Let us take at face value the nominal, stated reasons as why various office-holders claim the have for taking their various actions.

So, President George W. Bush vetoes the recent renewal/expansion of the S-CHIP bill because he is concerned that it is “creeping socialism” that would ultimately result in publicly funded healthcare, which goes against the libertarian philosophy of self-sufficiency and avoiding governmental interference.

Yet, he promises also to veto any bill regarding the FISA courts and wiretapping statutes that limits the ability of the executive branch to monitor communications that the government claims are important to preventing “terrorists” from attacking.

In other words, do not trust the government to be involved at all in health care, but do trust the government to know when to and when to not monitor the activities, statements, communications, and other matters routinely regarded as private in order to “prevent terrorism”.

Do not trust the government when it comes to protecting collective heritages, such as the environment in the form of clean air, clean water in the rivers, and land preserved in its natural state, do not interfere with property rights, but it is OK to search citizens in the most personal way when they want to fly or have any other kind of interaction with the government such as attend court sessions.

Unfortunately, those in nominal opposition to George W. Bush are no better, promoting agendas that interfere with the rights of individuals when it comes to the “collective good” while decrying the individual invasions of quasi-impersonal searches using millimeter wave radar, which reveals in images far more than a pat down search without the indignity of having someone actually touch you in a far more invasive manner.

In the end, both the right and the left are hypocrites.

What we, the people, need to decide is what exactly is the role of government in our lives.

It has been publicly proclaimed by President George W. Bush that he feels that one of the primary goals of the United States’ government is to “protect the people from terrorists.”

Does that come under the fundamental right of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the preamble? That assertion would be debatable at best if the “protection” involved the invasion of “liberty” explicitly stated because of a self-proclaimed power of the Presidency to declare any US citizen as an “enemy combatant” who can be imprisoned indefinitely with no appeal, no access to legal counsel, and subject to treatment that by any reasonable definition would be called torture.

By contrast, one of the largest goals of the Democrats has been to establish a nationally financed system of health care. This is invasive upon liberties because it would force those who have large incomes to pay for the medical care of those who do not have have the same level of income.

Is that fair?

It depends upon what factors one chooses to consider in your personal calculus.

Both the left and the right are now on paths that lead to creeping authoritarianism, where the government knows what is best for you, The only difference lies in whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not a “terrorist” who threatens the authority of the state and its protection of the collective good against “terrorism” or whether the government monitors your activities to make sure you are not engaged in any behaviors that are a threat to your own good or the collective good as defined in fuzzy terms such as health and societally good or bad behaviors ensuring conformance to the notion that it is good for you.

Many like to label themselves as “small ‘L’ libertarians” yet they continue to participate in the kabuki play that we call our representative democracy, assuming they choose to vote at all.

Is that sufficient?

I say it is not.

Thomas Jefferson warned against the very situation in which we find ourselves, and he stated flatly, in no uncertain terms, “The tree of liberty occasionally needs to be refreshed with the blood of patriots.”

Where are our patriots, who are not beholden to parties, but to ideals?

Ideals are worth dying for, parties and ideologies are not.

Are the ideas and ideals of 1776 and 1790 still too radical for the majority to fully understand?

I fear they are…

—

Related links that you can parse for yourself:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21205942/

http://www.courierpostonline.com/specialreports/statesecrets/m062403b.htm

http://www.slate.com/id/2142155

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/01/012604.html

http://www.privacydigest.com/2007/09/20/state+secret+overreach+editorial+barry+siegel

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2006/05/70785?currentPage=2

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/09/1013076-supreme-court-refuses-torture-case

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/16/3876/

http://supreme.justia.com/us/345/1/case.html

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=345&invol=1

Before you start making accusations of “political grandstanding” because of the declaration of war by Senator Harry Reid, you should remember two words:

Terry Schiavo

…jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you…

I have already written of my disgust at the glee expressed by the left-wing, especially on weblogs, in the anticipation of any indictments that might result from the Fitzgerald investigation.

I have equal loathing for the apologists and minimalists on the right-wing, especially on weblogs, that I have heard and read in the wake of the indictments delivered.

Patrick Fitzgerald made it clear that his investigation and that of the grand jury was actively impeded by Lewis Libby.

So, we are confronted with yet another Rorschach test of political views, because it is far easier to react than it is to think, it is far easier to gloat than it is to mourn the true message of the issues revealed, it is far easier to minimize the offense than to stand up and accept responsibility.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you…

After seeing the reactions from both sides, I am at a loss for words to express my repugnance for this nauseating behavior.

Technorati Tags: commentary, conservative politics, conservatives, liberal politics, liberals, right wing, right wing blogs, right wing politics, right wing weblogs, right-wing, right-wing blogs, right-wing politics, right-wing weblogs, weblogs

For me, this says it all ( from “Parting Shot” at Loaded Mouth by tas, who apparently is taking a break from blogworld) :

And that’s when I realized that my problem isn’t with Republicans – It’s with fucking assholes. Despicable pieces of trash who exist simply to argue with people. All they care about is appearing right so they beat their chest and pump up their ego a little bit more. It doesn’t matter who they take down in the process. For example, Boyd winning an argument with me is a more pressing concern to him then how his president responds to genocide. It doesn’t matter if I point out Bush’s lack of response and even the fact that I proved my point and I was correct. All that matters to Boyd is two things: I posted it, so that automatically invalidates the post; and that the lives of those hundreds of thousands in Darfur dying aren’t Americans, therefore making their deaths meaningless. He even comes right out and says he supports genocide in his comment: “I’m more concerned about what may affect the US (and by extension, me) than what may affect others. Syria allowing terrorists to come into their country for the express purpose of entering Iraq to kill Americans is more important to me than what may happen in another country that doesn’t affect us here.???

Regardless of the profanity, this encapsulates my views.

I will explain more soon. It is 11PM here in France, and I need some sleep. If you are interested in more than simple partisan screeds, you will read my future post explaining the meaning behind my catogory “Amber and Cruelty” that will be up in the next day or so.

At the risk of being moved into the “from the right” column by the algorithm at UNPARTISAN.com, I am extremely uneasy at the attempts to create an anti-gun environment using similar lawsuit techniques as those used against the tobbacco industry, of which I was against as well (for the technique used, not the outcomes).

I do strongly believe that “legislation by lawsuit” is extremely undemocratic.