Another List
Things I ThoughtAbout Telling MyHusband I Was ThinkingAbout When He AskedWhat I Was ThinkingAbout While I WasActually ThinkingAbout Having Babies.
BY MEG FREEBERN
- - - -
Nothing
Cabbages
How to derive the Pythagorean theorem
See more lists here.
posted by Ronaldo at 7:09 AM
6 Comments:
"War is the means by which Americans learn geography."
-- Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
"Blogs are the way the world now learns about geography."
-- Samarra Semanczyk (1984-)
Ah, Mr Clark, that's one of my favorites! Have you seen the one called "What I Actually Mean When I Say I Love You Thirty Times"? Very very funny.
this is a new article about that stuff we were all talking about at dinner.
"AFTER 9/11
Fear destroys what bin Laden could not
ROBERT STEINBACK
rsteinback@MiamiHerald.com
One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.
If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.
Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.
If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.
If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.
That's no America I know, I would have argued. We're too strong, and we've been through too much, to be led down such a twisted path.
What is there to say now?
All of these things have happened. And yet a large portion of this country appears more concerned that saying ''Happy Holidays'' could be a disguised attack on Christianity.
I evidently have a lot poorer insight regarding America's character than I once believed, because I would have expected such actions to provoke -- speaking metaphorically now -- mobs with pitchforks and torches at the White House gate. I would have expected proud defiance of anyone who would suggest that a mere terrorist threat could send this country into spasms of despair and fright so profound that we'd follow a leader who considers the law a nuisance and perfidy a privilege.
Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''
President Bush recently confirmed that he has authorized wiretaps against U.S. citizens on at least 30 occasions and said he'll continue doing it. His justification? He, as president -- or is that king? -- has a right to disregard any law, constitutional tenet or congressional mandate to protect the American people.
Is that America's highest goal -- preventing another terrorist attack? Are there no principles of law and liberty more important than this? Who would have remembered Patrick Henry had he written, ``What's wrong with giving up a little liberty if it protects me from death?''
Bush would have us excuse his administration's excesses in deference to the ''war on terror'' -- a war, it should be pointed out, that can never end. Terrorism is a tactic, an eventuality, not an opposition army or rogue nation. If we caught every person guilty of a terrorist act, we still wouldn't know where tomorrow's first-time terrorist will strike. Fighting terrorism is a bit like fighting infection -- even when it's beaten, you must continue the fight or it will strike again.
Are we agreeing, then, to give the king unfettered privilege to defy the law forever? It's time for every member of Congress to weigh in: Do they believe the president is above the law, or bound by it?
Bush stokes our fears, implying that the only alternative to doing things his extralegal way is to sit by fitfully waiting for terrorists to harm us. We are neither weak nor helpless. A proud, confident republic can hunt down its enemies without trampling legitimate human and constitutional rights.
Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built. Bush clearly doesn't understand or respect that. Do we?"
Cool but crazy post man. I can go with you until you take the discussion here: "...and yet to insist on a perfectly literal interpretation of the letter of the law is to invite totalitarianism" When totalitarianism is defined as: "A centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life." I have a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with you there. Then later, "I don't see how the war on terror will ever end, but do we just decide not to fight it then?" This statement does not add clarity, but sounds like a "straw man argument" or maybe more like a “false dilemma.”
And then that bit about FDR, it sounds like you want to say this current thing with Bush is all-good b/c there is a precedent for it in FDR. Maybe I am reading it wrong; maybe you are just working it out on paper. Clearly the fact that something has happened before is not evidence that is it moral/reasonable/justified.
“ ‘Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.’ That's a nice thought, and one I wholeheartedly agree with, but it keeps a safe (and therefore ineffective) distance from the line we need to draw.” I disagree, what the original writer states IS THE LINE that needs to be drawn. It is a line that is drawn from a perspective that says we are compromising too much, and giving away too much in terms of civil rights.
I think the original article got it just right.
The bottom line is the “main point” and the main point is our values, the values this country were based upon (protection of liberty). ‘Ultimately, our best defense against attack -- any attack, of any sort -- is holding fast and fearlessly to the ideals upon which this nation was built.’ The issue is that to compromise our identity/values/law in order to preserve values/identity/law we undermine everything we say we stand for. The ideals are not a lofty ambiguous cloud of happy-feel-goodness. They are laid down quite clearly in the constitution. “‘We have to resolve the issue (NSA wiretaps) to show Americans we are nation of law not outcomes,’ Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.” And again from the same article: "We believe that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation," http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/
The plan of action is to ensure that all Americans (including our elected leaders) adhere to the same law and maintain the system of checks and balances. The controversy with our current events is: “While the NSA is barred from domestic spying, it can get warrants issued with the permission of a special judicial body called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court. Bush's action eliminated the need to get a warrant from the court.” (CNN). We will have to see (post investigation), but that sounds pretty much like law breaking.
Bush can think whatever he wants to think about this or that being a threat. His job is to follow the law in assessing and minimizing that threat. To go above the law (especially when there are systems in place to handle it) is not right.
Overall, I agree that the total literal interpretation of Constitutional Law is going to become inorganic and cruel. That is why we have a whole branch of human beings that do that interpreting. I have always thought of the constitution as the bones and deep musculature that animate the body of our government. The constitution gives it the structure and disposition. But the finer shapes, all the gaps between the bones and muscles, the skin the hair, the tone, etc. that stuff is all the interpretation and “intention” that is implied and rooted in the deeper structural elements. That said, I don’t believe that the literal vs. “other” interpretation is the issue here (even though it is fun to think about).
Some cool stuff I found on the interweb:
“Any theory of constitutional theory that completely ignores consequences and focuses exclusively on text or original intentions is wrong.
Any theory of constitutional interpretation that completely ignores either text or original intentions and focuses primarily on consequences is wrong.
Certain times and places are better suited to one theory of constitutional interpretation than are other times and places.
The Court should include justices with different approaches to constitutional interpretation. A Court without dissenters is a Court that will not adequately inform us of the costs of choosing the path taken.” http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/interp.html
I don’t think the Constitution lays down our shared ideals “quite clearly”. The “protection of liberty” is not a dead-fast ideal. What is “unreasonable search?” Seems pretty open to interpretation to me. There may not be a clear consensus on what the “values that this country was based upon” are. In fact, I’m glad that the shared ideals aren’t too specific, because my ideals might differ substantially from those founding fathers.
To bring it full-circle a bit, I think people are generally guilty of assuming that both the Constitution and the Bible contain more precision than they actually do. Doesn’t the Constitution say something about “freedom of expression”? No. And surely the bible talks about abortion. No. And homosexuality? Not as clearly as you might think.
I’m no expert myself, and haven’t read either text in its entirety, but I think it’s important to view these two enduring texts as living and flexible. The real substance of them is based on centuries of interpretation in the form of judicial decisions, legislation, community norms, theological discussions, and comparisons.
None of this is meant to support Bush’s actions, which seem to violate the constitution to me. But you can be sure that he believes that he was within the constitutional rights of the executive. So, the debate is not whether we should allow him to discard the constitution in pursuit of his transparent monarchical aims, but whether we should allow his interpretation to propagate. Bigger leaps in interpretation have become foundational aspects of our government. Check out the commerce clause.
Post a Comment
<< Home