Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 19th Apr 2020, 06:38
  #21361 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: A place in the sun
Age: 79
Posts: 969
While you all debate the constitution, here is what the American public think.

https://www.people-press.org/2020/04...avirus-threat/
Bergerie1 is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 07:13
  #21362 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
I was not familiar with that aspect of law, Pattern, and so I thank you for the references.

However, I note that as one peruses the list of 136 specific actions referred to, as well as the historical list of emergency declarations under the legislation, the vast majority refer to specific incidents and their prescribed remedies. None that I saw applied to individual rights as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. (I understand that a similar argument has been made unsuccessfully in opposition to such things as Selective Service or the Income Tax, and after-the-fact regarding Japanese-American internment, but my point remains.)

I expect that out of all of this will come direct legal challenges to many of the restrictions currently in place. I suspect we have not heard the end of this by a long shot. An "inalienable right" cannot suddenly become "alienable" at the whim of the Federal or State government, and I remain intrigued by the Left's apparent attraction to such restrictions.
obgraham is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 12:34
  #21363 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,061
OB - lawsuits already happening, with regard to limitations on church services (number of people together, how organized). With one temporary restraining order already in place (in KS, in favor of plaintiffs). That's one setting where the Bill of Rights more clearly applies (1st Amendment - association and religion), and may win in the long run.

There is the famous statement that "The Constitution (or "Bill of Rights") is not a suicide pact," which dates to at least Jefferson (in concept if not wording). "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." And even Donald Trump has referenced the idea, in defending his "Muslim Ban."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co...a_suicide_pact
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 17:05
  #21364 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,710
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post

There is the famous statement that "The Constitution (or "Bill of Rights") is not a suicide pact," which dates to at least Jefferson (in concept if not wording). "To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." And even Donald Trump has referenced the idea, in defending his "Muslim Ban."
As long as we’re trading quotes, here’s one from Ben Franklin that warms my Libertarian heart.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Now before you head to google to refute, there are variants of the quote in old English. There are also those who don’t follow the strict constructionist philosophy who say it no longer pertains in their utopian society view, so save your time I’ve read them all.

It’s my considered opinion that society (at the threat of force) has moved far away from the spirit of Franklin’s quote. As an example, California has some expansive deserts, one can go deep off road and end up dozens of miles away from the next person. Yet the state of California has closed them down. The areas are so remote that they have to use CHP aircraft with loudspeakers to find campers and then run them off. This smacks of a tyrannical government when the healthy are equally sanctioned in their movements as are the sick. I accept reasonable restrictions on large gatherings, I don’t accept government restriction on someone wanting to practice social isolation in a means the government hasn’t deemed acceptable to them. Saw the same occurring in Australia. They are actually landing helicopters at remote camping sights to run them off. Guess they have more money than the state of California if they can afford that.
West Coast is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 17:29
  #21365 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 55
Posts: 853
Originally Posted by West Coast View Post
As long as weíre trading quotes, hereís one from Ben Franklin that warms my Libertarian heart.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Now before you head to google to refute, there are variants of the quote in old English. There are also those who donít follow the strict constructionist philosophy who say it no longer pertains in their utopian society view, so save your time Iíve read them all.

Itís my considered opinion that society (at the threat of force) has moved far away from the spirit of Franklinís quote. As an example, California has some expansive deserts, one can go deep off road and end up dozens of miles away from the next person. Yet the state of California has closed them down. The areas are so remote that they have to use CHP aircraft with loudspeakers to find campers and then run them off. This smacks of a tyrannical government when the healthy are equally sanctioned in their movements as are the sick. I accept reasonable restrictions on large gatherings, I donít accept government restriction on someone wanting to practice social isolation in a means the government hasnít deemed acceptable to them. Saw the same occurring in Australia. They are actually landing helicopters at remote camping sights to run them off. Guess they have more money than the state of California if they can afford that.
Unusually I have some sympathy with your argument (!), but to take a smaller scale comparison: freeway speed limits are geared (or should be) to a level at which most drivers wonít be dangerous. You and many on here may be quite capable of driving much faster perfectly safely, while some are lethal 20mph under the limit. It would be complex to say the least to apply the law on a case by case basis rather than as a blanket....
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 17:42
  #21366 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 81
Posts: 1,159
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
It is very interesting to go back in history -- as we always say, history repeats itself.

Lincoln. Sainted in the mind of Americans, and American historians. But he suspended Habeas Corpus during much of the Civil War. And he instituted, by executive order only, draconian measures regarding the State of Missouri.

The passage of time may well change our interpretations of Trump's and our Governors' actions or lack of action during this viral episode. Current judgements are premature.
obgraham, the US Constitution gave Lincoln the right to suspend Habeas Corpus. This right of an accused person is guaranteed by Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution, which says: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Lincoln decided to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at the very beginning of the Civil War to deter Confederate sympathizers in Maryland from aiding the enemy by obstructing the movement of Union soldiers to Washington, D.C. to defend the city.

President Lincoln acted without prior congressional approval because Congress was not in session at the outbreak of war. So, the president called a special session of Congress, which convened on July 4, 1861. On that occasion, Lincoln explained his actions and asked Congress to consent to what he had done during an unprecedented national emergency. Lincoln's overwhelming support from Congress certainly strengthened his argument that suspension of habeas corpus rights was not unconstitutional.

I agree with what Lincoln did. However, Lincoln's political opponents never stopped denouncing him for this action, and still don't to this day...


obgraham, what executive orders from Lincoln were "draconian measures" in Missouri?

Turbine D is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 17:58
  #21367 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,710
Originally Posted by Curious Pax View Post
Unusually I have some sympathy with your argument (!), but to take a smaller scale comparison: freeway speed limits are geared (or should be) to a level at which most drivers wonít be dangerous. You and many on here may be quite capable of driving much faster perfectly safely, while some are lethal 20mph under the limit. It would be complex to say the least to apply the law on a case by case basis rather than as a blanket....
Red herring, we still have car accidents, so any speed can be dangerous.

Certain states are now deeming what is ďnon-essential foodĒ at markets, taping off portions of aisles theyíve deemed as something itís citizens donít need to eat in an effort to speed their time in the market. The government determining what you can and cannot eat, kinda like what they do in prison. Stalinís chicken, apocryphal or not isnít far off.

I live rurally, nearby two young brothers playing in a field behind their house were escorted back home by police and the parents were threatened with $1000 fine, the going rate. One of my favorites, nearer Los Angeles, police were citing (and sometimes arresting) surfers/paddle boarders even though there was no was remotely close. The real rub, if you dropped in by boat or helicopter (ya, thatís a thing) you were ok to surf.
West Coast is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 18:11
  #21368 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,061
Thanks WC. It is a quote I've enjoyed also.

But as you know (but others may not), Franklin used it in the pre-revolutionary period, defending the Pennsylvania Colony legislature's liberty to tax property belonging to the Penns - absentee landlords in the UK. Not exactly a small-government ideal.

As to your desert example, remember that the law must treat everyone equally (14th Amendment). No private legislation for privi-leged individuals.

If CA allows one person to head out into the desert to self-isolate, they must allow everyone to do so. Which would kill the whole purpose - you'd just end up with Middle-East-style refugee camps of Angelenos or San Diegans in the Mojave or Borrego, far from medical assistance and happily swapping virus. (I'll tell you my Borrego Desert story sometime).

Anyway, as our dueling quotes demonstrate, the US has been a balancing act between liberty and safety from the very beginning, and will be forever. It is how we achieve the maximum amount of liberty and safety (averaged over time) without descending into anarchy or a police state.

You'd have to give me examples of the threat of force to explain why society has moved away from Liberty towards Safety. I would submit the driving force for that has been fear Ė the rich will get you, the poor will get you, the terrorists will get you, the immigrants will get you, the dark-skinned people will get you, the Jews will get you, the Liberals will get you, globalization will get you (and yes, "Covid will get you," but at least that is a self-evident threat, at the moment). Put up walls and gates, write laws, and buy guns. "The Land of the self-imprisoned, and the Home of the lily-livered."
pattern_is_full is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 18:30
  #21369 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,710
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Thanks WC. It is a quote I've enjoyed also.

But as you know (but others may not), Franklin used it in the pre-revolutionary period, defending the Pennsylvania Colony legislature's liberty to tax property belonging to the Penns - absentee landlords in the UK. Not exactly a small-government ideal.

As to your desert example, remember that the law must treat everyone equally (14th Amendment). No private legislation for privi-leged individuals.

If CA allows one person to head out into the desert to self-isolate, they must allow everyone to do so. Which would kill the whole purpose - you'd just end up with Middle-East-style refugee camps of Angelenos or San Diegans in the Mojave or Borrego, far from medical assistance and happily swapping virus. (I'll tell you my Borrego Desert story sometime).

Anyway, as our dueling quotes demonstrate, the US has been a balancing act between liberty and safety from the very beginning, and will be forever. It is how we achieve the maximum amount of liberty and safety (averaged over time) without descending into anarchy or a police state.

You'd have to give me examples of the threat of force to explain why society has moved away from Liberty towards Safety. I would submit the driving force for that has been fear Ė the rich will get you, the poor will get you, the terrorists will get you, the immigrants will get you, the dark-skinned people will get you, the Jews will get you, the Liberals will get you, globalization will get you (and yes, "Covid will get you," but at least that is a self-evident threat, at the moment). Put up walls and gates, write laws, and buy guns. "The Land of the self-imprisoned, and the Home of the lily-livered."
Those with the ability to camp and social distance at the same time shouldnít be penalized.

California is also enforcing the ban on BLM land, which has off-road groups lawyering up. Other states havenít imposed or at least enforced similar requirements so theyíve managed to find an acceptable response to someone excercising what used to be a right in California.

Any response should be proportionate to the threat. Isolating is isolating whether itís in your residence or in your motorhome. Penalize those who break the 6 ft rule, donít paint with a wide brush to catch those who are still in compliance, just not in the same manner as others.


West Coast is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 18:53
  #21370 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not scotland
Posts: 199

Yep. Says the guy in PPE.

Toadstool is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 20:05
  #21371 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
obgraham, what executive orders from Lincoln were "draconian measures" in Missouri?
My apologies, I didn't fully make my point, Turbine. Missouri is possibly the most complex and interesting state in its Civil War history. More sharply divided than any other, largely out of the eye of historians regarding the fighting, etc.

Lincoln's orders essentially suspending civil rights were easy for him to enact, but difficult to get rid of. As he often did, he had difficulty finding effective leaders early in the War, and the ones he put into Missouri were worse than most. Once in charge, running the State under martial law, they refused to give up their powers, and Lincoln expressed regret at this situation right before his assassination. The offenders here were of his own party -- abolitionists and anti-secessionists. In their name populations were relocated, and a significant number of deaths occurred beyond military action.

My point is that there are unintended consequences to any action which interferes with civil liberty. This current situation is no exception.
obgraham is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 21:29
  #21372 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 437
[QUOTE=Toadstool;10755784]


What to do when the people who think it’s brainwashing are busy brainwashing themselves. What mad rabbit hole world of reality denying logic do they go down?
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 22:29
  #21373 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,710
[QUOTE=Torquetalk;10755940]
Originally Posted by Toadstool View Post



What to do when the people who think itís brainwashing are busy brainwashing themselves. What mad rabbit hole world of reality denying logic do they go down?
You acknowledge thatís the price of free speech, thatís what you do.
West Coast is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 23:07
  #21374 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
You acknowledge thatís the price of free speech, thatís what you do.
Indeed. The "EU" mindset is "we have to do something about this".
The US mindset is "he's a moron, is my pizza ready yet?"
obgraham is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2020, 23:49
  #21375 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 4
Whatever happened to the Ant and the Grasshopper?

I used to get this email from time to time, often forwarded with a sense of glee. Maybe you know the one where the ant works all Summer long, but the grasshopper p1sses about so much that when fall and winter arrive the ant is all set up, nice nest, lots of food and the grasshopper is freezing his [email protected] off maybe begging, or worse ... EXPECTING the ant to share his largess

Ok I get the point, and to be honest, I'm a lot more ant than I am grasshopper, but having said that I never forwarded the email partly because it was usually accompanied with a healthy dose of self righteousness. The underlying message ... the REAL message that was being conveyed was generally something like "Why should the money I pay money into the system be used to supply welfare payments to people who don't work?" And, really, it's not overly taxing to see both sides of that argument, regardless of how hard you work, or, maybe more importantly, what opportunities are available to you.

Well now things are different I guess. Two point two trillion dollars[1] produced like magic from nowhere. Twelve hundred bucks for almost every person and yet, I've not heard a single complaint from the people who used to send out that email.

Why is that?

You can't say "Well this time it's serious" because it was always serious ... to some people at least



[1] Unless I'm incorrect, it was $2.2T, even though they keep calling it a Two Trillion Dollar Bailout. That's a 10% inaccuracy that amounts to Two hundred billion dollars. I mean, you'd think it'd be important to at least get the number right. $200B isn't really what a normal person would want to put down as a rounding error

Oh and yes, I'll be cashing mine if I ever get it, even though I'm in a position to not need it. The rationale behind this is that they'll get it all back one way or another
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2020, 03:30
  #21376 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,415
I also like the ant and the grasshopper story (you may have spotted it in my previous posts).

But to me that doesn't mean you shouldn't waste your time sharing your largess. But the sharing is done to benefit society in some way. It is also to be divied up someway where it does not negatively impact society by negatively upsetting the typical variations in GNP (what we can afford)

So call it a loan but forget about calling every single loan and instead measure over time the impact on GNP as a means of payback. I suspect our GNP will go down but recover partially a lot more than it would without the loan.

I'm not gonna get into the divvy portion
lomapaseo is online now  
Old 20th Apr 2020, 08:07
  #21377 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 437
[QUOTE=West Coast;10755994]
Originally Posted by Torquetalk View Post

You acknowledge that’s the price of free speech, that’s what you do.
The right to protest and free speech are cornerstones of much that we (US/UK/EU) value. I wasn’t questioning either.

Per se, I have no issue with an idiot standing that with a sign defying reality. Like OB says, “an idiot, where’s my pizza?” There are plenty of idiots. Many people believe the nuttiest crap if you get beyond the veneer of normality.

Yet in an age where modern media has given all manner of nutters the opportunity to self-legitimate and disseminate dangerous misinformation, it is reasonable to question the danger presented by such “platformers” in societies where many people are sceptical (if not out right distrustful), about information from established sources, but completely gullible and all-believing of wacko “alternate” views on the other.

Andrew Wakefield has established himself as something of a guru and true prophet for the anti-vaxers in the States. Is his right to freedom of speech greater than the risk he presents to American public health?

You can buy all manner of books to tell you how the Holocaust was either greatly exaggerated or even a complete myth. You can land in jail for that in Germany.

Meanwhile brainwashed dickheads are destroying part of the national infrastructure in the UK, incited by 5G conspiracy nonesense.

Slolwy, oh so slowly, the social media giants are starting to cooperate with governments and screen for wacko conspiracy, hate, self-harm, abuse and other such material. I’m okay with that.

Note: For some reason the your quote has been attributed to me WC

Last edited by Torquetalk; 20th Apr 2020 at 08:29.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2020, 08:17
  #21378 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 0
Slolwy, oh so slowly, the social media giants are starting to cooperate with governments and screen forconspiracy, hate, self-harm, abuse and other such material. I’m okay with that.
Here's the difference: The social media are private organizations. They can publish what they wish, so long at they are transparent in what they choose to publish or to suppress, and then are willing to take the praise AND the criticism for their choices.

There is no requirement for them to "cooperate with governments". Quite the reverse in fact. Media should not be the agents of the government.

I realize that other countries see this matter differently. That doesn't make them better.
obgraham is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2020, 08:26
  #21379 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: EU
Posts: 437
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Here's the difference: The social media are private organizations. They can publish what they wish, so long at they are transparent in what they choose to publish or to suppress, and then are willing to take the praise AND the criticism for their choices.

There is no requirement for them to "cooperate with governments". Quite the reverse in fact. Media should not be the agents of the government.

I realize that other countries see this matter differently. That doesn't make them better.
I am afraid you are going somewhere odd with that one OB. Social media organizations are not free to publish what they want because they are private. They are subject to the laws regulating publication in the country in which they operate. Those laws vary from country to country and are subject to legitimate challenge. That is good and hopefully will ever be so.

Canít see anyone championing social media being co-opted to be agents of governments. Certainly not me. In fact, in the US, UK and EU that is pretty much self-regulating. Nobody is going to accept social media platforms that are the fawning mouthpieces of the state.
Torquetalk is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2020, 08:47
  #21380 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,284
Free speech only works if the people who exercise it accept responsibility for the consequences of what they say. So if someone starts or promotes a lie that (fregsample) 5G masts cause Covid 19 then the owners/operators/users of the destroyed masts should be able to hold them financially responsible for the damage, the loss of revenue from the outage and any additional security/protection costs necessitated by what was said (down to the shirts from their backs). the right wing ethos is supposed to espouse personal responsibility, but over and over again we see them wanting to defend their more insidious fellow travellers from responsibility for the consequences of what they say.

The right-wing extremists somehow managed to make "freedom of speech" a general amnesty that grants immunity from any consequences - this is arrant nonsense that is at the heart of many of our societal problems today. The right to freedom of speech should simply stop people being gagged before they've said anything. It should never provide a universal right to tell lies to promote harm. With freedom comes responsibility, so if there really was a free society Trump's fortune would have long-since been dissipated in pay-outs to cover the damage done by the stream of lies which start from the moment he wakes up and continue until his head hits the people in the evening.

Oh yes, and I suggest freedom of speech should never be a defence for making up fake facts. Ever. No doubt that view makes me a communist. Here's another one - in my view anyone who knowingly tells lies while in public office should be immediately disbarred from public office and deprived of any and all income they have every received from the public purse... Again, probably a communist view in the eyes of the right-wing extremists - but for normal people it's just a normal expectation that shouldn't even need saying.

PDR
PDR1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.