“Part of what psychedelics do is they decondition you from cultural values. This is what makes it such a political hot potato. Since all culture is a kind of con game, the most dangerous candy you can hand out is one which causes people to start questioning the rules of the game.” ”
—Terence McKenna“You had mentioned that day, the burden on owners of gun stores that the expanded background checks would cause... I'm just wondering why the burden of my mother being gunned down in the halls of her elementary school isn’t as important as that ”
—Erica Lafferty, daughter of Newtown victim Dawn Hochsprung, confronts Senator Kelly Ayotte for voting against expanding background checks: http://on.msnbc.com/12YgSZHtblrPresident Obama: Don't trust people who tell you not to trust me.
realclearpolitics.comAs young Americans are growing more distrustful of government regardless of political affiliation, President Obama wants them to stop it.

In a commencement speech in Ohio this past weekend, he said:
Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices.
Read and watch his full comments here.
Now, some of his later points are quite correct: We shouldn’t, as Obama says, want to be “a people who place all our faith in government to solve our problems”—nor should we attribute every single problem to government. As many problems as the government does cause, to absolve ourselves, our culture, our choices, and other factors both individual and institutional of all blame is itself irresponsible.
But the most controversial part of the President’s quote, the bit I’ve included above, is simply not true. As much as our government is supposed to be representative, to be of the people, by the people, for the people—all that jazz—I think we all know it’s not.
On financial questions alone, the contrast between the DC area in general and congress in particular is glaring. And let’s not even get into the way our government takes a strictly personal-convenience-based approach to the rule of law these days, feeling inclined toward strict “justice” when the question is whether a minority who got caught with pot should go to jail; but if it’s a matter of high-level officials approving of torture or spying on Americans without a warrant or drone strikes on children, there’s not a conviction to be found. Glenn Greenwald puts it well:
American history is suffused with violations of equality before the law. The country was steeped in such violations at its founding. But even when this principle was being violated, its supremacy was also being affirmed: resoundingly and unanimously in the case of the founders. That the rule of law—not the rule of men—would reign supreme was one of the few real points of agreement among all the founders. Arguably it was the primary one.…
[But if]—in the judgment of political leaders—it’s sufficiently disruptive, divisive, or distracting to hold powerful political officials accountable under the law on equal terms with ordinary Americans, then they should be exempt and the rule of law suspended, all in the name of political harmony, of “moving on.” But of course, it will always be divisive and distracting, by definition, to prosecute the most powerful political leaders, so [we have] created a template for elite immunity.
In light of the death of the rule of law and a multitude of other issues, we can only maintain today that our government is representative and working in our best interest if our heads are stuck firmly in the sand. Whether our government has always been “nothing more than some separate, sinister entity” is up for debate, but there’s no denying that this is an accurate description now. And while it’s not the “root of all our problems,” it’s certainly the root of many.
Now, the interesting thing is that Obama is not alone in his desire to persuade us that he and his compatriots are trustworthy. When the poll about millennials’ distrust of government came out, Trey Grayson of Harvard’s Institute of Politics said “he was particularly alarmed by the long-term implications of the poll’s results, explaining that the support of the millennials is key to the future stability of modern American institutions like the media, local and federal governments, and Wall Street.” He added that “We’ve got to give millennials a reason to trust these institutions.”
If Grayson’s name sounds vaguely familiar, that’s because he was the candidate widely backed by the GOP establishment in his race against Rand Paul for Senate in 2010. He’s a Republican, and he has the exact same perspective on the issue of whether or not we should trust the government as Barack Obama. Talk about giving the lie to your own argument…
A final point: Mistrust of government is not a bad thing. In fact, I’d suggest that even if you want far, far more government than I do, you should still want a large subset of the population who take everything the government says with a mountain of salt. Skepticism about what the government says and does is absolutely vital for keeping government honest. I’m happy to see this spirit on the rise among my generation; it’s been sorely lacking for years.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.” I don’t like the armed rebellion he may have had in mind, but the principle holds: Not every distrust of government will be accurate. There will always be crazy conspiracy theories and people who see bugbears around every corner.
But let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, because it’s a really important baby. In fact, it’s a quintessentially American baby; and to the extent that we have a national identity, however faint, this is it: There’s a real sense in which we don’t trust the government, and we don’t want to, and we never will. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
“I'm an Army veteran. If you think your government would never force someone to confess to something they didn't do, if you think your government would never set someone up, you are beyond wrong. Even if the Tsarnaev kid did what he's accused of, it's child's play compared to what the government has done.”
— from the Inbox“....after learning of the Obama administration’s involvement in the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups and its secret seizure of Associated Press phone records...I’ve had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, ‘Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,’ and I’ve always laughed at them,” Morgan said. “I said, ‘Don’t be ridiculous! Your government won’t turn itself on you...but, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government.”
—Piers Morganthe CNN host admitted to guest Penn Jillette that perhaps gun advocates were right about creeping tyranny after all
Things I Like About Thomas Jefferson
I like to bash on TJ sometimes, as it is my duty as a Hamilton fan. However, I can’t deny that he had some truly brilliant and insightful ideas.
“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.”Jefferson wrote a letter to Madison where he advocating tearing up the constitution and every law after 19 years. Otherwise, in his view, the people had not really consented to the laws imposed upon them, because 19 years as about a generation. Why should this new generation be held to their parents laws?
This letter is sometimes cited as proof of Jefferson’s impracticality, idealism, and naiveté. Oh, Mr. Jefferson! You and your impractical ideas!
But this is actually a great idea.
It is so easy to stick to the old ways, just because that’s how everything has always been done. It is easier to do than to undo. Change is a natural part of societies. Creating a mechanism that would put old laws, policies, and even constitutions under review prevents build-up, stagnation, and complacency.
How’s that for original intent? I would be all for instituting something like this.
“I am for freedom of religion, and against all manœuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”TJ was the one who coined the term separation of church and state. I love separation of church and state! It is seriously the best. He got his share of hate for not being sufficiently Christian (he was basically a Deist), poor fellow, but he wisely avoided mixing religion with politics. Author of the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom. How cool is that?
He was also very skeptical of clergy, dogma, and the supernatural, though he kept these kinds of opinions private. He was also pro-tolerance, and avoided discussing and debating private religious opinions because he believed it was a private matter. I’m not inclined to do that myself, but I can’t help respecting that mindset.
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”Ah, yes. The letter Jefferson wrote to Madison on preventing excessive accumulations of property through taxation is fabulous. He wrote that letter from France, after seeing how property was concentrated into the hands of the aristocracy, while the poor resorted to begging. He believed that it was possible for the laws of property to violate natural right . “The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on.”
At some point, I got the impression that Jefferson wanted the absolute minimum amount of government interference possible, and it annoyed me because I felt issues like inequality could only be dealt with through government interference. Yet, here is this letter, where Jefferson frankly asserts that “legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind”. I don’t share his preference for independent family farms, but the basic principle? Perfect.
Jefferson was smart as hell. He thought this shit through.
“I told President [Washington] that it was a fact, as certainly known as that he and I were then conversing, that particular members of the Legislature, while those laws [Assumption, Funding, &c.] were on the carpet, had feathered their nests with paper, had then voted for the laws, and constantly since lent all the energy of their talents, and instrumentality of their offices, to the establishment and enlargement of the [Treasury] system.”Okay, Jefferson was pretty paranoid about corruption. But I have learned to appreciate Jefferson’s paranoia. Corporations have got their claws into our representatives, who need their money to run campaigns and get elected. Jefferson’s concerns were valid and important. He understood that those in power are inherently dangerous.
Ah, Teej. It’s times like this when I really wish Jefferson and Hamilton had come to an understanding. Hamiltonian means to Jeffersonian ends, you know? Methinks Hamilton needed a Jefferson looking over his shoulder, and Jefferson needed to worry less about federal government power and more on how to prevent abuses of those powers.