We Must Never Forget the Lessons of Orwell’s ‘1984’

I've thought about George Orwell and 1984 frequently.  His  book described a continuous war with two regions of the world, which allowed the Government to take over many of the citizen's rights.  That is very similar to the current situation where the Government has created two continuous wars: The war on Drugs, and The War on Terrorism.as excuses for usurping our civil rights.  Of course, it is pretty obvious that the Drug and Terrorism problem is one created, and sustained by the Government in order to maintain power.
Now, in addition to the war on two fronts, we also have the technology of the video screen and continuous tracking that Orwell described.  Government is now able to track everything we do.  Every book we read, movie we watch, phone call we make,  mail we send and receive (email) can be monitored continuously.  Our car license plates can be almost continuously tracked.
Now Richard Lederer who writes weekly column in Union Tribune has pointed out that the changes in our language are also moving towards a 1984 sort of scenario.
We Must Never Forget the Lessons of Orwell’s ‘1984’ | Richard Lederer's Verbivore:
Most science-fiction writers seemed to have missed the concept of pervasive video, location tracking, and, of course the use of the internet.  However, it is amazing how good Orwell's predictions were --except he was 30 year off on his date.  Instead of 1984, hos book should have been 2014.

Yom Kippur, the unnecessary war?

Even back in 1973, I didn't understand why Israel went to war with Egypt.  Now Yigal Kipnis in this article (and his book: 1973: The Road to War) explain that the Yom Kippur war was, in fact, unnecessary, and that peace could have been maintained. Apparently Henry Kissinger was making progress with Anwar Sadat and had a reasonable peace proposal for Golda Meir, who rejected it due to political concerns.
Yom Kippur, the unnecessary war? - latimes.com:
If, in fact, a treaty at that time could have been negotiated, how would history have unfolded in the many decades since?  Would the Palestine problem have been resolved?  Syria been more democratic?  Lebanon would have never self destructed?  Golda Meir's single political decision destroyed immense amounts of infrastructure in Egypt and Israel and resulted in the death of thousands of people.
My question is: why was this fact kept secret for so long?  The answer may be that if the American citizens knew that Israel had an opportunity for peace, but chose, instead to attack Egypt, that it would weaken the US support for the immense amount of foreign aid the US provided (and still provides) to Israel.  Instead, Israel's 6-day war was touted as being a masterful stroke of genius and military skill, when in fact, it was simply won by overwhelming force with the most modern technology.   My guess is that Israel and Israel's supporters will continue to try to downplay this revelation, and most news outlets will either not mention it, or keep it on the back page.
Israel continues to masquerade as a "victim" in the Middle East, while they continue to maintain the most modern of weapons, including nuclear weapons.  Israel argues against any of their neighbors having "weapons of mass destruction" when they probably have more than all of their neighbors combined!
I believe the same sort of thing happened when George W Bush attacked Afghanistan, and Iraq.  Afghanistan was reported to be willing to negotiate a turnover of Al Qaeda operatives to the US, if we would provide some "financial assistance." -- but Bush wanted to start a war to make it look like he was doing something in response to 9/11.  His attack on Iraq also was clearly an impatient response to rumors that Saddam had WMD.   So far, I think the way Obama has handled the Syrian situation makes perfect sense -- if we can extract the chemical weapons without starting a war, we are way ahead.  Yeah, the right-wingers accused him of being "wishy-washy" and indecisive by not attacking Syria, as he threatened to do.  He had to take that heat.  I wish Golda Meir and George W Bush had used better judgment--similar to Obama's. They may have faced criticism from political foes at the time, but waiting to attack was the right thing to do.

The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously. - NYTimes.com

This was a very interesting article about psychology and philosophy.
The Importance of the Afterlife. Seriously. - NYTimes.com:

Mother Nature and the Middle Class - NYTimes.com

I'm a fan of Thomas Friedman, and have enjoyed his books and columns.  He points out in this editorial that Iran and Egypt have a Population and Resource "bomb" that is about to explode and contribute to disaster's throughout the Middle East
Mother Nature and the Middle Class - NYTimes.com:

I think those countries are only precursors for the situation that much of the world will be in if we don't do something to slow the population growth in the world.

The Boy Who Stood Up to Syrian Injustice - NYTimes.com

The Boy Who Stood Up to Syrian Injustice - NYTimes.com

It is a shame that Charlie Rose didn't ask Assad if his regime would condone torture of children .  Absolutely absurd!  Evil!

Greenhut: Dems see downside of CEQA

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was generally a good idea at the time in the 1970s.  I believed at the time that it was necessary, but it went a little too far.  However it was better to have the act as it was passed than to not have it.  The Coastal Protection Act was another similar measure that was needed but was written a little too broadly.
Greenhut: Dems see downside of CEQA - Conservative News:

Now that we have 30 years of experience with these laws, I do agree it is time to "tune them" to make a little more sense.  Both of these laws have caused our State to be considered "business unfriendly."  They provide opponents of any sort of progress to have an almost unlimited set of tools to delay, stall or stop projects.  Anyone who wants to invest and start something new can be stopped by a very small minority using these laws.  In addition, with 20/20 hindsight, we can see that the laws have actually had the unintended consequence of having the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve.  For example environmentalists want to keep things natural and pristine --so they generally prefer no development.  However by not developing some areas, non-native plants and animals take over, erosion can fill streams etc.  By doing nothing, we may be damaging the environment.  Housing studies have shown that by making it very difficult to build in the coastal zone, the Commission has contributed to the "gentrification" of the coast.  If developers were free to build high-rise condos and apartments along the beach, more middle-class citizens could be enjoying the beach areas.

The problem is that  the various special or "vested" interests scream when any minor change is made to these laws.

The Real Right to Bear Arms by Joseph J. Ellis

I read this editorial in the Los Angeles Times last week.  I think he makes a very good point and I'm now interested in reading his books!

• Article rank 
• 8 Sep 2013
• Los Angeles Times
• By Joseph J. Ellis Joseph J. Ellis is the author of “Founding Brothers” and, most recently, “Revolutionary Summer.”

The real right to bear arms

ZoomBookmarkSharePrintListenTranslate

There is an opinion abroad in the land that the right to bear arms is unlimited, an absolute right, like the right to vote or the right to a fair trial.

This heartfelt conviction has surfaced lately in state legislation that attempts to nullify federal gun regulations. For the nullifiers, and many others, the broadest possible right to bear arms is purportedly enshrined in the 2nd Amendment and recognized in the Supreme Court case Heller vs. District of Columbia.

And yet, no matter how prevalent or fervently held, the opinion that the Bill of Rights supports and the high court acknowledges an absolute right to gun ownership is just plain wrong.

The language of the 2nd Amendment is quite clear: “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.” As the minority in the Heller decision argued, and more than a century of judicial precedent at the federal level established, the right to bear arms was not an inherent right of citizenship but rather a right that derived from service in the militia.

The historical context in which these words were crafted clarifies what was in James Madison’s mind when he wrote them. In 1787-88, seven of the states that ratified the proposed Constitution did so on the condition that Congress give consideration to adding several amendments if and when it went into effect. These states proposed 124 amendments, none of which mentioned the right to bear arms but several of which mentioned the fear of a standing army.

When Madison sat down to write what became the Bill of Rights in the summer of 1789, those 124 proposed amendments served as the basis for his deliberations. He distilled from them an essence of 12 amendments, subsequently reduced by the states to 10. The 2nd Amendment represented Madison’s attempt to respond to the fears of a standing army by assuring that national defense would reside in the states and in militias, not at the federal level in a professional army. The right to bear arms derived from the need to assure that state militia could perform its essential mission.

All this was what constitutional scholars call “settled law” until Heller, in which the high court ruled that the right to bear arms, despite the language of the 2nd Amendment and the historical context of its creation, existed independent of service in the militia. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is a tour de force of legalistic legerdemain, a lengthy journey through English common law, colonial charters, state constitutions and obscure 19th century court cases. Given Scalia’s judicial philosophy as an “originalist” — meaning he believes his opinions should be guided by the original intent of the framers — his failure to assess Madison’s motives in drafting the 2nd Amendment is strange, much like a devout Christian explaining his faith without mentioning Jesus.

But even Scalia, fully aware of the legal precedents he was overturning, saw fit to insert the following caveats near the end of his opinion:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…. Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

These caveats create a crack through which significant gun control legislation might flow. Indeed, expanded background checks and limits on automatic weapons, the key provisions in the post-Sandy Hook gun legislation debated (and defeated) by Congress earlier this year, fit comfortably within this space.

But gun control advocates need to be realistic. The Heller decision, no matter how misguided, is itself “settled law,” and the current composition of the Supreme Court will defeat any challenge to its sweeping, if limited, mandate. In addition, Congress is demonstrably hogtied by the National Rif le Assn., and even though many states (Colorado, Connecticut and New York among them) have tightened gun ownership laws since the massacres in Newtown, Aurora and Tucson, another half a dozen are trying the nullification gambit.

Given all this, the only alternative is to go back to “the people” themselves, where there remains good reason to believe a clear majority wants sensible reform at odds with the agenda of the NRA and the nullifiers. Remember: As 2013 began, an astonishing 89% of voters, including 75% of NRA members, were in favor of expanded background checks, and sizable majorities favored a ban on sales of semiautomatic weapons. Months later, polls still find most Americans are in favor of checks, “assault rif le” bans and restrictions on who is allowed to purchase guns.

The terms of a national discussion would no doubt include the gun violence tragedies we’ve faced, but it should also focus on the legal core of the gun rights issue: the 2nd Amendment and the Heller decision. These two tools, so often used to fight gun control, can and should be used to affect reasonable reform.

The intent of the founders needs to be heard and understood. The men who hammered out the Constitution, argued for its ratification and underlined our liberties with the Bill of Rights, would urge us to think about the issue this way: How do we balance the right to bear arms against the collective security of the American people?

Framed in this fashion, we can all come together as fellow citizens to discuss in a sensible rather than strident tone where the line needs to be drawn between our rights and our responsibilities.

All that’s required is that we channel our inner James Madisons, and even our inner Scalias. There is no unlimited right to bear arms — on that these two men agree, and so should we.