|
16 Apr 04 - 03:32 PM (#1163418) Subject: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Chief Chaos As read in yesterdays news. A group has just received non-profit status to create, maintain and run The Anti-Clinton Memorial Library which they hope to find a home for in Little Rock Arkansas. As if we need to be reminded that some folks spent eight years and over 47 million dollars all to prove that Clinton committed a "marital indiscretion" (to be polite)while in the Whitehouse. What a boon to the wealthy Clinton hater. Make a tax deductable donation to our library. Not only do you get a tax dodge but we'll have guest quarters in which you can bask in the glory of it all. |
|
16 Apr 04 - 03:54 PM (#1163435) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Big Mick This absolutely underscores and puts an exclamation point on what is wrong with the self righteous conservative movement in this country. Does the adage about a speck in the eye of others while you have a tree in yours come to mind? Great, it wasn't bad enough that we spent millions of dollars in a partisan witch hunt, but now we are going to lose more so the Conservative Republican machine can have tax exempt status to spew their hate filled crap garbed in a cloak of self righteousness? If the left had started an anti Nixon library in California and attained tax exempt status, can you imagine the howls of indignation? And this man's action attacked the very nature of the Presidency. I can't even imagine DougR thinking this is healthy, correct, or a good use of tax incentives. Mick who is absolutely disgusted. |
|
16 Apr 04 - 06:55 PM (#1163543) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Amos Disgusting, if true. How sour-minded can humans get? A |
|
16 Apr 04 - 07:19 PM (#1163555) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Gareth Still - Look on the Bright Side ! It concentrates the targets ! Come the openng ceremony, well, a couple of hundredweight of ANFO..... ! Gareth |
|
16 Apr 04 - 08:03 PM (#1163585) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: katlaughing Chief Chaos, do you have a link to the recent article? The only "update" I could find was from 2002: clickety. In the meantime, I saw a different link about the "grand opening" of the Clinton Memorial Library. |
|
16 Apr 04 - 08:29 PM (#1163601) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Peace Will it have Cuban cigars? |
|
16 Apr 04 - 08:46 PM (#1163611) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Bobert Bring it on. This would be the greatest shot in the arm to the liberal movement since the 60's. The right wing is gonna keep pokin' until it gets bit... Think JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King here... Yup, they keep it up and they are gonna rile some lefty up so much that a few of them gonna find themselves on the wrong side of assasination plots. No, I'm not threathening anyone. I'm more a voter registartion, door knockin' kind a hillbilly but I've also known a few lefties in my day that are about half nuts and don't like right wingers pushing them around. Jus' an observation but I'd more than welcome such a library. Yup, I'd volunteer my time to lay brick 'er whatever they need me to do to build it. 'Bout time that the left got off its butt and took back America and democracy from Boss Hog... Bobert |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:23 AM (#1164859) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Chief Chaos Sorry, haven't been back to the site since Friday. I can't provide a link. I haven't kept up with it since it seems to be a done deal. I didn't mean for it to come across as a partisan attack on the right. More along the lines of how low can we sink? In the mean time we have also had alot of things renamed in Ronald Reagan's name. It's funny but here in Morgan City Louisiana they finally got around to naming a street after Martin Luther King. I don't recall any citizenry involved in the project. One day it was Eastern Blvd, the next Martin Luther King. Didn't even notice it for a couple of weeks. Wonder if they told the map makers. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:34 AM (#1164866) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Donuel Sounds like the Onion. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 01:19 AM (#1164887) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Stilly River Sage It does sound like the Onion. They can be very convincing. But in a search just now I couldn't find a match. SRS |
|
19 Apr 04 - 08:55 AM (#1165127) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST Doesn't matter if the story is true to those Mudcatters who prefer their brand of "Democrat" reactionary, right leaning centrism to the facts. If it supports their worldview about Bush, the Republicans, truly progressive left politics, or Ralph Nader, it is good enough for them. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 09:43 AM (#1165175) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Rapparee Tell ya what...let's go open an anti-Lincoln library in Springfield, IL and an anti-Reagan Library whereever that is. That'll get 'em stirred up. I saw somethign about this on the AP website last week. Thought it was stupid and ignored it. Still think it's stupid. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 10:38 AM (#1165217) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Peter T. I think this is a great idea, one of the best I have heard in a long time. It is one of the increasingly rare pleasures of dealing with America that Americans still do come up with these assaults on pomposity. With any luck it will destroy the ridiculous concept of presidential libraries, as an anti-proton destroys a proton. There is absolutely no point in these libraries -- if there are any worthwhile papers they are appropriately donateable to government archives, and the rest should be burned. The idea that everything these presidents had to say or scribble is of historic value is part of the compensatory anality that has spread through an increasingly ahistoric society. That Richard Nixon, that master of erasure, has a library is absurd. It is part of the grand inflation of these mediocrities (one is reminded of the sequence of Roman emperor busts that reverse evolution, their heads become more Neanderthal and grotesque as the Empire slides towards oblivion) into statesmen. The Romans built temples to their emperors when they were deified, but at least they didn't disguise these temples by degrading such a wonderful term as "library". A library is a place of learning, not of self-serving propaganda. yours, Peter T. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:00 PM (#1165300) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: M.Ted Abolish the libraries, and burn their contents! Gee PeterT, seems like there was somebody did something like that a few years back, don't remember the name right off-- |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:12 PM (#1165309) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Amos See this page where the Anti-Clinton Library seems to post progreess reports, including being granted non-profit status by the IRS. A |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:22 PM (#1165317) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Big Mick To those smug horses arses that accuse those of us that don't agree with their politics (you listening, GUEST?) of just being reactionary, try this LINK to get to the CNN story. Once again, your desire to be right overcomes your good sense. Seems ironic that a person making the point that truth doesn't matter to those that she doesn't agree with, wouldn't take the time to find out the truth. It was as easy as entering "Clinton Library" in the google search engine. Mick |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:29 PM (#1165323) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Ellenpoly This would be brilliantly funny if it WERE from The Onion, but I've just read the site, and it's the real deal. My my what folks get up to back in the good old US of A. I'm once again reminded of why I'm still hiding out in the UK. Somehow I doubt there will ever exist an anti-Blair library. This country is too busy watching re-runs of The Office (Ricky Gervais just won his third BAFTA) to sink their hard earned pounds towards such imbecility. Sad really, and all just because they're scared that Hillary might some day run for President...xx..e |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:45 PM (#1165341) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST Thing is, most of us, like PeterT, don't consider this "new low in the annals of partisanship" to be a bad thing. Now, trying to get Clinton's asst attorney general, or whatever her title was, off the 9/11 commission because she made Ashcroft look bad, that is partisanship of the nasty sort that truly matters, because it is about something that truly matters. Presidential libraries? Puhleez. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:52 PM (#1165349) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Chief Chaos Guest, Where do you think we should go from here? How 'bout the Anti-Bush Library (lets get it started while he's still in office! Not! I'm of the firm belief that this sort of thing is just plain bad news. Are we going to see the Football Hall of shame where players exploits off the field balance their glory days on it? Or how about the Anti-Anti Clinton Library where we have displays about the members who are donating to the anti-clinton library and their exploits? Unfortunately this would soon be followed by the anti-anti-anti Clinton library, and so on and so on... Until that day the sun sets on an earth covered with anti-anti-anti-anti-everyone libraries. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 01:46 PM (#1165392) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Peter T. Any library is by definition an anti-Bush library because it has books in it. yours, Peter T. P.S. Hey, M.Ted, it is unusual for you not to read posts before you comment on them. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 01:51 PM (#1165398) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Rapparee Originally, way back in the dim distant past, presidential libraries were designed to...(gasp!)...be a place to study the ex-president's papers! Now, it can be argued that we have the National Archives for that, and personally I think that's the correct place. But then there are all of those things -- gifts, photos, bribe receipts and so on. Those little things from before and after the term in office. Reagan's boyhood football. Clinton's cigars. Stuff like that. So the notion that the Presidential Library would take it came about. I don't think that they should be called libraries, but museums. All the Presidential papers -- and anything else associated with the person's term of office and public life -- goes to the National Archives. All the rest can be put in a library, a museum, burnt, sent to a landfill, sold at a garage sale, whatever. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 01:55 PM (#1165401) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: McGrath of Harlow I thought the normal idea was that a collection of papers about a prominent character would be given to some respectable public institution, which existed for other purposes, and that this colletion would be added to over the years, to include any relevant material - favourable or unfavourable. The idea of free-standing institutions solely dedicated to an individual is pretty strange - but the idea that it should be picking the material it contains, in order to present a particular spin on that character (favourable or unfavourable), is just ridiculous and offensive. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 02:00 PM (#1165409) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST Well, for starters, I do hope Clinton goes straight to hell, right along with Bush. As to their libraries? I wish them this: May both their presidential libraries enjoy the same generosity both men showed welfare recipients during their terms as president. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 02:20 PM (#1165431) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Big Mick Once again we run off without doing the research. And our idiotic GUEST uses it to run the usual horseshit rant. The Presidential Libraries ARE A PART OF THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES. Think of them as branches of it. They are put in various cities, usually the hometown or a major town near it, so that local scholars/interested parties can research that President's years. They are not solely complimentary to that person, rather they look at the failings and successes of the President. They provide exhibits, movies, and discussions of the life AND times of that individual. I know these things because we have such an institution in my home town. Rant on about the individuals, that is fine. But the libraries serve an important purpose. And do your homework so your rant will make sense. Mick, who is a bit grumpy today. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 02:29 PM (#1165446) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST "But the libraries serve an important purpose." As tourist attractions and money magnets for the former presidents. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 02:38 PM (#1165461) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: McGrath of Harlow So anything that belongs in the Counter Clinton Library should be in the Clinton Library anyway. Seems fair enough, so long as that is actually seen as how it should be done. "Warts and all", to quote Cromwell. But I can't see the logic of having the material spread around in that way - for example, wouldn't that mean George Bush I as President would be in a different library from George Bush Vice President? And the same for Nixon. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 02:39 PM (#1165462) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST I didn't say anything about national archives in my posts. That was PeterT and Rapaire. So I guess Big Mick actually intended to refer to them as idiots, and their opinions are "horseshit rants". |
|
19 Apr 04 - 02:46 PM (#1165469) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST Bush doesn't need a Bush library or an anti-Bush library (but thanks for that response PeterT!). He already sealed the records from his father's administration, and his own as governor of Texas. I expect once he leaves the White House (that is, if the current occupants have any intention of leaving, if voted out, which isn't really clear to me yet), his final executive order will be to seal his own record as well. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 03:03 PM (#1165479) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Peter T. Big Mick is right, I was an idiot, and ranted. On the other hand, Richard Cox (University of Pittsburgh) in his article on "President Guiliani?" and libraries (on the web) points out that: "FDR's legacy has been the system of Presidential Libraries which function as both archival repositories and museums, and some of which have public policy think tanks associated with them. These libraries are expensive, and their success has been mixed, bringing with them both a kind of pyramidal self-aggrandizement of the Presidents and some excellent benefits in improving access to the Presidential records. But the notion of creating a mammoth edifice for each President seems excessive. And, of more concern, we have had to endure sixty years of political tussles about the ownership of and access to these records." Pyramidal self-aggrandizement is a nice phrase. Temples and pyramids. yours, Peter T. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 04:08 PM (#1165532) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Chief Chaos If they are indeed part of the nat'l Archives (which I did not know! Thanks Big Mick!)then there is no fee to enter or peruse any documents therein, only for copies of documents made, in accordance with FOIA. As Tourist attractions - even Hitler's supposed boyhood home and some cemetaries are tourist attractions - no big deal. As someone painfully aware of archival procedures and knopwing the hell that one has to go through to get documents out of them, I think the idea that these documents will be separated from the normal dross and located in an easily accessed "library" is a good thing. You're right about him sealing his records as governor and he or someone else seems to have already taken care of his "service record". Seems his library or anti-library is going to be pretty scant on the pre-presidential side of things. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 04:09 PM (#1165533) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST,pdc This thread is titled "New Lows in the Annals of Partisanship," so the following item fits right in: it's one of those quiet, underhanded moves that no one notices. In typically sneaky fashion, the Bush cabal is attempting to have the national archivist replaced well prior to his retirement by an archivist who, rather than being politically neutral as is now required, is a Republican supporter. Consider what power that would confer. Below are some snippets from the article, link at bottom. 1. HISTORICAL AND ARCHIVAL COMMUNITIES URGE SENATE HEARING ON ARCHIVIST OF THE U.S. POSITION Concern is growing within the archival and historical communities regarding the Bush administration's hoped for "fast-track" process to replace Archivist of the United States John Carlin with one of its own choosing -- historian Allen Weinstein. According to informed sources, the administration hopes to short-circuit the normal confirmation process and see Weinstein confirmed through an "expedited" process. Their goal: place Weinstein in the position prior to the November election. According to Hill insiders, the effort to replace Carlin is coming from the highest levels of the White House. Reportedly, Karl Rove, widely viewed as one of the president's chief political advisors if not his political mastermind, and Alberto R. Gonzales, Counsel to the President, want their own archivist in place for two overarching reasons: first, because of the sensitive nature of certain presidential and executive department records likely to be opened in the near future, and second, because there is genuine concern in the White House that the president may not be re-elected. Though it is not widely known, in January 2005, the first batch of records (the mandatory 12 years of closure having passed) relating to the president's father's administration will be subject to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and could be opened. Another area of concern to presidential officials relates to the 9-11 Commission records. Because there is no mandatory 30-year closure rule (except for highly classified White House and Executive Department records and documents), all materials relating to the commission are scheduled to be transferred to the National Archives upon termination of the Commission later this year. These records could be made available to researchers and journalists as soon as they are processed by NARA. In what appears to be a calculated move by administration officials, Rove and Gonzales have advanced the nomination of Weinstein fully aware that according to the "National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-497) the Archivist of the United States position is to be an appointment based "without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of the Archivist." If Weinstein is confirmed and if President Bush is not elected, then President Kerry could be accused of "politicizing" the position should he try to replace Weinstein. In fact, though, the president's strategy in seeking to replace Carlin at this time rather than later injects an element of partisanship that could give John Kerry, should he be elected president in November, ample justification to replace Weinstein in the same manner that the White House is seeking to replace Carlin. Carlin has made it widely known that he anticipated stepping down from the Archivist position in July 2005, upon his 65th birthday, upon the tenth anniversary of his appointment to the position, and upon the completion of his ten-year strategic plan for NARA. His intention not to step down until then has been stated in several public interviews including (reportedly), in a recent interview with CNN's Brian Lamb (26 November 2003 broadcast of "National Journal"). Months back, recognizing that Carlin intended to step down next year, archival organizations had begun to pull together qualification statements and a "highly qualified" list of names for the White House to consider in finding Carlin's replacement. What appeared to be an orderly procedure to pass power from Carlin to a new archivist in summer 2005 has now been short-circuited. There are two basic ways for the Archivist of the United States to be replaced -- resignation or replacement by the President. In his letter to NARA employees last week (see "Historian Allen Weinstein Slotted by Bush Administration to be Next Archivist of the United States" in NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol 10, #15 8 April 2004) Carlin stated that he was not resigning and he would not submit his resignation until a new archivist is appointed. There is no indication that the White House has any cause-related reason to replace Carlin and no reason was communicated to Congress when Weinstein's nomination was advanced formally last week. Some observers speculate that by refusing to resign until a new archivist is in place, Carlin is tacitly protesting what Hill insiders consider his "premature" removal. It appears that the White House does not want any adverse publicity that would be generated by officially coming up with a "reason" for communicating to Congress its desire to replace Carlin as required by law ("the President shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress"). Hence, by advancing Weinstein's nomination (which was received by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on 8 April) and by securing Weinstein's confirmation, the White House can then quietly force Carlin's resignation. Owing to the controversy surrounding the anticipated resignation of Carlin, historians and archivists are calling for these and other issues to be addressed in Weinstein's confirmation hearing. To that end, some historical and archival organizations believe that John Carlin should also be invited to testify under oath regarding the pressure he is under and what he knows about his "premature" resignation. Governmental Affairs Committee staff, however, report that such a move would almost be unprecedented in a confirmation hearing. On 14 April 2004, archival, historical, and other governmental watchdog organizations concerned both the politicization of the appointment process and the qualifications of the nominee, issued a "statement" calling for the Senate to conduct a confirmation hearing consistent with other positions of importance requiring Senate confirmation. The statement drafted by the Society of American Archivists and issued on behalf of several archival and historical organizations (see http://www.archivists.org/statements/weinstein.asp ) raises a concern about "the sudden announcement on April 8, 2004, that the White House has nominated Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States." --- There then follows a long article in which Weinstein's ethics in some of his previous works are questioned, his lack of archival experience, and his obvious bias toward the right wing. Details of all this at link below. Political archivist? |
|
19 Apr 04 - 10:27 PM (#1165663) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Big Mick Nope, you got it wrong, GUEST. But what's new? If you read the post you will see that it points directly at you. There was chastisement for those who should have done their research before castigating. But the "idiotic" remark was directly for you. All the best, Mick |
|
20 Apr 04 - 06:35 AM (#1165921) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST "It is one of the increasingly rare pleasures of dealing with America that Americans still do come up with these assaults on pomposity." In Big Mick's case, the pleasure that comes from assaulting his pomposity just isn't all that rare. Doesn't make it any less enjoyable, though. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 11:06 AM (#1166157) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Teribus GUEST - 19 Apr 04 - 12:45 PM "Now, trying to get Clinton's asst attorney general, or whatever her title was, off the 9/11 commission because she made Ashcroft look bad, that is partisanship of the nasty sort that truly matters, because it is about something that truly matters." That anything to do with the lady described in this excerpt from an article in todays "Daily Telegraph" by Mark Steyn: "The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that counter-intelligence was severely hobbled by the so-called "wall" erected between the CIA and FBI. Who put up this "wall", or at any rate extended it several feet higher than previously? Why, former Clinton-era Deputy Attorney-General Jamie Gorelick. Has she testified before the Commission? Well, no, because she's on it. That would seem to be a prima facie conflict of interest. But instead she's huffing indignantly about being a victim of "partisan rancor". "Partisan rancour" is wholly improper unless directed at Bush and Ashcroft." |
|
20 Apr 04 - 11:11 AM (#1166162) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST From today's Washington Post: "Mr. Ashcroft's Smear Tuesday, April 20, 2004; Page A18 IN HIS TESTIMONY last week before the Sept. 11 commission, Attorney General John D. Ashcroft loosed a remarkable attack on Jamie S. Gorelick, a commission member who served as deputy attorney general during part of the Clinton administration. The "single greatest structural cause for the September 11th problem," Ashcroft said, "was the wall that segregated or separated criminal investigators and intelligence agents," and the "basic architecture for the wall . . . was contained in a classified memorandum" from 1995 -- which Mr. Ashcroft had conveniently declassified for the hearing. "Full disclosure," he said, "compels me to inform you that the author of this memorandum is a member of the commission" -- that is, Ms. Gorelick. Mr. Ashcroft's allegations, which triggered criticism and demands for her resignation from prominent Republicans, are grossly unfair. When Ms. Gorelick was named to the commission, critics could have asked whether her Justice Department past should disqualify her from serving on a body that would, among other things, review aspects of her tenure. Yet few raised the concern then; it was understood that the commission would accept a measure of conflict, with Ms. Gorelick and other commissioners, in exchange for expertise. It's a bit late now to suggest that the trade was no good. And blaming her for the "wall" is absurd in any event. The memo by Ms. Gorelick that Mr. Ashcroft branded as the culprit is not even mentioned in the history of impaired information-sharing that Mr. Ashcroft's department gave to the special court that finally lifted the barriers after Sept. 11, 2001. That court described the wall's origin as "sometime in the 1980s -- the exact moment is shrouded in historical mist." A set of procedures promulgated in 1995 codified the policy of keeping intelligence and law enforcement separate and significantly fortified the wall. But as the Justice Department's brief itself acknowledged, prosecutors knew long before those procedures were announced that they were not to direct intelligence activities or to use intelligence surveillance to develop criminal cases. And the Bush administration explicitly maintained the 1995 procedures before the Sept. 11 attacks. The wall was no individual's fault but a product of years of department practice, judicial opinions and supervision of intelligence surveillance by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." |
|
20 Apr 04 - 11:33 AM (#1166186) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Peter T. The single greatest structural problem for Sept 11 was the lack of Arab speakers in the intelligence services over the previous fifteen years, not to mention the obsession of the incoming Republican administration with missile defence, Iraq, and other irrelevancies. This "wall" business is likely the usual bitching of government for the widening of their powers in domestic surveillance. It is not clear to me (maybe someone can explain it) what the nature of the "wall" is in America. Having a "wall" between intelligence services and the police is very, very important in democratic societies. The potential for the "criminalization" of anti-government protest is always a threat. One would have thought that ordinary conspiracy to murder in common law would have been a reasonable reason for the CIA to alert the FBI, had they had such information. yours, Peter T. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 11:35 AM (#1166189) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: Amos Ashcroft sure knows how to dodge and alter, doesn't he? What a vociferous piece of tapdancing! A |
|
20 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM (#1166382) Subject: RE: BS: New Low in the Annals of Partisanship From: GUEST Prior to 9/11 and the Patriot Act, law enforcement and intelligence agencies already had the ability to share a lot of information, they just didn't do it for bureaucratic reasons. Acts of Congress won't change bureaucratic bungling. There was a serious need to update laws due to technology advances, but anyone who thought rushing the Patriot Act through in the wake of 9/11 was sensible law making, probably voted for Bush. It would be wise for us to remember though, that while Bush is busy campaigning for Patriot Act II, there are bigger fish being fried in terms of our threshold democratic rights, besides the blurring of lines between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence. Like racial and ethnic profiling, fair elections, open and publicly accountable government, judicial review of executive action, the right of the accused to a public jury trial, separation of powers among the three branches of government, and the rights to free expression and free association. Threshold rights enable civil society to know what government is doing and to rein in abuses. Think of it this way: temporary restrictions on some forms of privacy enable the government to know what you are doing, which is troubling enough. Threshold rights enable you to know what the government is doing, and that's why they form the core of democratic society. The degree to which a society protects threshold rights speaks to whether it is free and open, and whether self-correction can occur without violence. If the press is free, the electorate has open elections, and the courts are performing their sworn duty, even a president who tries to assume the powers of an emperor can be dealt with. I remain deeply opposed to the Patriot Act. But at this point, I think I'm even more concerned about the erosion of the threshold rights under the last several administrations. The changes made by Bush in the wake of 9/11, when combined with the devastating effects of the 1996 bill passed by Congress (which Kerry supported and voted for) that set aside most limits on how much of America's broadcasting industry big media firms could own, we've seen little oversight and reporting on what the government is doing. I believe the changes Congress made in 1996 have had a damning effect on our democracy, and allowed Bush to get away with all these things he is getting away with, so I'm not convinced the Patriot Act should be our number one priority right now. I think getting the 1996 bill overturned, and getting the Congressional committees with media oversight and the FCC to clean house, are probably the only hope we have left of maintaining a democratic society in the US. It is easy to rally everyone round the Patriot Act, because the left hates the Bush administration and House Republicans so much. But I'm beginning to think that they are just using the Patriot Act as more subterfuge, like CarolC keeps talking about, to distract us from the real issues that we need to pay attention to. Like why hasn't the media been acting as that fourth estate for about the last decade? We have to admit to ourselves that the Clinton administration was corrupt in it's ways too, if we are to do what is best for the nation. Not just keep painting over the problems with anti-Bush rhetoric. That is just too dangerous. We need to think, not react. |