Letters to the Editor
-
A constitutional amendment to defeat the Pornocracy
much of the Beltway's acquiescence to the administration's lawbreaking and radicalism is due to their sheer inability to comprehend and internalize just how extreme it all has been
It's difficult enough to analyze "the big picture." It's even tougher when a truthful assessment can have adverse career consequences.
We must face the fact that America is now a Pornocracy.
Our so-called "main-stream media" has been consolidated under the control of six huge corporations. Seeing what happened to Dan Rather, Ashleigh Banfield, Phil Donahue and others who have dared to attempt to tell the truth has had a chilling effect on press freedom. The lesson: Better to play dumb and keep your job.
Even worse is the disgraceful scrambling for cash by our elected officials. There are few politicans willing to put their country's interests ahead of their own. Can there be any other description for these politicians than "whores"?
Many of our congressmen would surely share our outrage at the criminality of the Bush regime. They're just too busy raising money for their next campaign to pay that much attention.
And who's the ultimate beneficiary of all that campaign cash that our politicians have to whore themselves for? Big media: those vapid, information-free campaign commercials provide a semi-annual bonanza for all the TV networks.
Only a Constitutional Amendment establishing that money does not equal speech and mandating free TV time for qualified candidates can begin to fix the slow-moving train wreck that brought us the Bush regime.
The Right has championed ridiculous Amendments (flag burning, marriage, etc.) for a generation. Here's an Amendment for our side -- and one that could defeat the Pornocrats and restore our constitutional democracy.
-
It is this . . .
"Associates at the Justice Department said Mr. Gonzales seldom resisted pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney and David S. Addington, Mr. Cheney’s counsel, to endorse policies that they saw as effective in safeguarding Americans, even though the practices brought the condemnation of other governments, human rights groups and Democrats in Congress."
This narrative that they did it to "safeguard Americans." As opposed to they are sadists and authoritians who took an opportunity to be as cruel and as viscious as possible.
And, that only liberal organizations opposed. Also, no juxtaposition there with the fact that the military itstelf and experts in interrogation say that torture doesn't work. It is that the Bush Administion is treated always as though it has our best interests at heart and they were just over-zealous in pursuing them. When in fact, they don't and it is obvious if the right compare and contrasts where being done.
It is always framed as a partisan "he said, she said." How do you effectively counterweight a false narrative about people who want to "safeguard Americans." That's where the breakdown is. Even in this damning and chilling story . . . they are still said to have wanted to "safeguard Americans."
My soul screams.
-
Anonymous...McCain
Out on a limb
There is one man, one man only, who can possibly connect with the American people and explain why what is and has been going on will lead to the downfall of the United States as we know (knew) it.
This may sound strange, but I believe the only man who connects with the American people enough to do this is.....
....John McCain.
--Anonymous
That sounds more than strange. It sounds seriously deranged. McCain?...John McCain? Amazing. McCain does have a track record, you know. And it doesn't set him in any position at all to be the arbiter of anything that we need now in the US. McCain has been horrid for years now.
-
Why politicians capitulate
Is it stating the obvious to say that capitulation by politicians is due to fear of being blamed in the event of a terrorist attack?
-
Yes, Glenn, you are correct
THIS time something could be done about it. The Times article could lead Congress to finally actually fulfill their oaths to the Constitution. But it wont. Oh sure, Leahy and maybe Schumer will sputter and speak about how this behavior is "unacceptable" and they may even "demand" for the umteenth time "documents" and whatnot fleshing out the details. Actually, I think they will do as I describe because that is what they ALWAYS do but that is the ONLY thing they DO do. In the end, they will do yet another Leahy and be perfectly OK with not getting any information, they will let it slide with sputterings about how "unacceptable" this intransigence on the part of the White House is ("Well, I never!") and then they will sit back and shut up.
Why? Because their outrage will be feigned. They are not TRULY upset by torture and abuse of prisoners. They are not TRULY upset by secret prisons, indefinite detention, and wars without end. They LIKE them, in fact. They SUPPORT them, in fact. Just look at the record! You yourself touch on it, how not a single "investigation" has actually led to anything. Hell, they rarely lead to any evidence at all simply because they do not really try. They don't really try because the don't want to. They don't want to because they support it all. Every bit of it. Torure, rape, abuse, secret prisons, indefinite detention, wars of choice, stealing other country's natural resources, the entire grab-bag is what the Republicans AND the Democrats stand for! On these issues there is absolutely NO difference between the parties. Not a hint of light appears between them on these things. Irrespective of a handful of True people in the Democrat party like Kucinich, Feingold, and Kennedy, the party is what it votes for. It IS what it allows to happen. It IS torture, abuse, etc, etc, etc. What we are actually voting for in 2008 is torture, no habeas corpus, secret prisons, etc, by the GOP or the SAME THINGS by the Democrats.
-
Re: Ron Paul
Nobody who is more comfortable indentifying himslef as a Republican rather than an Independant or a Deomcrat will ever get my vote as long as I live. Period.
That being said, I support Ron Paul's candidacy to the extent that I hope he is the Ross Perot of 2008.