So the Bush White House endeavors to send out a nice, simple, inclusive holiday card. No different than millions of Americans of all religions send out.
And what happens? The extreme religious right is offended. Hëll, let’s not even call them the extreme religious right, because that makes it sound like extremist Jews, Muslims, Shintoists, etc., are all on the same page. Let’s call it what it is: Extremist Christians.
Here’s the fascinating thing about Extremists: They’re all the same. The philosophy of Extremist Christians is fundamentally no different than, say, that of Extremist Muslims. They believe in the same things: Exclusionary thinking. Intolerance. Ignoring fundamental lessons of their own faith when it runs afoul of extremist thinking. Where is the philosophy of Christian charity and understanding? Where is the writings in the Koran specifically forbidding the killing of innocents? They don’t serve the Extremist viewpoint of exclusion and intolerance and thus are cast aside.
They only differ in degrees of their actions. Some chop off the heads of helpless victims. Others blow up abortion clinics.
And the most consistent link is that trying to accommodate them never, ever works. That’s what Bush is discovering now, having staked his political star to the whims of the Extremists. It’s insufficient for Extremists that eighty percent of this country celebrates Christmas. Instead the ONLY acceptable greeting at this time of year is “Merry Christmas” rather than something inclusive such as “Happy holidays.” It’s insufficient for Extremists that there is already an implicit lack of separation of church and state around the holidays (the government shuts down for Christmas. You see the government shutting down for Yom Kippur? For Ramadan?) They want an EXplicit lack of separation by having the official greeting card from the White House be in celebration of Christmas only.
It’s never enough for Extremists. Never enough. Because the only thing that will really satisfy them–whether they’re walking bombs or just bombasts–is if everyone thinks just like them, believes just like them, and wants the same things as them. Which is never, ever going to happen, which is why they will never, ever be satisfied. Bush has been trying to appease them and hopefully even he is now realizing that it’s hopeless.
One is left shaking one’s head at a people who are claiming their holiday, their very beliefs, are being threatened. No. When Romans were throwing them to the lions, THEN their beliefs were being threatened. Here, in this country, their core philosophies have complete dominance over just about every aspect of life in this country.
And it’s not enough.
When dealing with Extremists and terrorists…it never is.
PAD
• 
If you think Joe Lieberman is even REMOTELY liberal, then we have no common ground upon which to base any discussion.
Tim, I know this is from waaaaaaay back in the thread but I have to point out that the ADA (Americans For Democratic Action), one of the most respected liberal institutions, gives out ratings for congressional members and Lieberman scored a 75 out of 100 (100 is a “Hero”–a perfect liberal score).
A score of 40-60 makes you a “moderate”.
Now you can certainly argue with their methods and it is true that among Democrats a 75 is actually a low score but I don’t think it’s fair to say that nobody can even make an argument about Lieberman’s liberal credentials.
(One critique regarding the ADA method is that they cherry pick just a few particular votes to get their scores. Obviously “liberal” and “conservative” are often defined individually. Sometimes people can’t even keep their definitions straight in a single post–they blast Bush for not being a “true conservative” but still complain about the conservative takeover).
Lieberman seems to hold a particular position of scorn in your book. Any reason? I know some blame him for the loss in 2000, though I’d place that more at the guy at the top of the ticket.
Are you done with school? Would you believe I still have 3 days this week? Yeah, they ought to be REALLY MOTIVATED…
Oh right, like you could bounch a quarter ever higher off of yours as the years pass… 🙂
I never said I could — but in a rare example of good taste on my part, I don’t bring it up in public. 🙂
As for Lieberman and the ADA — first, since I have absolutely no idea which 20 votes per year they’re basing this on, it’s awfully hard to gauge whether that rating has any meaning or not. (I would note, however, that Lowell Weicker, a former Republican senator from the same state, got a lifetime rating of 87, which suggests that 75 is relatively low down the scale in some ways.)
Second, I never said that “nobody can make an argument about his liberal credentials”. I said that anyone who felt he was liberal had no sufficiently common ground with me to have a coherent discussion.
Lieberman seems to hold a particular position of scorn in your book. Any reason? I know some blame him for the loss in 2000, though I’d place that more at the guy at the top of the ticket.
Pull up a chair — this one’s gonna be a while.
In ascending order of importance —
1) My dad knew him in college and found him motivated solely by political expedience, which does not lend itself to obvious praise in my book.
2) I partially blame him for the 2000 “loss”, primarily for his performance in the VP debate. Cheney’s oft-quoted “and the government had nothing to do with it” was begging for at least six different wonderfully devastating comebacks, and he instead decided to be the genial doddering uncle type. Twit.
3) More than anything, though, it’s because he has hitched himself to the wagons of the pseudo-moralistic holier-than-thou branch of the WeKnowBetter party (which has adherents in both the Democratic and Republican branches, though more in the latter). He calls upon Clinton to resign for the Lewinsky stuff, yet sees no problem with Bush leading us into a unilateral war. Until the Social Security debacle, I’m fairly certain he supported every single major Bush initiative, up to and including the Patriot Act (and its extension), the tax cuts, and the war. More recently, he’s come out and said that it’s inappropriate for Democrats to criticize Bush’s handling of the war, which is one of many cases when he’s crossed over a line where I’m concerned.
Basically, I think he’s a DINO (Democrat In Name Only — I’m sure you know the acronym, but others might not). He claims to be with the Democratic caucus and occasionally votes with them, but he more often is carrying water for the Bush administration and providing them political cover when an opposition party might reasonably be expected to lobby criticism.
It’s often been said that the Democratic party stands for nothing, and I consider Lieberman one of the reasons why that statement carries whatever weight it does. Frankly, I’d respect him more if he broke ranks and actually crossed over.
I didn’t especially like him pre-2000, though it wasn’t a major thing. Now he’s one of the senators I most want gone in the 2006 elections, though he’s well behind Santorum and Frist in that category. Were I living in CT, I’d even consider a moderate Republican as a replacement, which is not something I say lightly.
In the words of Londo Mollari, “Does that answer your question?”
Are you done with school?
For the moment, yes — we ended on Friday. We go back on the 2nd, though, so I’m not sure how much of an actual break this is going to feel like…
(And Lisa’s giving exams on Tuesday night and Wednesday afternoon, so she extends her sympathies. 🙂
TWL
Gack. I goofed on one thing — ADA’s web site has Weicker’s lifetime rating listed at 69, not 87. The “pre-1990” average is 87. (Since everything post-1990 is listed as “N/A”, though, I’m kinda confused as to how the rating changed so dramatically…)
In any case, sorry ’bout that.
TWL
My biggest issue at the moment is with the media. The allegedly-liberal NY Times had this story for over a year — since before the 2004 election. They decided to sit on it because administration officials told them it could jeopardize national security.
My biggest issue is with the opposition party, who have been sitting on this thing for three years. Quoth Nancy Pelosi, “As is my practice whenever I am notified about such intelligence activities, I expressed my strong concerns during these briefings.” Gee, I’m sure having the minority leader express her concerns in private really made the government rethink its position. Whether this intel program turns out to be legal or illegal, it’s nonetheless disturbing. If the opposition doesn’t scrutinize disturbing uses of government power, what’s the use in having one? How do these guys ever expect to become the majority party again if they don’t even look competent when the GOP screws up?
This is an unusual occasion — I agree completely with everything David just wrote. (I hadn’t seen Pelosi’s statement. “Ugh” barely begins to cover it.)
TWL
Why wouldn’t Lowell Weicker be considered a liberal? yeah, he WAS a republican once but he later became an independent. He endorsed Bill Bradley and Howard Dean in the last 2 elections. He obviously went through some changes, which may explain the sudden rise in his ADA ratings.
My dad knew him in college
Ok, I thought there might be a personal issue and that’s cool. I have something similar with Jimmy Carter and he will have to build a hëll of a lot more homes for poor people to make up for it.
His debate performance was just average…pretty much what you get from 2 senators. that’s one reason why Governors do better; more used to the rough and tumble politics, not the phony “The distinguished murderer from the grand state of Massachusetts” stuff.
He calls upon Clinton to resign for the Lewinsky stuff, yet sees no problem with Bush leading us into a unilateral war.
I’m almost 100% sure that he did not call for Clinton to resign. He gave a speech that criticized Clinton’s ethical lapses while arguing against impeachment, as I recall.
Mind you, I have no great love for the guy, though he is fun to have around, mostly to tease Democrats over the fact that the guy they thought was suitable to be one heartbeat away from the presidency is now Public Enemy #1.
Incidentally Lowell Weicker is talking about going after Lieberman’s seat as a independent.
Anyway, that clears that up. have a great Holiday!
This is an unusual occasion — I agree completely with everything David just wrote.
It’s a Christmas miracle!
Actually I’m pro-choice and comparatively sympathetic (for a Republican) to affirmative action. The surprising thing is that we don’t overlap more often. Darn foreign-policy threads.
Gee, I’m sure having the minority leader express her concerns in private really made the government rethink its position.
Part of the problem wiht this whole situation is that I read that all Congressional members who were aware of this stuff were sworn to security (national security and all that mumbojumbo).
Either way, I think that anybody involved with this, whether authorizing it (Bush) or aware of it (members of Congress) should resign.
Pelosi is a poor spokeman for the Democrats. Today’s is just the latest. Her opinion the other day that there would be no Democrat position on the war just took away another reason to think they stand for anything.
There is a lot of potential for blowback on this issue. Democrats who acted too outraged may have to explain how they knew about it and did nothing. The Times may have to expect calls for an investigation of who leaked this secret information (it isn’t only illegal if Karl Rove does it). And I suspect the average American doesn’t care much, figuring that if their phones were tapped nothing bad would happen to them.
Actually, we probably have fewer constitutional protections in these matters than most imagine. Maybe some good will come of it if people do get upset over this fact and demand stricter controls (as happened in the recent landgrab debates).
Part of the problem wiht this whole situation is that I read that all Congressional members who were aware of this stuff were sworn to security (national security and all that mumbojumbo).
Yeah, but that’s the whole reason for having secret Congressional committee sessions.
Yeah, but that’s the whole reason for having secret Congressional committee sessions.
If it’s in the name of national security, then nobody can bìŧçh at the Democrats about knowing about this for several years and doing nothing about it – they couldn’t say anything, and they certainly don’t have the power to stand up to the Bush Administration.
Either way, I stand by my opinions. This goes well beyond national security and into the kind of stuff Communist China does, or the USSR and Nazi Germany. It isn’t America.
One bit that is still puzzling me aboutthis latest thing–is there anything NEW there? Instapundit points the way to this 60 Minutes piece from 2000 about the fact that “If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there’s a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country’s largest intelligence agency.”
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
So again, what is new? Is the only differenec that while everything that is phones, emailed, etc is allowed to be screened it takes a special deal to specifically target an individual?
One bit that is still puzzling me aboutthis latest thing–is there anything NEW there?
That depends on whether it’s something you’ve heard about it.
I’d never heard of Echelon.
I just find it criminal that Bush outrights admits to approving of it and, like most of the rest of his policies such as rendition and torture, finds nothing illegal about it.
“Either way, I stand by my opinions. This goes well beyond national security and into the kind of stuff Communist China does, or the USSR and Nazi Germany. It isn’t America.”
That’s not totally accurate: It IS the kind of stuff America does, it just usually requires a warrant. There’s a special court set up to grant these warrants, and yes, they are secret, but at least there’s an independant body giving the legal oversight, requiring the government to make it’s case of probably cause in order to get the warrant. I don’t know how Bush’s system works, but it seems to consist of the CIA making the decision on its own.
The claims that this is something that needs to be done are just plain false. Existing law allows unwarranted surveillance for up to 72 hours, so long as a showing can be made at that point that justifies a warrant.
I will say one thing in Bush’s defense, though, and that’s that the expression of authority granted to the President following 9/11 probably can be read broadly enough to allow this kind of act. Which is maybe the biggest reason, when I read that authorization, that I felt a big sense of impending doom. That authorization handed to the President the authority to wage war without a declaration of war, expressly given to congress in the Constitution. Among other things. It concentrated far too much power into a single branch of government, something our founders wisely opted to split between three separate branches. No one should be surprised that ultimate power has once again corrupted.
Fortunately, we can undo that, if we can just get congress to rescind the grant of power.
That’s not totally accurate: It IS the kind of stuff America does, it just usually requires a warrant.
And in the case of the NSA, Bush told them to not bother getting a warrant, even though, acocrding to a NBC Nightly News report the other night, the judge in charge of handing out those warrants rarely refuses.
Craig, you are probably wrong that it’s illegal, therefore it isn’t a crime.
Whether or not it SHOULD be a crime will probably come up for debate. There is a potential risk in the Democrats doing this; what if in the course of the investigations it turns out that one or more of these wiretappings revealed and prevented a terrorist attack? The Republicans will portray the Democrats as the party that worries more about terrorist rights than public safety.
Since it’s already been revealed that some Democrats knew about the arrangement and did nothing it’s hard to see much good coming out of this for them unless of course it could be shown that the investigations were not of terror suspects but just political enemies. THAT would be a disaster for the administration.
If the Democrats spend every time worried about the “what if” game, they don’t deserve to win. These wiretaps are repugnant to the American ideal and should be ended. Period.
I have no doubt that many administration officials will try to play exactly the game Bill describes; that’s pretty much their standard practice, after all. It’s time for the Democrats to say “this has gone several steps past too far; if this is to be the new status quo, then the terrorists HAVE won and America is dead.”
And if they’re too worried about “the risks” to do that, then it’s up to us to do it for them.
TWL
The Republicans will portray the Democrats as the party that worries more about terrorist rights than public safety.
And that’s how they’ve portrayed everything else to date anyways.
It still doesn’t excuse the trampling of our civil liberties, does it?
Even many the Republicans realize this, otherwise the Patriot Act would’ve been renewed. But it wasn’t.
If the Democrats spend every time worried about the “what if” game, they don’t deserve to win.
Well they have to at least examine how best to achieve their goals. You ARE tired of seeing them lose, right?
Look at the last few weeks. They begin to have a semi organized response to the Iraq situation and the net result seem to be that Bush has the best poll numbers in 6 months.
It figures that just when I predict that the Dems will gain in 2006 they begin to do everything in their power to keep that from happening.
Oh, great, I caught a bit of one of Bush’s speeches where he’s talking about the spying.
The way he sounds when he says “I’m doing everything in my power to protect you”, he sounds like a parent scolding a childen.
But I guess that’s what we get for not stepping in line and taking whatever insanity Bush comes up with.
Well they have to at least examine how best to achieve their goals. You ARE tired of seeing them lose, right?
Yes, of course — but not at the cost of their souls, and that’s the road we’re heading for if they keep being mealy-mouthed.
A party needs to have principles. I think most Democrats, and certainly most liberals, share most of the same ones, and I’ve mentioned before what I think they are.
Certain things have to be lines in the sand, and to me this is one of them. They worry about what’s “politically astute” in a clear-cut case of people being flat-out corrupt and evil, and they can kiss my support goodbye at the same time they kiss my ášš.
Christ, at least the Bush administration admits it’s being actively evil…
TWL
It’s not just a question of being politically smart, it’s also a matter of being right.
When I made the suggestion that this could bounce back at them it wasn’t just based on the idea that Bush and co would simply say that the Democrats were being careless with American lives. It could well end up being true. If these wiretaps have stopped just one major attack it will look very very bad for anyone who opposes them. Very few Americans would trade their lives for the ability to talk long distance to Al Qaeda unrecorded.
Again, I’m not clear exactly on what is new here. I’d been told by many that as soon as you say “assassination” or “bomb” on the phone it triggers some recording device–my only doubts about that were whether or not the technology exists and whether or not they have enough people to monitor the sheer number of calls made each day.
On the other hand, if the taps were done for political reasons, with no likelihood of terrorist involvement, it could well lead to impeachment. So I can see why Democrats are willing to take the chance. Just don’t be shocked if it turns out to be another Karl Rove rabbit trap, timed just right for the next election.
When I made the suggestion that this could bounce back at them it wasn’t just based on the idea that Bush and co would simply say that the Democrats were being careless with American lives. It could well end up being true. If these wiretaps have stopped just one major attack it will look very very bad for anyone who opposes them. Very few Americans would trade their lives for the ability to talk long distance to Al Qaeda unrecorded.
But even if such a example exists, would it have been able to be gotten legally as well? I think part of the problem with WireTapGate is not that it was done, but rather that instead of going through the proper procedures and doing it legally, the administration, in a fit of we-know-best-and-can-do-no-wrong, goes ahead and unilaterally does an end run around the legal code.
And even if a major attack was stopped, since the evidence was obtained improperly, the perpetrators would have to be let go (unless of course they get classified as “enemy combatants” I guess).
And I am especially fond of the legal reasoning used to justify the adminstration’s actions (it essentially boils down to “We have the authority to wiretap because we don’t have the authority to wiretap.”)
If these wiretaps have stopped just one major attack it will look very very bad for anyone who opposes them.
Well, the Bush Administration certainly loves to play the “What if” game, don’t they?
I mean, this is the group that insinuated that if Kerry were elected, we’d have another 9/11.
When you have to try and justify things like torture, and spying on ordinary people… well, you’ve already lost the war, you just don’t realize it yet.
“When you have to try and justify things like torture, and spying on ordinary people… well, you’ve already lost the war, you just don’t realize it yet.”
I read a review for Spielberg’s film Munich (opening soon, I hear…with the newborn, we don’t really pay attention to movies anymore) today. The short of it is, the film’s about the spook team that goes after the terrorists behind the Olympic murders of 30 years ago. I was like 2, maybe 1, so if I’m getting any of those details wrong, I’ll have to drool on you, because that’s all I was doing at the time.
Anyway, one of the points of the film is that, if you sink to the levels of your enemy, who you’ve painted as evil, what’s the point of fighting? And when we sacrifice the basic beliefs that our country was founded on, then we’ve lost that sense of self that makes us a country.
Preventing these wiretaps isn’t about terrorists rights. It’s about our basic freedoms. Privacy is one of the few things that protects us from the government, and these wiretaps threaten the privacy of every American citizen. Terrorists can attack us, killing thousands in a day. But only rarely. For the most part, they can attack us in small groups. Eroding the protections of privacy attacks the rights of 278 million Americans simultaneously. In doing this, Bush has more effectively struck fear into the hearts of Americans than a lifetime of Bin Laden’s could.
And those that don’t yet feel that fear are living in ignorance.
Tim & Bill, while my use of “evolution” was not correct strictly speaking, it is shorthand for the naturalistic alternative to divine creation — hence the “Creation vs. Evolution” usage. But I will be more careful in the future in how I use the term.
RE: Bush wiretaps. I agree that there is a tension here. I have yet to hear of an actual case where someone was falsely arrested or the information collected was used for wrong purposes. It really depends on how limited and purposeful the wiretaps actually were. If they were indeed limited to known terroist contacts, I have no problem with it. As this leak itself proves, you have to limit who knows what to keep anything secret. And letting the enemy know specifics about how we are listening can hurt us and prevent us from defending ourselves.
To state the obvious, a person’s prior convictions about Bush play a huge role. If you think he is trustworthy, then this is not as big of a deal. If you do not, then it is. I am not trying to downplay the principle behind it, but I think the rhetoric against this is partially driven by a distrust for Bush and would be different if this was Clinton, Gore, or Kerry (on both sides).
Iowa Jim
Bill,
Bobb and Sasha have answered far more eloquently than I’m likely to at the moment. My only additional comment is that when ANY administration embraces obviously unethical behavior in the guise of “we’re doing this to protect you,” I’m shocked that anybody is stupid enough to fall for it — especially when it’s a particular administration’s pattern of behavior, as is the case now.
If they use that defense again, and it works again, then the country is dead, and I for one will simply pick up a shovel and help dig the grave.
Jim’s right in that at least some of this is going to depend on one’s prior impressions of Bush … but it shouldn’t. I also note that Jim is coming extremely close to following Bush’s lead in condemning the leaker in this rather than the action itself.
TWL
People might be interested in the below link. Bryan Lambert is … well, let’s just leave it at “undiplomatic” :-), but he’s also right FAR more often than he’s wrong.
http://www.youaredumb.net/node/501
TWL
And even if a major attack was stopped, since the evidence was obtained improperly, the perpetrators would have to be let go (unless of course they get classified as “enemy combatants” I guess).
that’s a good point, Sasha. I’m still not sure that this was illegal. Unwise, perhaps, though I guess we will find out.
Anyway, one of the points of the film is that, if you sink to the levels of your enemy, who you’ve painted as evil, what’s the point of fighting?
If that’s the point of the movie I doubt I’ll like it much. If some guy kidnaps and imprisons innocents and we send him to jail–effectively kidnapping and imprisoning him–have we stooped to his level?
To state the obvious, a person’s prior convictions about Bush play a huge role. If you think he is trustworthy, then this is not as big of a deal. If you do not, then it is. I am not trying to downplay the principle behind it, but I think the rhetoric against this is partially driven by a distrust for Bush and would be different if this was Clinton, Gore, or Kerry (on both sides).
I dunno, how happy would you be if it turned out Hillary Clinton had done this? At the very least, we would want to know some of the details.
I also note that Jim is coming extremely close to following Bush’s lead in condemning the leaker in this rather than the action itself.
Well, if leaking classified information is wrong, and we have been told repeatedly by the folks who wanted to see Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House that it is, isn’t it wrong in this case as well?
I mean, you can’t go from demanding that Robert Novak be forced to reveal his sources to suddenly demanding that the Times protect their sources despite any laws that might have been broken.
Truth to tell, I’m not even sure where I stand on that. I don’t like seeing press folks having rights I don’t have…on the other hand, I’d rather have an irresponsibly unfettered press than the alternative. So…
As for the wiretaps, maybe I am being naive here, but I was always under the impression that this goes on all of the time. The government can wiretap any of us at will. Always have been able to do so. Yeah, they may have to find a judge willing to sign off on it but that will just slow them down by a few days max. Hëll, we even had a show on FX called THE WIRE. We’ve all thrilled to news reports of mafia kingpins bragging about whacking their enemies, never suspecting that the FBI was recording it. There’s the whole Echelon deal.
I don’t want to minimize this. It could become a major major scandal. But so far I’m not seeing much new here, which may be why the Senators who were told about it didn’t raise a stink until it became politically expedient to do so.
If they were indeed limited to known terroist contacts, I have no problem with it.
But between the Pentagon and NSA, they haven’t.
We’ve said that multiple times, Jim. Are you just not reading this stuff properly, or is your support of Bush blinding you?
I am not trying to downplay the principle behind it
Yes, you are. You are trying to downplay this specifically because of your support of Bush, while trying to tell us we’re just being paranoid because we don’t support Bush. Guess what? It’s BS.
That’s where we have a disconnect, I think.
I believe we live in a savage, uncivilized world in which a handful of countries, America being one of them, had carved out a fairly civilized piece of it by compartmentalizing our “barbarism” to the men and women who safeguard civilization. That doesn’t mean we should dip any further into barbarism than is necessary to meet the opposing force, but I think it’s silly to think we can march into a den of thieves and cutthroats with our derby and bumbershoot and chastize them politely into submission.
At the same time, I don’t have a terribly high opinion of people, either. We have our civilized veneer, but you don’t have to scratch too deep to find the barbarian. Which means we’ve got fallible men and women making the decisions of how much isn’t too much.
Torture, for example, is very bad. Still, if Yoyo over here makes the claim that he has just planted a dirty bomb and he’s not gonna tell us where, then I’ll be the first in line with pliers to rip out his fingernails. Where it gets dicey, of course, is if we just THINK Yoyo has done something dastardly. Then we have to rely on the judgment of fallible people.
I worked with the police for several years, which gives me a different perspective on a lot the restraint laws out there that well-meaning people try to slap on cops. They haven’t been out there, they don’t know how they hamstring cops… and yet I know cops who NEED some of those stupid laws to prevent them from being abusive jerks. I have NOT been in a war, but I suspect it’s even worse, that we hamstring our fighting forces to the point where lives will be lost. War is barbaric, and when it’s necessary, it must be waged so to the point that it is successful. Winning is the major thing. It would be nice to win with principle, but when the dust clears, it needs to be a win, and God help our military.
Carnivore, Eschelon(sp), are software programs that pick up key words and “score” the results. Certain scores get elevated to analysts blindly (no names attached) until a threat is determined, then the name is up for grabs and a warrant is issued for a direct tap. Dunno how this latest tap was done, but if it’s the same computer evaluated thing, I’m okay with it. Computers can’t invade privacy, only people can.
Ultimately, though, our system is in trouble. We elect people we feel we can trust to administer properly those laws that can tread on our rights. Yet we don’t trust politicians any longer. I’m an independant conservative and I don’t much like anyone who runs for office anymore – not Republicans or Democrats. To get where they are they have to compromise principle at best and be corrupt at worst. I don’t know how to fix it. Does anyone out there?
Well, it comes as NO suprise that because the signal intercept (not wiretap) story came out now, it’s another “Bush is Evil” cry for some people.
However, here’s a secret for you all. Now don’t tell anyone…
That’s the NSA’s job. Yes, the times broke a story saying that the NSA is doing the job it was created to do. Shocking!!!!
And before some of you get all upset, read this link and look at the date.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
But so far I’m not seeing much new here, which may be why the Senators who were told about it didn’t raise a stink until it became politically expedient to do so.
Except that now, many of those Senators are claiming that they either weren’t told all the details of the plan or did raise a stink in classified reports.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_go_co/domestic_spying_14
And it goes w/o saying that if they had raised a public stink about a classified program in 2003, they’d have been accused of “helping the terrorists.”
“As for the wiretaps, maybe I am being naive here, but I was always under the impression that this goes on all of the time. The government can wiretap any of us at will. Always have been able to do so. Yeah, they may have to find a judge willing to sign off on it but that will just slow them down by a few days max. Hëll, we even had a show on FX called THE WIRE. We’ve all thrilled to news reports of mafia kingpins bragging about whacking their enemies, never suspecting that the FBI was recording it. There’s the whole Echelon deal.
I don’t want to minimize this. It could become a major major scandal. But so far I’m not seeing much new here, which may be why the Senators who were told about it didn’t raise a stink until it became politically expedient to do so.”
Echelon and court-approved wiretapping are two separate issues. And the Echelon program itself is not totally without concerns. Although the initiation of the Echelon interception is based on keywords, not targeting specific people for cause. And getting a warrant isn’t just a case of find any judge. There’s a specific court that issues those warrants, and just like in any other case, sufficient cause must be demonstrated to the judge. And that justification is reviewable at trial, meaning that if the warrant is unlawful, all the information gained from it is inadmissable. They aren’t just handed out, they have to be supported by evidence. Echelon doesn’t target specific people, it is triggered by keywords. It’s controversial, and follow-up, unwarranted monitoring is likewise illegal.
But what Bush is allowing is the specific, unwarranted monitoring of private international transmissions of American citizens. Saying that there’s no harm in that is like saying that Russian Roullette is a safe game because you got an empty chamber. Whether it’s Clinton, Bush (take your pick) Reagan, Jefferson, or Washington, no person or persons should have this unsupervised authority. There’s a reason why a court was established to do nothing else but issues warrants for wiretaps. Privacy is a paramount right held by American citizens. It is THE foundation of all other rights enumerated in the constitution. It is the basis for the reason why the first colonists came to this land. For the government to take action, even under the guise of “trying to protect us,” that so undermines this basic precept of our very way of life, essentially signals the end of the American dream.
And before some of you get all upset, read this link and look at the date.
Well, if there’s anything to get upset with with your post, it’s the fact that you’re late for the party by a couple of days.
Not only did Bill already post the same link, I replied saying I was not aware of that stuff.
So, I remain pìššëd øff and both Democrats and Republicans who knew of this and did nothing to stop it.
Bush is still evil, regardless of this.
Robbnn, one way to fix it is term limits on all elected Federal office. Take those yahoos that have been sitting on the Hill for 20 years and make them get real jobs.
The other option is make civil service random. Like jury duty, when you get called, you go serve. Put in your 4 years, or whatever, and return to your prior life. It’d take a major overhaul of election laws, and the Constitution, but it would hopefully put an end to the stream of corruption and favors we currently have.
Finally, end corporate sponsorship of political candidates. Totally. Make every contribution to a campaign come from people that can actually vote, rather than legal constructs that have no morals, no conscience, no soul.
None of which will ever happen. The people that have the authority to do anything are the very people that benefit the most from the current system. It would take a literal political revolution at this point to do anything. The Soviets were right all along: We’re truly capitalist slaves these days.
Finally, end corporate sponsorship of political candidates.
Since that’s not likely to happen, I advocate the NASCAR solution to campaign financing: Candidates have to walk around wearing the corporate logos of every company that has contributed more than say, $500 to your campaign. That way, the voters know who has bought and paid for each candidate.
In other news, the anti-science crowd was defeated in PA today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate
Now, hopefully, this media circus will leave us in Pennsylvania alone as they focus on undermining science in Kansas.
“In other news, the anti-science crowd was defeated in PA today:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051220/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debate
Now, hopefully, this media circus will leave us in Pennsylvania alone as they focus on undermining science in Kansas.”
And a small cheer rises from the Planet X crowd.
I love the idea of forcing elected officials to wear NASCAR suits. I’m sure they could incorporate the kevlar plates the President’s suits have much easier into a nomex jumpsuit. We make them tell us who pays for their TV ads, why not?
And corporations would love the NASCAR solution. Everytime a politician cuts a ribbon or appears at a fake townhall meeting, they get free advertising.
The GOP could even offer different patch sizes depending on whether the corporation’s donation qualified them to be a pioneer or a ranger. They could even bid on patch location. Obviously, the jacket lapel region would be prime real estate while the seat of the pants would be the most undesirable.
Oh, and just so no one thinks I’m picking on the GOP or corporations, politicians that get support from unions can proudly wear the AFL-CIO and UAW labels.
Iowa Jim wrote:
“Tim & Bill, while my use of “evolution” was not correct strictly speaking, it is shorthand for the naturalistic alternative to divine creation — hence the “Creation vs. Evolution” usage. But I will be more careful in the future in how I use the term.”
It is important to distinguish between the scienctific method and naturalistic philosophies that hold that everything is science. Who are you opposing Jim?
Do you want divine creation to be part of the scientific method (which at the moment does not include god in any of its models)? Or is it just that you want to oppose philosophies that reject anything but science? If the second, do you think that attacking the scientific method is the best way to undermine those philosophies?
The difference is that if you were sick, a naturalistic philosopher would tell you that praying is futile since science has no evidence of its effectiveness; while a scientist will tell you that praying is outside his or her methodology; but a peron who mixes science and religion will either make the false scientific claim that praying helps (beyond the placebo effect), or worse, that praying should replace tthe medical treatment.
Iowa Jim also wrote that:
” Evolution theory] influences social policies, educational philosophy, judicial practices, and even moral questions such as gay marriage and abortion.”
I don’t see how any of these are influenced by evolution as such. People who support a certain moral or political or legal point of view may use facts, or scientific data to justify their claims. Some of these facts may be connected to evolutionary theory. But usually at the base is non-scientific moral assumptions. Usually both sides will try to refer to scientific data.
For example:
“[Jim argued] that gay marriage harms society — particularly… not based on the Bible saying it is wrong but based on history and observation of human nature?”
The arguement is based on history, sociology and psychology, which Jim felt necessary to distinguish from Religion [the bible]. The argument would then be examined by the methodologies of the relevant sciences, presumably without religion. But the basic moral attitudes towards homosexuality go beyond science.
If that’s the point of the movie I doubt I’ll like it much. If some guy kidnaps and imprisons innocents and we send him to jail–effectively kidnapping and imprisoning him–have we stooped to his level?
I haven’t seen the film, but I doubt that your example is indicative of its point. I certainly don’t think it’s relevant to Bobb’s.
What’s more indicative, I think, is when accusations of torture at Abu Ghraib are met with responses of “oh yeah? Well … well, at least we don’t chop people’s heads off!” These are people who have defined “appropriate conduct” as “anything 1 micrometer less than what ‘the bad guys’ use”, and thus justify escalations as necessary to save us.
If you define yourself solely in terms of your enemy, you’ve already gone a long way towards becoming them — and at that point, you’ve lost the important battles. (Which is why I find Robbnn’s “winning is the major thing” so transcendently repugnant. No, it’s not, Robbnn — and if you claim it is, then you’ve given Saddam’s defense lawyers all the argument they should need. “Winning first, principles after” is a pretty dámņ good recipe for tyranny.)
One of my favorite exchanges in “Chariots of Fire” comes to mind:
“In my day, it was king first, god after.”
“Yes, and the War to End Wars bitterly proved your point.”
Back to the point…
if leaking classified information is wrong, and we have been told repeatedly by the folks who wanted to see Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House that it is, isn’t it wrong in this case as well?
That’s an astonishingly disingenuous response. It implies that all leaks are created equal, and I can’t imagine anyone making that argument who doesn’t have ulterior motives for doing so.
The leak in this case was meant to alert the public to illegal behavior on the part of the government. That strikes me as part of the main reason why leaks are an important part of civilized society.
The leak in the Plame case was political retaliation — or if you want to argue that that hasn’t been proven, at a minimum it was a leak by people high in the administration eager to provide political cover for policy.
The motives behind the two leaks are transparently and fundamentally different. Thus, opinions on the wrongness of said leaks are perfectly entitled to be as well.
I advocate the NASCAR solution to campaign financing: Candidates have to walk around wearing the corporate logos of every company that has contributed more than say, $500 to your campaign. That way, the voters know who has bought and paid for each candidate.
Works for me; a brilliant idea. Naturally, it’ll never happen, but to me it just seems like extending disclosure laws one little half-step, from making the information publicly available to making it present at all times.
TWL
“If that’s the point of the movie I doubt I’ll like it much. If some guy kidnaps and imprisons innocents and we send him to jail–effectively kidnapping and imprisoning him–have we stooped to his level?”
I don’t want to give too much away, but it’s more about adopting the methods of your enemy in trying to defeat him, and in the process becoming indistinguishable from your enemey.
The analogy would be a civlized man gets attacked by a barbarian. If the civilized man had been attacked by another civilized man, the attacker would be arrested, tried, determined guilty or innocent, and imprisoned as according to law. Not because the law says so, but because underlying the law is the belief that administering justice in this fashion is what civilized men must do.
But when the attacker is a barbarian, the response is to seek out the barbarian and kill him, all those with him, and anyone that looks like him. Just as the barbarian would do. And you do so under the guise of “our laws don’t apply to him.”
Gak, no, that’s not the movie, that’s our government.
If they were indeed limited to known terroist contacts, I have no problem with it. As this leak itself proves, you have to limit who knows what to keep anything secret. And letting the enemy know specifics about how we are listening can hurt us and prevent us from defending ourselves.
If they were limited only to “known terrorist contacts”, then why not do it right and get a warrant instead of risking evidence being thrown out? And nothing about getting a warrant first would compromise the secrecy of the wiretaps; in fact, because the Bush administration failed to follow procedure, the issue of warrantless wiretaps became public knowledge, thereby “letting the enemy know specifics about how we are listening, [preventing] us from defending ourselves”. Basically, don’t blame the whistleblower for exposing a chink in America’s armor, blame the politicos who made it necessary to point it out.
To state the obvious, a person’s prior convictions about Bush play a huge role. If you think he is trustworthy, then this is not as big of a deal. If you do not, then it is. I am not trying to downplay the principle behind it, but I think the rhetoric against this is partially driven by a distrust for Bush and would be different if this was Clinton, Gore, or Kerry (on both sides).
If any president did this, I’d be honked (and I’d be doubly honked if Clinton, Gore, or Kerry did it because they’re supposed to know better). And considering how mendacious and untrustworthy the current administration has been, that makes me even less happy.
Iowa Jim: Are you serious? Go read the history of pragmatists here in America, people like Oliver Wendel Holmes and John Dewey. Have you not heard of sociobiology? There is a whole branch of psychology that is based on the principle that we evolved and our morality comes from the influence of natural selection. Not everyone agrees on these issues, but to say evolution is not a foundation of any worldview is demonstrably false.
Luigi Novi: First of all, psychology is not a worldview. Second, as I stated above, empirical and scientific facts are morally neutral. Those who use them, and the ends to which it is used, are not. Yes, evolution has been used to justify everything from communism to laissez-faire capitalism, but that does not make it the basis of those things. The validity of evolution, or any scientific idea, rises or falls on its own merits. Whether someone uses it to justify a sociopolitical ideology does nothing to mitigate that validity. If you want to refute evolution, you have to do so on its own merits, by presenting an alternate scientific model that not only accounts for observable phenomena, but does so better than evolution does.
Now at first I thought perhaps that I erred in that by calling it the “basis” of these things, you were not saying that this is was what defined evolution, or why it was first explained, but that this was an emergent outcome of its discovery. But then, after Tim said that evolutionary theory did not come about because of anyone’s desire to change worldviews, you said you disagreed. Well, unfortunately, you’re wrong, because it is true that evolution did not come about for this reason. Evolution was something that was observed by scientists, and when Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace first described natural selection, they did so because that was what appeared to explain their observations. They had no interest in changing a worldview.
Iowa Jim: I beg to differ. For some scientists, it is their stated desire to disprove the existence of God by demonstrating everything came about by natural means.
Luigi Novi: Which has nothing to do with the reasons why evolution, as a scientific idea, came about. It came about through observations by scientists, who were merely trying to explain natural phenomena. This has nothing to do with whether some crackpot “scientist” makes this claim today.
As for these so-called scientists you mention, no credible science would ever argue such a ridiculous thing, for the simply reason that in science, you could never “disprove” such a thing. God exists outside of science, and cannot be proved or disproved one way or the other. No real scientist would be dumb enough to make such a stupid statement. Creationists who do not understand what science is, on the other hand, would most certainly make it, which is why it is clear that this is a Straw Man of their imagination.
If I’m wrong, cite just one scientist who has ever said this.
Iowa Jim: But my high school physics teacher was such a person. We watched every episode of Sagans series “Cosmos.” He was very clear that his belief in evolution was in part because it proved God did not exist. (While he was not a scientist, my high school government teacher took great glee in mocking Christians, particularly those who believed in Creation. My logic teacher in college did as well. While they were not explicit like my physics teacher, their argument for evolution was more based on it being a way to bash Christians than based on the evidence. In contrast, my chemistry and biology teachers, while they taught evolution, were more as you described. They had no interest in toppling religious thought. So I have encountered both sides.)
Luigi Novi: Nice little bait-and-switch. You start off saying that scientists have made this claim, then bring up a high school science teacher, and then a government teacher, a logic teacher, etc., and when you finally get to those who teach specific subjects like biology that would require some understanding of evolution, they turn out to have not expressed this attitude. In any case, “mocking Christians” has nothing to do with the idea that science or evolution can “disprove” God. Anyone who thinks that science can either prove or disprove God doesn’t know what science is.
Iowa Jim: I don’t have the time to go research all of the quotes, but here is one that I found intersting by
Richard Dawkins: “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of Darwinian theory . . . we would still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.” Why? Because it is naturalistic — it explains things without having to “invoke” a “god” who created things. If you go back to Darwin’s time, some scientists were more explicit. There search for a mechanism for evolution was specifically to overthrow religious thought. They felt religion was detrimental, but it was hard to completely deny it when they could not explain a natural way for life and the universe to exist. Darwin provided the way.
Luigi Novi: Notice how he never said that evolution disproved God, or even that those scientists did. They wanted to “overthrow religious thought”, which will not disprove the existence of a God. I would question who these “scientists” were, and would argue that if they ever thought such a thing, then they didn’t understand science, the Scientific Method, or the Peer Review process any more than you do, Jim.
But again, who are these “scientists”?
Iowa Jim: In one sense “evolution” when referring strictly to the idea of gradual changes over time is not in itself a worldview. But there is a key presupposition that most have in conection to it: “Science” requires there to be a “natural” explanation apart from god. As soon as you make that assumption, you have most definitely moved into the realm of a worldview.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. The problem with this description of science is that it is you who are injecting God into it. Science doesn’t do that. It does not “assume” anything “apart from God” any more than it assumes anything connected with him. It is entirely neutral on the subject of God, and has nothing to say about him one way or the other. “Apart from God” is a description one can only make if they assume God’s existence at the outset. In science, you don’t assume this, or anything else. Science merely observes natural phenomena, and tries to form explanations for them. It does not comment on things that it cannot observe. Therefore, this description of yours is false, as it arbitrarily insists on putting a mention of God in it.
Iowa Jim: Again, it is crucial to recognize that the term evolution has come to mean far more than Darwin’s orginal theory. In many uses it has no reference to a particular model but to the concept that the universe and life came about by natural means apart from divine involvement.
Luigi Novi: This use you describe is fraudulent. It does not have anything to do with life or the universe, except for the dishonest creationists who pretend that it does.
If you want to discuss evolution, then use the term correctly.
If you want to discuss the origin of life or the universe, then use those phrases.
Stop using “short hand” when using the proper terms is necessary in a discussion like this.
Iowa Jim: There are 3 basic questions a worldview has to answer: Where did we come from / Why are we here? Why is there pain, suffering, and problems in the world? How do we correct what is wrong in the world? Naturalistic Evolutionary thought offers very different answers than “fundamentalist” Christianity.
Luigi Novi: Wrong. It does not offer any answers at all to these questions. This is why it is not a worldview.
I think Richard Dawkins himself has spent much time arguing against religious thought I’m not 100% sure if his arguments are the result of an ideological animosity towards religion, or just that he feels the need to defend evolution against creationist attempts to undermine it by presenting divine creation as a legitimate scientific theory.
It is also true that evolution developed at a time of increased secularism and even anti-clericalism, although I don’t know if that was Darwin’s own motivation. What this shows is that the reduction of religious authority made it possible for explanations not dependant on religion to be developed.
But all this is irrelevant. In any case, science is naturalistic only in the sense that it seeks explanations whose components are in nature, and whose explanation can be broken down to mechanistic cause and effect relations. God and divine creations do not fit that critirion. So it can be said that prior to Darwin, the scientific explanations for the existence of biological species were:
a) incomplete, in the sense that any reference to god was mostly a reflection of a lack of knowledge concerning the natural processes that caused the existence of species.
b) not very good scientifically, because they refered to an entity (God) that itself could not be understood in naturalistic mechanistic terms (and what kind of God would it be if it could?)
c) derived its explanation not from scientific inquiry, but from an external religious authority.
So Dawkins may also be the kind of person who holds the philosophy that science is everything. Some but not all scientists are. It is the same in the mind-body question, in which some scientists tend to be materialistic. But he is still right in saying that evolution is a better scientific explanation than God, even if it were not so strong on its own merits.
Gotta love Drudge. He says that both Clinton and Carter conducted warrantless searches as well.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash8.htm
I repeat what I said earlier: The hype about this has far more to do with distrust for Bush than the issue itself. I am not saying you don’t care about civil liberties. But there among the politicians and the media, there is quite a bit of hypocrisy. You may disagree with what Bush has done, but two things are clear:
1.) September 11 was a unique event in the last 50 years. While you may think he has gone beyond what he should have, there was clear reason for him to want to do so.
2.) I have yet to hear any story where there was a blatant use of this authority to intimidate his political enemies here in the US. If Bush was accused of doing what the Clinton Justice Department is accused of doing (namely, investigating political enemies and initiating IRS audits to intimidate those enemies), you would have the Democrats in Congress calling for impeachment. Those same Democrats who today are saying Bush abused power are blocking the publication of a report that gives evidence of the Clinton administration doing that very thing.
Gotta love it.
Iowa Jim
RE: Evolution, etc.
Read the comments, but feel I have strayed too far from the point. I will let what I said stand as said and will just read any other comments you all would like to make.
Iowa Jim
Clarification: Strayed too far from PAD’s point at the start of all of this. While it had some relevance at the start, debating this issue is best left for another time and place.
Iowa Jim
If Bush was accused of doing what the Clinton Justice Department is accused of doing (namely, investigating political enemies and initiating IRS audits to intimidate those enemies), you would have the Democrats in Congress calling for impeachment. Those same Democrats who today are saying Bush abused power are blocking the publication of a report that gives evidence of the Clinton administration doing that very thing.
Evidence for this assertion, if you please.
(And for the record, I at least have been calling for impeachment for over a year.)
[On evolution]
Read the comments, but feel I have strayed too far from the point. I will let what I said stand as said and will just read any other comments you all would like to make.
The problem, of course, is that “what you said” is manifestly ignorant and quite possibly deliberately so.
The last time you found yourself faced with several posts all boiling down to “you’re wrong, we’ve explained how you’re wrong, and we’re starting to get annoyed at how intensely determined you are to be wrong”, you rather conveniently left on a trip for several days and said you wouldn’t be able to continue the conversation. This time you’re dropping it because “it’s strayed too far from the point”, though you have no problem whatsoever discussing the wiretap issue which is equally far if not farther from said point. (At least the evolution discussion is actually related to religion, which last I checked was part of PAD’s original subject.)
No response needed — I just wanted to make it clear that the likelihood of some of us engaging you yet again is dropping, since your choice is inevitably to exit the debate rather than actually admit that there’s a chance you’re mistaken. Next time I might just insert links to the last three conversations and let people enjoy the reruns.
TWL