As the 2010 election grows near, I notice more and more political stories popping up between celebrity gossip and lifestyle advice on Yahoo! news and other internet "news" sites.
These mostly revolve around perceived Republican "gaffes", since we all know Democrats never really make mistakes or fabricate. If a Democrat "misspeaks", the VAST majority of the time it is simply shrugged off. Republican mistakes are clung to like lifelines. Hell, I still find people quoting Ronald Reagan as saying "Facts are stupid things" 20 years or so later. Never mind that it was part of a speech where he used "facts are stubborn things" as a refrain several times before the slip, and IMMEDIATELY corrected himself.
Two stories that caught my attention were:
"GOP Candidate Stephen Broden" Violent Overthrow 'On the Table' if no GOP Takeover in November", and
"Church, State, and the First Amendment: What O'Donnell and Coons Need to Know"
The first story is about a GOP candidate making the shocking statement that the founders provided a constitutional means of changing the government, but if that fails, then revolution is an option. Of course, the reporter is appalled that in this enlightened age, anyone would consider overthrowing an oppressive and abusive government. Not a surprise to me, since it seems that every thug dictator from Castro to Kim Jong-Il to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a pass.
Note that Broden was not advocating a revolution as the first option, but that we must keep that threat, as he said, "on the table". It should be clear to both political sides that the people in power only relinquish their power because it is the law of the land that they do so. It should be equally clear that the law only has power because breaking it has consequences. Forcible outing of the offender should remain one of the possible consequences. I know people suggested this when Bush 41 and Bush 43 were in office, but with a "benevolent dictator" in place, it's become shocking.
The right to revolt is fundamental. No one wants it as a first or even a second option. Nevertheless, if we are to remain citizens rather than serfs, we must reserve that option - and the tools with which to exercise it.
Next time - "Church, State, and the First Amendment: What O'Donnell and Coons Need to Know"