Our Noble Experiment - Democracy

John Adams wrote, in 1814, "Democracy never lasts long, it soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a Democracy yet, that didn't commit suicide." The next 2 months will tell us if he was right, or wrong.

Now the Democrats will start the Court challenges. As would the Reublicans had the outcome been reversed. Remember, they said they would accept the outcome. Of course, now they won't. Here is something to think about before our country descends into Civil Unrest.

The total death toll of the American Civil War is generally accepted to be around 620,000 soldiers and approximately another 130,000 civilians, for a total of 850,000 in the 48 months from April 1861 through April of 1865. Then it took a century more to recover from that conflict, and arguably that recovery is still going on today.

Comparatively the total deaths incurred during the 45 months of the Second World War, from December 7th, 1941 to the first week of September of 1945 was far less,  approximately 113,842 in both Europe and the Pacific combined. And when the war was over we recovered almost immediately,  into a post war boom both socially and economically.

The lesson to be learned is quite simple; we lose more when we fight amongst ourselves than we do when we are fighting others. Think about that.

The Secret Ballot - Saving Democracy

The relationship between all the political noise out there and the dysfunctional government we have as a result of that division is something which needs to be spoken about more. But the person who risks saying anything about the polarization gripping the nation is sure to be labelled by one side or the other as a fascist, a communist or a number of other non-politically correct names.

The secret ballot is the underpinning of our system of government. No one can compel you to divulge for whom you cast your vote. At the same time you have freedom of speech which gives you the right to broadcast your political views, and choices, as much as you want to. These are both great principles.

But examine the situation more closely and you will find that when everyone exercises their rights to the utmost in regards to the freedom of speech, it can get so noisy out there that it becomes hard to filter out the noise from the real facts. Division grows among the populace and the elected officials; who are your employees; rejoice. If we can’t agree on how to run the government we sure won’t be firing anyone too soon.

George Washington got it. He spoke about in his farewell address in 1796. We would all due well to read it and heed his words as the increasingly early election season heats up to a fever pitch. The secret ballot is the surest way to quell the noise, and with it the division, in time for some common sense choices in the coming political contests. Don’t ask me for whom I am voting. And don’t call me for any polls; as a patriotic American I won’t be answering.

Here is the pertinent portion of Washington’s Farewell Address;

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

And here is a link to the entire address, which is still worth reading over 200 years later. If you have never read it you may consider yourself at a loss;

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/text.html

Virginia Same Sex Marriage Ban

There comes a time in every argument where one side must give way to the other; either out of common sense, or self-preservation. As regards the arguments for; or against; gay marriage, that time has come.

There is a scene in the docudrama “Adams” in which David McCullough has Benjamin Franklin stating that; in regards to the colonies being free; the time had come to state the obvious, that these colonies were not asking for freedom, rather they were declaring it to be a fact.

The recent decision by the Eastern District Court in Norfolk by Judge Arenda Wright Allen; in which she stayed Virginia’s new law banning gay marriage; going so far as to draw upon the Declaration of Independence to arrive at her decision ignores the fact that the Declaration of Independence is not considered law. But this seems to be of no concern to the Judge as she tramples upon the stated wishes of the voters in her district. Which is not to say that this issue is one which should be up for a popular vote to begin with.

Let me state right here that I don’t care who marries who; and my marriage never needed the “protections” offered by Bill Clinton’s DOMA; an absurdity unto itself. But to celebrate; as they are in Virginia and elsewhere; this decision, as a victory for anybody is a farce. I’ll explain.

Look at the article below, which I have reprinted from the Associated Press. You can check it at the link below the article for accuracy. Tell me if you find any reference to the judge’s misnomer in citing the Declaration of Independence as a source for her decision. Then look below at the text of her actual decision and tell me why that is not in the news reports. And, if you don’t know why it’s important I’ll tell you.

People are celebrating a STAY of a law. This is not an automatic win. Coming, as it does, after 57% of Virginians voted for the ban, is inflammatory and does little to ease the divide in relation to an already controversial issue. As a matter of fact it does the opposite.

Moreover, it distorts the very foundation of the law our society rests upon; the United States Constitution. So, what would I do? That’s simple. I’m with Benjamin Franklin. Rather than continuing this divisive voting on an issue which is a Civil Right; and as such is not subject to a Popular Vote; why not declare it what it is; a Right and be done with it?

In short, you have people celebrating a non-existent victory over a STAY, which is founded upon a document which has no legal merit in court, of a law approved by Voters who really have no legal basis to decide a Civil Right. I am not making this up- and, if I did; I hope that you would not believe it. I can hardly believe it myself.

Other than making judges appear to be fools, and voters appear to be bigots; why not recognize that; just as you cannot vote to disenfranchise an African-American, or a Woman from marrying the person of their choice; regardless of color; the same right is inherent for all human beings?

The only reason I can discern is to keep us all divided upon a social issue, and thus ensure that the power remains with those who already hold it. I urge you to call Judge Wright Allen at her chambers in Norfolk and ask for an explanation about that Declaration of Independence thing. Here’s the number;

1-757-222-7013 Tell ‘em Robert at Rooftop is still waiting for an answer.

A 1st for South: Va. Gay Marriage Ban Overturned

NORFOLK, Va. February 13, 2014 (AP)

By BROCK VERGAKIS Associated Press

Associated Press

In a first for the South, Virginia's same-sex marriage ban has been overturned, with a federal judge ruling that the voter-approved amendment is unconstitutional and declaring the move "another moment history when We the People becomes more inclusive."

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen on Thursday issued a stay of her order while it is appealed, meaning that gay couples in Virginia still won't be able to marry until the case is ultimately resolved. Lawyers for the clerks in Norfolk and Prince William County who defended the ban are expected to file the appeal, which will be heard by the 4th Circuit Court in Richmond. It could uphold the ban or side with Wright Allen. If the 4th Circuit sides with overturning the ban, it too could issue a stay while the case is appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Both sides believe the case won't be settled until then — or until the high court rules on a similar case.

Wright Allen's decision echoes recent rulings elsewhere in the U.S. and is the strongest foothold yet in the South for the gay-marriage movement. On Wednesday, a judge declared that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, but didn't rule on the constitutionality of whether such marriages can be performed in the state.

The office of newly elected Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring took the unusual step of not defending the law because it believes the ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In her ruling, Wright Allen agreed.

She struck down the three key arguments offered for denying gay marriages.

"Government interests in perpetuating traditions, shielding state matters from federal interference, and favoring one model of parenting over others must yield to this country's cherished protections that ensure the exercise of the private choices of the individual citizen regarding love and family," Wright Allen wrote.

She also wrote: "Gay and lesbian individuals share the same capacity as heterosexual individuals to form, preserve and celebrate loving, intimate and lasting relationships."

Wright Allen's stay was requested by the Virginia Attorney General's Office to avoid a situation like what happened in Utah when a gay-marriage ban was declared unconstitutional. More than 1,000 couples were married in the days after the ruling until the U.S. Supreme Court granted the state an emergency stay, creating a cloud of uncertainty for their status. Soon after, a federal judge also declared Oklahoma's ban unconstitutional. That ruling also is on hold while it is appealed.

In a Valentine's Day news conference, the two couples at the center of a Virginia case said that while the decision has been stayed, it brings them one step closer to marriage.

"The saying here is Virginia is for lovers, and truly we are experiencing that today in a way that we never have before," Carol Schall said. She and Mary Townley have been together about 30 years. They married in California in 2008 and have a teenage daughter. The couple wants Virginia to recognize their marriage.

Timothy Bostic — who was denied a marriage license with Tony London by the Norfolk Circuit Court on July 1, shortly after the Supreme Court struck down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — said the judge in this case "gets it."

"She understands why we're doing this and how important this is to us, and anyone that believes in the ideals upon which this country was founded can't help but understand," Bostic said.

Adam Umhoefer of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the challenge for the plaintiffs, emphasized the message the ruling sent to the South. "Today in places like Birmingham and Biloxi, Chattanooga and Charleston, gay and lesbian couples know that equality isn't just something that happens up north," he said.

Supporters of the state ban on same-sex marriages issued statements decrying Wright Allen's ruling.

"It appears that we have yet another example of an arrogant judge substituting her personal preferences for the judgment of the General Assembly and 57 percent of Virginia voters," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council.

Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, called the ruling "another example of an Obama-appointed judge twisting the constitution and the rule of law to impose her own views of marriage in defiance of the people of Virginia."

In a movement that began with Massachusetts in 2004, 17 states and the District of Columbia now allow gay marriage, most of them clustered in the Northeast. None of them is in the old Confederacy.

Opponents of the Virginia ban say the issue resonates in Virginia in particular because of a landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision involving a Virginia couple and interracial marriage.

Mildred and Richard Loving were married in Washington, D.C., and lived in Virginia when police raided their home in 1958 and charged them with violating the state's Racial Integrity law. They were convicted but prevailed before the Supreme Court.

During verbal arguments in the gay marriage case, Virginia Solicitor General Stuart Raphael said that ban is legally indistinguishable from the one on interracial marriage. He said the arguments used to defend the ban now are the same ones used back then, including that marriage between two people of the same sex has never been historically allowed. Wright Allen concurred with that assessment in her ruling.

"Tradition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia's ban on interracial marriage," she wrote.

In defending the law, the attorney for the Norfolk clerk said the issue is best left for the General Assembly and the voters to decide.

Attorney General Herring, in a news conference Friday, said his decision not to defend the ban was "consistent with the rule of law."

"Although this process is far from over, it remains a great day for equality in Virginia," he said.

Nationwide, there are more than a dozen states with federal lawsuits challenging state bans on same-sex marriage.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BgZ1olhCUAAVHEZ.png

Getting it Right in Egypt

Ever since the “Arab Spring” uprising in Egypt there has been great confusion over whether it was a good or bad thing. Much of this confusion has been fostered by both an ill-informed press and an ignorant body of our own lawmakers. You know the type; the same ones who bought into the War in Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein; and basically have mismanaged the Middle East for decades. This includes both Republicans and Democrats.

To understand what has happened in Egypt, it is necessary to look back at the history of Turkey; most notably at the reign of Ataturk; real name Mustafa Kemal Ataturk; who was instrumental in the establishment of a secular government in Turkey after the end of the First World War and the demise of the Ottoman Empire. In the past 12 years; since 9/11 and our misguided war in Iraq; we have been instrumental in restoring the Ottoman Empire, from Afghanistan to the border of Turkey. This bodes ill for the West, as it is a step backwards in time and progress, not to mention freedom.

Basically, pure democracy can be a dangerous thing. We ourselves have an Electoral College to safe guard our democracy against being hijacked by various extremists groups. The founding fathers were very wise in this respect. They saw the potential of the people to make mistakes. And, to safeguard the republic from itself, the Electoral College was formed. It has served us well for over 200 years. It is a restraint which has served as the buffer against our country falling too far to the right, or to the left.

In Turkey, when Ataturk took down the last of the Caliphate in the mid 1920’s, he took a cue from our secular democracy; seeing to it that Turkey’s military would be tasked with upholding a secular government. He also outlawed the Fez and the Veil, seeing them as roadblocks to joining the 20^th Century, as well as signs of division among her own people.

As a result of that foresight, Turkey has enjoyed almost a century of stable governance. There have been a few occasions in which the Turkish people have elected an Islamic fundamentalist to the Presidency, only to have the military take over the government until the tide of extremism has ebbed. When that happens, the military returns the government to the people for free elections. I had the privilege to see this system in action while traveling through Turkey in the 1970’s, when extremism was on the rise; and the military took control; and then again in 1984 when they returned the government to the people.

The current leader of Turkey is walking fine line. He was elected on an Islamist platform, and the military did not attend his swearing in; although they vowed to back him so long as he maintained a secular government. Recently, in the wake of the fallout from the Arab Spring, he has tried to take Turkey back a few steps toward Islamic Fundamentalism, but with the military looking on closely, he has not been able to do so.

This brings us to Egypt; which although it has a different constitution; the dynamics are about the same. The people ousted Mubarak; much as the Iraqi’s did to Hussein; and the results of both are plain to see. The power vacuum in both countries was quickly filled by extremists, such as Mursi in Egypt, and the still fractured sects vying for control in Iraq. This is the same dilemma which President Assad of Syria faces in the current troubles in his country. Although he has vowed to destroy Israel, Syria remains more of a pipeline for the supplies and weapons required by the Palestinians than an actual military threat. In his own way, he may still be considered to be a roadblock against the expansion of the Ottoman Empire.

On the other hand, we have helped to restore a portion of the Ottoman Empire, unbroken, from Afghanistan to the border of Turkey, which is home to the Kurds. The Kurds are Islamic Fundamentalists who, if they had the chance, would have taken Iraq and Turkey long ago. And remember, that Turkey is the dividing line between the East and West. It was only the repressive policies of Hussein, along with the secular government in Turkey which has prevented them from crossing that line.

When the Arab Spring rolled around, the news media and ill-informed people the world over rejoiced. There was going to be democracy in Egypt! That didn’t last long, as evidenced by the recent overthrow of President Mursi. That the military has stepped in and put a halt to the Islamization of Egypt is a welcome event, but it is easily misunderstood by most Americans, who see it only as a military coup and an affront to freedom.

The truth of the matter is that Egypt has taken a leaf from the pages of Turkey’s history and revoked the powers of the President, setting a respected Judge in place to run the courts, while at the same time planning for free and responsible elections next year. This is actually good news for those who can understand it. It means that Egypt’s military has taken the necessary steps to stop the slide of her country into Islamic Fundamentalism. You can almost feel the sigh of relief coming from Israel, who would soon have found itself surrounded on all sides; once again; by enemies bent on her destruction.

I wish the Egyptian people luck in their effort to maintain a secular government in the face of both the terrorists, as well as the ill-informed people who are clamoring about a military coup thwarting the so-called Arab Spring in that country.

For more about the Ataturk and the formation of the modern Turkish government you can go to; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrkwikipedia and apply the lessons learned there to the situation now taking place in Egypt.

The photo above is of the Egyptian military helicopters flying over the protesters in a show of support for the ouster of President Mursi last week.

To Protect and Serve?

This is the new face of democracy in America. This unidentified 84 year old woman was pepper sprayed in Seattle yesterday as jack booted thugs broke up a peaceful demonstration against corporate and political greed.
Can you imagine what thoughts were racing through her mind as she was assaulted for expressing her right to assemble and peacefully protest?

She must have been wondering; as I sometimes do myself; what happened to the country in which I was born? When did the jackals take over? How did we let this happen? Did we become so liberal that we pose a threat to the powers that be? And just who makes that determination anyway?

From New York's Zuccotti Park, all the way to Seattle, the country is abroil with discontent. And, rightfully so. We have become the prisoners of a greedy class of people, who think it is all about them. From golden toilets on Wall Street; and golden parachutes to match; all the way down to the "noveau riche", who will be gobbled up right after the middle class becomes extinct, there is a savage fight brewing to decide just who we are, versus who we want to be, as individuals, as well as a nation.

And, if it is true, as spoken by such luminaries as, Winston Churchill, Pope John Paul II, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Harry Truman, that "Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; the last, the least, the littlest", then I'm afraid we have come painfully short of the mark, as evidenced by this photo. It should serve to galvanize the nation to the dangers confronting it by the forces of greed and self-interest. It is not all about "me", or "you", it is about "us", together, standing up for what we know is right. And pepper spraying this 84 year old woman, along with the rest of the protesters, was clearly wrong.

There will be a reckoning next year, and there will be violence in the streets, just as there was during the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago. And just like that sorry chapter in our history, which has been described as a "police riot", I fear that we will once again witness the sorry spectacle of authority waging war on its own citizens. The irony in it all, of course, is that they will be beating us with the very things which we, as tax payers, bought them after 9/11, to protect us from those who would do us harm.

Election Day - 1960

I was 6 years old and this was the first Presidential election I would recall. I do remember brief bits about Eisenhower, mostly connected with my father being out of work during Ike's second term, during a recession. My father was never out of work, and so I suppose that is why I remember it at all.

The 1960 election was a big deal in our house, my father was Irish-Catholic; as was the Senator from Massachusetts, John Kennedy, who was the Democratic candidate for President. When Kennedy came to New York City, he visited various parts of Brooklyn, including a ride down Ralph Avenue in the Carnasie section, where we lived for a bit less than a year. I still remember seeing him riding past, waving to the crowd.

On Election Night 1960, my parents, along with millions of other Americans, sat glued to their televisions, waiting for the results. It would be a long wait. I remember making it until about 11 PM, or so, and then being carried to my bed. When I woke in the morning it was still not settled as to who had won the election!

While I slept, Richard Nixon had made a speech at about 3 AM, hinting toward a concession. He intimated that Kennedy may have won the election. This was puzzling, as it was not an out and out concession speech. Data from several states, notably Illinois and Ohio, were being examined closely for evidence of Voter fraud.

It was not until the afternoon of Wednesday, November 9th, that Nixon finally conceded the election to Kennedy. This map from Wikipedia illustrates just how close the election was. As a matter of fact, history has proven that Kennedy stole the 1960 election by buying votes in the states questioned. Included in this scenario were the actions of Chicago Mayor Richard Daley in carrying Illinois for the Democrats.

With the United States and the Soviet Union locked in a Cold War, which was about to heat up dramatically, Vice President Nixon made the decision not to concede the election, rather than challenge it, which would have thrown the country into a Constitutional crisis. With the Soviets poised on the border of West Berlin, along with the new Communist regime in Cuba, clearly this was not the time to "rock the boat" here at home. Swallowing what must have been a bitter pill, the Vice President finally conceded the election at about 3 PM on Wednesday, November 9th.

The election of 1960 still stands as a landmark one. It was the first election in the 20th Century in which both candidates had been born in the 20th Century, marking a milestone for younger voters, like my parents. It was the first time in decades that both candidates had children at home, like so many Americans in the electorate. This was also the last time a Presidential candidate would win election without carrying the state of Ohio.

Although he did not win the popular vote, Kennedy beat Nixon by one tenth of one percentage point(0.1%) which is the closest margin of the 20th century.

Nixon's staff wanted him to pursue a recount and challenge Kennedy's victory in several states, especially in Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey. Those 3 states had large majorities in Catholic districts, which just about handed Kennedy the election.

Three days after the election was over, Nixon gave a speech in which he said that he would not contest the results of the election. He is to be credited for this action, as the Russians were watching very closely to see how we handled the affair. Nixon's decision to forgo a challenge sent a clear and united signal to the Soviets that we were a strong, and unified nation, in spite of our many differences.

However, the Republican National Chairman, Senator Morton of Kentucky, did challenge the results in 11 states. Those challenges would not be thrown out of the courts until the following summer of 1961; fully 6 months after Kennedy had taken office, and just 4 months after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The only loss to Kennedy by recount was the state of Hawaii.

Though this year's elections are largely local affairs, they are the ramp up to next year's National election. So, get out there, vote, and make your voice heard. For what it's worth, the votes you cast today just may influence next year's choices.

A Long Time Coming

The Government of Myanmar has released Aung San Suu Kyi from house detention, where she has spent the better part of the last 20 years. Welcome back Aung San, and remember Myanmar, The Whole World Is Watching.

Newspapers - Forums for Exchange

This is why I love newspapers. Ever since the first one rolled off the press several hundred years ago, people have been exchanging ideas and learning from one another. A large amount of this interaction has taken the form of "Letters to the Editor" - or in the case of the Charlotte Observer, the "Forum."

Last Sunday I read a Letter to the Editor with which I totally disagreed. Sitting down at my computer I tapped out a few words in response. Yesterday morning my letter appeared and I got to have my say. This is what it's all about, an exchange of opinions and ideas. No rancor or disrespect. Just two people differing, yet respecting, one another's opinions.

I called Mr. Kniegge last evening to let him know that while I do not agree with his opinion, I certainly respect it. He was unavailable and I spoke with Mrs. Kniegge. She assured me that they both felt the same way about it. And that was so comforting, to hear a voice of reason while all around us the Powers That Be do their best to pit us against one another. Lincoln said it best, "A house divided cannot stand."

Mr. Kniegge is a rare example of the ability to agree to disagree without rancor. The principles on which this country was founded will remain in force only as long as people like he and I can show tolerance for one another. Even when we disagree. Once again, it's all about respect.

"Ruggles of Red Gap" with Charles Laughton, Roland Young, Charlie Ruggles and Zasu Pitts

This movie is a rare and delightful treat. Egbert Floud (played by Charlie Ruggles)is on a trip to Europe with his would be cultured wife, Effie (played by Mary Boland.) They are from Red Gap, somewhere out West in the United States. The movie begins with Lord Bumstead (played by Roland Young) waking up hungover after losing his butler, William Ruggles (played by Charles Laughton) in a game of poker with Egbert Floud.

Egbert is very uneasy with the idea of having a servant but his wife is insistent and so he finds himself with a "man servant", or "butler." When they arrive in Red Gap, Ruggles sees that he is now free from being cast as a servant at birth, leaving him with limitless choices, and so he begins to rebel.

Falling in love with a local widow, Mrs. Judson (played by Zasu Pitts) awakens in him the desire to be more, and he finally works up the courage to stand up for himself. This is the result of a remarkable discussion in a saloon, about "...just what did Lincoln say at Gettysburg?" The answer comes in the form of the best recitation of the Gettysburg Address, delivered by Charles Laughton, that I have ever heard. (This is fitting, as originally only the English reporters of the time thought the speech to be of any note. In America it was looked upon as a short, though passionate, disappointment. It was only years after Lincoln's death that his speech was fully appreciated here.)

What follows is one man's discovery of what it means to be equal and rise above his own beginnings. Embracing opportunity is something that Ruggles has never had the chance to experience. And though initially aghast at the idea of being something other than a butler, when the chance is laid before him, he is ready to seize the day and further his destiny. In short, he decides to "enter into trade." Egbert, who didn't want a "butler" in the first place, is only too eager to assist him.

Opening a restaurant in Red Gap causes a great stir, particularly due to the fact that Egberts' wife has already introduced Ruggles to everyone as an English Lord, rather than as a butler. When his former boss, Lord Bumstead, comes to take him home, he is met by a new Ruggles, one intent upon reaching his potential in this new country. And this has unintended consequences for Lord Bumstead as well, as he finds himself questioning the rigid autocracy of which he, himself, is also a product.

A wonderful and optimistic film, worth watching if for no other reason than to hear English spoken so well by Laughton. Loaded with some of the best character actors Hollywood has ever produced, this film has long been a favorite of mine. I first saw this one on "The Million Dollar Movie" on Channel 9 - WOR TV in New York as a kid. I was so glad to see that it has been transferred to DVD. It would be a shame to lose this gem of a film.