One of my better efforts...

In response to a discussion of unalienable rights over at Glenn Greenwald.

We of course are playing word games here, but I'll give it a shot. Our rights come from the consensus we created when we asserted that we had them. That we put them in our founding documents for easy reference adds to their value. If you doubt the power of consensus then I suggest you burn all the money in your wallet because it has no value save what has been assigned to it by the power of consensus.

You make a valid point about how the lack of ownership of our own bodies is evidence that we have rights that are currently being violated, but if you had no rights beyond what the government grants, then you would have no basis to complain!

When Jefferson wrote the declaration of independence, he did indeed invoke the diety and referred to it as the source of the rights asserted. But he also said, "we hold these truths to be self evident" meaning that he had no reason to think that anyone in his audience wouldn't know exactly what he was talking about.

He also used the phrase "goverments are institued by men". When you refer abstractly to "not having any rights except what are granted by government" then you are allowing 1 useful fiction to trump another useful fiction. Government is nothing more than a collection of people, many of whom are armed, who assert the right to control the behavior of others.

No wonder, when designing a system of government, the framers were very careful to design it in such a way that the ambitions of its participants are set against each other so that the power of law wouldn't become an instrument of abuse.

Opinions vary on how well they did, but it certainly highlights why its important to continue to assert our rights, even when we are among those who would sacrifice them for expedience or safety.

Spin in action.

This quote is from a story concerning Kyle Sampson's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"The distinction between 'political' and 'performance-related' reasons for removing a United States attorney is, in my view, largely artificial," Sampson said.

"Some were asked to resign because they were not carrying out the president's and the attorney general's priorities," he said. "In some sense that may be described as political by some people."

Pretty mealy mouthed right? Yea, I thought so too.

Here's how it translates as a headline in the San Luis Obispo Tribune's website...

Sampson denies, under oath, U.S. attorneys fired for political reasons

I'm in the wrong line of work.

ah...nostalgia....

Does anybody remember how important civil liberities were to Republicans when Janet Reno was AG.?

The administrations interest in all e-mail is a wholly unhealthy precedent, especially given this administrations track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or translate our international communications. --John Ashcroft October 1997

Read It All

Freedom isnt free.

Digby....

The point to keep in mind is that the fundamental difference between the two parties is that Democrats believe America can be decent and strong at the same time and Republicans believe that those are mutually exclusive concepts

permalink

Rosa Brooks via Kevin Drum

To paraphrase Zbigniew Brzezinksi, we need to resist efforts to frame policy debates in terms of strong versus weak, or hard versus soft power: the real question is whether we're going to be smart, or stupid. I don't know about Joe, but I'll take smart over stupid any day of the week.

Original

H/T

From Kevin Drum

The biggest role -- assuming we actually want to win, that is -- will be played by programs and policies that work to convince the Muslim world that we're not at war with them. Policies and programs aimed at winning them over and persuading them to stop supporting or tolerating terrorism in their midst. In the long run, short of turning the Middle East into a glassy plain, it's simply the only way to win.

Link

Judging from what goes on over at LGF and similar sites, it would appear that there's a faction within this country for whom the glassy plain IS the only solution.

Sometimes large truths are found in short sentences.

The Republican base does not really care about social conservatism. It just hates liberals.

Digby Said It.

Glenn Greenwald's post today is a must-read.

Read it here.

War-cheerleaders often appear to be looking in a mirror and I've always regarded it as a tragic failure of imagination, that the people who call for the death of their enemies can be recast as calling for their own elimination with just the slight shift of perspective that comes from applying the Golden Rule.

The tragedy is compounded further when you consider that some of these death-merchants self-identify as Christian.

I often wonder......

How much effect the advent of television and movies has had on our (as a culture) willingness to engage in warfare. While people often credit TV (Huntley-Brinkley-Cronkite) for helping to end the VietNam war by delivering the reality of the carnage to our living rooms, at the same time, we are subject to an endless series of fictional scenarios in which, with the sacrifice of sencondary and tertiary players in the game, the heroes ALWAYS win in the end.

That would certainly help explain the chickenhawk mentality. The problem isn't that they haven't experienced actual combat and warfare. The problem is that they've experienced an idealized and unrealistic version instead. That's why they keep on insisting that we clap louder. They actually believe that that's the key to victory. It also helps explain all this claptrap about "giving comfort to the enemy". They actually believe that cheerleading helps us win.

Scary......

Among the things I wish I had said...

The sooner we realize that military force is a blunt instrument, rather than a fantastically supple collection of hyper-qualified diplomat/soldier/thinker/humanitarian/civil servants, the better off we'll be.

Ezra Klein

The Constitution Test

It used to be that you couldn't graduate high school until you demonstrated a passing knowlege of the US Constitution. Nowadays that lack won't even keep you out of Congress!

from poputonian at Digby's

Read it and weep!

When in doubt - quote myself.....

The sad part of this whole thing, is that the country isn't divided into those who desire war and those who oppose war. It's divided into those who favor effective action versus those who favor blundering around like a drunk with a revolver.

That's why Bush supporters hate the CIA. They represent the folks who are actually interested in the REAL war on terror.

Boycott the Mouse

It's bad enough that 700 Club still airs but this is ridiculous.

ABC Entertainment president personally attacks Sandy Berger, says error-riddled "Path to 9/11" was totally true

Hope springs eternal....

In case anyone needs any more evidence that the war-r-us crowd is painting themselves into a tight little corner of irrelevance I present you: The NRSC Pledge

I wrote USA Today....

Albert Einstein famously defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Likewise, the gambler's fallacy is the belief that a run of bad luck will portend a turn for the better in the near future. I fear that both these thought processes infuse our current Middle East policy.

The American people have made it abundantly clear that they are ready for a change in course but it seems that all we're being offered is more of the same, the only difference being a raise in the stakes that higher troop levels represent. I urge all our Congressional Representatives to make clear to the administration that the AUMF was not a blank check and that its time to re-evaluate what can realistically be acheived in the Middle East and to move toward a policy based on reality rather than wishful thinking.

Bucky posted this comment at Glenn Greenwald:

What if there is a well defined mission in Iraq, but the leadership can not share it directly with the American people? What if the mission is simply to destroy the Arab states of the middle east? If it is, then we are doing "the job" and the speeches are just to cover up the real mission.

I added:
You're probably on to something important. pretending for the sake of argument that the #1 US goal is to prevent a nuclear device from being used on us and the second most imnportant goal is to maintain control over the oil supplies. Since our soldiers have sufficient weaponry to operate in a war zone, even if they are unable to control events on the ground or prevent the civil war from proceeding at its current deadly pace, by simply remaining they are accomplishing their mission, and any talk of democracy or stability or and end game of any kind is just sugar coating for the folks back home (and the parents, wives and friends of the soldiers in question).Same deal if we go into Iran. Stability is not required. A freindly regime is not required. Chaos is fine as long as it keeps our "enemies" unable to operate freely.

Joshua Micah Marshall has more:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/011888.php

A comment on the wisdom of invading Iran....

Its EASY to believe things that are true and apparent and visible.To believe something that is absolutely and utterly wrong, false, clearly mistaken and borderline insane on the other hand requires great faith, strength, stamina, resolute determination and courage.

From Americablog

For a long time, perhaps roughly 2003 to 2005, there was a disturbing edge to discourse in this country, and I think our society will eventually look back upon this time not unlike we now do the McCarthyist years: as a shameful period in our nation's history, one in which the prevailing powers made the inappropriate common and the opposition was eventually proven both right and righteous.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/12/dixie-chicks-movie-great-and.html

I actually feel this is an understatment. Insofar as a nation can be spoken of like an individual, in March 2003 we were batshit insane. Jes sayin'.........

Quick note

Of coures, in my view, anybody whose idea of the Creator of The Universe is so limited that they can imagine that said creator fails to regard all humanity equally and instead differentiates between those who face Mecca when they pray from those who face an altar, then you too are a victim of the blindness that drives most of the clearly irrational conflict in the world

Lifted Directly from Digby.....

I do know that when someone speaks like a fool and acts like a spoiled child and appears to be "intellectually uncurious" and has never done anything in life that would give you a clue that he knows how to govern or lead -- well, it's not a good idea to make that person the most powerful person on the planet. If we've learned nothing else, I hope we have learned that.......
The past six years have been a tragedy and we desperately need some thoughtful, intelligent, competent leadership to set this right.

Read it all