What Does it Mean to Be Machiavellian?

If any of the readers happened to be following some of the thread conversations conducted in these past weeks with a couple of characters, democratic Jon and bolithio to be specific, on Eric Kirk's SoHum Parlance II, they run across several threads, you can well understand why this article in The Atlantic caught my attention:

 Machiavelli Was Right - The shocking lesson of The Prince isn’t that politics demands dirty hands, but that politicians shouldn’t care.

Once you read this article, you can fairly well see why their wanton bankrupt moral, ethical and spiritual assaults, they dissimulate so well, are justified in their minds and belief structures. Unfortunately, their way of thinking and believing are so well ensconced into the fabric of American society it leaves little hope for the people to right themselves. What's more, this all happens on a practicing lawyer's website without a word from him.

Here are two excerpts, one from the beginning and one from the end - hopefully enough to get you to read the whole article.

Machiavelli Was Right
The shocking lesson of The Prince isn’t that politics demands dirty hands, but that politicians shouldn’t care. 

MICHAEL IGNATIEFFNOV 20 2013,

You remember the photograph: President Obama hunched in a corner of the Situation Room with his national-security staff, including Hillary Clinton with a hand over her mouth, watching the live feed from the compound in Pakistan where the killing of Osama bin Laden is under way. This is a Machiavellian moment: a political leader taking the ultimate risks that go with the exercise of power, now awaiting the judgment of fate. He knows that if the mission fails, his presidency is over, while if it succeeds, no one should ever again question his willingness to risk all.

It’s a Machiavellian moment in a second sense: an instance when public necessity requires actions that private ethics and religious values might condemn as unjust and immoral. We call these moments Machiavellian because it was Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, written in 1513, that first laid bare the moral world of politics and the gulf between private conscience and the demands of public action.

The Prince’s blunt candor has been a scandal for 500 years. The book was placed on the Papal Index of banned books in 1559, and its author was denounced on the Elizabethan stages of London as the “Evil Machiavel.” The outrage has not dimmed with time. The greatest modern conservative political theorist, Leo Strauss, taught his students at the University of Chicago in the 1950s to regard Machiavelli as “a teacher of evil.” Machiavelli’s enduring provocation is to baldly maintain that in politics, evil deeds cease to be evil if urgent public interest makes them necessary.

************

He insisted that when tough or risky political decisions have to be made, Christian charity or private empathy simply will not serve. In politics, the polestar must be the health of the republic alone. Following the querulous inner voice or tacking to and fro when moralizers on the sidelines object is just weakness, and if your hesitations put the republic at risk, it is contemptible weakness. Machiavelli’s ethics valued judicious decisiveness in politics over the anguished search for rectitude.

So if we return to the Situation Room and to the decisions presidents make there, Machiavelli’s The Prince tells us the question is not whether one human being should have the right to make such terrifying determinations. The essence of power, even in a democracy, is to use violence to protect the republic. It matters to the very soul of a republic, however, that the violence used in its defense never be gratuitous. His is not an ethic that values action for its own sake. Machiavelli praises restraint when it serves the republic. It may even be advisable, for example, for the president to stay the order to dispatch cruise missiles to Syria if he cannot discern a clear target or a defensible strategic objective.

What he refuses to praise is people who value their conscience and their soul more than the interests of the state. What he will not pardon is public displays of indecision. We should not choose leaders who agonize, worrying about the moral hazards of the power they exercise in the people’s name. We should choose leaders who sleep soundly after taking ultimate risks with their own virtue. They are doing what must be done. The Prince’s question about the current president would be: Is he Machiavellian enough?

---

"Is he Machiavellian enough?" We know democratic Jon, Eric and bolithio are.

 --Joe

The Real Economy, REALLY?

James Faulk wrote in the Times Standard Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2008 under: The real economy

The Web is alive with screaming headlines about this or that financial giant going out of business, closing its doors in the face of an economic maelstrom that started somewhere between America's housing and its bubble.

Accompanying the multitude of stories online, in print and on television are blurbs from the various political candidates of all shapes and sizes who loudly proclaim that there is indeed a problem, and that only they -- not that other guy -- know how to fix it.
There was a bubble, and it burst. The explosion left a mess, and it's covered all of us with a three-inch layer of dung.

Times like these, Alan Greenspan takes to the air waves and says, “This is the worst I've ever seen.”

The market is panicking, Fannie and Freddie are befuddled and failing, and all the other financial giants of the world are just trying to stay afloat by selling themselves to Bank of America, who remains impervious to the bad economic times because of their enormous size and overdraft fees.

This is the big picture, and to most Americans, it remains absolutely meaningless. That is, the fate of various financial institutions is meaningless versus the reality of making ends meet. Most Americans don't require massive amounts of capital to get out of bed in the morning, get their kids to school, or get themselves to work.

But they do need a job, or maybe even a raise, to buy enough milk for breakfast in the morning.
to them is the monthly budget, and whether there is enough money in the checking account to handle the car breaking down, or that tooth that needs to be pulled.

For the people I know, the real people with zits and beauty marks, this is the real economy. And this is what needs to be addressed by the leaders of our city, our state, and the nation. Gas costs more. Food costs more. Going to the park costs more, and we all make the same if not less.
This is famously the land of opportunity, but the only opportunity currently offered by our system is to accrue more debt, and become further enmeshed in payments, late fees and interest rates.

The time has come to change, but who's willing to make it? That's the decision before us this November. But then again, judging by the choices, how much change are we willing to make?

His question in closing is, "How much change are we willing to make?" Well lets see what some other people have to say about what's really happening. Take a look at what these people have to say and see if do not come to the same conclusions as Joe does.

US Seizes Control of AIG with $85 Billion Bailout

So, all of you "real people," you know who you are? You're the ones with the "zits and beauty marks. Is the real economy "gas," "food," and "going to the park"? When it comes to your paltry problems you "real people" aren't even in the equation.

Mr. Faulk is right when he says, "This is famously the land of opportunity, but the only opportunity currently offered by our system is to accrue more debt, and become further enmeshed in payments, late fees and interest rates." What he doesn't say that really matters is that is exactly what is happening to our govoernment. Interestingly, he doesn't say who is responsible either.

Do you really think the Elitist Rulers of this nation are that stupid that they give one damn about "real people"? Read this the next chapter in this monumental betrayal.

US Readies Largest Bailout to Date in Financial Crisis

The Bush administration says it’s preparing a new massive new intervention in the US financial system. Under the proposed move, the government would buy up distressed loans from troubled banks and other lenders. The plan is said to be similar to the federal buyout of leftover properties in the savings and loan scandal in the 1990s. The cost could end up dwarfing the multi-billion-dollar government bailouts of financial institutions Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and American International Group. Democrats also say they are pushing for greater relief for struggling homeowners facing foreclosure. On Thursday, congressional leaders gave bipartisan support to the effort after meeting with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats have agreed to passing legislation by next week.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “We just had what I believe was a very
productive meeting, where we heard from the administration and from the chairman of the Fed, an initiative to help resolve the financial crisis in our country.
We—our purpose is to do that and, in doing so, to insulate Main Street from Wall
Street and recognize our responsibility to the taxpayer, to the consumer and to
people all across our country.”

Earlier on Thursday, the Federal Reserve also announced it would inject some $180 billion in loans on the global financial market through foreign central banks.

So now the government speculates on worthless paper.

--Joe

"Cut Back" or Tax Increase in Eurekaville

It's been months since that noisy, dusty ol' street sweeper graced the front of my property. Up until then you could set your watch on the consistent weekly passé. Like others in this town, when the neighbors trash began to build up we spent an afternoon gleaning and preening. It nearly filled a thirty gallon garbage can. That added cost is a tax increase.

The City Counsel, according to the report, says this is necessary in order to "free up funding to fill positions in its police and fire departments." If so, then two questions: 1) Did they fire the street sweepers they are replacing? And 2) Will we see a direct positive police affect in the community equal to keeping the city CLEAN?

If what I see going on out in front of my home every day and on the streets of Eurekaville is any indication, I'll keep the street sweepers. At least I'll be able to sleep easy knowing their no "garbage" roaming around polluting my neighborhood.

Street sweeping cut back
The Times-Standard
Article Launched: 08/29/2008 01:16:37 AM PDT

If Eurekans want to keep the streets in front of their homes constantly clean, they might be wise to pick up a broom.

The city recently announced that, beginning Sept. 1, it will be dramatically scaling back street sweeping services in its residential areas. In adopting this year's fiscal budget, the City Council opted to reduce street sweeping services in the city to free up funding to fill positions in its police and fire departments.

While street sweeping had previously been done weekly in residential areas, it will switch to a monthly schedule beginning in September. The sweeping will be conducted during the first week of every month, and a full schedule of what areas of the city will be swept on which days is available on the city's Web site, www.ci.eureka.ca.gov.

In order to increase the effectiveness of sweeping, the city is asking residents to remove their vehicles from the streets on sweeping days and to keep the street free of yard waste, trash and illegal driveway approaches, such as concrete, metal or wood ramps.

The city is also asking residents to refrain from piling leaves in the street, as it could potentially damage the street-sweeping vehicles.

--Joe

Guilty As Accused

Ever hear the expression, "A picture is worth a thousand words"? How about two pictures worth a million words?


Is Diane Batley responsible for plastering this guy's guilty mug all over the Eurek Reporter's front page as one of her first duties?





Court: Miller Trial <--------> Diane M. Batley, Editor

If so, good job. We wouldn't want to take a chance that any prospective juror that sees this picture could find this guy anything but guilty now would we? Otherwise, why is he presented before the public and prospective jurors in a prison-guilty monkey-suit all shakled up like some raving lunatic ready for his tar and feathering? He's guilty! End of story.

End of his story, but not that of Ms. Batley or The Eureka Reporter. I'm sure they will provide much grist for the mill.


ADDENDUM Wednesday, August 13, 2008: Innocent Until Proven Guilty.

This is the front page picture in the Time-Standard, "Gundersen's wife held for her safety, ..."

No monkey suit and chains here. Is that because the jury's already been selected?

-Joe

What Value Words of Truth?

United States Declaration of Independence
1823 facsimile of the engrossed copy from Wikipedia

America's legitimate right to stand or exist as nation co-equal to all other nation's on the earth including its patriarchal adversary, England and its aristocratic ruling monarchy, was founded on the legal premise expounded in the Declaration of Independence. These men, the architects of this long lost Republic, argued their right to overthrow the rule of a despotic parent that refused to recognise their offspring's right to legitimate existence did so by invoking God's recognition. Hence, these words:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Those men not only spoke and wrote such words, they put their lives on the line for treason for making such a Declaration. They didn't hope nor offer hope in some angry, senile old man or some word-hack spouting sanctimonious ideas about hope and trust in vague promises of a new direction.

If you need someone to tell you what to do, how to do it and to speak for you, take some time and read the book by an American historian and political scientist, Howard Zinn published in 1980, A Peoples History of the United States. Herein lies the history of a free people that knew how to speak for themselves and how to act for themselves.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These words became their truth.

All men may have been created equal, but very few act like they are, actually believe that equality is a self-evident truth, with the rare exception of the kind of people Mr. Zinn wrote about, perhaps. Joe Blow, like he says, is just a nobody. So, he celebrates the Fourth of July the only way he knows how to celebrate life, like nobody, but like any first-class citizen, he votes with his feet.

What value are your words of truth?

The Patriot Perspective

“The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” —Samuel Adams

"Second Amendment Security"
“The People” narrowly prevail, 5-4
By Mark Alexander

“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.” —Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Yesterday, in a narrow 5-4 vote (Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy), the Supreme Court reaffirmed, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the people’s inherent right to keep and bear arms is plainly enumerated in our Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right, that DC could not ban handguns, and that operable guns may be maintained in the homes of law-abiding DC residents.
However, the ruling still leaves open the question of whether the Bill of Rights has legal precedence over state and municipal firearm restrictions.

As UCLA Law School professor and constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out, “The Heller decision only involved the Second Amendment’s effects on federal laws (including laws of federal enclaves, such as DC). Whether the Constitution limits state and local gun bans—which is to say, whether the Second Amendment is ‘incorporated’ against states and their subdivisions by the Fourteenth Amendment—will have to be decided in a future case.”


...Continue Reading »


I'll never forget the cartoon by Vip that showed this great big giant of a bully with this great big chip of wood on his shoulder, looking down at this ematiated little guy with disgust and scorn telling him: "Go ahead. Knock it off." The next picture showed the little guy with a great big Colt 45 shooting that chip right off his shoulder.

So, bring it on bullies!

--Joe

Save The Little Children

Once again the precious lives of our children are used to justify trashing the law and eliminating Constitutionally protected rights. This is what a major portion of Americans are hoping in: Senator Barack Obama. Here is his response on the latest Supreme Court ruling on gun ownership:

"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today's ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country. "

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact common-sense laws, like closing the gun show loophole and improving our background check system, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe."

Sounds good, use our "common sense," "keep our communities and our children safe," "act responsibly." Lord forbid a gun should fall into the hands of "terrorist" or a "criminal"!

The practical reality of acting responsibly is, despite the fact the Court ruled Americans can keep guns at home for self-defense is something altogether different. Now that gun ownership is legally protected don't let a police officer see you holding that gun. Today the mere presence of someone packing a weapon, whether it be a gun, a knife or a club, makes them feel threatened. That act alone, feel threatened, grants all police officers the right to defend themselves. It grants them a license to kill. All they are required to do is act "in good faith."

So, remember the little children. They just might save your life some day!

--Joe

A Picture Worth 10,000 Words

Compliments of the Patriot Post and Gary Varvel