Words and meanings. A three act psycho-drama.
1) What qualifies as an official "terrorist" attack? What does the phrase "terrorist attack" even mean? No, I'm not just being a nit-picky dick, there's method to my madness.
What troubled opponents of President Obama the most about Benghazi....at least in the salad days of the contrived scandal....was that Obama didn't call what happened the night of 9-11-2012 at a CIA outpost masquerading as a diplomatic consulate....a "terrorist" attack.
Originally, a "terrorist" attack included the aspect of suicide. Right? The nineteen hijackers from 9-11-2001 suicided themselves in the attack. The "shoe bomber" and the "underwear bomber" were going to suicide themselves to kill Americans.
Remember when Nidal Hasan killed fellow U.S. soldiers at Ft. Hood in 2009? Hasan did not kill himself.....and if you recall, there was much anxiety over whether the violence carried out by Hasan was a "terrorist" attack or not. No bipartisan agreement was ever reached on that point.
So answer this. The night of the Benghazi violence in 2012, were suiciders involved? The answer is no. The violence at our outpost in Benghazi, Libya may have been a lot of things.....but a "terrorist" attack isn't one of them.....unless, "terrorism" is now any act of violence directed at Americans and carried out by Muslims. A narrow definition to be sure.
2) When the Really Smart People who work for corporate media explain how the "country needs to have a debate on" fill-in-the-blank......what does that mean? Who are the official debaters and who gets to determine what the debate questions and parameters are?
Yes, Congress is supposed to "debate" legislation, etc.....when it's functioning properly....but what about this idea of America having a "debate?" It is my opinion that "America having a debate" is corporate-media-speak for teevee "news" celebrities talking about stuff. That, of course, is not America having a debate....far from it. But try as I might.....I can't come up with any other definition that would fit the reality. "America" doesn't debate anything.....except on election day. That's "America's" only opportunity to speak up.....period.
3) Big, intrusive government. What do those words mean? Further, why is it that the words 'big intrusive government" only apply to the U.S. federal government? Is it not possible for state, city, county, village or township government to be "big intrusive government?" Only the federal government? And why would that be the case?
Gov. Sam Brownback announced Wednesday that he signed a bill late the previous day preventing local officials from restricting the sale of firearms and ammunition or regulating how guns are transported and stored.
In Kansas, GOP-state government has bigfooted all other local governance in the state by taking the ability of local elected officials to regulate firearms away. Someone will have to explain how what Kansas Republicans just did is not an act of "big, intrusive government."
Kansas law doesn’t expressly forbid the open carrying of firearms, and the attorney general’s office has in the past told local officials some restrictions are allowed. The Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kan., have prohibited the practice, but the new law sweeps any such ban away, except to allow cities and counties to prevent openly carried weapons inside public buildings.
A federal law which mandated the purchase of health care insurance, a law passed democratically in Congress, signed by the President and confirmed as legal by the Supreme Court, is still described by opponents as an example of "big intrusive government."
What should a state law like the one just signed by Brownback in Kansas be called then? Freedom?
Kansas Republicans, many of whom detest the "big government intrusion" of the ACA, which they say takes away individual freedom, have purposely limited local officials from regulating open-carry.....even though those local officials have been elected democratically to serve the interests of the people who elected them.
The fact of the matter is that while Republicans have been railing for 5 continuous years about Obama's "big intrusive government", GOP officials in red states have been passing hundreds of laws which, yes, are extremely intrusive. Whether we look at gun rights, voting rights, a woman's right to choose, trans-vaginal probing state government, refusing to expand Medicaid, or warring against unions to keep average wages low......what we see is big intrusive, freedom choking and denying, state government.
The question then becomes......what is so unique about "big intrusive state government"? Why is big intrusive state government embraced so excitedly by Republicans and conservatives but big intrusive federal government is inherently evil?
I fear that the answer is......Republicans don't have the national votes to gain federal power....and so the only way Republicans can take back their country is to neuter the federal government through obstruction while creating an intrusive, bigfoot government for their own state citizens.
So, are conservatives really against "big intrusive government".....or do they only favor "big intrusive government" when conservatives control that government?
Comments are here.
About This Blog