Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn, since the Democrats can't cite polls to excuse their inaction . . . then what is behind their inaction?
The argument that Democrats should allow chronic lawbreaking because doing otherwise is politically risky ought to be too corrupt an argument for anyone even to entertain. But for those who believe in that calculus, it's also just factually false.
I agree with this. Poll after poll on the Iraq war as well have shown that Democratic excuse making for enabling Bush in continuing the war does not hold water either. A large majority of Americans want far more aggressive action against this war and future wars and yet the Dems actively facilitate the desires and wishes of a deeply unpopular President.
So, my question is if it isn't loss of political support that explains the actions (or inaction) of the Dems- then what does?
Isn't it time to ask that question? Is it fear? Is it that the two parties are hollow and have no real differences and are merely props to mask rule by oligarchy? Is it a combination of both? What explains this constant capitulation?
-
Obama supporters, take note!
"Bipartisanship" in action!
-
come on, be nice. "They" are too busy "saving" us plebs.
Now now. No time to get partisan on things like spying and torture when it is "bipartisan" time regarding the economy. Instead of getting all Negative Nancy, shouldn't we all be praising the way our elected leaders bow down and kiss the ass of the unelected and unaccountable Federal Reserve Chairman and Globalist Banksters, praising every decision they make as the 100% correct course of action (and blaming everyone else, ESPECIALLY the American people's "greed and ignorance" for the crisis, such as the market's reaction to artificially low interest rates) and calling that behavior "bipartisan economic stimulus"?
I am also wondering why people wouldn't resort to the Democratic "Loser Anthem"? Their bellies are full and they have hot water coming from the tap, why wouldn't they resolve their dissonance by pretending that in some idealized future their leaders will behave exactly as expected, and just go with it? Whatever it takes for the true believers to stomach reality and go on with their lives feeling like they aren't duped and betrayed time and time again. Even the peasants in Stalin's Russia wrote love letters to the man who was sending them to the Gulag, pleading for the "bad guys" to stop sending the peasants' friends and family to their death.
It is like putting something off until tomorrow and then hoping tomorrow never comes, or shitting in one hand and wishing in the other and seeing which one fills up faster.
-
About the Good Samaritan
HRH mentioned the parable: 'They obviously never read the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The Christ had *two* pious Jews, a priest and a Levite pass by the injured man as if he was rotten meat. The first atheist that came by had mercy on the man, tended him and then paid an inkeeper to take care of him and promised to come back and pay more if necessary.'
It's a fine parable & no quibble with your using it to illustrate your point. However...
Begin Quibble:
I'm pretty sure that the Samaritan in question is not considered to be an 'atheist' in the bible, but rather is the worshipper of whatever Samaritans worshipped in that time, or from the Jewish perspective: an idol worshipping heathen.
End Quibble.
-
Money wins elections
So, my question is if it isn't loss of political support that explains the actions (or inaction) of the Dems- then what does?
I think they're less worried about voter dissatisfaction than voters not seeing their mugs during every commercial break in election season.
They need corporate donations to pay for that TV time. It may be that's who they're playing up to. Bush wins as a consequence.
-
Dangers of Domestic Security Surveillance
For anyone who wants to understand as much as possible about the nature of classified domestic spying and how modern digital technology has created the need for a re-evaluation of how we enforce the Fourth Amendment (which are the mostly-hidden issues underlying the public FISA debate, because we have no access to the classified details), there is an outstanding, precise, and crystal clear explanation and overview available from the experienced David Kris, in a recent unclassified paper:
Http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/1115_nationalsecurity_kris/1115_nationalsecurity_kris.pdf
There is also an eye-opening examination of, and warning about, the potential for introduced insecurities and vulnerability to hacking within our domestic communications network, that such wholesale secret spying access to that network, as championed by this White House and their Republican and Democratic enablers via FISA revisions, likely poses, from experts at Sun Microsytems, here:
Http://research.sun.com/people/slandau/PAA.pdf
An excerpt from that Sun research paper:
"The August 2007 Protect America Act changes U.S. law to allow warrantless foreign intelligence wiretapping from within the U.S. of any communications believed to include one party located outside the United States. Monitoring international traffic requires an effective way to identify whether the communication starts or ends outside the United States, a problem that is not easy to solve either on today's Internet, or on the telephone network. The new law could lead to potential overcollection of purely domestic communications. Thus the U.S. government is creating three distinct serious security risks: danger of exploitation of the system by unauthorized users, danger of criminal misuse by trusted insiders, and danger of misuse by government agents."
The core provisions of August's PAA are what would be made permanent "law" (along with immunity) if the Senate Intelligence Committee bill passes. Note that the House already has a FISA bill passed (the RESTORE Act), yet per my preceding comment here quoting the Congressional Record, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell (and Cheney, and Bond, and Rockefeller, and Pelosi) all seem to be writing that bill off in favor of having the House immediately rubberstamp whatever the Senate passes, exactly as it all went down in August with the PAA (with the complicity of Reid and Pelosi at the behest of the White House - a pre-arranged outcome for which Reid and Pelosi have never yet taken responsibility, as they have continued to deceptively pass the buck to avoid taking the blame for relinquishing their legislative leadership powers to the Executive Branch).
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/feds-must-exami.html
John Edwards: Your latest ad asks "What's happened to the Democratic Party?" You may well ask. These issues of corporate domestic spying and Congressional blessing of secret corporate lawbreaking, like the issue of corporate campaign donations your ad addresses, are crying out for condemnation from prominent Democrats who value our Constitution more than their political party.