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

Sigh…

Where to start?

Two years ago, before the last election, I believed that many bloggers who I read were reasonable despite their differing political views.

Since then, however, despite their own protestations, the Partisan Derangement Syndrome (or PDS, formerly known as the Bush Derangement Syndrome among those who are not able to recognize the universal nature of this malady) has taken hold, and unreasoning support of “their own side” in the face of all evidence to the contrary still takes hold. Perhaps not all the time, but often enough where the rationality and clear vision of those involved comes to question.

I will present two examples, and if those involved choose to take offense, I offer my apologies, but I am merely trying to illustrate a point. If you do not want your opinions discussed publicly, then do not post them on weblogs.

The first example is one of conversion, the Commissar of The Poliburo Diktat, who is now asking the same questions I have been asking for the past three years, but only after evidence beyond even an unreasonable doubt of the incompetence of those he formerly supported:

An agonizing gotcha moment

The other day, I posted a long piece questioning the widely-blogged report of sharply decreasing Iraqi casualties in August. When I saw a new, corrective report today, being human, I felt quite vindicated. While there was a slight drop-off in August, the 2/3 decrease was just was not credible. It never happened. But does this put me in the position of rooting for more deaths of Iraqi civilians? I certainly hope not. Do I want to say smugly, Ha! Eat sh1t, Powerline boys! … um .. only for a moment.

But that is one of the challenges of the debate that this country is having about the Iraq war. The administration (perhaps understandably) puts out a relentlessly positive, upbeat party line. Conservative bloggers (also understandably) jump on any favorable fragment of news and give it great prominence. Political opponents adopt the same tactics, with bad news.

Simply trying to bring facts and reality into that atmosphere is difficult. And when the news from Iraq is mostly bad, one ends up sounding like a moonbat. *sigh*

Well, gee, Commissar, it would have been nice to have you in the reality-based community (not to be confused with the Democrats) back BEFORE the current set of idiots were elected or re-elected back in 2004.

Somehow, even in his repentence of following the party-line, and despite facing overwhelming evidence to the contrary, acknowledging reality is “sounding like a moonbat.”

It is a sad archetype when pursuing rationality is perceived as completely irrational by the wing currently in power…

Then there is the sniping from one of whom I expected a bit more of a balanced view. In one of his “H&I Fires” posts, John Donovan of Castle Arhgghhh!!! writes:

Oh, my. I may be getting free books, but I’m not getting free review copies of TV stuff. But this is delicious: Senate Dems are threatening ABC’s broadcast license over the 9/11 mini-series. Which indicates *just* how much they fear it. Wow. Talk about “Soviet-style chills” oh, wait, that’s the NYT when Rethuglicans are talking trash about television… One wonders what the Grey Lady’s tortured thoughts will be this time ’round.

Update: While we haven’t heard from the NYT Editorial Board, we have heard from their critic who saw the show.

NEW YORK The film-makers and network responsible for the upcoming miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” which is now under assault for its alleged conservative bias, received critical support from a perhaps unexpected quarter on Friday — The New York Times.

The paper’s TV critic, Alessandra Stanley, declares the film “fictionalized” but still evenhanded.

Others cited in the same Editor and Publisher article didn’t necessarily agree…

Chicago Sun-Times TV critic Doug Elfman calls the movie a total “bore” and “amateurish.” John Podhoretz, conservative columnist for the New York Post, labels it a “stiff” and attacks the film’s depiction of Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger. USA Today’s Robert Bianco writes that the movie “has enough trouble just following history. Rewriting history is an ambition it should have left at the door.”

Hey, fair and balanced, that’s us!

Hey, John, this isn’t your original comment of “What are they afraid of?” in reference to the Democrats, and that particular snark was unworthy of you despite the apparent subsequent edits, for they are not much better.

I am forced to wonder, is the bias evident in only showing preview copies to conservative commentators and right-wing polititicians bothering your conscience, or did your sense of “fair and balanced” get reawakened by the protests from conservatives regarding the “docudrama” about President Ronald Reagan that was to be shown around a decade ago, which orgininally showed him having total indifference to the effects of the AIDS epidemic on the homosexual community but was alterered in the face of partisan protests?

Or are you fully supportive of a film presenting distortions and outright fictionalized scenes as history? One must wonder…

Or was the current imbroglio too close to the Dan Rather standard of “fabricated but balanced” for you?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Perhaps, John, you might want to read a few other posts on the matter, starting with what Joe Gandelman had to say, especially when it comes to the partisan nature of the pre-release DVDs issued.

Am I angry?

Yes.

I am sick of the unthinking, non-rational nature of what we call political “discourse” in the nation today.

Excuse the fuck out of me for asking for reasons and full discussions of options when it comes to sending Americans (including our soldiers) into harm’s way.

The University of Kansas is offering a course on the so-called “Intelligent Design Theory” but not exactly in the way the proponents of the belief might prefer:

Creationism and intelligent design are going to be studied at the University of Kansas, but not in the way advocated by opponents of the theory of evolution.

A course being offered next semester by the university religious studies department is titled “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies.”

“The KU faculty has had enough,” said Paul Mirecki, department chairman.

“Creationism is mythology,” Mirecki said. “Intelligent design is mythology. It’s not science. They try to make it sound like science. It clearly is not.”

I repeat yet again (redundancy intended, because that seems to be the only thing that reaches those whose beliefs triumph all reason), science and religion do not conflict.

Science is the how.

Religion is the why.

If you cannot see the difference and insist upon imposing your religious beliefs upon everyone, how can you truly say you have faith in the truth of your beliefs?

If your beliefs are the truth, they should stand on their own, immune to any challenge without the need to impose them upon others.

If your beliefs are so weak as to require imposition upon others, are they really the truth you claim them to be?

—

Submitted to the latest Outside the Beltway traffic jam.

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

In the end this nomination fell apart because of the crushing weight of its own insubstantiality.
   -Josh Marshall

I’ve been wrestling with this issue and how to illustrate it in a reasonable fashion for a few weeks now.

Since I do have a day-job that takes more than the “normal” amount of intellectual effort, I have had some difficulty in expressing my concerns when I try to post during the work week.

Despite the definite leaning of the source compiling the quotes, what you find here at Think Progress exemplifies the fundamental problem that the administration of President George W. Bush currently has (emphasis and formatting retained from the original post):

A significant moment during today’s White House Press Briefings:

QUESTION: Scott, a couple of years ago you told us that Scooter Libby and Karl Rove had nothing to do with the CIA leak. It appears that you may have gotten bad information before you made that statement.

Now today we learn through extrapolation that, when the vice president said in September of 2003 that he didn’t know who sent Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate the claims that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake, that he was not speaking the truth.

My question is: Can we be confident that when we hear statements from the White House in public that they are truthful?

MCCLELLAN: I think you can be, because you know that our relationship is built on trust. And I have earned that trust with you all.

As you pointed out, you pointed back to some past comments that I made, and I’ve talked to you about the assurances that I had received on that.

McClellan is emphasizing to the reporter that he was just relaying the assurances he received from Rove and Libby. In other words, they lied to me.

McClellan’s answer differs significantly from when he was asked the same question back on July 11, 2005… (the post continues)

Despite the claims of the mindless cheerleaders of the administration, there does come a point where (using the correct expression, not the mangled version of George W. Bush), “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me,” begins to take hold and people begin to question the credibility of those who have been proven so wrong more than once.

How can you tell a politician is lying when he speaks?

His lips are moving.

Perhaps, just perhaps, those Founding Fathers of ours who are revered so highly that we try to keep the interpretation of their beliefs frozen in amber for our Supreme Court Justices (according to one school of thought, that is…), perhaps their belief in the wisdom of the majority was not unfounded.

Eventually, no matter the spin, no matter the biases of the press or the blogs, the truth comes out and the consequences follow.

This is not related to the Miers nomination, nor to anything else other than the spin-machine of the administration that seems to have been focused on gaining or retaining power for the administration, not doing what is right for the nation as a whole, for the entire nation, even those who do not agree.

I am pulling together a number of threads of this nature, this is only one piece. I hope to have something to publish soon, when I am not distracted.

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.â€?

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.

The Truth Laid Bear is taking a blog-poll on the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court in a unique way. He is using a bot to go around to weblogs registered in the Blogosphere Ecosystem to get positions on the nomination, avoiding the vote spamming that so often distorts polls. I want to participate, along with checking to see if Random Fate gets re-listed properly in the Ecosystem (I’ll be sending NZ Bear an email later to ask if he could fix things if the scripts don’t take care of it). Here goes:

I oppose the Miers nomination.

I am in opposition for two reasons:

First - Someone who needs to “bone up” on Constitutional Law is not “the best qualified” to rule on what is Constitutional or not. I don’t think any further explanation of this point is needed.

Second - Although I am in disagreement with his conclusion, Don Surber is correct when he writes, “It comes down to trusting Bush.” I have not trusted George W. Bush from when he was Governor of Texas (I lived there at the time), and he has shown little reason for me to trust him since. To the contrary, the way that his Presidency has been handled, with many critical issues completely botched, not to mention the antics of his spin-machine, I would state that George W. Bush has given me plenty of reasons to trust him less.

I didn’t oppose the nomination of John Roberts. The man was obviously highly qualified, and he did not appear to be an ideologue who would put party above country. Sadly, I believe at least some of the support for Harriet Miers is from those very ideologues who claim to put the nation first when they decry “judicial activism” but in reality want someone who will “rule right” and be an activist to their liking.

There it is.

…has the administration through the Pentagon ensured that Armed Forces Radio is nothing but a political propoganda arm of whoever is in power?

Some years ago Rush Limbaugh’s listerners clamored and protested when it looked like Rush wouldn’t be carried on AFR, arguing it involved issues of free speech and expression. So are those principles limited to conservatives who defend the administration — and exclude liberals or centrists who have serious questions to ask and may not use their shows to solidify GOP support?

Do your own research and decide for yourself.

I have made my decision based upon what I have discovered; however, this is one of those issues you need to discover your own evidence and decide what exactly you are willing to believe.

…that should be beyond elementary to those in power.

Something important to note for those in power who forget their limitations, and all do eventually - Continued news releases such as this:

Al Qaeda Big Killed in Iraq; Saddam’s Nephew Could Give Informtion

Thursday, October 20, 2005
FOX News

BAGHDAD — A senior Al Qaeda (search) leader was killed during a series of Coalition raids in western Iraq on Oct. 15, the U.S. military says.

According to a press statement released by the Coalition Press Information Center in Baghdad, Sa’ad Ali Firas Muntar al Dulaymi (aka Abu Abdullah) was killed near the town of Ramadi during raids on suspected terror hideouts.

At least 11 other terrorists were killed in the operation, according to the military.

These kinds of news releases need to have both concrete, serious follow-up stories and show postive, unrefutable progress within months of release, otherwise after a short while they become both symbols of propoganda and objects of ridicule in a free society.

Despite the whining of those on the far-far-left-wing, we do indeed still have a free society, please, at least find the office so that you can buy a ticket to the clue train so that what you release doesn’t reek of spin if not outright propaganda in light of the continued repetition of “we got the #2″ with no apparent signs of progress that are obvious when other sources are compared to your so-called “news” releases.

How many times have we been told an “al Qaeda biqwig” or the “al Qaeda number two man” has been killed or captured?

More times than I can recall.

Yet, we continue to be told that “terrorism is our greatest threat”… NOT a North Korea that has declared they already have a nuclear weapon (or eight or so), and NOT a China that has the largest educated population on the planet which is buying up the bonds to our debt as fast as we issue them.

The math isn’t working out for those of us who are willing to take the time to do the sums.

I have done those sums, and the terrorism “threat” falls far short of that by either the thugs in North Korea or the Chinese, who have their own, nationalist, agenda that is NOT friendly to the United States.

I do not want my nation to fail because of your incompetence.

Perhaps you should stop listening to your own propaganda and start looking at the real threats.