On Patriotism

Today, in 1791 the Bill of Rights was ratified.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Those ten amendments, probably more than any other aspect of the Constitution define who we are as a nation.

To quote Lincoln we are now engaged in a great struggle to see if any nation so conceived can endure.


For years, even decades (hell, practically since the inception of the country) the Gov't has been trying to chip away and file down the protections those ten amendments provide. I think this a bad idea. It isn't that I think them Holy Writ, graven in stone by some sacred set of Iconic Founding Fathers who knew all, and made no mistakes. Some things need to be adjusted to meet the needs of the present (who here thinks that 20 dollars at issue ought to be the threshold at which a jury trial is guaranteed? Next time you want some fun, ask that question of a, "Strict Constructionist), but rather those ten additions to the Constituion probably have more to do with what we are, and what we ought to be, than the rest of it put together. The actual text of the constitution is about mechanics. How we go about governing ourselves. How the social compact is administered.

The Bill of rights, on the other hand, (with some late additions, after the Civil War) define the social contract.

In my lifetime, however, major aspects of it have been compromised, in the name of law and order.

Warrants are no longer required to search any vehicle, within 50 miles of the border. If, however, the cops fail to find anything they aren't obligated to put your car back in order, nope, they acted, "in good faith," and so are protected, even if (as has happened) the motorist's vehicle has been completely disassembled at the side of the road, requiring, at the very least, a good set of tools and some hours to put back together.

RICO was brought out to stop the Mafia, by going after the ill-gotten gains. But in the War on Drugs (and on porn, at least once) it's been used as a bill of attainder; and one which would have made Elizabeth I blush (or, as I would like to think, blanch). No need to actually charge anyone, just make a RICO seizure and they lose everything. If you do charge them, well the stuff they own can be used to finance the prosecution, and if they are acquitted, so sorry, nothing left to return (this happened to a bookstore in Fla.. The DA decided Marvel Graphic Novels were pornographic. Sent a couple of 17 year-old boys in, about ten minutes apart, and used those two sales to show, "a pattern of criminal behaviour," and invoked RICO. They were acquitted, but all they had in the shop was gone, merchandise and furnishings.)

These days the bogeyman isn't the Mob, nor so much the Drug Cartels, it's terrorists. We are told this is something completely new, and the old ways of doing businsess are outmoded. The answer was, The PATRIOT Act. So important was this that we passed it, unread, some four years ago.

There is one part of the PATRIOT Act which might be useful, which is the part where the various agencies working on things are supposed to talk to each other more easily, when say the FBI finds links to terrorism while it's working on a plain-jane criminal matter. But it doesn't The CIA is also expected to give plain-jane criminal info to the FBI when it enounters it in a terorism investigation. That's a camel's nose. It puts the CIA in domestic affairs. Not good. That way lies the deuxieme beaureau of Napoleon, or Stalin's NKVD.

That seems a tad extreme, but since, without a warrant the FBI took down, into permanent files, a host of information on everyone who got a room in Vegas for an entire weekend (they had, "credible" information that a terrorist attack was going to take place. It didn't, but by gum, if it turns out later that one of the tens of thousands of people who stayed in Vegas that weekend becomes worth looking at, there will be a working file).

That, at least, was done legally (no matter how odius the law might be), and could be stopped. Then again maybe not. The WaPO, and the New York Times report, not denied, that the White House arranged for the NSA to spy on uncounted persons who made international phone calls, or sent e-mail overseas. They did this on the simple say so of the president. No warrant, no National Security Letter, no nothing, except the command of the man in the Oval Office. No oversight.

Today, however, the Senate decided enough was enough. Some senators have been declaring public qualms (not least among them Russ Feingold
the only one who stood up and opposed it at its inception. Others only lately.

Few of them seem willing to just let the thing die, and trust that the systems we had in place before this rancid piece of legislation was passed could do the job, but they are willing to question some of the most offensive aspects. They asked for three months, so they could investigate (four years, it seems, wasn't enough).

The White House said no. Pass it, or don't, but anything less than permanent extenstion would be vetoed (this seems an empty threat to me, this president hasn't vetoed anything. Just today he caved in on McCain's anti-torture amendment... the one he said he'd veto, even if it was on an appropriations bill for the war in Iraq. Why anyone believes he'd veto an extension to a law he likes, rather than let it die is beyond me).

So some senators did what they were hired to do, looked down the road to see where we were going, and they decided they didn't like it. The pulled a filibuster, despite the usual fear-mongering of those who want to railroad this sort of curtailment of rights. Take, for example, the words of Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) [The PATRIOT Act]he Patriot Act "will prevent future acts of terrorism unless we allow it to expire.". If a filibuster resulted in the act's ceasing to exist and an attack occurred, "everyone who votes to support a filibuster will have to answer for that.

Which is arrant nonsense.

Anyone who's studied the problem will tell you the question isn't if, but when. It may be some external threat, it may be another McVeigh, or Rudolph. We've stopped a number of attempts, and those through classic law enforcement. The Millenium Bomber, caught by an alert Customs Agent.

The folks in Texas, with the makings of a whole lot of chemical weapons (goodly folk too, God-fearing white people) they weren't snared up because the CIA was tapping their phones.

That's what's most offensive about things like RICO, and the PATRIOT Act. They ask us to sacrifice our freedom for percieved safety. As Franklin said, those who are willing to do that deserve neither.

He also said we have a Republic, if we can keep it.

These things, IMO, are grave threats to our keeping it, and I don't want to see it vanish from the face of the earth.

Call your senators (and your rep) and tell them this thing is bad, evil, a dog's breakfast and we don't need it. Tell them why (there's lots of reasons why), and just maybe we can get a little closer to those ten amendments again.

What you get out of it

I went to the Dojo last night.

I was not a happy camper when I arrived.

For reasons various, some my fault, some simple ignorance, some the fault of poor design on the part of the Regional Transit Authority in SLO, I was late. I was late after walking some four miles. To make it worse, I did those four miles carrying about forty pounds, some on my back, some on my front.

I wasn't in a good mood.

So I resorted to ritual. Kind of like dressing to serve mass. As I donned each part of the gi, I tried to shed some small part of my internal disquiet.

And I sat for a long time, looking at the shomen trying to find some harmony. I bowed in, and Michelle sensei asked me to join the mat.

Last night was important. Two of the aikidoka were demonstrating that they were at 4th kyu (a blue belt, the third level of progression, and the first to have a distinguising feature). The crowd was immense (quite unlike Tuesday, when there were six for basic, and four for general (it was great, three udansha (i.e. black belts) and me. I managed to absorb a lot). We did centered, and centering work. Michelle and I did a tenkan blend.

Let the uke grab your same-side hand, turn, and lower your center, walk around for a bit. If you do it right it's like leading a horse, they have to follow the halter, even though they weigh five-times what you do.

Then I we did a simple grounding excercise. Same side grab, and lower your ceneter. Absorb the resting energy of the grab. I was with the newest of our members. It is a rush, and a fearful rush, for me to be with someone who is less practiced that I, I am afraid I will give them some bad habit I haven't managed to avoid.

Mary sensei, however, was watching and smiled at me, so I guess my comments weren't bad. One of the things I like about aikido is that everyone is seen as having his/her own aikido, and we share it with each other. Done right everyone helps everyone else improve, and the least skilled has something to share with the most. Last night I managed to get some of that.

Then Karen demonstrated. It isn't an exam. The work prior to the demonstration is as much of an exam as one gets. This is a chance to show off, to revel in what one can do well. Karen did that. Solid, grounded, and smiling all the while. There were times she was like a rock, other times she was still as a frozen pond, and once or twice she was as a rushing river; moving, flowing and unstoppable. All of it with a grin from ear to ear.

And we did some more. This time we were to ask the uke to give us something. A grab, a strike, a hold. We would then do what we wanted, or needed, to do with it. I also did a set with Russ, a black belt, which was about moving behind, but really was about letting the uke move past. Don't pull, just accept, then respond.

Ans Wayne demonstrated. He was wind and mountains. His uke were getting high falls, and hard drops to the mat. They were also being sent rolling away, softly and smoothly. His unscripted was to fend off Scott, and Russ, in rapid series, where Karen had to let Scot be nage to her uke

And they were given belts, and we clapped for them, and their partners, and pounded the mats for the joy of celebrating.

Afterwards, when all the comments had been made, and the cookies eaten the congratulations given, and thanks exchanged, four of us did knife work.

This is less gentle. If one makes a mistake, and gets reveresed on a grab, or pin, or throw, one rolls, falls or walks away. A knife... well one gets hurt, so the moves are faster, harder.

But this is free-form. Work with what comes, and do what one can. Knives I know. It was like the punching responses we were doing the night before. An uke is supposed to be aggressive with intent. They are not there as a rag doll to be tossed about for form's sake, they are sharing the moment. It's like a pumpkin patch, one has to be sincere. Michelle moved away before I had committed, I changed my point of aim, and tagged her. Not hard, just a touch, but the blow landed. With the knife I did the same. I even managed to reverse her once on a pin.

It was probably the best instant of the evening. I was in the moment. I felt the center, our center, and took it, lifted it and was out from under, still holding the knife, while she was pinned and vulnerable.

She laughed, a rich warm chuckle. The student had bested, if only for a moment, the master, and it was good.