Thursday, December 27, 2007

Thats what I've been trying to say.

I wrote this at Salon:

The problem with far-right, state rights garbage is that if you strip away the racism that motivates much of it, you still end up with some pretty good arguments that rely on the actual words of our actual Constitution for their support.

Not only did our founders envision individual states with greater autonomy than what has since evolved, they also envisioned that the citizenry would be directly involved in their own defense and that an Army would only be raised in a time of War as declared by Congress.

The opportunity to remind everyone that our standing army and permanent state of war was not only anticipated by our founders but stronly warned against, can only be regarded as a positive development and if it takes a racist who panders to the religious right in order to raise that argument, then that's the fault of the Democrats who don't have the courage to raise those arguments themselves.

It appears that I'm not the only person who feels that way:

>dday guesting at Digby

Until some progressive takes to a big platform and makes these same arguments in a coherent way, there will always be room for an isolationist paleocon like Ron Paul to make it for them.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Re: Hillary's likability

I'm loathe to defend the press corp in this sort of context but I will note that the issue of Hillary's "likability" does arise naturally simply because the people who don't like her for whatever reason (beyond me) loathe her passionately.

Since the press couldn't reasonably cover this aspect lest they turn over the rock of civility that most mouth-foaming wingnuts can be found under, they instead have to talk in general terms about her "likability"

Like "states rights" and "family values", those who know the code know what's actually being said, and those who don't can go on about their lives without wondering what all the fuss is about.

Monday, December 17, 2007

scheduling request at the Obama website

I just filled in a scheduling request at the Obama website
Here's what I wrote:

It appears that Senator Dodd is on the floor of the Senate fighting for the rule of law and against blanket immunity for the telecom companies that have apparently been participating in illegal spying on Americans.

Your schedule on the other hand still has you in Iowa.

It would appear that your desire to govern exceeds your willingness to do so. I must say I'm disappoined.

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Re: telecom immunity......

The administration has always had a responsibilty to either uphold the law or push for a change in the law. To have them defy the law and then push for a change only after they have been in violation for years puts the entire notion of lawfullness at risk. If they can simply make it up as they go, then what can they NOT do?

Thursday, December 13, 2007


Taking a public stand against torture confers little political advantage for members of Congress — and it carries the risk of being branded as soft on terrorism.


Seeing that the tone of press coverage is often the deciding factor in whether something carries "political advantage", it would appear that Time magazine is pro-torture.

After all, we have it on good authority that torture saves lives. I heard it on CNN. And I saw it on 24.

It's good to know that the media is doing its part to protect us from the Islamofascist threat by making sure that human decency doesn't enter into our thinking.