecosystem, the media cannot be destroyed, but it does evolve.  Subjective are all opinions if new ecosystems are preferable to older ones (for example, would Greenland prefer to be green again, as when it was first discovered).  Bacteria thriving in a cesspool might well object to humans adding disinfectant.

Likewise with liberals, reporters and the media. Being a fan and occasional participant in the old media, I marvel at how the bacteria therein are rapidly being eaten by a new bug.

Editors attest that people are hungry for content.  In days gone by that content came from a small set of providers.  Before FM radio was wide spread, people received their daily world view from three major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC and the Communist Broadcasting System), whatever local newspapers existed (two if you lived in a big town), and a spider web of rumor passed along by friends, family and traveling salesmen (who also passed along many cases of pregnancy).  The media microorganism was hearty and it readily converted facts into a smelly and somewhat toxic paste for the public.  Then FM radio emptied the AM bands, and in a fight for survival, the amplitude airwaves turned to talk.

The media ecosystem was forever altered.

This cannot be ignored.  Some surveys indicate that American’s think of themselves politically as slightly right of center, whereas university studies have quantified that the old media is largely left.  The slightly conservative citizenry knew they were being brought bogus bulletins and broadcasts, but lacked a cheap means for promoting alternative insights.  Center-right mavens discovered the empty and inexpensive AM bands, and there they found their own idyllic pond.  A new bug was born and it soon evolved into an organism that stole food from the old organisms.

Such is the nature of ecosystems.  Small, furry mammals have better survival odds than dinosaurs when their ecosystem suddenly changes.

The funny thing about people and other organisms is that genetic code is very unique for each individual.  Old media may be to the left of Mao and talk radio may be to the right of Attila, but every audience member is their own species.  Both of the primarily political parties, and the old media are found of false dualities:  left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat, sane vs. Chuck Schumer.  Such bogus bifurcation is a natty narrative; simple yet entirely insufficient.

Next, the Internet became universal, and the media ecosystem suddenly changed again with the influx of several billion new bacteria.  You.

Old media microbes are vanishing as if the body politic just received a double cheek full of antibiotics.  Network news programs have falling ratings, accelerated to breakneck speeds by Diane Sawyer (ABC needs to get their money back on that failed investment).  Some 24 hour news channels are evaporating in a cloud of their own boorish ineptitude (that would be MSNBC and their gracious and unbiased hosts Keith “Ag School” Oberman and Chris “Sciatica” Matthews).  Newspapers, caught between high per-unit costs and declining ad revenues, are going bankrupt faster than politician morals.  Food in the media ecosystem is being swallowed by the ravenous new species, internetum upsetium.

Now the original media bacilli wants a new food source.  You.

An odd collection of voices are rising with the abhorrent suggestion that the government bail-out the old media.  Since the media’s primary mission is to investigate the government, The People ratified The Bill of Rights with the intent of separating government and press.  For a couple of centuries, the two constantly fought and denigrated one another when not copulating.  It was an ugly but semi-functional relationship.  Like a horny lad, the government attempted to romance and set up residence in the media’s drawers.  Like a young lass, the media teased the government, letting it cop the occasional literary feel while getting a free ride with insider info.  The rest of the time was spent in antagonistic reprisal, which largely keep them off the streets and out of trouble.  Now the older media is dying off, and some think the right response is to arrange marriage between the troubling government and media teens.

We all know how well teenage shotgun marriages work out.

As is often the case, false woes are erected in order to panic the populace.  Some claim that without local newspapers, there will be no checks on local government.  Oddly local weekly newspapers, ones that still have plenty of advertisers, conduct some of the better investigative journalism in the modern era.  Add in local television, whistle blowers, and the new legions of internet enabled part-time investigators, and there appears to be plenty of compensation.  What reporters are really worried about is the pay cuts they’ll take to work for the weeklies.

Journalist fearing breadlines is understandable and forgivable.  What isn’t are the anti-intellectuals called “progressives” who actively promote government funded – and hence, controlled – media.  No less than The Nation (and there are none less than that rag) have called for $60 billion in newspaper resurrection and other forms of corporate welfare.  In the name of “quality journalism”, as opposed to the type you create and consume, they incorrectly assumed that a lack of major media means a lack of journalism.

As noted above, a lack of major media means a lack of center-left hack reporting.  In other words, The Nation seeks to keep their philosophical mouthpiece in place.  It is difficult to push a leftist agenda when The Nation is one of it’s few remaining voices, and one I suspect is falling as fast as newspapers.  It is even harder when the center-right populace, outfitted for information and furiously blogging their fingers to bony nubs, routinely contradicts The Nation’s weekly waste.

Despite some short-term shortcomings, more voices and more investigators means better journalism.  If nothing else, the Internet cross connects data, making it easy for even inebriated reporters (forgive the redundancy) to find information.  Many journalists admit to reading the Drudge Report every morning to triangulate what is important to know that day.  With several million perpetually publishing people, many experts in their own fields and many with insider information, news outlets have a greater scope of information than they had before, and their reporting is fact checked by the public.  The American media ecosystem is not dying – it is changing and getting stronger.

Everybody is the media.  Now get to work.

Bookmark to:

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  What does this say about God?

Bookmark to: