Or a progressive? No, I don't claim those titles, I stick with Lefty. I'm pretty sure I come by that label honestly. But I'm curious what Liberal or Progressive means to you. I don't mean in some long thick treatist, just simply put. I figure a paragraph ought to do if you've thought it over.
It probably doesn't seem fair that I'm not handing out a "Lefty" definition of my own, well there are thousands of words behind this post doing the defining, oh heck, it's not fair, so:
I don't think the "little guy" gets a fair shake in a system designed to reward capital or in a system designed around majorities.
There are all kinds of permutations of methods dealing with this, communism was one failed idea, socialism always seems to fall down, then there's modifications of capitalism and modifications of majority rule. Capitalism seems to work when it rewards effort, unfortunately that's not how it's designed. When idividuals are more highly regarded than groups or masses, majority becomes a more equitable method of expressing will.
But now it's your turn, what does it mean to you? I've been sticking stuff up here for most of a year and I'd like to see what you've got to say. It may be harder than you think to get it down simply, well - that's good for the brain. Please include a name or username, rude offensive crap will just go away.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Democrats and Religion
This is a tough one for me, I don't believe that law is moral or theological in practice. I believe that law is intended to maintain civil order. Law is backed by force, it is not a suggestion, it is backed up by threats, takings, guns, and bars. Any attempt to make such a system moral or theological fails in the practice of enforcement.
That said, the act of producing government can easily be informed by morality, ethics, philosophy, or theology; because the actors are human. Their thinking processes are informed by their, in general terms, philosophy. A regard for the poor and infirm is a feature of most religions and many philosophies and a government that functions with regard to their plight is informed by that feature. The practice of governance is (or should be) informed by a philosophy. I use philosophy as inclusive of religion, morality, ethics, etc as they are, finally, philosophies.
The espousal of a religious background is neither a guarantee of nor a bar to ethical behavior in governance. The simple fact is that humans are fallible and cannot maintain the rigidities of religious codes, but their expression of them is informative. A system of reference to a mean narrow expression of a religious code is informative as to the person's outlook on governance, as is reference to a loving caring expression of religious code. All religions have varied expressions of their codes, there is important information to be had there.
For the Democrats to court the Dobsons and Falwells is ludicrous, their agendas or expressions of their religious codes exempts them from consideration. While this is true, there are very many different expressions of the same religion which are intimately connected to Democratic Party agendas and should be courted. The real dividing line regards the creation of theocracy. There is a vast difference between religious based regard for your fellows and the institution of theological law. Somehow the Democrats must make clear that there is a bright clear line between government and religion, that government is not to meddle in religious matters for the protection of religion. When government espouses religion it must necessarily interfere in the free practice of religion. Government keeping its hands off religion requires that government not institute laws of a religious nature. A law based on a religious codification must interfere with the practice of religion for that practice includes widely varied codes and the practice of no religion as well. This is not to say that there are not congruences between religions and civil order, much of religion is about coexisting in a society. A religious prohibition of murder and a civil order based prohibition of murder commonly prohibit it, but for very different reasons. If we prohibit murder because god doesn't approve we enter that faith based arena which is very different from the fact based prohibition that murder is counter to civil order and place a legal entity in the position of determining what god approves or disapproves without the ability to point to fact.
The argument that I am making is frequently turned on its head, that religion must be kept out of government which I believe is an entire impossibility. Whatever religion a person holds to will travel into government with them, it would require pyschosis not to. The belief that all life is sacred and abortion is wrong is not a bar to governance, it is the desire to impose a purely personal belief on society at large without the civil order requirement that is a bar. Civil order clearly does not hold all life sacred, there are ample instances where civil order allows the taking of life, warfare, self-defense, defence of others, and in some cases property. It can be properly argued that it is in the interest of civil order to reduce the need for abortion and thus its occurrence on the basis of mental and physical health which is a different proposition from a religious ban and a valid governance aim of the person holding all life as sacred. It may seem contradictory to state that a person could be morally completely opposed to abortion and yet maintain a pro-choice legal stance, and yet I believe it is a quite reasonable outcome when the line between civil order and religious teaching is adhered to.
Republicans' appeals to the religious right are much simpler in political practice than what I am pointing out. This argument of mine takes more words and more sophistication than, "God says so," and I'm unsure how a political sound-byte of it could be accomplished. One of the weaknesses of principle is the process of explaining it. How, when, and where to explain it? I have given political speeches and I can clearly see that the two paragraphs above would leave people's eyes glazed over. Since I'm not running for anything, I'll leave the "punching up" editing to somebody else.
Quite frankly much of what is wrong with our government at this point in time is directly counter to the principles of many major religions and having people who actually practice their religion in positions of governmental power might easily be a vast improvement. I say this as a person of no organized religion and a complete supporter of the 1st Amendment.
That said, the act of producing government can easily be informed by morality, ethics, philosophy, or theology; because the actors are human. Their thinking processes are informed by their, in general terms, philosophy. A regard for the poor and infirm is a feature of most religions and many philosophies and a government that functions with regard to their plight is informed by that feature. The practice of governance is (or should be) informed by a philosophy. I use philosophy as inclusive of religion, morality, ethics, etc as they are, finally, philosophies.
The espousal of a religious background is neither a guarantee of nor a bar to ethical behavior in governance. The simple fact is that humans are fallible and cannot maintain the rigidities of religious codes, but their expression of them is informative. A system of reference to a mean narrow expression of a religious code is informative as to the person's outlook on governance, as is reference to a loving caring expression of religious code. All religions have varied expressions of their codes, there is important information to be had there.
For the Democrats to court the Dobsons and Falwells is ludicrous, their agendas or expressions of their religious codes exempts them from consideration. While this is true, there are very many different expressions of the same religion which are intimately connected to Democratic Party agendas and should be courted. The real dividing line regards the creation of theocracy. There is a vast difference between religious based regard for your fellows and the institution of theological law. Somehow the Democrats must make clear that there is a bright clear line between government and religion, that government is not to meddle in religious matters for the protection of religion. When government espouses religion it must necessarily interfere in the free practice of religion. Government keeping its hands off religion requires that government not institute laws of a religious nature. A law based on a religious codification must interfere with the practice of religion for that practice includes widely varied codes and the practice of no religion as well. This is not to say that there are not congruences between religions and civil order, much of religion is about coexisting in a society. A religious prohibition of murder and a civil order based prohibition of murder commonly prohibit it, but for very different reasons. If we prohibit murder because god doesn't approve we enter that faith based arena which is very different from the fact based prohibition that murder is counter to civil order and place a legal entity in the position of determining what god approves or disapproves without the ability to point to fact.
The argument that I am making is frequently turned on its head, that religion must be kept out of government which I believe is an entire impossibility. Whatever religion a person holds to will travel into government with them, it would require pyschosis not to. The belief that all life is sacred and abortion is wrong is not a bar to governance, it is the desire to impose a purely personal belief on society at large without the civil order requirement that is a bar. Civil order clearly does not hold all life sacred, there are ample instances where civil order allows the taking of life, warfare, self-defense, defence of others, and in some cases property. It can be properly argued that it is in the interest of civil order to reduce the need for abortion and thus its occurrence on the basis of mental and physical health which is a different proposition from a religious ban and a valid governance aim of the person holding all life as sacred. It may seem contradictory to state that a person could be morally completely opposed to abortion and yet maintain a pro-choice legal stance, and yet I believe it is a quite reasonable outcome when the line between civil order and religious teaching is adhered to.
Republicans' appeals to the religious right are much simpler in political practice than what I am pointing out. This argument of mine takes more words and more sophistication than, "God says so," and I'm unsure how a political sound-byte of it could be accomplished. One of the weaknesses of principle is the process of explaining it. How, when, and where to explain it? I have given political speeches and I can clearly see that the two paragraphs above would leave people's eyes glazed over. Since I'm not running for anything, I'll leave the "punching up" editing to somebody else.
Quite frankly much of what is wrong with our government at this point in time is directly counter to the principles of many major religions and having people who actually practice their religion in positions of governmental power might easily be a vast improvement. I say this as a person of no organized religion and a complete supporter of the 1st Amendment.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Regarding Your Civil Liberties
I'm always astonished to find myself in a position of having to remind folks just what this is all about. I'm not going to deal with all the ancillary literature regarding rights, just with the official stand of the United States.
The stand of the United States in official proclamations begins with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration speaks of certain "inalienable rights" with which we are endowed by our Creator. Following on through the Constitution and into the Bill of Rights is this concept of rights that exist outside government. This is an important distinction, that rights exist which are not conferred by government on its citizens. While this concept is neither original to the Founders nor unique in philosophy to them, what was novel was its codification into a form of government. That is the crux of the matter, it was unheard of for government to recognize that its standing in some matters was precluded by pre-existing Rights. Governments let people do things, they allowed it, this was totally new. It still is an almost outrageous concept, one that is ignored frequently by the beneficiaries of its existence.
The government does not allow me free speech, I have it, I have it by virtue of existence as an individual human being, the government's role is limited to guaranteeing that I have it, in the face of government's own desires or interests. To the degree that right is protected is the degree of success of our government. This is true of the entire Bill of Rights, how successful our government is can be directly derived from the degree to which it fulfills its guarantees. The entire government of the United States of America is founded on that principle, that certain rights exist outside its purview. The entire construct is built around that concept, the entire mechanism of governance is designed to function in that manner.
These people were primarily of English descent, almost entirely sociologically English in their concept of law and yet they committed the treasonous act of Rebellion against their lawful Sovereign. What they set in place of that previous government is not to be taken lightly nor to be misunderstood by distance of time, language, and culture. The concept of a government that exists beside individual rights and guarantees them is not to be cast aside in the name of security, prosperity, or any other consideration. It cannot be so and still be that form of government. And finally, no act of government, no act of Representatives can remove those rights, they exist outside the reach of government and are morally and ethically supported by any level of force necessary to sustain them.
The stand of the United States in official proclamations begins with the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration speaks of certain "inalienable rights" with which we are endowed by our Creator. Following on through the Constitution and into the Bill of Rights is this concept of rights that exist outside government. This is an important distinction, that rights exist which are not conferred by government on its citizens. While this concept is neither original to the Founders nor unique in philosophy to them, what was novel was its codification into a form of government. That is the crux of the matter, it was unheard of for government to recognize that its standing in some matters was precluded by pre-existing Rights. Governments let people do things, they allowed it, this was totally new. It still is an almost outrageous concept, one that is ignored frequently by the beneficiaries of its existence.
The government does not allow me free speech, I have it, I have it by virtue of existence as an individual human being, the government's role is limited to guaranteeing that I have it, in the face of government's own desires or interests. To the degree that right is protected is the degree of success of our government. This is true of the entire Bill of Rights, how successful our government is can be directly derived from the degree to which it fulfills its guarantees. The entire government of the United States of America is founded on that principle, that certain rights exist outside its purview. The entire construct is built around that concept, the entire mechanism of governance is designed to function in that manner.
These people were primarily of English descent, almost entirely sociologically English in their concept of law and yet they committed the treasonous act of Rebellion against their lawful Sovereign. What they set in place of that previous government is not to be taken lightly nor to be misunderstood by distance of time, language, and culture. The concept of a government that exists beside individual rights and guarantees them is not to be cast aside in the name of security, prosperity, or any other consideration. It cannot be so and still be that form of government. And finally, no act of government, no act of Representatives can remove those rights, they exist outside the reach of government and are morally and ethically supported by any level of force necessary to sustain them.
You can find the entire Bill of Rights in November Archives under "Once Upon a Time..."
The Democrats, Taxes, and War and So What?
There can be little doubt that George II will veto any real move the Democrats might make regarding fixing his tax mess; and less doubt that there are not the votes to over-ride a veto. I suppose that going ahead and addressing that mess would look like politics. I suppose it actually would be politics. So what?
I suppose there is little the Democrats can do to the Commander-In-Chief to put an end to the war in Iraq that wouldn't be vetoed without the votes to over-ride. That would be just politics. So what?
Write the Bills up, pass them, have the veto over-ride vote and move on with lots of press activity. Yes it's politics to do it, and it's stupid politics if the Bills aren't well crafted and intelligent. It's also what they were elected to do. It also will show up the people responsible for their failure. This is Washington DC folks, this is where politics are done. Failure isn't a bad result when it's played properly. The stupid Republican amendments nonsense was just that, stupid politics, addressing no pressing problems this nation faces and obvious on their face as political maneuvering. These Bills would address the very real concerns of the Americans who elected the Democrats to Congress.
Or maybe the Democrats would prefer to go into 2008 with the voters saying, "So What??"
I suppose there is little the Democrats can do to the Commander-In-Chief to put an end to the war in Iraq that wouldn't be vetoed without the votes to over-ride. That would be just politics. So what?
Write the Bills up, pass them, have the veto over-ride vote and move on with lots of press activity. Yes it's politics to do it, and it's stupid politics if the Bills aren't well crafted and intelligent. It's also what they were elected to do. It also will show up the people responsible for their failure. This is Washington DC folks, this is where politics are done. Failure isn't a bad result when it's played properly. The stupid Republican amendments nonsense was just that, stupid politics, addressing no pressing problems this nation faces and obvious on their face as political maneuvering. These Bills would address the very real concerns of the Americans who elected the Democrats to Congress.
Or maybe the Democrats would prefer to go into 2008 with the voters saying, "So What??"
Bloggers and Journalism
On another Blog a writer stated that maybe he could be called a bad journalist for not asking all the questions of someone he was interviewing. A commenter wanted to know if he wasn't just an opinionated lefty with a free blog site. Hmmm.
You'll find no references to journalism and myself in this blog, I'm not. I comment and I advocate. I do not go find news stories and report on them, I express my opinions. I try to make sure I have facts where facts are relevant, but I don't write treatists so I don't usually footnote or source note. So, we're not talking about me.
There seems to be some idea that being a journalist involves a degree and a major media employer. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Being a journalist is defined by engaging in the activity of journalism, which is finding stories, asking the right questions, writing well about the answers, and publishing the work. The activity defines the actor and if those qualifications are met, then that's what you are. Nothing says a journalist can't also be a commentator, though there is some requirement that there's a separation between the two activities.
The definition of journalist I'm disputing would include Judith Miller of the New York Times as a journalist - a prestigious degree and a prestigious very large major media employer. What Judith Miller actually was is defined properly as a propagandist. She got fired for it, but hey, everybody called her a journalist up until then. Had she betrayed the concepts that define a journalist? Evidently enough to be roundly criticized and fired for it. So, the real world definition relies on the activity not something else, like degrees.
The fact that a site is free, electronic, or whatever means of publishing is immaterial. Is the written matter properly done and is it read are the questions that count. The site I'm referring to probably gets read more times per day than I do per month, so it gets read. I reach out and touch some people every day, I have some influence with a group of people. Now I won't get all puffed up about how much or what kind of influence, reading something has an impact on thinking. A site that has large readership has a larger impact and the fact that the site may engage in journalism increases that impact. The impact I have involves perception and opinion, the impact of journalism impacts knowledge of facts.
The Baker City Herald's journalists will not claim to have the impact or quality of some of the really large outlets, but they do the work and almost always get it right. If that's the case for them and is the case for a Blogger, then there is no material difference. The quality of the writing may vary and the source availability may vary but the activity is the same. It is quite factual to compare the Bloggers of today with the press of Revolutionary times, and probably favorable to the Bloggers. There is a more developed sense of fairness and accuracy in today's reporting, and those who don't bother with it are soon known. I will again point to Judith Miller when people want to rail against the damage done by unprincipled Bloggers.
Blogging journalists have one huge advantage over traditional journalists, there is no editorial board with advertisers to please or corporate masters to avoid offending. I know very well how important that editorial freedom is, I regularly offend some readers of particular issue orientations with my commentary and I'm free to do so and to continue to do so.
When a blogger gives you some good well sourced journalism, be grateful and don't be afraid to call it journalism.
You'll find no references to journalism and myself in this blog, I'm not. I comment and I advocate. I do not go find news stories and report on them, I express my opinions. I try to make sure I have facts where facts are relevant, but I don't write treatists so I don't usually footnote or source note. So, we're not talking about me.
There seems to be some idea that being a journalist involves a degree and a major media employer. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Being a journalist is defined by engaging in the activity of journalism, which is finding stories, asking the right questions, writing well about the answers, and publishing the work. The activity defines the actor and if those qualifications are met, then that's what you are. Nothing says a journalist can't also be a commentator, though there is some requirement that there's a separation between the two activities.
The definition of journalist I'm disputing would include Judith Miller of the New York Times as a journalist - a prestigious degree and a prestigious very large major media employer. What Judith Miller actually was is defined properly as a propagandist. She got fired for it, but hey, everybody called her a journalist up until then. Had she betrayed the concepts that define a journalist? Evidently enough to be roundly criticized and fired for it. So, the real world definition relies on the activity not something else, like degrees.
The fact that a site is free, electronic, or whatever means of publishing is immaterial. Is the written matter properly done and is it read are the questions that count. The site I'm referring to probably gets read more times per day than I do per month, so it gets read. I reach out and touch some people every day, I have some influence with a group of people. Now I won't get all puffed up about how much or what kind of influence, reading something has an impact on thinking. A site that has large readership has a larger impact and the fact that the site may engage in journalism increases that impact. The impact I have involves perception and opinion, the impact of journalism impacts knowledge of facts.
The Baker City Herald's journalists will not claim to have the impact or quality of some of the really large outlets, but they do the work and almost always get it right. If that's the case for them and is the case for a Blogger, then there is no material difference. The quality of the writing may vary and the source availability may vary but the activity is the same. It is quite factual to compare the Bloggers of today with the press of Revolutionary times, and probably favorable to the Bloggers. There is a more developed sense of fairness and accuracy in today's reporting, and those who don't bother with it are soon known. I will again point to Judith Miller when people want to rail against the damage done by unprincipled Bloggers.
Blogging journalists have one huge advantage over traditional journalists, there is no editorial board with advertisers to please or corporate masters to avoid offending. I know very well how important that editorial freedom is, I regularly offend some readers of particular issue orientations with my commentary and I'm free to do so and to continue to do so.
When a blogger gives you some good well sourced journalism, be grateful and don't be afraid to call it journalism.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Pretty Is As Pretty Does
If somebody was to tell you that this is your humble correspondent, would it scare you that you've taken him seriously? That intent look has a bit to do with a 15 foot drop, standing on 2 1/2 inches, a running chain saw, cutting the beam above, and a photog friend with the nerve to yell, "Smile!" right about here.It might not take a real large leap of imagination to figure I'm not the type to be impressed with playing dress-up in a flight suit.
Liars, Cheats, and Thieves
The Republicans have been running the show in DC for six years, both houses and the Presidency have enabled them to pretty much do as they pleased. This has included taking us to war, blasting the constitution and ancient English law, and spending us into a huge hole while enriching the very rich. The latter involves one of the most basic of Congressional duties, setting a budget.
Now, they're not going to do it. Nope, they'll pass stopgap spending authorizations and duck out of town. You see, their forever majority evaporated a couple weeks ago and they want it back. They want it back bad enough to leave not only the deficit mess they've made but also not bother with the 2007 budget so the Democrats in their new majority can have that to deal with. To be sure, some of them are talking like deficit hawks, now. You'd be hard pressed to find anything more than rhetoric in regard to their previous votes, but they've suddenly found principles as long as they don't have to deal with them. Now there's a bunch that needed replacing. That solution is a little late, and now they'll play political games with our budget and our nation's health. Isn't it nice to know just how much Americans count in their math (must be some of that Rovian math).
I suppose the title is a little harsh...no I don't. Liars - oh c'mon. Cheats - they were hired to legislate for the nation; party, power, and money don't qualify. Thieves - lobbiests...our children's future financial health - stolen for the highest bidders and the richest blood suckers.
Liars, Cheats, and Thieves - Republican Congress
Now, they're not going to do it. Nope, they'll pass stopgap spending authorizations and duck out of town. You see, their forever majority evaporated a couple weeks ago and they want it back. They want it back bad enough to leave not only the deficit mess they've made but also not bother with the 2007 budget so the Democrats in their new majority can have that to deal with. To be sure, some of them are talking like deficit hawks, now. You'd be hard pressed to find anything more than rhetoric in regard to their previous votes, but they've suddenly found principles as long as they don't have to deal with them. Now there's a bunch that needed replacing. That solution is a little late, and now they'll play political games with our budget and our nation's health. Isn't it nice to know just how much Americans count in their math (must be some of that Rovian math).
I suppose the title is a little harsh...no I don't. Liars - oh c'mon. Cheats - they were hired to legislate for the nation; party, power, and money don't qualify. Thieves - lobbiests...our children's future financial health - stolen for the highest bidders and the richest blood suckers.
Liars, Cheats, and Thieves - Republican Congress
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Pardoning the Turkey
I saw a couple minutes of George Bush pardoning the turkey, turkeys actually, since there is a backup turkey. I was struck by contradictions. There's a backup turkey in case there's a turkey malfunction, um, how about Iraq? That's a turkey with no backup.
A pardoned turkey. It must be the obvious innocence of a 40 pound bird with a 2 ounce brain, no, not the President, he's more like 180 pounds. Domestic turkeys are born, raised, and sold to be killed and eaten, unlike human beings who are killed in war or tortured by the land of the free and the brave, and probably never had that destiny explained to them. I guess it pays to be a big dumb bird when it comes to the POTUS.
I'll be having prime rib Thanksgiving so I guess some big dumb bird is off that hook, some big dumb beef gets to pay, instead.
A pardoned turkey. It must be the obvious innocence of a 40 pound bird with a 2 ounce brain, no, not the President, he's more like 180 pounds. Domestic turkeys are born, raised, and sold to be killed and eaten, unlike human beings who are killed in war or tortured by the land of the free and the brave, and probably never had that destiny explained to them. I guess it pays to be a big dumb bird when it comes to the POTUS.
I'll be having prime rib Thanksgiving so I guess some big dumb bird is off that hook, some big dumb beef gets to pay, instead.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Baker City's Ordinary Isn't Quite That
Sunday morning I got a phone call from a lawyer I do work for sometimes, his office had been hit by a car and could I come down? I pulled into the parking lot and there was a late 90s Buick reposing in the block wall, right up to the windshield. The eighty year old lady driver was unhurt, other than absolute mortification. She was talking to the police officer who was busy soothing her. As I was cutting blocks loose from the car so it could be winched out of the building, neighbors came by offering food to the owners of the building, checking on the driver's condition and generally trying to be helpful.
In Baker City, on a Sunday in the late building season, no building supply houses are open and I needed some materials to cover that hole. Dick Hindman, dressed in his Sunday best, met me at Cashway Lumber and opened up so I could get some studs, plywood, and various little items to cover up the hole. The profit on that sale scarcely covered his gasoline costs, much less time, and etc. but I needed it for an emergency, so he covered me.
Back at the scene the owners gave me a ride to pick up my '50 COE Chevy dump truck for debris disposal. The truck drew admirers, who also had to get a good look at Gus - he's a 155 pound Great White Pyrennes who seems to have to go to work with me. The building's owners were trying to soothe the old lady, she'd seen the mess inside the hole, what was the firm's law library. Their concern was that she was alright physically and that she wasn't beating herself up over the damage.
I got the hole covered and the roof structure supported and the mess cleaned up and headed for home, reflecting. Neighbors helping neighbors and caring about their neighbors, pretty ordinary around here, but also, maybe, a bit extraordinary. Funny how much I like it here.
In Baker City, on a Sunday in the late building season, no building supply houses are open and I needed some materials to cover that hole. Dick Hindman, dressed in his Sunday best, met me at Cashway Lumber and opened up so I could get some studs, plywood, and various little items to cover up the hole. The profit on that sale scarcely covered his gasoline costs, much less time, and etc. but I needed it for an emergency, so he covered me.
Back at the scene the owners gave me a ride to pick up my '50 COE Chevy dump truck for debris disposal. The truck drew admirers, who also had to get a good look at Gus - he's a 155 pound Great White Pyrennes who seems to have to go to work with me. The building's owners were trying to soothe the old lady, she'd seen the mess inside the hole, what was the firm's law library. Their concern was that she was alright physically and that she wasn't beating herself up over the damage.
I got the hole covered and the roof structure supported and the mess cleaned up and headed for home, reflecting. Neighbors helping neighbors and caring about their neighbors, pretty ordinary around here, but also, maybe, a bit extraordinary. Funny how much I like it here.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Hey, Independents, Take Your Place At The Table
This is the beginning of a discussion intended to discuss and persuade. This post will stay up and the comments section is the arena. As it moves down the list, I will simply re-date to move it back up. All this prelude is to an issue I believe is of tremendous importance to the success of our type of elections. I'm going to poke at you and you should feel free to poke back, but I am not going to insult you and I'd rather you didn't either. You're out in the open, here, so remember that, but also, if you don't want to register with Blogspot, then sign with name, initials, pseudonym, whatever so we can address each other. You know my name (maybe mud after this).
I firmly believe that the two greatest threats to success in the political arena are the Independent (Not Affiliated) Voter and the non-Voter. This is no place to address the non-voter, they aren't there. Independents can take credit for the 11/7/06 election change, you came out and voted Democratic by a wide enough margin to shape quite a few results. I'd thank you for it, but I really don't know what I'd be thanking you for. I'm pretty sure in a lot of elections you were firing the Republicans and slapping GWB, that would make Democrats the default winners. Default is not a good way to run a country or develop policies. A good way to do that is with information and persuasion. There's the problem.
There is no Independent Party with candidates, spokesmen, delegates, or the other appurtenances of a Party. You're a cipher, there are polls and some interviews and some Indie Bloggers, but you're unpredictable because you're unrepresented. You don't help shape Party politics, you stand aside. Please understand that I'm referring to both Parties unless I specify differently. The result is that the Parties try to not offend a theoretical middle/Indie group and still keep their base. That base is those who are active, in the Democratic Party it's not easily defined on particulars but it is left (ok, another "meaningless" classification). What "left" or "right" means to Indies isn't very clear, we might look at voting patterns and guess, but a general revulsion for GWB & the current Republican Party isn't defining. The arguments are still going on and wildly variable in their conclusions. Result - you're a second thought, not up front.
Many people think the General Election is the big one, I don't think so. I believe the Primaries are the ones that shape politics, that is where competing ideas get sorted out, within the narrower frame work of Party. With the low level of participation in Primaries the frequent result for Indies is that they get to vote for the least offensive candidate - that's no way to run a show. Or maybe the only candidate is picked by some outside "big wig," because there is no powerful push for a candidate of a certain outlook, again - lack of numbers.
The complaint is made that Parties are both the same. An inclination to try not to offend an undefined Indie group sure pushes that inclination, but they're not the same. Look at the heat surrounding the labels "D" & "R." On the other hand, there is the argument that the Parties are too (fill in blank). The Parties will reflect the people interested enough to make input and do the ground work for candidates, that number is a small portion of the general electorate. That small number makes the hijacking of a Party possible. If you're "here" you probably find the religious right's influence on Republican politics offensive, well there just aren't that many of them, but they are real active - hijackers. What the Republican Party used to mean and what it means now are two different things and I would place the blame on the people of the old Party bent for not participating. I've had my go-around with the Democrats on an issue with the same kind of hijacking going on and had success. I could have "thrown up my hands" and put an "I" after my name, I preferred to have an impact and a Party for people of my point of view. And it's working.
I do understand the inclination to be proud of the label "I ain't one of them" but what else is it that you're not a part of? I don't think that separation is working to your benefit and it sure isn't working to the Parties' benefit. I'd like to see a strong reasonable Republican Party in opposition to the Democratic Party, but the defection of the moderate right, economic/government conservatives to the ranks of Indies is killing that Party and making for some real messy politics. I'm not a willing recruiter for that Party, but some of you need to be there making some changes. My Party needs you as well. I'm pretty far left in a lot of respects, a reasoning counter-balance to my influence is important and backing for some of my ideas that completely miss some of my lefty compatriots is real valuable. We don't get to have everything we think reflected in an organization, it would be The Party Of Chuckism, and have few members and no influence, but there are general trends of thinking that draw people to one or the other, that general philosophy of governance that defines "D" or "R."
Understand, I'm not talking about this affiliation issue to recruit Democrats (I'd like it, but), I'm talking about the good of the people and the good of the Parties. Having that "D" or "R" after your name isn't going to win an election for a Party by guaranteeing a vote, you would hopefully vote for a candidate not an initial, but activity in the "D" or "R" would have an effect on who runs and what they run on. It's not easy to be represented, you're reading the cheapest printing press available, ie: freedom of the press, media is expensive and corporate in nature, they're not your voice and Blogs have to be read and there are a lot of them (free). Face to face with your fellows makes the biggest impact, all the cues that are missing in this sort of communication are there. Arguments stay coherent with immediacy of response.
You are important to the functioning of our democracy, take your place at the table, please.
I'll try to answer comments coherently and keep this discussion as current as possible. Any Blog that thinks this is an important discussion is asked to link it and by all means, talk to each other.
I firmly believe that the two greatest threats to success in the political arena are the Independent (Not Affiliated) Voter and the non-Voter. This is no place to address the non-voter, they aren't there. Independents can take credit for the 11/7/06 election change, you came out and voted Democratic by a wide enough margin to shape quite a few results. I'd thank you for it, but I really don't know what I'd be thanking you for. I'm pretty sure in a lot of elections you were firing the Republicans and slapping GWB, that would make Democrats the default winners. Default is not a good way to run a country or develop policies. A good way to do that is with information and persuasion. There's the problem.
There is no Independent Party with candidates, spokesmen, delegates, or the other appurtenances of a Party. You're a cipher, there are polls and some interviews and some Indie Bloggers, but you're unpredictable because you're unrepresented. You don't help shape Party politics, you stand aside. Please understand that I'm referring to both Parties unless I specify differently. The result is that the Parties try to not offend a theoretical middle/Indie group and still keep their base. That base is those who are active, in the Democratic Party it's not easily defined on particulars but it is left (ok, another "meaningless" classification). What "left" or "right" means to Indies isn't very clear, we might look at voting patterns and guess, but a general revulsion for GWB & the current Republican Party isn't defining. The arguments are still going on and wildly variable in their conclusions. Result - you're a second thought, not up front.
Many people think the General Election is the big one, I don't think so. I believe the Primaries are the ones that shape politics, that is where competing ideas get sorted out, within the narrower frame work of Party. With the low level of participation in Primaries the frequent result for Indies is that they get to vote for the least offensive candidate - that's no way to run a show. Or maybe the only candidate is picked by some outside "big wig," because there is no powerful push for a candidate of a certain outlook, again - lack of numbers.
The complaint is made that Parties are both the same. An inclination to try not to offend an undefined Indie group sure pushes that inclination, but they're not the same. Look at the heat surrounding the labels "D" & "R." On the other hand, there is the argument that the Parties are too (fill in blank). The Parties will reflect the people interested enough to make input and do the ground work for candidates, that number is a small portion of the general electorate. That small number makes the hijacking of a Party possible. If you're "here" you probably find the religious right's influence on Republican politics offensive, well there just aren't that many of them, but they are real active - hijackers. What the Republican Party used to mean and what it means now are two different things and I would place the blame on the people of the old Party bent for not participating. I've had my go-around with the Democrats on an issue with the same kind of hijacking going on and had success. I could have "thrown up my hands" and put an "I" after my name, I preferred to have an impact and a Party for people of my point of view. And it's working.
I do understand the inclination to be proud of the label "I ain't one of them" but what else is it that you're not a part of? I don't think that separation is working to your benefit and it sure isn't working to the Parties' benefit. I'd like to see a strong reasonable Republican Party in opposition to the Democratic Party, but the defection of the moderate right, economic/government conservatives to the ranks of Indies is killing that Party and making for some real messy politics. I'm not a willing recruiter for that Party, but some of you need to be there making some changes. My Party needs you as well. I'm pretty far left in a lot of respects, a reasoning counter-balance to my influence is important and backing for some of my ideas that completely miss some of my lefty compatriots is real valuable. We don't get to have everything we think reflected in an organization, it would be The Party Of Chuckism, and have few members and no influence, but there are general trends of thinking that draw people to one or the other, that general philosophy of governance that defines "D" or "R."
Understand, I'm not talking about this affiliation issue to recruit Democrats (I'd like it, but), I'm talking about the good of the people and the good of the Parties. Having that "D" or "R" after your name isn't going to win an election for a Party by guaranteeing a vote, you would hopefully vote for a candidate not an initial, but activity in the "D" or "R" would have an effect on who runs and what they run on. It's not easy to be represented, you're reading the cheapest printing press available, ie: freedom of the press, media is expensive and corporate in nature, they're not your voice and Blogs have to be read and there are a lot of them (free). Face to face with your fellows makes the biggest impact, all the cues that are missing in this sort of communication are there. Arguments stay coherent with immediacy of response.
You are important to the functioning of our democracy, take your place at the table, please.
I'll try to answer comments coherently and keep this discussion as current as possible. Any Blog that thinks this is an important discussion is asked to link it and by all means, talk to each other.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
A Biased Media
My last post provoked some thinking and much of what's been going on for the last few years just sort of piled on for the ride. I do think there is medial bias and I think it goes deeper than is commonly acknowleged. I'm also not sure the topic is broken up into realistic segments.
I think there are different types of media bias that occur for different reasons. The foremost bias right now seems to be political Party bias. In this one we see some of the big issues, corporatization of media, constriction of ownership, governmental interference, governmental favors. Corporate media has problems with the other corporate owned elements and additionally with corporate advertisers. Constricted ownership means a restriction of voices and neglect of local or regional perspective. Government threats are obvious enough, but favors granted are less so, Fox is an excellent example of a favor owed.
There are deeper biases, these are sociological and economic. The background of reporters and editors matters. The ability to clearly see issues in their various facets is to a great extent driven by experience. This is not to say that it is necessary to be, for example, gay to report on a story that has implications for the gay community, but it is important to have a solid background on that community, to know what the implications are actually are. This backgrounding is important, I have read in major stories some of the most profoundly ignorant statements made regarding firearms, the authors and editors had no evident knowledge of a firearm beyond, "it goes bang." The obvious problem is that factually inaccurate information is bruited as "news." The factual inaccuracies are bad enough, but there is additionally the lack of understanding of gun owners, the people - a varied lot - not a simple demographic or statistic. There is a blindness to vast segments of society, these are people who live very different lives than the reporters and editors and there is a divorcement in experience and perspective which leads to important pieces of the news picture being missed or ignored.
When a news story regarding the vandalism of some logging trucks runs, a reporter with little understanding of small business can easily neglect the aspect of the story involving the total ruin of a logger's business which devalues the actual crime committed, it becomes on par with sitting down in a road. A lifetime's work destroyed and hard working honest employees out of work is a real consequence that needs public awareness. This little article can scarcely touch on these aspects, but hopefully spark some thinking and critical news watching.
I doubt that it is possible to avoid all such instances of bias or ignorance, but it certainly is possible to attempt to minimize them. This requires an acknowlegement of ignorance and a willingness to do something about it, I'm afraid there's an arrogance that precludes it.
I think there are different types of media bias that occur for different reasons. The foremost bias right now seems to be political Party bias. In this one we see some of the big issues, corporatization of media, constriction of ownership, governmental interference, governmental favors. Corporate media has problems with the other corporate owned elements and additionally with corporate advertisers. Constricted ownership means a restriction of voices and neglect of local or regional perspective. Government threats are obvious enough, but favors granted are less so, Fox is an excellent example of a favor owed.
There are deeper biases, these are sociological and economic. The background of reporters and editors matters. The ability to clearly see issues in their various facets is to a great extent driven by experience. This is not to say that it is necessary to be, for example, gay to report on a story that has implications for the gay community, but it is important to have a solid background on that community, to know what the implications are actually are. This backgrounding is important, I have read in major stories some of the most profoundly ignorant statements made regarding firearms, the authors and editors had no evident knowledge of a firearm beyond, "it goes bang." The obvious problem is that factually inaccurate information is bruited as "news." The factual inaccuracies are bad enough, but there is additionally the lack of understanding of gun owners, the people - a varied lot - not a simple demographic or statistic. There is a blindness to vast segments of society, these are people who live very different lives than the reporters and editors and there is a divorcement in experience and perspective which leads to important pieces of the news picture being missed or ignored.
When a news story regarding the vandalism of some logging trucks runs, a reporter with little understanding of small business can easily neglect the aspect of the story involving the total ruin of a logger's business which devalues the actual crime committed, it becomes on par with sitting down in a road. A lifetime's work destroyed and hard working honest employees out of work is a real consequence that needs public awareness. This little article can scarcely touch on these aspects, but hopefully spark some thinking and critical news watching.
I doubt that it is possible to avoid all such instances of bias or ignorance, but it certainly is possible to attempt to minimize them. This requires an acknowlegement of ignorance and a willingness to do something about it, I'm afraid there's an arrogance that precludes it.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Wishful Thinking Is A Hell Of A Way To Run A War
President George W Bush now wants to send an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq for "The Last Big Push." Oh for Pete's sake...
Here I thought John McCain was being particularly stupid without the power to do anything particularly stupid. Except possibly influence one of the stupidest Presidents. Can any of them do the same math I can? 20K / 138K = 15%
Evidently we're only 15% short of our goal. I sit in almost total disbelief staring at that number. I'm sure we can succeed in raising our casualties with additional targets and probably add to theirs with additional bullets flying.
I suppose what I had to say in "More Troops??" applies here, the post is only 3 days old. I feel like I'm caught in one of those Twilight Zone shows where time gets stuck in a little circle or more currently "Groundhog Day." What is the lesson that will get through to this guy?
I watched all the media blather about the Baker Commission which was essentially, "now that the grown-ups have arrived things will get sorted out." So the grown-ups had some chats with lil' Georgie and we now have this - more wishful thinking. Now I'm not just exactly sure what message the voters were trying to send 11/7/06 but I'm real sure that expansion of the war in Iraq wasn't it. GeorgeII has said he doesn't pay attention to the polls, but I'd have thought the Polls, as in votes, might have meant something to him. You know, that "thumping" he mentioned. Hey Democrats in Congress, take a look at the agenda for the lame duck session, how's that "bi-partisanship" lookin' now?
Here I thought John McCain was being particularly stupid without the power to do anything particularly stupid. Except possibly influence one of the stupidest Presidents. Can any of them do the same math I can? 20K / 138K = 15%
Evidently we're only 15% short of our goal. I sit in almost total disbelief staring at that number. I'm sure we can succeed in raising our casualties with additional targets and probably add to theirs with additional bullets flying.
I suppose what I had to say in "More Troops??" applies here, the post is only 3 days old. I feel like I'm caught in one of those Twilight Zone shows where time gets stuck in a little circle or more currently "Groundhog Day." What is the lesson that will get through to this guy?
I watched all the media blather about the Baker Commission which was essentially, "now that the grown-ups have arrived things will get sorted out." So the grown-ups had some chats with lil' Georgie and we now have this - more wishful thinking. Now I'm not just exactly sure what message the voters were trying to send 11/7/06 but I'm real sure that expansion of the war in Iraq wasn't it. GeorgeII has said he doesn't pay attention to the polls, but I'd have thought the Polls, as in votes, might have meant something to him. You know, that "thumping" he mentioned. Hey Democrats in Congress, take a look at the agenda for the lame duck session, how's that "bi-partisanship" lookin' now?
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Now How Could This Happen???
Lawyers for US citizen Jose Padilla are arguing that his case should be dismissed due to "outrageous" government conduct during his three year, eight month detention as an "enemy combatant." The conduct referred to is administration of LSD, assault, and solitary confinement while in the Navy Brig. The government denies such treatment but states that even if it were so, prosecution should continue. He is charged with conspiracy by becoming a recruit to help wage violent jihad, bomb plots and other charges dismissed when he was moved from military to civilian custody.
I have no opinion regarding the validity of the charges against Padilla, but one thing is clear, no matter how this procedes it will contain a blot on the record of the USA. There are a couple issues, first his detention without trial and second the accusation of torture that is bolsterd by the government's own policy in this area. The President of the United States and his Party's own Congress have led us to this pass. Now the Justice Department is advocating that misconduct of the US government has no bearing on a case being prosecuted. This is a sorry pass to come to.
I Object and I hold them in Contempt.
I have no opinion regarding the validity of the charges against Padilla, but one thing is clear, no matter how this procedes it will contain a blot on the record of the USA. There are a couple issues, first his detention without trial and second the accusation of torture that is bolsterd by the government's own policy in this area. The President of the United States and his Party's own Congress have led us to this pass. Now the Justice Department is advocating that misconduct of the US government has no bearing on a case being prosecuted. This is a sorry pass to come to.
I Object and I hold them in Contempt.
Carol Voisin
Today I pulled the Carol Voisin campaign links, I'm a little sad to see them go without a victory dance to accompany it. Carol tried something most people don't have the nerve to try, a run for national office. She tried something even tougher, a run against an incumbent. And then, since we're icing up a cake for her, she tried a run against more money than god in a Congressional District with close to 44R:32D (corrected thanks MB). If you don't think that's worthy of praise and admiration, you have a heart of stone and a head full of rocks.
Sure, I like Carol personally and it smarts when somebody you like doesn't win in an endeavor. There were some wins involved, Waldenbush had to spend money, the Democrats demonstrated that we exist out here, some of his nonsense was exposed, and Democratic policies were put up for view. The Primary and the General Elections demonstrated to the County Democratic Parties that they count.
So thanks Carol Voisin for giving us a voice and doing it in an honorable and dedicated manner, and thanks, especially, for demonstrating grace and courage in the face of huge odds.
Your Pal,
Chuck
Sure, I like Carol personally and it smarts when somebody you like doesn't win in an endeavor. There were some wins involved, Waldenbush had to spend money, the Democrats demonstrated that we exist out here, some of his nonsense was exposed, and Democratic policies were put up for view. The Primary and the General Elections demonstrated to the County Democratic Parties that they count.
So thanks Carol Voisin for giving us a voice and doing it in an honorable and dedicated manner, and thanks, especially, for demonstrating grace and courage in the face of huge odds.
Your Pal,
Chuck
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
More Troops ???
Sen. John McCain deserves credit and respect for his service and for his conduct as a POW. That doesn't mean that he gets a pass on harebrained ideas. His idea that a large military force in Iraq could do something meaningful is only about 3 years late. If he were talking about absolute overwhelming force from the outset and an iron fisted occupation he might just have a point. The problem is, that was then and this is now. Yes, disregarding any questions about rightfully being there, the proper strategy is to crush the military force, lock down any societal impulse to resist - make it incredibly dangerous, construct civil order, then rebuild the infrastructure, and then rebuild the government. The models of Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan stand as exemplars of how it's done. GeorgeII has shown exactly how not to do it. Historically challenged??? Read some non-fiction, Yalie. (The New American Century doesn't qualify)
Now is different, the "insurgents" are dispersed into the civilian sector and around the nation, they have organized, they have weapons supply, they have capital, they have a proven track record of resistance, and they have outside resources of men, material, and morale. You can't get your hands on them, they're not going to "make a stand", and the civilian populous is more afraid of them than us; which means they will provide cover for them. Organization means they can coordinate and they have a structure in which to place loss replacements, and a way to secure replacements. The "government" is both a cover for "insurgency" and incompetent in opposition to them. Add to this picture the squandering of whatever good will may have been present initially and the thing looks really bad, no matter how many troops.
None of the preceding addresses the real problem with McCain's idea (and Lieberman limping along), just exactly where does he propose to get these troops? Some units are going back for their fifth rotation, the Reserve and Guard are already in use and we've reduced numbers in other theaters. Vehicles are beginning to fall apart and aren't getting replaced.
That shouldn't set off the "defeatocrat" crowd, but this sure will, the nation is sick and tired of this mess. McCain says we're "adults" and can process his idea. We're not that kind of adults, we can process how it's been done and what's been accomplished and the chances of any kind of improvement happening. It isn't a matter of will, it's a matter of the lies, the incompetence, and finally the futility. It isn't a matter of will to beat your head against a concrete wall because somebody "important" said it's a good idea, it is just plain stupid and Americans aren't just plain stupid for very long. (Ok, not that many are)
Now is different, the "insurgents" are dispersed into the civilian sector and around the nation, they have organized, they have weapons supply, they have capital, they have a proven track record of resistance, and they have outside resources of men, material, and morale. You can't get your hands on them, they're not going to "make a stand", and the civilian populous is more afraid of them than us; which means they will provide cover for them. Organization means they can coordinate and they have a structure in which to place loss replacements, and a way to secure replacements. The "government" is both a cover for "insurgency" and incompetent in opposition to them. Add to this picture the squandering of whatever good will may have been present initially and the thing looks really bad, no matter how many troops.
None of the preceding addresses the real problem with McCain's idea (and Lieberman limping along), just exactly where does he propose to get these troops? Some units are going back for their fifth rotation, the Reserve and Guard are already in use and we've reduced numbers in other theaters. Vehicles are beginning to fall apart and aren't getting replaced.
That shouldn't set off the "defeatocrat" crowd, but this sure will, the nation is sick and tired of this mess. McCain says we're "adults" and can process his idea. We're not that kind of adults, we can process how it's been done and what's been accomplished and the chances of any kind of improvement happening. It isn't a matter of will, it's a matter of the lies, the incompetence, and finally the futility. It isn't a matter of will to beat your head against a concrete wall because somebody "important" said it's a good idea, it is just plain stupid and Americans aren't just plain stupid for very long. (Ok, not that many are)
Saturday, November 11, 2006
The Governor of Oregon and Vets
Today I attended the memorial service for an old friend and I was reminded how painful it is to participate in a family's grief. Our Governor does this for our fallen soldiers and their families. These are not old men who have lived a full life, these are soldiers whose parents have out-lived their child, whose spouses no longer have the love of their life, whose children will no longer know the arms and kisses of a parent, whose friends have only memories. Their grief is appalling to anyone not made of stone, I share it at a distance, through a TV screen or newsprint and that remoteness saves me tears.
I don't care if you opposed this war from the very first, as I did, or you believe it is necessary now, we are responsible, this is our war and these people are ours. They are acting and dying and being hurt in our name, we don't get to duck that. I cannot and should not go to these services, except in spirit and possibly by representation.
There is no requirement that our Governor attend these services beyond his personal commitment. He undertakes a painful duty because he understands the concept of responsibility, our responsibility, Oregon's. Any person who would voluntarily subject himself to such emotional battering on behalf of his fellows deserves to be acknowleged. It is not just a matter of Ted Kulongoski being a "former" Marine, it is part and parcel with the man's character. I don't care if you voted for TK or not, on this day and those days of memorial service you stand with him, because he's standing in for all of us.
I thank the Governor for doing my job, for honoring those who served to the utmost degree, for honoring those who have lost their loved ones, for making the small acknowlegement that can be made of all of our loss. We are all so much poorer for their deaths.
I don't care if you opposed this war from the very first, as I did, or you believe it is necessary now, we are responsible, this is our war and these people are ours. They are acting and dying and being hurt in our name, we don't get to duck that. I cannot and should not go to these services, except in spirit and possibly by representation.
There is no requirement that our Governor attend these services beyond his personal commitment. He undertakes a painful duty because he understands the concept of responsibility, our responsibility, Oregon's. Any person who would voluntarily subject himself to such emotional battering on behalf of his fellows deserves to be acknowleged. It is not just a matter of Ted Kulongoski being a "former" Marine, it is part and parcel with the man's character. I don't care if you voted for TK or not, on this day and those days of memorial service you stand with him, because he's standing in for all of us.
I thank the Governor for doing my job, for honoring those who served to the utmost degree, for honoring those who have lost their loved ones, for making the small acknowlegement that can be made of all of our loss. We are all so much poorer for their deaths.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Hey Vets
Today is your day, shopping sales and dinner specials aside, today we stop our busy lives and say thanks. Thanks for the citizenship to volunteer, thanks for the bravery to follow through on America's decisions, thanks for all you've lost and all we gain. That's not a lot of words, I don't think thousands would do justice, so;
Thanks
Thanks
Impeach??
I'd like to see a jail cell in this kinglet's future, so, now that's out of the way.
It is political suicide to bring impeachment and not sustain it, the voters won't stand for it. That makes the first question on the issue, are there the votes to sustain an impeachment? I am not sufficiently a Constitutional scholar to say with any certainty that GWB didn't give himself enough legal cover and deniability to avoid a sustainment. Could an impeachement at six years have enough time to dig through all the garbage? The Clinton impeachment proved that the public doesn't support such action without being convinced that the issues are serious. Yes, I'm convinced that the issues are real serious, but I'm not the public. People who take time to cruise political blogs aren't the public. Politicians had better understand the public (uh 11/7/06).
Is impeachment in the public interest? I'd certainly agree that dissuading future kinglets is in the public interest and that persuading the governors and governed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not optional would be a public service but I'm also positive that we now face a very real socio-economic and diplomatic mess that has got to be cleaned up very quickly. The resulting impacts of dealing with this mess will take time to be felt and they need to be having effect as soon as possible. An impeachment will freeze Congress in place and energize the White House and its Congressional syncophants in opposition to any actions.
Before we take a run off a very high place let's remember that the Republicans got fired, not that the Democrats were hired and the margins were razor thin in a lot of places. I know the actual numbers are encouraging over-all, but quite simply, the election process is what we have to work with. It is easy enough to see how putting a legislative agenda into action might be more politically rewarding than impeaching if the goal is to make a change to the landscape of American life. The crap legislation that the Bushites have put in place can be changed, it might require a new President, a Democrat or (if such a thing exists) a reasonable Republican or it might be possible with George II with the proper ballbat in hand.
Oversight hearings and some snooping in general might bring to light compelling uncovered actions by Bush and Cheney, in which case impeachment might be the absolutely neccesary action. These secretive furtive weasles will have gotten as good advice as possible for coverage and will have hidden, as much as they could, the dirty laundry, so make no big bets on it.
I have three priorities regarding government: 1) The Constitution, 2) the well being of the public, 3) Democratic politics and in that order. I'd argue that 2&3 are inclusive but that requires vigilence. The Constitution is consistently at risk; every power group has hobby-horses to ride and finds Constitutional obstructions to be "archaic" or "irrelevant." If impeachment serves these priorities in their order, I'm all for it, otherwise it's thin ice.
It is political suicide to bring impeachment and not sustain it, the voters won't stand for it. That makes the first question on the issue, are there the votes to sustain an impeachment? I am not sufficiently a Constitutional scholar to say with any certainty that GWB didn't give himself enough legal cover and deniability to avoid a sustainment. Could an impeachement at six years have enough time to dig through all the garbage? The Clinton impeachment proved that the public doesn't support such action without being convinced that the issues are serious. Yes, I'm convinced that the issues are real serious, but I'm not the public. People who take time to cruise political blogs aren't the public. Politicians had better understand the public (uh 11/7/06).
Is impeachment in the public interest? I'd certainly agree that dissuading future kinglets is in the public interest and that persuading the governors and governed that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are not optional would be a public service but I'm also positive that we now face a very real socio-economic and diplomatic mess that has got to be cleaned up very quickly. The resulting impacts of dealing with this mess will take time to be felt and they need to be having effect as soon as possible. An impeachment will freeze Congress in place and energize the White House and its Congressional syncophants in opposition to any actions.
Before we take a run off a very high place let's remember that the Republicans got fired, not that the Democrats were hired and the margins were razor thin in a lot of places. I know the actual numbers are encouraging over-all, but quite simply, the election process is what we have to work with. It is easy enough to see how putting a legislative agenda into action might be more politically rewarding than impeaching if the goal is to make a change to the landscape of American life. The crap legislation that the Bushites have put in place can be changed, it might require a new President, a Democrat or (if such a thing exists) a reasonable Republican or it might be possible with George II with the proper ballbat in hand.
Oversight hearings and some snooping in general might bring to light compelling uncovered actions by Bush and Cheney, in which case impeachment might be the absolutely neccesary action. These secretive furtive weasles will have gotten as good advice as possible for coverage and will have hidden, as much as they could, the dirty laundry, so make no big bets on it.
I have three priorities regarding government: 1) The Constitution, 2) the well being of the public, 3) Democratic politics and in that order. I'd argue that 2&3 are inclusive but that requires vigilence. The Constitution is consistently at risk; every power group has hobby-horses to ride and finds Constitutional obstructions to be "archaic" or "irrelevant." If impeachment serves these priorities in their order, I'm all for it, otherwise it's thin ice.
Why Blog? Why Spend This Kind of Time On It?
I've made a change to the header reflecting this post. I've never spent much of my time in the Mainstream, I study things, I analyze them, then I synthesize an understanding and by some quirk, I frequently get things right and I am also usually out of step with a good sized chunk of my fellows. When I say I get things right, I am speaking about being validated after a passage of time, I certainly don't assert that what you read here is going to be right every time, just making sure you have some doubt when you disagree with me.
Blogging started out as an adjunct to an election campaign and a part of that campaign was to give a voice to people who didn't often get one and to do it straight up and straight ahead. No fooling, no side-stepping. I ran a campaign because I was tired of getting kicked around, myself and folks I know and it seemed like it was time to kick back. I don't like getting kicked around, and I'll be darned if I'll just take it. I'll speak up, I'll write a blog, I'll write to the papers, I'll completely lose my mind and run for office and not care if I'm the only one who is paying attention.
I'm not a pundit, I'm not a paid analyst, I make no money from this thing-I beat nails for that, but I get to have my say. If I also give you some amusement or validation or spark a new thought I've really gotten something done, I've gone past my original aim - to not be shut up. If I goad power that has lost its validity, I've really gotten somewhere, if they're really angry they've made me important and you important. And if they don't even know I'm alive, well, I do.
I've been getting some deliberate hits from some rather unusual places, 2 State governments, several state agencies, several impressive colleges, the US House, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, about a dozen different states and several countries, some started out linked from Blue Oregon and Loaded Orygun and have come back on their own. I'm not bragging, my hit count with searches included (accidentals) in a month doesn't equal BO's or LO's dailies. This is small potatoes, but if you're here in this strange place, you've got some strange company.
It's a nice thing that you stopped by to see what I had to say, I'm flattered that some of you come by regularly. If I ticked you off, that's good, you had to think about it to get there, if you liked something or learned something I'm glad to have been useful. Stop by anytime, have a drink of something and if you care to, tell me what you're thinking, then you've had your say.
Now I really suppose I should get back to raising hell.
Thanks
Blogging started out as an adjunct to an election campaign and a part of that campaign was to give a voice to people who didn't often get one and to do it straight up and straight ahead. No fooling, no side-stepping. I ran a campaign because I was tired of getting kicked around, myself and folks I know and it seemed like it was time to kick back. I don't like getting kicked around, and I'll be darned if I'll just take it. I'll speak up, I'll write a blog, I'll write to the papers, I'll completely lose my mind and run for office and not care if I'm the only one who is paying attention.
I'm not a pundit, I'm not a paid analyst, I make no money from this thing-I beat nails for that, but I get to have my say. If I also give you some amusement or validation or spark a new thought I've really gotten something done, I've gone past my original aim - to not be shut up. If I goad power that has lost its validity, I've really gotten somewhere, if they're really angry they've made me important and you important. And if they don't even know I'm alive, well, I do.
I've been getting some deliberate hits from some rather unusual places, 2 State governments, several state agencies, several impressive colleges, the US House, the Senate Sergeant at Arms, about a dozen different states and several countries, some started out linked from Blue Oregon and Loaded Orygun and have come back on their own. I'm not bragging, my hit count with searches included (accidentals) in a month doesn't equal BO's or LO's dailies. This is small potatoes, but if you're here in this strange place, you've got some strange company.
It's a nice thing that you stopped by to see what I had to say, I'm flattered that some of you come by regularly. If I ticked you off, that's good, you had to think about it to get there, if you liked something or learned something I'm glad to have been useful. Stop by anytime, have a drink of something and if you care to, tell me what you're thinking, then you've had your say.
Now I really suppose I should get back to raising hell.
Thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)