I will celebrate today by not answering any potentially incriminating questions and refusing to quarter troops in my home.
In some states, "Martin Luther King, Jr. Day" is called "Civil Rights Day." Unfortunately, "Civil Rights" has become synonymous to many people with the struggles of ethnic, religious, or gender minorities, instead of focusing on the rights of all people. So, I call it "Civil Liberties Day," to emphasize all civil liberties, and all people, to be as inclusive and fully American as possible. Carry a gun and say obnoxious things with pride.
I also refer to "Columbus Day" as "Explorers Day," for similar reasons. The best reason to honor Columbus is not because he found America in particular, or because he was a great man, but because he was an explorer. I see no reason to honor Columbus any more than Aldrin and Armstrong or Lewis and Clark.
I dislike honoring individuals with holidays. The only other such federal holiday is "Washington's Birthday," and I similarly call that, as many people do, "Presidents Day."
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 19, 2009 10:30 AM | Email ThisThe true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 19, 2009 10:59 AMI separate, as should others, the idiots who use his name and accomplishments to further their own selfish agendas, or to widen the racial divide that exists between Americans. For them I feel only contempt.
So, sorry Pudge, but I respectfully disagree with your premise and gladly celebrate the life of Dr. King today.
And further, though I disagree with almost all he stands for, I will celebrate tomorrow the inauguration of the first President of the United States of America of African ancestry.
Posted by: deadwood on January 19, 2009 11:09 AMI honor Martin Luther King today for the great things he accomplished in his shortened life.
So do I. I also honor WWII hero Carwood Lipton, Korean War hero and baseball king Ted Williams, synthesizer pioneer Robert Moog, musician Miles Davis, evengelist Billy Graham, and many other people who have died and have done great things for America. I see no reason to have a holiday for each of them, and I see no reason to single out Martin Luther King Jr. above all the rest.
And further, though I disagree with almost all he stands for, I will celebrate tomorrow the inauguration of the first President of the United States of America of African ancestry.
To me personally, this is of no more significance than the first President from Arkansas. I understand that to many others, it is significant, and for them I am glad that it's finally happened. It is a powerful symbol to many people who are not me, and it is a good thing that they have this symbol. But it is for me no reason to celebrate, as the symbol has no meaning for me personally, and further, the President has far more important duties than being a symbol.
Further, I just don't celebrate election wins anyway. Elections are beginnings. They are not reasons to celebrate, to me. You did not vanquish an enemy, you did not achieve any significant goals (yet). And I didn't celebrate when Bush was inaugurated/elected, either, FWIW.
I refer to "Columbus Day" as Leif Ericcson" Day. Columbus was 500 years too late.
Posted by: Saltherring on January 19, 2009 11:27 AMI thought of putting them out today in honor of MLK, but didn't. I don't think it should be a national holiday (I also used to think the same of each president's day when we had two of them). I used to work for free on those holidays.
Posted by: swatter on January 19, 2009 11:34 AMThat's a big part of the point. "MLK Jr. Day" and "Columbus Day" invite criticism of the men as much as praise of them, when we should be focusing on the accomplishments themselves.
Some people say, for example, that MLK Jr. Day *is* a celebrating of civil liberties, merely using MLK Jr. as a proxy for that celebration. But then what happens if we find out the flaws of MLK Jr.? It obviously distracts from the celebration.
I am similarly opposed to the MLK Jr. Memorial in Washington DC.
I still won't *watch* the inauguration, though. I appreciate and respect the very American tradition of change of power, I just don't care for all the celebrating and pomp and circumstance surrounding it. And I'll hear his speech later.
Won't watch, don't care.
Let's see what happens in the next year or two. The growing mess I see so far does not make feel real good about Obama.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 19, 2009 12:09 PMAs a disclaimer, powerline has a few ugly line items on the Democrat payback plan (aka Stimulus Plan) which won't do anything to stimulate the economy. It will be nice for the teachers' and other unions, though.
Posted by: swatter on January 19, 2009 01:16 PMYou hit it right on the head. They are building up this guy so far, that if he falls. He's going to fall hard!
O-yeah, that great 500 buck check, that the dem's said was such a bad idea, so let's do it again.
LOL
This President will rule by executive order. His first four will be to close gitmo, ban certain weapons, remove sexual orientaion restictions from the military and to lift the emargo and all restrictions on Cuba. The fun has just begun...
Posted by: WaFlyGuy on January 19, 2009 01:40 PMColor me confused, sir.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 19, 2009 02:17 PMAs to homosexuals in the military, I don't see that as a liberty issue, anymore than restrictions on physical and mental fitness are. If it is damaging to the operation of the unit, then it is justified, regardless of its political correctness.
I met and talked to General Keith Kerr, the "gay general" at the YouTube GOP Debate, and he basically agreed with me that if gays jeopardized the unit, it would be justified to disallow them. He did not believe they jeopardized the unit, however. But that is where the discussion should be: whether it harms the unit. If it does, they should be discouraged (either banned, or using don't-ask-don't-tell); if it does not, they should be allowed. Quite simple, and unrelated to liberty.
I do agree lifting the ban on Cuba promotes liberty: while a ban could be politically justified, it certainly takes away both our liberty, and the liberty of Cubans.
Back in World War II, we had POW camps for hundreds of thousands of German, Italian and Japanese prisoners on US soil. I seriously doubt that the Gitmo base (which we have had since about 1903) was used to house POW's.
I am sure Obama's gesture is purely symbolic, but symbolism is very important. Trying to evade international civil liberties (such as the Geneva Convention) and domestic civil liberties (such as constitutional protection) by sticking an internment camp on foreign soil is repugnant. To do this in a country known for being fairly repressive and authoritarian (such as Cuba) is even more repugnant.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 19, 2009 02:47 PMIf what we are doing at Gitmo is legitimate, there is no reason why we can't do the same at a prisoner-of-war or internment camp located within the regular territory of the United States.
I tend to agree. I see no serious justification for saying that Gitmo is special because it is not in the U.S.
I am sure Obama's gesture is purely symbolic, but symbolism is very important.
Sure, when people don't understand the issues. Remember, Obama campaigned on this issue, and now he tacitly admits it's not a real issue.
Trying to evade international civil liberties (such as the Geneva Convention) and domestic civil liberties (such as constitutional protection) by sticking an internment camp on foreign soil is repugnant.
Good thing no one is doing either with respect to Gitmo.
Good grief.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 19, 2009 02:55 PMWe celebrate birthdays. Why not honor someone who has contributed great things to society?
Posted by: Michelle on January 19, 2009 03:19 PMAnd I am not saying MLK Jr. should not be celebrated. I am saying there should not be a holiday devoted to that purpose. I am saying there should be a broader holiday within which he, and others, would be celebrated.
Posted by: pudge on January 19, 2009 03:28 PMAll these extra work holidays is nothing more than reducing the amount of work our federal and state employees do. In other words, it affects productivity. We are not France and I hope we don't go there, and yet, that is the fast direction we are heading.
Posted by: swatter on January 19, 2009 03:38 PMTo incarcerate men indefinitely without charges flies in the face of everything American. I have no problem whatsoever with charging them with war crimes (or normal crimes) and giving them a fair trial that anyone should receive, and imprisoning them for as long as necessary should they be found guilty. No problem at all.
However, to imprison them without charges, without due process, without any legal recourse... yeah, maybe if they ARE terrorists, they deserve it, but we'll never know since they are held without any due process. That's wrong according to everything I was taught, guys, and it seems unamerican to an extreme degree. The public safety should NEVER trump individual rights (isn't this a conservative ideal? It was where I was brought up!), and we should ALL have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This is not a right granted us as citizens or permanent residents or any other group - it's a right inherent to individuals, and it was recognized by the Supreme Court in 1895 (Coffin v. United States) even though the US Constitution only implies it. It applies to everyone... To weaken or remove some group's claim on this right is to remove your own claim on this right, as soon as the right people are elected, and mark my words folks, in the current political climate, you could easily be the next group of people.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on January 19, 2009 03:43 PMWe had in process a system of charging these people. Either they were found by a military tribunal -- with the possibility of appeal in federal court -- to be guilty of being an alien unlawful enemy combatant, or they were not: if not, they had full access to our judicial system, and were to be charged with other crimes, or released.
The Supreme Court overturned this process. But it did have charges, it did have due process, it did have legal recourse (even for the AUECs!). Read up on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006: even in the worst case, an AUEC still had the right to file an appeal with the DC Circuit Court, which would have the right to judge the factual basis for the status determination itself.
So again: I agree with your principles and your opinion, for the most part, but the problem is that your claims about the system don't reflect reality.
Posted by: pudge on January 19, 2009 03:52 PMSo, if my claims about the system don't reflect reality, can you share with us how many prisoners there are currently at gitmo, how many have been charged and for what, and how many are not being provided this due process?
If this has moved forward in a positive direction then I'm happy to take my previous complaints back, but to my knowledge it has not yet.
A cite of your source would be helpful as well so that I can share it with others.
"Call it like it is?" What is it and what should we call it?
Posted by: Michelle on January 19, 2009 04:04 PM
Andrew Brown: back at you: if your claims DO reflect reality, then tell me, who is being held indefinitely without charge or due process?
And I did cite my source: the DTA of 2005 and the MCA of 2006. I actually read the legislation.
Posted by: pudge on January 19, 2009 04:10 PMI kind of expected that would be your answer. Some basic research on the subject turns up lots of news articles on the subject that make the assertion that they have yet to be charged (CBS, USA Today, etc). I can provide you the list of names that are currently being held at gitmo, as well, at least as much as the shroud of secrecy that limits accountability allows me to: wiki list (please pardon the wiki cite, I did a quick parity check on the list of names vs the Washington Post list and a couple of others and it appears to be accurate, with potentially more information)
I'm not seeing any charges for most of these people, but I'm eager to be shown the error of my ways and not view my own government with so much distrust anymore.
Your source being the DTA2005/MCA2006 leaves something to be desired as it does not address the fact that they are still uncharged.
I'm afraid I'm unconvinced.
You expected my answer would be to note the fact that I had already provided my sources, and that you didn't back up your claims? Bully for you.
Some basic research on the subject turns up lots of news articles on the subject that make the assertion that they have yet to be charged
In criminal court, yes. You know that's the question-begging fallacy, right? Have a CSRT *is* the equivalent of a criminal charge, as the possible outcome -- that you are an AUEC -- is the equivalent of a criminal conviction. And that number is in the hundreds.
"I dislike honoring individuals with holidays."
What about Christmas?
Posted by: BA on January 19, 2009 09:30 PMmichaeluw: you are grossly mistaken. You can marry your partner and celebrate it to your heart's content. You've always been able to.
You are unfortunately confusing the right to marry, which you have, with the obligation of government to recognize that marriage.
Posted by: pudge on January 19, 2009 10:29 PMYou basically have that one right on the nose. There is no need to try an enemy POW. You only need to make sure they are an enemy POW, as opposed to an unarmed civilian. We sure didn't try hardly any of the hundreds of thousands of POW's we captured in prior wars.
I somewhat doubt the usefulness of trying most of these prisoners for war crimes. Military officer court panels are not likely to give most of these folks lengthy sentences. Once we try someone for a crime, we sort of become morally obligated to release them when their sentence is completed. Just keep them as POW's, and they can be held until the war is completed and peace is established. Which could be a helluva long time, unfortunately.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 19, 2009 11:12 PMI see the childern are out again. LOL
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 20, 2009 06:45 AMMy mistake - We don't have the liberty to be respected and legally recognized by our government.
Apologies, again- I was using the term "marriage" in the same umbrella sense that 99.9 percent of Americans use it.
Posted by: michaeluw on January 20, 2009 12:48 PMMy mistake - We don't have the liberty to be respected and legally recognized by our government.
NO ONE does. It's not a question of liberty at all. The government could eliminate ALL recognitiion of marriage tomorrow and no one's liberty would be diminished in the slightest.
Apologies, again- I was using the term "marriage" in the same umbrella sense that 99.9 percent of Americans use it.
No, you were not. Most Americans use it interchangably for both civil (government) marriage and social (church, etc.) marriage.