It matters if you vote and who you vote for. Think an Al Franken would have behaved in the same manner as a Reid or Harman?

I agree that violence is a last resort.

But I urge Americans to look at the pre-amble to the Constitution and think about what it actually means. All that talk about a long history of usurpations designed for one object, to reduce the people to serfdom, is not just talk.

And that sort of behaviour has not gone out of fashion amongst the ruling classes, no matter what they teach in schools these days.

Further, recent trends (militarisation of the police, domestic spying, domestic deployment of the military, dilution if not complete destruction of habeas corpus, secret hearings, denial of representation, denial of the right to address accuser(s), denial of right to see the evidence, casual and deliberate etargetting of civilians, active suppression of dissent, etc) are all in one direction, and in my view they fit the description contained in the pre-amble perfectly.

Even so, Americans are still among the free-est people on this planet. I would repfer to see it stay that way, but the trend - in this instance - is not your friend.

Hey, Art.

I hope you're well.

I miss your insights.

For myself, I've just been doing my usual fumbling around in this life, holding, shaping and assessing things. I'm like a talentless sculptor who, after many days of work, ends up with the same lump of clay he began with.

Back in the 70s in New York I was on the Seventh Avenue IRT and a wild-haired and pants-stained guy sitting across from me was talking to himself. "War is hell!" he said. "War is hell! War is hell!" Then after a pause, he said, "Want to know how much of a hell war is? Well, look at ME! I'm fucking NUTS!"

You might say this is about the only legitimate "insight" that war brings, assuming you've survived it.

On his blog, Zoltan lists one of his interests as "Holacaust prevention" Hey, I gotta hand it to him, I'm very interested in fire safety, too.

You sure it isn't "Hulacaust prevention"?!? Keeping kids from gyrating their hips?

Cheers,

Surely you aren't referring to Bush v. Gore, are you?

If I remember correctly, that decision was 5-4.

To which decision are you referring?

-- NRI1969

NRI is right and Shooter is being dishonest. I am shocked, shocked...

The 7-2 opinion was that the recount method violated the 14th Amend. However, the remedy - the critical decision to stop the recount because it could not be completed under consitutional standards by December 12 - was a 5-4 vote.

Shooter, I am always amazed the way I see so many conservatives cackle and crow about Bush v. Gore, as it seems violative of so many sacrosanct conservative principles.

So, Shooter, I have questions for you: do you consider yourself a conservative?

And, if so, how do you feel about a Supreme Court case that says that a federal court can tell a state how to run its own election process? How does that sit with the theory of states' rights?

When it comes to original intent and strict construction, what do you think of the proposition that a national candidate in a recount has a constitutional right to order the recount state to adopt a statewide standard for interpreting ballots? Even if different counties have different voting methods?

And finally: if Gore had been the one to file such a lawsuit (remember, Bush-Cheney were the plaintiffs, the "greivance" party if you will) and prevailed on precisely the same legal reasoning, do you think the conservative take on the case would be exactly the same today?

Aaaargh! The humanitarian crisis in Gaza just keeps getting worse. McClatchy is reporting this morning that IDF shot and killed a UN truck driver carrying a load of humanitarian supplies at a Gaza checkpoint. The shipment had already been agreed to by Israel. More details in an Oxdown diary linked at my name.

Aside to bop: We're expecting a baby spotted horse in the next couple of weeks. Hope I can share pictures with you.

The Oxdown I linked in my previous comment is one by MadDog discussing Rules of Engagement (or the lack thereof). My diary should be linked at my name this time.

You might say this is about the only legitimate "insight" that war brings, assuming you've survived it.

I'm uncertain of your meaning here, but Art James is not "a wild-haired and pants-stained guy ... [who mutters] "War is hell!"

He has delivered heart-felt and insightful comments over time about any number of things. Perhaps I missed the intent of your comment altogether but, if not, it's an unfair and cruel thing to say about this man.

In a way, yes it does.

In another way, no it does not. Gaza in a prison where innocent Palestinians have been put after their land was taken and they were declared "not fully human". They are their to be starved and humiliated until they are "disappeared" from the lands that Israel has stolen.

It would be more humanitarian in some ways just to kill them fast rather than slowly. Would it not?

Only energetic prosecution and punishment will deter the repetition of such crimes.

I try to make a list of these crimes: they are so numerous that many of them keep escaping me.

It has been a coup d'etat - a Gelichschaltung as in Nazi Germany.

Make sure it doesn't happen again: God gave you one chance- seize it!

Obviously everyone who broke the law in the "war on terror" knew they were breaking the law. The point was to break the law, and to do so secretly. The plan was to deceive terrorists who believed we followed the law, who thought they knew what our limits were, who would operate just beyond those limits, and who would be caught by surprise by the secretly lawless state.

The perpetrators of these state crimes honestly believe that rule of law is and should be an illusion projected to pacify the naive, friend and foe alike.