Monday, December 17, 2007

Give Me Liberty. No, really, GIVE ME LIBERTY!

Harry Reid today pulled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from the floor of the Senate.


This is not the war, but this particular battle has been won. Kudos to Senator Chris Dodd for showing the Democrats what a man with a backbone looks like.

Give me Liberty or... whatever

Major telephone companies (telcos) have been collaborating with the Bush administration for years to spy on our personal communications. This goes back to well before 9/11. Yet now the Senate is considering a bill which will grant telcos retroactive immunity!

It's appalling, especially in light of this little bit of text...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That obscure bit of history is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Even more outrageous, the Democratic Party appears to be in cahoots with this effort. Even though Democratic senator Chris Dodd has put a hold on the bill, the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, has in an unprecedented move disregarded the hold and is bringing it to the floor! Dodd has said he will filibuster the bill. Senators Clinton, Obama and Biden have claimed to be against retroactive immunity but they have no plans to return to Washington to support Senator Chris Dodd in his filibuster. (They'll be too busy talking on the stump about 'leadership' to even follow, never mind lead!)

Patrick Henry said "give me liberty or give me death." He did not say "keep me safe, no matter the cost." The state motto of New Hampshire is "Live Free or Die," not "keep me alive by spying on me." Our government is sworn to protect us from all enemies, foreign or domestic. In this case the enemy is domestic. They're also subtle, manipulative and like to do their work in secrecy.

Don't let them! I urge you to contact your senators and tell them that the government should not be spying on us and that those who do so should be prosecuted and punished.

Read more here:

Friday, September 07, 2007

Sally Kohn Misdirects Her Outrage

Sally Kohn published a screed on Huffington Post today accusing Democrats of hypocrisy regarding the anti-gay backlash against Senator Larry Craig today. It's quite a reach. Here was my response:

----------

Are you implying that because of the Larry Craig situation 'push has come to shove' for Democrats? Your argument doesn't hold water. You claim basically states that when the going gets tough, the tough get homophobic. That may be true in many cases, but not here.

Larry Craig should be denounced for his hypocrisy on gay issues. He should also be denounced for soliciting sex in a public restroom. 'Gay' needn't enter into that part of it for his actions to be condemmed as reprehensible.

But it does, though. There are many, including posters here, who excoriate Craig for his perceived homosexuality even though they claim to be progressive liberals. Does that mean we should extend that blame to all Democrats? All liberals? I think not. Sorry, those wires don't hook up that way. Your post is just an ad hominem attack writ large.

One last thought: You maintain "Craig is just one hypocritical senator from Idaho" and that "the Democratic party ... is responsible for half of the political playing field in our country." Uh, I don't THINK so. Bear in mind the inordinate influence of Fox News and the rest of Rupert Murdoch's empire, the inherent conservatism of network news, owned by big-business-friendly megacorporations, the ubiquitous, hate-filled reach of right-wing talk radio and the rampant stubbornness and certainty of the hyperventilating religious right and you have a national discourse DOMINATED by the intolerant right, shouting and relying on the very same base, vile emotions you claim to condemm.

And yet you blame progressives, liberals or Democrats for the intolerant undertow in this country. It just doesn't add up.

Monday, July 30, 2007

I have seen again on the blogs the canard that the Clinton administration somehow 'failed' in their handling of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center because it failed to prevent 9/11. This begs the question: Can someone be labeled a failure if they haven't anticipated and prevented every possible bad thing that could happen to them?

This line of thinking is ridiculous. The United States government caught, convicted and sentenced the 1993 WTC attackers. But to argue in spite of all this that Clinton somehow 'failed' because he didn't anticipate and prevent 9/11 is just ridiculous. His was not a 'failed strategy.' The administration responded accordingly and achieved justice.

If you seek evidence of a 'failed strategy' then consider how we have tried to manipulate the rest of the world and it's wealth (mainly oil) to our own selfish advantage since WWII. I concede that the effort of containing Communism during the Cold War somewhat justified some of it, but not all of it -- and now that Communism is dead, how can we continue to justify our selfish foreign policy?

We use economic and military pressure to get all the oil we want at bargain prices, never mind which oppressive dictators we keep in place to facilitate that. We have bullied and invaded countries for 60 years to get what we wanted, and to hell with the impoverished citizens of these nations who suffer grievously due to our machinations.

So when those impoverished citizens rise up and attack western interests in the only way they can we blindly label them terrorists. We do not take into account the desperation, oppression and exploitation that drives them down this most extremist and indefensible road.

I am not justifying or excusing terrorism. But when another pundit parrots the 'why do they hate us?' line, why is it that so few really know a good answer to this question?

If we treated the world more fairly then there wouldn't be so many in the world who *do* hate us.

See Noam Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival."

Monday, June 25, 2007

Rant on Muslims

As a progressive I am horrified at what our government is trying to do to combat terrorism. I am against a lot of it as being unconstitutional, elitist and wrong.

However, it's important to remember that radical Islam is a real and valid threat and those who perpetrate it's horrors are even more deserving of our scorn and opposition. Witness this video. It's a delightful rant which I highly recommend.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

I'm Liking John Edwards.

Caught this quote today in a story about John Edwards:
"We need to reform our tax code," Edwards said. "Our current system favors the unearned income of people already doing incredibly well instead of rewarding the work of families trying to get ahead. It has all kinds of loopholes and shelters that lawyers can twist for their wealthy clients. It forces millions of families to hire help to figure out how much they owe."
I like the sound of this a LOT. It says it all.

Then the Republicans come back with '$400 haircuts. John Edwards is rich. Neener neener neener.' How asinine.

Here is the full text of Edwards' remarks.

This is Vile: Cheney's office "Not Part of the Executive Branch"

This is vile.

According to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, "Vice President Cheney exempted his office from the presidential order that establishes government-wide procedures for safeguarding classified national security information. The Vice President asserts that his office is not an “entity within the executive branch.”

After further back and forth, "The Vice President's staff responded by seeking to abolish the agency within the Archives that is responsible for implementing the President's executive order. "

This is bloody amazing and amazingly arrogant! Mr. Cheney seems to think the rules don't apply to him, that he can keep all the secrets he wants and circumvent, avoid or cancel his legal responsibilities.

There is no place hot enough in Hell to accommodate this man's soul.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

All Or Nothing

I've been seeing a lot of 'All or Nothing' in various conservative posts and replies around the blogosphere. I've even encountered it in a personal conversation with a few old friends who, surprisingly to me, have become diehard conservatives.

So let me address a few of these misperceptions.

"Liberals want someone else to pay for their health care."
This makes us sound like lazy, shiftless bums, which we are not. We want everyone to pay for everyone's health care. There's a big difference. How would you feel if you heard someone complaining that 'liberals want someone else to pay for the roads,' or 'liberals want someone else to pay for clean water.'

Liberals consider health care to be a public need and a public benefit. If everyone gets health care from the government there will be vast savings reaped by moving the administration of the system out of the hands of profit-driven bureaucrats in huge, unacccountable insurance companies. There will be more savings realized by the many users who will no longer ignore health problems until they become serious enough to warrant emergency room attention. But make no mistake, we're willing to pay our fair share.

"Liberals want the government to look out for your and hold your hand."
Another grotesque oversimplification. Liberals simply want there to be a safety net to ensure the least fortunate of us are not totally hosed by the occasional catastrophe we are all subject to. It simply makes sense, on a moral as well as a practical plane, for the group to help look out for the individual.

The rich and the powerful can look out for themselves. It's the poor who are vulnerable, who are trying hard, that we should help. We need to provide a better minimium wage for the countless thousands of working poor who are busting their butts holding down a part- or full time job and still live below the poverty level.

"Liberals Engage in Class Warfare."
This is the most Orwellian spin of all. When the rich and the powerful adjust (or circumvent) the rules in order to protect and increase their profits, that's somehow okay, but when liberals try to adjust the balance back in favor of the little guy doing better, it's 'class warfare.'

The real class warfare is how the middle class has been eviscerated in the past 30 years. Bear in mind that during the boom years following World War II the rich were taxed far more heavily than they are now. We had shrinking poverty, a growing middle class, an unprecedented economic boom and increasing levels of literacy. Heck, my parents were a carpenter and a secretary and they managed to put 2.5 kids throuch college! (I was the .5 kid, dropped out and then finished my college in the Navy.) Just try doing that on today's wages.

Since the Reagan years, we've seen more and more of that income go to the richest of Americans while the rest sink into poverty. This is the injustice we seek to remedy. If anything, we want to end the class warfare that has been waged against the poor and middle class.

"Liberals all believe [fill in the blank]."
Yeah, well so do conservatives. Neener neener neener. That's intellectually satisfying, isn't it?

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

The Blog | Lane Hudson: Democrats Poised to Abandon Troops AND American People? | The Huffington Post

Great post by Lane Hudson on HuffPo:

The Blog | Lane Hudson: Democrats Poised to Abandon Troops AND American People? | The Huffington Post

Trudeau: "I Told You So"

Doonesbury is engaging in a powerfully prescient series of "I Told You So" reruns. Click each image for the full size version.




The next president should put Garry Trudeau in his foreign affairs cabinet.

See the series at www.doonesbury.com