Last night (3/9/07) on The Newshour, while discussing possible (we should say given) abuses by the FBI, Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) gave the public yet another insight into the delusional world of Repuglican thought processes with the following observation:
"REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER: Well, you know, first of all, we do give law enforcement in
this country a lot of discretion. And that's been the way since the beginning of the republic. The
FBI has very clearly abused its discretion, and in its abuse of the discretion, is going to end up
bringing about a reaction by the Congress."
Apparently, to Sensenbrenner's "sensen" of history, the American colonists were never suspicious of law enforcement encroaching on their rights. They never ousted governors nor railed against military presences. They never passed a Bill of Rights that forbade law enforcement (you know, the occasional sheriff or reeve or magistrate) from illegal searches and seizures, etc. In fact, according to Sensenbrenner's comment, he must believe the Founders would have applauded the creation of the FBI, CIA, NSA etal. since they are so like the large paramilitary organizations the Founders themselves organized. Right? It's a little like talking about how the original colonists loved their AK-47s, telephones and Model-Ts.
Moreover, how does a man convince himself that the Founders would have applauded the PATRIOT Act which in essence undoes most of the protections the Bill of Rights solidified? Beyond that, how does he believe that the FBI can overstep its legal obligations when its very existence is counter to Constitution?
Unfortunately, Repugs have difficulty comprehending history as is epitomized, not only by Sensenbrenner's statement, but by idiotic ramblings by people such as John Yoo and all the Right-wingers who miscontextualize history for ideological expediency. Take, for instance, the debate over the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment cannot be taken apart from the whole Constitution, since it was meant to redress deficiencies in the Constitution proper, specifically those in Article I. However, Repugs (most recently the Repug court that has gone after gun laws) insist on taking it out of context and then ignoring those pesky little references to militias and regulation. The 2nd Amendment is not a guaranteed right to own a gun or to shoot at other Americans and was never meant to be. It simply says you have the right to defend your country and that the government has to let you do so by providing you with an "arm" and training. So what's this business about turning people away from the armed services? Oh yeah, they aren't allowed to exist either.
In short, Sensenbrenner's statement, while seemingly benign, is indicative of Republican penchants for chronically and intentionally attempting to undermine Constitutional protections. Whether its the creation of clandestine paramilitary organizations, unitary executives, perpetual, illegally engaged in wars, denying checks and balances, stealing elections, spying on the public, privatizing the military or purposefully misinterpreting history, the Right-wing in this country is out to recreate Stalinism in red, white and blue paint.
3/10/2007
1/24/2007
Who's Your Daddy
As the Republicans struggle against the reality that they are no longer in complete control of the government, it seems a certain faction within the Democratic party is suffering from a similar delusion. The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) does not seem to recognize that the party base is not what it calls "centrist," translating from media/political speak as center-right corporatist, but is far more "progressive" than the DLC or mainstream media wish to recognize. The DLC still believes it is calling all of the shots and is, apparently, plotting behind the scenes as if it was business as usual.
The DLC was begun by the Clintonistas and, while Clinton's fiscal conservatism was, generally speaking, beneficial overall during the '90s, DLC-style corporatism also led him to join Rethuglicans in passing attrocious bills such as NAFTA. The DLC today still champions corporate-friendly, anti-consumer initiatives and functions more as a socially moderate wing of the GOP than a wing of the Democratic party. It uses this position to gain access to the mainstream media.
We the people are now bombarded daily with the message that Hillary Clinton is, by gosh, the certain frontrunner for '08. In fact, according to the mainstream "news," Hillary has been the frontrunner since even before the Congressional elections. It seems unlikely the media would make this claim before being sure of the future, but why bite then? While being Bill's significant other, a woman, and a senator doesn't hurt, it's also nice to have the DLC, Richard Mellon Scaife and media baron Rupert Murdoch on your side. The point here is not to bash the senator (who, truth be told, needs to hear more criticism from the base), but to raise questions about who owns the Democratic party's soul, the people or the corporations?
According to a continuing poll at Democrats.com targeting likely Democratic voters, Al Gore is leading the race not Hillary. As the "press" keeps calling DLCer Liebermann a Democrat when it was Rethuglican voters in Connecticut who gave him a victory over Ned Lamont, one should assume that mainstream polls do not represent Democratic voters and the media has an agenda in pushing Clinton.
The soup gets thicker however. It was not very long ago that political strategist and DLC Clintonista James Carville lashed out against insurgent DNC Chair Howard Dean. Not only was the attack completely unexpected, it came after the '06 election where it was widely agreed upon that Dean's 50 state strategy was incredibly effective in picking up Democratic wins, especially in areas considered GOP strongholds. Since group think becomes rampant among political cliques, it must be assumed that Carville's antagonism towards Dean, especially considering Dean's anti-big business money position, is prevalent within the DLC and among other Washington Democratic elites.
Now come rumors, as yet uncorroborated, that there are definitely movements within the party elite to oust Dean from the DNC. It seems Mr. Dean has planned the 2008 Democratic convention for Denver, CO. But suspected plotters are said to have desired to hold it New York. Currently there is scant evidence for this, but stop and put two and two together. Hillary is magically the frontrunner (with no input from the voters). The media is already pushing the idea that it's a two-way race between Hillary and Obama from which it seems Hillary has already been decided the winner. Hillary is a senator from New York. The simple syllogism suggests that this is a made for TV movie, another anointing of the presidential candidate by the unseen hands of the party inside circle in collaboration with their media lackies. The people's will be damned.
If we get no say in the party then there is no party. It's time to send, yet another, clear message to the DLC and any other Democrats who believe their political agendas are bigger than the voters. When you align with corporate interests over the interests of your constituents, you choose to oppose the people and the people will oppose you.
The DLC was begun by the Clintonistas and, while Clinton's fiscal conservatism was, generally speaking, beneficial overall during the '90s, DLC-style corporatism also led him to join Rethuglicans in passing attrocious bills such as NAFTA. The DLC today still champions corporate-friendly, anti-consumer initiatives and functions more as a socially moderate wing of the GOP than a wing of the Democratic party. It uses this position to gain access to the mainstream media.
We the people are now bombarded daily with the message that Hillary Clinton is, by gosh, the certain frontrunner for '08. In fact, according to the mainstream "news," Hillary has been the frontrunner since even before the Congressional elections. It seems unlikely the media would make this claim before being sure of the future, but why bite then? While being Bill's significant other, a woman, and a senator doesn't hurt, it's also nice to have the DLC, Richard Mellon Scaife and media baron Rupert Murdoch on your side. The point here is not to bash the senator (who, truth be told, needs to hear more criticism from the base), but to raise questions about who owns the Democratic party's soul, the people or the corporations?
According to a continuing poll at Democrats.com targeting likely Democratic voters, Al Gore is leading the race not Hillary. As the "press" keeps calling DLCer Liebermann a Democrat when it was Rethuglican voters in Connecticut who gave him a victory over Ned Lamont, one should assume that mainstream polls do not represent Democratic voters and the media has an agenda in pushing Clinton.
The soup gets thicker however. It was not very long ago that political strategist and DLC Clintonista James Carville lashed out against insurgent DNC Chair Howard Dean. Not only was the attack completely unexpected, it came after the '06 election where it was widely agreed upon that Dean's 50 state strategy was incredibly effective in picking up Democratic wins, especially in areas considered GOP strongholds. Since group think becomes rampant among political cliques, it must be assumed that Carville's antagonism towards Dean, especially considering Dean's anti-big business money position, is prevalent within the DLC and among other Washington Democratic elites.
Now come rumors, as yet uncorroborated, that there are definitely movements within the party elite to oust Dean from the DNC. It seems Mr. Dean has planned the 2008 Democratic convention for Denver, CO. But suspected plotters are said to have desired to hold it New York. Currently there is scant evidence for this, but stop and put two and two together. Hillary is magically the frontrunner (with no input from the voters). The media is already pushing the idea that it's a two-way race between Hillary and Obama from which it seems Hillary has already been decided the winner. Hillary is a senator from New York. The simple syllogism suggests that this is a made for TV movie, another anointing of the presidential candidate by the unseen hands of the party inside circle in collaboration with their media lackies. The people's will be damned.
If we get no say in the party then there is no party. It's time to send, yet another, clear message to the DLC and any other Democrats who believe their political agendas are bigger than the voters. When you align with corporate interests over the interests of your constituents, you choose to oppose the people and the people will oppose you.
11/29/2006
Media Smoke-out
When people think of Vietnam, they usually think of the tremendous loss of life, both of American troops and of Vietnamese. They think of Agent Orange. They think of unrecognized veterans. Some think of tropical jungles and tigers. But a few will remember the acts of the Buddhist monk, i.e. self-immolation, and how the American public reacted to the news of holy men burning themselves to death to protest the war. Unfortunately, many of those who recall the public's reaction work for the media and in our government.
On November 3, 2006, a resident of Chicago named Malachi Ritscher believed he could rekindle the American public's outrage at an unjust war and he chose the method that had worked so well for the monks of Vietnam. At 6:30 a.m., Ritscher chose his sacrificial place, dowsed himself with fuel and burned himself to death. Haven't heard? That's because the American media, beginning with the local media in Chicago took it upon themselves to say nothing. It is only now that the truly progressive media broke the story, that Ritscher is getting the attention for which he had so hoped.
It may dismay some to know that the media would act to censor such a potent story. However, we should think of Ritscher's act in another way. Yes, they ignored him. But their neglection of duty may have a much larger and lasting effect. Here is concrete proof that the corporate media will act to protect Bushco.'s war even if it means censoring a story that WILL get out and thereby demonstrate their utter complicity with the war-mongers' agenda. Don't allow the American monk to get lost in corporate spin.
On November 3, 2006, a resident of Chicago named Malachi Ritscher believed he could rekindle the American public's outrage at an unjust war and he chose the method that had worked so well for the monks of Vietnam. At 6:30 a.m., Ritscher chose his sacrificial place, dowsed himself with fuel and burned himself to death. Haven't heard? That's because the American media, beginning with the local media in Chicago took it upon themselves to say nothing. It is only now that the truly progressive media broke the story, that Ritscher is getting the attention for which he had so hoped.
It may dismay some to know that the media would act to censor such a potent story. However, we should think of Ritscher's act in another way. Yes, they ignored him. But their neglection of duty may have a much larger and lasting effect. Here is concrete proof that the corporate media will act to protect Bushco.'s war even if it means censoring a story that WILL get out and thereby demonstrate their utter complicity with the war-mongers' agenda. Don't allow the American monk to get lost in corporate spin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
