The Point to the Second Amendment.

It was the Founder's view that all governments - from the lowest, to the highest, should live in fear of the Citizen's displeasure, rather than the other way around. And to this end, they placed into the Constitution a Bill of Rights which granted no rights, but rather recognized several specific, inalienable rights and prohibiting several common restrictions upon them.

But the right to say "no" to a beneficent and helpful government who only wants "what's best" for it's people has never been popular with those in the business of governing, and far less so with those persons who think that having wealth enough to compromise the principles of individuals engaged in the excercise of government implies a legitimate interest in and ownership of that which does not belong to them.

Indeed, if there is a single issue of bipartisan agreement in Washington, Kennebunkport and The Hamptons, it's that ordinary Citizens should be allowed little or no meaningful say in their destinies beyond whatever cosmetic formalities are absolutely required to permit the current pretense of democracy to continue.

Here Come the Thought Police - CommonDreams.org: "

While Ms. Harman denies that her proposal creates “thought police,” it defines “homegrown terrorism” as “planned” or “threatened” use of force to coerce the government or the people in the promotion of “political or social objectives.” That means that no force need actually have occurred as long as the government charges that the individual or group thought about doing it.

Any social or economic reform is fair game. Have a march of 100 or 100,000 people to demand a reform - amnesty for illegal immigrants or overturning Roe v. Wade - and someone can perceive that to be a use of force to intimidate the people, courts or government.

The bill defines “violent radicalization” as promoting an “extremist belief system.” But American governments, state and national, have a long history of interpreting radical “belief systems” as inevitably leading to violence to facilitate change.

Examples of the resulting crackdowns on such protests include the conviction and execution of anarchists tied to Chicago’s 1886 Haymarket Riot. Hearings conducted by the House Un-American Activities Committee for several decades during the Cold War and the solo hearings by a member of that committee’s Senate counterpart, Joseph McCarthy, demonstrate the dangers inherent in Ms. Harman’s legislation.

It was for just such purposes that the Second Amendment was written; to establish, the right of both singular and collective self defense against all those who would otherwise trample our liberties, steal our children and molest our cattle.

The idea was to create a government that governed by consent, not by force.

The Constitution does not "grant" the right to bear arms or any other right, rather, it recognizes rights that exist whether authorities like it or not and restricts the extent to which Government can request a delegation of those rights in return for better results than individuals could manage for themselves.

For instance, the right to self-defense is inherently limited by our need to sleep and the lack of eyes in the back of our heads. We do not give away our rights in this regard by chartering specialized militias - (police, fire, highly-trained and well-equipped rescue and emergency crews, armed forces, border patrols, etc;) - we are collectively empowering specialist militias who can give the problem their full attention and respond better and more effectively than any individual could, even if they could afford the equipment and the time. But we are delegating, not abandoning our responsibility in this regard. According to the philosophers who influenced the Founders, such as Locke, it was not really possible to abandon responsibility.

These are "inalienable rights," that is to say, rights that cannot actually be bought, sold, bartered or removed by fiat, for so long as someone can say "I would rather die than put up with this," there is always an absolute limit to power.

Allow me to point to a painfully current example. I'm quite sure it's illegal in Iraq to bear arms against the Iraqi Army and our own troops. And yet, clearly, many do. We respond with deadly force, reasonably enough under the circumstances, on the individual if not the strategic level.

So long as they are willing to bear that weight of fire, they have an inherent right to act as they will - not because they are correct in doing so, or have a moral high ground of any sort, but because "stop, don't do that" does not work unless people commonly consent to obey the law and act as civilized human beings. The right and obligation to create law and order is upon those who most desire to shape it's form and define it's nature, it's benefits must be persuasive to those it would govern, or they will not be governed by it.

Consider, if you will, the traditions and history of the Scottish Highlanders. It may be summed up as "Oh, yeah? You and what fucking army, English?"

The Iraqis have an inalienable right to defend their ideals, ideas, neighborhood and social ambitions with force, just as many of our intemperate and untamed ancestors did, people whom, truth be told, Afghan terrorists might well refer to as "savages." Did you know it was Scots immigrants who taught Indians to take scalps?

The Iraqis also have an inalienable right to be wrong about the legitimacy of their cause and the the means they choose to contest the issue. It is a most basic human right to spend our lives as we see fit, no matter what others may say about it or how arguably foolish our choices are. If you think my choices foolish, share your thoughts with me and convince me that viable alternates exist. Otherwise, your choice in regards to me is to either bugger off or brace for impact.

It's amazing to me that there many people who would never assert a "right" to back a rat into a corner and emerge unscathed who do presume they can and should expect a different outcome when treating human beings in the same way. That's appallingly stupid on an individual level; it's inexcusable on the part of an organization theoretically composed of the best and the brightest.

Our only legitimate response to those willing to resist our collective will expressed by force of arms is to either persuade them they are incorrect in the necessity to resort to force and providing a decent alternate to dying for their cause - or do them the courtesy of honoring their dedication with sustained and accurate fire in accordance with our own beliefs and principles. But when we go to this extent, we have the moral and ethical obligation to those we ask to fight on our behalf to be unassailable correct. Feral humans are ever so much more dangerous than rats. Even Rats Of Unusual Size.

If the ethics of this matter are unpersuasive to you who remain enamored of realpolitik , if you look at history and the accounts of wars, the degree to which fire is directed in accordance with beliefs and ideals has a great deal to do with how sustained and accurate it is.

When government forgets or ignores the fact that it's powers exist only to the extent they are delegated limited in exercise by the consent of the governed, resistance with the possibility of outright warfare becomes inevitable to the extent that government is able to put arrogance into practice.

That same equation tends to degrade the ability of the government to convince people to spend their lives on it's behalf.

In our Constitution, the inherent right to resist abusive rule is not just recognized as a fact, but sanctified by forbidding the government from even trying to remove the tools of armed resistance or by forbidding the formation of practiced militias to insist on the point in a collective and effective way. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to bear arms are all guaranteed, and with those guarantees come the obvious inability to forbid discussions of the necessity of forming resistance movements.

Indeed, the only legitimate response (and come to that, one of the few practical responses) is to govern in such a way that the issue does not come up, or if it does, show up at the conclave, apologize humbly and promise faithfully to try and do better.

The presumed end was that a government kept in check in such a way will not presume too much upon the liberties of the people, and limit it's ambitions to the things supported by broad consensus, not merely the loudest, the closest and the wealthiest.

But our self-appointed lords and masters have long forgotten this ideal - if it was ever generally honored. Nonetheless, it is a fact; a reality, a truth. I don't need permission or a licensed gun dealer to prepare myself against the use of force against me.

Simply by being prepared to say "no" and by believing that there is no right of government to initiate force against me or anyone else, I'm armed. It's not about the tools - it's a matter of will, and of "won't."

My weapon of choice is the pen, not the sword. But the government cannot outlaw physics, chemistry or kinesthetics, much less practically restrict the freedom of assembly. Careful and determined persons can become dangerously proficient opponents once there is general contempt for the law and it's agents. Indeed, most resistance forces rather welcome attempts to interfere with their efforts. It tends to underline the necessity of the enterprise.

If the law is, in general, respected only when agents of the law are present in force, there is no law, and, honestly, no moral obligation to respect it.

I personally prefer to exert the First Amendment. I'm still of the opinion that is the best use of my abilities, and I still hold out some hope that the great bulk of our government may be redeemed. But if I do want to become armed, and am willing to break the law, well - there's really nothing but sheer dumb luck on the part of the Government to prevent me from doing so.

In point of fact, even in households where there currently are no weapons, the probability is very high that there are components to make weapons or devices effective enough to make at least one military grade weapon available. I mention this as a fact I hope responsible authorities are aware of, not as an encouragement or expression of intent.

That's not just butt coverage. I am still holding onto hope enough that I have not taken any steps beyond that required to prepare for any natural disaster or disturbance.

My intent is to die of old age in my sleep, many years from now with the reputation of having been an inaccurate and unduly pessimistic prophet, largely unrecognized by history, if at all.

But I fear greatly that I may well be forced to make some unpleasant choices, for if certain pissants get their way, I will be forced to operate within the tradition of the Samzidat. But it will be a Samzidat empowered by robust encryption and modern telecommunications, not old mimeograph machines hidden in attics, and it will be even more unstoppable and impenetrable by virtue of being illegal.

It would seem that Rep. Harman sees me and other Internet truth tellers as being a significant threat, one she's so worried will confuse constituents with facts that she's willing to traduce the Constitution to eliminate it. This is assuming she could, which she cannot. For myself, I can only say that any government official that sees me and other bloggers as "threats" is probably correct - so long as they are speaking of their own personal job security. If she's speaking of eminent dangers to The Republic, she need only seek out a mirror.

She can inconvenience truth telling and other forms of resistance to overweening authority - but history shows that no matter how high the stakes are raised in terms of personal risk, someone will step up to take that risk. Rep. Harman is on the wrong side of history as well as on the wrong side of her oath of office.

This and a long line of other such bills indicate to me that it is indeed the responsibility of all Citizens to consider how best to say "no" to such delusions and disturbances as may from time to time be issued from Washington, and consider how to enforce a "no" in a way that doesn't give them an excuse to have a tantrum at your expense.

I personally do not think that the personal handgun - the common symbol for the Second Amendment - is a particularly good tool for the job. I encourage free and frequent speech (regardless of whether it's considered to be "legal" speech by those who have lost any right to an opinion on Constitutional liberties), eloquent mockery and above all, a general and visible contempt and unwillingness to be intimidated by the sorts of pinheads who find Bushco's arguments persuasive. Force is an option only when force is initiated - and there is no other choice.

And remember - no one has the right to initiate force against you. Not even the police. They DO have the right to arrest you with probable cause, detain you long enough to establish whether or not circumstance warrant arrest, and they have the right to use force when and if you use force to resist or attempt to impede them. Making them carry you is not force.

But the most probable agents of authority will not be "official." they will be thugs who are either paid to use force against you - such as Blackwater mercenaries - or eager volunteers; brownshirt wannabees.

Argue as they will, rant as they wish; the moment they draw back a fist to strike you, you may act upon them in accordance to your own views of appropriate force. Or rather, there is no law that can possibly prevent you from doing so, much less enshrine the right of armed thugs to disturb the peace.

Of course, being justified won't keep them from stomping you into jelly.

So, if you KNOW someone will strike you if you appear to resist, if you know that that is indeed their entire job description, to intimidate you into abandoning your willingness to resist, unless you are choosing to make a point by allowing them to strike you, there's little point to being there when the fist strikes home. It's much more satisfying - to create a visceral analogy - to encourage them to punch a brick wall where they thought your head would be.

There are many alternatives to compliance with Washington's will. But the most basic is this: a loaded gun, a full tank of gas, a good pair of boots, at least a week's rations and the willingness to put liberty over security. In other words, be prepared to vote with your feet. You cannot be oppressed and forced to work for the benefits of would-be slave-masters if you cannot be found. And every troop, cop and thug looking for you is too busy to oppress anyone else.

If you have been paying attention the last few years, our Lords and Masters confuse the ability to use force with "winning." Indeed, they think that beating people up, torturing them, tasering them, imprisoning them without cause or due process is proof that they have "won," that they are in control, that they are Large and In Charge.

The reality is that the slightest evidence, the faintest trace of an argument for the necessity for any of these affronts to decent, civilized opinion is overwhelming evidence of the LOSS of effective control.

In fact they have already lost. When a government starts routinely using preemptive force against it's people, in order to forestall them from exercising their natural right to dismiss the existing government and create one more compliant with their desires, they lose the right to presume upon the consent of the governed.

As a practical matter, it's simply impossible for the Government to lock us all down to the degree that would be needed to prevent outbreaks of "domestic terrorism" - which is exactly how the government would view individuals and militias that took to the hills with their computers and stealthy internet access.

It is a complete waste of money and human resources for our government to be building domestic internment camps, if for no other reason than the fact that it shows that they don't have the skill or imagination to be quite sure that such things won't be needed. And yet they have. Rather a lot of them.

Preparing for a probable breakdown of civil authority is pretty much an admission that such authority is not doing it's job, whatever they might have to say about the whys and the wherefores.

In a practical sense and in the sense of truth Madison Avenue uses, it matters not what you say if nobody believes it.

Nixon had a credibility gap. That implies that there were areas of credibility on either side. I mean, if Nixon waxed eloquent about the need for an empowered executive and the right of that executive to ignore the law - that was met with justified hoots of derision and entirely justified outrage. But when he talked about China - we knew he was probably not talking out of his ass.

Unlike George Bush.

But as offensive and annoying as our government is, and as infuriating as it's presumption upon our rights is, as appalling as it's attempt to criminalize critical speech, it's practical ability to enforce it's will is open to question, as is the question as to what percentage of government agents and officials agree with the whims of our spuriously elected representatives.

Indeed, I think the fact that martial law has not yet been declared is compelling evidence that some sanity remains within various government agencies, at least below the level of political appointees.

Government exists only as a collection of individuals, has no reality or existence other than that and needs no greater authority than being a number of citizens who are good at a thing banding together to do that thing professionally for the benefit of their fellow citizens. As professionals, and as legitimate experts in their areas of competence, it must be even more galling for many of them to have to submit to the whims of the appointed delusional incompetents they serve than it is for us to endure the results at some distance, with the luxury of being able to ignore it for the most part.

As for the elected, civilian leadership that acts as a check on our professionals doing unto us what they think best despite our wishes, there is nothing inherent in the job that implies that one is better than one's fellows, certainly nothing that requires greater intelligence or higher moral authority. God KNOWS - and so does Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich and ... yes... Bill Clinton.

When government starts demanding respect and deference that it has not earned by it's actions; when it sees no obligation to be accountable for it's behavior or it's expenditures, when it's institutions and offices ooze disrespect for the citizens that it serves, at some point people will begin to question the utility of paying it much heed or letting it see much money.

This becomes true at a point far short of outright violence and if the government restricts it's posturing to within it's own buildings and ceremonial occasions, most likely it never will. There have been entire empires that existed only within a day's ride of it's capitals. But such empires stagnate at levels of industry far below our legitimate ambitions for ourselves. So, alas, we cannot abandon government to the cities and citizens that find it's wet diapering comfortable. In that direction lies ... Pakistan.

If people cheat to gain power over their fellows - as is provably the case in the 2000 and 2004 elections, or having won more or less honestly (as is the case for the Democrats in Congress) and yet fail to do the job they were elected to do, then there's absolutely no obligation for citizens to participate in an increasingly obvious charade, tolerate the results or sustain the expense.

The the birth and existence of the United States under the Constitution underlines the "or else" clause of good and effective governance. In all human events, beneath the polite veneer of civilization under the rule of law upheld by broad consent, there is always an "or else." Governments, kings, popes and other Authorities who have forgotten this tend to disappear from history. I could elaborate more, but the poet Shelly said it better:

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

OZYMANDIAS

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.^[1]

The reason we suffer government at all; to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, is to secure our liberties for ourselves. When it presumes to take those liberties in order to appease it's own insecurities, it becomes less and less useful to the people, while becoming a greater and greater intrusion.

That may seem to some in authority like increasing control and security (no doubt it did to the fictional tyrant Ozymandias) - when in fact it's rushing toward a tipping point where widespread resistance, avoidance and outright armed hostility become inevitable - unless there is an alternate path. And there just may be one.

But that's another subject.

tag: antiauthoritarian, minarchy, infoarchy, tyrrany, opression, federal government, Individual Responsibility, Citizenship, United States, Patriotism, Libertarian Philosophy

Why I didn't blog for 9/11

There comes a point when you realize that there are some people who are so willfully contemptuous of reality that nothing can be said, and further, at this point everything that could persuade reasonable people HAS been said. If you are still a Republican, and you still support leadership that can say things like the following, the only rational response remaining is a swift kick to the frontal lobes.

And in this sort of Republican, those are located just below the penis.

This is the response House Minority Leader John Boehner had for Wolf Blitzer - a man hardly known for asking loaded questions. If you manage to look stupid by answering a Blitzer question, it's because you are stupid.

AlterNet: Blogs: Video: GOP Minority Leader Says US Casualties in Iraq Are a "Small Price" to Pay:

Here's the transcript of the exchange:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

To say the obvious - that this is a new definition of "pulling a Boehner" is beside the point. It's almost too obvious to observe that it's difficult to calculate which is worse, the possibility that he is sincere, or the possibility that he thinks he's more credible and convincing than the Iraqi Information Minister.

But the most truly disturbing thing transcends all questions of policy and partisan politics; and that is the question as how he became Minority Leader - and why he remains in that position. It would seem to me that being clearly mad as a hatter would render one ineffective in that role, and at the very least, the Minority Leader should be someone who does not provoke snickers and sighs of pity from the majority.

But then, the majority leadership, while not actually delusional, don't seem to be a great deal more connected with the will of the people or terribly interested in considering what is right over what is momentarily expedient.

9/11 and the response to it has exposed the rotting substructure of our national facade of Liberty, the depth of our commitment as a people to the principles expressed in the Constitution and the commitment of our leaders to communicating honestly with the people, according to their duties and oaths.

And on days like this, when the entire effort of communication with anything short of a large, heavy wrench seems pointless, I can do little other than explain that if my perception becomes general - there will be no United States, nor will any remainder or successor enterain such foolishness - for small nations cannot afford to suffer such fools, gladly or otherwise.

I will confidently predict that whatever the evolution of the next two years - the outcome will not leave those who seek to keep their power in power. In the end, there is more to being in power than just having the will to do what it takes to keep power. Even Stalin had to realize that if there was no Russia and no Russians, his "power" over them was meaningless.

And saner rulers and leaders realize that power is conditional upon meeting the needs and fulfilling the desires of the governed.

I will predict with equal confidence that those particular corporate entities that have profited the most from exploiting 50 years of constant warfare are approaching the end of their reign - though the final days may well be quite profitable!

But in the final frames, those corporations are nothing without their own people - and corporations have come to believe they are separate from both employees and clients - even from shareholders.

It is a fantasy - and it will come crashing down, as people realize that if governments and corporations interests cannot be trusted to take care of their own in return for loyalty and service that that loyalty and service will be withdrawn.

And with the web and other powerful ways for individuals to meet many of the needs that governments and corporations thought their exclusive domain, it's doubtful that anyone will be able to reclaim that which is, even now, being withdrawn.

There is a reason that public approval ratings for Congress are even lower than those of George Bush - we have stopped expecting common sense, much less any respect for the will of the people from Chimpy the Shrub. But we voted to return Grown-Ups to power in congress, expecting them to take some painfully obvious corrective steps to end the war and forestall the painful economic corrections that this drunken spree of debt-fueled misadventures had aimed us toward.

They have not even managed to come to the aid of New Orleans, much less end this disastrous war.

But if the terrified sheep that think they lead us and command our loyalty continue their delusions for many months - or truly, even weeks, much less assent to any of the plans for overthrowing the remaining shreds of our democracy that Bush is clearly contemplating - I, for one, will consider them as one with the Bushites.

Ignorable, insignificant, deserving of no respect, loyalty or attention. And should they insist on commanding my attention, thinking they are entitled to my obedience and that of my fellows, I think they will find themselves in for a rude awakening.

I'm not so much expecting a civil war as I am expecting widespread rude indifference. I expect States and local governments, in the face of federal malfeasance and utter irrelevance to more or less politely go their own way without benefit of any public delcaration of secession. I expect that over the next while, the weight of meaningful authority will gravitate to state and local governments, and that state and local laws will be passed to make it difficult or impossible for the Federal Government to fund it's activities.

For instance, it may come in the form of state laws requiring state court orders for the IRS to garnish wages.

It may be in the form of states chartering their own banks - or even issuing their own currencies. It may come in the form of requiring that all federal agents be first credentialed as agents of the specific State to have authority in that state.

It will certainly come in the form of states increasingly preferring to make their own policy even at the price of sacrificing federal funds - especially in those states where federal policies come at a net loss to the state.

We have come to the point where we must coldly look at our extant federal system and ask ourselves, "who does it benefit?" And I, like many others, am aware that almost nothing it does benefits me more than it costs me, and that of all the good things it does, most could and should be done better and more cost-effectively at the state or local level.

What the Bush Years have made obvious is what various "nut cases" and "conspiracy theorists" have been ranting about for years - that our government is run, not for our interests, but for the limited and even self-destructive visions of a small, inbred, narrow-minded and fairly stupid plutocracy that cannot see beyond the range of a quarterly profit and loss statement.

Well, I suggest to you that it's not even in the interests of the fairly wealthy to permit this to continue, for it is obviously a very silly game that can end only one way, with a cry of "There can be only One!"

To hell with that noise. The only "side" I will chose is my own - within the bounds of conscience and Constitution. And I will selectively choose to donate power where it most effectively empowers me to mind my own business more effectively.

And I, for one, have no desire to replace a stern Daddy State with a disempowering Mommy State, as many committed liberals seem to consider the only possible alternative.

What about the simple idea of empowering people to simply take care of themselves? It may take tools, it may take systems, it may even require money - but what it does not take is being told what to do or jumping through hoops. Most of us are smart enough to do those things for ourselves, and those who are not are mostly able to find the help of someone who is. This leaves a vanishingly small percentage that does not require provisions that intrude upon everyone to ensure the minority have the minimum necessities.

The bottom line is this: Government must be of service to and of use to the people, or the people have every right to replace it with something that serves them better. Should it be so arrogant as to think there is an inherent right of power or position to impose itself on those it thinks weaker or inherently inferior, there will come a time when that assumption is brought to the test.

History tells us that it's best to forestall THAT outcome with a little humility.

Where I stand

I've said that Ron Paul is my favored candidate right now, but in the areas we disagree, we disagree passionately.

In the areas where we disagree, each of us departs from stock libertarianism in one case - and not in the other. I think it's worth looking at where each of us emphasise principle over practicality - and vice versa.

Read on..

I'm an exception to all other Libs I know of in that I advocate a strong and secure social safety net. I don't refer to it as "socialism" or "welfare stateism" in that I am not talking about those approaches to this particular problem. However the lack of success in a particular approach toward solving a problem does not make the problem go away. Generally it makes it worse. In the case of both socalism and welfare state policies, centralized planning and paternalism make the problems addressed so very much worse that it's easy to believe that merely getting rid of the solution would solve the problem.

Oh, if only it were that easy. But in fact, it's not, and a comparison of the livability and costs to citizens in the "socialized" nations of europe shows that recognizing and dealing with poverty least intrusively dealt with by a very simple process: Give the poor enough money to not be poor AND desperate.

Poverty is relative - desparately poor is to put people under basic survival pressure. When enough people in your society ARE under survival pressure, Very Bad Things Happen that in our nation, You See On Fox Every Day.

I differ from Ron in having had the opportunity of being poor in Canada - and now seeing what being Poor in America is like. Hell, in many ways it's better to be poor in Canada than Lower Middle Class in America. At least you have health insurance!

So we differ there, in that I feel that it's a government's duty to address matters of common concern to all citizens; healthcare, poverty and crime are all issues that are common concerns and which tend to be causes and effects of each other.

On the other hand, we disagree passionately on the issue of open vs closed borders. As a Libertarian, I believe in the free movement of peaceful people. Furthermore, I feel that this whole matter falls under the Bobatearian principle of "no Stupid Laws," that is to say, laws that are intrusive by definition and which will obviously increase both hassle and provide endless opportunities for the corruption of government officials.

I like what another Libertarian running for President has to say on this topic.

Beyond the economic and cultural positives of open immigration, we must consider the national defense problems posed by "closed" immigration.

Capital -- including human capital -- moves to where it can be most profitably invested for all concerned, and it rolls right over government barriers to do so. In practice, this means that millions of immigrants arrive, and will continue to arrive, in the United States each year regardless of what our government does to stop them.

Right now, nonsensical US immigration policy forces many of those immigrants to sneak in rather than walk in "through the front door." Reasonable estimates put the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico alone in excess of one million annually. An entire industry of cross-border guides, called "coyotes," is built around getting those immigrants into the US to live and work. These "coyotes" don't care one way or another whether the person they're smuggling into the US is a janitor from Guadalajara or an al Qaeda fighter carrying the material to make a "dirty bomb" in Dallas. And our immigration policy gives the latter type of "immigrant" a huge crowd to hide himself in.

The first step in providing for our national defense at the border is to let those who bear us no ill will to come in "through the front door" -- to walk across the border publicly and conveniently instead of sneaking over it in the middle of the night and in the middle of the desert. Believe me, they'd rather be welcomed than hunted ... and welcoming them rather than hunting them will reduce the cover they provide for our enemies.

The second step in providing for our national defense at the border is to re-focus the government services which address that border away from hassling peaceful immigrants and toward detecting and eliminating real threats to the United States.

I attribute most anti-immigrant sentiment to race panic, where people see the culture changing in response to new waves of immigrants and proceed to freak out in all directions. As the decendent of economic migrants myself, like most people who are not actually Native Americans, I find arguing against open borders both unprincipled as a libertarian and distasteful as a civilized human being. But perhaps Ron cannot risk alienating the racist right together with the racist left and racist center. Very well.

But I have no such excuse and I won't provide him cover on this issue.

There's a far simpler way of dealing with the poverty that drives people to climb the border fences and risk death in the desert, and that is to adjust our foreign and economic policies that are, frankly, aimed at keeping our southern neighbors broke, for the sake of cheap bananas and minerals. Free and fair trade will do more to stem the flood than any tonnage of barbed wire and guard dogs.

Oh, and a fence that keeps other people out is pretty damn good at keeping you IN, come the day Bush decides to round up the Usual Suspects.

Ron Paul candidicy alleged to be a Democratic Plot.

Ron Paul's determined and surprisingly well-received candidacy is confusing the hell out of the pundits of politics as usual, both left and right. He's showing tremendous appeal with youth audiences, and I'm looking forward to seeing him (again) on The Daily Show.

The funniest remark on the YouTube page featuring Ron Paul on Bill Maher's show was this:

enginedave (12 hours ago) marked as spam

Nope, no identity change here. No, I'm not here to hurl epithets. I just can't understand this Ron Paul thing. I can't buy all these young folks for Paul. Kids are USUALLY liberal. Except for a scant few that have minds of their own. So I can't come to any other conclusion than this being a democrat strategy. Except, of course, for the scant few tried and trues... Just my opine.

Maybe young people prefer bullshit-free leadership that respects it's proper constitutional limitations and role. Perhaps they consider that far more important than any particular political philosophy. Perhaps promises of what a leader WILL NOT do are more important than probably empty and disingenuous promises of what they will do. And, just perhaps, he's credible.

tag: Ron Paul, liberty, libertarian, Bill Maher

Know Something About Kieth Olbermann?

This Right-Wing tabloid site wants to know.

And, well, obviously they are having a lot - repeat, A LOT of trouble finding any real ammo to use against Olbermann, since the worst thing they can say about him is that his ratings are low (on MSNBC? Imagine that!) and this:

Keith Olbermann's career schizophrenia continues. He's a Sports Guy. He's a News Guy. He's a Sports Guy (again). Oops, back to News. And guess what? Now he's back to Sports, according to Keith's personal PR flack aka TVNewser:

More! "Olbermann Schizophrenia: Is he a Sports Guy or a "News" Anchor?"

Yep, being able to do more than one thing well is a clear sign of inherent, invidious, elitist Liberalism. Judging by the journalistic standards of this blog, so is walking and chewing gum at the same time.

This link was advertised to me via google promising to "Expose Olbermann's lies." As I expected, this was a usage of the term, "lie," that I was previously unfamiliar with. A "lie" in this usage seems to be a truth that makes you want to stick your fingers in your ears and chant "la la la la I can't HEAR you!"

I see this as symptomatic of the sad, impotent and pathetic devolution of the right-wing blogosphere, that this blog gets enough eyeballs to justify a google Adwords account. They don't take just ANYONE, you know.

So, the dead-enders are still out there - but clearly, they are being driven to a subsistence diet of undiluted stupidity as the former stars of the Right are, one by one, falling away toward the center, leaving the core ideologues exposed in their dogged determination to win their Culture War against everyone and every institution that is smart enough to know better.

Hell, if you are smart enough to put three thoughts in a row, you are savvy enough to realize that the Administration can't. And a lot of former Republicans have come to the conclusion that what they stood for, indeed, what they still stand for, was seen as simply a set of talking points by the Administration; a means to get to an end that was nothing good, Republican, conservative or apparently achievable.

There is only so far wanting to believe can take you in the face of an overwhelming flood of fact. Bloggers, to be relevant at all, have to swim in facts and even (gasp) differing perspectives on them. After a while, it's hard to ignore that of the facts that are in, the facts speak against the President, that:

• He has indeed lied in order to wage war against Iraq.
• entered office with the intention of waging war against Iraq.
• used (or even contrived) 9/11 as a pretext for that war (and in that, did nothing to actually find, prosecute and execute those who were actually responsible).
• Illegally wiretapped citizens.
• Suspended Habius Corpus.
• Kidnapped and tortured people without even the pretense of due process.
• Tried to establish a legal basis for torture - despite it being explicitly illegal and ineffective.
  
• Is in Contempt of Congress on multiple counts (signing statements)

And yet, given nearly totalitarian powers even FDR did not wish to have, has managed to completely fail to win a war our armed forces were equipped and trained to win - a war of maneuver in the deserts of the middle east - by putting them into urban combat zones, the sort of warfare that eats armies for lunch.

Understand this very clearly; there was absolutely no reason for anyone to expect that our military forces would be unsuccessful in securing Iraq with good intelligence, solid planning, competent leadership and enough boots on the ground. Even those of us who doubted that it would be as easy as described would not have gone so far as to use the word "difficult."

We asked "why Iraq, and why now." I cannot recall many asking "what if we can't win?"

So, not only did he lie us into war, he fucked up that war. Why? Well, never presume malice when stupidity is a sufficient explanation. But if George Bush's intent were to destroy this nation, cripple our vital alliances, isolate us in terms of world opinion and still lead us open to a far more probable threat of terrorism, in that light, he's been consistently correct in his choices of policy and personnel.

What we are seeing here is the result of a total failure of leadership, even by the standards of a corrupt, corporatist, kleptocratic, nepotist and increasingly fascist-lite ruling elite.

It would be wise to recall that, first, the French Revolution occurred because of and in response to leadership of such quality. And second - the outcome, driven as it was by a situation driven beyond extremes, resulted in some extremely Bad Things.

Now, I don't know about you, but I think that the existence of social stresses that could lead to civil war to be a very significant National Security Issue. So, I think it's time we all took a deep breath, got over ourselves, and made a choice to stop making war on other people. Especially when those people are fellow Americans.

Update: this post was linked on Olbermann Watch and this was the only comment there:

You know what I see as symptomatic of the sad, impotent, and pathetic devolution of the LEFT-wing blogosphere? They can't even spell Olbermann's first name correctly while trying to defend him. Kieth? How hard is it to spell K-E-I-T-H?

If that's the only criticism, I believe we can take every actual point as being unaddressable by those who I am addressing.

Sad, ain't it? That, and the fact that once again I'm accused of being "a liberal."

tag: Miserable failure, Impeach, George W. Bush, 2008, Civil War, Revolution, Global Terrorism, Kieth Olbermann, Keith Olbermann, Spelling Flames

Screw the left and the right - let's get REAL.

Coyote Angry: One Nevada Dimwit's Point of View

We (as in the democratic party) just don't get it. We're so wrapped up in party politics and being on the "right side" of every itty-bitty issue that comes up so as to remain in good standing with the cool kids that we completely forget who it was we were supposed to want to represent. Let me remind you. It was regular people. Not party hacks, not wanna-be blogging mega-stars, not just the all-important and ever snarky Las Vegas pundits and definitely not the ultra-rich and uber-cool folks in Pacific Palisades who do not give a rats ass about Nevadans even on a good day.

A big amen chorus to that - and let's send that out to the Republicans, Libertarians and Greens too. SCREW your ideology! Take those knee-jerk special interest "litmus test" issues off the table. All politics are local, so let us not beat folks up for serving their constituents first and their party second. Most importantly, let us get back to basic, bread-and-butter politics. Tell me what's in it for me, that I should vote for you.



I do care about a woman's right to choose. But that concern is overridden by MY right to choose what is important to me.

I don't happen to be a womb-bearing American, so I'm not even sure I have a right to a vote on this one, assuming one ever comes up. But I've been listening to these arguments since Roe v. Wade and they have not changed a whit on either side; which tells me one thing for sure. Whatever is being argued about, it ain't the issues either side is apparently arguing.

Since that's clearly the case, either talk about what you are really trying to achieve, or shut UP already. The way forward here is less doctrine, more positive and practical outcomes to individual Americans, WHATEVER their political beliefs.

You want universal access to family planning - good idea. YOU want (ideally) no abortions, because Abortion is Bad. I have a hard time arguing that an abortion is anything other than a "least worst" outcome, so I'm all for doing everything possible to provide superior choices to abortion and ideally, no need to consider that final choice at all.

And if the Abortion Debate were actually about abortion, instead of an argument as to who gets to commit an act of social engineering upon which class of despised persons, the debate would have ended at that point of commonality.

I think that this issue illustrates the ethic I wish to speak of better than any other. Good governments exist to expand choices, opportunities and liberties. Bad ones exist to restrict options, compel obedience and restrict liberties.

If the only options presented are to change who is oppressed every four to eight years, any actual liberty, any "right to choose" OR "right to life" is conditional and therefore a despicable illusion.

If this current government were a restaurant, it would have only one menu option - the "Family Values Meal," it would cost three hundred bucks, and it would be peanut based, because "average Americans" aren't allergic to peanuts. (The price of your meal would cover the complementary epinephrine injections to those who might request them.)

We have had far too much of our economy, our personal freedoms and our individual dignity sacrificed at the altar of ideology, despite the constant failure of that ideology to produce anything resembling the results it predicts. And we have to be very sure that we do not replace one set of ideologues with another, equally clueless set of beltway commandos.

I'm a Libertarian, but I'm a realist first. We have governments because we cannot do without them, they do things that cannot be done efficiently or fairly by any other means.

This is not to say that our current government IS efficient, fair, or does anything like what it should be doing as well as it should. It isn't. But then, that's what elections are all about.

I believe that if there is to be a government, it ought to do something useful and beneficial for the people it taxes and governs. I hardly think that to be a controversial idea, either. I've spent a lifetime putting up with being treated disrespectfully by governments, kept waiting in line, being judged on my "worthiness" for benefits, access or even consideration. I have learned - as has every other American - that the less you have to interact with government, the better off you will be.

And yet we pay for the privilege of this system of indignity.

Do you think it's reasonable that you or I have a harder time getting meaningful access to my government than, say, Paris Hilton? For that matter, do you think it reasonable that ANY elected official or functionary realistically has to give such a vapid twit priority over actual tax-payers? Does it seem to you like that's a good use of their expensive time on your dime?

But I'm not saying she should not be heard. I'm saying we all deserve the same respectful consideration as taxpayers that she, as a rich twit with the financial capacity to make some officials life hell, gets because they cannot afford to piss on her Pradas.

I passionately believe that the government that governs least governs best, but there are people and groups, cultures and subcultures, marketplaces and crossroads that need to be lightly, fairly and evenhandedly governed.

Let's not confuse that with "administered" or even "policed." Those might be the means, but they aren't the ends, and a lot of folks confuse the two.

Don't.

There are lots of ways to govern situations that do not depend on saying no and backing that up with force and compulsion. Those should be tools kept in the "sharps" drawer for special occasions.

The best way to govern is to concentrate on outcomes, and then consider the best way - here and now, in this particular community - to get there. That means increasing options, not restricting them. It means putting decision making power in the hands of the consumer of services as much as possible, and if not possible, as close to them, physically and hierarchically as possible.

As I write, I'm listening to re-runs of the Carson City Speachification on CNN and everyone I've heard has had good things to say. Of course, after years of listening to Clinton, Gore, Bush and Kerry, Tickle me Elmo would be a relief. It was nice to see some people throwing down and using words like "wrong" and "mistake" and "morality" and suchlike.

But I'm yet to be convinced that these are more than words.

Everyone there wanted out of Iraq. But few spoke about "Then what?"

But they are all on point about energy independence, universal health care, un-assing from Baghdad, at the very least and fixing education so that it prepares kids to work in the 21st century instead of the 19th.

This seems like a plan and about all I could expect in a few minutes, but I expect specifics in the next couple weeks, although Joe Biden gave us some good stuff on Iraq and education.

I missed Obama's bit, and I'm disappointed at that. I am convinced of two things; I will not be supporting Hillary Clinton or Dennis Kuchinich. One other candidate - and I misremember which - made a very serious point; the next president will have ZERO margin for error and I think both are predisposed to make some serious, ideological mistakes and diplomatic gaffes. I don't think Clinton realizes that this is not just more politics as usual - and more importantly, I think she's needed more in the Senate, and can do more there better and longer than she could as a highly controversial President.

Kucinich - well, he came across as a smug jackass; I found myself offended by his "no strings" stunting, because, well, he DOES have strings. And any politician who forgets he's beholden to them what brought him to the party ain't the sort of person who's got the judgment to be president.

Besides, it would be a waste of a perfectly good rabble-rousing ringtailed sumbitch. I want him in a position where he can kick ass, take names and not worry about being Mr. Popularity. I think he's my choice for Energy Czar, because I think he's probably not as vital to the senate as Sen. Clinton. On the other hand, he's a committee chair in the process of kicking ass and taking names, so maybe I should rethink that thought.

But it's not just the big names that are interesting. It's the small candidates that bring some of the more interesting ideas to the party. For instance, I was a little stunned when hard-line Liberal and dark horse candidate Mike Gravel came out with a proposal to eliminate the IRS and replace the IRS with a sales tax and a "prebate" covering the necessities of life.

It's not a bad idea, actually, and it's hardly original - but it's just so not socialist; it's a minarchist solution - if you grant that there is a need for social spending and non-Straussian views of poverty and welfare.

I happen to feel that's painfully obvious. But solution that just happens, with no ear-flappers or administrivia involved? No review committees? No preferences? No paperwork? Where's the socialism?

He's also an advocate of Direct Democracy. I'm not sure what I think of this yet - I need to read it instead of just skimming but while the man IS a flaming liberal and gloriously unapologetic about it, he's not a moonbat. Again, not presidential timber - too old, and we need two terms for sure. But definitely worth thinking of as cabinet material. And I'm starting to change my mind about this two year-long election cycle, because I'm sure glad I tripped over him.

Anyway, while I cringe at the idea of two years of unabated politics, THIS time, we have a LOT of thinking aloud to do as a nation and a people. I'm starting to thing that in these exceptional circumstances, two years is barely enough, and I suppose I must resign myself to doing my duty as a citizen. Indeed, so long as a single American is at risk due to the irresponsible choice of this as yet unimpeached president, I can do no less.

tag: Iraq War, universal health care, education policy, energy policy, morality, ethics, foreign policy, democratic presidential candidates, Nevada Caucus

Is It Three Strikes Yet?

I know that this may come as a shock to some who have long ago gotten used to the idea that the Administration's ideas all turn to crap uniformly, but HOW THE HELL did they screw THIS puppy? Are there NO real Conservatives left in the Executive Branch? Aren't there any people there who can get the job done in spite of Our Glorious Leader?

U.S. may have botched training of Iraqis - Yahoo! News: "'If the administration had been serious and competent about establishing a functioning democracy in Iraq, it would have seen the need for a trustworthy criminal justice system in which all Iraqis could have confidence,' Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., said in prepared remarks."

Of all the things I was in confident expectation of the Right comprehending intuitively and getting right is the need for law and order. This is such a staple of US Conservatism that it should shock the Midwest about as much as it shocks me. You cannot have a functional society of any kind without law enforcement, reliable courts and open marketplaces. On these three things hang ALL the law, and the Profits.

According to the report, co-authored by Hamilton and former Attorney General Edwin Meese, the U.S. erred by first assigning the task of shaping the judicial system in a largely lawless country to the State Department and private contractors who "did not have the expertise or the manpower to get the job done."

In 2004, the mission was assigned to the Defense Department, which devoted more money to the task. But department officials also were insufficiently trained for the job, Hamilton and Meese said.

As a result, Iraq has little if any on-the-street law enforcement personnel or a functioning judicial system free of corruption, they said.

Justice Department officials, they said, should lead the work of transforming the system. Police executives and supervisors should replace the military police personnel now assigned.

And the FBI should expand its investigative and forensic training in Iraq, Hamilton and Meese told the panel.

The recommendations about the Iraqi judicial system were included in the Iraq Study Group's report last year, but got little attention. Hamilton and Meese said Wednesday that unless the U.S. helps create a capable, trained professional police force and functioning criminal justice system, "ordinary Iraqis will not live in peace and will not have confidence in their new government."

This makes NZBear's call for mindless allegience to the President and his Praetorians particularly insulting, as the Pentagon has had three years to get this right, or get someone to get it right. I said it wass what Teddy Roosevelt referred to as being Morally Treasonable.
but I'll go a step further. This is a demand from 20% of the population to the 70% who can add, subtract and read between the lines that we cater to their stupid leader fetish, to validate their poor post-9/11 judgment at any cost.

At the time, I expected some thrashing about and I was resigned to the necessity of catering to that proportion of our population, both Left and Right, who wear ideological adult diapers of various brands. I expected there would be some time before the American people could be led back to sanity. But in my wildest nightmares, I never expected the adoption of the cold, wet diaper as the uniform of the Right.

Well, yes, I suppose it IS traumatic to have Daddy hauled off to jail after getting stoned on crack and beating up mommy for the seventeenth time. But what Baby doesn't understand is that crackheads do not make good fathers.

Meanwhile, there is no Law and Order Fairy; those of us in the Reality Based Universe know that keeping both Law and Order requires the hard work and dedication of skilled officers of the law and a reliable, effective system of justice. And as much as I, as an anti authoritarian, distrust officers of the law, it's in proportion to my concern that that particular officer of the Law is really just another street gang member with a carry permit.

But apparently we have not achieved even that degree of order.

I'm thinking that this Administration has used up all of it's three strikes about three times over, and needs to be retired. This is not tee-ball, the bats we swing are NOT plastic, and we have to get back to playing by grown-up rules.

As I wrote earlier in the week:

This "war on terror" has been prosecuted in such a way as to ensure failure from the first. What if that is the goal?

It would certainly be yet another impeachable offense. Indeed, if there is such a conspiracy, it would be a treasonable conspiracy. But as I argue, there's little point in wondering why at this point. What we, as citizens, need to realize is that we do indeed have the power to take away their toys and send them to a time-out room. Preferably a federal medium-security timeout.

In case you'd forgotten, the President is a lying' bastard.

Bush admits it right to their faces because he's been rankly lying about anything and everything ever since he ran for president and never, not once, paid a penalty for it. Think about it carefully--for anyone else a public admission of lying would be absolutely devastating on a professional and personal level.

Sorry, dear, I lied about sleeping with that perky admin half your age. No big, right? Yeah, boss, I said I delivered all those parts when I actually drank beer for two hours. So?

But for George Bush implacable rules of life just vanish, so he doesn't care, admit it right out loud on the record, why not? This horrifying national psychosis--words chosen with great attention--was very carefully and deliberately enabled by The Washington Post as they scrubbed their stories to hide the lying.

(more}

Now, it's a Bad Thing to lie to the American People and to Congress. Particularly to members of Congress who's campaigns were damaged with all the "stay the course" rhetoric and public defense of Rummy right up to the "Heave Ho" moment.

But, hey, such trivial considerations of consequence are beneath our "decider." I can't complain about the outcome, of course. I merely point out that trusting a known and famous liar ain't the path of prudence, as many Republicans found to their cost this past election.

And meanwhile, the WaPo is trying to revise history - unaware of the Google Cache and The Memory Hole, apparently. These days, revising web history is merely an amusing spectacle of futility, rather like a cat covering up on linoleum.

Feith-Based Politics and the Comedy that is Carville

I hate to be vulgar, but really, how far inside the beltway do you have to be before you fly up your own ass and disappear into a strange parallel universe?

Two of the more powerful second-string "Beltway Boys" have managed to prove that the only difference between Republican fuckups and Democratic ones is who's become most insulated from the consequences of their ideological isolationism.

Slate reports:

Douglas Feith: What has the Pentagon's third man done wrong? Everything.

Why is Feith involved with all these foul-ups? How could one man be so consistently in error? Nearly every critique of the Pentagon's plan for Iraq's occupation blames the blinkers imposed by ideology. For example, The New Yorker reported last fall that Feith intentionally excluded experts with experience in postwar nation-building, out of fear that their pessimistic, worst-case scenarios would leak and damage the case for war. In the Atlantic earlier this year, James Fallows told a similar story: The Pentagon did not participate in CIA war games about the occupation, because "it could be seen as an 'antiwar' undertaking" that "weakened the case for launching a 'war of choice.' " The State Department's Future of Iraq Project, an effort that accurately predicted some contingencies that the Pentagon overlooked, was dismissed by Feith and company out of hand.

And while the Pentagon's assumptions of an ecstatic, sweets-and-flowers-bearing populace that would welcome the occupiers as liberators may have been understandable in February 2003, Feith continued to let ideology rule his decisions long after the "major combat operations" ended. Last September, Knight Ridder reported that Paul Bremer's request for more than 220 employees for the occupation had yet to be approved. Guess who was to blame? "It is taking forever because Feith only wants true believers to get through the gate," a senior administration official said.

Well, we all know how well that worked out. Read the whole story, it's damning. By the by, though the story says nothing, it's difficult to read it without thinking that anyone above Feith should have noticed a difference between promise and payoff - somewhere around, oh, say, 2004. Why? Well, almost everyone outside of the beltway who wasn't sucking up to someone inside the beltway had some questions about performance, even some damn hawkish hawks. There were whole bunches of news items - like the looting, like the destruction of Iraqi Interior Ministry files - that were cause for alarm, that were indications of bad preparation.

The worst, of course, was the blatant failure to secure Iraqi munitions dumps, a failure that has cost thousands of lives, both civilian and military. That was a decision that caused me to wonder aloud to myself if someone in charge was smoking crack, as it seemed to me the exact opposite of any prudent decision based in sound military training.

Now, it seems likely that it was a decision made under the delusion that the Neocon Vision would prove true, there would be no insurgency, and democracy would flourish as predicted, so long as "nay-saying defeatists" were kept away.

But such delusional thought-processes are far from being unique to the Right Wing.

Fatcat politics links to the New York Daily News

Clinton tells Carville to sit down and shut up.

Ain't it rich... The mighty Carville (mighty wrong a lot) got shot down in flames for his remark about replacing Howard Dean at the DNC. I love it... He underestimated the importance of Dean's 50 state strategy along with a bunch of weeping wingnuts (Santorum at the top of the list) and had him a little hissy fit because he didn't get to be the guru that had it all figured out.

The beltway spinmeisters are all mad because they got bypassed in the groundswell of voters ire against the Republicans. They are still in denial of the netroots and the 'base' that Dean built in just two short years. They eagerly took credit for the tsunami when it was actually Dean who provided the earthquake that triggered it.

Hil's no dump Dean fan. Her camp sez Carville on his own in coup bid

The Clintonistas don't want an undeserved backlash from the activist wing of the party that overwhelmingly supports Dean, especially because some anti-Clinton Democrats have blamed Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for the attack by Carville, a longtime Clinton insider. Those forces claimed Carville's motive was to topple Dean in favor of a chairman more favorable to Sen. Clinton's bid for President.

Carville's remarks last week came as House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) bungled the race for Democratic majority leader. Party operatives acknowledged the Carville and Pelosi sideshows were detracting from their election victories.

>

I have to be honest, I've always liked James Carveille - in the same way I've always had a soft spot for Magneto and The Joker. He has class, he has style, he's gloriously, unapologetically, flamboyantly villainous - and convinced that his Cause Is Just, of course, at least when colloquy is called for. But essentially, he just likes beating the crap out of the other side, and I think we saw him at his personal public best playing the Snake in Crossfire episodes with Tucker Carlson as the Mongoose.

I kind of wish John Stewart hadn't ruined that gig. It was a lot of fun and it kept both of them out of trouble for days at a time. Furthermore, some of us have an appreciation for the pure art of rhetoric. But I suppose that John did have a point; the people did deserve better.

The Beltway Boys - all of the Insiders - are more concerned about appearances than about real issues of real consequence. It's easier to spin issues if the issues themselves are framed as simple, black and white concepts that have a "republican" approach and a "democratic" approach.

In fact, there are a few approaches that will work and a very great many that will not, and if your major considerations are maintaining power while appearing to attempt to do something - only to be Thwarted by Evil Plotters On The Other Side - the odds of finding a program that will work is nil.

But this is politics in Washington, and it's worked with great success for a very long time - so well, in fact, that a lot of people involved forgot that it was a political tactic and came to embrace it as a reliable expression of reality.

And when people like that came into total control of the party and the nation - people who chose to believe in religious, economic and social fairy tales as being preferable to inconvenient realities; that's when the stark comedy of errors commenced.

It's fashionable to suggest that Democrats would have been no better. I tend to disagree. Democrats have different fairy tales, and while they certainly would have done no better implementing theirs if they were able to be so consistently deluded, working from the same ideological page - pardon me, I'm snickering too loudly.

The thing republicans see as the greatest weakness of Democrats in particular and people left of themselves in general is their lack of "team spirit," their inability or unwillingness to defer personal gratification for the "greater good," as defined by some schmuck with more clout in the party.

Nope, left of center folks tend also to be less willing to worship at the altar of Authority, and "Because I said so," is met with raspberries and overripe fruit. This is why Carville got shut down, frankly.

He may well be an authority - but he's an authority on old fashioned, bare knuckles dirty politics that depends on a small cadre of True Believers to do the bidding of their cynical and utterly amoral leadership.

The netroots - well, look around. Pick a blogroll, pretty much any blogroll that doesn't include Free Republic and you will find thinking people making very uncomfortably astute policy observations. Howard Dean is an example of a man who realizes that the netroots is a completely new phenomenon, one that demands a new era of leadership, one that's unafraid of meeting reality head on.

In many ways, Iraq and Vietnam are very comparable. Both wars of choice; both wars of ideological "necessity." Both wars required a great deal of contrivance and a huge amount of information control to sustain. Both collapsed when reality failed to support any conceivable version of "victory."

But it took decades for that point to arrive with Vietnam, with total casualties in the millions. With Iraq - there were far too many information leaks to plug. In fact, I think it likely that in the last year or so, information management has been fairly much all the White House and Pentagon has been doing, leaving them few resources to to actually achieve much of any meaning.

It's Lame Duck Season: Fiengold appeals to Huffpo readers for extra shells.

Sen. Fiengold warns:

There are a lot of bad bills that the Republicans may try to ram through, but here's the worst of the worst - a bill to legalize the President's warrantless wiretapping program. The White House is desperate to enact this bill, which allows the government to spy on American citizens, on American soil, without a warrant.

Other measures on the White House wish list that are likely to surface during the lame duck session include a number of unfunded tax cuts and questionable trade measures. Democrats have nothing to gain by allowing these measures to pass in the next few weeks, and everything to lose. Everything should wait until the new Congress, when Democrats will have a lot more say about how bills are put together and what gets passed.

I do wish he'd run in 2008, but you have to admit, it's a hell of a trade-off. There aren't so many working Senators that you can shrug off the loss as insignificant.

One thing I'd like to point out is that the wiretapping bill is retroactive; a pardon for the president on one of the most prosecutable impeachable offenses, and the only one that's completely indisputable.

So, aside from the fact that the law is itself impermissible - a fifth-amendment violation - it is also an attempt to forestall resolution of the Constitutional Crisis created by this Republican Congress and George Bush.

Memo to Pelosi: Fix Consitutional Crisis BEFORE '08

After Downing Street reminds us there are still a lot of issues unresolved.

The Perfect Storm of Citizen Revulsion
...even with the House and Senate in Democratic hands, we need to remember that the immense power of the presidency is still in the hands of Bushistas like Richard Cheney and Karl Rove and George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice and Stephen Hadley and Alberto Gonzales.

Dude, I Tapped Your Mother

They have refashioned the Constitution to make Bush immune from obeying laws he doesn't like; they have invented theories that permit him to round up anyone, American citizen or not, and throw them into a military clink without access to lawyers; they have so bent the definition of "torture" as to make it unrecognizable (it now means that the government can do anything to you short of killing you or doing great injury to your internal organs); the president claims to be able to "pre-emptively" attack any foreign country and power regardless of whether they are an imminent threat to the U.S.; the security forces can now enter your home, search your house, peek into your private email and computer files, without you ever being informed and without you even knowing; the government can now violate the privacy of attorney/client privilege by listening in on all such conversations; the government can declare martial law whenever it so chooses; and on and on.

Let us not forget that the Executive branch still possesses these immense police-state powers, they've used them before against American citizens, and they have made it plain that they are quite prepared to keep using them. Among the issues that must be dealt with by the new Democratic-contolled Congress is to find a way to bring us back to judicial sanity and respect for the rights guaranteed to American citizens under our Constitution.

ADS points out the President still has these powers as the problem. I wish to point out that is not the worst possible case; the worst case would be something I consider fairly likely unless We Do Something Now: Democrats and Republicans together decide that they really kinda like the idea of the Presidency retaining those powers.

There's only one thing that frightens me more than George Bush holding the powers of the Unitary Executive, and that would be a mo