Middle age has made me more of a cynic than I would like.
When I was a kid, the policeman was your friend, incapable of doing wrong. The government was here to help you. And the system worked.
I’ve accepted those days are gone forever, and I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. In fact, I continue to be amazed by the brilliance and foresight - and the timeless warnings - of those irrelevant dead guys known as our founding fathers.
Yes, they were visionaries, and dreamed of the greatness that their country would achieve. They riled and inspired. But make no mistake: They were just cynical enough to keep their senses razor sharp. And nowhere did they show that more than in their thoughts on government.
Thomas Jefferson knew that when “the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” He warned against an “energetic government,” which he said is “always oppressive.”
Thomas Paine recognized that government, ”even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”
And George Washington was even more blunt: ”Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Our ancestors knew it is not disloyal to be wary of our government; instead, it is essential.
But they also knew that our survival depends on us taming and using government to avoid chaos. It requires us to suspend, or at least control, our cynicism and anger to make the system work.
I was again reminded of the fine line we walk with last week’s acquittal of several New York police officers who shot and killed an apparently unarmed young black man outside a strip club the night before his wedding.
Our feelings about our society sometimes depend on the day of the week. People want “justice” when they perceive a grievous wrong has been done. They demand indictments and trials. And they revel in the American Way - so long as things turn out Their Way.
We have “the greatest judicial system on earth” until it fails us. When L.A. police officers were found not guilty of criminal assault in the first “Rodney King trial,” blacks took to the streets in riots and vandalism. When O.J. Simpson was cleared in the murder of two people, whites shook their heads and grumbled about the country going to Hell in a handbasket. Whether “justice” is served often depends on exactly whose ox gets gored.
This week’s example brings us to - who else? - the Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton is crusading for federal charges against the officers (some of whom, by the way, are black) because their acquittal means to Sharpton that the system is broken. And now, he has outdone himself, virtually labelling Barack Obama an Uncle Tom for having the gall to urge, of all things, non-violence. According to the New York Post:
Barack Obama made a call for nonviolence in the aftermath of the Sean Bell verdict - infuriating the Rev. Al Sharpton, who accused the presidential candidate of trying to “grandstand in front of white people.”
Obama made the rather reasonable observation that ”resorting to violence to express displeasure” was “completely unacceptable and counterproductive.” Sharpton said no one had been violent, and was apparently miffed that Obama might suggest things stay that way.
”[Obama] issues this statement and not a single rock had been thrown,” said a source. “How does the candidate of change ask people to accept a verdict that is unjust?”
The source said Sharpton had hoped Obama would “side with the Bell family” and not use it as an “opportunity to grandstand in front of white people.”
Forgive me for being, well, cynical, but doesn’t that sound awfully close to a prelude to justification for violence as a reaction to the verdict?
While Sharpton and Congressman John Conyers are forming their “federal strategy” on how to deal with the case (translation: pressure on the Justice Department to indict the cops on federal charges), it would be nice if “Reverend” Sharpton joined Obama in seeking calm rather than more or less implying that violence is inevitable.
To be sure, there are miscarriages of justice, and we need to strive always to prevent them. But that does not mean that every time someone is acquitted of wrongfully harming a black man (or any particular person), the system has failed and we need to attack it. If trials are only and always a vehicle simply to announce the guilt of the defendant, we might as well be the Soviet Union under Stalin. If we consistently reject the authority of our courts, we risk anarchy - which can hardly serve us better.
So I have to thank Al Sharpton for reminding me that, as often as I get frustrated with the workings of government, including the courts, there is such a thing as going too far. And while I remember our founding fathers’ admonitions to keep an eye on our government, I also remember their labor in creating one that can, and usually does, work.
Then again, if you’ve already passed the point of no return, there is always good old Patrick Henry: “If this be treason, make the most of it!”
Filed Under Front Page · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
24 Responses to “The Founding Fathers, Al Sharpton and a Healthy Cynicism”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Nice, thoughtful post, Rick. It should be bumped to tomorrow’s lineup so it will be read by everyone.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY RickG!!!
RickG;
Very thought provoking post. Yes, Sharpton has gone too far and wil likely go farther. I’m no expert in this case but it does seem like the court looked at the evidence and made judgement. One part of the story is that I believe the man shot moved in a manner that appeared as if he could draw a weapon. The message from Sharpton, if he is legitimately concerned about avoiding bad justice, would be to advocate people to do as the police ask and when asked.
I like your quotes as well. I encourage people to review the several historical quotes as found on AmericanDestiny.com
http://www.americandestiny.com/home.htm
At least they presented real evidence in the NY trial, whereas in Texas all you need are a couple of allegations to bring the wrath of government on the odd folks.
Very thoughtful and well written post, no doubt. I’m not nearly as eloquent. But I do have rather strong feelings on the subject of slick Al.
If TV cameras had never been invented, he’d be picking pockets or selling used cars in a note lot. He is the worst kind of Media Whore, profiting on the insecurities of his own “downtrodden” race. It’s jackals like him and Rev. Jesse that incite hatred and violence for their own benefit, and sell themselves to their own people as leaders. Whenever I see them I turn the channel.
Yes, Sharpton showed long ago he would not let the truth get in the way of his pandering, and I for one will never forget it. And the same goes for Rev Wright, and BHO.
Decent white and black folk have been “shame-shamed” by these jackals and other liberals for so long. Maybe it is time for a discussion on race, but I’m sure they won’t like it if they aren’t invited, being as they are the experts and all.
Here we go again.
Rick G
Thanks for your thoughtful, well reasoned post.
You said:
“Obama made the rather reasonable observation that ”resorting to violence to express displeasure” was “completely unacceptable and counterproductive.” Sharpton said no one had been violent, and was apparently miffed that Obama might suggest things stay that way.”
I agree with you. Thanks
RickG, Bravo on this post. Delightful food for the brain and heart.
Revs Al & Jesse are a blight on this country and 2 blatant wastes of oxygen - not to mention they’re BOTH an embarrassment to the culture they purport to champion……….AYWWISMH
It is amazing how people who were not there seem to know the answers as to what happened. Could it be the black brothers were justified in their actions. It’s a good thing the cops were not all white because then they would obviously be guilty in Rev. Al’s eyes. And how many of the protesters are going to protest the verdict and how many are looking for an excuse to riot and get that TV they always wanted?
Wouldn’t bringing these cops up on federal charges now that they’ve been acquitted on state charges be tantamount to double jeopardy?
10
Unfortunately, NO. The Feds did some quick stepping during the Rodney King trial, and charged the cops involved with violating Mr King’s civil rights.
You get two or more trials on different charges for the same “crime”. As we slowly circle the drain.
IIRC, the shooting in queston took place in a pretty rough part of town in the wee hours of the morning. At those times and in those places, everybody, especially (sober) police officers, is on edge because there are many people around whose judjement is somewhat impaired by drink and other substances. People tend to react more quickly and forcefully to even the slightest provocation. The police are acting out of a sense of heightened self-protection.
We can see some of this often here in Houston. How many shootings / stabbings happen “early in the morning” outside a “nightclub”. Not generally involving a police officer, but the circumstances are typically very similar to what happened in New York.
HAL gobbled an earlier comment, weird.
I’ll paraphrase: If TV cameras had never been invented, Rev Al would be picking pockets or selling cars on a note lot. And his partner in crime, Rev Jesse, would be out back pouring sawdust into transmissions. You have a sure bet when they show up, whether in the flesh or on the tube, poo will soon ensue. They are a more public face on the same hate and divisiveness clearly seen in another now famous Rev, Mr Wright. And the three are obviously filled with glee anytime that red light on the camera goes on.
I’m sure there has to be good, God-fearing black Reverends out there somewhere. Would someone roll one out for the cameras, please?
Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, Obama . . . the Four Horsemen?
10 and 11
slash is right on. Different levels of government can both prosecute for the same act. State acquittal on murder charges, for example, doesn’t bar federal prosecution under the civil rights law. Remember this happened in the 1960s after KKKers were acquitted of state murder charges, and the feds prosecuted them for violation of civil rights.
oops, should have read 11 & 12
Agreed. I would add though that there are multiple substantive problems with our current court system and law enforcement institutions. Any affirmation of the court system requires this caveat, and given the aforementioned warnings about the coercive nature of the state any reform should be mindful of erring on the side of the citizen, not the state and its enforcers.
I also believe that current gun laws and precepts are at the heart of judicial miscarriages, be they an O.J.-type getting away with the murder of innocents or Sean Bell essentially being murdered by the state. Most gun laws are currently written to create a legal class within civilian society that is legally insulated from some of the most basic precepts of safe and lawful firearm use, extended selective “rights” in their use above and beyond the public, and encouraged through training to err against the public at large when those “rights” are used.
We see this all around us - large cities arming their police with military weaponry - be it full auto firearms or HPD’s drone planes - that is of little realistic utility in crime patrol and legally inaccessible to the general public (yeah, I know there are class III tax stamps but their associated regulations are so burdensome as to make them essentially prohibitive of private ownership for most people).
Even pricing mechanisms in the firearm industry are fundamentally non-competitive between what the general public pays and what the police class pay. Common weapons are heavily reduced under so-called “LEO/Military discounts” and the class III disparity is insurmountable for all but the wealthiest people - a LEO agency can buy “new” production full autos for just over $1,000 whereas the same gun may run used with a class III tax stamp and mounds of burdensome paperwork at 20 times that or more.
When you create such a visible disparity in the gun laws between the “haves” and “have nots,” and when the “haves” (i.e. the state) is naturally prone to coercion just as Washington, Jefferson et al warned, its only a matter of time before somebody in the “haves” ends up brutalizing the rights, liberty, or even life of somebody in the “have nots.” Furthermore, it is achieved with little repercussion because the preexisting legal disparity is thrown into an imperfect judicial system to mitigate the outcome, which is reached with similar imperfection reflective of that preexisting disparity.
In practice, this is true. It makes for a very messy constitutional issue though, and one that is prone to imperfect and non-uniform outcomes simply because the prosecutor’s discretion and the varying standards of criminality are so arbitrarily applied.
It’s worth noting that prior to the expansion of the USDOJ’s civil rights division and the separation of various “civil rights” and “hate crimes” offenses into categories of federal law onto themselves, the most successful prosecutions of civil rights violators were carried out under federal statutes that criminalized (1) police brutality and (2) conspiracy to deprive rights under the guise of official conduct.
These statutes were imperfect in other ways, but they locked away many a bad guy and did so for clear and convincing reasons under statutes that were straight forward and easy to follow.
Now we have a giant regulatory mess of overlapping categories and jurisdictions between state and federal criminal law enforcement. And that’s when things get messy; when prosecutions resembling double jeopardy occur, when murderers walk and innocents die, when federal agencies start getting involved in matters where they have no clear or legitimate constitutional mandate, and when the Janet Renos of the world start firebombing cult compounds and seizing kids at gunpoint to appease Fidel Castro.
Nah, they’re simply four idiots. A horseman is skilled at something useful and acts with clear method, even if he brings something undesirable.
Or not. McReynolds, Sutherland, Van Devanter, and Butler…now there were some true Four Horsemen of which we can be proud. They made the Supreme Court’s valiant last stand against expansive and arbitrary federal government power.
I remember during the Rodney King riots, the Americans of Korean descent exercised their God given 2nd Amendment right to firearms and their shops were not burned and looted. In that emergency, no government was there to help them. Not the police, not the national guard, not the military.
A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
RICHARD HENRY LEE
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”
RICHARD HENRY LEE, 1788, INITIATOR OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND MEMBER OF THE FIRST SENATE, WHICH PASSED THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Patrick Henry
The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)[1]
Samuel Adams
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or
the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own
arms…”
Samuel Adams[4]
GEORGE MASON
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. … Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
…to disarm the people-that was the best and most effective way to enslave them.
Great post Rick…. poor Al and Jessie are being upstaged by the handsome and articulate brother Obama. Times they are a changin! hehe ( couldn’t resist)
Good ol Al is obviously PO’ed at Obama for good reason…Obama is trying to muscle in on his “grandstanding in front of white people” racket. Al and Jesse don’t need the competition…
Bill, could I redirect your thinking here? It’s not Obama trying to muscle in on Al’s racket (Jesse - having my baby - Jackson has been really quiet). It’s that Obama has turned race traitor and is telling white people - see, I’m just like you. Never mind his racist minister, congregation, and the black value system they espoused, in addition to his racist wife. After 20 years with that group, Obama is trying to push them to the back of the bus - he wants to drive without their distractions.
blackgirl, could you PLEASE run for office to give Texans of all races somebody worth voting for?
Yep I’m up reading my favorite blog. You know the MSM helped to create this “monster” by declaring who black leader are. Some black folks scared to throw them under the bus fearing one day they may need their assistance. As far as running for office there are too many sharks in the water for me, people who would destroy a person at the drop of a pin and is most likely the reason Colin Power did not consider a run. I leave this possibility to the really brave hearts out there.