Redefining words: Contrary to what you think, it’s not hostile to bomb cities and kill people

By David McElroy · June 18, 2011

One of the ironies of majoritarian political systems is that they turn otherwise-reasonable people into blind hypocrites.

When Bill Clinton launched military attacks on other countries, Republicans said he had no power to do so and would be wrong even if it were legal. They were opposed to “nation-building” — at least until George W. Bush started doing it, in which case it became fine. Under Bush, it was Democrats in the streets chanting, “Bush lied, people died,” and demanding an end to war. But now that Barack Obama is continuing policies that are pretty indistinguishable from Bush’s, I don’t see many Democrats in the street chanting.

On Friday, we had the news that President Obama ignored the legal advice given to him by the top lawyers in the Pentagon and the Justice Department saying that he had no legal authorities to continue attacking Libya without congressional approval starting about a month ago. (I’m ignoring the entire question of whether the War Powers Act is even constitutional.) Obama wanted to keep attacking the Libyan regime after the 60-day window allowed by the War Powers Act, so he just ignored it.

Well, it’s not entirely fair to say he ignored he. He merely redefined what he was doing. He claimed that the bombing the U.S. military was doing in Libya didn’t amount to “hostilities.” Just how many people do you have to kill before the action becomes hostile?

I’m not surprised to see a president brazenly ignoring the law. I’m not surprised to find most members of Congress quietly ignoring the lawbreaking. (Kudos to the 10 members who are suing to stop the illegal action, by the way.) I suppose the only thing that surprises me is that people still pretend that laws apply. If we’re just going to make up what the law means as we go, why go through the charade of pretending we care what the written law says?

At least since the beginning of the s0-called “Progressive era,” we’ve been told that the U.S. Constitution is a “living document” that means different things over time. This obscene idea has spread so far that it has no limits, apparently.

As far back as 1946, George Orwell was warning that words were being used in dishonest ways to cover up their true meaning. Orwell was a socialist, so he certainly didn’t agree with my views about the world, but he and I agree that if you torture the language in order to cover up what you’re doing, you’re being dishonest, no matter what you favor.

People who favor majoritarian systems talk a lot about the morality of their systems. They make noises about rights and laws and respect for others. But in practice, any majoritarian system comes down to the use of force. This is how “democracy” works. You will do things my way or else I will bomb you back to the stone age. But it’s not “hostilities” when we do it, of course.

The problem isn’t just the politicians who happen to be in charge right now. It’s a mistake to point fingers at Obama right now or Bush before him. The problem is the coercive state itself. Any system that asserts that it has the right to force people in its own territory to obey will eventually assert the right to force people outside its borders to obey, even if they claim the force is for the people’s own good.

Barack Obama deserves to be called out for his dishonesty right now. George W. Bush deserved to be called out for his dishonesty before that. But as long as partisans just keep pointing fingers in this way, they’ll ignore the real issue, which is “our enemy, the state.”

Note: The art about “how democracy works” is available for sale as a poster at this site.

Share on Social Networks

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Related Posts