Nothing to add for now … on Independence Day

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:

Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:

John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:

Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:

Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:

William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:

Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:

Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:

Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:

Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:

George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:

William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:

Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:

Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Who needs to know this?

(Warning: Some mention of inappropriate material here.)

The headline on CNN reads, “Lusty e-mails make news anchors blush.”

How, exactly, is the public served with this stuff? I don’t need to know what Gov. Sanford and his mistress said to each other. I read part of one such story, then realized that this wasn’t advancing my understanding of the case … and quit. I get it. He had an affair. That’s all the information I need to know. I don’t care what he said about her hands holding what … and I don’t want to know anything else he might have said.

The same applies to previous scandals. We knew details about the Monica Lewinski-Bill Clinton affair that were unnecessary (the cigar story, for instance). I really didn’t need to hear this in order to know what I needed to know about the story.

Very rapidly, news coverage has degenerated into pure sensationalism. In the interest of keeping a 24-hour news cycle going, no one is monitoring whether the news is “fit to print,” as the old slogan goes. If it’s being said, it must be good enough.

There are several reasons why there should be some exercise of discretion. First of all, Gov. Sanford’s family doesn’t deserve this. The affair happened. They don’t need every detail of every failure trotted out for the world to see. I can’t think of a single reason to torture them like this.

Second, it contributes nothing to the story. Sanford’s affair would be no more appropriate if not for the e-mails, and they don’t really make it any worse.

Third, there is the public. Thanks to Bill Clinton, we all had to explain to our kids who happened to be in the room with the news what “oral sex” means. I don’t see that exposing families to more racy “news items” is helpful in any way.

The excuse, I’m sure, is that if one agency didn’t run it, they’d just be scooped by someone else. If not Fox, then CNN would have. If not CNN, then MSNBC. If not MSNBC, then ABC, and so on …

For the record, I have not heard them mentioned on NPR. The story was covered, then the news went on to other things without the graphic details. Although I’ve read stories on other web sites, I don’t think that I’ve learned anything else useful.

If the story makes the anchors blush, then maybe they should consider what it does to parents trying to watch the news with their families, and exercise a little journalistic restraint.

Or is that too much to ask these days?

Hiatus

I might as well admit it and get rid of the pressure of trying to post anything …

I’m going to take some time off from here. I’m stalling most of my scheduled posts for a bit, since they’re supposed to keep momentum for a series, and there will be even less happening here than usual.

On Friday, my sons are coming over for the week. That means I need some time to get the house in order, and then the following week is spoken for. Then, there’s a baby coming on 7/8. From there, there’s taking care of said baby and of my wife and Eagle.

I promise, I’ll post the appropriate baby details as soon as feasible. Mostly, though, I’m going to be much more of a blog-reader-and-comment-maker than blogger for a while.

Tomorrow, by the way, I have an interview for a position at my wife’s school. I’m not at all sure what that would do to the whole mix.

In any case, I’ll be around, if not as much as usual. Take care, and I’ll “see” (for lack of a better word) you around.

My beef with talk radio, part III: Sean Hannity

This is probably the end of this series. I’d thought about going on to Michael Savage, but he’s far more of a fringe character, and so my real problem with the Big Three — Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity — doesn’t apply as much.

Still, here we are. Of these three, I feel the least objection to Mr. Hannity. Unlike Beck, who is basically crazy; and Limbaugh, who will say anything to make sure that he keeps his buzz going; I think that Hannity has the potential to be reasonable. I think that, generally, he believes what he says.

What he doesn’t do, though, is give a lot of thought to his positions. Hannity is pretty reliably a spokesman for the conventional wisdom. This is too bad, because I think that Hannity has the potential to stand out among these three as one who is honest and committed to what’s really right, rather than just what’s Right. Read the rest of this entry »

My beef with talk radio, part II: Rush Limbaugh

Continuing this series …

Yesterday, I hit on my gripes with Glenn Beck. When his show ends, though, we’re treated to the most popular radio talk show host in the country … Rush Limbaugh. Arguably, he’s the leader of the Republican Party and/or the conservative movement. I would contend that he’s a disaster for both.

I’m not really sure where to begin with Mr. Limbaugh. As a matter of political strategy, holding with him represents a disaster. The man enjoys using inflammatory rhetoric, dishonest accusations, and childish name-calling. He calls this refusing to give in and standing up for his principles. In fact, though, it has the effect of ruining one’s ability to persuade others.

I, for example, enter discussions with the hope that people will change their minds and come to agree with my position. That isn’t possible if I turn others off by calling them names over and over again.

Rush Limbaugh, though, doesn’t seem to care about persuasion. Rather, I think he’s in it for the amusement. I don’t know if he actually cares about the position that he claims. Part of me suspects that he’s nothing more than a performer — he’s taken on the role of Rush Limbaugh the Crusader and plays his part in such a way that he does his job. His job, remember, is to build a radio audience and attract advertising. It isn’t to advance any kind of social or political agenda. Read the rest of this entry »

My beef with talk radio, part I: Glenn Beck

I’ve been asked, with varying degrees of politeness, exactly why I have such a problem with three particular talk radio hosts. I listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity a reasonable amount of time each week, but not because I want their input particularly. Rather, it’s because I am monitoring what they’re saying and I don’t want to be accused of criticizing them without actually listening to them.

I have often remarked that people who accuse NPR of being radically left-biased never actually listen to NPR (a statement which stands up pretty well, by the way), and I don’t want to have the same charge thrown back at me.

So, what exactly is my problem with these guys?

I suppose the best thing to do, really, is go through them one at a time. Lacking any other logic, I’ll go with chronological order by air time … Read the rest of this entry »

Inflaming and blaming

Over the past few months, we’ve had a lot of conversations about who is saying too much and who is engaging in irresponsible speech. Paul Krugman wrote about that in today’s New York Times, and it’s worth spending a moment looking at his column.

The first thing I have to mention is something I believe he got wrong –

He said that Glenn Beck …

warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration’s “totalitarian” agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

I listen to Beck quite a bit, and the only time I’ve heard him mention the alleged FEMA camps was when he had an expert from Popular Mechanics on to debunk these stories. (I never did get why PM was the source for that, but they had apparently sent someone out to look into these stories.) As much as I think Beck is off his rocker, I have to call this one for inaccuracy.

Predictably, Mr. Krugman only sees hatred from the Right. That, frankly, undermines his credibility in this piece. If one is looking for hate-filled rhetoric, and wants to combat it, then one should go after ALL hateful rhetoric. After all, if it’s wrong for Rush Limbaugh to call feminist leaders “feminazis” (which it is, by the way) then the same principle should apply to members of the Bush administration. As much as I disapprove of the NSA domestic wireless wiretapping program, its supporters are not, in fact, Nazis. They are people with different principles and priorities than mine. Read the rest of this entry »

Nationalism is idolatry

I’ve started and stopped this post several times this week. Here goes …

(Side note … It still doesn’t feel right, but I’m posting this because I need to get the post done. It’s taken me most of a week to write this borderline-drivel. I had other issues about which to write.)

Friday night, a speaker at a rally in Virginia said this:

“The notion that we are just one of many among equals is nonsense,” [he] said. The United States is a “blessed” nation, he said, calling American revolutionaries’ defeat of the British empire “a miracle from God’s hand.”

Before I get into the details of who said this, I need to address a couple things. First of all, I have been unable to find an unedited transcript or any kind of video of this speech. It was closed to the press, but carried on God.tv, a web site to which I do not subscribe and so am unable to dig anything up. It is possible that the quote is badly out of context … and I hope so.

The reason for this, of course, is that the statement is erroneous in a great many ways. First of all, the idea that the US holds a special blessing from God is indefensible in any logical or Scriptural way. First of all … Why should God choose another country? He has identified a special and chosen nationality group, and it certainly isn’t clear why He would need a new one. Frankly, that didn’t work out so well, anyway … the modern state of Israel is one of the most secular countries on the planet, and certainly not anything remotely like a Christian nation. Read the rest of this entry »

Loud pipes and all that …

Later this month will be Bike Week, when the city of Laconia, NH concedes that it just can’t control the streets for a while. It rather makes me wish I didn’t like so near Route 11.

Anyway … the popular slogan for a certain category of motorcyclist is “loud pipes save lives,” apparently claiming that they need really loud motors so that we people driving normal cars don’t run over motorcyclists. To an extent, I can see this concern. However, there are some other things that save lives: Read the rest of this entry »

Christian Carnival 269

I know, I haven’t mentioned the Christian Carnival in a long time.

That’s because I haven’t been participating. Anyway … this week I did, and the Carnival is up at Participatory Bible Study Blog. It’s themed to summer vacations (themes … one of those clever things I’ve never mastered), and it looks pretty good. Since it’s 1:30, I’m going to bed, but I’ll be perusing it thoroughly at a more-civilized hour.

Enjoy!