January 24, 2006

galilean contemplation

My Son’s Christmas present has given me a new perspective on the Universe.

Literally.

Looming over his “library” now is a rather substantial telescope that was the only present on his Christmas list. Dad, of course, is learning a bit of astronomy now too since at his age substantial assistance is to be expected.

Doing astronomy you spend a lot of time in quiet dark places. Just the kind of places that bring on a pensive mood whether you want it to or not.

Try some time to avoid thinking while gazing at the heavens. The wonders of the Universe that lie behind those little pinpoints of light will set in motion the mental wheels of even the most mentally rusted American Idol fan. The big questions are inescapable out under the stars.

One haunting quandary for me is the whole disenfranchised state in which I find myself. It seems like at least once a week I hear a remark somewhere to the effect “if you do not vote, then you do not have a right to complain”. And like a Raven tapping at the door of my cranial chamber, there is that omnipresent deep voice that subconsciously insists that voting is a patriotic duty.

I continue to stand by my right to complain: it is not my fault that there are no candidates for which my conscience will allow me to vote. At a minimum I have a right to complain about that. Since my disagreements are rooted in substantive issues, I do not think abstention fairly takes me out of the substantive discussion either.

But then, of course, there is the Louisiana Defense.

In 1991, Louisianans had a choice in front of them for Governor that is hard to forget: Edwin Edwards, on his comeback from a corruption indictment (actual prison time only came later), and David Duke, a neo-Nazi and former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. It is hard to blame the fine citizens of that State who stayed home on election day rather than forcing a choice between a lizard and wizard.

I too will continue to choose none of the above.

It is significant to my view that I find both of the major American parties equally obnoxious on the issues I care most about: Human Rights, abortion and fiscal responsibility. On the issues alone it is impossible to find someone to vote for that is even somewhat consistent with myself on the critical things.

But my disenfranchisement is much deeper than mere disagreement on the issues.

The rotten core of the problem is that both parties are working against the best interests of the American people. A vote for either of the two major parties is a vote for more power consolidation, more sound bites, and more guests at the Congressional Country Club. In short, voting the majors is voting to continue the course of self-destruction. If I were ever convinced that either a Democrat or a Republican candidate was a real Mr. Smith, I could probably hold my nose on the issues and vote.

And self-destruction is exactly what is occurring. Consider, if you have the courage, the last quarter century of headlines.

Robert Bork. Jim Wright. Iran-Contra. Republican traitors in budget wars. Gingrich quits. White-watergate. Perjury skates. Democrats for the war. Body bags in Babylon. I can’t take it anymore.

I didn’t start this fire. And truly, the full list would be so long that Billy Joel could produce another hit single.

This is just the public corruption side of the analysis. If you look at the substance, it is a hard case to make by those who support the major parties that their loyalty has produced any results. They will make that argument, again and again, but I suggest you consider the facts as they are and not as you wish them to be. Decades of Democratic dominance yielded scant progress on key issues at best. Over two decades of Republican dominance have yielded perhaps even less for their base. Has anyone checked the deficit lately?

What we have instead of substantive progress is an increasing accumulation of power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. When it was Democrats grabbing power, the Republicans wailed. And now, of course, the names are changed but the crimes against Liberty are the same.

Reflection is always a good thing. In the end, I remain unrepentant for refusing to vote for those who are running our formerly great nation further into the ground. I have admitted my not voting really stands for nothing in the greater scope of things, but then my conscience is perhaps a bit less troubled as the wheels are coming off of America.

To ease my conscience further, my goal remains to trouble partisan hearts without mercy. Eventually facts make a difference. Just like with Galileo.

Where was I? Darn. Mars moved totally out of view.

78 Comments:

Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Disenfranchised is OK. Defining yourself as such is a potential liability. If you define yourself by it, then when an answer comes along that gets us going the right direction, you will be less likely to help the country/state/local move in the right direction because you are trying to be true to your championed cause. Imagine if our founders took that line of reasoning? Do the current Dems & Repubs stink? Oh, yea! Big time. But when someone like Ron Paul comes along, just because he doesn’t scratch his rear the same place you scratch yours doesn’t mean we shouldn’t put him in a position to help...and we do that by voting.

Refractor or reflector?

Prof. Ricardo

4:01 PM  
Blogger Flame Thrower said...

The problem is of course, is that the era of the "Citizen Statesman" is long gone. That period of time in our history when the political leaders were first farmers or surveyors or merchants and came to Washington or Philadelphia to do their countries business and then returned home to continue making a living. Their government service was a duty not a career and in most cases not financially very rewarding if at all.

Today the political leaders are politicians, folks who make their living at the public expense and while sad, it should not come as a surprise that very quickly the main focus of these individuals becomes making their living by staying in office rather than doing what is right for the country. As political parties have become institutionalized these politicians have discovered that they enhance there ability to remain employed if they join an organization ( a political party) and over time the party becomes more important than the country, placing the country number three on the list of important things after themselves and their party.

But...I still vote and complain to my elected officials, it is at least something I can do.

To Common Good I'd like to propose that who made the stars is stll open to question.

4:52 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

I really do not define myself according to disenfranchisement. Internally, that is not how I tick.

I have a lot of problems with Ron Paul. I had respect for him when he was still a Libertarian. That he bolted for the GOP in order to get access to office speaks volumes about what is wrong with this country.

I actually only demand that someone be in alignment with me on three things. First, they must be pro-life. Second, they must be substantially civil libertarians. On those two I do not demand perfect conformity to my own view. If someone was a reasonable compromise abortion opponent and moderately vigorous in defending human rights, I'd be right there with them.

My last requirement is fatal however: I demand that the person not be a Democrat or Republican. I can not compromise there because if they are beholden to their party, then nothing else matters.

Give me an independent or third party candidate that gets anywhere close on the first two, I'll not just vote for them, I'll campaign for them.

7:27 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Flamer,

First, Welcome!

Looks like we may have a little in common. Do you not share my concern that by voting for the big two that you implicitly condone what is happening?

7:31 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

TexaCon,

Good to hear from your radical right keyboard again.

Your post reminded me of an exchange I had over your way once with a person handled Optomistic Realist, I think. Seems you think alike on this point.

I'm confused how my voting for someone that I find repugnant is classified as not doing anything. I suppose the hours I spend actively engaged in debate with others both here and on other messageboards is nothing in your book. Frankly, I do not know what better course I have available. Please advise me if you can because I need the help.

I am very happy that I am not side-lined as you say that I am. Rather, I am in the mix in the most vigorous way I know how within the time limits and resources at my disposal.

My test is far from unreachable by mortals. That is what is so sad: that we are so mired in the stupid political structures that exist that there is no room for reasonable viewpoints such as my own.

I'm glad your vote clears your conscience. If only you were not destroying our country in the process. But then, that is your perogative.

7:39 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony Plank,

That he bolted for the GOP in order to get access to office speaks volumes about what is wrong with this country.

Without a revival of sorts, jettisoning the two parties, or their stronghold, will be difficult. Without a change in educating our next generation, a revival is nearly impossible. Having the government educate our children - that government that supports and encourages a two party system - is hardly an avenue to educate our children on the liberties that you and I value so much.

So, how do you propose we kick off this new desire for a third party, or no party, phenomena to take off? I’m all ears. IMO it will take a dissatisfaction of parents with government education, resulting in either parents or private schools imparting knowledge of our original founders thoughts and ideas on liberty, government, etc. Only then will the parents themselves and a sufficient number of an up and coming generation be equipped to discern political directions and options.

Currently, the sheeple, mass stupids, and lemmings are quite content to let government hold either end of the bat to beat them with, liberal or conservative. Without a paradigm shift, you can expect to sit on the sidelines for a very long time.

Prof. Ricardo

10:59 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof said, ” Without a paradigm shift, you can expect to sit on the sidelines for a very long time.”

Well, as I explained to TexaCon, I do not think I’m on the sidelines in any way other than the voting booth itself. I for one am not optimistic about a paradigm shift. I think you are correct that if we are going to get change it will most likely start with outraged parents and grandparents. Presently the outrage is simmering and what is needed is leadership to tap the rage.

Which leads me to my old buddy DavidR’s post.

That was the first serious budge I have ever felt in my decision to go to the polls. I am sure the primaries are loaded with people not yet bought off. I will give this some serious consideration.

And you are correct, the people at the top are not necessarily beholden to the party. Your examples are excellent and I totally agree. But still, the people down below end up beholden to them. Both before elections because of coattails and after because of the power they wield at the head of the party.

The proof of that can be seen clearly in the Clinton Senate trial: party line vote. No matter how you felt about things, that is one time that if someone was voting their conscience or as a proxy for their constituency when the vote should definitely not been purely partisan.

And we agree totally on the need for great leadership. You know I have written about this here in the past. We have had a succession of politically astute leaders…Reagan, Clinton, W. But no real leaders on issues. I suppose Reagan had the cold war, Clinton had the deficits and W has Haliburton shareholder value. But really, even those issues were shaped and molded politically and not according to what was right for America.

9:39 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

I say wire ‘em up, throw the switch, and then lets Blog on what we think they would have said if they’d survived. Nothing like a clean slate.

Prof. Ricardo

1:14 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common: “...my government provided Rapture...

Crap C.G. You look to the government for everything. :-D

Prof. Ricardo

7:49 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

DavidR,

Great post.

First, it is true I have seldom made suggestions for structural changes. It is easy to get lazy and not do that when you are convinced that we are screwed. I think you have some intriguing ideas that we should take a looks at.

Let me respond in reverse order and consider your proposals starting at three and proceding to number one.

I have always been in favor of campaign finance reform. I think there is little that compares to the utility of such reform in getting some of the financial corruption out of the system. It is urgent and compelling. I would couple this with term limits of a very limiting nature.

I do, however, agree that the legal argument asserting that campaign donations are protected speech is a sound one. We can go into that in some depth if anyone cares to. While you are completely correct in your analysis with regard to competing liberties, it is not a situation that the Supreme Court has normally applied a balancing test. In ConLaw parlance, I do not believe that the rational you suggest is sufficient to clear the requirement that such legislation be closely tailored to meet a compelling state interest. I do believe that a Constitutional Amendment along the lines you describe is overdue and even of an urgent nature.

On your second point, I can not see that mattering much unless it is coupled with improved ballot access for third party candidates. Or perhaps a turn toward a no-primary system where multiple candidates from the same part can be considered and balanced the way you describe. Absent these types of reforms, you are still going to get a result that is a choice between the major party annoited and thus favorite sons. Either way, I think it is a good suggestion and even without the other reform, it could make an impact on an occasional race.

I do, however, stand firmly opposed to the elimination of the electoral college. I would be curious to hear your analysis as to why this particular reform would be so helpful. In my view, it would mostly serve to eleminate the voice of the rural and small state voter. A notion such as this is probably very attractive to those of the Democratic persuasion in the current political climate. In my view, the current system already has too much bias in favor of the small states.

Hey, agreeing on two out of three is not bad for you and I.

Oh, and I'm totally with you on your most recent response to Yoshi.

12:27 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

There is nothing they can not get access to without a warrant. Warrantless searches are a very big deal indeed. I do not see anything legitimate about their need for violating our liberties in such a pervasive fashion.

12:29 AM  
Blogger Flame Thrower said...

Tony....I do dislike the fact that when I vote it does "endorse" the dork I voted for. This is particularly true when you get a George Shrub (no I did not vote for him) talking about his mandate when he had to go to the Supreme Court to "win" the election. However, I am also concerned about what happens when the electorate shrinks to the point where smaller and smaller interest groups have a disproportionate influence on the election results.

The point of the democratic process is after all, to reflect the view of the majority. When the majority does not vote, the process breaks down, Remember you can always write in a vote whether it's for Donald Duck or someone serious.

11:23 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

To anyone who cares. If I may quote at length from America: The First 350 Years by J. Steven Wilkens.
--------------------------------
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

The electoral college was formed for three reasons:
a) To prevent undue influence from the Congress -- "No Senator or Representative...shall be appointed an elector."

b) To hinder corruption -- i.e., the possibility of a small group of powerful men manipulating an election.

c) To prevent undue influence from the larger states.

The electoral college was a brilliant safeguard to these dangers. It was formed to be the exact numerical counterpart of the Congress with one elector for each congressional district and two "at large" for the two senators. It was assumed as Rushdoony points out,

"that prominent and able men from each congressional district, and from the state at large, would be elected or appointed as electors, and, to retain their independence and integrity, the electors could not be a 'Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States.'" (The Nature of the American System, p. 11)

Under this arrangement, each voter would vote for three men -- one to represent his congressional district, and two "at large" representatives to represent his state.

Each elector would cast his vote according to the vote of his district and the "at large" representatives would vote as their states voted. It was not unusual for a state to cast its electoral votes for three or four candidates. Corruption under this system was rendered almost impossible.(emphasis added - P.R.) As Hamilton observed,

"This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union...It will not be too strong to say that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue." (The Federalist, No. 68)

By the 1830s however, things began to change. The Constitution did not demand that electors be elected from each congressional district and lure of political influence which a "general ticket" would give was too much to resist. The general ticket took power from the congressional districts and gave it the state -- or more particularly, to those districts which contained large urban centers. Politicians could ignore the rural districts in their states and concentrate on the urban areas.

By 1836, every state except South Carolina, chose their electors by general ticket.

This has had three very important results:
a) It gave great influence to the large cities at the expense of the rural communities.

b) It has made for the "citification" of politics. The interests of urban areas dominate.

c) It has given tremendous power to minorities and special interest groups. Prior to the general ticket, minorities had very little influence on politics simply because they were not large enough to influence the elections in every district.

As a result, minority groups have become the most important factor in national elections, simply because they control the balance of power in most states. The majority can therefore be safely ignored. Since the 1860s, minorities have been the dominant force in the framing of national issues and public policy.

The problem with the Electoral College is not its structure but the use of the general ticket.

11:54 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

DavidR,

Sorry for my slow response. Things have been very busy in Curmudgeonland…the short story is I am starting a new job in three weeks. Wish me luck.

As is the case so often these days, we have more agreement than we perhaps even think we do. I too do not like the winner take all aspects of the elector slates. This is a function of the individual state laws and a direct result of the two parties’ desires to limit ballot accesss.

Now the argument that the winner of the electoral college tends to be the winner of the popular vote just does not close the matter for me. While specific examples elude me, it seems there is a real possibility that there will be a small state issue of importance in our future. Just look at the Blue/Red maps and you can see that there is a significant divergence in how rural and urban America views things. I believe that the electoral college is the only thing that keeps big state dominance in partial check. Perhaps it would have no effect but I’m just not comfortable with that yet. Regardless, I think we agree that the opportunity for a Nader to get an electoral vote would be a huge plus for third parties generally.

I’d be curious to hear more about your reform #4…sounds like something I would favor. Are you suggesting a National provision for ballot access. I’d definitely be behind that.

1:08 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Flamer,

I have made your exact point in posts past: nothing is more irritating than these schmoes claiming a mandate on all kinds of specific issues when they have won an election by a percentage point or two. Best I can tell there hasn’t been a real mandate on any specific issue in a lot of years. Perhaps the Reagan era tough stand on communism is the closest I can think of and that really wasn’t an overwhelming mandate either.

This is a huge part of my Disenfranchisement. If I had voted Democratic last election and they had won, next day they would’ve been claiming a mandate for abortion rights and I would’ve had a hand in that claim. If I had voted Republican, I would have had a hand in lending support for their mandate for their continuing and obnoxious abuse of our civil liberties. I could not live with myself in either case.

And I think the old “Donald Duck” vote is no more noble than not voting. It is the same thing in my view. Even if we had a national “none of the above” movement, that would be no better than not voting because it would have no legal significance.

1:15 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Equal Protection mean the equal protection of the law. This is not the same as guaranteeing an equal outcome generally. The notion is that before the law you are treated equally.

Obviously the rich always have access to things you and I do not. The ability to speak on a large platform is just one of them. In a free society, it is pretty much impossible to prevent a rich person from exercising their right of free speech. If Bill Gates wants your attention, he has the money to buy an hour’s worth of prime-time TV and get you to listen to him. If you want to limit his ability to do this, a Constitutional Amendment is the only way to go.

1:23 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I’m not sure what you last post meant. I’m not being sarcastic at all-what exactly is your argument?

Active Liberty is obviously a term that Breyer coined. That doesn’t make it bad, but I’ll not comment on that directly without more information.

So you don’t see how donations is a form of speech? I’m not sure I can help you if you do not understand that giving money to political organizations gives voice to one’s viewpoint. The connection is not even a loose one.

But do not loose track of the fact that I totally agree that we need to have Constitutional Amendments to implement the types of things that you and DavidR have described. We will never get the money totally out of the process but we can limit it affects.

What is the likelihood of any of this coming to pass? If negative probabilities were possible, that is where I would go to find the answer.

Why? The Democrats and Republicans have slowly built armor around their artificial two party system. Do you think two-thirds of the state legislatures are going to vote to cut their own throats? Of course not.

The only slim chance is a Constitutional Convention. Given how overly politicized things are these days, the only likely out come of that is a provision that if you aren’t Democratic or Republican, you have to be at least 90 years of age to stand for election to Federal Office.

7:34 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

My exact position is that all of the coalition building would be a good thing. Not automatically so, but it would open the door to substantive discussion. One of the great tragedies is that we spend all our time on political positions rather than the underlying substantive merit. The old budget wars come to mind. The Democrats said the Republicans wanted to starve old people and kill babies. The Republicans called them class warriors and tax and spend liberals. In reality, there wasn’t but a fraction of a percentage difference in the budget proposal. It was a made for TV sham. I naively want us to actually discuss the merits of individual budget line items.

9:39 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

It’s no news that I think that Pres. George Bush is a fine and decent Democrat who never met an expenditure he didn’t want to approve of.

It troubles me that he does not understand the Constitution and its meaning the way I believe it should be understood. He has parroted many phrases that sound like he understands, but I am not convinced.

The bypass of FISA in surveillance is troublesome. Its not that terrorist should not be detected, caught, arrested, and punished, along with terrorist actions foiled before great damage is done. But there must be a safeguard that prevents government from destroying the people’s freedoms and ultimately becoming a tyrant themselves.

Bush was clueless on the McCain Feingold. Clueless.

Like all the politicians that take the reins of a billion horsepower race car like the U.S., they can’t resist blipping the throttle a few times, revving her up, maybe even laying a long strip of rubber because, hey....I’m in control. I wouldn’t ever do anything to hurt the people. I’m here to help. Whatever I do will be for their good. They just don’t understand that I would never overstep my “self-control” bounds. Sure I overstepped the bounds of that ol’ governing document the Constitution, but its so confining, so governing, so limiting, that it doesn’t let me help my people the way I could. If only I had unlimited ability to help the people, think of the good I could do.

Yep. Every dictator is somebody who wants to help bring about their wonderful end result without the constraints that they would demand on any other leader.

With respect to the topic of surveillance....
Q. If Osama Bin Laden calls this country, should we care?
Q. Should we find out who he talked to and what they were saying?
Q. If a spy/terrorist/enemy is contacting someone within our country, is this a “private” or personal conversation and/or is it an act of war communications that we must try to intercept?
Q. If 100% of the surveillance is of inbound phone calls from known terrorist numbers, or outbound to the same, is monitoring those calls a threat to our freedoms?
Q. Is this authority to monitor spy/terrorist/enemy communications inbound and outbound from our country different from this authority that we had in WWII? If so how?
Q. Is our current concern over monitoring a result of the ever increasing encroachment of government since the WWII similar authority AND the confusion over what is a right, who are covered by constitutional rights, and the ability to differentiate between “good monitoring” and “bad monitoring?”

I believe we should make enormous efforts to intercept spy/terrorist/enemy inbound and outbound communications. I also believe that the howling on the Democrat side is disingenuous because of the executive orders of Carter and Clinton that permitted far more intrusion into private American lives.

However, the Republicans are just as apologetic of any act Bush does. Were Bush to understand and reverence the Constitution, I would feel better. But there seems little clarity on the subject coming from him. His reasons for surveillance are because we voted him in to “protect us.” I beg your pardon? He scares me. And the alternative is John Kerry, or God forbid, Hillary?

Prof. Ricardo

9:50 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

You have questions, I have answers!

Q. If Osama Bin Laden calls this country, should we care?
A. Yes.

Q. Should we find out who he talked to and what they were saying?
A. Yes, with a warrant.

Q. If a spy/terrorist/enemy is contacting someone within our country, is this a “private” or personal conversation and/or is it an act of war communications that we must try to intercept?
A. Yes, with a warrant.

Q. If 100% of the surveillance is of inbound phone calls from known terrorist numbers, or outbound to the same, is monitoring those calls a threat to our freedoms?
A. Yes it is without a warrant.

Q. Is this authority to monitor spy/terrorist/enemy communications inbound and outbound from our country different from this authority that we had in WWII? If so how?
A. The answer is irrelevant. FDR ignored the Constitution all the time. Define “authority”. If you mean by that the government possess the present power to do it, then there isn’t much difference in quality (quantity being a different matter). If you mean legal authority, the no, there hasn’t been a changed to the 4th Amendment since then.

Q. Is our current concern over monitoring a result of the ever increasing encroachment of government since the WWII similar authority AND the confusion over what is a right, who are covered by constitutional rights, and the ability to differentiate between “good monitoring” and “bad monitoring?”
A. Yes.

More questions?

11:02 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:59 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

The Answer Man,

As you move from the monitoring inbound phone calls from criminal spy/terrorist/enemy cowards to actual war with them on their ground (Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, etc.) obviously we do not need court issued warrants “in the field” conducting recon/spy efforts by our military(do we?). Given that the whole criminal terrorist cowards issue is a lot greyer than war efforts against a known country or territory, is the border defining the requirements for warrants whose soil we are on? If they, the criminal terrorist cowards, come to our soil, does that warrant requirement still stand? Does that also extend to enemy’s standing armies on our soil, or just to criminal terrorist cowards?

Prof. Ricardo

2:03 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Prof,

I think which soil and citizenship is essential to the equation. We should not be running roughshod with the rights of anyone other than nationals of declared enemies or international criminals. I can define all of that vague language if you want-I actually have some pretty specific ideas about this. One of my papers in law school was closely related to this topic.

But in short, on American soil you need a warrant.

BTW, there is a time tested doctrine in 4th Amendment law called “hot pursuit” where the police is given some leeway on mistakes. I support that doctrine even though its flexibility gives me a Maalox moment.

3:50 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi,

I think Bush is going to go bonkers on alternative fuels tonight on his state of the union address. Personally, I wouldn’t mind messing with alcohol or bio-diesel on a voluntary basis. But you can bet your aunt Martha’s buttered biscuits what he proposes tonight will cost somebody some money....and it won’t be his.

Set up your score card with several columns.
Put a tic mark under each column every time you hear one of these phrase words or phrases.

Billion/Million (list amounts)
“Protect you (or America)”
The environment
Dependence on (foreign) oil
Ear marked
Bipartisan
Immigration reform/work program
New words he made up tonight (list)
Times the Dems failed to applaud when Repubs did.

Don’t forget the popcorn. I think Tony is supplying home brew. In fact, he’s probably expecting us tonight to join him for the show.

Add up all the billions at the end of the address and divide by 290 million. That’s how much extra $$ all this will cost for every man, woman, child, and nursing home resident.

P.R.

4:37 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

There was a state of the Union speech recently?

9:23 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Of particular note was the mid-sentence interruption on Social Security reform when the Dems nearly did the "wave." Is it really possible to pass popcorn thru your nose?

P.R.

9:25 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Well, I found it funny that I didn’t know about “active liberty” and found my self a bit puzzled that CG was giving me a history lesson. So, I went looking for more information. What I found was an excellent discussion in a review of Breyer’s book. The author set the record straight on the terminology…”active liberty” is what I learned as “ancient liberty”. I think the term ancient makes a lot more sense to me…Breyer’s term looks like marketing.

So now we have that clarified.

I think anyone actually interested in this whole matter should read the review I refered to which can be found here.

I’m not sure what you are saying, CG, when you said,

” I absolutely do not get equating $ with free speech. Obviously there is a tension between individual rights to spend money as they choose, and equal government participation by citizens... but surely the nod has to be given in the direction of equal chance in government partipation.”

You say you do not get, then explain it, then say it should be changed. Which is it? We agree, at least, that it should be changed.

1:46 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Did I mention I hate conservatism? I spit on conservatism. I challenge it to a duel.

Am I the only one that is hearing a French accent and getting images of Clouseau about now?

P.R.

3:03 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Aaaahhhhhhaaaaaahhhh! Whack!!!!

Boss? Boss?

4:17 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Hahahaha….that is funny.

But I have to admit, CG was working on brilliant when he observed,

“It took a progressive movement to create this country. Why would anyone think it should have stopped at the convention?”

Right on target. As far as it goes anyway. The founders also set us on a course that made us a nation of laws and not men. So, there is a natural tension, and IMNSHO it is a healthy tension, between progressive pressure and ordered liberty.

9:38 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

David R: “...Fahrenheit 9/11 contained nothing but factual reporting.

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11

P.R.

4:29 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

David R: “...Fahrenheit 9/11 contained nothing but factual reporting.


Michael Moore: The Dems' David Duke

Newspaper: Moore faked its headline
Used it to back his assertion 'Gore won election


Woman claims Moore manipulated '9/11' scene
Controversial filmmaker 'made me look heartless to the world'


P.R.

11:35 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

David R: “...Fahrenheit 9/11 contained nothing but factual reporting.

War, Lies, and Videotape
A Viewer’s Guide to Fahrenheit 9/11


What's wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11?
Michael Moore claims that Bush is manipulating the American people. But who is manipulating whom?
by Joey Tartakovsky


In one of the best-known scenes from Fahrenheit 9/11, President George W. Bush is captured on film appearing more concerned about his skill at golf than his leadership in the war for civilization. Speaking to a throng of reporters, President Bush remarks, "I call upon all nations to do everything they can to stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now, watch this drive." These three phrases alone seem to many incontrovertible evidence that Bush, insincere about the threat of al Qaeda, merely mouths boilerplate that looks robust in the morning papers. It makes for great sneering. Now, as it turns out, President Bush was talking not about al Qaeda, but Hamas, which had suicide-bombed in Israel hours before. But don't expect the movie to mention such a detail, for here Bush looks silly, and this is the great purpose of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Fahrenheit 911
by Travis Snyder


P.R.

11:53 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

David R.

#1 - Bush was not my choice for Pres. Don’t think that when I call the Left to be accountable for their lies that I take a position that I haven’t taken. Don’t assume. Regardless of what Bush is, Moore is a hateful deceptive propagandist. No Tuxedo in Hollywood can cover that up.

#2 - “Given your previous clear statements about the worth of non-Christian vs Christian life...

Explain and defend or retract this comment please.

#3 - My quote of What's wrong with Fahrenheit 9/11? was merely an illustration of Moore’s deception. If you remember, before the fence/wall was erected by Israel, bus & other bombings by those freedom loving, kind Palestinians were happening on a weekly and sometimes even more often basis. A response by Bush to a single act of terrorism killing a few in another country compared to Bush responding to 3,000 dead in NY would be a gross deception on the part of Moore. Given the response was after one of many attacks in Israel, and Moore’s deception bridges journalistic bias and license into pure evil intent. Hate Bush all you want. You may even have good reasons. But do not let, as much of the Left has done, your hatred of Bush to be the measuring stick to define truth. I was responding to your ONE statement “...Fahrenheit 9/11 contained nothing but factual reporting.” You admitted that you miss spoke. I’m satisfied with that.

P.R.

8:44 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG said, ”I have always thought Spector was one of the good guys…”.

This is what thinking will get you CG. You need to just relax and let me think for you.

The key thing here is DavidR’s question-yes, it is all about avoiding future perjury prosecutions. There is no other reason to not swear a witness in. Specter was giving Gonzales a license to lie.

And that stuff about oaths of office is horse-hockey. Let me see a federal official removed from office based on breach of their oath and maybe I’ll change tunes. I won’t hold my breath waiting.

If you want to understand these things, it is extremely important to not loose track of the fact that the committees are nothing more than made for CSPAN infomercials. While there are occasional surprises, for the most part the discourse is scripted. Not scripted word-for-word, but scripted in terms of content.

The administration was wanting to make its sales pitch and Congress wanted to do its fraudulent impression of a watch-dog. There is no way to do that without a prominent member of the administration and they are unwilling to participate if there is any chance they can be called to account for their misrepresentations. As long as there is no chance of prosecution, any lies can be spun in the media. “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

But having a show for mass consumption is in the best interests of all parties. When that is the case, a deal always gets done. This was far more than simply “smelling” of a behind the scenes deal. This was not even behind the scenes…only the motives have been hidden to protect the guilty.

It is best to take off the partisan glasses and look at the simple facts, facts unadorned by political presuppositions, about these creatures that control our formerly great nation. When you come down off the political high, the reality of where we are as a nation is an ugly, ugly thing.

3:26 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Yes, it gets worse. Welcome to my world...the real one.

And you are correct. Beer is important to me-not as a means of escape, but just as a matter of enjoying life. All this crap from inside the beltway will kill you if you let it.

7:39 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Well, I saw Cinderella Man recently…I put that close to the top of my list. There is a TV show I like now: Mythbusters.

Oh, if Specter says there wasn’t a deal, then I’m sure you can believe him. By the way CG, can you send me the email addresses for Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy…I seem to have misplaced them.

9:29 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

I'm not much for predicting, but I'll bite.

2008 Presidential Election: Hillary in a plurality but by a couple of percentage points.

4:08 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

I may pull a Tony and sit this one out. The last 14 years have been devastating to liberty....not to mention the previous 80, not to mention....

Prof. Ricardo

5:14 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported...
-------------

And the heat goes on....

P.R.

6:50 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

I am tempted to not respond as I’m sure it is all so predictable now. But in case there is someone new to the fray, I’ll pontificate a bit for the cause.

There are two distinct conversations here that tragically get combined in all discussions. Such is as it is with the mass stupids. The first conversation is how should our liberties be protected, or to state it differently, what restraints should we put on the government. While I am less amenable to compromise on changes to the limits on state power than are many, I am willing to have that conversation. I’m sure there is reasonable compromise that can be reached.

The second conversation is how we legally implement changes to our Constitutional protections once we have agreement that we need to make changes. This is where my head often explodes.

Congress does not have the legal authority to go beyond its enumerated powers in the Constitution. It is further constrained by the explicit protections provided to individuals by the Bill of Rights. The only LEGAL way for Congress to acquire the power to do more than this is through a Constitutional Amendment.

This is the core of what we are about as a legal entity. Either We the People are sovereign, or we are not. You can’t have it both ways. And if Congress steps outside its limits and the People acquiesce, then the People have seceded that power for all time.

And it gets worse than that. Once Congress is allowed to run amok over a set of our rights without We the People being afforded their due process rights, the limits are off. If Congress has the power to pass and enforce the Patriot Act, then they as a matter of legal necessity have that power for all time. Sunset Provisions do not mean diddly-squat: it they have the power, then they can pass a law to remove the sunset. Or new and more invasive legislation.

I was made fun of profusely by you and others when I made that argument, but look at what happened when the Patriot Act came up for renewal. The Constitutional shredding topic did not even come up. I told you prior to the adoption of the Patriot Act that its adoption meant the legal end of our Constitutional protections and this is exactly how it has played out.

Sure, we still enjoy a lot of freedom in the former great country. But that freedom is now subject to the pleasure of the State. Our legal standing is no better than the citizens of any other country in the world. The structure on which our unique systems of law was built has been destroyed.

America is in her death throes just as surely as was Rome in second century of the first Millennium. Our institutions will succumb slowly and surely to the fascist pressures which continue to build on a daily basis. This trend will be held in check by historical tradition for some time. Our power will hold off the barbarians at the gates for a good long time. But just like the day when Caesar declared himself a god, our government has declared itself as the fundamental sovereign. And like the Roman citizens, We the People cheered saying “let the good times roll”.

We have collectively traded our birthright for a bowl of patriotic soup. Only as long as that soup sustains us will we be able to deny what we have become.

But when soup bowl runs dry and the hunger sets in, do not whine to me because I told you so.

By all means, enjoy all these great liberties that Uncle Sam permits you to enjoy for now, for tomorrow we may surely die.

2:29 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

But that freedom is now subject to the pleasure of the State. Our legal standing is no better than the citizens of any other country in the world.

200 years ago that was common knowledge. Today you can’t find 10 people in a hundred that have ever heard of that or 3 people in a hundred that can explain it. (Statistics manufactured for emphasis :)

Just because a government has been given authority to govern a particular area of society doesn’t mean it has to exercise and restrict that liberty. Yet government, local, county, state, national, and even international are expanding as fast as they can and often going outside the bounds of their given authority. That is the nature of government. That is the history of all governments. That is the threat of governments for our future. As Tony says, any ground given up now, is lost forever.

And do not confuse the tearing down of social mores and promiscuity with liberty. When your child wants to set up a lemonade stand, but is hampered by sign laws, sales tax, business licensing, and health code inspections, liberty has flown the coop. The direction we are headed is more regulations, more permission (licensing) to do more businesses, more burden of paperwork, and more personal information being required to be disclosed.

Over reaching government didn’t start with Bush and it won’t end with him either. That’s the reason you restrict the office, not extend it substantial authority and hope good people are placed in that position. Neuter that bad boy and let freedom ring.

P.R.

3:40 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

“But have you ever driven down Cooper St. in Arlington near UTA?”

All the way past that damnable Parks mall. Makes my blood boil. Would rather streak through a cactus field blindfolded.

I hope you all will visit Anne Coulter today.
Calvin and Hobbes – and Muhammad

There is nothing so funny as connecting the dots of reality, and Anne does it so well.

P.R.

7:37 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Some guys get all the breaks.

P.R.

10:28 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Geeze CG. I point out that the mass stupids merge the discussion of WHAT we should do and HOW we should do it, and then you turn around and commit the same atrocity. At least you are a guy so when you piss into the wind you get a little extra distance before it blows back on your Birkenstocks.

For the record lest you folks forget, my position on social safety nets is somewhere between CG’s communist utopia and Prof’s libertarian nirvana. My narrow point is legal. To discuss how free we are at this particular moment in time is to truly miss both the big picture and the point I’ve been hammering for some time.

9:36 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

I’ll go you one better. I think religion is evil. This is why I am careful to talk about Truth rather than about religion. Marx was completely wrong. Religion is not an opiate: it is a stimulate of the most unsavory variety.

It is no accident that the church I attend is a Restoration Movement church and not part of an organized denomination. I think the recognition of the evil in religion was central to what Christ taught.

9:41 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

It isn’t about sufficiency. It is about legality.

Lets boil this down: in your view, the system is broken and we have to take whatever measures necessary to protect the republic from destruction from our enemies. If there are compromises to liberty along that essential path, then so be it.

My view is that what distinguishes us as a nation is a system of laws that places sovereignty in the hands of the individual. If you destroy that legal structure in an effort to protect us from our enemies, then what you were theoretically protecting no longer exists.

Now, it may well be that either path is a path of destruction. I’m just more certain that your approach is destructive than is mine. To cobble together some observations of others, sometimes the evil you know is better than that you do not. We know the evil hearts of men and what those in power will do with their new found prerogatives. We do not know whether in fact these terrorists are capable of being as destructive as what we might imagine.

If I were wagering, I’m betting against the known path of destruction which is the sovereign state and loyal subject model which we are morphing ourselves into.

11:03 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Well, your language seldom reflects what you just said. Like your ringing endorsement of sunset provisions.

Changing our amendment process might be a fine thing to do. But guess what? It needs an amendment. It is not a matter of just clinging to an outmoded process. Either we are a nation of laws or nation of subjects. You can’t have it both ways. Now I might disagree with streamlined amendment processes depending on what you have in mind, but that is a different discussion. My cranial pressure comes from the lack of a recognition that the issue even exists.

I am about the biggest pro-planning sort of curmudgeon you will find. But dropping unconstitutional legislation on our heads does not planning make.

1:24 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

CG,

Tsk, tsk. Really my friend: leave the thinking to me. It will cause both of us less stress and you can be right most of the time that way.

Hard to know where to begin with that blast of stuff.

First, let me assure you that the fact of the matter is that everyone of those stinking, two-faced, money-grubbing, jack-booted (credit to DavidR for the jack-booted label) Senators who assert that the Patriot Act is constitutional are in fact wrong. And yes, of course, I am in fact right.

It seems like you of all people would understand the CongressCritter’s capacity for mass wrongness: the majority of them voted in favor of invading Iraq. Really, that was one of the worst points you have ever made here. Maybe I need to put up a Hall of Shame?

But hang with me here. You are fortunate that this is NOT above my paygrade.

First you need to understand that FISA is unconstitutional.

Now that I have dispatched that steaming pile of horse excrement to the intellectual nether regions, lets explore how all this might work or not work without a Constitutional Amendment.

One good thing about Warrants is that the Constitution is silent as to the details of what a warrant is. It seems to me that any process that affords due process of law can be considered. Unlike many civil libertarians, I have always supported the phone warrants which allow officers in the field to obtain warrant under exigent circumstances. That for me is a model of how we can mold a Constitutional process that will get the job done.

Warrants, according to black letter law, must be specific as to who is being searched, what is being searched for, when the search will be conducted and where the search will take place. In my view, the million citizens in your example is very specific-its just a large list. You aren’t searching just any citizen, you have a list of a million. Further, the search you are suggesting is much more narrow than the broad fishing trips that the creeps who run our country are so in love with. Not to mention, there has long been a “hot pursuit” exception to the need for warrants. Posit enough urgency here and all things are possible.

All that said, I think a Constitutional Amendment for these types of searches would be a very good thing. Why not make it clear rather than hanging on judicial interpretation even if it is well settled.

Now, your second example is clearly over the line of Constitutionality. “Just screen everything” is exactly what the 4th Amendment was created to prevent. Clearly, this would require a Constitutional Amendment. I think your positing that such an Amendment would necessarily be so specific as to not be able to adapt to different email techniques is rather silly. Maybe an example would help because I don’t think you would make two points that were that extraordinarily weak in the same post.

Lastly, the Patriot Act will never make sense. It is fascist, illegal, immoral, contemptible, against the force of reason, against the principals of nature, lacking in positive utility, abusive, insane, and only fit for totalitarian regimes of the most hideous sort.

I hope this clears a few things up.

3:09 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony: “Lastly, the Patriot Act will never make sense. It is fascist, illegal, immoral, contemptible, against the force of reason, against the principals of nature, lacking in positive utility, abusive, insane, and only fit for totalitarian regimes of the most hideous sort.

But Tony, how do you really feel?

Point of no return is an excellent column by Thomas Sowell on the wiretapping issue.

C.G: "...the Curm Hall of Understatement"

U-Hall for short. :-)

P.R.

4:11 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

But the Dem-Libs have been saying all along that the Constitution is a living document. You have said that we shouldn’t be bound by original intent ‘cause nobody can know that since the original signers are dead, and those who penned the Constitution couldn’t have known that people could talk on disposable cell phones about plotting bombs that could conceivable kill hundreds of thousands in one fell swoop. Maybe the Constitution doesn’t (or shouldn’t be construed to) protect known groups that: 1) consider us Satan, 2) have attacked us on numerous occasions killing thousands and have express religious doctrine commanding such violence, 3) have tried, are trying, and maybe have WMD, & 4) have expressed a desire to wipe us off the face of the planet along with all other non-members of the “religion of peace.?”

Could it be in trying to re-interpret the Constitution to mean abortion when free speech is referred to, to put a chick smoking pot in every household, or whatever, that we should also extend the view that certain individuals, WHO ARE KNOWN TO BE ENEMIES OF OUR COUNTRY, are suspicious enough and dangerous enough that their behavior must be monitored?

Echelon was implemented and expanded under Sex-liar to intercept transmissions of key words in all phone calls, faxes, etc. for national security reasons. Economics was considered by the cigar-man to be a national security issue. And the Dem-Libs who called foul for privacy concerns are?

There ain’t nobody here into Libertarian Nirvana like me. I cringe at the thought of Government having half the authority it currently has, or has usurped. However, The current wiretapping is done ONLY TO KNOWN Al Queda phone numbers or FROM KNOWN Al Queda phone numbers. I’m cool with that. We have 280,000,000 people in the US. We make multitudes of phone calls each day. Me....probably 20-40, clients and family, etc. Last year 1,700 phone calls were tapped by the federal government, state government, and local governments combined. We all like to think well of ourselves, but the government doesn’t know or care what I have to say over the phone. They want me to keep making bucks and paying for C.G.’s programs.

...and if he refuses, we should start talking impeachment.

Should we include the Dem-Libs who have been briefed every step of the way through this NSA tapping? When Houston, L.A., New York, D.C. & Chicago go nuclear one fine Tuesday morning while Hilary is President, should we impeach her too? Or will that be Bush’s fault ‘cause he didn’t do enough? If I remember the Dem-Libs argument: Bush knew 911 was coming and didn’t do enough to stop it, but over stepped his bounds anyway, but Hypnotized Dem-Libs to voting for the war, but erroneously continued with what he and the Dem-Libs decided on, but.....

When Jordanian-born Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, we ignored the big picture. Ditto oil embargos, ditto Iranian hostages, ditto 241 Marines killed in the barracks in Lebanon, ditto Achille Lauro, USS Stark, Pan Am over Lockerbie, ditto 1993 bombing of World Trade Center. The enemy has been very consistent. Except for Bush’s insane reference to the “religion of peace” (I understand diplomacy...), he seems to understand you can’t play political correctness with these folks. It was easy to ignore a few hundred people dying over years. But when 911 played our before our eyes and seared into us the organized Satanic hate that a lot of people have had for a long time, it was hard to ignore it. The media censored replaying of the images have helped dull the memory of it. Amazing.

I want government to be no bigger than the Constitution says it can be. But we’ve got to stop these bad boys no matter what. If you are known Al Queda, consider every phone call a bull horn to the world.

P.R.

7:49 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

I'm not sure about the point of your last post...

Its called a rant. If the cat had walked by and I had kicked it, I would have mentioned it as well. :)

3:22 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

C.G.,
To quote a James Bond title: For your eyes only.
---------
Saddam general: WMDs in Syria
Another former confidant of ex-dictator makes claim, also links Iraq to al-Qaida

Posted: February 15, 2006

A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002....

7:18 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Im a pathetic arguer. My first question should always be: Does that matter? and What does it mean if you are wrong?

You know Bush is not my pal. But it’s the Dem/Lib lying that particularly gets my goat.

Claim Bush stole the election. But that doesn’t pass close scrutiny.
Bush was AWOL. No he wasn’t. There is more documentation of his service than there was of my blogging or Kerry’s service.
There were no WMD’s. You said: “... even if they find WMD hidden away.” Slowly the evidence is leaking out that there were WMD, they just moved them into Syria. Audio tapes are now out that Saddam has been helpful to al Queda, and had WMDs. The Bush administration is horrific at molding public image and handling anything.

Clinton was a class act politician. Sure he was a liar and a philanderer, but heck, he could have sweet talked anybody (except Juanita Broaderick) to go under the covers. He had polls telling him how the public would react to anything. If I see that video again of him shaking his finger and saying “I did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky,” I’d believe him all over again.

Bush is different. Like Gerald Ford w/o the finesse. It takes eons for them to know what the shoeshine boy knows and that they ought to respond to it.

Before I dig up your past quotes on WMDs, are you saying that WND’s did matter but don’t matter now, have never mattered, or still matter and that you will send an apology to Bush when evidence is irrefutable that WND’s existed when the US was contemplating the invasion? I’m just trying to envision all that this new quote of yours means. :-)

C.G.: “Iraq was a tragic mistake...

We are in the midst of a thousand year war between brutal Mahammadism and “The West” which incorporates more than just the U.S. They want to dominate the world and we want to influence (democracy, fairness, our versions thereof) the world. Were we (the US) to abstain from interference in the world we might have been spared direct attacks of the sons of Ishmael. But there is a cost. The line was drawn before you and I were born. Boys will be boys (except the Brokeback kind) and country leaders will fight wars, people will die, hooha will hit the fan, and the Rangers still won’t make it to the world series. Some things we just can’t change.

Bush jacked around in the Mid-east, as did Clinton, as did Bush-41, As did Reagon, As did Carter, ..... You get the picture. The successor to Bush will do the same albeit with a different flavor, whoever she may be. :-)

Prof. Ricardo

1:53 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Dem/Libs, particularly Hillary, find it troubling that Cheney waited to get the word out that he shot his friend. His failure to capitalize on the moment by rushing to the media was “troubling.”

Correct me if I am wrong, but how long did it take Hillary to disclose the Rose law firm records she held? 2 years? Yep. No hypocrisy here.

Prof. Ricardo

3:34 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Of course the Clinton’s did not want any of the Barrett Report released, but managed to get 120 pages of the damning findings redacted.

If Hillary were smart, she’d shut up, dart her eyes, and fidget, like Saturday Night live’s Gilda Radner playing the abused child.

Prof. Ricardo

4:14 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

CG, CG, CG: “...there is a better chance that I'm going to win our $300 million lottery tonight than ever send an apology to King George.

Why am I not surprised?

Don't spend too much time on it... I'm insane.

You have no idea how hard I laughed. Thanks.

...generals putting up maps with targets in Iran....watch your own nation sign up for decades of bloody war.

It sucks. I wished both sides had behaved. If Saddam had not chummied up with al Quaida and had permitted inspections, he could be enjoying dictatorship and rape rooms. But nooooooo. My support is not for planting “Democracy.” Purely self defense. Hunt down al Quaida and kill them.

...monkeys....say this was Cheney's private business. Really? Let's see... ..Air Force Two, ...secret service, a doctor, an ambulance on standby, yada yada yada.

If that’s the case, then Ex.Pres.Zipper did some things on company time we want made public. On second thought....

Prof, you seem to have a fixation on Hillary... you should stick with Coulter.

She is positioning herself. [Don’t think Brokeback Mtn.]

So you still think Iraq was the right move...” Not particularly. Afghanistan yes, al Quaida yes. Iraq, like I said before, Saddam could’ve had it all.

You have kids and I don't.

I fear Iran and what is ahead of us. We’ll beat each other up to get the first Xbox360. They are avenging what they perceive is an eternity of occupation and injustice. 911 shook us, but we have become distracted again. However, when that bright flash goes off....you will never be distracted again.()


Prof. Ricardo

6:24 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Prof, you seem to have a fixation on Hillary...

Signature Quotes: Politics: Hillary Clinton

And since you like the visual comedy....All The President's Women

P.R.

8:53 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

C.G.: “... the impeachable offense is hyping the nation into war, NOT the fact we went into Iraq.

Additionally, you’ll need to impeach or scrutinize for their words:

"Our challenge is much more pervasive than it would be if we were just facing one enemy in one place. [Instead there is] the Middle East, Iraq, North Korea, Iran. There's a relatively long list that we believe are linked to the al Qaeda network in the Philippines, in Indonesia and in Yemen and other places. That makes it very clear that this is a global network." -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, borrowing a page from President Bush's "axis of evil" speech, during a weekend address in Dix Hills, N.Y.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, Tom Lantos, Tom Harkin, Arlen Specter, Madeline Albright, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Wesley Clark,

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt,

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

Bob Graham, Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi, Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, John Rockefeller, & Henry Waxman.

9:20 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Get your popcorn ready. It's compelling as hell to watch your own nation sign up for decades of bloody war.

I don’t think signing up is necessary. It was going on before we were born. Bush & Co are just the current pilots. But don’t worry. We’ll have plenty to occupy our time here in the States.

P.R.

6:47 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

C.G. "WND just like TV preachers... they ask you for money"

You can read all present articles and all past articles free. Care to compare and contrast that with WSJ, NYT, & USA T’day?

It is real easy for you and Yoshi to put down WND.com and then go on as if your comment were gospel. They report topics that have to be dug and pulled out of the old liberal media. It wasn’t the top papers, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, or CBS that came to you with scandal after scandal of the Clinton admin. Chinagate, travelgate, filegate, zippergate, Souvinersgate, Whitewater, selling the Lincoln room, Giftgate, Artgate, Pardongate, Vandalgate, etc.

Were YOUR news buddies to the front with this information? Or did they “have to report” something once it exploded all over the internet?

With the Drudge Report and WND.com I see things damning to Dems & Republicans., straights & sodomites, for & against global warming, exposing Christians and pagans.

Laugh all you want. But the presence of the new media is having an affect on the old media.

P.R.

3:15 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

...as opposed to one of David Koresh's suicide cult-hippie followers...

You say that as though that were a bad thing.

Just kidding. Remember, C.G. is insane. :-)

P.R.

6:12 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi, Yoshi, Yoshi,

Christianity is "a violent religion," just like Islam....

Oh really? And that article is evidence? With how much discernment do you read the news my dear Yoshi? May we dissect the article?

LAGOS, Nigeria - Christian mobs rampaged through a southern Nigerian city Tuesday, burning mosques and killing several people in an outbreak of anti-Muslim violence that followed deadly protests against caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad over the weekend.

Isn’t it amazing that the AP can witness a child molester murderer or terrorist act, yet the perpetrator is always “alleged” to have done so and so. Yet, the AP has assigned ownership to this violence to “Christians” with the judgmental descriptive words “mobs” and “rampage.” The writer’s great evidence is? Well, no Christian group claimed the act. However, the writer says that the nation has Muslims and Christians, and therefor, if it is an attack on the Muslims (correctly identified in the title as Anti-Muslim) it must be the only other group around, “Christians.” How bigoted. So if you are not a Muslim, you’re a Christian, and if you’re not a Christian, by definition you’re a Muslim?

There has been a great backlash in Australia too. There are a lot of people including the non-religious who are about tired of Islamo-Facist cowards going on their rampages killing people.

If you read the article in an objective manner, you will see that they sympathize with the injured Muslim man, “There is blood all over him and I'm scared they'll come for him here. If he doesn't get urgent treatment he will die.” But no such emotionally charged words are used to describe the 18 people killed by the Islamo-Facist cowards.

When you go to the The Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion website, they say:

Nigeria is by the grace of God a huge melting pot for the over one hundred and thirty million people coming from diverse backgrounds and happen to profess different religious beliefs and faiths. They have different orientations and they bring different talents and skills which, they employ for the common good of our fatherland.

It is therefore not right; nor is it reasonable or wise for anyone group to ever think of imposing its own ideology, faith or religion upon the entire nation.

In this context, we wish to commend those Moslem leaders who believe and are working for peaceful co-existence of all Nigerians irrespective of religious and ethnic backgrounds.

We have reasons to believe that those who are calling for a jihad are not speaking for all Nigerian Moslems, since the call is emanating from a particular section of the country.

We must remind the nation that Christians have always been at the receiving end each time a call for jihad is made. In our short history, Christians are known to have been massacred, their property destroyed and their churches razed in Kafanchan, Zaria, Kaduna, Bauchi, Jos and Kano, several times.

At no point has the Church ever initiated any of these crises. Its not because of cowardice or lack of knowledge of what to do, but because our religion expects us to love our neighbours as ourselves and to be at peace with all people so much so that when we are smacked on the left cheek we turn the right cheek.


In the very next sentence they say:

But now we warn, let no one take this for granted any longer because, there is a limit to which you can push a people. Christians have been pushed to the wall in this country and we are making it clear that Christians have no other place to call their own except this same country, Nigeria.

We advise that if the people do not believe in the unity and common destiny of Nigeria, they can sponsor a bill in the National Assembly for a peaceful disintegration of Nigeria or argue their case at the on going CONFAB and let us part ways in peace rather than through bloodshed. ‘He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword…’

We call on Law enforcement Agents to carry out their Constitutional responsibility without fear or favour. They should arrest promptly and bring to justice those who make irresponsible calls for the destruction of our fatherland.

However, should the police fail in this regard, the Christian community in Nigeria will have no other option than to do whatever is deems necessary in every possible way to defend herself.


I am sure the Islamo-Facist cowards have their reasons for murdering peoples and destroying property. A comic strip. Could it be possible that in the course of having your churches burned, your people murdered, and ONCE AGAIN being the victim of Jihad, you might want to defend yourself? We don’t even know if the “mob” was Christian, but were it to be so, how much attack and bloodshed and being targeted for Jihad warrants some level of self defense or even retaliation?

Finally, IF this were Christians, and IF it was a “mob,” and IF they went on a “rampage”, and IF it were over something as STUPID STUPID STUPID as a comic strip, and thus unprovoked attacked innocent people, then THAT was a very UNChristian like characteristic. Jesus said of his real disciples “you will know them by their fruit.” People who do not evidence their faith, have no claim to it. Jesus said of some who will claim Christianity, “I never knew you.” Just because someone claims to be a Christian or do something for the Lord does not make it so.

Yoshi? Yoshi? You still there?

Prof. Ricardo

2:09 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

The proof of the insanity was when Pres. Carter agreed with him. That kind of verification should not be taken lightly.

5:02 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Common,

Yoshi: You guys are commies...

Did you see what he called us? And he lumped me in with you.

Yoshi, ever shave with a straight razor? Ever had somebody else shave you with one? Would you want that to be somebody who recognized the Taliban as a legitimate good government? I don’t mind buying and selling from the UAE. I do mind having out goods go through any port they control. International commerce ≠international commerce with U.A.E. holding any control over it, including distribution details & decisions of ports. If they want to pick up trash at the ports and public parks, maybe. But control, never.

Secure international commerce by forbiding U.A.E. control.

P.R.

7:30 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

I am against it for common sense security reasons. Hillary is against it because Bush is for it. But this goes against her past positions on profiling.

P.R.

8:41 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi,

You’re talking to Mr. pure market place himself, but I know not to let N. Korea and China run homeland security. U.A.E. in the ports is only an incremental step down from that. Don’t suppose you remember the Muslim in our military, in Kuwait in the first days of our conflict throwing a grenade into fellow comrade’s tents. It only took one idiot to devastate the lives of others by turning off our collective discernment to a Muslim’s true allegiance.

Some good commentary on the subject from Mark Davis and Michele Maulkin.

Sure, I'd be just as happy with a cop from Dubai...

Stop while your behind, before you get behinder....er... :-)

P.R.

10:40 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi,

Hey, a great way to reduce terror would be to exclude UAE from the capitalist system.... you know, isolate them.... that would work great.

We buy billions and billions (think Carl Sagan when you read that) from China. Have we excluded them from “the capitalist system?” Do you want them in control of the port systems? We are not excluded them from any system. We are saying “as long as Islamo-faciest cowards call for the anilation of Israel or any other country and as long as they are friends to terrorists (not just government, but the peoples as well), then you are in a high risk catagory and we cannot use you in security sensitive areas. Is this too tough to grasp?

P.R.

11:03 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

"President Bush has painted himself into a corner on this issue, and he needs a face-saving compromise to get out of it. Here's my proposal: Let Harriet Miers run the ports." - Ann Coulter

8:42 PM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

DavidR succinctly said, "If people such as Bush, and Rumsfeld, and Cheney, are still able to convince Americans that they are competent, or that they can be trusted, or that they "know what they're talking about", then I fear that the destruction of this nation and this world is close at hand when such power can be given to such men."

Indeed. I have had this troubled spirit for some time. I think people really miss my arguments about the impending implosion of America, but this is at the crux of the matter. People are simply not informed and educated enough for any hope to remain that we can right this sinking ship. It is all quite Orwellian in a way. People buy the message of the political class. What we are experiencing is much more sophisticated, however, than the 1984 model. The NewThink and NewSpeak that we are experiencing are much more nuanced. Things are gussied up in political shibboleths that serve to obscure for the uncritical the fact that little is going on more than the raw accumulation of power.

Yoshi, it isn't that W is so incredibly worse than what has come before per se. The incompetence is only part of the calculus of doom. It is that the American people are so much more incredibly worse at discerening the difference between a political message and a substantive discussion. We are on a downhill slide whose slope is rapidly increasing.

I do not think I have every directly asserted that the governments of the past were incredibly wonderful things and we have taken a sudden turn in a different direction. All that has happen is that the desent has rapidly picked up steam. The trend was in place as early as FDR's first election.

Those that lay all of this at the feet of Shrub and Company are idiots just as surely as were the people who laid America's faults at the feet of Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon, or Johnson. If you examine that parade of presidents that I just listed from the standpoint of a political power consolodation timeline what you will find is a steady progression. The exception of course being the Carter administration which was an abberation that was the result of the Nixon adminstration being a little too early in the curve to hide its tracks well.

12:22 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Let’s let the Illegal Aliens run the ports. Apparently it’s a job American’s don’t want to do and they’ve already got experience with de Ports, no?

Common, Joseph Farah entertain’s the idea, “Is Bush worse than Clinton?” I think you’ll like the article. It backs up my long standing claim that Bush is a “good” Democrat.

P. R.

2:07 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

...shrink the government to the size of a bathtub and then drown it.

Then how come new New Deal type programs and promises come up and he doesn’t veto? Medicare Drug bill, excessive education funding, promising every person damaged by a brisk wind or worse federal funding via FEMA debit cards. Everything you fear I have been waiting for and after 5 years I am disappointed. I might feel encouraged though if you could direct me to some specific federal government budget sights that show NON-defense (or offense? :-) spending that has gone down. Don’t give me that MOVEON.ORG bs where if department spending didn’t double each year that is some form of “cut.” Just pure financial numbers showing me this man has a shred of minimal government in his blood. I think you’re deluded. But your enthusiasm for this conspiracy gives me just the faintest hope. Evidence please!

P.R.

9:27 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Prof... starve the beast means spend the gov't $ until it's broke, and then it can't pay for safety-nets.

I thought that’s what the New Deal was. Starting 2009 baby-boomers retire. A large segment of Social Security contributors become Social Security drawers. Everybody!! Work extra hard. A safety net awaits your productivity.

P.R.

12:04 AM  
Blogger Tony Plank said...

Yoshi,

What I was getting at with that remark about Mars would probably only be understood by folks who have spent time look through a telescope. The movement is caused by the rotation of the earth. The movement of Mars in the sky due to the movement of the Earth and Mars through space is imperceptible to us amateurs in real time. The rotation of the Earth is a different matter. I think this was my biggest surprise in learning some astronomy…the stuff you are looking at scoots out of the field of view of your telescope amazingly quickly. Hence, if one daydreamed but a few minutes, you would have to completely realign your scope, whereas if you pay attention, you can just nudge the scope and keep the target in view.

I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning of why a literal reading of the Bible stands for the proposition that the Earth does not orbit the Sun.

7:35 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Tony,

I found out quickly that having low power and wide field eyepieces were indispensable in astronomy. Just as rapidly I found that widefield and high quality eyepieces were very expensive. May I suggest 20-32mm plossls w/52̊ apparent field of view? I had a 20mm 65̊ apparent field of view that gave a big wow factor. It makes it easier to locate objects and keep them in view longer. The TelVue are the best and terribly expensive. You probably already have sources, but I bought my stuff in the early 80's from www.astronomics.com before they had a web site. Also, see www.telescope.com .

The proper reading of the Bible does not condemn it with respect to astronomy anymore than hearing a current day weatherman give “sunrise” and “sunset” times should condemn him.

Prof. Ricardo

9:47 AM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi, “2nd.- I understand about the planet moving out of view. I was just kidding around pretending to be one of those "creationist, flat earth" types.

So many people believe incorrectly about creationist, that the Bible says the earth is flat, the earth is the center of the universe, etc., that we feel the need to educate people on the matter. Unfortunately, even when you jest, it sounds like the ridiculous mis-characterizations of so many that we must respond to it.

Prof. Ricardo

2:17 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Yoshi, “...most Americans don't know what the rest of the planet is thinking.

I’ve been reading this book that claims the same thing. As the author tries to explain the Muslim perspective on “the West” he stated as much. He said we are often hated and admired across the planet. He said American charity and compassion have not gone unnoticed, as we respond quickly to natural disasters, famine, etc. However, and I thought this quite interesting, it is our government that is hated the most. We currently have military in 144 countries. Our international aide is given, not to the “people”, but to governments of other countries. Often, almost always, the government is hostile to their own people, none of our “aide” reaches the “people,” and we are seen as supporting regimes that we would never want to be considered aiding. At various times we have supported Russia, Iran, Iraq, Noriega in Panama, etc., etc.

Funny how I have been berated on this blog for my support and preference for private international charity, and for my disdain for governmental aide. And, according to this book, it is the private aide that is overwhelmingly appreciated and it is the federal aide that irks the world.

We expect everybody to think like us. And so when we give other governments money to aide their people, surely they would not withhold this from their people. Yet example after example we have wasted taxpayer dollars, supported dictatorships, and ticked off the world. But hey, it’s the method and not the results that count, right boys?

Prof. Ricardo

6:47 PM  
Blogger Richard Hartman said...

Sooooooo......we give billions to U.N., they deliver condoms & IUDs to starving people in Africa (“Receiving direct”), we have another successful government program. That’s good enough for me. Let’s pack & go, subject closed, Cheerio.

Prof. Ricardo

9:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home