Soup's Auntie OxyMoron: Police Power, Whether We Like Specific Government Policies Or Not, Is What We Have Granted By Accepting Our Birthright Of Freedom—By Not Moving Away Or Pledging Outright to Overthrow--That Our Government Can Act In Our Interest, Even Against Us.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Police Power, Whether We Like Specific Government Policies Or Not, Is What We Have Granted By Accepting Our Birthright Of Freedom—By Not Moving Away Or Pledging Outright to Overthrow--That Our Government Can Act In Our Interest, Even Against Us.

Article Analysis Assignment

First, read a news story from the newspaper or the Internet. Answer the following questions regarding your news story: 1) What is the main issue, who are the main actors being discussed; Then, choose one of the assigned articles you read for this week. Answer the following questions regarding the assigned article: 1) What are the basics of this article (who, what, when, how, why, etc.); 2) What is the overall main point the author is trying to convince you of? 3) Do you agree with the author’s argument? Why? Why not? Finally, tie together your news story with what you learned from the assigned article, textbook readings, podcasts, videos, etc. for this week. Type your answers in the box below using your own words, no outline or bullets, complete sentences and paragraphs, single-spaced, full-page.

I chose to focus again on the escalating situation in/around Syria. “Reuters-Russia said…” addresses Russia (and more silently, China’s) veto threat of the AL-drafted UN resolution aimed at forcing Assad out of power. 5000 plus people have been reported dead in the last ten months, and despite growing international outrage, Russia specifically is disturbed by the violation of sovereignty they see as inevitable given the “fuzzy” language in the text. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, if this language were to be changed so that no military intervention would be allowed, they might back off their threat. Given President Obama’s assertion that “Assad will go,” and the actions of the other actors (including Sec. of State Clinton, the UN Security Council, NATO, the EU, strong pressure from key US ally France), such a change of text is not likely. Russia and China hold old views about sovereignty, and will not accept the claim of illegitimacy from the protestors. But the international community is “disgusted” by and will not allow fraudulent sovereignty to be the basis for massacre of innocent civilians who clamor for democratic reform. As such, the impetus for war is ironically (given democratic peace theory) growing. Russia, Syria, Iran and China are expressing a willingness to work together in the interest of defeating recognition of Assad as illegitimate. “Assad will go.” So. Political science is about finding the cause of the next conflict based on assessment of previous ones, right? Understanding the past will help us predict the actions of actors in the future…so, here we go.

State? Says who? The first struggle for legitimacy is always from within. The rebel forces in Syria, for example, see Assad as illegitimate and are working to get the intl community behind them. But, as the author of the Economist article is quick to point out, there are no exacting definitions of a state, and this means that recognition from outside is not always enough either…Russia recognizes Assad, but such recognition will likely not save Assad. Because mere recognition from within or from larger communities without is not “enough,” can it be said that there is no enough? That a state is a group of people who stand for or opposed to the governing body of the ruling class in the boundaries specified by past territorial markings? Or is a state what is built by the conglomeration of families who begin pledging allegiance to defend those borders, to defend their laws, their ways of life? There will always be varying degrees of recognition, says the author, and I agree. In America, many of the Southern Confederate Redux Congress have worked overtime to paint President Obama as illegitimate, and some states are seeking to keep him off of the ballot. This could upset our transfer of power, or even the appearance of it, which could lead to conflict here in a hurry.

Police Power, whether we like specific government policies or not, is what we have granted by accepting our birthright of freedom—by not moving away or pledging outright to overthrow--that our Government can act in our interest, even against us. Is this what we are seeing in Syria? No. They are aligning, as is in their interest, to help Iran retaliate should Israel go on the attack, which they might, in seeking to show the world they are not under America’s thumb. This is going to work to the Confed Redux argument that Obama is no friend of Israel, which will turn a number of evangelicals further against him, and since it will.

By the way, Putin will probably be President of Russia again very soon, whether the people of Russia like it or not—will the International Community react as strongly towards this “illegitimate” move? Are we prepared, or, being prepared for Cold War with Russia, again? First, let’s see how this next week shakes out.

Source citation: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-syria-idUSTRE80S08620120201 “Russia Said...” Gutterman, Steve. Reuters.

“Defining What Makes a Country: in Quite a State.” Economist, print. http://www.economist.com/node/15868439

No comments:

I breathe. I am your tax dollars at work.

Consider these two quotes in succession:

While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
Lenin, "State and Revolution", 1919
Russian Communist politician & revolutionary (1870 - 1924)
In a featured column on flashreport.org, Grover Norquist clarifies and defends the default conservative position, making clear that any vote to send tax increases to the ballot is a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge. Further he publicly admonishes any Republican pledge signer who has any doubt about the consequence of wavering: “There is nothing subjective about the determination that voting to refer higher taxes to the ballot is a violation of the taxpayer protection pledge. A vote for tax hikes on the ballot is clearly and indisputably a failure to ‘oppose and vote against any and all efforts to raise taxes’” (“Featured Column”).

...(...)...In Response to Kings essay on Meeting Oppression---:  King states that he favors nonviolent resistance over the other two ways of meeting oppression. Look closely at the words he uses to describe nonviolent resistance and those he uses to describe acquiescence and violence. How does his choice of words contribute to his argument? Show examples.
The weakness of giving in and submitting to an immoral authority is that you make yourself inferior by choice, and this is the choice of a “coward.” This is the nature of man craving inferiority because he is still filled with “falsehood, malice, hate [and] destruction.” All is not lost; nobility is reached in the practice of nonviolence. Because all men of good will are indeed bound together, asserts the Reverend, a conscience educated to the consequences of violence or acquiescence will turn away from the inferior position (the weakness of man is to give in or fight with force) and toward the superior position (the strength of man lies in his nonviolent reaction to oppression).

Why do you suppose King discusses acquiescence, violence, and non-violent resistance in that order?
The consequences of each failure are staggered so as to outline clearly for the reader the reality of each successive failure. As individual bitterness becomes community discontent, the oppressed must be cautious as their calls for justice escalate. When the choice is made-unbeknownst to anyone until the choice is made- it must be for nonviolence, or the line will become a circle again. That choice is both individual and community, so each of us must be aware of our nature.

...(...)... Please forgive my "Show Your Work" Style.

I am not a Socialist, a hippie looking for a hand-out, or a lazy hypocrite. I want to pay taxes so I have something to vote about. I believe my paying taxes entitles me to support those who are using their Constitutional Rights of Redress (first amendment)and demanding that America admit She is not Broken. Those who say She is need say no more! I prefer Democracy over Theonomy. I am not fighting Capitalism, only ignorance and those who hate America. I Demand A Redress as Guaranteed by the Constitution!

The richest four hundred families, jointly owning the majority of the most profitable corporations and in their sixth or seventh generation of landed gentry are depending on a Third Wave of Reformation in Christianity and a voting bloc determined to end Democracy's Evil Hold On God's Sphere of Authority (Rj Rushdoony, etc.). Having disguised themselves as American, their ultimate goal is to soon separate us from our primary rights. Through the manipulation of media backed by corporate funding, they seek to influence the government to create hysteria such that the people will Want to or find they Have replace civil law with biblical law- regardless of the fact that it violates the First Amendment- by imposing the theory of theonomy. Those one-tenth of one percent that own the 40 percent or so of America’s printed money and access to all the keys of the Kingdom ARE the Corporatocracy we are Fighting. Same fight. Not a different fight.

The problem for All groups, as the Revolting Randian Calvinist Class sees it, is government. You have the right to be your own state and gave to the government by will alone- otherwise, the gov is only a gang, and those opposed to it are a family. This is according to them, not me...so...

Grover believes gov. taxes by force, and builds coalitions-

I Pledge Allegiance To the Flag. Full Stop. Please Get Your Elected Official On The Record re: Authority...

Man Has Authority to govern Man, the Dominionist Believes Only God Has Authority- they hold the Constitution as Biblically based and allow local law to become “theonomic” ---this TREASON---this is the reason for my animus. Christianity has Become an argument against itself by supplanting the Authority of the Document We share, believer and non-believer alike. End the Pledge. End the Influence.
Tax the Church.
Get the Money out of elections.
End Corporate Personhood.
Same fight.

I hope readers are following their own trail---this is an archive (soupsauntie) designed to position stories in a way that allow MY further investigation— ‎,"No, it's a messy soup...fair enough. It's Google Search results, pasted from my Facebook Page (posted as status updates so I know where and when I read something)", and this is to allow anyone to see how I came across the info (not by biased searches but by multiple sources and key words) followed by pasted source material. This, of course, would be helpful info for the 'About' section there...:-/ :-)"