SkepticRising

A platform for consideration and reflection on our times.

Blind obedience may be a helpful trait for infants, but it is not a good thing in adults and voters.

July 2008
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
<< <		> >>
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Search

Linkblog

Politics

Franchise my buttocks.
Let's get something clear.

The Democratic and Republican primaries don't involve an electoral franchise.

See, it's like this: the Democratic and Republican parties are like the other political parties. They are private organizations who band together for the purpose of promoting a common vision, not to mention mongering some power.

They don't have any actual public standing as constitutionally mandated entities. And so the primary elections and caucuses and so forth in the various states don't have any particular constitutional standing. It is a process by which a private group of citizens agree on who will be their candidates for various offices in the general election which is a constitutionally mandated process.

I bring this up because I am sick to death of hearing about Florida and Michigan voters being "disenfranchised" and how this is some grotesque violation of a person's right to vote.

Um, actually, no.

And as far as the Florida Democrats getting screwed over by those dastardly Republicans who maliciously set the date of the Democratic primary ahead of the DNC rules, well, if the Democrats are stupid enough to allow the opposition party to control their selection process, no wonder they are in such a mess.

Understand this: the Democratic party can set its elections, caucuses and so forth pretty much whenever they want. It's only up to a state legislature of whatever flavor when the various parties wish to shift the costs of their elections onto the taxpayers.

So enough of this crap. Hillary broke a pledge. Both Michigan and Florida state Democratic parties screwed up. The DNC screwed up. And this entire issue has nothing whatever to do with an electoral franchise.

Peace out.
The FISA travesty
I am dismayed today at the complete capitulation of the house only because I allowed myself to be lulled into a false sense of hope during that last month or so when house leadership maintained some disingenuous rhetoric about not allowing telecom immunity to pass. As it turns out, much of the house is still in collusion with the Bush imperial family to overturn our constitutional form of government.

First, let's get over something. All of the excuses and posturing done by both Republicans and Democrats about this FISA travesty are predicated on the idea that this law and it's side effects are somehow addressing some "grave threat to our country". Bull puckey. This country does not face a grave threat.

When I was growing up and the USSR existed and had a few thousand ICBMs pointed at us, there was a grave threat. We got through that. Osama bin Laden and his coterie of medieval whackos do not constitute a grave threat. They are, of course, reprehensible. Any group of people who advocate the wanton destruction of another people just because they are somehow seen as "different" are reprehensible. That goes for the KKK and the Arian Bro'hood and the Hatfields and the McCoys. But they are not a grave threat.

And so, when these neocon shrews run around screeching like a bunch of hysterical old women about the threat and the only way we can protect ourselves is to give up every shred of liberty and dignity that we managed to build up over our 200 year plus history, you have to do some wondering. How is it that the government (that tiny little republican government that is supposed to stay clear out of your life and let you follow your dreams), how is it that they are going to make you safer from terrorism by eavesdropping on all of your communications? How does that help, exactly?

Because, you see, friends, the reason that the old FISA law which allowed for warrants basically on no evidence but never turned down a request out of tens of thousands, the reason that law is not good enough, is because it had a retail assumption. It was based on the idea that the warrant request would come on a specific individual person or an identifiable group. What the Bushies and the telecoms are doing, though, is listening to everyone. All of us. They are not simply tracking single people that there is reason to believe might bear us ill will. The technology simply doesn't allow for that. And, besides, how do you think they identified those so-called "terrorists" to eavesdrop on? Where do those names come from to go get the warrant? Could it be that they were sort of accidentally listening to like everybody and they just happened to coincidentally overhear these plans for an attack on something?

So that's why FISA is not good enough. Even the Bushies thought a court might look askance when they went to it with a warrant request for the entire population of the US.

And there is still this mythology that Nancy Pelosi and the Demigods - sorry, Democrats keep falling for that, one, we are somehow under some clear and present danger as a whole country, and two, that this program of domestic spying in clear contravention of our entire frigging constitution is somehow going to keep us safe. The second myth in particular assumes that you can trust the Bushists to listen only to the terrorists (again, how do they figure out which ones are the terrorists?), and I submit that these guys have not, over the years, earned that trust. Tell me any three things, okay any one thing, that this administration has done that is in the interest of the public in general rather than the specific interest of one of their cronies.

Here is what this is about: the neocons want to have no boundaries. They want to own the sandbox and do in it whatever they want with whomever they want and not have any silly parental interference in their little power games. And so that's how they have behaved. The telecoms have gone along with that because they are pretty much on the same team and they like it that way. And they don't want to have any inconvenient accountability to any pesky laws or constitutions or anything.

The mystery here is why the Dems are so consistently cowardly in the face of this clear contravention of the only thing that has made this country great - our constitution and the rule of law. The only thing I can think of is that they fear that if they don't cave to the fear mongering, the right wing screechers will tag them with being soft and they might not do as well in the election as they want. The problem is that it's not the view of being soft on terrorism they have to worry about. It's the view of being soft on law breaking neocons.

We still have a slight chance to fight about this before the Senate passes it next week. But in longer terms, we have a chance to remember this come the next election cycle and do everything we can to get rid of the self-serving Democrats who voted for this travesty and all the other Bushist travesties over the last several years and get a congress with some backbone who are willing to stand up for the action real value of this nation, for the actual real principles on which it was founded.

This FISA bill will not make you safer. In fact, it will do just the opposite. The only grave threat this country faces is from the neocons who are working for some reason to dismantle the constitution. And this bill, and the Democrats who colluded on it, are part of the corrosive process of turning us into something this country was never intended to be.

I mourn. But I will not forget.

SR
What Atrios said...
Excellent point and one that Obama should consider carefully.

General

Enough with the upset already.
So Hillary won the New Hampshire primary. This was a shock only to the pundritry who were amazed that Barack won the Iowa caucus. Hillary has been the inevitable anointed appointed frontrunner for the last six months and actually (as Keith Olbermann pointed out tonight) hit the poll numbers pretty closely. So now everyone is amazed and discombobulated at her phenomenal upset.

It's not an upset, okay? This is like saying USC winning a football game is an upset after they lost to Stanford. Get some perspective. There are still 48 states and a convention to go.

Sheesh.

Peace out. SR
For once, I agree with Bush
At least, I agree with how his comments are expressed in a Huffington Post headline from today: "'Peace and prosperity'" at stake in election".

It's true. If you vote for Republicans, you won't get either peace or prosperity.

-SR-
McLame and marriage
So I saw this post on Think Progress in which McCain says that he opposes gay marriage.

... my thoughts are that I think people should be able to enter into legal agreements

Well, you're both right and wrong, John.

What you are right about is that people should be able to enter into legal agreements. But you see, that's what marriage is - a legal agreement. And that's kind of the issue.

Because marriage is, in fact, a "civil union", the government treats married people differently than it does non-married people. Oftentimes, there are major benefits that go along with that status. And gay people or people who would wish to be married and gain those social benefits, who might not fit the made up criteria of man-on-woman, are being deprived of those civil and social benefits.

Marriage is not simply a religious institution. The only reason it is nominally concerned with religions is the historical happenstance that it was churches who kept the village records and had clerics who could write.

So if we were going to make things right, we would actually strip the religious clerics of their civil authority to witness and execute a secular license of marriage and put it back in the hands of the justices of the peace and judges where it belongs.

What you are wrong about, John, is that those are thoughts. I'm pretty sure that stuff doesn't meet the standard of actual thinking.

Peace out.
Quickie
Why is it that when the gun guys go off about the right to bear arms, they never seem to mention the "well regulated" part of the amendment?

Just askin'.

SR
Welcome

Welcome to SkepticRising, yet another politically oriented blog. You may ask "What does the world need with another freaking blog?" Well, arguably, the world doesn't need one. On the other hand, there may be an idea presented here, and it may be seen by someone who may pass it along, and it may spark a thought that may change a mind that may solve a problem. Somewhere. Hey, it could happen! And who am I to prevent that process from occurring?

Anyway, here it is.

Now, the simplest way to do things would just be to open up everything to everyone and go have a beer. But since reality is that there are childish and destructive people in the world, and since I really would like to have a cohesive platform of ideas here as opposed to vitriol and thoughtless noise, there are going to be some rules and policies.

First, you are going to have to be registered to post comments. Registration is going to need a working email address. Your identity and email address will not be published, so if you don't want your name out, make up a nickname.

Second, we are not going to tolerate any threats to anyone for any reason. None. Any users who post threatening comments or who expose other people's private information will be banned and if the threat is actionable, we'll cooperate.

We're also not going to suffer gladly trolls. We reserve the right to delete any comment that seems to be provocative for the sake of provocation, or is hateful and offensive.

That doesn't mean that we're against opposition argument. Not at all. But argument does not have to be spiteful or hateful to be expressed or effective.

This site is intended to promote critical thought, reasoned discussion and thoughtful skepticism. Oh, and there may occasionally be humor. And irony, don't forget the irony. And satire. Definitely, satire. Be forewarned.

Now, go to your corners, stay clean, stay fair and come out skeptical.
WTF??? I mean seriously...
I heard about this on the Thom Hartmann show this morning, and I could not believe what I was hearing. This was also posted on a DailyKos diary a few weeks ago and I find it amazing that it hasn't been all over the media, or at least that the Obama campaign hasn't picked it up.

At best, this is the operational definition of conflict of interest. At worst, it explains why the Clinton campaign has been campaigning for John McCain for the last couple of weeks.

Let's walk through this: Hillary Clinton's chief strategist is the redoubtable Mark Penn. He's caught a lot of heat lately and there seems to be even some internal strife on the campaign about him. His day job is being the CEO of a global public relations/public affairs company (ie. lobbying corporation) Burston-Marsteller.
I'll leave going back through Penn's history as an exercise for the student. One has to wonder, though, how it is that Hillary picked him to be a leading strategist on her campaign.

On the other side of the aisle, we have fightin' John McCain, the Bush wannabe Republican party offering for the presidential election. Described as a "senior adviser"
on the McCain campaign is one Charlie Black. He's been defending McCain from charges of being too tight with lobbyists. In his alter-ego, Charlie Black is ... wait for it ... a lobbyist. A big league lobbyist. His day job is working for the lobbying firm BKSH. They work a lot for firms in, oh say, the telecom industry, defense industry, stuff like that.

Now for the punch line. BKSH, the lobbying firm of which Charlie Black, McCain's top adviser is chairman, is a subsidiary of Burston-Marsteller, the public relations firm of which Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, is the CEO. That would seem to make Mark Penn Charlie Black's boss.

This is so bizarre that I'm having trouble just coming to grips with the implications of it. But it would seem to be emblematic of what is broken in our political systems. And it is also the spin of the merry-go-round of whether to support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. I have, for a while, been supporting Obama (actually, since Edwards dropped out) including my abortive attempt to vote for him in the California primary (more on that in another post). My complaint about Clinton was summed up with the phrase "Republican Lite".

So the arithmetic is still looking like Obama has a serious advantage in the delegate count and the ability to get the nomination. One has to wonder if Clinton is so ambitious that she would be willing to sign on as the VP on the Republican ticket with McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. One has to wonder because she could not have picked Mark Penn for this significant role in her campaign without knowing his background, his relationships and where he is coming from. Especially since he's never won a primary campaign. Why else would she pick him?

The implications of this are staggering. And they deserve a lot more looking into.

..SR..