According to Rasmussen™ poll results out today, a "national telephone survey shows that 89% of American adults agree that 'we are all endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Only seven percent (7%) disagree on that founding premise. Seventy-four percent (74%) agree with the assertion that 'all men are created equal' while just 23% disagree." I have some thoughts:

The Basic Principles
A 4th of July Essay - 07/03/09

Would the protesters in Iran have a better chance of changing the outcome of the recent, possibly fraudulent, elections if they were armed? Could the unrest even lead to a revolution to overthrow Iran's oppressive regime?

This is what a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Florida, Marco Rubio, posted on Twitter:

I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours.

Rubio was immediately rebuked by left-wing journalists and commentators. One of the harsher critics was Chris Matthews, who hosts “Hardball with Chris Matthews” on MSNBC. This is what Matthews had to say on his June 22d show:

You've all seen what's happening in the streets of Tehran. How people are getting beaten, getting hit with tear gas, getting shot. Take a look at what Republican Senate candidate Marco Rubio of Florida posted on his Twitter page after watching those scenes that we've been watching. Quote: "I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd Amendment like ours." Wow! Things would be different if the protesters had the Constitutional right to bear arms? To fight back against the Iranian Guard? I hadn't thought of that. Then again it wouldn't really be a non-violent protest, would it Mr. Rubio, if the non-violent protesters were walking around with guns!

A critic of Mr. Matthews in turn fired back that Matthews not only hadn't thought of that, but missed the point entirely. Another counter-critic suggested:

Wouldn’t it be just awful if an armed citizenry overthrew a tyranny by force and established democracy and liberty? That never turns out well. Oh, except for that one time when we did it, of course.

I wondered myself as I watched the events in Iran unfold: suppose that the protesters had the armaments and logistics to turn the street riots into a genuine revolt? Could they, would they? There was much speculation among the news analysts about the outcome of the current unrest; most felt it wasn't going to go very far, certainly not as far as an attempt to overthrow the state. People outside the cities in Iran are well armed, apparently. But the Iranian state is a complicated organization in which the Supreme Leader controls police, special forces, vigilante groups and local militia that support the regime, create a reign of terror, and help put down resistance to the mullah's rule. What if there had been a comparable situation in the American colonies 233 years ago? If, for example, the Crown controlled the militia?

If Mr. Rubio's comment then is taken against the backdrop of the American Revolution, Chris Matthews and others who mocked it did indeed miss a couple of points -- 1) that the American Revolution also started with "non-violent" protests which 2) evolved into an armed uprising because Americans were somewhat prepared to wage war against the occupying British forces. "To fight back against the British Redcoats?" Mr. Matthews might ask. Yes, the loosely organized colonial riflemen against the formidable infantry and grenadiers of the British Empire. And who won in that lopsided matchup?

In fact, the trouble actually started some years before the first shots were fired in 1775, a year before the formal Declaration of Independence was signed, with various "non-violent" protests.

Rising tensions between American colonists and British soldiers sent to occupy major cities to enforce new laws which brought local governors under closer control of the British government lead to events as early as 1770 that would eventually result in armed revolution. At first the occupation, which began in '68, met little resistance from colonists, but over time Americans grew more hostile to the presence of British troops. To use the modern term, there was increasing "unrest."

On March 5th, 1770, a group of about 50 citizens started throwing stones and other objects at a squad of British soldiers stationed in Boston. The response of the soldiers, firing into the mob, left several colonists dead and wounded, and incited more protests. The March 5th event has been called a signal event leading to the Revolutionary War five years later.

Three years after the Boston Massacre, as this incident came to be known, the British instituted taxes on tea and gave the financially troubled East India Company the right to import tea into the colonies. 25% of the tax went to the East India Company (stimulus package?) and the remainder was used to pay the salaries of colonial officials. Because American colonists were not permitted any seats in the British Parliament, many opposed the tariffs as taxation without representation.

Consequently some of the tea ships were turned away by the colonial governments, but in the winter of 1773, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson allowed three ships carrying tea to enter Boston Harbor. Before the tax could be collected, Bostonians took action to protest. On the cold night of December 16th, citizens disguised as Indians stormed the ships and tossed 342 chests of tea into the water.

Still it wasn't until another year and a half had passed that "unrest" gave way to open warfare. It was on April 19th, 1775 (a couple of days after the legendary ride of Paul Revere), that

By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April's breeze unfurled; Here once the embattled farmers stood, And fired the shot heard 'round the world.

But the "non-violent" protests probably would not have evolved into a full scale revolution and independence that we celebrate this week had the colonists not been armed. People at that time could not just crank up the Mini and go to Publix, or call BSO when they heard bumps in the night. Those on the frontier, especially, depended on their muskets and rifles for much of their food and security. The only domestic military forces were the militia; these were irregular forces, which relied upon their members for arms and equipment.

One weapon in particular, an American invention, played an especially important role in the independence of this country. That was the rifle, known as the long rifle or Kentucky long rifle. The long rifle was more accurate than any other firearm; in the hands of a marksman, this weapon was accurate up to an incredible range, for that time, of 250 yards. (The M-16 has an effective range of 600 yards.) And American riflemen, who used their rifles mostly for hunting, not warfare, were expert sharpshooters.

Riflemen were used by Washington and his commanders as pickets and snipers. At the Battle of Saratoga in 1777, riflemen were used to pick off British officers. This feat is credited for the American victory at Saratoga, which was a landmark battle for the revolutionaries. The Battle of King's Mountain, S.C., in 1780, was another decisive victory, won by marksmen using the long rifle.

Decades later, in the War of 1812, backwoods riflemen under Jackson's command firing the long rifle overwhelmed and devastated British musketeers as they stormed the American parapet at the Battle of New Orleans.

Who knows if the current unrest in Iran, if the people were armed with weapons as well as cell phones and Twitter accounts, or if the right people were armed, might be transformed into a revolution? In fact, Iran has had a number of revolutions and coups. Look what it has ended up with. Another thing we should remember is that the American Revolution was not just an armed contest between long rifles and muskets. The Revolution and indeed Independence were founded upon radical ideas that transcended everyday politics and rallied public support. I'm not sure that there are any comparable principles among the people of Iran today to sustain a revolution that would produce anything like a liberal democracy.

If there are people in Iran who adhere to liberal ideals, they are a minority which is marginalized by a repressive and reactionary culture clearly antithetical to these ideals.

The ideas, or principles, which sustained the American Revolution, held to be self-evident truths by the Founders, are eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence:

First: : "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Second: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Third: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Of course, these principles, such as the equality of all men, have not been attained without effort, struggle, and civil war. They are principles that are derived largely from our Anglo-Western heritage which developed over centuries of time. They may not be easily exported to other countries which don't have the underlying traditions that support ideas like equality and democracy. Even so, America still wrestles with these concepts itself. What does it mean, that all men are created equal when people are so different? But the point is that we have (I believe the majority of Americans have) not abandoned the ideals which have sustained the American Revolution even to our day. At least for us, if not for everyone.

A basic principle which sustains our revolution is the principle of revolution itself, but in accordance with the aspirations of the Founding Fathers on July 4th, 1776, to escape the tyrant's yoke, not merely to shift power from one despot to another (as has been historically the case of Iran). Thus, it was written:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Rumor, Belief, and Magic - 06/27/09

A simple human experiment was invented by a German psychologist over a century ago. My first encounter with it was in a military science class in undergraduate school (I was ROTC).

The purpose of the experiment is to show how information changes as a story or set of "facts" passes from person-to-person. Here's how it works: A person is read a short story. He tells that story to a second person. The second person tells the story to a third. The third to a fourth and so on. The last person then tells his version out loud and it is compared to the original. In every case, the last telling is different from the original story, and sometimes very different.

The experiment also shows how rumors generate, and enlarge, and the imperfections of communication. I believe it was Ortega y Gasset who wrote about the latter, arguing that communication is always imperfect. So: I write what I mean, and mean what I write. Why don't you, the reader, get it? Because I write what I mean, but you read what you think I mean; that is, you read what I've written in the context of your own understanding and experience. There can be and probably are significant variations between my meaning and yours, so what you think I meant can be different from what I intended to mean.

Thus, I or anyone can generate a rumor (accidentally or intentionally) which may over time become "fact" in the minds of those who hear the latest version of it.

-At a commission meeting I hear Commissioner Ganz make a comment that not enough backup material is included in the commissioners' packets. -I tell Marge, I think Bill is mad at Mahaney because he doesn't provide the commissioners with enough background information. -Marge tells Barb, Jeff says Bill is angry with Mike. -Barb tells Pam, Jeff says Bill doesn't like Mike. -Pam tells Tom, Jeff says Bill isn't satisfied with Mike. -Tom gets back to me and says, I understand you think Bill wants the fire Mike.

This is how "disinformation" works too. Rumors or falsehoods are planted, sometimes in regular news stories. Eventually, if repeated enough, they become "fact" with some people. The propagandists know how the process works and exploit it to create operating mythologies in which the public believes. Here's a recent local example: "Everybody" believes that the parking lot at the Cove is packed day-in and day-out. "You can't ever find a parking spot" is the mantra of this belief. Yet, some people went down to the Cove every day and took pictures to document what they saw. The pictures showed there's almost always plenty of available parking. Why do so many people believe the opposite? I think it's because the "fact" that the parking lot is full most of the time has been said so many times, people see it as truth. It's a trick.

Likewise, local news stories about the projected Cove improvements focused on the people who don't want the project to go forward. But persons who attended the meetings and workshops know that most merchants and property owners at the Cove support the improvements. People who did not attend these meetings might believe most oppose the project if the sole source of their information is the local news coverage. Not by lying, exactly, but by omitting relevant information, the reporter is able to create an "illusion" as to what the consensus is; and, in effect, to trick the minds of readers into believing something false is true, without even stating the falsehood.

This, in fact, happens all the time, even in the regular media.

Scientists are studying stage magic to see how it works -- not the exact mechanics, but why people believe what they see.

When I was 10 or 11 years old, my parents took me to see Harry Blackstone, Sr., one of the most famous stage magicians of that era. The trick that I remember most was the "Vanishing Bird Cage." In that routine Blackstone held a red bird cage with a small bird in it at about the level where little hands could reach it. He invited kids from the audience to come up on the stage and put their hands on the cage. And, it suddenly vanished, bird and all, into thin air.

All of us have seen magic tricks where elephants, train cars, and even the Statue of Liberty are seemingly made to disappear. Now the rational mind knows perfectly well, the bird cage didn't just vanish. But the perception is that it did, and most people are awed by the mystery of how the magician did it.

In a modern experiment, a magician sits in front of an audience and makes an object disappear. Every person in the audience believes it disappeared before their eyes.

A camera, recording the trick from a different angle, showed clearly how the magician made the object disappear. But not a single person in the live audience saw it. People watching the video, however, can't believe the audience didn't see what the magician did, it's that obvious. Somehow, the magician, or illusionist, is able to trick the mind of viewers so that they believe what the rational mind knows can't happen, happened.

In a way, this is what the propagandist or rumormonger does also. He's an illusionist who tricks the mind by using the prejudices, ignorance, gullibilities, and intellectual laziness of his readers or listeners to make them believe a falsehood or mere speculation is fact. He knows that some people can be convinced of almost anything if the story is feasible. He knows that information will be reinterpreted and magnified as it is passed along. He may successfully create a whole mythology from a falsehood which people believe and from which may emerge important public policy decisions.

I won't go into it too deeply now, but I think that similar processes are at work in political correctness. We think with words and symbols and what we think those words and symbols mean. By banning certain words, or by redefining them, we alter the way people think about certain issues.

Mahaney's Fate - 06/25/09

If you believe the blogs and the rumors, City Manager Mike Mahaney might as well pack his bags now. One blogger even suggested Mahaney keep a box along side his desk, at the ready for when the inevitable ax falls. We'll report the facts; you be the judge (as they say).

As Bett Willet wrote on her blog this week (about the commission's stumbling reaction to the stunt pulled by Chaz Stevens at the regular June 16th meeting), "This would be funny if it were not so pathetic." There is a fine line between comedy and pathos, and this could not be better illustrated than by the special city commission meeting this Tuesday which included a discussion of City Manager Mahaney.

Actually, the commission met this week only because it did not finish its regular business the previous week. Part of the reason was the above mentioned incident which generated a longer-than-necessary discussion about whether audio-visual aids should be allowed in the written requests without prior review by city staff, ostensibly to check for inappropriate content. At this week's meeting, the matter was taken up again, and the commission reversed course on the use of audio-visuals. In other words, after all the blather, they decided speakers can use audio-visuals such as DVDs and PowerPoint.

In addition to the unfinished business from last week, the mayor added an evaluation of City Manager Mike Mahaney to the agenda.

Accurate information is one of the dynamics of politics and public opinion. Rumor is another dynamic because it riles people up with images of worst or best case scenarios. In this case, the late-in-the-day addition of the evaluation instantly ignited rumors that the commission was set to fire Mahaney. Standing rumor also has it that Mayor Noland wants Mahaney out. And, of course, when you have that pair of rumors running in tandem, this raises concerns among some that the door opens for the triumphant return of you-know-who.

One of the earliest to report the rumor was the New Times blog The Juice. When Mahaney was not fired, it reported in a second post that he narrowly escaped being fired. Juice opined that there was a 2-2-1 split on the commission with Poitier (whom he renamed Sylvia Ferguson) as the swing vote. This analysis itself bears some criticism, however. Maybe Juice needs a different source (he mentioned in the first post he had a source) or needs to interview the commissioners personally to get a truer picture.

First off, the commission did not discuss firing Mahaney at all. There was some criticism of the city manager -- this was, after all, an evaluation. None of it was devastating. The mayor complained that the manager frequently parks his car in a visitor's space, while her Highness parks her car in a more distant spot and walks from there to City Hall. If the talk around town that Noland wants to get rid of Mahaney is accurate, she certainly did not take this opportunity to make a case for such a drastic move. I did not detect in any of the discussion by 1, 2, 3, and 4 an inclination to terminate the city manager any time soon.

I also did not detect a simple 2-2-1 split on any issue related to Mike Mahaney. Even Mayor Noland, who is supposed to be so anti-Mahaney, sympathetically suggested that he was over-extended and recommended he hire an assistant manager. I guess there are a couple of ways to interpret that suggestion. But, then again, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of Peggy Noland?

And who is the other person who wants Mahaney gone? Popelsky? If he said it or implied it, I missed it.

As for Fergie, the alleged swing vote that was going to decide Mahaney's fate, she seems, if anything, to adore Mr. Mahaney. He's apparently very accommodating to her and even has an affectionate nickname for her. If the other commissioners harbor deeper negative feelings about Mahaney than they revealed at this meeting, they most certainly did not seem prepared to fire him.

So why did they do this evaluation at this time? One theory is that the Pegster wanted to test the waters to see how the other members were coping, if that's the word, with Mahaney. Maybe Mahaney's laid-back, Southern-boy style rubs some people the wrong way, I don't know. I know that he was criticized by some for not quickly wiping out the Deetjen hires when he came on board. But Mahaney has a big job to do and could not simply gut the city staff, leaving himself with no help. He has an excellent track record on budget matters. Top-flight fiscal competence has to be the priority right now.

Finally, the evaluation was too early to be fair anyway. Three of the commissioners, including the mayor, are literally 90-day wonders. They really need to be with Mike Mahaney through the full cycle, Spring to Spring, and through budget season, to get the full measure of the man. Except for possible ulterior motives, the evaluation was almost pointless from the public perspective.

Aside from the manager's evaluation, the mayor made a couple of proposals for the future. One is that the commission hold a facilitated brain-storming workshop to work out goals for the city. I'll perhaps have more comment on this at a later date.

Another proposal she made is that the commission conduct one of its monthly meetings in a place other than City Hall, in other words, around town, so that more people would attend. I think a more productive idea would be for the commission to hold periodic (maybe four a year) town-meeting style workshops to allow the public to talk to the commission as a whole about their concerns. I'd bet this would attract more interest than a boring regular meeting and would avoid the logistical problems of the road show idea.

So here you have it, the delicate balance between the comedic (the audio-visual discussion and the manager's evaluation) and the pathetic (the same discussions).

It's too bad those of us who attend these meetings can't just walk away and say, "Good meeting!"

This web site is independent commentary. It is not associated with any political organization, candidate or campaign. We fully support the right of free speech and press and the right to privacy. We oppose censorship in any form, but do not condone plagiarism, defamation, incivility, abuse, or the use of the Internet to threaten, bully or intimidate public officials, candidates for public office or potential candidates, or political activists.