Someone forgot to get a power bar.
If some NSA guy has had to listen to my mother in law tell my wife about the latest developments with her gall bladder, I'd have to say that I think he's suffered enough: I'd be ok with immunity from prosecution. I'm not willing to agree to give up my claims for civil money damages under FISA though.
In Soviet Russia, everything lies about President Bush.
In order to balance out the detentions of all the brown people for crimes they may hypothetically commit, we have to absolve, in retrospect, large corporations for crimes that we now approve of. It's equal and opposite, elegantly Newtonian.
Been away so long I hardly knew the place
Gee, it's good to be back home
Leave it till tomorrow to unpack my case
Honey disconnect the phone
I'm back in the USSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the US
Back in the US
Back in the USSR
At the risk of being humorless, not yet, though we're getting closer. Doublespeak and consolidation of power have not yet reached the point where the instruments of state authority are used to eliminate political opponents who are then denounced as enemies of freedom. Z magazine's editorial offices aren't even subjected to biweekly fire safety inspections. The trajectory of public/private collusion is disturbing though, even more so the complete apathy by voters in the face of a rapid erosion in civil rights. Was this even in the newspapers?
To continue in the humorless vein, those particular bad things aren't happening because there's really no need for them. All the illegal wiretapping just became legal, and barely a peep from anyone. If the state has enemies, they're aren't very dangerous.
7: Exactly, why "inspect" the offices of Z magazine? Who the heck reads it?
7: You're making a series of assumptions, not the least of which is that there is a permanent state--that is, a set of people who form the permanent government. I think that there is more merit to that than I'd like to admit, but much less than is necessary for Soviet Russia. A few more Republican Administrations, and who knows?
Oh, I read it when I get a chance, but I know that if I were to ask around work and downtown, most wouldn't have heard of it. Which is a shame, because it's generally worth reading.
The point is, for most people, it's invisible. (waving hands about how large "most" is)
Timothybot, it's not about who's in power, but what the people are willing to let them do. Answer so far: just about anything.
13: That's a sort of grotesque description of the Soviet Union, no? We don't actually think that the citizens had much choice about policy, do we?
I'm sympathetic to your worry about what we're willing to allow the govt. to do. But our ability to change the various members of the government allows for the real possibility of (a) change, and (b) the protection of those things we hold most dear most of the time. We just have to decide what those things are and who we can pull in to get it. Not nothing, but not impossible.
(I wouldn't be nearly this hopeful if (a) we hadn't won in '06, (b) I didn't assume we'll hold both Houses in '08, (c) I didn't assume we'll win the Presidency, and (d) I didn't still think there is a reasonable chance that HRC won't get the nomination. So check back in eight months and I may be much gloomier than you.)
I'm confident that the "conservatives" will rediscover their distrust of state power in an HRC administration. I may live in a bubble, but I don't perceive the general attitude to be ignorance or apathy, as much as jwhen they came to get the communists, I wasn't a communist, so I didn't care.' I don't agree with the sentiment, but if one has correctly calibrated the intention of the leaders, it's not irrational. The question is whether people can be brought to care about people other than themselves. HRC in power will be singularly effective.
Maybe it's harder for someone who was an adult in the 1978-1982 period to get disillusioned.
I suppose the 1968-1974 period was an even better inoculation, but I don't think we have many people here who were adults then.
"Alleged to have protected our Nation" is so ridiculous that I just don't know what to say. It's like, the best defense against an accusation of Orwellian doublespeak is to just go past Orwell.
The Bush administration makes me so furious I can hardly speak.
Maybe it's harder for someone who was an adult in the 1978-1982 period to get disillusioned.
It depends on what we're disillusioned about, I think. The back and forth with SCMT is making clear to me that most people are worried about what the government has done/might do, but I'm disillusioned with what the citizenry will allow. It's a given that people in power will want more power, and that's true just about no matter how conscientious and benevolent they are. But I thought, naively, as it turns out, that there was something to the rhetoric of Americans being a freedom-loving people. Maybe at one time they were, but not anymore. That's what makes me sad. I don't care primarily about this or that bill or abridgment, but about the realization that other people's sense of the proper limits of government power are so different from mine. It's like being married for ten years and then finding out that your spouse is a Yankees fan.
. I'm disillusioned with what the citizenry will allow.
I went through that in '04, over Padilla and the election. I think it radically changed the way I see us. I'm a bit inoculated to at least surprise over these sorts of things.
I didn't still think there is a reasonable chance that HRC won't get the nomination
You really do believe in unicorns, don't you. Seriously, HRC don't get the nomination, we don't bomb Iraq, the terrists don't bomb us, I think we might have a shot at a decent president come January '09.
You will note the string of "if"s and probabilities.
First of all, ogged, stop being so damn sweet about all of this. I feel like buying you a candy bar and wrapping you with a blanky. My position has thus become uncomfortable. So cut it out. That said, this particular formulation is familiar to those of us "in the know". Astute readers of the comment section will recall that a gentleman with inside information tipped us off to this very abomination of language. But we were blind (and stupid), and so we laughed. Some of us still think it's funny.
I'm with Ogged about the disillusionment about the people of America, too. I mean, it's been an article of faith for me that power corrupts and that somewhere in our government, bad people were doing bad things for bad reasons, but the degree to which the people have embraced bad people brazenly admitting to doing bad things for bad reasons is really disheartening.
No question it's disheartening, but I lost my faith in "The American People" long ago. I know it sounds weird, but it turns out they're mostly worried about money and sex. Abstract political concepts don't draw the crowds that they used to.
But I thought, naively, as it turns out, that there was something to the rhetoric of Americans being a freedom-loving people. Maybe at one time they were, but not anymore.
They do care about the rhetoric. They just don't think much about what it means. And it was ever thus. The rhetoric isn't nothing--eventually, once it becomes clear that the abuses du jour aren't actually serving their interests--the American people will get around to being pissed off about them. Meanwhile the Padillas of the world get screwed, as the Korematsus and the Debses did, and so forth back through the generations.
What has the Debses got in its pocketses?
I think 24 is right. Ogged, when was this Golden Age of freedom-loving in America?
Has Bush or anyone else in the administration offered anything in the way of a reason why these so-called alleged assistors of our Nation should be given anything at all in the way of immunity or liability protection? Seriously, any justification at all?
And why is "Nation" capitalized? It's like that in the original transcript too.
"Anything" is the magic word of the day, and I intend to use it at least once in anything I say or write about anything.
I feel like buying you a candy bar and wrapping you with a blanky.
I want that candy bar if Ogged doesn't.
My own disillusion was along the lines of #19. I wasn't unaware of past crimes and atrocities committed in the name of American ideals, so I suppose I was naive to think so, but pre-'04 I did think there were some things Americans just wouldn't tolerate. Since then, nothing this administration does surprises me and to be honest, my capacity for outrage is absolutely exhausted. Right now, I'd really just like to curl up with foolishmortal's blanky. I'm aware that it's exactly this attitude that's put us in our present situation.
And why is "Nation" capitalized?
Why do you hate America?
Ogged, when was this Golden Age of freedom-loving in America?
Not so long ago. The Church Commission was thirty years ago, right? People were outraged that Americans were being spied on. There were congressional hearings! Laws were passed! The good old days.
Other responses percolating: 1) Why does it matter? Every generation is entitled to its own disillusionment. 2) If there's another attack, we'll be longing for the happy days of 2007.
3) why do you care if they listen to your phone calls? You're not the one they're interested in.
(may not apply to ogged, Emerson, McManus, alameida, or me)
Why do you hate America?
You've got it all wrong. I'm alleged to have loved America.
Anyone who expects HRC to dismantle the spying programs hasn't been paying attention.
You've got it all wrong. I'm alleged to have loved America.
This made me laugh.
Hmm. Not that anyone seems to have said that. It's early, sorry.
I'm starting to think all that "osama osama osama/operation destroy cleveland is a go" stuff might have been ill advised. and that cryptic conversation about 'breaking the fast' with 'iraqi dates' during hari raya last year too. it seemed funny at the time. I promise to liveblog gitmo if I can get on an open wireless network.
I predict this monstrosity, too, will pass. It'll be too hard for the spineless fuckers who allowed the initial fourth amendment fucking to take place to not allow these criminal fuckers to get away with the practice they just condoned. They can bleat about the fucking Rule Of Law all they want, but it's plain that the Democrat leadership doesn't actually care about the rule of law, or else they wouldn't have given this authority to a criminal attorney general who should've been impeached months ago.
Fun exercise: when, during the last six and a half years, has the filibuster actually been successfully used to help our side?
"Alleged to have protected our Nation" is, in its own way, beautiful. It is the best piece of propaganda I have ever read. Look at the dual function it performs:
1. It treats the presidents opponents as though they believe "protecting our Nation" is inherently a crime.
2. It implicitly argues that the only way to "protect our Nation," in the administration's view, is to commit acts that under "normal" circumstances would be considered crimes.
The economy and elegance of this turn of phrase is breathtaking -- it attacks political opponents by agreeing with them. It advances the genre of propaganda considerably.
39: Why is there a Soviet monument to the Jawa sand crawler from Star Wars?
it's not about who's in power, but what the people are willing to let them do. Answer so far: just about anything.
I'm sure that they all think they're doing the right thing, Ogged.
it's not about who's in power, but what the people are willing to let them do. Answer so far: just about anything.
I'm sure that they all think they're doing the right thing, Ogged.
Fucking unreliable purloined wireless connection.
41: The East Germans had to disguise their great love for this western movie in a memorial to the Soviets. They made it look like a sand crawler because a death star would have been too obvious.