Dick Cheney...um...Talks To Politico

Twenty some percent of Americans think BushCo did a good job. Dick Cheney is one of them. If you take out those who have to take off their shoes to count above ten and those who think god enthroned that bunch and the plutocrats who made out like the Robber Barons you're left with the pants wetters who figure Ossama Bin Laden is going to break into their house and have his way with their Cheetos and get a sick sexual satisfaction out of the idea of mistreating helpless human beings - especially if you say Islamic. Which bunch does Dick belong to? It ain't the god faction so you're left with...

I'm sure Politico figures getting the ex-Vice President talk to them is a coup. I'm just as sure it is no such thing, he'd spout his fear mongering to a gay illegal alien Martian with the IQ of a rock if he thought it would get play. Do some of you think the last election might have taught him something?

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

I don't know about reading them their rights on the battle field but there is a problem.

“The United States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected. Sometimes, that requires us to take actions that generate controversy. I’m not at all sure that that’s what the Obama administration believes.”
***
“If it hadn’t been for what we did — with respect to the terrorist surveillance program, or enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees, the Patriot Act, and so forth — then we would have been attacked again,” he said. “Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.”

So in case you're wondering what the problem is other than wet pants caused by this kind of talk, there is the little issue of trying to do something in the legal arena with these so-called miscreants. These ham fisted illegal activities that Dick is so proud of preclude courtroom convictions in anything other than a kangaroo court. That's a fine outcome if infinite illegal detention is the route you choose to take, but it is a real problem for a free nation with actual laws and even a Constitution.

If you drifted in here because Dick's name caught Google and you're offended, I have a piece of news for you, the labels are accurate and the fact that you're defined by being a cowardly traitor to the nation of the United States is an outgrowth of the nerve, dedication, and brilliance of those who founded this nation with a revolution. Being spit on would be the best treatment you could expect from those people. And I don't give a damn about Republican or Democrat or whatever, you are an award winning pussy.

The fact that Dick Cheney walks around free and is listened to by anyone is an affront to the law and the very existence of the United States of America. You're all gonna die because the Obama guy is President. I have a two word explicative for you Dick, it starts with an F and ends with a U, since the law won't do it.

Should it be necessary to mention that legal law enforcement methods had enough to stomp the 9/11 attack and the inability of our national police (FBI) and the intelligence (CIA, etc) agencies to talk to each other and act as though they have a clue was the excuse for illegal behavior by the highest officials in our nation? The absolute incompetence of those charged with our safety is reason for us to give up something? Well, there are lots of rude words for that idea as well.

It is beyond me how Dickless Cheney is relevant to a discussion of anything other than how long his jail sentence is.

Padilla Verdict

Somehow the "right" takes great solace in Padilla being found guilty and somehow finds it an indictment of the left. While I may not cruise a whole lot of blogs I haven't found any who maintained that Padilla hadn't committed a crime, I didn't; but what I did find was a whacking bunch who objected to BushCo's methods regarding detention. GeorgeII had decided that he had the kingly power to decide how an American in America should be treated under the law. That was the objection, that and the detention conditions. If anything a conviction justifies the Constitutionally mandated treatment of Americans, certainly not the authoritarianism of say, Jules Crittenden who proves just what a cretin he is by referencing Geo. Washington's treatment of a British soldier/spy during the Revolution - which in case anybody is as historically ignorant as Jules - pre-dated the Constitution by quite awhile. " Military tribunal, execution." This twisted logic involves John Andre' the British officer caught out of uniform trying to work out Benedict Arnold's surrender of West Point.

By the way, just for Jules' illumination, violating an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution by an officer or government official is treason and since Habeas Corpus is Constitutional law and since GWB decided to violate it he should be given that treatment, apparently. Since I've already stated in other posts that I disapprove of capital punishment I'd be happy with an orange jumpsuit and house of many bars. The Supreme Court wouldn't approve of a George Bush pardon of George Bush so maybe...

I have no particular reason to believe the jury got the Padilla verdict wrong and sending him away for a good long time is a good idea, applying the same principle to some one with considerably more ability to harm this nation - GWB - seems apt to me. I'd almost be willing to bet the jury would come in quicker.

The entire reason the government is so constrained in its approach to individuals in criminal law is simple, it is a balancing of the resources of each, the full strength and resources of the government can be brought to bear on an individual, rightfully or not, and in order to achieve some semblance of justice the individual must have protections from the application of that power. The fear mongers and the fearful would undo that balance, they would just trust GeorgeII, I do not trust him at all and particularly I don't trust his unknown successors down through the years.

During the past two decades this country has become more "rightwing" in the sense of approving of authoritarianism, the paternalistic view that government knows best and I see no sign of rebellion to that course. There is a world of difference between asking the government to help you do something and having it do things to you. Government is an exercise in power and expecting it to not use power is foolish wishful thinking. Government will go where ever it is allowed to, it is the nature of the thing and people which is why people who had lately revolted from the most powerful nation on earth and one intimately connected to their sociology set such high bars for government. We keep forgetting this, gun banners are too ignorant to understand the MAD (mutually assured destruction) component of the Second Amendment and the fearful are too scared to understand that the provisions of the Fourth are one assurance that the government cannot simply become vindictive.

Time passes and sociology changes and fear ebbs and wanes but people do not stop being human and having character defects, at some point those defects will be in operation high within government, it is inevitable; the question being, how much power do you want available to such a person? People will just insist on not understanding that government is not a moral construct, it cannot be one, it is composed of laws and law enforcement - these are not suggestions - these are rules backed by force, which is not a system of morality. The morality is only present in those framing the laws and enforcing them, even the Constitution is not a moral document, it is a series of limitations placed on those who would govern.

When we acquiesce to the fear of a Padilla and allow extraordinary measures we allow the future to run off the rails set in place by the Constitutional Convention, we become subject rather than citizen, we sell our children's future for questionable present gain. Freedom and liberty are a risky proposition, but then being alive is a dangerous business and it is ultimately fatal, oh well, maybe the trick is doing it well - not cringing and whining.

Rule of Law and Sheepskinned Stupidity

Let's assume that some university granted you a diploma that somehow qualified you to be the William R Kenan Professor of Government at Harvard University, that would seem to indicate that you had some understanding of US government and its foundational document - The Constitution. Harvey C. Mansfield has those credentials and an astonishing level of stupidity backed by a lot of inapplicable references to other governments' crassness of power hunger backing The Case For the Strong Executive in the WSJ. He opens his argument with a disdain for the term "Imperial Presidency" being applied critically to the BushCo regime, 'apologizes' for what he's about to promote by stating that under other circumstances he would be "defending the rule of law." This statement alone should scare the snot out of any American.

Somehow Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, and Cromwell get rung into a discussion of the Republic created by our Constitution and how that underpinning law is inadequate to circumstances outside of those of peace. The argument begins and ends with the proposition that the ends justify the means. The Bill of Rights becomes optional in his scheme, in fact that there is a mistaken liberal opinion assuming "that civil liberties have the status of natural liberties; and are inalienable." An odd appellation for something written down by the Framers and referred to repeatedly in discussions regarding the BOR at the time. Under his scheme the Constitution becomes a guide subject to convenient revision at any time it is inconvenient to the exercise of an energetic executive.

You would think that a Harvard professor of government would be aware of the bad end Cromwell came to and might avoid using the very arguments that brought it about. Nope, he is a paragon of governance and what he saw as utilitarian is some brought forward from England's parliamentary form of government into out own. Locke is touted as a "wiser liberal" as he promotes the idea of "doing the public good without a rule." What part of Revolutionary War is it that Mansfield doesn't get? These yahoos were messing about quite a while previous to that little dust-up in Monarchical/Civil War England.

I don't deny any of these people their due in the understanding of the evolution of governance, but to bring in their completely alien experiences to a discussion of disregarding the further evolution of governing called the Constitution is simply academic posturing, as is the liberal sprinkling of Machiavelli's Italian. You are to ignore the simple equation he is proposing, rule of law is subordinate to rule of personality (man) in uncertain times. Now, Machiavelli was a creature of the rule of personality, Cromwell was a ruler of that philosophy, George III carried it onto America's back, and later America bled copiously to defeat: Hitler, Mussolini, et al - all examples of the rule of man in uncertain times.

By the way, the problems in Iraq "arise from having wished to leave too much to the Iraqis, thus from a sense of inhibition rather than imperialism."

If you do not understand my insistence that the 2nd Amendment is meaningful today, you should go read this tripe passed off as a serious discussion of the future of American law and liberties and reflect on where it came from and who ascribes to it. In shorter words - these people are scary; and frankly, treasonous.

Machiavellian Politics

Politics have been studied and analyzed for a very long time, and written about for very nearly as long as writing has existed. One of the best known, and most reviled writers on the subject is Machiavelli; his book, The Prince, is a classic and much misunderstood work. The most often quoted piece of the book is, "the ends justify the means." The cliche term for short-sighted vicious politics is "Machiavellian."

This is not quite accurate, Machiavelli put forth solutions to problems and generally several solutions for a problem. A common problem was a noble plotting against the ruler, several solutions were mentioned, banishment of the noble, banishment of the noble and his family, confiscation of family property, killing the noble, killing the noble and his family, etc, etc. Along with the solutions came analysis of probable outcomes. Oddly enough, considering his reputation, Machiavelli preferred to take the long-term outlook and the solution that favored it. For instance, banishment put the noble out of reach and free to stir up trouble, compounded if the family was also banished by more people stirring the pot and the extended family/associates resentment, confiscation worked the same way and stirred resentment among others of property and other members of the family, killing creates martyrs, etc. There really is a need for a new adjective describing short-sighted vicious politics; I think maybe the term could be Rovian, as in Karl.

I've heard Rove described as a genius, or by perfectly good lefties, a despicable genius. I disagree, what has passed for genius is simply the willingness to use whatever means are available for short term gain, reflective of certain elements in 18th and 19th Century politics, the nastier elements. He is a nasty man who plays dirty for a short term payoff. The problem with this approach is illustrated by the current BushCo poll numbers and the general reputation of the Republican Party. Any political movement generates opposition, this is normal and to be expected, but opposition is a different animal from enemies. Rovian politics creates enemies, these are mortal foes, they will not agree with you and they will seek your downfall and expend serious assets to bring it about. People in general will begin to see through lies and be offended for being taken and become enemies. The art of politics becomes slash and burn warfare, a policy of scorched earth with little regard for the welfare of the state. Policy decisions become hostage to the accrual of power and failed policies become sacrosanct - the expenditure in their implementation now drives their continuation, the leader cannot fail. Fear becomes a handy weapon, but it is a very blunt instrument and the objects of its use soon tire of it or become inured to its effects.

Politics is about getting things accomplished, power is an aspect of that end but it is not the prime mover. In a system like ours you may have the power to force things through, for a while, but at some point the opposition must be taken into account. The trick is to offer something to the opposition that will take some of the sting out while showing the voters a willingness to "work together" and be "reasonable." If it is impossible to give the opposition enough to bring them into the process then it is of paramount importance to show them the respect of listening and debating the issue. You cannot afford more than a handful of enemies. There are going to be times when there is a congruence in your ends and the opposition's ends and their cooperation will be needed to succeed, it is important that they are not your enemies at that point.

Karl Rove has essentially two strategies, the accrual of power and the demonization (and thereby discrediting) of opponents. All government and it's appurtenances (media, etc) become objects of political advantage and the consolidation of power. Opponents no longer are policy opponents they become traitors and agents of class (etc) warfare. In the short run it is possible to show real gains with this methodology, in the long run real problems arise and depending on the force of application the recoil can be tremendous.

The latest problem, the US Attorneys, is a perfect example. The DOJ is subject to political appointments, the tenor of the establishment is going to be set by the AG and the political leanings of the operational end - US Attorneys - can be determined. This works well for instituting a philosophy of operation, but it is a poor way to accrue power. The DOJ enforces the laws and those laws apply to all citizens, if it becomes obvious that the law is being used as a political power lever or cudgel, the populous becomes unhappy and the other power centers become very unhappy. The general population is pretty law-abiding, primarily because they see reasonableness in the laws and a general application of them, remove these considerations and the people who write them begin to worry about being paid attention to. Rovian politics determines that a narrow advantage in voter roles outweighs public perception of law-enforcement. The math is extremely faulty, the few votes that might be discarded are long-term overwhelmed by public anger and political backlash.

This is exactly what has happened repeatedly in the last couple years and a solid Republican edge has not only dwindled but been put in serious danger of becoming a long term small minority. Best to leave Machiavelli out of the adjectives describing this Administration's politics, he was pretty good at it, this stuff is strictly Rovian. (and Bush league)

Racist or Something 24

I've never watched this show. I've never watched it because I don't care to have Fox trying to scare me with fiction when I've got all this reality going on. Reality that's almost completely divorced from this show's premise.

CNN has an article up from AP about a Muslim organization, Council on American-Islamic Relations, that is quite upset with Fox and 24 for their depiction of terrorists who, this time, happen to be Muslims. I won't bother you with the show's disclaimers about using other groups, this is a thriller show with various villainous groups trying to do, I gather, very bad things to Americans. Oddly enough, the complaint isn't that the show is sensationalist crap built on tragedy and horror for the benefit of profiteering war mongers, no, the problem is that the villains are identifiable. Keeeerrriiiiipes....

No, I'm real far from being a PC sort of guy in this kind of thing, I value people by their behavior - first their actions and then their speech - so trying to get my knickers in a wad because the villains in a piece of fiction happen to belong to a group pretty similar to ones actually dedicated to harming the US is plain stupid. Fiction about gangs tends to have Hispanics followed by Blacks as the gang members, prison fiction tends to have large minority representation, oddly enough reflective of demographics. It is pointless to turn around and tell me how peaceful a religion Islam is, there are Hispanic and Black surgeons also, so what?

If these CAIR folks are serious about this, rather than fund raising, they should be actively kicking BushCo's butt. This fear and paranoia is a direct outcome of those people. OK, Fox is a piece of work for trying to capitalize on it, but what exactly were Hill Street Blues, Homicide, et al all about? I didn't notice that the influential movie Mississippi Burning had Black KKK'ers, seemed to be a bunch of white guys. Hey, anybody notice that the Democratic Party of Oregon has a Gun Owners Caucus despite the knuckle dragging GOP'ers image of firearm owners by some "liberals." You know what, there are knuckle dragging GOP gunowners and they're fair game.

Here's the point, if you belong to a group that has some bad actors it's pretty disingenuous to act as though having them portrayed as bad actors is bigoted. If you're afraid to go to the store, it's about something a heck of a lot more insidious than a TV show, like a government based on hate and fear.

Sweeping Up Mouse Turds

There's been quite the dust-up between Spocko's Brain and KSFO/ABC Radio/Disney going on for the last month. I reported just a touch of it and it's gotten more interesting as time has gone by. Spocko's Brain set off Disney by recording some clips of KSFO radio "hosts" doing their right wing blather, blather that contained some pretty inflammatory speech, stuff I'm not going to repeat past noting that it involved lynchings, requiring Muslim blaspheming of callers, slightly veiled assassination threats and sending it on to KSFO advertisers and asking if that's what they intended their brands to be associated with. Disney's lawyers filed a Cease and Desist on copyright grounds and intimidated Spocko's blog host into shutting him down. Keep in mind that these were clips of radio broadcast.

Enter Daily Kos and Mike Stark to stir the pot. Mike got copies of the clips and distributed them to any who wanted them and a list of KSFO advertisers. Bloggers came out of the woodwork and began doing Spocko's gig for him. Electronic Frontiers Foundation began doing free legal work for Spocko and he found a Blog host who'd put him back up. The current toll for KSFO in advertising is confirmed as : Visa, Master Card, Bank of America, FedEx, and Michigan Economic Development Corporation. Some of the bigger players attracted to this dust-up are: San Fransico Chronicle, Media Matters, CBS KPIX, Atrios, Americablog, EFF, and a heck of a lot of other bloggers.

KSFO's Melanie Morgan claimed this has all gone through Media Matters since Spocko has been "joined by some very dangerous and frightening fringe-left groups in this country." She accused Spocko of using "these audio clips which are out of context, old, or in some cases just outright lies," without bothering to explain why age or context had anything to do with their nastiness and how exactly their clips were lies. Is this Orwellian enough language to bring to mind another right wing *******, the President and Co.? Online Media gets what's happened just so by noting, "Disney is now left with the option of playing a virtual game of "Whack A Mole," as the Rodent Empire's lawyers will need to slap citations against a series of sites as swiftly as they pop up." KSFO doesn't seem to be able to get it, yes, you can say what you want up to pretty extreme limits, but that doesn't mean that you can't get slapped for it. By a bunch of people who pay perfectly good money for you to do it.

Disney/ABC jumped all over the BushCo bandwagon awhile back, just about in time for that star to begin to slip. Now you have to wonder if Disney's family friendly brand being linked to hate speech is a real good business move.

He Smelled El Diablo...

It's a funny thing for Hugo Chavez to call George II "satan," in reality those two have an awful lot in common. They both use the rhetoric of fear to maintain power and both use a "folksy" manner while scaring the pants off the citizenry. They both see oil as a political power tool. Both use external powers as the internal fear generator. Neither is obviously competent as an administrator, and blame their failures on the "opposition." They both enjoy photo ops looking "studly" in military gear and neither has any obvious claim to military competency. BushCo is busy dismantling the Bill of Rights and Hugo has just told the television station RCTV - Caracas that in March its license expires and they can forget renewal. RCTV has been a supporter of the opposition, including a 2002 bungled coup attempt and a crippling 2003 strike. RCTV began broadcasting in 1953 and is among a large group of privately owned radio and TV stations that don't like Hugo. I'm sure George II now has envy problems, or he would if we had something approaching Opposition Media.

If it weren't politically inconvenient these two would be bosom buddies with favorite nickname for each other, we already know "Devilboy," wonder what BushCo would have for Hugo?

Anybody remember that self-agrandizing insecure prick in high school that wasn't far enough past third grade to call people by their given names, but had to pick mildly belittling pet names nobody else would've thought to use? When you wrote in his yearbook did it occur to you to not write "most likely to fail at everything," but Future President? Sometimes irony sucks as reality... Hey, devilboy, you could do us all a favor and let the next Texas twister get you...

The Threat From Within

The title is from the 12/18/2006 editorial in US News & World Reports by Ed-in-Chief Mort Zuckerman and he closes with,

"What has been done to date - border controls, intensity of interrogation, even airport searches - has not diminished most citizens' "feel of freedom." But if we were to experience a major attack that could have been thwarted by effective countermeasures, the public outcry for action would make the present restrictions seem a mere bagatelle. So the greatest threat to civil liberties today is not preventive measures, but failing to take them."

I kid you not, this is an exact quote of the final paragraph of USN&WP, not a wingnut Blog, but MSM.

I'll start with the closing sentence, broken down to its simplest element it is: lose civil liberties to not lose civil liberties. If you can make this work without your head exploding there is no reason to read further.

Still here? Well I kind of like the juxtaposition of border controls, intensity of interrogation, and airport searches. Throw that border control in there as though we're actually doing anything in that arena. When you're being propagandized it's important to note the little things, this is the same numb skull that awhile ago advocated ceding construction to illegal immigrants because they're there. Take that one from there on your own.

There are complicated constructions that replace simple words when you try to minimize or hide what you're saying, there is a very simple word that means intensity of interrogation - torture. Yes a noun exists that covers an awkward three word construction that the Chief Editor used. The Chief Editor is the person who sets the content of a magazine, its context and its tone. Someone with access to a dictionary and a Thesaurus and probably able to read them.

The real meaning of this mess is indicated when you connect "even airport searches" and " "feel of freedom" " (" " is necessary). Airport searches are, to the ordinary citizen, the most obtrusive of the security elements he's willing to bring up and most impinge on the quote modified feel of freedom, a thing that the sentence indicates is non-existent by that structural element.

Thus we arrive at what he's actually writing on the last page, #80, of U.S. News & World Reports, Volume 141, Number 23, December 18, 2006 : We take away your civil liberties so you'll feel like you have the civil liberties that you don't actually have. He's used the entire last page's volume of words to convince the readers that the terrorists in the US are the threat. I agree, and they work for USN&WR.

People Are Trying To Kill Us

They really are, despite the political hyping and election timing of our government it's true. I doubt very many of us are pleased that this is so, it is somehow unappealing to mind your own business and yet be a target. The really unfortunate side of this is the unthinking responses.

The President and his lackies would have us believe that people want to kill us because they hate our freedom. Ummm... I find this concept a little hard to make rational, not that I find people willing to blow themselves and others up to make a point particularly rational, it just seems pretty farfetched as a hatred generator. To work oneself up to this point takes a little more than a abstract object. They certainly hate something, but I have an idea that it is much more concrete than our freedom. If someone does something to you or your family or nation, that's concrete.

In the West, our experience of tribalism is pretty distant history, excepting the American Indians, and we forget how tribes work. Tribalism is pretty recent history for the Middle East so it might be instructive to consider it. Tribes work because of a very narrow social structure, family, religion, and tribal members are very closely linked, those relationships are of extreme importance and marked out by rigid codes. Violation of those codes is met with extreme reaction, whether within or without the tribal unit. Anybody want to take the time to count the number of ways and times the US government has transgressed those codes and for what reasons?

Do the policy makers in our government really believe we're hated for our freedoms? If they do, they're stupider than they seem to think we are. Now with people actually trying to kill us, it's not a good idea to be led by stupid people, or, people who lie to you because they think you're stupid. Reality is a wonderful approach to use in potentially deadly situations.

Sure, it's pretty easy for me to be distinctly unafraid of terrorists, I hardly ever fly and Baker City, OR is pretty far down the terrorist target list, but I do give a damn if my fellow citizens are threatened. But trying to scare people out of their civil liberties and into voting against their own interests does nothing to secure them, and neither do military adventures with constantly changing justifications (lies). Finding out Who and Why is crucial, and then addressing the Whys and smaking the shit out of the Whos makes sense. Regarding the Whys, some are subject to negotiation and change, some are plain un-negotiable, figure it out and do it. The Whos sure aren't easily found, and it's a lot harder if you manufacture them at a hellbent pace with a stupid war instead of looking for them. There is no nation on earth with more power and resources than the US, we can't find these people? Well, there is oil in Iraq and we can make plenty more terrorists for the President to play politics with.

Boy Am I Scared, Now

Holy Crappolla Batman, the Terror level just ratcheted up, airports are a mess and incumbents are losing...huh? What kind of sinister mind does it take to make that connection? Who's really scared, frequent fliers or incumbents? If I were an incumbent I'd be pretty nervous, and odds are that if I were one, I'd be a Republican and if it had anything to do with national clout I'd hope my pals in the Executive Branch could help me out, at least more than they have the past couple years.

I've looked at this plot scenario that's been in the media and there are at least a couple things that seem odd. Since the ingredients for this bomb had to be seperate to get past screening that would mean mixing the stuff on board, it is an odd behavior to be dumping aftershave into a toothpaste tube-ok-whatever. Then you detonate this mess with a cell phone. Why? If you're going to set this off in mid-air you're going with it, so why not set it off in your lap after you've mixed it? Why do you need a cell activated ignitor? How does this ignition system get missed by security?

I'm sure looking forward to getting all the little details on this one, if this disappears like so many of the Pre-2004 Election ones did, I'd be wondering... Do you suppose these arrested folks will make it to court before the Mid-terms? None of the 2004 stuff did. Well, this Administration has demonstrated enough times that they think we're really stupid...

Flag burning, gay marriage, tax breaks for minimum wage, oh hell, we really are pretty busy trying to survive, damn, they might pull it off again.