Thursday, August 16, 2007

enlightenment and the founding of the nation

i watched an innocuous program the other day on opb about free-masonry. referring to the dan brown novel angels and demons and other conspiracy minded viewpoints, the program pointed out the connection of freemasonry and the founding of the nation, as well as the enlightenment period.
i find it sorrowful that we can look at an era in decades past and refer to it as 'the enlightenment' as if it had come and gone. but indeed that is what has happened. we live in a new dark ages in terms of intellectual honesty and integrity, pursuit of truth through reason and logic, and pursuit of happiness in general.
according to this show, these are the values held by the founding fathers. certainly not was it religious dogma. freedom of religion, right?

however, ever since that moment of brilliance in the late 18th century, when the framers and founders framed and founded this country, we continued on more or less the pattern of empire that has gone on since recorded history. today, the USA dominates global trade policies and it enforces the sale of oil in US dollars. petroleum is the lifeblood of 'modern' civilization and we're running out. there is no question that we live in a de facto monarchy these days. when the ruler does what he wants and not what the people want, when the ruler lies and takes the nation to war, that's pretty much a monarchy in my book. when the ruler says he can detain, interrogate, torture and even kill who he wants, when he wants, without a fair trial, that's a monarchy.

people think its about ensuring national security. its destroying the nation. it's rotting the core.

bush is exactly the kind of president the founding fathers anticipated when they included the articles for impeachment in the Constitution.

at least that's how i see it. who am i to say? just one of many.

1 comment:

nina said...

yes, yep and uh-huh. i agree. and what is more discouraging to me is knowing those articles of impeachment are right there--for a reason--and yet the majority of the dems still refuse to do a thing about it. there is legislation that has been introduced. kucinich i believe?? anyway he's at least one of the co-sponsors.

as for defazio's "reasoning" not to--well not sure what to say about that. he's become a big disappointment in my eyes. he seems to have become one of those "government for the rich/government for the government" types. i've written him several times, inquiring about impeachment. the first time around was when the republicans had the majority. at the time, although he favored impeachment, that was his excuse (repubs carrying the majority). however, at that time i learned legislation had been created to create a committee to look into impeachment--and i saw where he voted against it. now why would he vote against something he claimed to have supported, even if he felt passage was slim to none? made no sense to me. so i wrote again--hey, what's up why you no sign? never heard back.

recent e-mail attempts have concluded with similar lame response. nope--not gonna happen--gotta focus on cleaning up the mess instead. as the author of the piglipstick blog so astutely observed--this is akin to cleaning up after an elephant as it continues to poop.

excellent posts.