9 ms·

Reminds me of the "First they came" poem - well written post, thank you: First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communis

Reminds me of the "First they came" poem - well written post, thank you: First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

sebkomianos 13y ago
I realised this is coming out way more poetically than I intended, I hope it's not taken as dramaqueeny, my purpose isn't that at all.
- bmelton 13y ago
  Poetry is appropriate at funerals, and I too share a grim outlook for this country. That said, I would argue even further back than recently. The federal government has been exceeding its authority since its inception, hell, if not before. James Madison, as president, couldn't figure out how to reconcile his responsibility to build a system of highways (which he thought was a fantastic idea) with the constraints on the federal government imposed by the Constitution. Since that time, we've gone well beyond highways; We've implemented social security, medicare, medicaid, Obamacare. We've ratified the Constitution to allow for a federal income tax to support it all. We've banned alcohol, pissed everybody off, and unbanned it again. We've attempted to curtail the first, second, fourth, fifth amendments, etc. We've got a nation full of people who voted in the last guy largely because they thought he'd give them affordable health care, ignoring that, at least in my interpretation of a limited federal government and separation of powers, our government should never have been allowed to grow large enough to be that way. We've demanded that the government fix this thing, that thing, the other thing; clean our waters, enforce minimum wages, keep us safe from drug companies, fight our wars -- then we wonder how we've gotten to exist in a nanny state? As a parent, it's always been hard to reconcile the notion of freedom with parenthood. In an ideal world, my child would be free to take drugs recreationally, sacrifice education for an early entry to the work force (or vice versa), prostitute herself for pay (literally, not figuratively)... but as her parent, I want none of those things for her, so I disallow them. In that same vain, if we treat our government like the father whose duty it is to protect us, it should not surprise us that the father bans us from potentially harmful activities, reads our diary, looks through our phones and follows us around in his car -- to keep us safe. These are the things parents do. I don't know of a time it's occurred specifically, but I'm sure that I've unjustly grounded my child at least once. I'm sure that I've disallowed her from doing something that I would cheer on if done by an adult peer. I'm sure that I've invaded her privacy, and if she were an adult, possibly even violated her civil liberties. On three occasions in her 12 years of life, I've assaulted her by spanking. Make no mistake -- I'm not advocating the government's actions, or excusing them... not in any way. I am very dumbstruck that so many share my condemnation of these actions, because so many people are those that voted for health care, for social security, for national defense, for the EPA, the FCC, the TSA, etc., for the safety that only a government all-father can provide. We've allowed this to go on for decades, perhaps most of the time we've been a nation, really. Our founding fathers warned us (well, most of them) that this would happen if we weren't vigilantly watching our government, and it has happened, precisely because we weren't vigilantly watching our government. Or perhaps it's always been this way, with approximately half of our electorate desperately wishing our government would do far more, with the other half desperately wishing our government would do far less. Either way, fixing it may be too far gone. As near as I've mapped back to, the idea of federal constraint hasn't really existed since the mid-30s, possibly even earlier than that. I try to vote Libertarian, but at a federal level, that's hard to do, and comes with its own baggage. Rand Paul, whom I agree with on a great many issues, has some views that perplex me, as did his father. I'm also not convinced that he isn't a consummate politician. I disagree with many of Obama's political choices, but I did sincerely believe that he would try to live up to more of his election promises, promises that now seem like nothing more than the pre-election fodder that we get from every politician in recent memory. I worry that Rand Paul is no better, or that if there are forces controlling Obama's hand, that they won't similarly control his. What's even worse than that is that I don't even know if our country can exist under the style of government that I want for it. It might well be that we're all better off in a socialist nation, where the government is indeed the caretaker for all, and that in order to have a nation that works, we should just succumb to that. It's not Constitutional, and I would pray that if we were in fact headed that direction, we'd at least try to ratify the Constitution, or abolish it altogether in lieu of its replacement. Surely, the minarchist type of federal government the Constitution prescribes would lead to a far harsher nation with fewer large infrastructure problems, fewer social programs... but with it, we would indeed get far more freedom. And at least for me, sitting in the comfort of my living room, typing on the DARPA supplied internet, on the Macbook borne of foreign labor, paid for with the government's wage protections, fair and equitable treatment, and contract enforcement, that price is worth paying... but I fear it would be too high for too many, and the end result is a loop back around to exactly where we are. Anyway, apologies for the rant. I don't intend to make a point, or convert anyone's political beliefs, or even elucidate anyone to my own political beliefs, which I have little confidence in at the moment -- but your reply resonated with me, and I felt it deserved a sincere response, even if it amounts to very little.
  - sebkomianos 13y ago
    To clear any possible misunderstandings, I am not from and I don't live in the US. I was not talking about US-specific governments, agencies or individuals as I believe such phenomena have no nationality. The "father" example you are giving has been the very exact argument people have against this kind of situations: We don't want any structure to act like it is our father or mother while your daughter (and most daughters and sons) will probably start crying if you tell them you are going to go away from their life. As a society we have agreed (actively or passively) to a certain set of laws, that should be it. No Uncle Sam or Brother Jonathan.
ekianjo 13y ago
Can we stop pushing these lines everywhere, everytime there is a topic on the NSA ? It's really starting to get boring, and the OP was saying more than that anyway.
diminoten 13y ago
Who have they actually come for? What group is no longer here because the CIA/NSA have decided they shouldn't exist?
- forsaken 13y ago
  That's classified.
- bmelton 13y ago
  I get that this answer might seem overly terse, but there are a group of unnamed prisoners in Guantanamo Bay sitting there, not getting the benefit of due process that they are obligated. Under the NDAA, the president has the authority to enshrine anyone he wishes, subject to zero oversight, to a similar fate. Under the PATRIOT Act, we've bombed American Citizens suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future without the benefit of oversight, due process, or any of the Constitutional protections ordinarily afforded to American citizens. Aside from that, there are far more instances throughout history, but those are the (IMO) most egregious offenses under the current administration at least.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    So no one, then?
    - bmelton 13y ago
      Aside from those prisoners in Gitmo, the drone-struck Americans, anyone who happened to be near them, and the thousands of others we've killed with drones, you're right -- absolutely no one.
      - diminoten 13y ago
        So how would you rewrite the poem? First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a terrorist. Then they came for the enemy combatants, and I didn't speak because I wasn't an enemy combatant. Then they came for the traitors, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a traitor. ? I'm just trying to see which part of this is not 200+ years old. Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors? If that's the case, then how do you build a bridge from "terrorists" to "random law-abiding citizen", which is the point of the poem.

sebkomianos 13y ago

I realised this is coming out way more poetically than I intended, I hope it's not taken as dramaqueeny, my purpose isn't that at all.

bmelton 13y ago
Poetry is appropriate at funerals, and I too share a grim outlook for this country. That said, I would argue even further back than recently. The federal government has been exceeding its authority since its inception, hell, if not before. James Madison, as president, couldn't figure out how to reconcile his responsibility to build a system of highways (which he thought was a fantastic idea) with the constraints on the federal government imposed by the Constitution. Since that time, we've gone well beyond highways; We've implemented social security, medicare, medicaid, Obamacare. We've ratified the Constitution to allow for a federal income tax to support it all. We've banned alcohol, pissed everybody off, and unbanned it again. We've attempted to curtail the first, second, fourth, fifth amendments, etc. We've got a nation full of people who voted in the last guy largely because they thought he'd give them affordable health care, ignoring that, at least in my interpretation of a limited federal government and separation of powers, our government should never have been allowed to grow large enough to be that way. We've demanded that the government fix this thing, that thing, the other thing; clean our waters, enforce minimum wages, keep us safe from drug companies, fight our wars -- then we wonder how we've gotten to exist in a nanny state? As a parent, it's always been hard to reconcile the notion of freedom with parenthood. In an ideal world, my child would be free to take drugs recreationally, sacrifice education for an early entry to the work force (or vice versa), prostitute herself for pay (literally, not figuratively)... but as her parent, I want none of those things for her, so I disallow them. In that same vain, if we treat our government like the father whose duty it is to protect us, it should not surprise us that the father bans us from potentially harmful activities, reads our diary, looks through our phones and follows us around in his car -- to keep us safe. These are the things parents do. I don't know of a time it's occurred specifically, but I'm sure that I've unjustly grounded my child at least once. I'm sure that I've disallowed her from doing something that I would cheer on if done by an adult peer. I'm sure that I've invaded her privacy, and if she were an adult, possibly even violated her civil liberties. On three occasions in her 12 years of life, I've assaulted her by spanking. Make no mistake -- I'm not advocating the government's actions, or excusing them... not in any way. I am very dumbstruck that so many share my condemnation of these actions, because so many people are those that voted for health care, for social security, for national defense, for the EPA, the FCC, the TSA, etc., for the safety that only a government all-father can provide. We've allowed this to go on for decades, perhaps most of the time we've been a nation, really. Our founding fathers warned us (well, most of them) that this would happen if we weren't vigilantly watching our government, and it has happened, precisely because we weren't vigilantly watching our government. Or perhaps it's always been this way, with approximately half of our electorate desperately wishing our government would do far more, with the other half desperately wishing our government would do far less. Either way, fixing it may be too far gone. As near as I've mapped back to, the idea of federal constraint hasn't really existed since the mid-30s, possibly even earlier than that. I try to vote Libertarian, but at a federal level, that's hard to do, and comes with its own baggage. Rand Paul, whom I agree with on a great many issues, has some views that perplex me, as did his father. I'm also not convinced that he isn't a consummate politician. I disagree with many of Obama's political choices, but I did sincerely believe that he would try to live up to more of his election promises, promises that now seem like nothing more than the pre-election fodder that we get from every politician in recent memory. I worry that Rand Paul is no better, or that if there are forces controlling Obama's hand, that they won't similarly control his. What's even worse than that is that I don't even know if our country can exist under the style of government that I want for it. It might well be that we're all better off in a socialist nation, where the government is indeed the caretaker for all, and that in order to have a nation that works, we should just succumb to that. It's not Constitutional, and I would pray that if we were in fact headed that direction, we'd at least try to ratify the Constitution, or abolish it altogether in lieu of its replacement. Surely, the minarchist type of federal government the Constitution prescribes would lead to a far harsher nation with fewer large infrastructure problems, fewer social programs... but with it, we would indeed get far more freedom. And at least for me, sitting in the comfort of my living room, typing on the DARPA supplied internet, on the Macbook borne of foreign labor, paid for with the government's wage protections, fair and equitable treatment, and contract enforcement, that price is worth paying... but I fear it would be too high for too many, and the end result is a loop back around to exactly where we are. Anyway, apologies for the rant. I don't intend to make a point, or convert anyone's political beliefs, or even elucidate anyone to my own political beliefs, which I have little confidence in at the moment -- but your reply resonated with me, and I felt it deserved a sincere response, even if it amounts to very little.
- sebkomianos 13y ago
  To clear any possible misunderstandings, I am not from and I don't live in the US. I was not talking about US-specific governments, agencies or individuals as I believe such phenomena have no nationality. The "father" example you are giving has been the very exact argument people have against this kind of situations: We don't want any structure to act like it is our father or mother while your daughter (and most daughters and sons) will probably start crying if you tell them you are going to go away from their life. As a society we have agreed (actively or passively) to a certain set of laws, that should be it. No Uncle Sam or Brother Jonathan.

ekianjo 13y ago

Can we stop pushing these lines everywhere, everytime there is a topic on the NSA ? It's really starting to get boring, and the OP was saying more than that anyway.

diminoten 13y ago

Who have they actually come for? What group is no longer here because the CIA/NSA have decided they shouldn't exist?

forsaken 13y ago
That's classified.
bmelton 13y ago
I get that this answer might seem overly terse, but there are a group of unnamed prisoners in Guantanamo Bay sitting there, not getting the benefit of due process that they are obligated. Under the NDAA, the president has the authority to enshrine anyone he wishes, subject to zero oversight, to a similar fate. Under the PATRIOT Act, we've bombed American Citizens suspected of possibly committing a crime in the future without the benefit of oversight, due process, or any of the Constitutional protections ordinarily afforded to American citizens. Aside from that, there are far more instances throughout history, but those are the (IMO) most egregious offenses under the current administration at least.
- diminoten 13y ago
  So no one, then?
  - bmelton 13y ago
    Aside from those prisoners in Gitmo, the drone-struck Americans, anyone who happened to be near them, and the thousands of others we've killed with drones, you're right -- absolutely no one.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      So how would you rewrite the poem? First they came for the terrorists, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a terrorist. Then they came for the enemy combatants, and I didn't speak because I wasn't an enemy combatant. Then they came for the traitors, and I didn't speak because I wasn't a traitor. ? I'm just trying to see which part of this is not 200+ years old. Was there ever a time in the history of the US where the US government wasn't "coming" for terrorists, enemy combatants, and traitors? If that's the case, then how do you build a bridge from "terrorists" to "random law-abiding citizen", which is the point of the poem.