5 posts tagged “politics”

I've allowed myself to get too busy to blog very much for weeks now.  And I've kept my mind away from politics for even longer (for the most part).  Ok, that is not really completely true - it is something that I think about.  But I've been far too depressed in the period immediately following the mid-term elections to put too much effort into it.  Always the optimist (at least underneath), I had thought that we might see some changes after the current administration had an opportunity to learn through the elections.

No such luck.  So rather than get too depressed about it, I just stopped spending very much energy on it all. 

It will be a long time down the road before I have any idea on who I would support to be the nation's next chief executive.  I have no idea if that will be Ms. Clinton.  But in the meantime, I at least got to read something intelligent recently from a politician:

" 'I know how difficult the last six years have been, particularly because of this president’s foreign policy, his preemptive war in Iraq, his management of the war and his stubborn refusal to change course,” she said. “We have to get the balance right between defending our country and deterring those who wish us ill, as they still do, and ending the alienation toward us in the rest of the world.' " (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?em&ex=1170219600&en=cc8bfcb00fca2c3f&ei=5087%0A)

Earlier in that same article , I laughed at the following:

" 'When you’re attacked, you have to deck your opponents,” Mrs. Clinton said to some laughter and applause. “You can count on me to stand my ground and fight back.' "  Somehow, I suspect that regardless of where we find ourselves in two years, I'll be entertained along the way.  Though I'll probably be doing more crying at the ridiculous assault on American civil liberty until the time comes when we have the opportunity to elect someone who will defend something so precious.

That's what national politics makes me feel like. 

Examples of crying or wanting to cry:  I probably don't have time to list them all.  Let's see.  One of most recent would be that we have legislative representatives that actually thought the Military Commissions bill was a good thing.  Well, I think having to be re-elected is a good thing.

Examples of wanting to laugh, or laugh because its better than crying:  Listening to comedians and outspoken media critics discuss the types of things (like the above) that could make me cry.

And I can relate to what Vox Noxi said in her recent post "Your words are lies, sir" , people like Keith Olbermann inspire me to maintain a little faith.  People like Steven Colbert in the Colbert Report make me laugh too.

Some Thoughts on "The Smart Politics of the Detainee Vote" (article by MSNC National Affairs write, 09/28/06 19:56PST - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15049251/)  as well as "Senate passes bill on terror detainee trials" from the Associated Press around the same time - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/)

Both the House and the Senate have passed legislation (on Wed. and today, respectively) supporting our current President's continued infringement on the civil liberty of Americans.  And it wasn't just loyal, if too lazy to think, Republican legislators who voted yes.  Among them was Sherrod Brown of Ohio who is reported as stating that detainees "are not soldiers, not combatants representing a government, these are terrorists." 

Oh that's convenient.  That's sounds a dangerously close to saying "I'll decide who is a person and who is something else." (This actually reminds me of a somewhat recent measure passed by the voters in Utah usurping the right of criminals to vote, but that's a different issue for now).  The beauty of the rule of law is it ensures, among other things, a consistency of thought and process that safeguards against the danger of political expediency.  When one starts recreating basic definitions (such as those about people) "on the fly" to meet a particular agenda or situation, it becomes contradictory to assert one's self as a defender of the rule of law.  And when a group of people get to start defining who gets to keep their civil liberties and who doesn't.......well, watch out!!  And you'd better hope you make it into the "right" group.

Many would probably hear or read Brown's statement and not bat an eyelash because no one wants to sound like they support terrorists.  And that's exactly the rhetoric that we reportedly hear from the Republican camp.  Not everyone is fooled, though.  Some of us know that we can disagree with political actions in the last few years without supporting terrorism. 

Americans, let's at least be honest in our political discussions.  The point isn't what liberal minds think about terrorism.  The point is what we think about civil liberty.  At least a few Democrats, including the honorable Senator Feinstein from California, have pointed out that the issue with the President's bill regarding detainees relates to the rule of law.  And a little thing called the Bill of Rights, perhaps you've heard of it?  We all want to see terrorism end.  But we don't want to see grave mistakes made along the way. 

Brown's comment is also rather odd in regards to detainees not being soldiers.  I'm sorry.  I could have sworn I've heard things about a war in Iraq and a War on Terror.  Aren't the people fighting in a war typically called soldiers?  Perhaps a grade school level vocabulary is a luxury these days for legislators. 

And that is all really just an ironic side note, given that the definition of whether a terrorist is a soldier has nothing to do with how the severe mistake being made with this recent legislation.  Oh, its really easy to talk about all of this when detainees really are terrorists.  But what are you going to think when your next door neighbour is the next one rounded up?  Should they really be detaineed without the basics liberties granted in the Bill of Rights?

The powers given to the President to exercise judgement are far too great (we should not be comfortable even when the leader in question has a reputation for good judgement) and the powers to those accused far too little.  The legislation also redefines what can be considered evidence - "hearsay" being one of them. 

Finally, one should be questioning the timing of the legislation.  So this is the way that past violations of law will be condoned?  By conveniently altering the law?  Perhaps we should do away with the rule of law entirely, after all, it takes so much time to be consistent.

This is yet another say day for all of us. 

I decided it was time to re-read One-Dimensional Man by Herbert Marcuse since it has been awhile since my last read.  It struck me as timely given that we (Americans, in general) seem to find ourselves in a socio-political climate in need of stepping outside the box for two seconds to think about what it even means to be American.

Now I can honestly say "I'm a card carrying member", and I can't believe how happy I am about that.

There's nothing like having personal and civil liberty assaulted to spur one to action.  Why it took me so many years, I really don't know.

I blame it on having studied too much political theory, and a few other things.  The more I learned of political theory, the less I seemed to be interested in actual politics.  Then again, they may not be related at all - it could just be the place where I live. 

But a recent conversation with a colleague, in which I was having decribed to me the rather "oxmymoronic" free speech zones (there is nothing free about them), was the straw that broke the camel's back.  I finally wanted to say that I care about losing my civil liberty (oops, too late, we've already lost a great deal), and joining the ACLU was my way of saying it. 

So I did a little skip when the card arrived in the mail.  I don't know why I was so excited, but I did a little skip anyway.