They hate our freedoms
Over the weekend, Mark Earnest, a local conservative-libertarian blogger, wrote to me to say that even though he still considered me a Communist liberal leftist (to which I replied, I really resent being called a liberal), he wanted me to know that he could no longer recognize his compatriots on the right as “conservatives.” His post reads, in part:
I almost feel I don’t know these people anymore. It seems now they feel government cannot have nearly enough power. Secret courts, secret warrants, secret prisons, suspect torture, massive data gathering on all aspects of US citizens including medical records, library records, and financial records are all wonderful things. . . .
I truly and honestly do not understand. People who once proudly quoted Franklin’s “Those who give up essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither” now cheerlead the executive branch on in removing any judicial oversight, congressional oversight, and in fact ANY oversight (as most of these laws are secret) from the land. Far from the transparent government the founders imagined, we are now entering a system where laws are kept secret, prosecutions are kept secret, and national security is a password to removing any and all liberty that stands in the way of anything government wishes to do.
That’s just about right, Mark, except for one thing: when they’re not cheerleading for the executive branch, they’re calling the rest of us “traitors,” and demanding that the New York Times be prosecuted for reporting that the Cheney Administration has been spying on American citizens by executive fiat since 2002.
But I don’t want to quibble over tiny details—not when a sane conservative- libertarian has reached across the ideological chasm to join me in opposition to secret domestic spying and torture by executive order. So let me change direction.
Late last Thursday night, Atrios tossed down the gauntlet as the Times story found its way into print (after only a year’s delay): “The End of Conservatarianism,” he wrote . . .
Not quite, but I think their response to the NYT story on domestic spying is pretty much the test.
And I’m happy to say that I know of—hell, I’ve met and served on a blog/ wiki panel with—one guy who’s met that test with political and intellectual honesty.
Not so the chirpy fellow responsible for “Protein Wisdom,” who, most of the time, takes pains to assure us that his conservatism is nothing like that of the religious right, but, rather, is a swingin’ party full of happy tax cuts and South Park marathons. Curious to see how P. Wisdom would respond to the news that his President had been engaging in domestic surveillance by diktat, I read this:
The Democratic spin doctors, spurred on by their disingenuous Congressional taskmasters, are all over the tube this morning trying to gin up additional outrage over this NSA domestic “spy story”—even as the President stands firm and defends the practice.
Well, give Jeff G. credit for density: Democratic spin doctors, disingenuous Congressional taskmasters, ginning up outrage, “scare quotes” around “spy story,” and a firm hard President, all in one lede. It’s like a neutron star of wingnut talking points, it is.
But what makes this post especially strange, even by faux-conservatarian standards, is this:
If it turns out—like I believe it will (and I’ve heard now from several people familiar with intelligence)—that what the President was doing (and will continue to do) was not only legal, but from a practical standpoint, critical to monitoring domestic terror cells and stopping terrorist attacks here and abroad, I believe that any pro-defense American with the power to do so should insist that these intelligence leaks be investigated.
That parenthetical, by the way, is the second time Mr. Goldstein refers to his “intelligence” contacts in the course of five paragraphs. What kind of speech act is this, I wonder? Domestic spying by the NSA, on secret orders from the President, is as illegal as illegal gets—unless, of course, you believe the Nixon/ Yoo theory that the President can never act illegally. But we’re supposed to take this guy’s word not only for its legality but for its effectiveness because he claims to have heard from several people in intelligence?
Perhaps one of those people is “Steve in Houston,” whose “excellent comment” Jeff recommends to us all, because “it sums up the anger many of us feel at the partisan undermining of the war effort”:
I’m just bewildered by this whole thing, and the ongoing maneuvering to kneecap any of our more effective terroristic countermeasures. . . .
No one that I know is saying that gives license for wanton snooping; speaking for myself, though, I’m willing to give up a portion of “privacy” that I didn’t realize I had in order to more effectively combat the people who have declared war on us and are trying to kill us.
I’m willing to give up a portion of “privacy”—and what is it with these postmodern faux-conservatarians and their scare quotes?—that I didn’t realize I had. There, folks, is your new Patriot Motto: dude, I didn’t even know I had a right to be secure in my persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures! Besides, what does that really mean, anyway? It’s not like I was even using that right, so, like, whatever.
(As for Jeff’s “legal” claim: sure enough, in a later post he turns for support to noted legal analyst Al Maviva of the Institute of Simply Making Things Up, and dismisses political scientist Scott Lemieux as someone nobody takes seriously. Which is probably true on the right side of the blogosphere, since Scott has what they regard as the distinct disadvantage of knowing what he’s talking about.)
The belief in Bush’s effectiveness is another matter, and Jeff does not fail to recite the creed: “I trust in the Bush admin’s good faith and in the process that led up to authorization of the program.” I’ll come back to this one tomorrow, when I discuss how “critical” it is for intelligence officials to visit the homes of parents of college students who request Mao’s Little Red Book from interlibrary loan. But in the meantime, I’d like to propose a simple and straightforward clarification of terms, for future reference.
People who support a clandestine program of warrantless domestic spying are not “conservatives” or “libertarians.” Neither are people who support the creation of a worldwide archipelago of secret torture sites. Neither are people who support the usurpation of the functions of government by the executive branch; who espouse the theory that the executive branch is the final arbiter of the legality of the actions of the executive branch; and who call for the investigation or prosecution of a free press that dares to report on the executive branch’s secret programs of domestic spying and outsourced torture.
Those people, my friends, are called the radical right.
Forget Jesusland. Forget the War on Christmas. You don’t have to be a crazed theocrat to be a member of the radical right! All you have to do is support the right of the Leader to create secret torture and domestic spying programs, and vent your spleen at the few remaining journalists with the courage to report on them. That’s what a radical right does for a living. It’s what a radical right lives for.
Do you know a self-described conservatarian who needs new shoes for Christmas the holidays? Shoe-fittings are available free of charge.
UPDATE, Dec. 22: reader Marc Simmons informs me that some principled Republicans are kicking off their old shoes.
If you mean fittings for concrete shoes, I can think of a couple.
Posted by Roxanne on 12/19 at 10:17 AMAnd before I’m added to the NSA role of the unhinged, I mean that metaphorically.
Posted by Roxanne on 12/19 at 10:21 AMOne thing you can say about the Cheney/Junior/Rove administration, just when you think that their copying of the Nixon administration has gone as far as it could go it goes farther. Now, spokespresident Junior is admitting to do some of the things that got Tricky Dick into such trouble and his AG/conseiglere Tom Hagen, oops, Al Gonzales says he can do whatever he wants. I f this does seperate the conservatarians from the fascists, nothing will and they better not quote the Constitution or the Federal papers again because their belief in the Imperial presidency is hitting Emperor Palantine levels. This must being pissing off Junior’s Dad, no wonder he likes to hang out with Big Bill, we know what they talk about.
Posted by on 12/19 at 10:35 AMBy executive order, The dangerous “internets” is now a National Special Security Event and unauthorized metaphors are not allowed. Violators are subject to rendition.
So, Roxanne (if that is your real name), the NSA now has an orange dossier on you. The black van will appear outside your domicile shortly.
Posted by on 12/19 at 10:39 AMEx Con, I know for a fact that “Roxanne” is not her real name. But her last name really is “Populi.” That should narrow down the search somewhat.
Posted by Michael on 12/19 at 10:43 AMTo me the most impressive thing about this is that several inside the NSA considered Bush’s “spy on Americans, warrants be dammed” plan to be unconstitutional wanted no part in it.
This is worth repeting: The most secretive and elite spy agency in the world, who technically are answerable to nobody (which as an aside scares the crap out of me), decided that Bush has gone too far.
What does that tell you?
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 10:56 AMMark’s comment about NSA personnel not wanting to go along is consistent with the CIA analysts who didn’t like the twisting of their data. If the NSA personnel continue to speak out, look for Pat Roberts in the Senate to start to push for “reforming” the NSA. I wonder who will be the Porter Goss to take over the NSA and start purging people?
This is also consistent with what happened to long time establishment public servants like Richard Clarke, who thought they were anything but Nation-reading leftists, and who found themselves branded as such by the junta that runs this adminstration and their commentariat allies in the corporate-owned media.
It is high time for a movement of principled conservatives to push Republicans in Congress file articles of impeachment against both Bush and Cheney. Bush and Cheney are not merely incompetent stewards of the ship of state. They are dangerous to the nation’s true security with their sponsorship of torture and violations of our Bill of Rights. They have also continued to undermine our nation’s integrity and best values by their lies and misdirection on important public policy matters.
Posted by Mitchell Freedman on 12/19 at 11:35 AMSuperb analysis, Michael. I think what is going on here with pseudo-libertarians like Jeff at Protein Wisdom is that they are so overwhelmed with awe and reverence for George Bush’s pseudo-tough attack on terrorists and those purportedly suspected of same that (a) every other issue pales in importance to the point of non-existence and (b) the preservation of Bush’s power becomes so paramount in order to promote that agenda that he must be defended from all accusations, no matter how meritorious and even when it involves patent illegality, because ensuring that his anti-terrorist policies continue outweigh every other consideration, including the preservation of basic liberties.
Along those lines, there are two things worth taking note of today: (1) Not even the Administration claims that its warrantless surveillance complied with FISA. To the contrary, Rice said on Meet the Press that they didn’t want to comply with FISA anymore because it’s obsolete and they therefore ordered this eavesdropping pursuant to some unspecified inherent constitutional authority and “other statutes.” That means that Jeff and his friends spent all weekend insisting that the Administration complied with FISA when even the Administration admits that’s not true (and I warned Jeff that even the Administration wouldn’t claim this but he didn’t listen); and
(2) Always unprincipled “conservatives” like Hugh Hewitt are now relying on Surpreme Court cases to argue that the President has inherent authority to wiretap whomever he wants whenever he wants even though the Supreme Court said close to the opposite in the very cases they are citing.
I think this issue will be another breaking point (like Schiavo) separating those who are Bush slaves from those who are Bush voters but Americans first.
Posted by Glenn Greenwald on 12/19 at 11:47 AMHave you all read Agamben’s The State of Exception? A good, quick read that hits the main points of this one.
Posted by on 12/19 at 12:18 PMThis whole thing—well, I agree that Michael’s response is the right kind of response. Yes, when this kind of thing happens, you have to use the naive faith that some conservatives profess in the Constitution against them, and point out that the principles that they supposedly hold dear are being infringed. If that helps to bring over to the side of relative sanity one more Mark Earnest, then it’s worthwhile. (Hey, are you doing something with names again? We just saw a Lawrence Sober...)
So I know that I shouldn’t mention that I’m not surprised, that every conservative administration that I know of since early 20th century has done something like this, that the protective virtues of the Constitution are pretty much a dead letter and always have been, and that the archipelago of U.S.-sponsored torture sites is not exactly new. Hell, the “Salvador Option” is named rather inexplicably otherwise. Does anyone want to bet that the current NSA spying operation on citizens has been named COINTEL-PROTECT by some humorous functionary?
This kind of thing isn’t some unique Bushian aberration, although that I agree that this administration is more dangerous and has taken it farther than most. It’s part and parcel of conservatism, and a truly populist reaction to imagined threat. The people pushing it are not simply sinister protofascist military-industrial-complex figures, although they may exist; they are also the kind of “organic intellectuals” that John McGowen praised.
So I don’t see much chance of pulling off many people, conservative, libertarian, or whatever, by pointing this out. It was always what most of them wanted. Appealing to their hypocrisy may work a little bit, but it’s fragile.
Posted by on 12/19 at 12:31 PMYeah. Just keep it up, commie, and you can expect to hear from the law firm of Devine, Wright, and Wrong
Posted by The Heretik on 12/19 at 12:33 PMBravo, Michael, though I’ll confess that my enjoyment at watching you take on Jeff Goldstein makes me feel oddly guilty, as if I was cheering on Lance Armstrong as he won a bike race against a three-week-dead trout.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/19 at 12:36 PMGreat one. I was expecting the f-bomb to appear at the end of your post, though. Is there any particular reason you’re choosing to use the relatively tame “radical right” instead of the dreaded f word? Is there something about f-ism I don’t know that these folks aren’t in favor of?
Posted by on 12/19 at 01:07 PMThe right wing radio and pundits seem to be claiming that without Bush’s illegal wiretaps (let’s call a spade a spade) and the Patriot act, we would be having more attacks. By implication, anyone who opposes these wants America to be attacked again. How could you be against protecting our children?
Concurrently, nobody has had their rights violated yet and hey, what is the worth of outdated and quaint liberties such as unreasonable search and seizure when weighed against the ever-present threat of being blown up at any second? And as Cheney reassured us, the illegal wiretaps are only used against people with known terrorists ties.
Here is where these arguments fail miserably. The President is does not take an oath to keep the country perfectly safe, he takes an oath to uphold the constitution. Living in a free country is inherently dangerous, and always will be. The same liberties and freedoms that make us great also are enjoyed by jerks to can take advantage of them to cause harm. Try suggesting to a conservative that thinks safety is the number one value and goal in America that we should change the national anthem to better reflect this: “O’er the land of the safe / And the home of the scared”
As for the lack of evidence that Patriot Act and NSA wiretaps abuse constitutional rights? How would anyone know? Everything is top secret, we only know what little they choose to tell us.
To me the Patriot Act is full of some good common sense ideas (not all of it mind you), but then they had to go ahead and make everything secret. Our form of government fails utterly when those in power are allowed to do stuff without being accountable to the people (voters) who are tasked with evaluating their performance and voting accordingly. I understand keeping things secret during active investigations, but in a reasonable time, everything has to come out for us to keep calling this a Democracy (or Republic, if want to be technical about it).
Last, the NSA wiretaps and/or searches are indefensible. There are already established procedures for doing this without a warrant (for say an emergency) as long as one is obtained within 72 hours. What they are doing now can ONLY be for the purposes of hiding what they are doing. There is no tactical advantage at all in subverting the law in this regard. If they really REALLY believe there is a need for this, then change the law.
In my opinion this is much MUCH worse than Clinton illegally obtaining 500 FBI files on politicals opponants, which right wingers were all up in arms about. Would they have given him a pass as long as he promised everything he was doing was for homeland security purposes?
I’m sorry, but liberty and freedom has to trump safety. Otherwise we would not even exist as a country, we would have begged England to raise our taxes, quarter troops in our homes, and oppress us in any way they desire so long as they promise to protect us from indian raids.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 01:09 PMI think Mark Earnest is an anomaly, because I think most of the nominal pillars of “conservative” faith were never more than packaging for their real beliefs. Opposition to “big government” was never a principle; it was a way of wrapping racism, anti-unionism, anti-regulation and vigilantism (the gun nut routine) in Jeffersonian drag. Simultaneously, government could never be too big as long as it was fortifying the Mexican border, silencing doctors and public health professionals on matters that might enhance women’s freedom, disrupting and spying on even the mildest, most pacific Left groups. In short what calls itself “conservatism” has been--at least since the Goldwater era--a piece of rotten hypocritical cant. That’s why, unfortunately, calling attention to its hypocrisy now, as Earnest does with regard to the NSA spying practices, is a wasted effort. I’m sorry he was deluded, but if he imagines the people responsible can be made to feel shame for deluding him, he’s liable to be disappointed as well.
Posted by rootlesscosmo on 12/19 at 01:27 PMMichael,
Your comments and Atrios’ (whom I respect and enjoy a great deal) misunderstand two things about the Republican Party and the conservative/liberatarian base. I speak from knowing the situation fairly well “on the ground” as they say in the Imperial City. Not from afar.
First, the Republican Party long ago was hijacked by a strain of authoritarianism with many guises. As we may know here on your blog, perhaps, the Republican Party isn’t “conservative”. Whether in the Burkean sense or even the American watered-down context. It is a actually a very radical institution.
BUT, because the Republican Party is used to propogate this radicalism, many who CALL THEMSELVES conservatives in the base and passionately believe themselves to be conservative embrace this radicalism enthusiastically. And know no other form of “conservatism.”
As Neiwart has written, this is the road to a dark place. Nothing is more dangerous for radicalism to lurk behind the Kiwanis Club, or the Rotary Club, etc. Per Roth’s latest novel.
“Moderation is terrorism” is not a joke in 2005.
Second, because of this hijacking, the old forms of thought—the “conservatives”, etc. aren’t helpful. Either in blog discourse or in actual focus group testing, polling or political organizing.
What is at stake is the Enlightenment. Sound too artsy? It’s true. A larger organzing description is needed—beyond “liberal” or “libertarian”. The Republican Party stands for post-modernism emotionalism, authoritarianism and is anti-Reason.
There are only two teams in politics, for good or for ill. That’s how it is played. What is needed is for an umbrella organizing theme for those who stand for the Enlightenment and liberal democracy to come together. Not as “liberals” (in the American, not classic sense) or “libertarians”. But as those who embrace the liberal democratic project. This unites all. And if the Democrats did this, the Republic could take a stand.
We can debate how progressive one may be in that spectrum, etc. But what unites us all in that alliance far transcends in importance a position on this or that bill or idea.
Leo
Posted by Leo Strauss on 12/19 at 01:43 PMThe willingness of self-styled libertarians to be spied upon (exception gladly made for Mr Earnest) is of a piece with their willingness to submit to ethnic profiling: completely hypothetical, since they can be confident that people of their ethnicity and political affiliation will never be subjected to either indignity.
Also, what Rich said.
Posted by on 12/19 at 01:44 PMActually what I think is happening is many conservatives are realizing that the beliefs they hold are no longer even pretended to be held by the party leaders. No person in their right mind can look at the Bush Whitehouse and think they have been fiscally conservative. They have certainly been socially conservative, but there is a significant group of conservatives who could care less about abortion, same sex marriages, etc.
And lets not get high and mighty about people being duped here, who in the left really looks at Clinton as someone who championed their values and FOLLOWED THROUGH? He sold out his party just as effectively what with the DMCA, the Clipper Chip fiasco, NAFTA, Media Consolidation, etc. Many conservatives are finding Bush does not even remotely share their views and values, and I suspect recent news will bring many more around. However, unless the Democrat party finds some leadership, gets some actual direction, and figures out what the heck they stand for (hating Bush is not enough) they are going to lose out again. I’m sincerely hoping they do figure out a way to make a comeback because no matter what party I most agree with, the government functions better when we do not have one party controlling everything.
And of course we are all betrayed by our parties in the matter of eminent domain, even the right wing talk radio folks are pissed over that.
The problem is the party elite do not represent the views of the regular people in the parties. I know many conservatives and liberals alike who share many views, and can have constructive, meaningful discussions regarding them and find common ground without the insane hyperbole we see in our leaders. The leaders of both parties have become twisted, fun-house mirror images of their constituents.
Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, we have the religious ultra right who view Bush as the second coming and the left has Michael Moore, militant environmentalists, PETA, and such. Unfortunately they sell books and grab 90% of the media attention.
Basically what needs to happen is everyone needs to wake up and get control of their parties back from the nutjobs running the show now. The conservatives need to because their leaders, having been unopposed in the political arena for so long are now styling themselves as royalty. The liberals need to because their leaders are so fractured and confused as to what message they want to send that the only message coming through is opposition to Bush, which by itself is not enough to win any elections.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 02:02 PMA minor quibble. Scott Lemieux certainly does know what he’s talking about, and he’s well worth reading; but he’s not a lawywer. He’s a political scientist who teaches at Hunter College with a Ph.d. from th University of Washington.
Posted by on 12/19 at 02:14 PMYeah, I thought that this was pretty much what we’d see:
“Actually what I think is happening is many conservatives are realizing that the beliefs they hold are no longer even pretended to be held by the party leaders.”
They gave up the hypocrisy? How dare they.
“And lets not get high and mighty about people being duped here, who in the left really looks at Clinton”
Time to Clinton, two posts.
“the left has Michael Moore”
Calling the Poor Man.
Posted by on 12/19 at 02:23 PMwonderful piece! and chris’ comment left me shaking with seasonal joy, glad i wasn’t sipping coffee at the moment.
the hell of it is, here we have an administration that thinks it does not have to bother with any laws it finds inconvenient, up to and including the constitution—and it practically brags about breaking the law, because somehow this is furthering freedom and democracy, and presenting a shining example to the rest of the world. there is nothing like a big box of cognitive dissonance to put the “merry” in the holidays.
Posted by on 12/19 at 02:24 PMwho in the left really looks at Clinton as someone who championed their values and FOLLOWED THROUGH?
I spent the entire Clinton administration slamming him n print, as did most other leftist writers I know.
militant environmentalists, PETA, and such. Unfortunately they sell books
I guess I’d better get to work on mine.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/19 at 02:32 PM"Time to Clinton, two posts.”
I supposed I jumped into that one, I forgot it is is never acceptable to make any form of comparisons between political figures. I guess I just took the unreasonable position that both parties are being sold out by their leaders to the detriment of of their constants (who look the other way because at least he is better than “that other guy"). I forgot the Democrat party is flawless.
“They gave up the hypocrisy? How dare they.”
Assuming everyone who does not agree with you politically must be hypocritical is an awfully ignorant approach. Kinda smacks of “if you are not with me you are against me” doesn’t it? Although if you are basing everything you know about conservatives on Bush, Hannity, and Coulter I suppose I cannot blame you.
Here is where the old me would point out that many conservatives have ignorant views regarding liberals as a result of some looney pundits making all the noise on that side, but I have learned my lesson. Conservatives are just stupid, there are no loons on the left.
My badPosted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 02:37 PMI guess my point is that most the comments here try to connect results with self-described value systems. (Suskind’s “reality-based” thing).
But how to explain how so many so-called “conservatives” embrace outcomes against their own self interest or principles? Something else is at work, I think. That’s the important trend to follow and exploit.
So much of what passes for “conservative” political discourse is openly siffused with the deliberate embrace of emotional states: fear, “compassion”, belief, “anti-thought”—in the early 20th century use of the term —although then it was considered progressive. Whether it be because of the Baby Jesus, Law and Order, class entitlement, National Security, the label is not important. The subordination of rationality to the emotional/non-cognitive belief system is.
That to me is the dividing line, the tectonic fault line lurking in American politics. Using labels that have been debased and hijacked like “conservatism” obscures as much as it describes.
That’s why I think the true re-alignment comes when the Democrats take up the gauntlet thrown down and become the party of the Enlightenment, of science, of rationality, of empiricism, of the Democratic Experiment.
And let the other party define itself as that of Anti-Thought.
I guess as a new comer to Michael’s place I should tone things down. Don’t mean to be too didactic on this point. It’s a nice neighborhood.
Posted by Leo Strauss on 12/19 at 02:37 PM"I spent the entire Clinton administration slamming him n print, as did most other leftist writers I know.”
And a lot of conservatives are slamming Bush. Much more than Foxnews would have you think. Not surprisingly, that message is falling on the same deaf ears as most of the left’s message. Sucks when the mass media can’t afford to bite the hand that feeds it. Which is why most of us are on the internet venting (or digital pamphleteering if you like)
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 02:42 PM"But how to explain how so many so-called “conservatives” embrace outcomes against their own self interest or principles? Something else is at work, I think. That’s the important trend to follow and exploit.”
That is simple, “Hot button issues”. I’m not about to deny there are ignorant conservatives. In the last election, gay marriage was the trigger issue. I’m convinced there are those who would have voted for someone promising to crush the economy, increase the crime rate, and steal candy from babies as long as the oppose gay marriage. Don’t look to me for any explanation on this behavior.
“That’s why I think the true re-alignment comes when the Democrats take up the gauntlet thrown down and become the party of the Enlightenment, of science, of rationality, of empiricism, of the Democratic Experiment.”
I’m all for this. It happens every now and then in history and we are due.
Even Reagan (reviled by liberals, I know) used logic and reason. His strategy against communism was at least defensible and able to be logically explained. Trickle down economics was even a concept that has some validity to in when approached logically. I’m not going to argue the merits of these approaches, just that there was thinking being them. Anymore the Republicans in power have completely abandoned trying to explain anything logically, instead turning to a completely “faith based” system of justifications:
“We have faith in God, you all need to have faith in us to fix social security, protect the country, spread democracy, and make America better. Don’t concern yourself with the details, we got it all covered.”
Unfortunately there seem to be enough people who have been convinced that “smart people” are plotting against them and making up stupid stuff like evolution when Genesis clearly explains the truth. So why would they believe any experts in politics or any other field. Those darn “elite” pricks cannot be trusted. As for the really smart conservatives who should be able to see through this crap, remember that in many cases they ARE protecting their best interests. It is undeniable that the people running Haliburton are very smart people, but it is still in their best interest to support a party spouting illogical crap.
I don’t know how you combat this, playing on people’s distrust on what they do not understand is a pretty tried and true plan that usually works.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 03:16 PMUh, Rich, Chris—Mark was agreeing with you in comment 18, acknowledging that many on the left believed (with good reason) they had been betrayed by Clinton. And for the record—though Steve Gilliard has been all over this one lately—I think there’s no question that PETA has been hijacked by utter raving loons. Moore isn’t even close to PETA-variety madness, but this humble blog has never regarded him as an intellectually substantial figure. (Michael Walzer and Michael Harrington, yes; Michael Moore, no.) Of course, I understand the impulse, on the left, to imagine that anyone who drives the right into frenzies can’t be all bad. But where the right looks at Moore and sees a big fat traitor, I look at him and see one of the singularly clueless Naderites of 2000. (Yes, there were plenty of clueful Nader voters, like Mitchell—but Moore wasn’t among them.) So I’ve never been very impressed with his political judgment. Just saying.
Thanks, Bostonian girl, for the correction. Serves me right for trying to put up this post so early in the morning. The embarrassing thing is that I’ve met Scott, and we’ve talked hockey and the Fourteenth Amendment well into the night. So I really did know better. . . .
And yes, Chris, we eagerly await your book. Let me know when it’s done and I’ll put the jacket art up in that place-holding BlogAds space on the right side of the blog.
Posted by on 12/19 at 03:44 PMThe President’s actions have been lawful and sensible.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Section 1802,
“Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order.”“Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year”
And…
...Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore “fully inform” those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).
This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago.
All the above courtesy of National Review blog, the Corner.
Posted by on 12/19 at 03:53 PMBut where the right looks at Moore and sees a big fat traitor, I look at him and see one of the singularly clueless Naderites of 2000.
The right looks at him and sees exactly why they don’t like all those Liberals. Some really believe he is representative of the left, others just propagate that because it serves them.
The left do the same with Hannity, Coulter, etc. (and of course many on the right cheer them on for tweaking Liberals)
I hope we can someday get past assuming (or pretending) that the fringe attention getters represent the actual views and politics of Liberals and Conservatives.
Maybe I should give Michael back his blog and get back to work
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 03:54 PMMark, when someone says that the current President of the United States is engaging in illegal wiretapping, much less torture, and you profess to be shocked by this, don’t you think it’s a little odd to bring up Clinton and NAFTA, the DCMA, media consolidation, and the Clipper Chip as if the case is similar? Isn’t that rather odd as a statement of priorities? None of those things were unconstitutional or criminal. (Well, since you’re a libertarian, maybe you think they were unconstitutional. Who knows.) But do you really think that liberals or leftists or whatever grind their teeth about NAFTA and media consolidation in the same way that anyone, presumably, should be grinding their teeth about an imperial presidency deciding to have people spied on illegally, or tortured?
Now, you wrote that:
“Actually what I think is happening is many conservatives are realizing that the beliefs they hold are no longer even pretended to be held by the party leaders.”You don’t think that’s even a little funny? It implies that everything was OK when the party leaders *pretended* to hold to conservative values. Yes, you can say that’s not what you meant. But given the history of supposed conservative rejection of the party, it appears to be true. Bush is doing nothing different now than he did in his first term. The only difference is in the pretense, which has been partially stripped away. Anyone who would be shocked by what Bush is doing now who hasn’t previously been shocked has been trying very arduously not to see. I think that the conclusion that what conservatives really want is a decent cover of hypocrisy once again is inescapable. I’m happy to exempt you from this conclusion. But in the main, I think it’s true.
Posted by on 12/19 at 03:57 PMDaniel, we’ve already shot down that particular canard. Please don’t bring Institute of Simply Making Things Up talking points around this blog—see Glenn Greenwald’s thorough and decisive rebuttal, in comment 8 and in the hyperlink to Al Maviva in the original post.
Posted by on 12/19 at 04:08 PMSection 1802,
“Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order.”“Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year” …
You inadvertently cut off a sentence, all me to finish it for you: ...if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
I’m not going to list the rest here, read it at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html
There is also this pesky little Section called 1805 in that executive order which states that in the event that an emergency situation where a court order cannot be obtained in advance, the surveillance can ONLY go on for 72 hours before an order is applied for. THIS is the part the crew up on, there is where the law was broken. They cannot just do stuff on their own and not tell anyone. You have to apply for a warrant at some point, and it need not hold up an investigation.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html
Actually just read the whole act yourselves here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.htmlAlso from section 1803:
“In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.”Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 04:09 PMOr see Mark’s thorough and decisive rebuttal right here! Keep in mind, too, that applications for warrants under FISA are almost always approved. So there’s no sense arguing that the Cheney Administration didn’t already have all the tools they needed. Clearly, they wanted a secret program for utterly warrantless (in both senses of the term) surveillance, and they wanted to bypass judicial and legislative review as a matter of principle.
Welcome to the radical right, Daniel.
Posted by on 12/19 at 04:16 PM26 — Anymore the Republicans in power have completely abandoned trying to explain anything logically, instead turning to a completely “faith based” system of justifications:
Faith based is the fall back position when Secrecy fails or is not practical.
Even Reagan (reviled by liberals, I know) used logic and reason.
Back when Reagan was using logic and reason party affiliation was an insignificant factor in making a decision. Civil rights legislation passed because of the support of liberal Republicans, despite the defection of conservative Democrats. Both parties had liberal / conservative platform battles and compromises.
The Clinton administration was liberal only by the standard of Rush et al. Funny, the Cheney administration is conservative only by the same standard.
Posted by on 12/19 at 04:26 PMMark, when someone says that the current President of the United States is engaging in illegal wiretapping, much less torture, and you profess to be shocked by this, don’t you think it’s a little odd to bring up Clinton and NAFTA, the DCMA, media consolidation, and the Clipper Chip as if the case is similar?
Similar in importance? No, give me SOME credit. It is however similar in the regard that we have a leader who is doing the opposite of what his constituents believe and agree with. If you listened to conservative talk radio in the 90s you would hear nothing but ranting against the out of control police powers of the Clinton DOJ. Sure, I’m accusing the Republican party of being blatantly hypocritical (that is how all this started), but I’m also pointing out that this is not a Republican only ailment. Does that make it right? Hell no! It should make ALL of us angry and unified in our desire to get Democrat and Republican leaders alike to change the games they play.
Well, since you’re a libertarian, maybe you think they were unconstitutional. Who knows.
I’m actually registered independent. I don’t know what established party I most align with at this point and I am actively in the process of trying to figure that out. Failing that, I’m starting my own damn party.
It implies that everything was OK when the party leaders *pretended* to hold to conservative values. Yes, you can say that’s not what you meant.
And I will
But given the history of supposed conservative rejection of the party, it appears to be true. Bush is doing nothing different now than he did in his first term.
I didn’t like his first term either
I already explained how he got reelected despite what you correctly point out.
And I’m not asking to be excluded from the list of people who got duped, I voted for his first term but at least I had my eyes open enough to know that it was a bad idea come the second time around. As much of an excuse as I am going to give for that first vote was Al Gore == Clipper Chip (oh, and I work exclusively in cryptography, security, and digital identity stuff so voting for him would be voting against my interests) Until the Patriot Act, I considered the clipper chip to be the one of the most vile assaults on civil liberties and privacy ever. If nothing else, I learned never to say “I cannot get worse”
Right now though, conservatives are engaging in the most pathetic and sad attempts at justification I have ever seen.
It wasn’t even Bush’s shenanigans that ticked me off (I’ve come to expect nothing less, remember I don’t like him), it was the so called conservative party pundits and talking heads falling over themselves trying to cheer him on and justify what is clearly indefensible that prompted me to write the weblog posting that Michael references.Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/19 at 04:29 PMMichael quotes Jeff G:
If it turns out—like I believe it will (and I’ve heard now from several people familiar with intelligence)—that what the President was doing (and will continue to do) was not only legal, but from a practical standpoint, critical to monitoring domestic terror cells and stopping terrorist attacks here and abroad, I believe that any pro-defense American with the power to do so should insist that these intelligence leaks be investigated.
One wonders why Jeff is not insisting that the “several people familiar with intelligence” be likewise investigated.
Posted by on 12/19 at 04:50 PMMarK: “It is however similar in the regard that we have a leader who is doing the opposite of what his constituents believe and agree with.”
I just don’t see it. Yes, some of Clinton’s voters didn’t support these policies. (Though not all of them. That’s what “triangulation” was about.) But what Bush is doing is supposed to be beyond the pale to anyone, of any party. It is far better to be revolted at what Bush is doing than not to be, don’t get me wrong. But it’s just not that surprising that people are supposed to be revolted. It doesn’t make the easy equivalence in “It should make ALL of us angry and unified in our desire to get Democrat and Republican leaders alike to change the games they play” true.
Basically, yes I’m glad that you’re on the “right side”; thank you. But there’s something wrong with the idea that we have to jump up and down and shout hurray at the idea that one more person has come out against the party of illegal wiretapping and torture. It certainly doesn’t motivate me to agree with a false equivalence between the Republican and Democratic parties of the last few decades or their leaders.
Posted by on 12/19 at 04:55 PMI’m looking forward to the moment when Bush decides to confiscate all guns--wouldn’t want The Terrorists to get ‘em, right?--and proud conservatives rush to celebrate his bold action and bolder vision.
Posted by on 12/19 at 04:56 PMLike Chris, I’m inappropriately thrilled to see Jeff. G.’s intellectual dishonesty get the drubbing it so richly deserves, even though he’s so very not worthy of the attention.
Posted by bitchphd on 12/19 at 05:30 PMI’m looking forward to the moment when Bush decides to confiscate all guns--wouldn’t want The Terrorists to get ‘em, right?--and proud conservatives rush to celebrate his bold action and bolder vision.
Well, when “conservative” Representative Sensenbrenner (R-WI) rammed through the “Real ID” act, which effectively creates a national ID card by using financial threats against states to force them to participate in a federal database system, Representative Edwards (D-TX) attempted to attach an amendment stating that the ID info would not be linked to gun ownership databases...and exactly one Republican supported it (Paul of TX, who is actually a fairly principled libertarian). So the moment already came and went, with a whimper. Interestingly, the smaller organization Gun Owners of America opposed the legislation, while the NRA was silent yet again. I guess all those conservative congressmen decided that gun ownership is for well-regulated militias after all. (FWIW, I condemn all the Democratic sellouts that voted for the act. But none were required to pass the legislation.)
But Mr. Puchalsky, could you refrain from hammering on Mr. Earnest too much? I say, better late than never, just like when Bob Barr was rhetorically punching Rep. Rohrabacher in the throat this weekend.
Posted by on 12/19 at 05:33 PMWait a minute. “Al Maviva” = “Almaviva,” the Count in Beaumarchais’ (and Rossini’s) The Barber of Seville?
“Enter the Count, disguised as a drunken soldier"--hmm.Posted by rootlesscosmo on 12/19 at 05:46 PMMichael,
The statute was written in 1978. It seems odd that Congress would grant broad powers to monitor foreign powers while excluding terrorist organizations by definition. But what was the definition of a terrorist organization in 1978? Sure we had the PLO and the IRA (Ted Kennedy would not lift a hand in cirumscribing their terror), but we also had violient American misfits such as the Black Panthers, Weathermen and crazy Puerto Rican groups, all of who, not surprisingly, carried some sympathy within the Democratic party. All the same, the law specifically limits surveillance to the first three categories as noted in the statute.
But here, from another part of the statute, is the defintion of one of those categories: “a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons”.
A faction of a foreign nation. The fact is al-queda commands enourmous support in many countries in the muslim world. It is a true faction of these societies; extra-legal in our sense of what a legitimate government is, but a real power nonetheless.
I have no problem with the executive monitoring these violent entities, and doing all that is necessary to preempt their attacks. I’m just puzzled as to why the American left is all worked up about this, really. Oh, I get it, it’s a case of “First they came for the Taliban, but I wasn’t Taliban so I said nothing, Then they came for al-Queda but I wasn’t al-queda so I said nothing.....”
Yawn, but it’s going to be really fun watching ALL democrats run away from this next November. Ha, Ha.
Posted by on 12/19 at 05:49 PMMonitoring a bake sale held by Quakers in Pasadena is not the same as monitoring a meeting of AQ recruiters. It would be fairly easy to get a judge to sign the order to wiretap potential AQ sympathizers; not so easy to get them to sign the order to monitor Christian pastry chefs. The fact that the administration feels it necessary to bypass judicial oversight in these matters speaks volumes. And any true Libertarian worth their salt would be troubled by these recent revelations.
Posted by What ever happened to Daniel Segretti? on 12/19 at 06:44 PMActually, it’s Donald Segretti.
Posted by Roxanne on 12/19 at 06:45 PMUh, Rich, Chris—Mark was agreeing with you in comment 18
Ah. Thanks for bringing me up short, Michael. Mark, I’m sorry for misreading you.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/19 at 06:54 PMOn a closely-related topic, did anyone else’s head explode when Bush was talking this morning? I never expect his statements to be available to careful analytical scrutiny, but when he told his story about the Iraqi woman who wanted Saddam summarily executed, and then went on about how due process and the rule of law is what separates the virtuous nations from the tyrannical… well, my head exploded.
Posted by on 12/19 at 07:32 PMI’ve been posting “blasts from the past” on Nothing New going back 20, 21 years to the depths of the archived National Review articles on findarticles.com.
Because, see, I actually *remember* conservative propaganda going back to the mid-70s, when I was still Conned, and we got a whole slew of conservative propaganda rags, which informed my worldview in sundry ways.
All of it - the war on Christmas, the war on the Pill, the antifeminism, the theocracy, the homophobia - it’s all there in the National Review archives, online to 1984. The assertion that all goodness and truth resided in Conservativism (and anything good and true *must* be a Conservative work of Art) and only stupidity and evil were to be found in liberalism, the denial of overpopulation and the declaration that environmentalism was human-hating lies and alarmism, the rampant machismo, the fearmongering that looked for other threats as the Godless Commies faded, the lauding of McCarthy as hero, the gratuitous slams at Kennedy, then Clinton, not for anything deserved but for their presumed wussiness and desire to spend all Johnny Taxpayer’s money on the unworthy-- there’s plenty more where that came from.
So to call this a radical diversion from “classic” conservativism, well, that’s wishthink on both sides, I’m afraid. I was *there*, I remember, frex, encountering the Dred Scott/Roe vs. Wade comparison in the Catholic academic conservative journals - and Buckley and Buchanan are Catholic conservative intellectuals, don’t forget - by 1976.
Either the True Conservativism had ceased to exist by 1975, or it never existed at all.
Posted by on 12/19 at 07:35 PMBut Mr. Puchalsky, could you refrain from hammering on Mr. Earnest too much?
Yeah, Rich, what mds said. This isn’t Steve Fuller we’re dealing with here. This is a defector. We treat defectors nice here in liberal Communist leftist land, and we show them where we keep all the good bourbon. We don’t pretend that the early defectors drank up all the good stuff back in 2003.
Posted by Michael on 12/19 at 08:26 PMI think there’s no question that PETA has been hijacked by utter raving loons.
You’re right, Michael. Much as the anti-slavery movement was hijacked in the early 19th century by utter raving loons who argued that it wasn’t enough to end slavery or treat existing slaves with more kindness; no, they were actually insane enough to argue that Black people were the moral equivalents of white people! That they were even as smart as white people! That they should be considered full members of the human race! With freedom and dignity and all that stuff! Incredible, I know. Of course the vast majority of the people at the time realized that that was nonsense. Well and good to treat the Black folk a little humanely while they’re working in the fields, but God forbid we should lose sight of the fact that they are inferior creatures and were put on this earth to serve their betters.
Similarly, the loons at PETA are just nuts—they think that sentient beings who aren’t human are actually entitled to some of the same fundamental rights as sentient beings who ARE human. That it’s really, really bad and wrong to torture chimpanzees for medical experiments or to cut the beaks off chickens and make them live in tiny boxes, or to hang animals upside down and cut their veins so the blood will drip out before they die—even if such things make humans happy. Loons! Loons, I say!
Posted by on 12/19 at 08:31 PMBourbon. Harrumph. It’s no accident the stuff’s named after the royal house that produced the successor to Franco. “King of Jerusalem” indeed. Who cares about Kansas: What’s The Matter With Kentucky?
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/19 at 08:36 PMSimilarly, the loons at PETA are just nuts—they think that sentient beings who aren’t human are actually entitled to some of the same fundamental rights as sentient beings who ARE human.
I think all those things too. Plenty of fine organizations share those views. To me, PETA’s problem is not so much that they’re nuts as that they exist solely for (ineptly done) PR, and that there have been <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/16/acd.01.html">extremely troubling allegations of extreme malfeasance</a> by PETA staffers.
That link is to an Anderson Cooper 360 transcript. The PETA material is about halfway down.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/19 at 08:46 PMAll right, all right. Believe it or not, I didn’t think I was being that bad.
By the way, Michael, when you write that post tomorrow would you mind moving this poem to the comments on it or something? Or I will I guess.
Inter-library loan
It was near Christmas
The call came
“Go to New Bedford”
Borrow trouble, he laughed
Borrow trouble
Their eyes were white when I told them their son
The little book redOn the way back
It sat on the car seat
Red
We’re red guards, I guess
At the return bin
You must take it back I said
Because it reveals-- Rich Puchalsky, 2005
Posted by on 12/19 at 09:02 PMChris, not to hijack this thread into a discussion of PETA, but read this about the whole “PETA kills shelter animals” thing:
http://www.animalrightsmalta.com/killsanimals.html
I tend to be wary of accusations against PETA because they’ve been the target of misinformation campaigns for years.
As for some of the more outre activist stuff that they do, I kind of see them as the John Brown of the animals rights movement (as in John Brown of Harper’s Ferry). Wild and unfocused at times, but definitely living their convictions.
Posted by on 12/19 at 09:27 PMIs it just me, or does The Little Red Book seem an absurd, nearly comical target of scrutiny? It’s not as though Chairman Mao shares his recipe for Molitov cocktails, plans for IEDs or patterns for suicide bomber couture. It’s a silly little book of quotes, an artifact of the hagiography of Mao and his cult of personality. Honestly--and I’m willing to listen to reasonable arguments why I’m all wet--isn’t this just a ridiculous cold war circle jerk?
Posted by on 12/19 at 10:08 PMOK, the thread is officially hijacked. As Godwin’s Law (amendment 14(a)(iv)) clearly states, whenever someone adduces John Brown and abolition in order to argue that the most extreme position on an issue unrelated to human slavery is the most moral position by virtue of its very extremity, the discussion is effectively over. And the day that someone convinces me that PETA’s comic book Your Daddy Kills Animals advances the cause of social justice is the day I agree that the Symbionese Liberation Army should be welcomed by the people of Symbionia as liberators.
That said, I do think we should all visit The Meatrix.
Now, back to Ed Pluth’s question, which I missed up there in comment 13:
Is there any particular reason you’re choosing to use the relatively tame “radical right” instead of the dreaded f word?
Actually, yes. I happen to think the f word is no longer dreaded, and that it dulls rather than stimulates thought about what’s actually going on. Like “McCarthyite”—another term that might plausibly be applied to a nation whose intelligence agents are deployed to oversee interlibrary loan—it has, unfortunately, been dereferentialized and drained of its power. Calling faux-conservatarians by the term they despise and from which they struggle to differentiate themselves, however, might do a wee bit of good in the short term.
Posted by Michael on 12/19 at 10:46 PMisn’t this just a ridiculous cold war circle jerk?
If the individuals who ordered this harassment didn’t have the power of the state behind their whimsy, yes, it’d just be absurd.
the loons at PETA are just nuts
this sentence is totally cracking me up. I like its interchangeability.
Posted by on 12/19 at 10:51 PMIn the Spring or early summer of 2003 we sent pictures of our newborn baby from North Carolina to Iowa. As it was someone who was considering joining us in an intentional christian community, we put ‘propaganda for our future community’ on the outside of the envelope. When our friend received the envelope, it had clearly been opened (and not very carefully) and then retaped together. The word ‘propaganda’ was all it took, and there was clearly no international connection. Granted this was not terribly long after the anthrax mail jazz ... but still ... I’ve been certain ever since that there has indeed been far more domestic spying than anyone has heretofore suggested.
Posted by on 12/19 at 11:09 PMwhenever someone adduces John Brown and abolition in order to argue that the most extreme position on an issue unrelated to human slavery is the most moral position by virtue of its very extremity
Except I didn’t do that, Michael. I compared PETA to John Brown, both of whom are/were extremists and whose tactics were a) sometimes indefensible and b) often self-defeating by virtue of their very extremity. Dearest Michael, I adore your writing and your politics, so I don’t want to fuss with you. But I think you’re drawing the wrong inference about the Harper’s Ferry raid.
Posted by on 12/19 at 11:09 PMGee, Chris, what bourbon have you been drinking? Maybe we don’t ship the good stuff to the coast (and yes, in fact the name is an accident; bourbon is named for Bourbon County, its birthplace). Anyway, there’s three fingers of Blanton’s and some spring water if you want waiting for you here whenever you show up, and we’ll see if the story changes after that.
My favorite moment so far came in Almarviva’s response to Glenn Greenwald’s catch of that curious ellipsis, when he accused Mr. Greenwald of using a “very literal” reading of the statute.
Posted by on 12/20 at 12:22 AMGee, Chris, what bourbon have you been drinking?
Oh, don’t pay any attention to me. The last thing I drank, a year and a half ago, was some of this.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/20 at 12:30 AMWhat, straight? That stuff’s like 125 proof.
Posted by on 12/20 at 12:50 AMThanks, Michael. That’s about what I thought. Something strange has indeed happened to that word. Overuse? Misuse? It’s remarkable that one cannot use it without exiting polite conversation, or else appearing to be (or being?) a mushy-headed, paranoid leftist, despite how philosophically appropriate the f-word might be! I’ve taken notice of how Brian Leiter uses it on his blog; it’s philosophically correct, perhaps, but rhetorically disastrous. Radical right it is, until a better term arrives!
Posted by on 12/20 at 02:20 AMMoore must be beside himself that he’s not regarded here at MBOL “as an intellectually substantial figure”. Probably, his unsound approach to theory condemns him to a peripheral intellectual existence, sort of like populism, ugh. Poor fat slob.
Posted by on 12/20 at 03:53 AMSpeaking of bourbon, I kinda like this stuff.
Posted by Kevin on 12/20 at 04:11 AMActually, Dick, the thing about Moore is his aerosol-spray approach to things like guns and crime and war in Afghanistan. There are moments in Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 that are quite good, and moments that are just abysmal (dude, like we dropped bombs on Kosovo the same day Columbine happened, dude. Makes you think!). “Theory” has nothing to do with it, and neither does “populism”—but I will say that this blog reserves the right not to respect certain public figures intellectually, even if they are on the left.
And I didn’t even know Moore was overweight.
drs, of course I agree that it’s really, really bad and wrong to torture chimpanzees for medical experiments or to cut the beaks off chickens and make them live in tiny boxes, or to hang animals upside down and cut their veins so the blood will drip out before they die. I’m just not seeing how that message is conveyed by PETA’s fun new PR campaign, the one that tells kids that their father just might kill their doggies and kitties if he’s one of those pathological sadists who like to go fishing. In fact, I tend to think that comic books that (a) are aimed at kids in that way and (b) equate fishing with murder are far more likely to give people the impression that animal-rights activists are loons than to convince people that PETA is all about stopping unnecessary animal experiments and breaking the industrial Meatrix. And I wish people wouldn’t get the impression that animal-rights activists are loons, personally.
Posted by Michael on 12/20 at 09:07 AMOh don’t worry about me, I’ve been arguing politics on the Internet for to long now not to have thick skin.
However, don’t chalk me up as a turncoat. In my opinion, my views never changed. The Republican Party under Bush just moved so far away from me I am now party-less. I’ve always been more of the “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” type. Now that the Republicans have moved into “fiscally incompetent, socially fascist” territory I think it’s pretty safe to say I am done with them.
If nothing else the feeble and comical defenses that have been coming from them regarding everything from the CIA leak issue, to the NSA spying (not to mention Katrina) should leave any card carrying member of the Republicans embarrassed.
And I’m with Michael on PETA. Good cause, but methods that appear to have originated from the minds of angry fifth graders.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/20 at 09:12 AMIn my opinion, my views never changed. The Republican Party under Bush just moved so far away from me I am now party-less.
So I guess you were in favor of domestic spying when it was Nixon doing it - what was so different about spying on the Catholic Workers and the Quakers back then, that makes it wrong now? Of socially-conservative sexual control-freakery when it was the Reagan administration? Of wars of aggression and neglect of infrastructure under Bush I and his predecessors?
Or were you just asleep, all those years?
Posted by bellatrys on 12/20 at 09:47 AMOr were you just asleep, all those years?
Pray tell, what party do you belong to that has never abused power to spy domestically, engaged in aggression, neglected infrastructure, etc? Surely not the Democrats…
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/20 at 10:19 AMMark,
I think the neutralization by relative example is something to avoid. Most people here know of Johnson, CHAOS, etc. Kennedy and the covert action pressures on CIA. Nixon and Allende, etc.
The point, however, is that they were wrong then and what is happening now is far more wrong. “If men were Angels” as Madison said. Our system of interlocking power and different kinds of power was designed to accomodate the non-Angelic Americans of course.
And it is *precisely* because we can’t afford to let what is happening becoming precedent for Whatever [Whoever] Comes Next (D or R).
What chills me the most about the current Administration is a simple fact of history. The most dangerous person in power is the Romantic.
Posted by Leo Strauss on 12/20 at 10:52 AMYou know, there’s a strange silence emanating from this thread.
Posted by Roxanne on 12/20 at 12:05 PMI think the neutralization by relative example is something to avoid. Most people here know of Johnson, CHAOS, etc. Kennedy and the covert action pressures on CIA. Nixon and Allende, etc.
I’m not trying to neutralize the point, I’m trying to point out (and successfully if I may say so myself) that it is impossible to take the position that acting unconstitutionally (especially with regard to abusing power and violating civil rights) is wrong while at the same time trying to paint one party as better than the other. I came into this discussion as someone who normally holds conservative-like viewpoints saying “enough is enough” and people STILL cannot get off their damn high horse about how the OTHER party is so much better and this is all about Republican==evil and Democrat==good
The point, however, is that they were wrong then and what is happening now is far more wrong.Why does it have to be far worse? Why can’t it be just as unconstitutional and (dare I say) evil?
What gets me about this dialog (and in fact nearly all political dialogs I end up in) is that I usually come out with the position that this kind of crap is wrong, end of story. And right now the liberals will agree in principal and then go of on how much worse it is in this case and how conservatives are always doing this and anyone who is against this kind of thing and is not a liberal is hypocritical, etc etc etc.
And the conservatives will also agree in principal and then go of on how this is not so bad since it is in the interest of national security and don’t we want to be protected from terrorists, and what the liberals have done in the recent past is worse, etc.
You know what? Doth sides are wrong and just as equally wrong, deal with it. I don’t care what the motivation is or where the unconstitutional act falls on the “sliding scale of badness”. Clinton and Gore pushed for the Clipper Chip to ensure government could monopolize cryptography and snoop on all conversations. Bush is authorizing secret wiretaps without judicial oversight, and BOTH parties voted overwhelmingly for the Patriot Act. We can trade infractions all day long. How can any reasonable person be of the opinion that either party gives a rat’s ass about civil rights and liberty over political posturing?
The problem is not Republican vs Democrat, it is a problem with ALL of the entrenched and power hungry lifelong politicians on both sides of the isle. As long as they keep your political anger directed at the evil (and much worse) “other party” nothing will change.
Is a third party the answer? Well I voted for one last time but realistically, probably not. The two parties in power do find time to agree completely on how to control the debate and election system in this country to ensure there is never a real threat from that angle. All we can really do is reform the two parties (and perhaps then work on modifying the system to allow multiple parties). However as long as both Republicans and Democrats wear blinders when it comes to the infractions of their own party, that is not going to happen.
This is not directed at anyone in particular (sorry Leo, I responded to you then went off on a tangential rant), just the whole tone of the conversation.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/20 at 12:59 PMMark,
We are not that far apart in some respects. As we both said, extra-constitutional encroachment was wrong then [insert earlier Administration] and is wrong now.
A quibble. The Clipper Chip was really an NSA agenda and began under Bush Sr/41. Clinton et al. just carried the ball forward. Oh, and in case folks didn’t know, the Clinton era DoJ/FBI/NSA pushed for legislation that is almost identical to the Patriot Act.
(The Soviet-style practice of inventing acronyms for Bills to render them as simplistic memes is another evil of our modern times, but I digress).
The reason I say things are worse now is because:
(a) the militarization of American discourse after 9/11 is far more pervasive than it was under Korea, Vietnam and even the permanent Cold War;(b) Republicans today, per earlier comment, essentially are a monolithic Parliamentary form of government, something unforeseen by the Framers and incompatible with Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances;
(Who is the ultimate Republican enemy in the Imperial City? A Democrat? Hardly. The ultimate Republican enemy is a “moderate Republican”. The equivalent of the 1930s NKVD action in Spain to eliminate deviationists is nothing compared to the rage and energy devoted to destroying “disloyal Republicans").
(c) the gerrymandering of the House in particular has guaranteed polarization and tectonic radicalization to the extremes;
(d) technology has advanced so fast and so far, unless ultra viligant (and savvy) oversight is exercised, the damage to the Constitutional fabric may be too extensive for post-facto recovery.
My beef with the Democrats is that they don’t seem to stand for much at the national level. Or if they do, it is incoherant. So we are left with the Republicans playing ideological football (or Rugby) and the Democrats bringing their tennis rackets.
Posted by Leo Strauss on 12/20 at 01:12 PMHold it. I’m a lot closer to your viewpoint than to Mark’s, Leo, but the NKVD analogy seems to me ill-chosen (and that’s putting it delicately.) This Administration--like all its predecessors back to Truman if no further--has committed, and connived at, acts that by any standard ought to be considered crimes. (Someone mentioned the Black Panthers as a “legitimate” security threat in the past. Time to recall, then, that the Chicago Police Department sent a death squad to kill Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in their beds, and the FBI knew about it in advance and didn’t intervene.) All that said, the Republicans in Congress haven’t--yet--resorted to assassinating the likes of Ron Paul or John McCain. If the worst thing that ever happened to Andrès Nin was a smear campaign, the Spanish Civil War would have left us a less ambiguous legacy.
Posted by rootlesscosmo on 12/20 at 01:35 PMLOL—no, we have not yet reach the point of *physical* extermination of enemies. (Fingers crossed).
The NKVD example was designed to illuminate the ferocity of the ideological purging and political assassination being waged by within the Republican ranks.
Btw, if you were on the ground in South Carolina, or have seen what has been happening in the Party on the Hill or around the Imperial City, the calls for the “elimination” of McCain and Hagel, fwiw, btw, are fairly extreme. Hair raising, sometimes.
The point? Not to debate GRU wet work in Spain.
But to show that the ideology in control of the Republican Party can not tolerate or accomodate deviationists.
That is what makes today’s situation far more dangerous (imo, of course) than say Johnson with CHAOS, COINTELPRO, or even Nixon. And the later was pretty bad given the personal malice involved.
Posted by Leo Strauss on 12/20 at 01:49 PMYou know, there’s a strange silence emanating from this thread.
I hear it too, Rox. It’s getting louder, isn’t it?
Posted by on 12/20 at 02:17 PMA strange silence always happens after I post a poem.
Seriously, why don’t you explicate further? I’d guess about what you mean, but I’m sort of unclear on what topics I’m supposed to be avoiding in this thread.
Posted by on 12/20 at 02:23 PMAnd a faint odor, kind of reminiscent of… hmmm. Almost like a poultry shed, somehow.
But weaker.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/20 at 02:24 PMbut I’m sort of unclear on what topics I’m supposed to be avoiding in this thread.
1) Do not diss bourbon while Doghouse is reading.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/20 at 02:26 PM<i>It’s getting louder, isn’t it?</a>
Like a megaphone.
Posted by Roxanne on 12/20 at 02:43 PMThe reason I say things are worse now is because:
(a) the militarization of American discourse after 9/11 is far more pervasive than it was under Korea, Vietnam and even the permanent Cold War;(b) Republicans today, per earlier comment, essentially are a monolithic Parliamentary form of government, something unforeseen by the Framers and incompatible with Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances;
Oh, in that case, we agree completely. I do not think that the illegal actions themselves are any more or less bad because I am squeamish about trying to justify and categorize what are simply unconstitutional and illegal actions that should all be treated as such.
However the political climate today is a much worse environment for this kind of thing to happen in. A decade ago I would be conscientious objector, as it stands right now I am a traitor who wants this country to be bombed and everyone killed because I do not support supreme unquestionable authority of the royal whitehouse to take any actions it deems necessary.
Listening to Rush today, the party line seems to be twofold: (1) Clinton, Kennedy, etc. did this kind of thing and in fact Clinton defended warrant-less wiretaps and searches in matters of national security. (2) The FISA regulations support this and the language “searches without warrants” appears all over the place so nothing illegal happened.
The problem with #1 is that Rush forgot he was one of those outraged by Clinton’s “police state” actions, and so was I. Only I am still outraged when a Republican president does it, making me not a Republican I suppose. His only valid point is that ‘Democrats were not up in arms then, so what is the big deal now?’ It does not surprise me because I do not expect Democrats to be any more truly concerned with the constitution and liberty than Republicans are today unless it it suddenly politically advantageous for them to be (which now it happens to be)
The problem with #2 is that every article of FISA is quoted as a justification for everything Bush did except for that pesky section 1805 which states that warrant-less searches can only go on for 72 before a warrant has to be applied for. THAT is the problem and the Republican party line is going to be to direct attention to every article EXCEPT that one because there is where the law was broken.
So expect the usual calls of “Frist, Democrats, etc., want the country to be attacked. They want wiretaps and searches to only happen with the knowledge and permission of the suspect”. Never-mind that this was never the case, this is what they are scaring the country into thinking. In their minds, before the Patriot Act, the police, FBI, and CIA’s hands were tied and they were incapable of doing any investigation.
The regular people on the far right of this are scared (and uninformed), not evil. They have been convinced that we are one missed wiretap away from all being killed by a dirty bomb every day. Discussions of civil liberty, rule of law, due process, and executive powers are just liberal distractions when confronted with the real issue: we can all be killed at anytime and only Bush wants to do something about it. For the sake of conservatives and liberals alike, someone please find a way to combat this insane fear mongering. Bonus points if you can figure out a way to do so that does not come across as “we are smarter than you dumb hicks, listen to us in all matters because our leaders have been squeaky clean when it comes to civil liberties”. I know this sounds flame baitish, but it is what has to happen.
Frankly I’m not sure either party has the “moral authority” as it were to take on this issue.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/20 at 03:20 PMMark,
I am sorry that is has come to this pass.
Sorry because of the mau mau that is likely to start upon you by the Kool Aid crowd that now believe themselves to be “conservatives”. Should you speak up like this more often, you may find yourself labeled a heretic or an apostate.
Unless you duck and weave. “Float like a butterfly!”
The political “necklacing” that happens to unbelievers is not a pretty thing.
The FISA violation was not just Sec. 1805. It is the entire intent and framework of the law. (Lay people like the blogosphere now reading a statute often have difficulty recognizing that the “plain meaning” of a statute is often far from “plain”.)
FISA was and is intended to be the sole framework for counter-intelligence wiretapping. Including the full Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, not this ad hoc-only-one-judge can ever know, thing. Or have this extra-legal procedure contaminate regular FISA submissions—which there is evidence even the FISC believed was beginning to happen.
The fact that the Administration didn’t even follow that aspect of the FISA framework tells you that even they knew this didn’t pass the smell test. (That the FISC went along with this is another sad chapter in its ineffectual and pathetic life).
re Rush and his lesser imitators
It is the old saying made famous back in 1993 when a Clinton WH staffer explained why they were going to events on carriers with flyovers in the background when they were previously hostile/skeptical of the military. The comment? “Those are our airplanes now.”
As Ben said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”
My concern is about Bush actually. I think in terms of history, Bush will be a transitional figure. An important one, but a transitional figure. Like Newt as House Speaker.What I worry about is IF this becomes acceptable precedent, What Comes Next?
Posted by Leo Strauss on 12/20 at 04:15 PMWhat I worry about is IF this becomes acceptable precedent, What Comes Next?
Sadly, a cursory glance at the last thousand years of human history provides the answer. Even more alarming when you look at the cycles, we are about due :(
Don’t worry about me though, I am not a known conservative blogger, or for that matter a known blogger of any kind until yesterday (most of the time I am posting about cryptography and operating systems). Even if I were, I have been attacking the Patriot Act for years. I am never getting invited to the local RNC fundraising dinner.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/20 at 04:23 PMWhat I want to know is why a conservative-libertarian blogger is emailing you.
Are you practicing psychiatry without a license again?
Impersonating clergy?
Posted by on 12/20 at 04:42 PMMark,
I’ll invite you to the next Centre County Democratic Party breakfast.
Jim
Posted by Jim Leous on 12/20 at 04:44 PMMichael, our common friend Jim Leous, and I presented together about weblogs at a conference a few months back. While his part was more about content and mine was about the technology behind them (shameless plug, I wrote the weblogging software that runs http://markearnest.net and http://slashet.aset.psu.edu ), I kept in touch afterward and figured he would get a kick out of my recent shocking anti-Bush post.
Nothing nefarious on his part, although I am succeeding in my subversive goal of making liberals think I am on their side while slowly filling up the comments sections on this weblog until the hard drive is full and it goes down.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/20 at 04:50 PMDon’t worry about me though, I am not a known conservative blogger, or for that matter a known blogger of any kind until yesterday (most of the time I am posting about cryptography and operating systems).
Mark, off topic, but I would be curious about your thoughts on the Chicoms (can I say that, or is it too Old Skool?) cracking - or claiming to crack - SHA-1 earlier this year. I didn’t see it on your site. Have you written about that on your site?
Posted by Leo Strauss on 12/20 at 04:57 PMThe partisan-political issue here, if I’m getting it, boils down to whether a Democratic Administration, in the circumstances that the Bush Administration is dealing with, would have acted differently--would, that is, have found ways to deal with Islamist terrorism that didn’t entail abrogating Constitutional and statutory protections of civil liberty.
We can’t be sure, but I think the record indicates the answer is probably No. Democratic Administrations imposed loyalty oaths, authorized spying and disruption against domestic radical groups, planned and carried out coups and assassinations abroad. More broadly, Administrations of both parties have enthusiastically enlarged the powers of what William Fulbright called the Imperial Executive. “Accurate scholarship can unearth,” I hope, the details of how the Legislature lost or surrendered much of the power the Constitution gave it (the post-Vietnam, post-Watergate mid-70’s--the reign of Good King Gerald the Incapable--were an exception), but I’m not at all convinced a real (not ideal-type, not President Barbara Lee and V-P Andy Stern) Democratic Administration, if we had one right now, wouldn’t be doing exactly what the Bush crew are doing.
Just to be clear: that’s not to excuse these guys, just to make the case that the problem is larger and deeper and a lot tougher to solve than merely swapping parties.
Posted by rootlesscosmo on 12/20 at 05:09 PMMark, off topic, but I would be curious about your thoughts on the Chicoms (can I say that, or is it too Old Skool?) cracking - or claiming to crack - SHA-1 earlier this year. I didn’t see it on your site. Have you written about that on your site?
Yup, that’s pretty off topic
SHA-1 is not so much cracked as weakened. There is still no feasible way to generate collision attacks on it, so I am not REALLY worried yet. However the success Wang has had so far leads me to believe more “chinks in the armor” will be found and eventually might lead to a serious situation. As a result I am moving my stuff to SHA-256 where possible and keeping an eye on NIST’s work in the area of hashes.
For my money, the real scare is with MD5, which is a much more seriously damaged algorithm and one that is still in heavy use.
There are several protocols (like S/MIME and TLS) that do not make it easy (or possible) to swap in and out newer hash algorithms which are going to cause problems no matter what, and even those protocols that do often do not support all of the SHA family, usually just SHA-1.
I think I have written a little bit about this, but my weblog software is not all that advanced and has no search function (yet, it’s almost done). However you can click on “News Archives” or any of the topic icons to see a list of everything ever posted (or posted under that topic)
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/20 at 05:11 PM<i>Forget Jesusland. Forget the War on Christmas. You don’t have to be a crazed theocrat to be a member of the radical right! All you have to do is support the right of the Leader to create secret torture and domestic spying programs, and vent your spleen at the few remaining journalists with the courage to report on them. That’s what a radical right does for a living. It’s what a radical right lives for.</i?
Monarchists.
Posted by Michael (not Gavin M.) Bérubé on 12/20 at 05:32 PMSeriously, why don’t you explicate further?
Well, I should leave this one to Roxanne, but I think we’re referring not so much to a curious silence as to a notable absence.
Posted by Michael on 12/20 at 05:33 PMbut I think we’re referring not so much to a curious silence as to a notable absence.
Did you put on Right Guard this morning, Michael? That could explain it.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/20 at 06:17 PMLet’s just call it a lack of prophetic input and be done with it.
Posted by Roxanne on 12/20 at 06:25 PMWhat I want to know is why a conservative-libertarian blogger is emailing you.
Are you practicing psychiatry without a license again?
Not precisely, but I do run a popular re-education camp here in Centre County. Our motto: come for the bourbon, stay for the leftist indoctrination.
Posted by Michael on 12/20 at 09:12 PM"Terroristic countermeasures?”
Well, at least they got the description right. Oy.
Posted by on 12/21 at 12:26 AMComing in late to the debate, and will probably be repeating things already said, or pointing out the obvious:
Comparing today’s abuses of power with those in the fairly-recent past is, I think, not entirely on point. Santayana was right, but so was whoever said you can’t step into the same river twice.
The 1950’s HUAC hearings, blacklisting, and informing on people were much worse than anything happening now. The police riots, blackmail, and intimidation unleashed on peace activists in the 60s-70s was much worse than anything happening now. The assaults on and murders of civil rights activists in the 50s-60s were much worse, etc.
From that perspective, Bush’s abuse of power looks like small beer (except for the prisoners at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere).
Except that Bush’s abuse of power is part of a gestalt that includes rapid advancement in surveillance technologies, and a political-economic consolidation that’s resulted in a de facto single-party plutocracy whose interests are in opposition to, and destructive of, any concept of “Jeffersonian Democracy.”
If my dearest fantasies - Bush impeached; the GOP majorities replaced by Democratic ones - came true, it seems to me we would only have removed a few surface lesions and not addressed the metastasis throughout the body. The metastasis is that we no longer have a national identity/ethos worth the name; we don’t know what kind of country we are, or should be; we don’t even have a common vocabulary to begin discussing it. (Define “freedom.” Hell, define “democracy.")
It’s mind boggling to me that our communications capabilities - the best ever, in all of human history - have made us more rather than less philosophically ingrown, more devoted to echo-chambering and talking-point dissemination than to actually, you know, communicating. It’s mind boggling to me that our news and information dissemination capabilities - the best ever, in all of human history - have made it easier to spread disinformation, to rapidly solidify disinformation into conventional wisdom, and to customize news so that people need never have their worldview challenged at all.
There are times I try to figure out how we could rectify that, or at least start. I think of media de-consolidation, or reversing that 19th Century SCOTUS decision that gave corporations ‘personhood,’ or even fighting the ‘money=speech’ idiocy that has made our politics so bloated and corrupt. But these notions rank in probability from Sisyphusian to flat-out fantasy.
I’m left with the thought that getting rid of a few surface lesions is the best we can hope for; and that truly rectifying the body politic/common good won’t happen until it absolutely must - that is, after a crash and burn of epic proportions.
Posted by on 12/21 at 12:49 AMCasey,
The metastasis is that we no longer have a national identity/ethos worth the name; we don’t know what kind of country we are, or should be; we don’t even have a common vocabulary to begin discussing it. (Define “freedom.” Hell, define “democracy.")
That confusion is not accidental. It is a deliberate tool of ideological warfare to neutralize words and destroy their meaning by embracing them to the point of their antonym.
I hope Democrats don’t fall into the war for sematincs trap—it is a game they are ill-equipped to play and have almost no chance of prevailing. The Republican meme kieretsu is too much for them now.
Instead, if they embraced the Enlightenment—rationality, empiricism, facts, science, technology and major tenants of our civilization and their political program , they can outflank.
That fantastic judge (and Bush appointee) exposed the game brilliantly today in Dover, btw—revealing the semantic warfare.
The Intelligent Design bullshit is an excellent microcosm of the problem. Think about it. They want to destroy the meaning of “science”. Just one example of how the viral authoritarianism that hijacked the Republican Party wages ideological warfare by trying to destroy the meaning of our vocabulary.
But first, national Democrats have to believe in something. If not the Enlightenment, at least not Bush-Lite. Otherwise, it is not a question of losing the liberal democratic experiment, but only a question of when imo.
Posted by Leo Strauss on 12/21 at 01:13 AMOne would have to be an idiot, or white, to fail to recognize the fact that conservatism - properly so-called - has been dead for 20-30 years. Anyone not falling into either of the two aforementioned classes can see perfectly clearly that all republican talk of “smaller government”, “individual liberties”, and the like was and is nothing but a convenient curtain to hide the racism that has been the (Aristotelian) essence of the republican party since the 60s.
Posted by cdj on 12/21 at 10:42 PMHee hee, calling Jeff Goldstein “chirpy"… too true. He’s like a very fey Dennis Miller, only less huggable.
Posted by Thers on 12/21 at 10:43 PMGoldstein knows he’s vulnerable to the fake libertarian argument.
Call him a <a href=http://elementropy.blogspot.com/2005/11/scorn-of-propertarian-looks-like-ive.html>propertarian</a> and he scoffs, call him a chickenhawk and he starts talking non-stop about using his cock as a weapon, show how witless and banal his editing of art into wingnutisms is, and he concedes defeat.
You’re much better than I am at the latter, Professor Berube; I’d love to see you thrash him on that front, too.
Posted by RETARDO on 12/21 at 10:55 PMOne would have to be an idiot, or white, to fail to recognize the fact that conservatism - properly so-called - has been dead for 20-30 years.
Conservatism is a concept, I think you misspelled “The Republican Party” as “conservatism”.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/21 at 11:18 PM"People who support a clandestine program of warrantless domestic spying are not “conservatives” or “libertarians.” Neither are people who support the creation of a worldwide archipelago of secret torture sites. Neither are people who support the usurpation of the functions of government by the executive branch; who espouse the theory that the executive branch is the final arbiter of the legality of the actions of the executive branch; and who call for the investigation or prosecution of a free press that dares to report on the executive branch’s secret programs of domestic spying and outsourced torture.
Those people, my friends, are called the radical right. “
oh please...mental masturbation. They certainly are conservatives as they have absolutely no intention of doing a damn thing about it except maybe a little self-soothing blovinating. On any and all matters of import, like impeachment for a president drunk with power and willingly and flagrantly engaged in criminal activity, there’s not a shard of light between them and the bushcriminal.
go ahead and keep telling yourself you’re different - you’re a “real” conservative, right up until you’re the one under surveillance because some stranger didn’t like the way you look and turned you in as suspicious.
.Posted by on 12/21 at 11:33 PMgo ahead and keep telling yourself you’re different—you’re a “real” conservative
Welcome, gak! And thanks to Atrios for the link. Stay awhile and look around a bit, and gauge for yourself how likely it is that this blog is written by someone who calls himself a “real” conservative.
Posted by Michael on 12/22 at 12:03 AMI see that the Uncle Tom of Chimpy McHitlerburton hasn’t shown up to defend yet.
Posted by Yeah, right on 12/22 at 12:13 AMSee & Read… From RogerART.com
1. READ Rogers
( Re-WRITTEN ) DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE-------------------------------------------
2. SEE Rogers Gallery NOW Open All Night
15 + DEMOCRACY, POLITICAL, PROTEST, PAINTINGS
Title: Bu$h Exposed,
TREASON the TRIAL
30 X 60 Oil, Color & Paper on Canvas 2001
Bu$h Family, Friends, Neo-Con, Millionaire, Corporate, Class
GANG COLORS
OIL BLACK SUITS - with BLOOD RED TIES
Stop by Anytime & Thanks Roger D E.C.
Posted by Roger Drowne EC on 12/22 at 12:26 AMYou called me “chirpy”?
There’s the speech act you should maybe take a closer look at, Mike.
Incidentally: “(to which I replied, I really resent being called a liberal)” --
Well played! But please, do tell me that when you unleashed that shiny rejoinder you remembered to pinch yourself!—just in case the gods of urbanity were toying with by setting you up for such a dazzling bon mot, only to pull back the veil of slumber to reveal that your verbal triumph happened in a dream!
BE STILL MY JEALOUS HEART!
Posted by Jeff G on 12/22 at 12:29 AMDid someone not get the jazz records and expensive brandy he wanted for Christmas? Well, he’s somewhat sure you bon-motting mofos are gonna be sorry one day when it turns out that while he was wrong about everything else, he was right that you use the term “bon mot” and still hope for that little bit of redneck cred.
Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12/22 at 12:45 AMMark -
You’re welcome to believe what you will (pace gw). I meant what I said, however, and continue to believe that it’s true - regardless of your conjectured “misspelling”
Conservatism died 20-30 years ago, and ersatz conservatism, i.e., the republican party, is all that’s left.
In case you look to the world’s smallest quibble-possibity: I only capitalize proper nouns. There’s nothing proper about the republican party.
Posted by cdj on 12/22 at 01:01 AMActually, Jeffy, “chirpy” was a term of endearment. It was, I thought, a relatively pleasant way of referring to the kind of frothy right-wing blogger whose craven defenses of the theory of the imperial presidency come wrapped in a densely woven ignorance set off by a colorful fringe of smug self-satisfaction. You know what I mean—the kind of guy who, in comments, fixates on the lone adjective applied to his person, pointedly avoiding the issue at hand, namely, his full-throated membership in the radical right. I took a reasonably close look at that speech act while I was composing it, and I came to the conclusion that “chirpy fellow” was more decorous and collegial than “jackanapes,” which was the first word that came to mind.
That terminological nicety aside, this blog welcomes the comments of self-designated “classical liberals” who defend secret executive programs of domestic spying even when (a) they rely for intellectual support on the Institute of Simply Making Things Up and (b) the administration they defend explicitly repudiates the threadbare rationale they offer. I ask only that such people recognize and embrace their rich, if odious, heritage on the radical right.
Oh, and I almost forgot. A 14-inch thin crust with sausage and onions, please.
Posted by Michael on 12/22 at 01:04 AMAw, man! Jeff, I had to read 104 comments, many of them with serious and intelligent commentary, and you give me that?
Weak. Can’t you at list threaten to slap him with your dick or something?
You’re just not bringin’ your A game, man.
Posted by on 12/22 at 01:13 AMSKIP: Hello, and welcome back to the 2006 Winter Olympics freestyle rhetorician qualifying trials. I’m Skip Towne, and here with me at the Cingular Progymnasmata in Rochester New York, as always at these linguistic events, is Sam Yoticks.
SAM: Thank you, Skip. Up next, in what I think you’ll agree is a much anticipated performance, is Jeff Goldstein from Colorado. Jeff’s coaches tell us that he’s gonna attempt, in this routine, the very VERY difficult triple metastasis with litotes.
SKIP: He’s going to have to do well to make the semifinals after that performance from the Pennsylvania team, and here he starts:
You called me “chirpy”?
SKIP: Now that’s a surprise.
SAM: A risky move, Skip, opening by playing to the audience like that. But he executed it well, if a little shaky at the beginning.
There’s the speech act you should maybe take a closer look at, Mike.
SAM: And another risky move from Goldstein, Skip, in what looked like an attempt at a double epitrope, but his ankle just went out from under him on the dismount.
SKIP: Sam, it brings to mind Goldstein’s performance during the 2004 competitive season, in which many of his moves leaned so far to the right that he actually sprained his tongue.
SAM: I don’t think any of us will forget seeing that, Skip. Kinda like watching Joe Theisman break his leg. The image just stays.
Incidentally: “(to which I replied, I really resent being called a liberal)”—Well played!
SAM: Okay, Goldstein seems to be hitting his stride here. A very smooth shift into irony, and one which few competitors do well anymore, if I may say so, Skip.
SKIP: Agreed, Sam. It may be that Goldstein will beat Bérubé’s score if he can keep this up.
SAM: It all depends on the next few steps, Skip. Those Yugoslavian judges are notoriously hard to impress, and…
But please, do tell me that when you unleashed that shiny rejoinder you remembered to pinch yourself!—just in case the gods of urbanity were toying with by setting you up for such a dazzling bon mot,
SAM: Oh, that’s GOTTA hurt!
SKIP: Oh, what a disappointment that must be. It was crucial that he nail that acoloutha, and, well…
SAM: That’s gonna cost him with the judges, Skip. He really was just flailing on that landing. And he completely misfired on the asteismus.
only to pull back the veil of slumber to reveal that your verbal triumph happened in a dream!
SKIP: Was that an adynaton? I thought it was a cataplexis there for a moment, but then he just went off into left field.
SAM: I’m not sure just what that was, Skip. It looked at first like he was going for a reductio ad absurdum, but this guy is just all over the place.
BE STILL MY JEALOUS HEART!
SKIP: And it looks like Goldstein knew he was in trouble, Sam.
SAM: That’s right, Skip. Jeff went for the safe ending, a simple sarcasmus, and one that fell kinda flat to boot. That’s gotta be very disappointing to Goldstein, and to his family as well, watching from their home in Colorado.
SKIP: And the scores are coming in, England 3.4, Yugoslavia a very damaging 2.8, Germany 3.2, France 0.2, and a surprisingly low 3.8 from the US judge, for an overall score of 2.1.
SAM: A disappointing ending to a troubled performance, and a real letdown for the Colorado team. Coming up next after this commercial break will California’s Joseph Farah.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/22 at 01:58 AMIt is my first visit to this site, and I am enjoying the intelligent discourse. The majority here strike me as being well informed, about many things. This is off-topic, but does have a connection to Bush & Co., and their need to be nosy. What comes next is serious, I have done nothing, have not responded, because, frankly I am scared. I was hoping this has happened to someone else here, or you have heard of it from someone else. I recently recieved an e-mail, from someone claiming that they are “the C.I.A.” and that my computer had accessed at least 30 illegal web sites, and they want me to contact them. I have NO idea what they are talking about, and wonder if it is someone’s stupid idea of a joke. Can you help/advise? In light of what is happening regarding spying, I REALLY don’t know what to think. I mainly visit buzzflash, (that’s how I found you all) and play solitaire. But this site appears to have few trolls, and well- mannered posters, (congratulations) and thought it might be okay to ask about this. I have not even told anyone, till now. Thanks, whether you can help or not. Whew.... Cyra
Posted by Cyra Brown on 12/22 at 02:52 AMChris, you’re my hero. Really, in the sport of troll hunting, the rest of us are mere amateurs.
Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 12/22 at 08:14 AMCyra:
http://crime.about.com/od/scams/qt/fbihoax.htm
It’s a hoax, the FBI is not in the practice of alerting people they are investigating over email.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/22 at 08:21 AMlittle red book story may be urban legend
Otherwise, this is a wonderful piece. The current reaction is very confusing to those of who thought we could find common ground with ‘good’ conservatives who love the consitution as much as we do.
Trust but verify, I always say. Heard that somewhere…
Posted by TimeTogether on 12/22 at 10:05 AMWhy is it that noone is asking the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS QUESTION!!! NSA, prove who you were spying on! Just be cause they say it was terrorists, why should we believe that? If it were really even that innocent, couldn’t they have EVENTUALLY gotten the permission of the secret court? They NEVER WENT BACK FOR PERMISSION, and the only reason for that is that they knew they would NEVER get permission.
Posted by on 12/22 at 10:12 AMAs someone who’s suffered the great cosmic joke of having been born into a a family of the wingiest of wingnuts, I can tell you that the Commander in Chief can do absolutely no wrong. He could be caught driving drunk with a pound of meth on the front seat and a dead prostitute in the trunk, and it wouldn’t matter. He’s a wartime president, don’t you get it? If anything he does is ever considered wrong, or, heaven forbid, unlawful, well then the danger levels become far too high to cope with.
How do I know this? Simple, it’s the holiday; scratch that, it’s the Christmas season, and I must break bread with the radical right. For a solid week. It’s fascinating to encounter them in their natural habitat. Praise the Commander in Chief and pass the Prozac.
Posted by on 12/22 at 10:26 AMEd—My deepest sympathies, and God Save Our Noble King George.
Posted by on 12/22 at 11:06 AMShould Fitzgerald be concerned that his conversations might be tapped?
Posted by on 12/22 at 11:22 AMI came to the conclusion that “chirpy fellow” was more decorous and collegial than “jackanapes,” which was the first word that came to mind.
But...but..."Jackanapes" can so easily be modified by “jaunty,” e.g., “Who’s that jaunty jackanapes with moxie and pizzazz?” And once connotations of jauntiness are available, it becomes redolent of a boulevardier, and hence much more complimentary than “chirpy fellow.”
Of course, Professor, if you thought of it in the archaic sense of a “pet ape,” then I withdraw my objection, for “pet ape” describes Mr. Goldstein quite well. [Yup, the preceding was ad hominem abusive. Masticate upon my person.]
Off topic - on topic, I wonder if Linux users’ groups contain a higher proportion of principled conservatives / libertarians than the general population. Linux enthusiasts are supposed to be more anti-authoritarian by definition, right? (Mr. Earnest is in the PSU LUG.)
Posted by on 12/22 at 11:50 AMLeo, you have nailed it. You understand these people better than most progressives I know, and better than the wingnuts understand themselves. They call themselves Christian, and are unfamiliar with most of the New Testament (and ignore the uncomfortable parts they do know); they call themselve conservative, and back radical, profligate, fascist governments (Reagan-Bush I was a warmup act for these guys, who combine the worst of Nixon and the worst of Reagan and then make the leap to levels of outrage never before dreamed of by the GOPpers).
However, I disagree that the Republican meme machine is formidable; it’s not. What they have that we don’t is the megaphone. The brilliance of the fascist MSM is to make us believe it’s liberal when in fact it is only fascist - in the sense that it is in bed with the government, and really always has been. Bernstein got lucky in being pals with a crony-in-training at exactly the right historical moment; latter-day Woodward is more typical.
Posted by on 12/22 at 04:20 PMChris, you’re my hero. Really, in the sport of troll hunting, the rest of us are mere amateurs.
Chris is indeed a marvel, and his play-by-play analysis in comment 110 is even better than his immortal Ballad of the Hemp Beret. This would be a good time to remind everyone to vote for Chris in the Best Writing and Best Commenter categories of the Koufax Awards. . . .
If only he wouldn’t clutter up my comments section with all that nasty postmodern jargon.
And Mark, thanks for replying to Cyra’s query in 111.
Posted by on 12/22 at 04:48 PMOff topic - on topic, I wonder if Linux users’ groups contain a higher proportion of principled conservatives / libertarians than the general population. Linux enthusiasts are supposed to be more anti-authoritarian by definition, right? (Mr. Earnest is in the PSU LUG.)
In it? I’ve been around since it started!
The political leanings of the open source crowd would make for an interesting study. While there is a pretty full spectrum of political view there is a very strong liberatarian percentage who happen to be very liberal on social issues.
I’m not sure about anti-authoritarian, but we certainly place great value on grass roots efforts and have (in my opinion) proven that motivated individuals working together losely can produce greater value than large monolithic corporations.
Oddly, you find a greater percentage of gun nuts and what conservatives would refer to as “rugged individualists” along with this social liberal crowd. You also find a fair amount of distain for both parties as they are both very pro-big business, pro-MPAA/RIAA, and anti-crypto/privacy.
Posted by Mark Earnest on 12/22 at 05:02 PMIf only he wouldn’t clutter up my comments section with all that nasty postmodern jargon.
That’s your fault for making posts with such exquisite structuralism.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/22 at 06:56 PMCan you imagine where we’d all be now if the German reichstag had impeached Adolph Hitler in 1933, just after his ascendency to the Chancellorship?
HmmmmmPosted by on 12/23 at 03:09 PMDo you suppose your paranoia is what makes you so gullible? It seemed pretty obvious that the incident with Mao’s Little Red book was probably a lie, which the kid who told it has now admitted.
But watch out. Big Brother Bushhitlerburton McChimp, the evil genius/moron fascist theocrat is watching you.
Posted by on 12/24 at 07:04 PMOh well, another silly ignorant liberal lie exposed
Posted by on 12/26 at 08:19 PMI can hardly wait for the whole thing about Bush administration torture gulags to be proven wrong.
I’ll just be over here, holding my breath.
Posted by Chris Clarke on 12/27 at 02:51 AMMichael,
I posted a brief note here a few days ago.Was it not received or do you delete?(Among other things it mentioned a study on SAT levels and political persuasion.Just asking.Posted by on 12/29 at 05:55 PMCorwin, I didn’t see your note—I haven’t even checked comments between Dec 25 and now (I’ve been at my in-laws’ and the MLA). Would you be so kind as to repost? Thanks--
Posted by Michael on 12/31 at 01:16 PM
Next entry: Trust
Previous entry: Second thoughts
These Comments Are Aware of All Your Sublime and Funky Internet Traditions
This is the "comments" page of American Airspace, where you may rear your head with impunity. Well, sometimes there might be punity. It depends.
Site manager and web administrator: Kurt Nelson, Blusparx Consulting: kurt.nelson at gmail dot com.
And no, that's not me in that photo. That's the Hansons, of course! Hey coach -- our line starts?
Monthly Archives
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- August 1993
- January 1985
- Complete Archives
- Category Archives
Most recent entries
- In memory of Tom Buckley
- Sick and tired
- Bad Futures—one week from today!
- On loving queer kids
- Finally, a Senate candidate worthy of Moloch’s endorsement
- And how did your team do this weekend?
- ABF Friday: Mimesis Edition!
- Funky Nassau
- Counting down
- Enjoy the rest of your life … cereal!
- The first 25 years are just practice
- Mad Men and women
- ABF Friday: Crazy Ol’ Marty Peretz edition!
- Hard to believe
- Even worse than you thought