But those who argued such things were The Shrill Leftists, The Crazed Civil-Liberties Extremists, the Hysterics. And they still are.

________________________________________________

Here's a slightly-edited cross-post from a tangentially related Common Dreams article by Chris Hedges* that bitterly criticizes and opposes the FISA law. I shoehorn it in here because I consider the mindless, reactionary clichés and other facile criticisms of the so-called "left" (progressive civil libertarians) expressed by Lessig and others to be merely elaborated and slightly upscale versions of the defective and bankrupt policies voiced by less sophisticated lesser-evilists. The intelligensia and the stupidia both rely upon the same warped and blunt epithets-- "purist", "sophist", "elitist", and now "lacy"-- merely as a way to assert their own putative mature, sensible, and realistic stance.

I am continually struck by the rhetorical and psychological aspects of political discourse; FWIW, I'm persistently moved to comment on this meta-level because I find it as important as the merits, or substance, of the particular topic at hand.

And yes, I'm citing that "eggs" joke again.

*http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/11/10276/#comment-322788

________________________________________________

There is the old joke, famously recounted by Woody Allen in "Annie Hall", and here paraphrased because I don't feel like Googling it:

I mentioned to my psychiatrist, "You know, my brother thinks he's a chicken."

The psychiatrist said, "Oh? Well, why don't you bring him in to see me?"

I said, "Well, I would, but... we need the eggs."

-------------------------------------------------

That's not only the story of Alvy Singer and Annie Hall, it's the story of progressive America and the Democratic Party. A tragicomedy of Lesser-Evilism collapsing in on itself into a singularity.

We indeed need the eggs, but we don't need rotten eggs.

________________________________________________

The clumsy, low-grade (and yes, shrill) sarcasm and bankrupt logic habitually wielded by kitty, ezeflyer, elderlady and others-- not merely loyal Democrats, but defenders of the corrupt duopoly within which the Democrats and their anointed candidates are permanently deemed the Last, Best Hope for Mankind worthy of (un)conditional support-- is founded on a principle exactly equivalent to "Well, I would, but... we need the eggs".

Another analogy occurs to me: the Party of Cain (R) and the Party of Judas (D) are like a pair of dice. The Democratic apologists acknowledge that We the People have been suffering a run of incredibly bad luck this century. They correctly believe that the Cain die is loaded. And admit that, to some extent, this has also caused the Judas die to become unacceptably skewed.

But they also firmly believe that the only solution is to hang tough, and pragmatically keep rolling those dice! They believe that this brand of loaded dice is actually self-correcting, and that the mature, constructive tactic of patiently and hopefully rolling the dice over and over will overcome the defects in the dice.

Like any gambler with a "system", the rollers find abundant evidence that they're on the right track, and that more of the same is sure to bring them to a tipping point and the express road to decisively beating the house. Look, I rolled X three times in a row! Now tell me how YOU expect to do better if you won't even roll these dice! Meanwhile, the dealer is raking back one stack of chips after the other.

No wonder these hapless addicts start clutching bystanders and snarling that it's useless kibbitzers like them who are bringing bad luck. Clap harder, dammit!

In fact, both dice are loaded. There are abundant analyses and arguments for how each got that way. And (Google "nine-dot problem") the solution can only come from going outside the rigged system. The Judas die will not self-correct incrementally by dint of an infinite series of modest rolls. One way or another, those dice must be shattered, and replaced or rebuilt.

Baby needs a new pair of shoes.

Do you a flavor?

That's easy for you to pray!

My favorite is coconut creme, even though the creme gets stuck between my tooth sometimes.

I've come to believe that not long before Nixon died, a Memo was circulated to every corporate media outlet specifying that from that day forward, the death of any politician or teevee bloviator required a tsunami, an avalanche, a volcano of hysterical posthumous praise, in which every aspect of the deceased's life would be spun and gilded into something glorious and wonderful.

Especially when the deceased is One of Their Own, the media infotainwhores and their elegiac Wagnerian chorus put the 19th Century professional mourners to shame.

Saturation coverage, circumstances permitted. And an essential component of this bloated farce is to hype the myth that every decent, good-hearted Amerikan is accordingly steeped in profound grief at the passing, and suitably dewy-eyed at the biography, of the deceased.

Heaven forfend that anyone have the bad taste to comment on the extravagant absurdity of it all.

Personally, I'm trying not to think of it as the world tragically losing Tony Snow; rather, I think of it as Jesse Helms triumphantly gaining a top-notch Press Secretary.

Elections are not the guarantors of justice; only robust legal institutions and lots of checks and balances can prevent constitutional decay.

-- VoxIustitiae

_________________________________________________________

The rule of law is insufficient to, in and of itself, generate or guarantee moral clarity, ethical integrity, and even its ostensible end: (social) justice.

Nor yet is it the case that where the rule of law obtains (Erewhon?), peace, prosperity, fairness, and conviviality will flourish.

The rule of law is merely the beginning, the foundation of civilization and humanity. Although it isn't a sufficient condition, it is a necessary one.

However, when the rule of law is abandoned or vitiated, we return to the natural state of mankind-- which is a tale told by an Internet comments troll, presciently described by Thomas Hobbes as nasty, brutish, and short.