Letters to the Editor
souriscriant
Published Letters: 97 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@falgiano
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann: Then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...i don't understand it. and it seems inconsistent with his other positions to date. so the real question is why would Obama back this??
I'll keep it simple. Congresscritters like to pass legislation. Bush said "Gonna veto everything you want unless you pass this FISA with immunity"
The Democratic leadership said "fine" and with this bargaining chip they got a bunch of stuff they wanted in the Housing and GI bills, and added a bunch of smarmy stuff to the FISA bill that could almost make it sound reasonable to a person whose head had been replaced by an artichoke or a TV pundit.
Obama decided that he wasn't going to fight the very people he needs to work with to get things done as president over this issue, so he makes his mealy mouth statement about supporting stripping immunity from the Bill, and essentially lies about it being balanced and necessary (maybe because, as NCrissieB argues, he viewed it as incremental rather than a major difference from how the 4th amendment has already been trampled upon... look up "good faith" and 4th amendment, for example).
Whatever. He's a politician. He can be bought, he does cower. How does this make him different from ANY other politician... or human being for that matter?
-
@L.W.M.
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann: Then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not understanding a law doesn't mean you are allowed to break it. Only power allows you to break a law.
And nobody has the power to violate a law of Physics. Not even Einstein. That's why scientists often act like superior snots to the rest of humanity, because they are constantly humbled by nature. The petty concerns of tiny mites living on this speck of a planet really have no significance.
Except the significance to the mites. Which is what we happen to be. So, we have to do the best we can, which isn't very much.
I like to think of myself as a mighty mite
-
@Ken Erfourth -- one last time (though nobody seems to listen)
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's secret plan to protect the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why would he do this?
Because the Republicans are the political equivalent of sociopaths, and with a presidential veto, they can stop any legislation. And they don't care how many people suffer as a result. Remember the shutdowns of the government by the Gingrich led Congress during the Clinton administration? So, people are getting thrown out of their homes because of the mortgage meltdown--serves them right for accepting the loans. Soldiers coming home physically and psychologically damaged with no future prospects --- they should be happy they got a chance to serve their country; huge job losses--- yawn, whatever....
Because people for the most part don't care about their civil rights. Remember the millions of people converging on Washington demanding justice and the removal of the president when it was revealed that he simply ignored the 4th amendment because even the FISA court was too much bother (the immunity we are talking about here)? Neither do I. 4 out of 9 Supreme Court justices argued AGAINST the fundamental human right of Habeus Corpusand
and McCain sided with them, saying what Bush declared to the world that the American Government has the right to go anywhere in the world, grab whoever they want, and hold them without charge indefinitely. Remember how badly Bush was defeated in 2004? Neither do I.
So, given the reality of the Republican party, the balance of power, and the electorate, does Pelosi et al. stand for principles that the vast majority of the American public has demonstrated they neither understand or really care that much about, or does she get some legislation passed to help them with things they do understand and care about, like getting thrown out of their homes and cousin Johnny coming home from Iraq with one leg and PTSD?
Nancy Pelosi, with her early announcement of taking impeachment off the table, chose the path of trying to get some immediate relief for the American people rather than focussing on the long term strategy of taking down the fascists who have taken over the Republican party.
And the American people shrugged and went back to snooping on the private affairs of Brittany Spears.
Telecom immunity was pretty much the only stick they had to hold over the Bush administration once impeachment was off the table. And the Democratic leadership decided to use that to get 95 billion dollars for programs they hope will help the American people int eh short run rather than standing up for what was left of the 4th amendment. And Obama, after a bruising primary, decided to go along with them rather than opposing them.
What's not to understand?