Giuliani's Kerik Mistake

Rudi has admitted to making some mistakes regarding Bernie Kerik, particularly in not properly vetting him when he sponsored him for the head of Homeland Security. (every time I type those words I cringe - Hitler visions in my mind) Now, it is true the vetting stunk and Bernie has had to plead guilty to a NY misdemeanor charge regarding renovations by allegedly mob linked Interstate Industrial's free $165,000 renovations to his home and faces Federal charges. But that's not Rudi's real mistake.

The NYT quotes an AP interview:

“There were mistakes made with Bernie Kerik,” Mr. Giuliani said in the interview. “But what’s the ultimate result for the people of New York City? The ultimate result for the people of New York City was a 74 percent reduction in shootings, a 60 percent reduction in crime, a correction program that went from being one of the worst in the country to one that was on ‘60 Minutes’ as one of the best in the country, 90 percent reduction of violence in the jails.”

Here you have the mistake that seems inherent in Rudi's make up, no matter what the outcome of Rudi's appointment of Bernie Kerik, the gaping wound is a NY Police Commissioner who was crooked. The 74% reductions in shootings is not the definition of NYC Police, corruption is, it was rotten at the top, it was what it supposedly fought. The information gained from torture, whatever its reliability - little - is not the definition of the policy it is a matter of it defining us as who we are supposedly fighting. The infringement of civil liberties in the name of protecting liberty may produce security, but it is also defined as tyranny.

Rudi is dangerous, not because I disagree with his social policies or economic policies, but because he represents the worst of the Republican authoritarian impulses. While the Republicans may with a certain justification accuse Democrats of trying to establish a nanny state, their "daddy knows best" leads to the establishment of the Fatherland - an outcome to be opposed tooth and nail in the electoral and judicial arenas. Once that 'goal' is reached, opposition will devolve to the streets with arms, and that is chaos. Two hundred and thirty years ago the guns would have been sounding by now, this is worse than many realize.

Myanmar - Burma - Repression - Murder

One could scarcely call the government of Myanmar something other than repressive, but they have taken that label to new heights over the past two days. Soldiers are firing automatic weapons into crowds, invading Buddhist monasteries, and have cut off electronic communications available to civilians. Demonstrations, sparked by a large increase in fuel prices, have been estimated to have numbers up to 100,000. The nation of Myanmar rivals N Korea as a closed and repressed society.

Myanmar's chief patron, China, has blocked UN condemnation, but has offered platitudes about how "all parties in Myanmar exercise restraint and properly handle the current issue so as to ensure the situation there does not escalate and get complicated.” Evidently unarmed civilians and monks need to restrain themselves from getting killed by automatic gunfire. We really ought to spend lots of money on Chinese made goods, just to make sure they can have the influence to make such a statement stick.

Buddhism is a non-violent philosophy/religion and it is once again being faced with forceful violence. Evidently a saffron robe is poor protection from bullets. The military junta running the place does not seem to be overly concerned that bullets won't win the day. They may be running a large risk of backlash within the military ranks, people who have and know how to use, firearms. BushCo is moving to freeze the assets of the identifiable leaders, but over the last 20 years Myanmar has ignored such actions.

I am not an advocate of taking leaflets to a gunfight, nor am I overly impressed with the technique of resistance involved in taking a bullet, admirable as Buddhism may be, self-destruction to no end gain seems wasteful. While I might be willing to die for an idea, that concept also includes helping someone on the other side get there first. I have noticed that there's not much reportage regarding the fact that "non-violent revolutions" have managed to get significant support from heavily armed contingents before they became successful (that or they involved revolution from a government politically incapable of brutal repression - ie Ghandi/Britain).

It is important to understand that one day Burma had one government and the next day it was Myanmar and these murderous thugs. These things happen, not because they just do, but because they can happen. When something is possible, it tends to happen; when power and force are concentrated in a single group; that group is able to make decisions for all - and back it up. Those who scoff at the Second Amendment disregard that the outcome is mutual destruction, something elites are not willing to be a part of. If Myanmar's economic elite perceived such destruction you can rest assured the murders of the last few days would not have occurred.

At this point things are still pretty fluid, but at some point people are going to be unwilling to die without some hope that things will go their way.

That Archaic, Meaningless Second Ammendment

I got a lot of crap about my ardent support for the Second Ammendment, it was archaic, it was about letting the National Guard have guns, it was pointless machismo, it's dangerous, it could never happen here...

I am not happy to be proven right, I vastly preferred theory and principle. Just so we know what's going on, the US Senate (including 12 Democrats) voted to approve the Detainee Act. Now the President gets to decide which Americans are Enemy Combatants, said Enemies no longer have Habeus Corpus, have no right to an open trial with a jury of their peers, cannot challenge secret information, and can be treated any way the President decides to torture them. That's Americans, folks. It gets a little worse if you're a foreigner.

Simply put Americans can now disappear into the Federal maw, be tortured, and get no trial, or get a kangeroo court. If you don't get your day in court it makes it seem unreasonable to let a Federal Law Enforcement Officer get his hands on you, doesn't it? I think I'd rather not have their job.

For those of you who think gun control is about safety and security, you now have an example of how the Federal Government thinks in terms of safety and security. If you're in the habit of strongly expressing dissenting political thought, I suggest that this might be a good time to go buy a large caliber semi-automatic rifle and a large caliber pistol and enroll in a good safety and usage class, become competetent and efficient. Locking them up might be a bad idea, it would be better to teach your kids than to want one and not have it. Let me be very clear, I am advocating that you avail yourself of your Second Ammendment right to keep and bear arms, to become safe and efficient in their usage, and to know the law regarding firearms and their usage.

What George II and his cronies seem to neglect in their thinking is just how dangerous this makes being arrested, for anything. Here's the kicker, once you're in anyone's custody, the Feds can step in and name you Enemy. They don't have to prove squat, just take you.

Ridenbaugh Press suggests that you "remember who did this to you," I second that, neither forget, nor forgive. War has been declared on the citizens of the United States of America by President Bush, Senate Republicans, and Twelve so-called Democratic Senators.