Are These Truths Still Self-Evident?

When in the Course of human events . . .

The founders of this nation valued the concepts of freedom, equality, and representative government so much that they gave of their pens and their lives to give these concepts a permanent home in the hearts and minds of the people of the original thirteen colonies.

Did they conceptualize in 1776 that the united States of America would become 50 states, eventually cover a vast amount of North America, and its citizenry be comprised of a complexity of religions, creeds, and races? It could be that they did. Or that they hoped, because they certainly authored some Divinely-inspired documents which, if followed, leave no doubt as to their intentions for the nation's future.

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 accumstomed. . .

While the founding fathers could not have conceived of penicillin, moon landings, or weblogs, they did not have to because they could conceive of the nature of man and his tendency to become complacent during good times and accepting during bad. They also understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and in anticipation of the pains required to throw off the mantle of British tyranny, they crafted the Constitution. Three branches of government checking on and balancing out one another. No power grabs allowed.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . .

This 4th of July, 2006, is the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This year while we boat and camp and picnic with friends and family, we should be stopping to wonder if the democratic truths we once held dear are still self-evident. Or have we grown accepting of imitation democracy? What or who are our constitutionally- provided representatives representing? Where is the tipping point that denotes the end of democracy and the beginning of something that loops us back to 1776?

--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.

Americans might not agree on the fine points, but when we decline to agree on the major ones, it is doubtful we will long continue to be the united States of America. Newly realized truths will become self-evident, and we will wish we had stuck to the plan.

Have a Safe Holiday!

Enough Offense to Go Around

Recently the New York Times released a story in which they disclosed a bank records surveillance program the government was using to track the movement of funds going to terrorist groups. Immediately following, Vice President Dick Cheney stood before a Republican fund-raising luncheon in Chicago and stated he was offended by the actions of the NY Times.

I watched the clip of Cheney delivering these statements, and I'm positive my level of offense was higher on the meter than his. To begin with, unless you were hiding in a hole after 9/11 and not watching any news at all, you would know that pundits were freely discussing the ability of the United States to follow the money--of anyone, not only jihadists. Secondly, even drug dealers with only eighth grade educations know that the government can follow the money. That is why they generally don't sashay into the bank with a deposit slip and a fistful of it. Do not have your best garage sale ever and then walk into the bank to deposit $10,000 or more. You'll trip every trigger in the system. It's always been that way. So Mr. Cheney can stop pouting. I think that cat was already out of the bag.

Mr. Cheney also stood before his fellow diners and informed them that the release by the NY Times of this information would make it more difficult to "prevent future attacks against the American people." Maybe the NY Times is not the problem here. When this administration took office in 2001, White House insiders like Richard Clarke tried like hell to make Bush et. al. aware that an attack was imminent. Poor Mr. Clarke even cancelled the vacations of his staff to work the situation. He was eventually told to shut up and go away. I once heard poor Richard state that Mr. Bush told him he did not want to hear one more word about it. Apparently, Mr. Clarke and others complied and the Able Danger case was born.

I have taught enough public school to know all the blame games. There are many variations. As I watched Mr. Cheney make his statements on the news, I had his version pegged immediately. I'm sure it would never occur to him that the news media is watching him because of the way he is watching them, and us. Other than those who attend Republican fund-raising luncheons, where Cheney took occasion to raise this issue as his fellow Republicans sipped their Kool Aid and looked on, no one trusts the two cowboys who hold the highest office in the land. It's like Brokeback Mountain without the sex.

Sorry, Mr. Cheney. You can't start a war based on skewed intelligence where thousands of your countrymen's children will be killed or maimed, you can't give your old employer billions in no-bid contracts while your countrymen have watched their jobs disappear and their worlds collapse, you can't consistently let your reach exceed your lawful grasp and expect anyone except your fellow neo-conservatives to care if you're offended. Talk to the hand.

There's more than enough offense to go around.