Stupid Things Conservatives Say, Third Edition

Stupid things Conservatives say, third edition

“I believe in the 2nd Amendment, which now makes me a member of the vast NRA gun lobby.”

       Only if you are. Of course, you say “believe in” as if it (the Second Amendment) was the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. With apparently no historic sense of what the verbiage is really about, I assume you meant to elide over the conditional clause. You know, that whole “well-regulated militia” thing? The poor discipline and material condition of state militias and the apparent poor training of them which Hamilton experienced first-hand during the revolution as George Washington’s aide, are most likely the genesis of this Amendment, suggested by Hamilton to James Madison for inclusion into the Bill of Rights.

       A standing army, which the British had maintained in the colonies, would have been an impossible sell to many Americans and/or state legislatures in 1791, so the militias were the sole sanctioned armed organized units in the United States, the Continental Army, having been disbanded in 1784 when the treaty of Paris went into effect. The exception was a group of 700 militia (there’s that word again) to man small frontier outposts. This “army” was, significantly, not based in populated towns, not unintentionally, as some still would have insisted on only state level militias, although the cost of training and maintaining them was another story.  

       In fact, the entire uniformed professional military “army” of the United states was a mere 700 soldiers in 1792, when increased British incited Indian threats on the frontier and the hostilities occasioned by British impressment of American seamen, led Congress to authorize an increase to just over 5,000. Dubbed the “Regular Army,” it was still usually comprised of regiments formed from State militias. In 1802, The United State Military Academy at West point was established, signed into law by that fan of states’ rights, Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, who had originally argued rather strenuously against it, now asked Congress to send him a bill, which they did. He was bright enough to understand that the United States lacked both trained military leaders and that states couldn’t provide the training necessary for what he (Jefferson) understood were coming challenges. This was never more obvious than when, shortly after Jefferson’s return to Monticello, James Madison (you know, that guy who actually wrote the Constitution and the Bill of rights?) was faced with the events which led to the war of 1812.

         Militia trained Maryland troops massed to oppose the British army advance towards Washington, DC. Unfortunately, their shamefully precipitous retreat when faced with highly trained Redcoats is historically known as “The Bladensburg Races.” The White House was burned and the efficacy of militia against professionals now was seriously being called into question by Congress. 

       The early years of the academy were of little impact by 1812 for several reasons, as there were few standards for admission or length of study. Cadets ranged in age from 10 to 37 (if you can believe that!) and attended between 6 months to 6 years. The seeming inevitability of War caused Congress to authorize a more formal system of education at the academy, and legislation increased the size of the Corps of Cadets to 250.  It was a case of “too little, too late”, since by the War of 1812, only 89 officers had graduated, morale was low, and the Academy was in danger of being disbanded. Learning from the War, in 1817, a new Superintendent, Colonel Sylvanus Thayer, assumed the leadership of West Point. Known as the "Father of the Military Academy," Thayer immediately upgraded academic standards, instilled military discipline, and emphasized honorable conduct. Under his leadership, trained leaders of the modern US Army developed.

        Yeah, I know this is wordy, but I know you’re a tad slow, so I wanted you to, at least once, be exposed to why that Second Amendment was written, and why, due to intervening events, it is largely extraneous. Those well-trained militias (remember, the conditional clause?) now exist. We call them the National Guard. If you want an AR 15 or other high rate of fire weapon, call your recruiter. Otherwise, be glad you can hunt in open areas and feed yourself on your successes.

“I am older than 65 and retired, which makes me a useless old man who doesn’t understand Facebook.”

       You just might be the only person in the world to believe that. I’m 75 and I know better. I have only this to say about that: If you are 65, retired and useless, that’s entirely on you. If you like Facebook, use it. I do. If you don’t like Facebook, eschew its use. Either way, please don’t broadcast such incredibly ignorant drivel, or people might begin believing the “useless” part. Hell, even your socially retarded president understands how to use twitter, and he’s almost functionally illiterate.

        “I think, and I reason, therefore I doubt much that the mainstream media tells me, which must make me a reactionary.”

        I love this one, since all the previous dumb statements make the whole “I think, and I reason” allegation shaky at best. The slurring of “mainstream media” while popular with you and those who “think?” as you do, is unfounded for the most part, and don’t you wanna know why? Didn’t think so, but tough shit, here it comes:

        Main stream media, but which I would imagine you mean network news and newspapers, only survive if they have sufficient readership or listener- ship (?) to remain financially viable. Broadcasting editorial commentary disguised as news, only works if you happen to be Fox News, founded on the premise that, in Roger Ailes’ own words, "I created a TV network for people from 55 to dead,"  The effect of this, plus Ailes’ basic credo of slandering everything  centrist or to the left, was to politicize the media, a characteristic of banana republics everywhere. Ailes used the big lie to do it, which was that the “other networks (the hated “mainstream media” were dramatically liberally biased, a claim which if true would have already have cost then listeners, viewers readers. 

          Of course, Ailes’ background wasn’t in news at all, it was the Mike Douglas show. So, when Ailes decided to cordon off Republican audiences and craft/invent/editorialize news programming targeted specifically to them, he began the process of atomizing the entire media landscape into political fiefdoms – Fox for the right, MSNBC for the left, etc.  

        What you should consider is this. For decades, TV stations have run editorial commentary; however, they did it only after announcing that it was what it was and that it reflected opinions. Faux News (first) and the multitude of electronic sources now using false flag web addresses such as ABC NEWS US (which is not affiliated with ABC news in any way) don’t bother with such disclaimers. Faux News runs editorials disguised as news. Not only do the proffer opinion disguised as simple fact, they frequently air/print outright falsehoods, minus any disclaimer of any kind.

        I, as you claim to be, am actually am capable of thought and reasoned critical evaluation. When I watch a network news broadcast, other than Fox) I see fact being reported. I listen for bias, I really do. My daily briefing by Alexa includes NPR News. There is never, as in never, anything but factual reportage in these broadcasts. If one could characterize news as “sterile”, NPR News is just that. Likewise, all three real TV news organizations in their network broadcasts which are styled as “News” are factual, with zero editorialization. If you think these “for profit” news organizations would risk losing sponsors for sake of editorializing, you aren’t capable of thinking or reasoning.  

       You have been victimized by the sort of “agitprop” (screw you, look it up) that Roger Ailes mastered. Criticize NPR as fake news, not because anything they report as news is “fake” but because you can smear them as “liberal” since they also aired “Sesame Street” with all those “goldarn coloreds” and “immigrant Hispanics.”  News is news, facts are facts. TV broadcasters air what sells. Sometimes that’s a show with a gay person in a starring role. “Danger, danger, liberal TV show, network must also be using Fake News.”  If you can connect these two disparate concepts you are simply pitiful and a victim. If you characterize everything you dislike for whatever reason to a politically labeled mental dumpster, then you are the victim, not the rational doubter.