“We’ve just had an assault on our capitol building, but more importantly some say, on our democracy. I’ve heard many people speaking of, what it was, how it came to be, and what was intended by those who visited the capitol. What do you think about that?”
“You know I try not to think…about things like that. I understand the purpose, and realize as Che Guevara said, “A revolution without guns, is no revelation at all,” in so many words of course. I do not mean to speak for him or rationalize his ambulatory messaging, as a means to an end scenario. But as I’ve always said, “What you see, is what you got.”
“So are you in favor of taking to the streets if it is essential to changing an entrenched institution, you are not in agreement with?”
“Your question suggests that I have some indication of what you mean by streets. The word street has different meanings for different people. The word street, like any word when you think about it, is what it implies. And we know that implication can be interpreted in many ways as it is personal, based on individual experience. Take Sesame Street for example. When you say street, I think of Cookie Monster. You may think of Bourbon, an insight I can only assume referring to a street in New Orleans. And take the word Orleans. Some pronounce it Orleens, some Orlins, it’s like I said a personal interpretation based upon an interpretation, born of experience.”
“I see what you mean, and understand that each of us may become engaged by a different stimulus, but there has to be, for a society to function, a set of standards we all agree with and adhere to, don’t we?”
“Certainly, but remember laws are enacted by people to regulate activity, and of course at the same time not intrude on speech and individual rights. When all is taken into consideration it is difficult to interpret the intent of what certain laws may propose. When you are being robbed, let’s say, the law takes into account the intent of the act as well as the act itself.”
“Is your logic building in an escape hatch that allows those that break the law, but have a justifiable intent, even if solely their own, predicated on their own logic, break the law for what they consider the right reason, to be condoned. And if so, are we not then confronted with the vigilantism that is implied occurred during the late 1800’s, and continues to the present day.”
“Democracy, and the laws that support it, is the result of mandates from the people. When you stop allowing all people in a society to contribute to the process of government, you are in fact regulating laws and their application to the predominant faction in the country and not allowing the underserved to participate.”
“That sounds to me like what the poor and people of color in this country are saying. They have not been allowed representation from the countries inception. The underserved you say, need to have access to the podium to express their grievances and seek reparations, that will remove the barricades to personal freedoms that now exist. Are you implying that that sentiment applies to all people who are underserved by their government?”
“The one thing that always is brought into the conversation, when speaking of freedom and the right to equal justice, is the inequity in the system. It was an integral part of discussion in creating the Constitution, that those capable of governing should govern. Those that have the largest stake in the process should have the most ability to influence how the local, state, and federal government governs. They after all, have the most to lose.”
These statements were segments from an interview conducted with a member of the Rights Initiative. I have attempted to understand the questionable behavior that has impacted so much of America and the world. A shift in power is often promoted as an acceptance of equality.
"When equality and diversity are no longer capable of participating in the process of government, they are in theory, part of, and protected by, plans designed to fail. Segments of all populations evolve and eventually become part of the majority. But given the fact they have been subjugated, will not be forgotten, when the shift of power occurs." (Rights Initiative)
I find it interesting, that those who are in social and financial seats of power are more concerned with keeping their status, than helping or minimally allowing, those at lesser societal levels to participate in the opportunity to improve their lot in life. I have lived through the era of, the shining light on the hill, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and a middle class surrounded by white picket fences. No one asks if that fence was metaphorically erected to keep people out, or keep them in.
Do you feel that your way of life has been diminished or changed by the political attitudes surrounding the events of the past several years, culminating in what is being called insurrection at the Capitol?"
“I don’t know about what is being called an insurrection. I was asked to participate in a free speech march which was focused on having the due process of our election, verified by the state delegates. We only wished to make sure that the votes from each state were accurate and could be legally validated by those in attendance. Any problems that may have occurred could have been the results of the anxiousness of the moment.”
“Do you believe that on occasion, during group activities, particularly those that are emotionally relevant to peoples interests, that people of a similar persuasion, incite a reaction in each other, that goes beyond decorum. Action that would be considered a normal exercise, in contesting a decision that is not accepted as legitimate?”
“We believe it is the right of every citizen to express their beliefs in a manner commensurate with the decisions being made and the influence those decisions may have on the lives of every citizen.”
I have attempted to understand, not judge the actions of those that participated in the chaos at the capitol building, during the ratification of the states votes, and subsequent awarding of delegate votes, which would result in the declaration of a winner of the election.
As I thought back on that day and thought about the lessons learned from Capote’s book about the murders, and how the chemistry of individuals changed a robbery into a murderous event, I couldn’t help but think of the more recent speculation about the idealism behind herd immunity.
A herd mentality I believe, appeared to be evident in so many of the gatherings over the past year. An exponential explosion of emotion that manifested itself in a way that it normally would not have.
I watched today as a hummingbird hovered around a feeder on my porch. The feeder is made of plastic, as are the artificial flowers that provide access for the birds to the nectar. The flowers are not real, nor is the nectar, it being a manufactured substance that duplicates the genuine nectar of actual flowers. I believe the facts do not keep the birds from taking advantage of a substance that keeps them motivated as well as a part of a complicated and diverse system. Because something is not real, does not mean it is not perceived as real, or factual. We as people are capable of accepting the falseness of facts, in order to enjoy the artificial nectar.