Politics... from distance
Mar. 26th, 2006 12:28 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe news cycle is gone. I am not at home, rarely log on via my own computer (so my habitual reads are absent, and I can't tab things for later reading/integration). This doesn't mean I don't some time, nor that I don't get any news (if I go to chow at the right time I might get to see CNN, I can drag myself down to the day room and see the Beeb. If I go to chow at the wrong time I get to see Fox, where last night some guy (Taylor, looked to be a 1LT) from the Ohio Nat. Guard was spewing about how the press isn't being fair because they don't talk about the schools being painted, just the people being blown to bits).
And the Boston Globe today (yesterday... sometime in the recent past) says Bush signed another of his virtual line item vetoes. This time he reserved the right to ignore limits in the PATRIOT Act renewal because (you guessed it) he reserve the right to interpret it in line with his power in overseeing the "unitary executive."
Christ on a Crutch.
Congress has to step up to the plate. The pundits (like the Dems have any, what with the Beltway Bozos internalising the idea that Dems need to accept that the Republicans have cut their balls off, and act like a neutered puppy; ideally one that was whipped, a la Dobson, a lot, in the course of being housebroken) need to get a clue, and realise that the just because the Republicans are saying the issue of the NSA violations of FISA; because the president said so, is something they want to talk about... doesn't make it true.
The president broke the law. He admits it. He says he'll keep doing it. Why? Because he doesn't believe he has to obey the law. When he signed the new version of the PATRIOT Act he repeated this vile, and destructive canard.
This is rule of law issue. What laws does the president think he has to obey? If "protecting" us trumps everything else (and what sort of a nanny-state that conjures up) what limits are there? If he can throw away one amendment what keeps him from ignoring, and blithely, any of the rest(the fourth, or the first... and looking at things like Ashcroft going after Oregon for laws internal to Ore., the tenth seems to be on the auction block too... not that state's right's types have ever been consistent, what's a couple of rights worth, compared to not worrying that you will be one of the 1 in 10,000,000 {and that if we had a September 11, 2001 event every year, who gets killed in a 9/11 attack)?
The answer is, not bloody much. Perhaps only fear of mutiny by the Army.
Yeah... I'm being shrill, and waxing hyperbolic, but damn it, the most expansive invasion of civil liberties around has been passed, and he says it not only isn't enough, but he isn't going to ask for what he really wants, he's just going to go out and do whatever the fuck he pleases because he's, "Da Man," and we wanted someone like him to "protect us." It's for our own good you know, and if we aren't guilty we have nothing to fear.
Bullshit.
Unfettered power is to be feared, always, because it tends to corrupt.
This is a congressional recess. Take advantage of it. Find out where you rep's office is. Visit, in person (that means a lot more than a phone call, or an e-mail... do both of those too), and tell them (senators, congress critter, staffer, whomever) that this needs to be checked.
There is nothing to investigate in the Feingold Censure. Bush admits he broke the law. If that doesn't deserve censure, what the hell does?
Does an investigation need to take place? I think so. Just how far the lawbreaking has been going needs to be looked into (and indications are that physical searches of U.S. citizens have been conducted, what are commonly referred to as, "black bag jobs"... if you have been an active political figure you might want to start engaging in setting things up to check for clandestine searches. You might also want to keep a separate hard drive for things you don't want the feds snooping on... then again, it might still be too soon for that to not be paranoia).
It's not going to happen with the present power structure in Congress.
Which means being active. It means getting ahold of the DNCC, and the DNC and telling them to stand for something. They have to look to principles, and stand up to be counted. It isn't about winning, per se, not in the short run. It's about being seen as willing to go to the mat. They said those who were opposed to Alito would be crucified for actually standing up to the president.
Hasn't happened (and some of those who caved in, Lieberman, for one) are now facing opposition. Those who stood up, not so much. Losing the good fight is iconic in America. Bush makes a fetish of "doing what I believe in" even in the face of evidence that he's wrong. The least we can ask is the people we elect show us they believe in something.
A party in opposition, needs to oppose. There sure as hell isn't any really bipartisan activity going on, so making a stink about things which matter; matters of real differenc. That isn't religion, it's spending; both how much, and on what, it's the securing of our national resources, our national treasuresl; like the National Parks, it's having a FEMA which actually responds to disasters, an EPA which protects, an FDA which regulates effectively, it's chasing terrorists in a way which actually catches them; dead, or alive; and does so without chucking the values we fought a war against England to secure.
Rule of law. We waged a war to get it, we sure as hell ought to be willing to put up with some shrill responses from those who are in favor of enforcing it; in the interest of keeping it.
And the Boston Globe today (yesterday... sometime in the recent past) says Bush signed another of his virtual line item vetoes. This time he reserved the right to ignore limits in the PATRIOT Act renewal because (you guessed it) he reserve the right to interpret it in line with his power in overseeing the "unitary executive."
Christ on a Crutch.
Congress has to step up to the plate. The pundits (like the Dems have any, what with the Beltway Bozos internalising the idea that Dems need to accept that the Republicans have cut their balls off, and act like a neutered puppy; ideally one that was whipped, a la Dobson, a lot, in the course of being housebroken) need to get a clue, and realise that the just because the Republicans are saying the issue of the NSA violations of FISA; because the president said so, is something they want to talk about... doesn't make it true.
The president broke the law. He admits it. He says he'll keep doing it. Why? Because he doesn't believe he has to obey the law. When he signed the new version of the PATRIOT Act he repeated this vile, and destructive canard.
This is rule of law issue. What laws does the president think he has to obey? If "protecting" us trumps everything else (and what sort of a nanny-state that conjures up) what limits are there? If he can throw away one amendment what keeps him from ignoring, and blithely, any of the rest(the fourth, or the first... and looking at things like Ashcroft going after Oregon for laws internal to Ore., the tenth seems to be on the auction block too... not that state's right's types have ever been consistent, what's a couple of rights worth, compared to not worrying that you will be one of the 1 in 10,000,000 {and that if we had a September 11, 2001 event every year, who gets killed in a 9/11 attack)?
The answer is, not bloody much. Perhaps only fear of mutiny by the Army.
Yeah... I'm being shrill, and waxing hyperbolic, but damn it, the most expansive invasion of civil liberties around has been passed, and he says it not only isn't enough, but he isn't going to ask for what he really wants, he's just going to go out and do whatever the fuck he pleases because he's, "Da Man," and we wanted someone like him to "protect us." It's for our own good you know, and if we aren't guilty we have nothing to fear.
Bullshit.
Unfettered power is to be feared, always, because it tends to corrupt.
This is a congressional recess. Take advantage of it. Find out where you rep's office is. Visit, in person (that means a lot more than a phone call, or an e-mail... do both of those too), and tell them (senators, congress critter, staffer, whomever) that this needs to be checked.
There is nothing to investigate in the Feingold Censure. Bush admits he broke the law. If that doesn't deserve censure, what the hell does?
Does an investigation need to take place? I think so. Just how far the lawbreaking has been going needs to be looked into (and indications are that physical searches of U.S. citizens have been conducted, what are commonly referred to as, "black bag jobs"... if you have been an active political figure you might want to start engaging in setting things up to check for clandestine searches. You might also want to keep a separate hard drive for things you don't want the feds snooping on... then again, it might still be too soon for that to not be paranoia).
It's not going to happen with the present power structure in Congress.
Which means being active. It means getting ahold of the DNCC, and the DNC and telling them to stand for something. They have to look to principles, and stand up to be counted. It isn't about winning, per se, not in the short run. It's about being seen as willing to go to the mat. They said those who were opposed to Alito would be crucified for actually standing up to the president.
Hasn't happened (and some of those who caved in, Lieberman, for one) are now facing opposition. Those who stood up, not so much. Losing the good fight is iconic in America. Bush makes a fetish of "doing what I believe in" even in the face of evidence that he's wrong. The least we can ask is the people we elect show us they believe in something.
A party in opposition, needs to oppose. There sure as hell isn't any really bipartisan activity going on, so making a stink about things which matter; matters of real differenc. That isn't religion, it's spending; both how much, and on what, it's the securing of our national resources, our national treasuresl; like the National Parks, it's having a FEMA which actually responds to disasters, an EPA which protects, an FDA which regulates effectively, it's chasing terrorists in a way which actually catches them; dead, or alive; and does so without chucking the values we fought a war against England to secure.
Rule of law. We waged a war to get it, we sure as hell ought to be willing to put up with some shrill responses from those who are in favor of enforcing it; in the interest of keeping it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-25 04:57 pm (UTC)dictator In modern usage, dictator refers to an absolutist or autocratic ruler who governs outside the normal constitutional rule of law through a continuous state of exception.
Sure seems like we're getting there.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-25 05:11 pm (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 12:08 am (UTC)I've seen that attributed both to Sinclair Lewis and Huey Long. Either way, it seems prescient and true.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-26 12:14 am (UTC)