Restating the Names

It's time for an Aristotelean attempt at reordering the labels that the media has now used for years to distort the positions of the politicians they are supposed to be covering. Specifically, it's time to take a good look at the terms Conservative and Liberal.

Conservatism, loosley being the belief in smaller government, is a dead propostion. Both sides of the political spectrum seek to enlarge government. The Left still pursues those nasty social spending programs. You know, the ones that, like the New Deal, tend to work. The other side, while decrying government spending, seeks enlargement of government through the creation of federal bureaucracies charged with things like spying on the public, facilitating corporate intrusion into government, and the military (but only so corporate war-profiteers can make some more cash of the public cow. To hell with the vets).

However, the "press" consistently labels anyone with a "D' behind their name as liberal and anyone who supports government-run religious oppression as conservative.
So let's do some redefining.

The first term, that is gaining more usage, but is already being misapplied, is progressive. Progressively can be loosley defined as working for the benefit of the majority. Do not be misled. Progressives do represent the interest of disenfranchised minorities, etc. in the hopes that equality will benefit all.

The second term is Regressivism. Regressives represent the elite. Regressives seek to insulate extreme special interest groups through legislation.

So now, if we utilize the four terms we have, we can create four categories of political characterization. First, Progressivism can be combined with Liberalism. or the desire for quick systemic change, to create Liberal Progressives, or those who desire quick systemic change for the benefit of all. Secondly, we can combine Conservatism with Progressivism yielding Conservative Progressives, or those who want slow, managed change for the benefit of all. Thirdly, we have the Liberal Regressives. Sounds like a contradiction of terms, but this is what then "Neocons" actually consider themselves to be. Liberal Regressives, such as Dick Cheney, want quick, systemic change benefitting the few. Lastly, we have the Conservative Regressives, or John McCains, who want slow, managed change to benefit the few.

The problem that we are still left with is the divide between social agendas and economic agendas. A Rudolph Guliani poses a problem. Considered by the mainstream media to be a social "liberal" Guliani would seem to fall into the ranks of Conservative Progressives on social issues. However, as is often the case, Guliani's economic proposals would have the effect of creating an atmosphere where Regressives would dominate the social arena through economic policy. So what is he? Who knows?

What is certain is that Clinton is no Progressive and McCain is no Conservative.

Flashback: Snow Job Says Oversight......Overshite

So Tony Snow , ex-Faux "news"-caster, told the "press"tidigitators that Congress has no oversight authority over the executive branch!? Once upon a time, before a creature called Reagan began dismantling public education, it was common for kids to learn about things called checks and balances. I suppose Snowjob was edumacated either at home, by a Neil-Bush style private school or by the Ivy League. In any case, he's as wrong as can be and the mythical basis for a Unitary Executive is not only a product for a flat-earth bake sale, but should be seen as so Right-leaning as to be perpendicular to democracy, ready to ram it to death. Welcome to Bizarro world. Repugs call it a different interpretation. What it is is a serious danger and a high crime.

Let's rewind a little more. In a sweltering building in 1787, a bunch of guys in tights got together to hash out the basis for our government. Unlike today's leaders, they all spoke intelligible English. There they argued over the Executive branch. They argued over how many executives there should be. They argued over whether the exec should be removable or not and who should do it. In the end, they decided that there should be one executive who could be impeached by Congress and who would be required to tell Congress what the Executive was up to occasionally. They even decided the president would have to get confirmations for all his appointments from Congress. In essence, they figured they might one day get a real git and would need an out. Boy, if they only knew.

Here's the problem. These self-styled wunderkinds either can't read or are so bloody damaged that they are wholly incapable of hearing, seeing, speaking.......thinking the truth (capital or lowercase t). Their comprehension skills are similar to a goldfish's memory - 3 seconds to make the connection.....1......2......oh no, it's gone! If you think they don't eat their own baloney just listen to their "experts," like John Yoo at Berkely law (my favorite punching bag). His writing has been described as "tortured logic." Hmmmm. They torture the abstract too but claim they don't? I wonder if they perform extraordinary renditions on it?

Now these eegits (Oh I know. Calling names is bad. We don't want to impede a dialogue.......), anyway, these eegits will argue that the debate hedged between a weak and powerful executive and, since the presidential powers are mostly undefined in Article II, whereas Congress's powers are strictly defined by Article I (not really), it follows that the president has broad authority. Sounds like a pretty persuasive position, huh? Goldfish turds! Article II has to be taken in the same context as Article I, not separately. Article II follows Article I for a reason. Congress is the most powerful branch of government being the branch with the House which represents the direct will of the people and has the power to initiate impeachment proceedings. With few exceptions, the president has no power to act except upon Congressional legislation that may be "executed" or vetoed. (Today Repugs claim Congress has no authority, other than funding authority over Iraq. Besides the fact that Bush violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Act by invading Iraq without notifying Congress, Congress may both declare and undeclare war).

But yeah, some of the tight-wearing, wigged guys wanted a king; specifically Hamilton. He thought that the public was too stupid to rule itself. (We may have finally come to the crossroads where we find out once and for all. But, at least, we'd want a semi-reasonable king, right?) Thing is it doesn't matter because Hamilton lost the argument then. So where do these blatantly anti-American nutsos get the idea that it's still an open debate? Really want the answer? Okay......you and me! The public is responsible for every crime this egregious excuse for an administration has and will commit. They can't change the rules unless we let them. We made an effort by changing Congress last round, but it appears we went back to sleep.

Hey! THERE'S NO BASIS FOR A UNITARY EXECUTIVE! In fact, in light of Bush/Cheney's motives for declaring it, being to suck up to fat cat, robber baron heads of trans-nationals, it's probably definitional treason. So why hasn't the House done its Constitutional duty and impeached these S.O.B.s? We haven't demanded it.

Repug History

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.