Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 839 Editor's Choice: 2
-
against my better tendency not to argue with fools...
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The rampant ego exhibited in the previous posts is normal yet based in bias. Have you twits ever considered the possibility that these Dems voted for the bill because they know something you don't?
***
Doesn't a significant number of Democrats voting for something that the hated Bush wants, signal in your tiny little one-track minds, that something legitimate is transpiring?
Classic authoritarian reasoning. The government "knows things" that the unwashed masses don't, so this ipso facto makes whatever they decide proper, and criticisms thereof improper. Best advocated by a member of the unwashed masses himself.
Since you seem to be fond of the rhetorical question device, here's one for you. If our Senators are aware of such a compelling indication that an attack is imminent, so imminent that it justifies ramming legislation through the Congress with no debate or deliberation, shouldn't this information be shared with the public, and the population be constructively mobilized to head-off the threat? Or could Members of Congress be trembling at Mr. Chertoff's "gut feelings?" Better yet, could this perhaps be, oh I don't know, crass political coercion that is bound to capture the unfounded electoral fears of just enough Democrats to shove this legislation through?
You are a very good subject indeed, Shooter. You would have been perfect for 17th Century Europe.
-
the bipartisanship of power intoxication
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Without refuting an ounce of deserved scorn for the Democrats who supported this fire decree - er - bill (I kid), my mind searches for some sort of explanation for their cravenness.
I have to think that congressional Democrats' repeated capitulation to encroachments of civil liberties, in particular, has something to do with their elevation to positions of power and privilege. Scarce is any historical interest of our Congress in such a step-child as civil liberties, protections that had to be enshrined in our Constitution in wise awareness of their fragility to the blunt force of fear and worship of the Foreign Threat.
Enjoying the status and immunities of legislative office, these ostensible representatives of the People have little appetite to protect the privacy of the average citizen's phone calls and associations. In trademark faux reasoning, citizens are made to laugh away this protection by smugly noting that "people are just dying to share their thoughts with everyone anyway, online and on their stupid cell phones in public!" We come to see the sanctity of the indeterminate and undefined private conversation as fey and academic, ignoring any similarities between that and, say, a black bag squad coming into random people's homes while they are away and searching through their possessions (as long as they put everything back and don't dirty the carpet!).
Something definitely happens to a person once they take that oath of congressional office. The populist kabuki dance of the campaign has ended, the adrenaline of the crowds has ebbed - you gaze upon the marvelous dome, select your staff, and take your committee appointments. The senior members put their arms around you as you stroll down the corridor, and they inform you that you will know and understand things that you never did before, and that your new job is too Serious to let your former idealism sully the brass and bronze of cold policymaking.
And yes, now you may settle into the leather armchair of knowing that if you ever commit a crime and get caught, you will be able to scream political bloody murder and, at worst, "retire" to a life of privilege in a most grateful private sector.
-
Steve:
[Read the article: Democrats' responsibility for Bush radicalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the D's think that it's better to keep giving the R's more rope with which to hang themselves and to try to protect themselves (the D's) as best they can.
The problem with this is that the Democrats are giving themselves that same hangman's noose. With each of these spineless turns, they make the administration's abuses of power their own, and provide invaluable cover for the Republicans. They also pull approval of Congress even lower. It's as if the Democrats had the Republicans write their political strategy for them.
-
Mona
[Read the article: Mike Allen and Hugh Hewitt on the politicization of the military]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And many lawyers know what it is to be cornered at the most inappropriate times and places for free advice. Some years ago I was at a Xmas Party, and a dentist I knew who was also in attendance wanted my advice on some issue he had with his realtor. I'd had a few, and I separated my lips and pointed a finger at a back molar, and garbledly said: "Kud ew 'ook at 'is peez?"
Reminds me of an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David asks a sports doctor at his gym if he'd look at a mole on his back "real quick." The doctor asks him what he does for a living, and Larry says he's a writer. The doctor says, "Great, then how about you write me a bunch of shit right now for free?"