December 20, 2005 by lonbud
Le Fait Accompli
For reasons known only to themselves, many of the nation’s 100 senators remained in Washington, DC yesterday evening, ostensibly going about the business of the Legislative branch, while their counterparts in the House of Representatives adjourned for the year. After the winter recess, one might reasonably question why any of them should bother returning for the 2nd session of the 109th Congress, given that President George W. Bush has effectively rendered their work meaningless.
American government as it was envisioned and proscribed at the nation’s founding — and was for the most part practiced during the ensuing 200 plus years — ended with the presidency of William J. Clinton and the 106th Congress. Mr Bush, the first president ever installed by order of the Judicial branch, ushered in a new era in the nation’s history — and has in five short years remade the entire structure and balance of power in American government.
Aided by a cabal of likeminded hegemons in both the Legislative and Judicial branches, Mr. Bush has assumed the perogatives of an all-powerful Chief Executive, whose vision and methods are subject to no oversight or regulation from within, nor to criticism from without his office. This radical transformation of the government is unprecedented in the history of nations and has come about virtually unchallenged by a compliant press and a sonambulant public.
As Steven Stills wrote during a time when Americans were more passionate about ideas such as Liberty and Justice for All,
“there’s battle lines being drawn and nobody’s right when everybody’s wrong.”
At this point, Mr. Bush has laid down the gauntlet. He has virtually dared the Congress and the People to either impeach him or get out of the way and let him handle the problem of terrorism as he sees fit.
Henceforth, remember: all calls may be monitored for quality assurance. You should be receiving your very own copy of the lyrics to “Onward Christian Soldiers” soon.
Michael Herdegen - December 20, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
Mr Bush, the first president ever installed by order of the Judicial branch…
* sigh *
Do we really have to go over this again ?!
The SCOTUS did not say that Bush was to be the POTUS, they said that the Florida Supreme Court erred when they ruled that Florida election law should be ignored.
As a result, THE CURRENT FLORIDA ELECTION LAWS WERE FOLLOWED, laws that have governed the election of Democrats as well as Republicans, and that have wide-spread support from all elements of the Florida political scene.
The laws stipulated that the ballot-counts be certified by a specific date, and so they were, and the counts at that time gave the state’s Electoral College votes to Bush, and THAT is why Bush became the POTUS, not because of Judicial fiat.
In fact, since ALL of the subsequent re-counts of the Florida ballots by media organizations and others concluded that Bush really did get more votes in Florida, it turns out that if somehow Gore had been sworn in as President, that would have been a miscarriage of justice, as defined by the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, Gore wouldn’t have been President regardless of what the SCOTUS ruled, since the Florida Legislature controls which Electors are to be sent to the Electoral College balloting, and the GOP-dominated FL Legislature had already stated that they would send Bush electors if the ballot-counts weren’t completed and certified by the time the Electors had to be chosen and sent – and that deadline is why Florida election laws have a deadline for ballot-count certification. This wasn’t something cooked up on the spot in Florida or even in DC, this is ESTABLISHED PROCEDURE, some of which is Constitutionally-mandated, and it’s been done essentially THE SAME WAY SINCE FLORIDA BECAME A STATE.
Bush being sworn in as President was the CORRECT OUTCOME of the election, at least as far as it’s possible to determine.
Given that the ballot-counts were within the margin of error in SEVERAL states, it’s impossible to say with precision who was the “true” winner – it’s just as possible that Gore was wrongly credited with New Mexico as it is that the Bush team used its Secret Kung-Fu Ninja Army to affect voting in Florida.
Mr Bush […] has in five short years remade the entire structure and balance of power in American government.
Aided by a cabal of likeminded hegemons in both the Legislative and Judicial branches, Mr. Bush has assumed the perogatives of an all-powerful Chief Executive, whose vision and methods are subject to no oversight or regulation from within, nor to criticism from without his office.
Well, I disagree with the very premise, but at least you credit/blame the right actor: The public.
They are the ones who can effect change, should they desire to do so, and the public’s support for Bush is why he finds “a cabal of willing hegemonic allies”.
If the public should turn against Bush, your “all-powerful Chief Executive” would quickly find himself governing with Carteresque effectiveness.
It’s the same dynamic that saved Clinton’s bacon.
Speaking of Bush being “an all-powerful Chief Executive”, why then can’t he get SS reform passed ?
Why was there a kerfuffle about extreme interrogation techniques, if Bush is “all powerful”? (A dust-up that as Tam O’Tellico astutely notes, will do NOTHING to stop the practice, just make it less-reported, and with less public oversight – irony abounds).
In any case, even if the public continues to support Bush, if they decide that they don’t like the current Congress, and put the Dems back in charge in ’07, we’ll quickly find that Bush hasn’t “remade the entire structure and balance of power in American government”, he simply is benefitting from having like-minded people in positions of power.
The notion that Bush isn’t subject to criticism is ridiculous, unless by “his vision and methods are not subject to criticism”, you mean that Bush doen’t seem to change his mind or goals in response to criticism very often.
While there are some downsides to such a manner, one upside is that it drives Bush’s critics stark raving mad, which is amusing.
This radical transformation of the government is unprecedented in the history of nations…
Um, right.
Off of the top of my head, I can name three times when a democratically-elected leader radically changed the existing balance of power within their respective governments, although not permanently: Once in America (pre-Bush), once in Germany, and once in Peru.
No doubt there are other examples.
As for the excellent Mr. Stills, we should take a lesson from his art: Everybody OUGHT to look what’s goin’ down, really look, not just glance around and see what we already assume that we’ll see.
lonbud - December 20, 2005 @ 7:41 pm
Trouble with you, Michael, is you get hung up in the weeds of doublespeak.
What the SCOTUS said in Bush v. Gore was completely at odds with all precedent and widely held constitutional interpretation. What the SCOTUS did thereby was to install George W. Bush as President of the United States.
It is also not true that ALL of the subsequent re-counts of the Florida ballots by media organizations and others concluded that Bush really did get more votes in Florida.
By at least a couple of re-count methodologies Gore did in fact get more votes — most importantly by the one in which all of the state’s ballots, rather than those of just a few disputed counties were recounted.
Had the rulings of the Florida Supreme Court been left to stand, a proper recount could have been completed under the requirements of state law, and the man who got the most votes in the 2000 election could have been properly sworn into office.
Instead, state election officials were cowed by Republican brownshirts who disrupted the recount process, and the State Supreme Court’s authority to interpret state law was usurped by five Supreme Court justices who will go down in history as infamous hijackers of the American dream.
lonbud - December 20, 2005 @ 10:30 pm
Ok. I’ll accept your criticism of my line about the unprecedented nature of Mr. Bush’s actions as hyperbole.
Nonetheless, he has admittedly acted in direct contravention of a clear statute passed by the legislature mandating a warrant be obtained in the case of government interception of communications originating from within the United States.
He has held himself above the law since his first day in office (hell, he’s held himself above the law his entire life), and he’s vowed to continue flauting the requirements of the law in pursuit of his personal crusade against terrorism.
What is it, anyway, with these f*ckers who spend public money waging war against impersonal nouns? Terrorism, pornography, drugs — these ills cannot be cured with bombs and wiretaps!
Mr. Bush is a criminal, as was his father, as was the patron saint of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan. I have little hope, alas, given the compliant press and the sonambulant public of which I wrote in the post above, that the First Cheerleader will endure a fate any less comfortable than that of those other two miscreants.
Vive le Roi.
Bubbles - December 21, 2005 @ 1:38 am
Lemme see Michael,
Abduction and torture, no problem. Suspend habeas corpus sure. Wiretaps without court orders, come-on the 4th amendment doesn’t say wiretaps its says “search and seizure”. Any strict constructionist worth his corporate lobby can point out a wiretap isn’t a search or seizure right? What’s next suspending the 2006 election? Hell there’s a war on don’t ya know.
“To be engaged in a war without end is problematic. It requires patience. It also requires great caution in making claims of exceptional presidential war-making powers, because exceptional personal powers that last forever smack of the kinds of authoritarian regimes the United States has spent a lot of blood and treasure fighting.”
How about if these wiretaps turnout to be on anti-war groups and/or political opponents? What happens when that precious nascent democracy (or is it theocracy) in Iraq wants to throw us out on our ear and Bush wants to stay? What then?? Are there no limits?
Ohh.. and comparing Clinton’s use of Presidential Power to that of W. is the proverbial bb-gun vs a howitzer. I know 9/11
Michael Herdegen - December 21, 2005 @ 8:01 am
It is also not true that ALL of the subsequent re-counts of the Florida ballots by media organizations and others concluded that Bush really did get more votes in Florida.
By at least a couple of re-count methodologies Gore did in fact get more votes — most importantly by the one in which all of the state’s ballots, rather than those of just a few disputed counties were recounted.
Yes, “ALL” is probably overstating it, but ALL MAJOR MEDIA recounts, which did in fact count the entire state’s ballots, found Bush to have more votes.
I lend far more credence to re-counts by USAToday and The New York Times than to re-counts by Moveon.org or t r u t h o u t.
BTW, Gore’s team wanted re-counts done in only those few counties, not statewide, so if he had had his way, he STILL would have lost.
[T]he State Supreme Court’s authority to interpret state law was usurped by five Supreme Court justices who will go down in history as infamous hijackers of the American dream.
* sigh *
Do you not believe me when I tell you that the Florida Legislature was going to send Bush Electors to the Electoral College Balloting ?
You can look it up, it was widely reported.
By the way, if the SCOTUS Justices are “hijackers of the American Dream”, what does that make the Florida Supreme Court Justices, since they voted TO IGNORE FLORIDA LAW ?
When part of a government attempts to seize all power to themselves, we call that a “coup”…
I’m not sure why you’re so dead set on clinging to this discredited idea.
There are plenty of ways to attack the legitimacy of Bush’s election victory in 2000 without blindly insisting that Bush got FEWER votes in Florida, than did Gore.
What is it, anyway, with these f*ckers who spend public money waging war against impersonal nouns? Terrorism, pornography, drugs — these ills cannot be cured with bombs and wiretaps!
Actually, terrorism CAN be cured that way.
That’s how we ended terror in Europe in the late 70s/early 80s.
Further, I wouldn’t call pornography an “ill”, although like many other adult pursuits, it’s a corrosive influence on some.
Michael Herdegen - December 21, 2005 @ 8:16 am
Bubbles:
There have been many times in American history when the citizens have allowed the gov’t more latitude of action – the Civil War, WW I, WW II, to name but a few – but we always re-claim our authority when we perceive that the crisis has passed.
Never before have we granted the Office of President “exceptional personal powers that last forever“, and I am completely confident that we aren’t going to do so now.
There was a small but significant fraction of the American public that was sure that Clinton was going to declare a state of emergency over some trumped-up threat or another, and cancel the ’00 elections… That didn’t happen.
Bush isn’t going to become “President for Life” either.
What happens when that precious nascent democracy (or is it theocracy) in Iraq wants to throw us out on our ear and Bush wants to stay?
Demo-, not theo-.
The Iraqi Federal gov’t emphatically DOESN’T want U.S. troops to withdraw yet, and have said so clearly and repeatedly, and the Bush admin has no interest in policing Iraq forever.
The U.S. will be keeping a division or two of troops in Iraq for quite some time, but so what ?
We still have troops in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea, and we finished those conflicts over 50 years ago.
The troops stationed in Iraq will fill the same role as the troops stationed in Europe and Asia – a stabilizing influence and a projection of U.S. power.
They won’t have anything to do with how the country is run, barring anarchy.
Bubbles - December 21, 2005 @ 8:54 am
Michael,
I’m asking you is there anything this Administration could do that would casue you to say, “thats it they’ve gone to far”? Please write it here or just withhold your claim to objectivity.
Ohh.. and comparing Clinton’s use of Presidential Power to that of W. is the proverbial bb-gun vs a howitzer. I know 9/11
lonbud - December 21, 2005 @ 9:30 am
To reiterate:
9/11 was NOT an event comparable to the storming of Fort Sumter, to the assasssination of Franz Ferdinand, to the failure of communication between Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas in 1914, to the burning of the Reichstag, to Kristallnacht, to Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939, nor to Pearl Harbor.
Saddam Hussein was NOT Adolph Hitler.
9/11 was a forseeable, preventable act by a small band of fanatics whose presence in the United States and intentions were known to the government of George W. Bush.
9/11 was allowed to happen because members of the Bush administration including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and the President himself knew that such an event would be necessary to precipitate realization of their paranoid dream to invade Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein, secure access to Middle Eastern oil reserves for American energy interests, and remake the Islamic world into consumers of Christian democratic capitalism.
There was never a crisis on the order of the Civil War, WWI, or WWII to justify the assumption of executive powers the President now asserts for himself, or to excuse the stripping of civil liberties and human rights to which his administration has now subjected American citizens and anyone else in the world they choose to designate an enemy combatant.
America’s troops in Europe and Asia have not been subjected to daily attacks during the last 50 years. Our troops in Iraq will continue to be fired on, surprised, and from time to time, killed until the day they leave.
And the situation at home will not improve, either, until people stop believing that we are fighting WWIII and that George W. Bush is a leader with any competence or vision.
Bubbles - December 21, 2005 @ 9:35 am
I’ve got one more question for ya. If Bush has the authority to conduct surveillance without court orders, why does he need an extension of the Patriot Act? How does not extending it tie his hands they seem pretty free wheeling either way wouldn’t you say?
Michael Herdegen - December 21, 2005 @ 11:29 am
Bubbles:
I’m asking you is there anything this Administration could do that would casue you to say, “thats it they’ve gone to far”? Please write it here or just withhold your claim to objectivity.
Yes, there is, but I haven’t thought much about what that would be.
I’d know it if I saw it.
As for claims of “objectivity”, I don’t recall ever making any.
I support Bush, and have voted for him twice.
He’s the President who’s closest to how I would be as President, that I can recall, and I don’t expect many future Presidents to be as close to my goals and style as is Bush.
I have written here about a few things that the Bush admin could do better, or should forget about trying, but this forum isn’t much interested in mild criticism of Bush, and so here I end up being a full-throated, hubris-filled Bush surrogate.
I know 9/11
That’s correct.
9/11 changed many things, domestically and internationally.
Over the past 15 years, the only event that surpassed it in importance, for America, was the fall of the Soviet Union.
lonbud:
9/11 was NOT an event comparable to the storming of Fort Sumter, […] nor to Pearl Harbor.
If you mean that it was not a prelude to an invasion, then you’re correct, but if you mean that 9/11 wasn’t intended to be an act of war, then you’re wrong.
9/11 was a forseeable, preventable act by a small band of fanatics whose presence in the United States and intentions were known to the government of George W. Bush.
Delusional and completely without supporting evidence.
Parts of the government knew that some of the fanatics were here, but NOBODY knew of their intent.
9/11 was allowed to happen because members of the Bush administration including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and the President himself knew that such an event would be necessary to precipitate realization of their paranoid dream to invade Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein, secure access to Middle Eastern oil reserves for American energy interests, and remake the Islamic world into consumers of Christian democratic capitalism.
Secure access to Middle Eastern oil reserves for AMERICAN CONSUMERS, you mean.
Toppling Saddam was also an official and stated goal of the Clinton admin.
9/11 was necessary for the re-invasion of Iraq, but it wasn’t “allowed to happen”, and one would have to be an idiot to believe that if a cassus belli were to be manufactured, 9/11 was the best way to do it.
Even I could come up with a better, cheaper, and more effective plan.
For instance, if 9/11 was intended to allow us to invade Iraq, wouldn’t it have been smarter to ensure that SOME of the hijackers were FROM IRAQ ???
Or at least plant some evidence among their personal effects to make it appear as though Iraq supported them ?
9/11 conspiracy theories require the plotters to be both incredibly devious AND unbelievably inept, a very rare combination outside of fiction.
Another example.
Bush sold the war to the American public based in part on WMDs, but we famously haven’t found many (although we DID find a few: See Hans Blix’s report to the UN Security Council on 27 Jan ’03).
Why didn’t we plant some nerve gas in the desert, and then steer the UN inspectors to it ?
Failing that, why didn’t we plant some to find AFTER the invasion ?
So, the evil cabal at the top of the American government is wiley enough to manipulate, (from a great distance), some nutty Islamic radicals, BUT they’re too incompetent or powerless to plant evidence ???
Forgive me for not trembling in my boots at the thought of that Star Chamber.
The history and demographics of the Islamic world are such that their only hope for survival is democratic capitalism, either through their own reform, or through future food aid from the world’s democratic capitalist nations.
Their demographic problems have been extensively written about, and are easy enough to look up.
As for the Arabs in particular, remember, the oil income won’t last forever, but they’ll still have massive populations after it ends. They’ll need some way of producing an income, and only the democratic capitalist form of society will help them to do so in a large enough scale.
There was never a crisis on the order of the Civil War, WWI, or WWII to justify […] the stripping of civil liberties and human rights to which his administration has now subjected […] enemy combatant[s].
As it turns out, the U.S. Constitution only protects Americans.
Funny, that.
In any case, American prisoners get luxurious amounts of food, they have shelter and clothing, advanced medical care, we even provide them with religious materials and allow them to conduct their own religious ceremonies…
What human rights have been “stripped” ?
America’s troops in Europe and Asia have not been subjected to daily attacks during the last 50 years. Our troops in Iraq will continue to be fired on, surprised, and from time to time, killed until the day they leave.
Sez you.
It’s possible, but it seems rather unlikely.
Even now, with weekly suicide bombings and daily mortor and IED attacks in some parts of Iraq, in most places the troops are not attacked at all. With an Iraqi-led government in full control, and more and more Iraqi security forces being trained, so that American forces can withdraw to remote rural bases, there will be FAR less future violence against U.S. troops, if history is any guide.
Only time will tell.
Michael Herdegen - December 21, 2005 @ 11:34 am
BTW, lonbud, are you going to free up the “comments awaiting moderation” on this thread, and the Cheatin’ Heart thread ?
Please ?
lonbud - December 21, 2005 @ 11:12 pm
I love a row as much as everyone, Michael, and if the comment flow on the blog seems slow or stunted at times, it is merely a reflection of my lack of access to a computer, or access to the blog host, and not one of any reluctance on my part to keep the conversation going.
I woke up Monday morning to a broken hinge on my powerbook. It’s a rather expensive repair that may take a week or two to complete, so please forgive any disruption in service.
lonbud - December 22, 2005 @ 12:44 am
Michael, are you a Chubby Checker fan by any chance? You sure do love to twist.
You just spent about 300 words defending BushCo from charges they manufactured 9/11, when what I said was that 9/11 was allowed to happen. The difference is significant to anyone with a post-juvenile understanding of debate.
Michael Herdegen - December 22, 2005 @ 5:07 am
“Allow” necessarily means “had the ability to stop”, and also implies foreknowledge.
So, what you’re saying is that top admin officials knew that 9/11 would happen, but did nothing to stop it, because the event would allow them to further their goals – but, even though they KNEW the who, what, when, and where, they ALSO did NOTHING to ensure that the fingers would point in the right direction.
I fail to see how that contradicts my assertion that 9/11 conspiracy theories require the plotters to be simultaneously brilliant and foolish.
Bubbles - December 22, 2005 @ 1:18 pm
“The price good people pay for their indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Plato
What do you make of this?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002695406_nsa21.html
Taken from speeches in Pittsburgh and Buffalo in 2004
BUSH: Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires — a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so. It’s important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
The law he broke is a felony. By any chance were you saying stuff re: Clinton like ” no one is above the law”?
Michael Herdegen - December 22, 2005 @ 11:53 pm
Clinton’s legal problems were simple things, that everyone could understand.
Essentially, he has uncontrollably wandering hands, and is willing to lie about it.
Bush is very unlikely to pay any political price for authorizing suspect wiretaps of terrorists.
What the legal ramifications are, I’m not qualified to judge, but in looking around the blogosphere, it seems as though the Bush admin has a good case, because they weren’t spying on domestic groups, just domestic members of INTERNATIONAL groups, ones well-known to wish us harm.
Bubbles - December 23, 2005 @ 9:59 am
So I see this a little differently. Nobody knows whom the Bush Administration has been spying on and if he pays no political price it will be because they actually keep that secret –for now–. I’m sure the paper shredders are busy this holiday season. OTOH if they do discover the nature of this surveillance he will pay a political price because 1,800 warrants were legally granted. Every one they ever asked for so if they couldn’t go the legal route they had something to hide, and this President and his Administration have everything to hide. Which in the end makes hiding it very difficult.
Tam O’Tellico - December 23, 2005 @ 10:08 am
Gosh, this terrorism thing must be worse than any of us but Michael imagined. Michael says Bush is only spying on “domestic menmbers of INTERNATIONAL groups”. Well, there must be a helluva lot of them according to Newsweek.
“The revelation that the National Security Agency was allowed to conduct non-FISA intercepts of American citizens should bring last summer’s hearing on John Bolton’s nomination to the United Nations back into focus.
As Legal Times noted in September of this year, “During the confirmation hearings of John Bolton as the US representative to the United Nations, it came to light that the NSA had freely revealed intercepted conversations of US citizens to Bolton while he served at the State Department….
More generally, Newsweek reports that from January 2004 to May 2005, the NSA supplied intercepts and names of 10,000 US citizens to policy-makers at many departments, other US intelligence services, and law enforcement agencies.”
Those of us who did not vote for Bush have every right to be concerned at Bush’s imperial dismantling of the very essence of this democracy. Michael may be charmed by his philosophy, but he ought to abhor his politics — believe it or not, there is more to life than winning.
Yes, it is important to fight terrorism with every weapon at our command. But if in saving the Republic we destroy it, what have we gained?
Tam O’Tellico - December 23, 2005 @ 6:22 pm
Furthermore …
When the spying scandal is put in context, that is in light of the kind of political assassination we witnessed with McCain in SC and the Plame Affair, only a rabid Bushite could possibly believe that some of this, maybe most of this, surreptitiously obtained intel isn’t being gathered and used for political purposes. Certainly, there is evidence of covert spying on domestic anti-war groups. Haven’t we seen all this before?
I wonder what it will take to convince the True-Believers that these guys are truly dangerous?
Michael Herdegen - December 23, 2005 @ 10:13 pm
How about some demonstrable harm to anti-Bush people or groups ?
Mother Sheehan, for example, was allowed to sit outside of Bush’s ranch for weeks, and she hasn’t been the subject of IRS audits yet…
Nobody’s “discovered” a kilo of coke in her car…
Anti-Bush folks like to pretend that Bush is evil incarnate, but they are apparently extremely ignorant of what “oppression” and “amoral ruthlessness” looks like.
The world has plenty of examples, both presently and historically.
When Dr. Dean or Sen. Reid are carbombed, or suddenly resign for “personal reasons”, then I’ll believe that the Bush team is as malignant as some profess.
lonbud - December 23, 2005 @ 11:45 pm
Michael, I believe you really are unhinged at this point. No one has to be carbombed, no one has to disappear, no one has to be audited by the IRS.
The President committed a felony. It’s illegal to spy on American citizens without first obtaining a warrant. The subject of clandestine eavesdropping need not show injury, economic loss, damage to reputation or anything else for the crime to have been committed.
You are always going on about how people should pipe down because life in America is so much better and filled with so many more opportunities than anywhere else on earth; now it’s pipe down until senators start getting carbombed.
I’m sorry, sir. If a president can be impeached for lying about porking his intern in the oval office, then one ought to be impeached for lying the country into a war, lying about revealing the identity of an undercover agent, and lying about spying on American citizens.
Bush may not be as evil as a lot of history’s bad MoFos, but he’s bad enough to be jailed for dereliction of duty and failing to uphold his oath of office.
Michael Herdegen - December 24, 2005 @ 2:40 am
Yes, if it’s shown that President Bush committed a felony, then he should be impeached.
However, his critics like to jump the gun, and not by a little.
President Bush “lied” about Iraqi WMD – he should be impeached.
President Bush exposed a “covert” CIA agent – he should be impeached.
President Bush is spying on domestic anti-Bush activists – he should…
In each case, the reality is far more complex than those crying for impeachment like to acknowledge.
While it’s possible to build a case against Bush for each of those charges in the political sphere, it’s probably impossible to prove any of them legally, mostly because in at least the first two cases he simply isn’t guilty.
Take WMD.
Leaving aside for the moment the questions of what Bush knew, or should have known, or whether he acted appropriately given what he knew or should have known, is it or is it not true that Saddam Hussein ACTED as though he had WMD, did nothing to prove that he did not, and that the UN weapons inspections teams found hard physical evidence that Saddam was operating illegal weapons programmes ?
As for the spying, Tam O’Tellico stated that some or most of the spying was to gather info for political purposes, and not to avert terror, and asked why Bush supporters can’t see the import of what’s happened.
Since the assertion that the spying was for domestic political advantage is totally unsupported, (while it may or may not be true, at this point he’s just speculating), my response is not that the subjects of surveillance need to show proof of harm, it’s that those who hold the opinion that the spying was political in nature have to show some indication that such is so.
Otherwise, it’s just business-as-usual badmouthing.
Here’s an indication that it wasn’t partisan politics:
Among Those Told of Program, Few Objected
DOUGLAS JEHL
The New York Times
Michael Herdegen - December 24, 2005 @ 8:31 am
Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and JAMES RISEN
The New York Times
Hooah !!
Most excellent.
This is EXACTLY what we should be doing. The terrorists have the advantage of anonymity and small numbers, making them hard to find – this type of thing is what WE do better than anyone else.
Let’s move the struggle even further onto the fields where we have an unfair advantage.
Note that because this isn’t court-sanctioned, none of the info gathered can be used in any official way against American citizens, it can only be used to put the terrorists’ gonads into a bear trap, which should calm anyone with misgivings about abuses of civil liberties.
Assuming, of course, that one believes that the Federal government is still bound by the rule of law, even with a fascist tyrant in the Oval Office…
lonbud - December 24, 2005 @ 10:20 am
Michael, if you will provide a mailing address, I will send you a weed-whacker as my gift to you. It’s too late, of course, to ensure delivery by Christmas, but, as in all gift-giving endeavors, tis the thought that counts.
Some lawmakers in Congress had no problem with the Bush administration’s spying program — BFD.
There is debate about whether or not the program was/is intended for domestic political ends — BFD.
Information obtained without a warrant cannot be used to prosecute American citizens — BFD.
The law itself is clear; it does not establish a specific intent crime. The President committed a felony.
As to the discussion of impeachment and the jumping of guns by critics of the President, let it be remembered that one need not be proved to have broken any law to be impeached. The remedy is limited to removal from office of an
official who has breached the public trust. The Constitution makes clear that a person so convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law (Article I, Section 3, Clause 7).
There is no question but that this President has repeatedly violated the public trust; but for the fact of likeminded scoundrels holding a majority in the House of Representatives he’d have been booted from office long ago.
Bubbles - December 24, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
Regarding the briefings referred to by the Administration; they were conducted with only a handful of lawmakers who were sworn to secrecy and prevented from discussing the matter with anyone or seeking outside legal opinions. It takes quote an elaborate imagination to call that adequate “Congressional Oversight”.
Michael Herdegen - December 24, 2005 @ 8:40 pm
The President committed a felony.
I don’t know how I can be any clearer – the President MAY have done something illegal, but YOU don’t know if he did, or not.
Nobody here knows.
[B]ut for the fact of likeminded scoundrels holding a majority in the House of Representatives he’d have been booted from office long ago.
Which goes back to a point that you’ve made before: More people agree with the President than agree with you.
If that were not the case, then likeminded scoundrels wouldn’t hold a majority in the House.
The public had a chance to get rid of Bush, and, knowing all about those “violations of the public trust”, they chose not to do so.
Bubbles - December 25, 2005 @ 12:06 am
Michael, now I really need to cry bullshit. The ‘public’ that elects congress in particular the House –much as the forefathers feared– are predominately literates swayed by the short-sighted slight-of-hand practiced by political hucksters. That’s why we have other branches of government.
Once again I give Frank Rich the best sentence of the week award. (and ohh… BTW when did you start quoting that liberally bent publication ‘The New York Times’ ;-o .)
“That the judge who ruled so decisively in Pennsylvania’s revival of the Scopes trial is a Republican appointed by President Bush is almost enough to make the bah-humbug crowd believe in Santa Claus.”
Michael Herdegen - December 25, 2005 @ 10:40 am
“The ‘public’ that elects the House are predominately illiterates swayed by the short-sighted slight-of-hand practiced by political hucksters.”
Since over the past 75 years the House has been controlled twice as often by the Democrats as by the GOP, and in the fairly recent past the Left wing of the political spectrum was much more influential, are you saying that neither the Left nor the Right, the GOP nor the Dems, are far-sighted or sincere ?
Furthermore, the forefathers’ device to dampen the passions of the mob was to have the members of the upper chamber be APPOINTED, rather than elected. By changing the system, so that Senators are now directly elected by the public, we’ve actually INCREASED the chances of folly being enacted into law.
Also, the forefathers had enough confidence in the unwashed masses to include the provision that all legislation must originate in the HOUSE, i.e., the chamber controlled by political hucksters that were elected by illiterates.
The bottom line is that in a democracy, if most of the people are stupid and foolish, then most of the elected officials will be stupid and foolish as well. However, I don’t happen to believe that the public as a whole is either foolish or ignorant, although sometimes they make poor choices.
As for “the other branches of government”, the Executive branch is also directly elected by the same illiterates who elect members of the House, and since as I’ve noted the upper chamber of the Legislative branch is now directly elected, that leaves only the Judicial branch (and the Fed) as the only branch of government that’s indirectly controlled by the public.
Since both the Left and the Right have plenty of complaints about various rulings that have been made over the past decade, I guess that the Judicial branch is working as a balance, if perhaps a bit crudely.
BTW when did you start quoting that liberally bent publication ‘The New York Times’
Yes, it does give me a great deal of ironic pleasure when the NYT prints something that supports my opinions, since their editorial positions are extremely often opposite mine, and those positions are usually reflected in the choice and slant of the news articles that they offer.
Bubbles - December 25, 2005 @ 12:46 pm
Michael, of course its the same with Democrats.
“The bottom line is that in a democracy, if most of the people are stupid and foolish, then most of the elected officials will be stupid and foolish as well. However, I don’t happen to believe that the public as a whole is either foolish or ignorant, although sometimes they make poor choices.”
So do you think the politicans as a whole are ignorant, foolish or perhaps clever and selfserving?
So, before we wade into the ‘data mining’ weeds (I promise you its nothing shy of a ‘Whoville’ – in the Dr. Seuss sence) it’s political, legal and privacy ramifications I think it’s important to put this into the context of not only the ‘unwashed masses’ but the scientifically and technically illiterate and by no less measure corrupt in public office.
(sorry for the full article post but most of you may not have access)
SCIENTIST AT WORK — Jon Miller; Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much
By CORNELIA DEAN (NYT)
Published: August 30, 2005
When Jon D. Miller looks out across America, which he can almost do from his 18th-floor office at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, he sees a landscape of haves and have-nots — in terms not of money, but of knowledge.
Dr. Miller, 63, a political scientist who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at the medical school, studies how much Americans know about science and what they think about it. His findings are not encouraging.
While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only 20 to 25 percent of Americans are ”scientifically savvy and alert,” he said in an interview. Most of the rest ”don’t have a clue.” At a time when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to stem cell research, he said, people’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.
Over the last three decades, Dr. Miller has regularly surveyed his fellow citizens for clients as diverse as the National Science Foundation, European government agencies and the Lance Armstrong Foundation. People who track Americans’ attitudes toward science routinely cite his deep knowledge and long track record.
”I think we should pay attention to him,” said Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, who cites Dr. Miller’s work in her efforts to advance the cause of evolution in the classroom. ”We ignore public understanding of science at our peril.”
Rolf F. Lehming, who directs the science foundation’s surveys on understanding of science, calls him ”absolutely authoritative.”
Dr. Miller’s data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
At one time, this kind of ignorance may not have meant much for the nation’s public life. Dr. Miller, who has delved into 18th-century records of New England town meetings, said that back then, it was enough ”if you knew where the bridge should be built, if you knew where the fence should be built.”
”Even if you could not read and write, and most New England residents could not read or write,” he went on, ”you could still be a pretty effective citizen.”
No more. ”Acid rain, nuclear power, infectious diseases — the world is a little different,” he said.
It was the nuclear power issue that first got him interested in public knowledge of science, when he was a graduate student in the 1960’s. ”The issue then was nuclear power,” he said. ”I used to play tennis with some engineers who were very pro-nuclear, and I was dating a person who was very anti-nuclear. I started doing some reading and discovered that if you don’t know a little science it was hard to follow these debates. A lot of journalism would not make sense to you.”
Devising good tests to measure scientific knowledge is not simple. Questions about values and attitudes can be asked again and again over the years because they will be understood the same way by everyone who hears them; for example, Dr. Miller’s surveys regularly ask people whether they agree that science and technology make life change too fast (for years, about half of Americans have answered yes) or whether Americans depend too much on science and not enough on faith (ditto).
But assessing actual knowledge, over time, ”is something of an art,” he said. He varies his questions, as topics come and go in the news, but devises the surveys so overall results can be compared from survey to survey, just as SAT scores can be compared even though questions on the test change.
For example, he said, in the era of nuclear tests he asked people whether they knew about strontium 90, a component of fallout. Today, he asks about topics like the workings of DNA in the cell because ”if you don’t know what a cell is, you can’t make sense of stem cell research.”
Dr. Miller, who was raised in Portsmouth, Ohio, when it was a dying steel town, attributes much of the nation’s collective scientific ignorance to poor education, particularly in high schools. Many colleges require every student to take some science, but most Americans do not graduate from college. And science education in high school can be spotty, he said.
”Our best university graduates are world-class by any definition,” he said. ”But the second half of our high school population — it’s an embarrassment. We have left behind a lot of people.”
He had firsthand experience with local school issues in the 1980’s, when he was a young father living in DeKalb, Ill., and teaching at Northern Illinois University. The local school board was considering closing his children’s school, and he attended some board meetings to get an idea of members’ reasoning. It turned out they were spending far more time on issues like the cost of football tickets than they were on the budget and other classroom matters. ”It was shocking,” he said.
So he and some like-minded people ran successfully for the board and, once in office, tried to raise taxes to provide more money for the classroom. They initiated three referendums; all failed. Eventually, he gave up, and his family moved away.
”This country cannot finance good school systems on property taxes,” he said. ”We don’t get the best people for teaching because we pay so little. For people in the sciences particularly, if you have some skill, the job market is so good that teaching is not competitive.”
Dr. Miller was recruited to Northwestern Medical School in 1999 by administrators who knew of his work and wanted him to study attitudes and knowledge of science in light of the huge changes expected from the genomic revolution.
He also has financing — and wears a yellow plastic bracelet — from the Lance Armstrong Foundation, for a project to research people’s knowledge of clinical trials. Many research organizations want to know what encourages people to participate in a trial and what discourages them. But Dr. Miller said, ”It’s more interesting to ask if they know what a clinical trial is, do they know what a placebo is.”
The National Science Foundation is recasting its survey operations, so Dr. Miller is continuing surveys for other clients. One involves following people over time, tracing their knowledge and beliefs about science from childhood to adulthood, to track the way advantages and disadvantages in education are compounded over time and to test his theory that people don’t wait until they are adults to start forming opinions about the world.
Lately, people who advocate the teaching of evolution have been citing Dr. Miller’s ideas on what factors are correlated with adherence to creationism and rejection of Darwinian theories. In general, he says, these fundamentalist views are most common among people who are not well educated and who ”work in jobs that are evaporating fast with competition around the world.”
But not everyone is happy when he says things like that. Every time he goes on the radio to talk about his findings, he said, ”I get people sending me cards saying they will pray for me a lot.”
Bubbles - December 25, 2005 @ 2:12 pm
So with that in mind please take a look at a few other references:
http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=9357&bhcp=1
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39148341,00.htm
http://www.tmcnet.com/it/1103/1103RC.htm
http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/20040413_EFF_CALEA_comments.php
http://news.com.com/Fahrenheit+FBI/2010-7352_3-5300198.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2095777/
http://www.cdt.org/testimony/20040908dempsey.shtml
So lets discuss, but I want to make two initial points.
1) I cannot intellectually reconcile the ‘Rights’ seemingly schizophrenic highly selective religiosity regarding the 4th Amendment. How can the right to bear arms be so sacrosanct while unlawful search and seizure is not? How can you simultaneously not trust Government in any way shape or form and trust it without question or review whatsoever in the same sentence –and- call yourselves strict constructionists? Hello… Can anyone get Eve Black to talk to Eve White?
2) As a Telecommunications and Internetworking Engineer let me see if I can simplify what’s happening. Packets are like postcards that can carry a message in its entirety or shred data and reconstruct it at the receiving end. Every shred has a sequence number for that data stream. If you copy all the packets, (easily done) you can reconstruct the postcard and read it. I use the example of a post card because it conveys the concept of ‘clear text’ well. All you need to do is flip it over and read it with the appropriate application. This is true for all forms of data transmitted over the Internet – period. The wrinkle is encryption, if you encrypt the data, packets can still be reassembled but the data is scrambled and reading is difficult. Now most of us don’t encrypt our communications so our private communications can be easy sniffed by anyone with access to our packets. Anyone can encrypt their data and many do certainly anyone who really cares about being sniffed. (ie mostly corporations these days) Terrorist would seem to fall into that bucket too and suffice it to say; today’s freely obtainable encryption technologies are ‘military grade’. Finally, I have been contacted by law enforcement during ‘investigations’ and I’ve always cooperated. That’s exactly the problem; I don’t ask to see a Court Order I’m just another law-abiding guy who just so happens to have access to your packets who assumes they have the authority to do what they are doing. I’m in no way unusual, that’s what’s so frightening about operating without Court Orders its so ripe for abuse no ones has any idea who and what can be sniffed and reported on just because someone gets a call from ‘law enforcement’ or you allow them access to a network. Talk About ‘Big Brother’ woe is we.
Michael Herdegen - December 25, 2005 @ 6:45 pm
So do you think the politicans as a whole are ignorant, foolish or perhaps clever and selfserving?
Yes, politicians tend to be ignorant, just like individual members of the public, as Dr. Miller points out.
However, due to “the wisdom of crowds”, large groups of people generally aren’t ignorant, and that applies to legislatures.
I would say that most politicians are selfserving, but also that most hitch themselves to the public’s wagon, seeking to prosper by helping their constituents prosper.
The totally self-centered, amoral, self-dealing politician occurs more often than such types do among the general population, but is still a small minority.
Regarding Dr. Miller’s research: Having 1 out of 4 Americans be “scientifically savvy and alert’’ is a problem for the justice system, in that juries are sometimes clueless as to what they’re looking at, in both criminal and civil courts, but it’s not really a problem for society as a whole.
Dr. Miller’s conclusion means that there are roughly 50 million adult Americans to do America’s scientific and technical tasks, a more than sufficient number. Most jobs don’t really require much more than task-specific knowledge. Nobody needs to understand how an internal-combustion engine works, in order to drive.
So [Dr. Miller] and some like-minded people ran successfully for the [school] board and, once in office, tried to raise taxes to provide more money for the classroom. They initiated three referendums; all failed. […]
‘’This country cannot finance good school systems on property taxes,’’ he said.
Dr. Miller’s wrong.
It’s a question of priorities. There’s no doubt that many school boards make bad choices, and squander their resources, but a lack of money isn’t the problem in most school districts, although there are of course some in which money is the primary problem.
Dr. Miller is continuing […] to test his theory that people don’t wait until they are adults to start forming opinions about the world.
Like, duh.
I hope that that’s an oversimplification of what Miller’s actually doing.
1)…
We can’t trust the government, at least not blindly.
Apathy leads to corruption.
However, such doesn’t mean that governments are inherently corrupt; they just need oversight. Liberty requires constant vigilance.
The same applies to almost any organization. There was a LOT of fraud, corruption, self-dealing, and skimming going on in various businesses and stock exchanges during the dot.com bubble era, because there was so much money being tossed around so easily that few noticed or cared.
It was only AFTER the easy money dried up that people took a close look.
Ditto the scandals at some large televangelist organizations over the past few decades. When one person controls all decisions, with no oversight, sometimes temptation gets the best of people.
Which is why, incidentally, that religious populations make the best democratic societies – they need less policing. More people strive towards the ideal, and some feel “watched”, and so are on their best behavior.
I’m just another law-abiding guy who just so happens to have access to your packets who assumes they have the authority to do what they are doing.
Con artists call that “social engineering”, talking those who have access into granting it.
If enough people in the U.S. start using Skype, then our authorities may well require them to provide a means of tapping their commo.
We can’t require them to include it in their software, but we CAN bar them from distributing their software in the U.S. without it.
The bottom line is, there needs to be a way for law-enforcement agencies in America to lawfully moniter any or all communication in the U.S.
Some would say that court oversight of such activities isn’t enough, because the courts can be corrupted, but what’s the alternative ?
Allowing bad guys of any stripe to have safe-havens, from which they can strike at will ?
For now, I trust American gov’t agencies enough to give them a relatively free hand in going after drug dealers and terrorists.
If agencies start abusing their powers, then we’ll curb their authority – as has happened several times in American history.
So far, the system works, and I don’t see a police state in our future.
However, if anyone likes unreasoning pessimism, then try here.
lonbud - December 25, 2005 @ 8:33 pm
I don’t know,
The war with Iraq is wrong on so many levels. It was immoral and illegal to begin with, and has been managed incompetently throughout. The lead-up to the war, and the subsequent official reporting on the war have been characterized chiefly by either dishonesty or, if we wish to be charitable, irresponsible optimism. The entire Iraq war has been a field experiment on how optimism can damage official decision making.
and
Phrases like “slam dunk” and “last throes” are not the reasoned words of rational men and women carefully making painful decisions. They are jingoistic, feel good phrases designed to reassure and bolster a hollow optimism about our intentions and our results abroad.
and
Our President has…replaced [his frat boy mindset] with another simplistic, limiting belief system– Evangelical Christianity– but he’s never outgrown the idea that if he wants something badly enough, God or George-n-Barbra will make it happen.
seem neither unreasoning nor unduly pessimistic. They also happen to be objectively accurate statements of fact.
Also, as Michael says, there needs to be a way for law-enforcement agencies in America to lawfully moniter (sic) any or all communication in the U.S.
There is. It’s called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It has been willfully, systematically violated by the Bush administration during the past three plus years.
The President should resign and spare the country the ignominy of an impeachment proceeding.
Michael Herdegen - December 26, 2005 @ 3:52 am
…seem neither unreasoning nor unduly pessimistic.
Then you’ll love talking to Matt and TafkaP, at that site.
I should have added “And check out the comments there” to my post.
They also happen to be objectively accurate statements of fact.
“It was immoral and illegal to begin with, and has been managed incompetently throughout.” – All three of those assertions are demonstrably FALSE. I can make the case, if you like, as I did in their comment section.
The other excerpts are opinion, not fact, and the last one is egregiously incorrect.
Bush has failed plenty in his life, and is well used to getting half-a-loaf.
The person who composed that paragraph is either completely ignorant of Bush’s bio, or is so inexperienced that he cannot interpret the inherent difficulties of what Bush has accomplished.
In either case, simply reading the excerpted sentence at face value gives one amusement from the irony of the author accusing someone else of having a “simplistic, limiting belief system”.
Pot, meet kettle.
There is. It’s called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
I was actually referring to the technical aspects that Bubbles brought up with his links.
With VOIP, especially combined with the semantics of how our laws are currently written, it can be impossible to tap a call, and Skype uses encryption that only the NSA supercomputers can break.
Fortunately, the Skype network cannot currently work with mobile phones, or any phones at all, for that matter, which makes it an imperfect tool for bad guys.
Bubbles - December 26, 2005 @ 10:23 am
Michael,
I’m happy to get into the technical aspects of this but you have still wandered off the reservation on one crucial point. All the legislation, all off the FCC’s rulemaking on the subject ALL OF IT calls for a ‘Court Order’. Only Bush –and not until he was caught– claims he’s ‘above the law’. And, please answer my question regarding how this squares with your interpretation of the 4th Amendment?
Michael Herdegen - December 26, 2005 @ 10:44 am
Domestic spying on international calls requires no court order – or so I’ve read. As I said upthread, I’m not qualified to comment on the legal aspects, I merely pass along what I’ve read, which is that the Bush admin may have a good case.
As to the 4th Amendment, it’s my understanding that what was occurring wasn’t phone tapping per se, but instead a monitoring of traffic flows – who was calling whom, where, and when.
That’s analogous to watching pedestrian flows on a public street.
In any case, if none of it can be used to make criminal cases, then I don’t care if the Feds listen in on every conversation that occurs in America or the world.
You seem to be focusing on the legal context, when the action is actually in the intel arena. We aren’t merely seeking to arrest these guys, we’re looking first to find them, and then their associates.
lonbud - December 26, 2005 @ 11:00 am
Thanks for helping Michael try and remain within the perimeter, Bubbles.
A chief defect in the logic of the everything changed with 9/11 crowd is that there’s no legal, moral, or practical principle that cannot be violated or ignored in defense of our way of life.
When the last person willing — whether able or not — to challenge our dominion over this earthly realm is found and, well, killed, we’ll have won the War on Terror and avenged the blasphemy of 9/11.
And not until.
Monitoring traffic flows, if that’s all the President authorized, is not (as a constitutional matter) analogous to watching pedestrian traffic, either. The defining constitutional protection lies in our expectation of privacy.
One has a far lower expectation of privacy walking around in public than when initiating or receiving any specific communication. It’s why Congress wrote legislation defining the government’s authority to engage in monitoring communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States (USC 50, 1801(f)(3)).
So, Michael may just be passing along what he reads, and for him there may be some uncertainty as to whether the President of the United States committed a felony, but for anyone with a post-juvenile ability to make real-world decisions based on observable fact — there is none.
Tam O’Tellico - December 26, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
Canary in a Coal Mine
My father grew up in coal country in Eastern Kentucky. In the coal mines, the foundation was laid for the American labor movement, a movement that forced the sharing of the burgeoning wealth of America and at long last began to make the dream of equality a reality. It was a movement born of the blood of blue-collar workers, and I acknowledge a deep debt of gratitude to my kin who fought and died so that I might enjoy overtime pay and health benefits.
Today, mining remains a hazardous and unhealthy occupation, but it is hard to imagine how bad it used to be. In the old days, miners would take a canary in a cage with them into the mines. It wasn’t that these hardcases were bird-lovers; if the bird died, it was a sign poisonous gases were building up in the mine, and it was time to get out.
Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if miners and the other hard-working blue-collar types who traditionally have been the backbone of America must see the bird die before they are aware of the foulness in the air.
That’s hard to understand, since this is a foulness of Shakespearean proportions that claims “fair is foul and foul is fair”; that calls legislation benefiting mining and drilling interests “The Clear Skies Initative”; that corrupts the “No Child Left Behind Act” into the “No Child Left Unrecruited (except the privileged) Act”; that attempts to “save” Social Security by putting it in the hands of greedy Wall Street investment firms; in short, that is an attempt to reverse seventy years of social and environmental progress under leaders of every political persuasion.
Let me hasten to add that I don’t believe this foulness is a deliberate plot to reduce most Americans to the poverty levels of coal miners, but it is political philosophy with the goal of undoing the social welfare system and a return to the America of Cal Coolidge and Herbert Hoover, the last Presidents to govern in our “pre-socialist” days.
Like most Americans my age, I once accepted what I was told by my government as either the truth or a necessary lie given to protect what was all too obviously national security, the U2 incident being a perfect example, a lie told by a good man for good purposes. I am also willing to admit that faith was shaken considerably by the Presidency of Richard Nixon. Still, I maintain my faith that the federal government can and ought to do better for its citizens in many areas, particularly those that involve basic necessities such as health care, transportation and communications. If that makes me a liberal, so be it.
Unlike many Conservatives, I can’t say the same for local government. I am not a believer in small government since I live in a place where evidence of its deficiencies is all too apparent. It’s like asking me to trust the local loonies in the mountain militia rather than America’s armed forces. If you want to see pork-barrel politics up close and personal, come to where the first requirement for any government position is being a local politico’s son-in-law, or at least first cousin. Local school boards fund welding classes and ag courses, but reluctantly provide one part-time computer instructor. The consequences of small government are all too tragic here in the green ghetto.
That being said, I am also aware that the bigger government is, the bigger are its failures, failures such as we witnessed with Katrina. And as is becoming more and more obvious, the bigger government is, the greater the potential intrusion into private lives. In a matter of two decades or less, technology has made this potential hazard more than a potential reality.
That is just one more reason why some of us are very nervous, a nervousness exacerbated by an administration which habitually abuses its authority, an administration that has shown no qualms about using power for mean political purposes, an administration that has based it political power on a base courting of those among us who are least prepared to deal with the complex issues we are facing as a nation.
It is tempting to say this is the administration for those for whom ignorance is bliss — Michael, of course, always excepted.
Unfortunately, the only remedy available to those of us who don’t like what we see with this administration is the ballot box. But that seems a “glacial remedy” in a time of political and technological “global warming”. Perhaps that explains some of the only slightly premature calls for impeachment.
Once we could take some comfort in the other institutions of government that were designed to act as checks and balances against executive excess. But that seems to be less and less a comfort. The present Congress is barely beginning to even speak out, let alone do anything about fulfilling its Constitutional duties. And the Supreme Court is being dragged more and more into political cat-fights, even unbelievably choosing the President in 2000. Yes, I know there is still a debate about the actual vote count, but there can be no question the Supreme Court decided this issue.
Is it possible that the rate of change and the pressures of global geo-politics has rendered the Constitution inadequate to deal with present circumstances?
Ironically, that seems to be one thing both sides of the political divide agree on, but only as it suits their purpose. Both decry “Judicial Legislation” while welcoming it when it suits their ideology. It has been said many times that the Bill of Rights would have little chance of passing if put to a public vote today; certainly the “wall of separation” would be the first to fall. Bush himself decries the Constitution as “just a god-damned piece of paper” – though his assessment certainly was not intended for public consumption.
Like religious leaders of all faiths and all times, Bush and his followers assure us all will turn out well if we only “trust and obey”. Well, like the Thomas of old, I believe only what I see. And as I see it, I am a canary in a coal mine. Pray that I keep singing.
Michael Herdegen - December 26, 2005 @ 1:05 pm
[F]or [Michael] there may be some uncertainty as to whether the President of the United States committed a felony, but for anyone with a post-juvenile ability to make real-world decisions based on observable fact — there is none.
Or not.
Perhaps you should write “There is no uncertainty as to whether the President of the United States committed a felony, for anyone unwilling to determine what the observable facts are – prejudice will suffice.”
Michael Herdegen - December 26, 2005 @ 1:54 pm
that corrupts the “No Child Left Behind Act” into the “No Child Left Unrecruited (except the privileged) Act”
The fact that military recruiters can call high school kids in no way negates the fact that NCLB forces schools to ensure that their students are literate and can do basic math.
What’s truly pathetic is that Congress had to FORCE schools to perform what ought to be their MOST BASIC FUNCTION.
If the schools in your local district were already doing such, then what’s the big deal ?
Their students will pass the tests, no prob.
Only the most selfish and churlish would complain that it’s a minor hassle for the privileged to take the test, so we should abolish it, along with the great good it does for the less-blessed.
that attempts to “save” Social Security by putting it in the hands of greedy Wall Street investment firms
Rather, in the hands of those whose names are on the accounts.
If having the gov’t handle our retirement funds is such a great deal, why don’t we sign over our checking accounts as well ?
Surely the geniuses in Congress and at the SSA will do a much better job with our day-to-day financial decisions than we would, ourselves.
If anyone doesn’t agree with that sentiment, why ever would one argue that the gov’t is WORSE than we are in making current financial decisions, but BETTER than we are at making long-term financial decisions ?
Since the historical record is that Congress long ago decided to SPEND EVERY DIME OF THE SS “TRUST” FUNDS, leaving a ZERO BALANCE with which to face the Boomers’ retirement, I think that we can safely say that Congress is among the worst financial managers, ever.
If a private company had done with their pension plan what Congress did with SS, the company’s executives would be in PRISON.
Local school boards fund welding classes…
While I agree that computer scientists make more money, fewer people are capable of being good at computer-related fields, and America certainly needs shopworkers.
In fact, I’d be in favor of EVERY high school student taking basic shop and automotive repair courses, and leaving the higher-tech stuff for those going to college, when they get there.
In a matter of two decades or less, technology has made [greater intrusion into our private lives] more than a potential reality.
Yes.
Whether it’s the government, private commercial interests, or private citizens with a variety of motives, we WILL have MUCH LESS privacy in the future.
That’s an element of the dark side of future tech.
We should get used to it.
Essentially, we’ll all be back to living in small towns with party lines, where everyone knows everyone else’s business.
[A]n administration that has based its political power on a base courting of those among us who are least prepared to deal with the complex issues we are facing as a nation.
Whose was the last administration that won the Presidential election by specifically courting the elites and eggheads, AND that was a success ?
Not Clinton… “It’s the economy, stupid” was his mantra.
Not Carter… An unsuccessful admin.
JFK ?
[T]he only slightly premature calls for impeachment.
Ha.
Maybe we’ll impeach the next President, ya never know.
Hopefully the Dems will tak back the House in ’06, ’cause it’ll be quite amusing to see all of the sputtering when they don’t attempt to impeach Bush.
[T]he Supreme Court […] even unbelievably [chose] the President in 2000. Yes, I know there is still a debate about the actual vote count, but there can be no question the Supreme Court decided this issue.
See the first comment posted in this thread.
If there’s a debate about who won Florida, then how can there be no question that the SCOTUS decided the 2000 election ?
The Florida Supreme Court’s decision was to ignore Florida law, the SCOTUS’ decision was that the lower court was wrong, that Florida election law was constitutional, and should be obeyed – as it had been for every election in the past.
In any case, it was moot, since every MAJOR MEDIA re-count of Florida showed that Bush had “won”, and therefore the ruling wasn’t decisive to the outcome of the election.
BTW, how about a link, or at least a tip, to where to find these Florida ballot re-counts that found that Gore got more votes ?
Tam O’Tellico - December 26, 2005 @ 3:16 pm
Yes, we’ve been through these issues many times, and you still haven’t seen the light. But hey, I’m a liberal, for me there’s always hope that those on the Dark Side will one day awaken to the light.
While testing for basics with the NCLBA may have seemed like a good idea, Congress would have been more convincing if it had expressed its concern in the form of funding. Alas, a major proportion of funding that was available went to pave the road for recruiting. I won’t bore you by repeating my personal experience with this sorry subterfuge, but I can assure you that like most high school administrators, the principal at my son’s high school is most unhappy with this gutless posturing by Congressional prima donnas.
As for my reference to the privileged, how could you possibly construe that to mean a reference to testing? Fair is foul should have given you a clue. I am waiting to see how this funding of recruiters pays off with a dramatic increase in volunteering by the privileged, the sons and daughters of the well-connected, especially those in Congress. I can asure you that no recruiter is wasting his time chasing that fantasy.
As for your other views on the “basic necessities” of high school education, they are only further evidence of how far out of touch you are with reality. You seem to be implying that I think “shop” is for idiots. Well, once upon a time it may have been a refuge for dumbies and jocks, but not anymore. Do you have the slightest idea how much training is required to work on the modern automobile? Do you seriously suppose that a majority of high school students ought to be taught those skills? If not, then what is the point of “shop” classes for them?
In fact, it seems to me it is your attitude that is condescending “leave the tough thinking for the college-bound” indeed! I hope one of these “dullards” works on your computer-controlled automobile.
Welding? Yes, we all know there are millions of openings going begging for industrial blue-collar jobs what with robotics and all. And of course, they can be assured of high wages, lifetime benefits and continual retraining by far-sighted employers like GM.
Michael, on this point, you really must think a bit harder.
I’ve already reviewed your evidence and much more that was available on the subject of the Florida votes in 2000, and you and I will simply have to disagree about what that evidence “proves”. To me the evidence is clear that the vote count was very much in dispute and warranted a total bi-partisan recount which is basically what the Florida courts ruled. That did not occur because the Supreme Court over-ruled the Florida courts. Funny how states-righters simply can’t get aroused about that FACT. Another FACT is that there was no authorized recount of the votes, and therefore no recount done to date establishes anything legally which is the point of this discussion as you know perfectly well.
In my view, no President has ever won election by appealing ONLY to the eggheads as you apparently view anyone who holds views opposite yours. But no candidate in my memory has ever stooped so low as Bush and his hatchetman Rove, and not just when it comes to character assassination. While you may think it’s a brilliant strategy to arouse the Self-Righteous. I would remind you that it is a dangerous game wise men ought not play. Check out the Inquistion or the English or French or revolutions of Iran for examples of what can come from feeding this beast.
Those who think it can’t happen here are ignorant not only of history, but of human nature as well.
Tam O’Tellico - December 26, 2005 @ 4:28 pm
An observation and prediction:
The Great Divide the election of 2004 revealed what should have surprised no one about the political divide in the American public . As many observers have pointed out, this division has been around since at least the Civil War.
One of the consequences of that war was the death of the Republican Party in the South. Of course, on many issues, Southern Democrats were far more conservative than progressive Republicans. So party count in Congress was an artificial number and cooperation was common across party lines.
But with the mass exodus of Southern Democrats to the Republican Party, divisions in Congress began to sharpen with shift in the balance of power and less need for cross-party accommodation.
But a trend is beginning with traditional Republicans finding themselves in a position similar to that once felt by Southern Democrats. They find themselves more and more frequently at odds with the radical-right shift of the party toward a militaristic, theocratic bent. Coupled with profligate spending on suspect adventures by the present administration, this is a prescription for traditional Republicans to contemplate the once unimaginable — a tilt to Democratic Party objectives. We may well see a period that is the doppelganger of Southern Democrats.
You may call them the Northern Republicans, if you must, but in any event, the trend has begun already as noted here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/12/26/nh_republicans_drift_from_national_party/
Bubbles - December 26, 2005 @ 4:40 pm
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Michael Herdegen - December 26, 2005 @ 10:56 pm
As for my reference to the privileged, how could you possibly construe that to mean a reference to testing?
My use of “privileged” was independent of yours. My usage denoted those attending excellent schools in good districts, where NCLBA tests are irrelevant or moot.
Do you have the slightest idea how much training is required to work on the modern automobile?
Yes.
Do you seriously suppose that a majority of high school students ought to be taught those skills?
Yes.
Those skills would be useful for more students than knowledge of advanced geometry or calculus, for example.
To me the evidence is clear that the vote count was very much in dispute and warranted a total bi-partisan recount which is basically what the Florida courts ruled. That did not occur because the Supreme Court over-ruled the Florida courts.
Had the SCOTUS ruled in Gore’s favor, Bush still would have become President, for the reasons outlined above.
You would simply have a different villain to point to.
[N]o recount done to date establishes anything legally which is the point of this discussion as you know perfectly well.
I thought that the point of the discussion was that there is strong circumstantial evidence that Bush was the legitimate victor in Florida.
If you want to speak only of legalities, then it must be acknowledged that Bush became President through legitimate and legal means, and that there was AMPLE precedent of Presidents losing the popular vote, but assuming office by winning the Electoral College vote.
[N]o President has ever won election by appealing ONLY to the eggheads as you apparently view anyone who holds views opposite yours.
That would be an odd thing for me to believe, since I’m an egghead myself.
But no candidate in my memory has ever stooped so low as Bush and his hatchetman Rove, and not just when it comes to character assassination.
Well, let’s see…
There was JFK’s 1960 “stolen election”…
“[M]ultiple election boards saw no reason to overturn the results. Neither did state or federal judges. Neither did an Illinois special prosecutor in 1961. And neither have academic inquiries into the Illinois case.” […]
“On the other hand, some fraud clearly occurred in Cook County. At least three people were sent to jail for election-related crimes, and 677 others were indicted [!!!] before being acquitted by Judge John M. Karns, a Daley crony. Many of the allegations involved practices that wouldn’t be detected by a recount. […]
What’s more, according to journalist Seymour Hersh, a former Justice Department prosecutor who heard tapes of FBI wiretaps from the period believed that Illinois was rightfully Nixon’s.”
“Kennedy won the general election, narrowly defeating the Republican candidate, Vice President Richard M. Nixon, by a margin of less than 120,000 out of some 70,000,000 votes cast. Many observers, then and since, believed vote fraud contributed to Kennedy’s victory, especially in the critical state of Illinois, where Joe Kennedy enlisted the help of the ever-powerful Richard J. Daley, mayor of Chicago.”
“There is no certainty that Nixon won both Texas and Illinois [which
he would have had to to do win the Electoral College vote]. What is
certain, however, is that massive voter fraud on Kennedy’s behalf
occurred in both states. In Texas, Kennedy’s margin of victory was
46,000 votes, but Lyndon Johnson’s Lone Star state political machine
could easily have provided that number. In Illinois, Kennedy won by a
bare 9,000 votes, and Mayor Daley, who held back Chicago’s vote until
late in the evening, provided an extraordinary Cook County margin of
victory of 450,000 votes.”
Note that Bush’s 327 vote victory in Florida didn’t depend on a half-million bogus votes.
There was Lyndon B. Johnson’s 1964 character assassination of Barry Goldwater, (helped by Goldwater’s undisciplined habit of making blunt statements):
Most famously, the Johnson campaign broadcast a television commercial dubbed the “Daisy Girl” ad, which featured a little girl picking petals from a daisy in a field, counting the petals, which then segues into a launch countdown and a nuclear explosion.
Another Johnson ad tied Goldwater to the Ku Klux Klan.
There was the Reagan team’s Lee Atwater “running a dirty tricks operation in 1984 against Vice-Presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro. This included the accurate allegation that Ferraro’s parents had been indicted – but never convicted (this fact, of course, went unmentioned)- of numbers running in the 1940s. Ferraro disappeared for a few days to ‘recover’ from the accusation.”
And, of course, Slick Willy:
“As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.”
“As FBI Director Louis Freeh observed [in 1997] during campaign finance hearings, he had seen so many witnesses flee the country or take the Fifth only once before in his career: when looking into organized crime.”
“In a round of testimony by FBI Director Louis Freeh before Congress, Rep. Dan Burton asked: “Mr. Freeh, over 65 people have invoked the 5th Amendment or fled the country in the course of the Committee’s investigation. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you’ve prosecuted or in which you ve been involved?” Freeh responded: “Actually, I have.” Burton asked: “You have? Give me, give me a rundown on that real quickly.” Freeh: “I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City…”
Michael Herdegen - December 26, 2005 @ 11:38 pm
Yes, we all know there are millions of openings going begging for industrial blue-collar jobs what with robotics and all.
Welding, Soldering, and Brazing Workers
The middle 50 percent of welders, cutters, solderers, and brazers earned between $ 24K – $ 36K annually – solid middle class wages.
Machinists
The middle 50 percent of machinists earned between $ 25K – $ 40K annually – solid middle class wages.
Tam O’Tellico - December 27, 2005 @ 8:18 am
M: “Those skills would be useful for more students than knowledge of advanced geometry or calculus, for example.”
If you mean auto mechanics and welding, your faulty argument is at the heart of the divide between real educators and politicians who think they know something about the “3 R’s”. The former see education as a skill-set essential to lifelong learning, while you and the latter seem to think it is job-training.
But hey, what if you and the pols are right? I can see it now, females suddenly start doing their own brake jobs and welding their own trailer hitches all because Congress added The Michael Provision to the NCLBA — unfunded, of course. Your propostition is as ludicrous as Congress’ notion that they can improve education by making unfunded demands on an already over-burdened system.
I grant you a small percentage of mechancially inclined students would benefit from such an emphasis, but for the majority of students your suggestion would be a horrible waste of time and resources. As I said before, modern automobiles are simply to complex for most ‘backyard’ mechanics, and you know that as well as I do.
Furthermore, only a small percentage of students take advanced geometry and calculus, and to be blunt about it, they are generally not taking those courses out of any burning desire to do so (unless they intend to be math or physics majors), but out of necessity. These courses are considered essential to those who are going on to college and have been considered essential by educators for centuries because they teach a certain kind of mental discipline essential to higher learning.
I realize some of the brilliant minds in Congress can’t grasp that concept, and I suspect that like many in Congress, you believe art, music and drama are the real waste of resources. Certainly many members of local school boards tend to view such disciplines that way. Real experts disagree, but hey, what do they know?
If Congress really wanted to do something about the education problem, they would adopt a policylike that begun after Sputnik exposed the Good Old Values of the Fifties, and we suddenly realized we didn’t include enough emphasis on education. That policy involved spending real money, not simply making demands to return to the ‘good old days”.
And if Congress really were serious about education and wanted to help America compete in the 21st Century, it would legislate the death of our archaic inch/pound system and put us on the metric standard that was promised when I was still in high school, for Godsake.
But that probably won’t happen since it would cost votes with those red-staters who insist “if it was good enough for my great grandfather, it’s good enough for me”. Hellsfire, everybody knows that metric system is too damned complicated, and besides, it’s Unamerican — even them damned Frenchies use it.
In fact, nothing is more a stumbling block to read educational reform than that ass-backwards attitude about progress. And the worst of it is the insistence on adding the Fourth R — religion to our educational system. All this is exactly why we have ag and welding courses instead of computer instruction empasized at my son’s high school.
As for the rosy future for welders you predict, I would love to believe the statistics, but I just can’t seem to find any real world evidence to support those numbers. What I observe instead is decreasing demand for blue- collar workers in all but the notoriously low-paying service sector, and decreasing real-dollar wages and benefits for most blue-collar jobs — a trend that is now starting to creep into low-to-middle white-collar jobs as well. Again, I realize that Lou Dobbs and I and lots of other observers are slothfully unmoved by your mountains of statistics.
But perhaps I have faulty perception; I’ll check again with all my friends and family members who have been outsourced and downsized and see if they can correct my thinking by explaining how their lives are suddenly take a turn for the better and how the job-recruiters are constantly calling to acquaint them with the wonderful opportunities you describe.
Problem is, it’s hard to get a hold of them since they are now working two and a half 31-hour-a-week jobs with no benefits just to try and maintain some semblance of the lifestyle they enjoyed back in the bad old days before Bush. Yes, I know this started long before him — in fact, it started with his hero, Ronnie Reagan, the welder’s best friend.
On the other hand, maybe you should get out of the office more often, Michael.
Tam O’Tellico - December 27, 2005 @ 9:28 am
Okay, I was wrong — talk of impeachment is not slightly premature, at least according to the “liberal media” as exemplified by Barron’s. Michael, I suggest you read this and understand that it isn’t just us left-wing pinko commie fags who think W has gone way over the line. In fact there are a large and growing number of people on both ends of the political spectrum who understand that Bush wasn’t joing when he said “the Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper” and that his word is the law because he is commander-in-chief. It may well be that impeachment be based not on “high crimes and misdemeanors” but on “non compos mentis”. Inother words, Bush is out of his fucking mind.
Unwarranted Executive Power
The pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make up new laws
By THOMAS G. DONLAN
As the year ws drawing to a close, we picked up our New York Times and learned that the Bush administration has been fighting terrorism by intercepting communications in America without warrants. It was worrisome on its face, but in justifying their actions, officials have made a bad situation much worse: Administration lawyers and the president himself have tortured the Constitution and extracted a suspension of the separation of powers.
It was not a shock to learn that shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to conduct intercepts of international phone calls to and from the United States. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the government to gather the foreign communications of people in the U.S. — without a warrant if quick action is important. But the law requires that, within 72 hours, investigators must go to a special secret court for a retroactive warrant.
The USA Patriot Act permits some exceptions to its general rules about warrants for wiretaps and searches, including a 15-day exception for searches in time of war. And there may be a controlling legal authority in the Sept. 14, 2001, congressional resolution that authorized the president to go after terrorists and use all necessary and appropriate force. It was not a declaration of war in a constitutional sense, but it may have been close enough for government work.
Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn’t last four years.
In that time, Congress has extensively debated the rules on wiretaps and other forms of domestic surveillance. Administration officials have spent many hours before many committees urging lawmakers to provide them with great latitude. Congress acted, and the president signed.
Now the president and his lawyers are claiming that they have greater latitude. They say that neither the USA Patriot Act nor the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually sets the real boundary. The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him.
“We also believe the president has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as commander-in-chief, to engage in this kind of activity,” said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Department of Justice made a similar assertion as far back as 2002, saying in a legal brief: “The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that Constitutional authority.” Gonzales last week declined to declassify relevant legal reviews made by the Department of Justice.
Perhaps they were researched in a Star Chamber? Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.
Surely the “strict constructionists” on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There’s not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.
Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.
It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.
Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was “unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities.” But the senator was so respectful of the administration’s injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 — make his misgivings public and demand more information.
Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: “It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”
Wrong. If we don’t discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy — in the mirror.
Michael Herdegen - December 27, 2005 @ 11:50 pm
[Y]our faulty argument is at the heart of the divide between real educators and politicians. […] The former see education as a skill-set essential to lifelong learning, while you and the latter seem to think it is job-training.
“Education” is merely memorizing facts.
If what you mean is that an elite lifelong skill is learning how to apply education in contexts other than the one in which the facts were learned, you are correct, but you seem to believe that anyone can learn to do so.
THAT is incorrect. The vast majority of people are unable to, or have no interest in attempting to, synthesize knowledge. There are even people with advanced degrees who are that way.
The “three Rs” are the very basic skill sets necessary for full participation in American society, and for most people, any education beyond that IS more or less job training, or else simply a waste of time.
Even for most people attending college, it’s all in the service of getting a good job, not out of any joy in learning or quest to discover the previously unknown.
If none of that is reality, then why does the average American watch four hours of television a day, when they could be reading an astronomy textbook ?
As I said before, modern automobiles are simply to complex for most ‘backyard’ mechanics, and you know that as well as I do.
Apparently I know that BETTER than you do, because you seem to think that working on an automobile is the equivalent of doing your own C++ programming.
It’s not.
Backyard mechanics can easily do all kinds of maintenance work, like your aforementioned brake job, as well as replacing things like water pumps and alternators. Those types of work comprise the majority of all automotive repair work done by paid pros, by the way.
Why else do you think that do-it-yourself auto parts chains like Checker and Pep Boys have gotten so big ?
There are many systems that the backyard mechanic ought not fiddle with, but repairs on those are only a small part of typical automotive work.
Furthermore, only a small percentage of students take advanced geometry and calculus. […] These courses […] have been considered essential by educators for centuries because they teach a certain kind of mental discipline essential to higher learning.
Doesn’t that directly contradict your assertion that “real educators” strive to teach “education as a skill-set essential to lifelong learning” ?
Here we have subjects which “teach a certain kind of mental discipline essential to higher learning”, and yet only a small percentage of students take them.
What about the overwhelming majority of students ?
Are they just receiving an education tailored to “job training”, as promoted by dullards like myself and “the brilliant minds in Congress” ?
Or maybe the vast majority of people are either incapable of, or uninterested in, learning much that requires more than rote memorization.
[Y]ou believe art, music and drama are the real waste of resources. […] Real experts disagree, but hey, what do they know?
Yes, what DO they know ?
Anyone who believes that money is better spent on drama club, rather than teaching auto repair, is surely a fool. Newsflash, all it takes to put on a play, or concert, is a venue and some like-minded people. Essential funding requirements are rather small.
Art, (which includes music and drama), is essential to a full life, but as a school funded activity, should be a LOW priority.
People do it on their own anyhow, which is rarely the case with learning to read or do math.
Spending on art should definitely come before spending on landscaping and other nonessentials.
And if Congress really were serious about education and wanted to help America compete in the 21st Century, it would legislate the death of our archaic inch/pound system and put us on the metric standard…
How, exactly, would adopting the metric standard help America compete in the 21st century ?
Further, the phrasing of that sentence might lead one to wonder if the author doesn’t realize that America is the standard by which other societies measure themselves, and will continue in that role for the rest of the 21st century.
In fact, nothing is more a stumbling block to read educational reform than that ass-backwards attitude about progress.
Again, how, exactly, is adopting the metric system “progress” ?
It’s just a re-labeling, the kind of empty action that substitutes for real motion.
If using the metric system conferred any real advantage, we’d have begun using it in the 19th century.
As for the rosy future for welders you predict, I would love to believe the statistics, but…
It’s a fundamental human error to suppose that everyone is more or less like oneself, and that whatever happens to oneself must happen or be happening to everyone – but it just ain’t true.
Here we have you rejecting the conclusions of an organization that collects data nationwide, because it doesn’t square with the experiences of your social circle.
You champion educating the kiddies in abstract concepts, instead of practical applications, yet you yourself don’t trust anything that you haven’t experienced, or can lay your hands upon.
How do you trust scientists, for example ?
You’ve never sequenced a genome, nor analyzed fragments from an archeological dig.
Maybe they’re just making stuff up, like the Department of Labor.
Okay, I was wrong — talk of impeachment is not slightly premature…
Ho-hum.
You may be right, but we’ll have to wait and see.
I’ll give you excellent odds, should you wish to wager that Bush will be impeached or otherwise removed from office in ’06 or ’07.
Say, 3 – 1 ?
lonbud - December 28, 2005 @ 1:13 am
I love it when Michael makes like a gunslinger. Fair odds, too, by my estimate.
Not so sure about that rest of the 21st Century call, though.
Michael Herdegen - December 28, 2005 @ 3:18 am
Speaking only from a military and economic perspective.
Some other nation’s culture may replace America’s as “most emulated”, although if we’re the world’s dominant eco-military power, that’s not likely, just possible.
Let us consider who might replace the U.S. as the world’s largest economy:
Japan is currently the world’s second-largest economy, but their demographic problems are going to lead to economic decline, not growth, through 2050.
The Eurozone’s economy is currently roughly the size of the American economy, but they have exactly the same demographic problem as does Japan, and they also have an immigrant problem, as the French riots so aptly demonstrated.
That problem will get much worse, before it gets better.
So, they’re out of the running until mid-century as well.
Russia is currently losing population to the tune of one million people a year, and their AIDS crisis is EXPLODING. It’s guaranteed that over one million people, mostly young people in their prime working years, will die in Russia of AIDS over the next decade, and that’s the BEST-case scenario.
Worst-case is maybe three million deaths over the next decade.
China is growing rapidly, but from a minuscule base, and essentially only Coastal China is growing – the vast interior is not much better off.
With a rapidly growing disparity between the rich (or at least well-off) coastal Chinese and their poverty-stricken rural comrades, and a totalitarian, nominally-Communist central government that can’t even pay for the education of all of China’s youth, much less for the retirement of the Chinese Baby Boom generation, it’s very likely that China will have a civil war, rather than continue their rapid expansion.
It’s not impossible that the nations of South America will form some kind of allience, and have rapid economic growth, but it’s in the neighborhood of impossible, and the region’s largest economy, Brazil, isn’t startling anyone with their decisions and growth rates.
That leaves India.
India has the same demographic problems that the U.S. does, which is to say a mild problem, much less worse than that of China, Japan, or Europe.
India’s infrastructure is much less well developed than that of America.
India’s court system is immature, compared to North America’s or Europe’s.
However, they are graduating engineers like crazy, and their population is the world’s second-largest, so they have innovators and an educated, very large labor force.
Still, the U.S. is much farther ahead in automation, computerization, data storage and transfer, and nanotechnology, all of which will cause the American labor force to continue to have growing and unparalleled efficiency and productivity.
And, the rise of India’s consumers, one billion strong, will provide tremendous opportunities for American companies, as well as Indian, and in fact for every company around the globe that exports goods or services for consumer markets.
Therefore, I expect the American economy to still be the world’s largest in 2100, although #s 2 & 3 will probably be India and ?, instead of Japan and Germany.
There may be more nations and blocs with per-capita economic activity near to America’s, in 2100, which will be good for everyone.
Analysis of military superiority to follow at some future time, but it hinges on the fact that the societies that are currently capable of matching the technological prowess of future American battle-bots, flying drones, and combat exoskeletons are largely uninterested in spending money on defense, and the nations that ARE willing to spend money on arms, or who dream of military conquest, are largely unable to design or produce anything remotely capable of matching future American military tech.
BTW, lonbud, One has a far lower expectation of privacy walking around in public than when initiating or receiving any specific communication.
Why would information routed over the internet, a public network, have any greater expectation of privacy than a person walking down the street, and entering a specific building ?
Even private citizens are allowed to monitor the latter activity, no authority needed.
Tam O’Tellico - December 28, 2005 @ 8:34 am
Well, Michael, you have made me finally see the light — not about my views, but about yours.
You are an elitist snob with a very short memory, of the same cloth as Clarence Thomas, another “giant” of a “self-made” man who took advantage of every benefit the system offered, and then wanted to close the door behind him. Tell me were you home-schooled by geniuses, or were you a product of some expensive prep school?
If not, then you were a product of the same educational system you now dismiss with such disdain. Ironic, don’t you think? But I guess maybe you are just extra special.
Yes, only you and a very few other “special” conservative persons on this planet are capable of abstract thought, so we shouldn’t waste any more time or resources trying to teach us dullards anything beyond brake repair and welding. God forbid we should raise expectations or aspirations — won’t do if we want to create the next generation of fry cooks, scullery maids, garbage collectors and cannon fodder. God knows if we teach them to think for themselves, they might begin to question their Christo-Facist religion and leaders. And it’s for damn sure, they’ll never vote Republican.
Your attitude about ordinary people and education is like that of other Conservative elitists who realize the only hope you have of remaining in power is to keep the “natives” dumb, blind and begging. But that attitude is exactly why the Republican Party is doomed to remain the party of small-minded, sneering elitists who believe they are “to the manor born”.
Well, if you succeed in keeping the masses ignorant. remember my warning about inciting the mob. You never know when it will turn on you.