(UPDATED: See update below)
There is a widespread, tacit assumption that no matter how apathetic and inattentive Americans become, there is still some line which they will not allow the Government to cross when it comes to exceeding or abusing the limits of government power. That assumption has taken a huge beating over the last four years, and is now in serious doubt.
Americans have sat by more or less passively by while this Administration detained American citizens and threw them into a military prison without charges being brought, without a trial, and without even allowing them access to a lawyer. Many are basically indifferent to revelations that the Bush Administration is eavesdropping on American citizens in secret and with no oversight of any kind. And worst of all, a sizable portion of the population is acquiescing to the fact that we have a President who was just discovered breaking the law, and rather than expressing shame or remorse once he was caught, has vowed to continue doing it based on the theory that he has the right to violate the law and that it's for our own good.
It is sometimes hard to put one’s finger on exactly what motivates such passive acceptance of these obvious government abuses, but Jonah Goldberg puked up a paragraph last night in the Corner which really captures everything that is rancid and decaying in our country and which casts an ugly though illuminating light on all of this.
In his little item, Jonah was talking about – and, of course, defending – the strip searching of the 10-year-old girl in the case where Judge Alito ruled that the search warrant issued to the Police authorized searching of the girl. Jonah then went further - much further -- and defended all strip-searching of all children, even without a warrant, whenever the Police thinks the kids’ parents are "drug dealers":
STRIP SEARCHES [Jonah Goldberg]I understand the need for following the procedural niceties, but as a plain moral common sense issue, if you are a drug dealer and keep drugs on the premises with your child, you get zero-point-zero sympathy from me if your kids are searched, warrant or no. It may be wrong for the cops to do it. But you are not a victim for choosing a life where you can rationally expect to expose your kids to far greater risks than a search by a polite cop. The kid's a victim -- of bad parents.
If you can stomach it, let’s review this, because it really illustrates what is going on in our country. Constitutional safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are nothing more than what Jonah calls "procedural niceties." While it would be nice and all if the Constitution were adhered to, "plain moral common sense" means that it’s actually unnecessary, even undesirable, to be restricted by such things.
After all, we’re dealing here with people whom the State says it suspects, but has not yet proven, are "drug dealers." With those people (and, of course, with "suspected terrorists"), anything goes, even before a trial and without any due process of any kind. All of this can be done strictly on the Government's say-so, even if the Constitutional "niceties" which exist to prohibit such behavior haven’t been complied with. "It may be wrong," spits out Jonah, but we should do it anyway, because these people deserve it.
Isn’t it exactly this depraved thinking which lies at the heart of almost every current controversy we have? The whole point of the Bill of Rights – really, its principal function – is to prevent the Government from punishing those whom the Government claims (but has not yet proven in a court of law) are bad people deserving of punishment. That’s why there is a sequence mandated by the Constitution before rights can be abridged and punishment inflicted – first, charge someone with a crime, then give them the right to defend themselves along with other protections of due process, and then convict them. Only then are they considered criminals whose rights can be abridged.
What people like Jonah Goldberg stupidly refer to as these "procedural niceties" happen to be the only things which distinguish our country from every two-bit dictatorship around. If the Government has the power to simply decree American citizens to be criminals -- or terrorists -- without bothering to prove it in accordance with "procedural niceties," then the Government has the power of tyranny. It means the Government can act against whatever citizens it wants without limits, strictly on the Government’s say-so. That’s why we have a Constitution - to impose those limits and to prevent the Government from exercising exactly this power. That is so obvious. It’s basic civics. It’s something we learn in the sixth grade.
There is, of course, a great irony that self-styled "conservatives" like Jonah constantly rail against the evils of disregarding the mandates of the law in order to achieve some desirable outcome. That’s the whole "judicial activism" shtick -- that these judges are evil and undemocratic because they want to exceed the law in order to achieve the outcome they like. And yet their entire world-view has come to be based on the premise that transgressions of any and all types of laws – from FISA to anti-torture laws to Constitutional guarantees of due process – are perfectly justifiable as long as they are in pursuit of some desirable outcome, usually fighting the "terrorists," but other results they like can justify these lawless transgressions as well.
Thanks to the ceaseless fear-mongering of this Administration, we are becoming – excuse the grotesque imagery -- a Nation of Jonah Goldbergs, scared and lazy creatures who sit around believing that the Government is justified – even obligated – to act literally without constraint against the Bad People, the ones who are deemed to be Bad not pursuant to any "procedural niceties" but simply by the unchecked decree of the Government. These Jonah Goldbergs love to talk tough. But they are repulsively coddled and effete, whining about every perceived petty injustice which affects them but breezily endorsing the most limitless abuses of others, as long as the "others" seem sufficiently demonized and far enough away.
This brazen willingness to glibly endorse such government abuses is a natural by-product of a personality which loudly beats the drums of war and, in doing so, boasts about how tough that makes him, only to then insist that others should be subjected to the resulting risks because he’s too busy and too important playing computer games, watching Star Trek, and wiping drool off his daughter’s chin to bear that burden. It is a mindset that is as selfish and weak as it is indifferent to the fate of others.
Such individuals want more than anything for the Government to protect them, and in exchange, are willing and even eager to give the Government unlimited power to act against those citizens whom the Government says are bad and dangerous people. It is a mindset of great cowardice which is devoid of any principles other than fear and petty selfishness. And it really is the antithesis of everything which gave birth to the United States.
Thus, the Government can and should throw Jose Padilla in a military prison without a trial and without a lawyer because George Bush has decreed that he is bad. The Government can and should eavesdrop without warrants or oversight on American citizens because it assures us it's only doing it to those people who George Bush believes are bad. The Government can and should strip search children, even without the warrants required by the Constitution, because it’s only doing it to the people who are bad. And the Government can and should break whatever laws it wants to break in order to act against those people who George Bush says are bad.
It is truly nauseating to watch the basic principles of our country, which have preserved both liberty and stability with unprecedented brilliance over the last 200 years, be inexorably whittled away and treated like petty nuisances by the depraved Jonah Goldbergs among us. It is a mindset based on a truly toxic brew of glib self-absorption, sickly laziness and profound ignorance, and it is being easily manipulated by an Administration which is demanding -- and acquiring -- more and more power in exchange for coddling and protecting the little Jonah Goldbergs of the world.
________
UPDATE: Jonah has responded to this post with a breathless little item in the Corner. He tries, understandably, to back away from what he wrote by saying that he likes warrantless strip searches of children "as a moral and practical (as opposed to a legal matter"). Then, backing away further still, he says in a subsequent post that he was merely defending "police operating in good faith on a legal warrant" doing "something eminently reasonable."
In Jonah’s first post, he specifically referred to the strip searching of children, "warrants or no" -- not, as he now claims, "police operating in good faith on a legal warrant." And the whole point of Jonah’s post was to say that it’s no big deal if the Police strip search people and their children without warrants because, after all, they’re "drug dealers" and they deserve what they get.
But as Atrios points out, it’s third grade civics that a person is not guilty of any crime until they are proven to be guilty of it, which is why it’s only in a Police State that the Government has the power to search people (let alone their kids, let alone the power to eavesdrop on them or incarcerate them indefinitely) without judicial oversight and approval.
And Jonah’s dismissive claim that "this country wasn't a dictatorship before the Warren Court" is breathtakingly ignorant. It wasn’t the cartoonishly evil "Warren Court" which held that basic liberties prohibit the state from searching us without a warrant. The Founders provided for that in what they called "The Fourth Amendment." That’s what Jonah wants to wave away based on his perverted notions of "plain moral common sense."
What makes Jonah’s post conclusively reflective of not only his ideological corruption but also his severe character flaw is that Jonah would never be quite as breezy or casual about lawless strip searches if it was him or his daughter being subjected to them.
But Jonah is convinced that abuses of this sort will never happen to him and he therefore doesn’t care that they happen to others. To the contrary, he eagerly wants other people – the alleged, suspected "drug dealers" and "terrorists" and other Bad People – to be subjected to those abuses because he thinks it will protect him from bad things. That’s why I described his thinking as a mindset based on fear and petty selfishness. He is willing to give up and even denigrate the most basic liberties of our country because he thinks he doesn't need them and would be better off without them.
It's sad, really. What really infuriates me is that these people wrap themselves in the flag and act like they are the great patriots. And anyone who opposes them is anti-American.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet they are waging an all-out attack on everything that has made this country great. They take dumps on the Constitution and treat it like a snot rag. And then talk about how much they love America. It's really a travesty, and it's very sad.
You put your finger on it - we are becmoing a fat, effete, lazy country. We just want to sit around eating ding-dongs and watching cool star trek episodes and playing computer games and not be bothered.
ReplyDeleteAnd whatever George Bush needs to do to the evil doers, let him do it and leave us alone. Because as long as we just stay in our houses and eat and play games and don't do anything against him, nothing bad will happen to us.
I think I'm going to skip breakfast now that I am burdered by this image of a Nation of Jonah Goldbergs. Thanks.
I'd go further than that. The tone of Goldberg's post almost seems like not only is it okay if child's constitutional rights are violated if the parent(s) are deemed "bad", that they SHOULD be violated. We are a theocracy after, all... ;-)
ReplyDeleteI think it's incumbent on us to ensure that Goldberg's daughter isn't an unwitting drug mule. It's what he'd want, after all. And he writes as though he's on drugs.
ReplyDeleteThe other crime of tyranny Jonah so casually promotes is to visit the "crimes" of the parents upon the children. I seem to recall this was a common trait of all the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. He truly has become the enemy of all the good our Constitution stands for. Is there no level of hypocrisy these "conservatives" won't sink to? I try to see people who hold opposing views as rational and worthy of respect as fellow human beings. When I read his comments like this, I find I can no longer do that. They are completely contemptible as human beings. I cannot wait for the day that their names will be considered an insult.
ReplyDeleteBlah, blah, blah. I'm tired of hearing about this "Bill of Rights" thing, or as Michael Kinsley calls it, the "Big List of Fruity Abstractions."
ReplyDeleteglenn: "It is a mindset of great cowardice which is devoid of any principles other than fear and petty selfishness."
ReplyDeleteActually it's the mindset of a thug-mentality: think like thugs, act like thugs, everyone is guilty till proven innocent, etc.
Rule of law has no place in this world-view because the "authorities" (writ large) are merely acting to prevent criminal behavior and nothing can stand in their way.
GG:
ReplyDelete"It is a mindset based on a truly toxic brew of glib self-absorption, sickly laziness and profound ignorance, and it is being easily manipulated by an Administration which is demanding -- and acquiring -- more and more power in exchange for coddling and protecting the little Jonah Goldberg’s of the world."
You're just in a funk because Alito is going to be confirmed to the SCOTUS.
You want self-absorbed? Take a look at some of the comments...you'd think the world was coming to an end.
Regards;
It is part of the long twilight of democracy in this country. The deep-seated belief that only other people will face the abusive power of government, and despite clear evidence of innocents being caught up in the security apparatus, insulates people into thinking they will always have their rights even when they no longer do.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think a lot of people have tuned out. They feel unable to affect anything so what good is caring? This is another effect of massive corruption. No matter how alien and unreasonable, the same stuff keeps happening.
So maybe not a nation of Jonah Goldbergs, but a nation of that has given up on its ideals. We are an economy before we are a democracy.
I think in addition to laziness and complacency, there's another factor essential to understanding why Americans in general aren't outraged by these abuses. Most probably believe all this overreaching only affects some Islamic fundamentalist "other guy", and doesn't reach well-behaved white folks. The same mentality explains why 500,000 dead Iraqi kids due to a decade of sanctions gets almost no press over here. That's "them", and we only care when it's "us" getting killed. There's going to be no widespread outrage over unconstitutional detentions or wiretapping until it starts happening to white people. It's a powerful motivator to speak out when the rights of your own perceived social group are under assault.
ReplyDeleteWell that was sheerly masterful. Jonah Goldberg makes me barf rather frequently, but I haven't been able to string together such a delicious string of (accurate) invective to capture why he does.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't even disagree with him about the war in Iraq, it's everything else.
It would never, not in a million years, dawn on Jonah that laws which make it a crime for John Jones to give a doobie to his pal Jim -- with the possibility that little Cindy Lou Jones may then be strip-searched by scary men with guns -- might be bad laws. Add in that he thinks a lack of a warrant is really kinda neither here nor there, and my head starts to explode.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLet's hear from FDR on this:
ReplyDeleteLet me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.
That about sums it up, in my opinion.
For one of the most stirring defenses of "procedure" I've ever read, check out Jackson's dissent in SHAUGHNESSY v. MEZEI, 345 U.S. 206 (1953).
ReplyDeleteSeriously.
There is, of course, a great irony that self-styled "conservatives" like Jonah constantly rail against the evils of disregarding the mandates of the law in order to achieve some desirable outcome.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this sort of ends-justify-means distain for process infects all aspects of modern conservatism. I think its most evident in the rhetorical methods so frequently employed by conservatives. I've long thought that conservative pundits and politicians are far more willing to engage in fundamentally deceptive arguments and rhetoric. They take straw man arguments much further than their left-leaning counterparts. They're willing to stoop to much more egregious twisting and distortion of facts in an effort to persuade the public. Ultimately, I think this is one of the most salient distinguishing factors between modern liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives seem much more results-oriented. They don't care if the public has to be deceived or manipulated to achieve the end they seek, the policy they prefer. In other words, it doesn't matter to them that the public supports their policy for the wrong reasons. So long as they're willing to go along with it, that's enough.
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be much more concerned with process, and consequently, with actually persuading people that they are right. Most liberals aren't willing to settle for a mere policy victory. They believe in their ideas and want the public to understand them and believe in them for the very same reasons. There's a sense that a policy victory that is achieved dishonestly is not really a victory, that if you have to subvert the processes and procedures that define democracy, you haven't really won anything. In fact, you've undermined everything you believe in for the sake of some short-term success.
Process is important. Ends don't justify means, particularly in a democracy. After all, what distinguishes liberal democracy from other forms of government are not the policies it enacts, but the processes followed in enacting and enforcing those policies.
Conservatives today tend to take these processes for granted. They don't seem to realize that if you make a mockery of them or disregard them often enough, we'll soon sail terribly off course.
And there Bilgeman goes again with words of such idiocy and irrelevance. Where is it exactly that you detect the self-absorption in any of the preceding posts? Or do you even understand what "self-absorption" means other than as a cheap insult to throw at those who ponder sincerely where this nation, founded on the highest principles of individual freedom and liberty from the capriciousness of power, has gone over the last 4+ years. Is the world coming to an end? Certainly not the physical world, which would surely survive a nuclear-war in some form, but the country inaugurated by the Declaration of Independence that (may I remind you) lists as a complaint against then King George (talk about historical irony...) the III justifying independence for the colonies, "depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury" which is what Goldberg is in essense here advocating. No need for a jury of one's peers to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one is guilty before punishment is levied; rather we should all place our trust in the government to, in its immense wisdom, punish the guilty (because the government would NEVER punish someone unless they deserved it) and protect the innocent from those same "bad" people. Another complaint in the DOI is that King George "obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers" which seems to me to be more or less the scandal of Bush's warrantless spying. As Glenn has pointed out in previous posts this was also reflected in Bush's "signing statement" of the law containing the so-called McCain Amendment to ban torture by American personel in which Bush stated that despite the amendment his Executive power allowed him to disregard the very law he had just signed if he felt it was for some reason necessary.
ReplyDeleteThat this seems to not bother Bilgeman or Goldberg at all proves how little these principles, that brought the Founding Fathers to risk being hung as traitors for signing the DOI, mean to them. This is not self-absorption, but indeed the complete opposite: a profound and sincere sympathy for the rights of all men and women who are, let me remind Bilgeman, "created equal, [and] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I've quoted it before, but in these times when all that was once sacred, for which hundreds of thousands have given their lives over the last two centuries, seems so easily thrown away by the likes of Bilgeman and Goldberg to "purchase a little safety" (in the words of Benjamin Franklin) the words of Patrick Henry at the time of the Revolution bear repeating as many times as necessary:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
I agree with Joe Scordato. Though one tries to respect the common humanity that one has with the ilks of Goldberg and Bilgeman their utter disregard for all that the United-States of America has stood for since Jefferson penned his famous words reveals clearly their own cowardess and moral debasement. How I worry for this country...
This is the first time I've read any of your work, Glenn, and I can only say, Thank you.
ReplyDeleteYour description of the sick, sad, decadent mentality permeating the Jonah Goldbergs of this country is spot-on.
Keep up the good work.
Goldberg writes: And the wall between dictatorship and liberty does not stand or fall depending on whether or not drug dealers have extra legal manuevering room to hide drugs in the pants of their ten year old daughters.
ReplyDeleteHe is so totally clueless. The wall between dictatorship and liberty most certainly does depend on whether armed agents of the state may strip-search children any time they feel like it, because Daddy has, or is suspected of having, some pot growing in the basement.
As for the rest of his blather, I'm sure Glenn will dispense with it appropriately, in due course.
Yes, should it have been "tacit," perhaps?
ReplyDeleteWho but traitors and liberals have a problem with doing right before others can do wrong? Only people who are doing something wrong have a problem with this. Only people who don't agree with us that only people who are doing something wrong have a problem with this.
ReplyDeleteI just read Jonah's response (such as it is) to your well-wriiten post.
ReplyDeleteFor him to miss the point by a wider margin, he would have to be on yet another planet, even further from Earth than the one he currently dispatches from.
Goldberg's stupidity is epic; his brain, lazy; his rhetoric childish and dangerous.
His mother must be so proud.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteAnother top notch post. Thanks for hitting the nail on the head of the conservative mindset with... "It is a mindset of great cowardice which is devoid of any principles other than fear and petty selfishness." Truly spectecular summation of the right!
Some years ago I heard an NPR interview with William Brenan, and he was asked one of the classic right-wing talking points questions, 'what about criminals who get off due to a technicality'. (See, NPR has been going along with right-wing framing points for years and years). Anyway, Brenan replied in a nice but penetrating way, 'but, my dear, the Constitution isn't a technicality'.
ReplyDeleteI haven't even gotten to Jonah's response yet, but the first few paragraphs here remind me of a trial on which my wife was the foreperson of the jury. One jury member claimed his guilty verdict was based on--he literally said this--"where there's smoke, there's fire."
ReplyDeleteMy wife's head nearly exploded, and she threatened to go straight to the judge to push for a mistrial if the juror did not renounce that statement. "Where there's smoke, there's fire" is not the basis of our justice system, but too many Jonah's act as if it should be...
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteOverall an excellent post - and to think I got to it while reading Jonah’s lame response to it in The Corner. However, I must disagree with one important aspect of it; your use of the word “government”. Jonah and all the rest do not support unfettered use of government – they support unfettered use of conservative government.
Let’s assume January 2009 sees Hilary Clinton sworn in as President. Would any wingnut defend her use of the very same powers they presently demand we grant to George Bush? Of course not. When a conservative Republican is in power there are no limits.
Greenwald is awesome. Jonah's 0.0 sympathy is of a piece with rightist thinly disguised fascism: a real American ought to have instinctual hatred of privacy violations like that, and it should go without saying that it doesn't matter who is the victim because obviously they'll go after the vulnerable first. It's of a piece with what Wolcott has been talking about a lot lately, this sense that law is just a nicety and there is a higher justice that allows for unlawful search and seizure and decapitation.
ReplyDeleteTotally weak:
ReplyDelete"We have a culture, a heritage and countless institutions which stand opposed to dictatorship."
Great Post, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteOnly in the pathetic, degenerate nation that America has become could such a fourth-rate hack intellect as Goldberg rise to a position of prominence.
Our nation has no possibility of reforming itself at this point, and all that remains is to watch our descent into some version of abject authoritarianism, with generous helpings of pious "conservative" lip service paid to another holy relic, the Constitution.
I'm no religious scholar but isn't one of the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament that the child shall be punished for the sins of the father ...? Hate to over simplify but, hey, seems flexible Constitution wasn't enough.
ReplyDeleteJonah: "We have a culture, a heritage and countless institutions which stand opposed to dictatorship."
ReplyDeleteThis illustrates exactly what I pointed out in my earlier post. Jonah presumes it is is impossible for dicatorial practices to occur in the United States. In other words, it the tired old American Exceptionalism argument that says, "this may not look democratic, but because we are America, it must be." It ignores all the substantive points such as illegal presidentially ordered surveillance of U.S. citizens, denials of habeas corpus, the fact that this is by definition a war without any conceivable end thus supporting a permanent crisis mentality, the fact that a great many liberal and conservative legal minds are deeply worried about this executive's power grab, and on and on.
Jonah's attitude is bloated and privileged. What the president has done is beyond the pale and distinctly similar to practices dictators have used in other nations in the last century. Jonah's only real answer is, but we are America so why worry?
Fools ignore clear abuses of power because the worst case scenario is unlikely.
Which raises an additional point: one does not contest the decline of democratic instiutions once they are gone. One contests them at each step and how warrantless surveillance isn't an abuse of power is beyond me.
I just read Goldberg's response. Good god. Has he even read what he's written?
ReplyDelete"We have a culture, a heritage and countless institutions which stand opposed to dictatorship." Chief among thost institutions, of course, is an independant judiciary willing to enforce Habeas Corpus.
And later, in response to a "liberalish logtime reader.": This country wasn't a dictatorship before the Warren Court. But when you listen to people like Greenwald, we're told that "the constitution" evaporates when police operating in good faith on a legal warrant do something eminently reasonable. Right. Which is why you said, "warrant or no."
Wow.
ReplyDeletemel B:
ReplyDelete"And there Bilgeman goes again with words of such idiocy and irrelevance."
Yup, and there you go with a response 12 inches long to my "idiocy and irrelevance".
"Where is it exactly that you detect the self-absorption in any of the preceding posts?"
1)"They take dumps on the Constitution and treat it like a snot rag. And then talk about how much they love America. It's really a travesty, and it's very sad."
(Political opponents are EVIL...okay, par for the course in politics, but realize that it's a tactic...not a philosophy, and yes, there's more'n a few on the Right who should remember that also)
2)"- we are becmoing a fat, effete, lazy country. We just want to sit around eating ding-dongs and watching cool star trek episodes and playing computer games and not be bothered."
(Americans are fat, stupid and effete if they don't march to this particular political agenda, right?).
3)"Is there no level of hypocrisy these "conservatives" won't sink to? I try to see people who hold opposing views as rational and worthy of respect as fellow human beings."
(This squares very well with quote 1, doesn't it? No "conservative" or "Right winger" could POSSIBLY love this country as YOU on the Left do, huh?).
4)"I think in addition to laziness and complacency, there's another factor essential to understanding why Americans in general aren't outraged by these abuses."
(Again, if Americans weren't fat and lazy, they'd all be Liberals, or Progressives or Marxists...).
5)"I agree with Joe Scordato. Though one tries to respect the common humanity that one has with the ilks of Goldberg and Bilgeman their utter disregard for all that the United-States of America has stood for since Jefferson penned his famous words reveals clearly their own cowardess and moral debasement."
Didn't think that I wouldn't not include your own drivel, eh?
I can't and I won't speak for Goldberg, i reckon that he's capable of defending himself.
But there you go again...we who disagree with you aren't worthy of even being accorded humanity ...we're "ilk".
Look, hotshot, you seem to have a problem with the fact that the Right is the home of the party of governance now.
The House, the Senate and the Presidency are in the hands of the GOP.
Like it or not, this was decided by the "fat, lazy and effete" American people in democratic elections.
You lot are in the back seat, and from what I read, you are likely to remain there for a very long time...
If you ever want a shot at the driver's seat again, here's a hint.
STOP projecting YOUR failures onto the American public. It may slave your wounded pride, but it ain't gonna win you any votes, see?
And BTW, I really appreciate your calling me a coward.
I was an Infantryman in the Marines, and have gone "In Harm's Way" at sea in two other military campaigns, so that you could sit on YOUR "fat, lazy, and effete" ass to call me that.
But you're NOT self-absorbed, eh?
Grow up.
You sound like a spoiled whiny brat who didn't get his way.
Regards;
Lutton writes: One jury member claimed his guilty verdict was based on--he literally said this--"where there's smoke, there's fire."
ReplyDeleteMy wife's head nearly exploded, and she threatened to go straight to the judge to push for a mistrial if the juror did not renounce that statement. "Where there's smoke, there's fire" is not the basis of our justice system, but too many Jonah's act as if it should be...
This is, indeed, a pervasive attitude and it is truly dangerous and corrupt. Add in that so many people believe cops never lie and are models of rectitude -- when lots of cops admit that they engage in "testilying," especially in drug cases -- and the likelihood of justice happening goes quite low.
Jonah Goldberg doesn't care about any of that, and the notion that he claims to stand on the ideological shoulders of the Founders makes me want to hurl.
P.S. We are a culture which opposes dictatorship (by the by, way to grasp the obvious and choke it to death, Jonah; talkin' loud but your not saying nothin'). Sure, but how does that culture (which does not act en masse or as a single beast) oppose dictorial abuses of power if it has no legal remedies that are enforced? Armed revolution should it come to it?
ReplyDeleteWe are a long way from a dictatorship, but that is not a reason to excuse abuses of power. And Glenn's excellent point was the contemporary public seems unable or unwilling to sufficiently protest further abuses of power. Which greases the skids for "democracy in name only" status. Glenn did not say the end is nigh, he said the current public seems incapable of recognizing dangerous flirtations with totalitarian practices.
And since Glenn is in concordance with a number of unquestionablly conservative commentators, this is an issue that defies typical right said-left said bickering. Anybody who actually respects rule of law gets nervous when president's say "I am above the law because this is an emergency," especially when laws suitable to their needs are on the books.
Its not like this president has fucked anything up.
You know, it wasn't that long ago that you could tell a right-winger by their "I love my country but fear my government" bumpersticker. My, how things have changed. Because the talking heads they use to learn their opinions insist that Big Brother only wants to protect them, they're falling all over themselves to argue that it's only the bad guys who are getting their rights violated. And, geez, what's wrong with that?
ReplyDeleteI guess we really do get the government we deserve.
Goldborg's not alone. here's Tweety talking with Russ Tice, last night:
ReplyDeleteMATTHEWS: We‘re under attack on 9/11. A couple of days after that, if I were president of the United States and somebody said we had the ability to check on all the conversations going on between here and Hamburg, Germany, where all the al Qaeda people are or somewhere in Saudi, where they came from and their parents are, and we could mine some of that information by just looking for some key words like World Trade Center or Pentagon, I‘d do it.
TICE: Well, you‘d be breaking the law.
MATTHEWS: Yes. Well, maybe that‘s part of the job. We‘ll talk about it. We‘ll be right back with Russ Tice. You‘re watching HARDBALL on MSNBC.
stinking goldberg. jonah is a sad bed-wetting sack who'd be literally in the basement if his mommy wasn't there to hook him up.
ReplyDeleteit's sad when you're more of a tool than even Tucker Carlson, but wow, he pulled it.
Regarding visiting the sins of the parents on the children, this is not really a new thing with Goldberg. His fellow traveler John Derbyshire had this to say in 2001:
ReplyDelete"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great despotisms of the past - I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble - recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an 'enemy of the people.' The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft, 'clan liability.' In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished 'to the ninth degree': that is, everyone in the offender's own generation would be killed and everyone related via four generations up, to the great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed."
His fellow traveler John Derbyshire had this to say in 2001:
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Derb thought that was an entertaining and amusing exercise, but it is totally vicious.
What drives me most insane about Jonah and so many of the rest of the Cornerites, is their brazen insistence that they are in the fold of F.A. Hayek. Hayek would have an aneurism over Jonah's "we don't need no steenkeen warrants for kids and those dirty drug dealers." That is why Hayek was not a conservative, and said so (and he also rejected attacks on evolution as conservative idiocy, which Jonah and others defend or even embrace), no matter how much Jonah insists Hayek really was a conservative just like him.
Nothing is as ironically funny as this when you set it against Goldberg's nonstop whining about the heat in DC. (this is only one example, I've found others in the past, including him moaning about the quality of hotels at a conference.)
ReplyDeleteHaving lived almost 6 years in Texas w/o AC because we couldn't afford it, I *might* be a little more sympathetic to his misery - if he were a more empathetic person. As it is, given his "Superdome" remarks, I have nothing but schadenfreud at his whiny-ass-titty-baby behavior.
Michael:
ReplyDeleteI invoke "Godwin's Law"...you lose.
Anonymous:
"You know, it wasn't that long ago that you could tell a right-winger by their "I love my country but fear my government" bumpersticker. My, how things have changed."
Not all that much, Anon. I still love my country, and while I still
fear my government, i don't fear it now as much as I used to.
In any event, I take great solace from the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that it protects. To prevent things from going too far down any particular tyrannical course.
It seems that even the Left may someday come around to seeing the wisdom of that civil right and defending it as zealously as it does the ones it currently favors...
Regards;
laws which make it a crime for John Jones to give a doobie to his pal Jim -- with the possibility that little Cindy Lou Jones may then be strip-searched by scary men with guns -- might be bad laws.
ReplyDeleteA-freaking-men. hypatia definitely frustates me sometimes (causing her many sleepless nights, I'm sure), but statements like this make it all worthwhile. Relaxing our foolishly draconian, counterproductive drug laws is another cause that can cross the political divide. And the Positive Liberty blog she referenced previously is interesting, eclectic reading. Now, if we could just get around the Stalinist thing... :-)
I must admit that I'm somewhat alarmed at how public Goldberg's type of argument has become. I'd never have dreamt that the President willfully violating FISA would be spun as a purely partisan issue (ignoring Specter, Lugar, Brownback, Barr, Fein, etc.). Now we have the Alito hearings allowing "conservatives" to declare that the police should have unlimited powers to stop the evildoers, too. And by the way, criticizing the policies of the President is still treason. I thought we got all that out of our systems with those stupid Alien and Sedition Acts. Then again, we also had Attorney General Palmer, so I suppose the temptation never goes away. The difference between me and too many current so-called "conservatives" and "libertarians" is that I believe in big accountable government, and they believe in big unaccountable government. I miss the debate over big vs. small.
--mds
Jonah’s post was to say that it’s no big deal if the Police strip search people and their children without warrants because, after all, they're black, and probably poor, and not like Jonah
ReplyDeleteGee, I wonder why Goldberg doesn't accept comments following his posts like Greenwald and other liberal bloggers do?
ReplyDeleteI'm curious: do you think Jonah would be for or against strip searching the child if it hadn't been born yet?
ReplyDeleteThese people are all for the rights of fetuses, but once you get born, you toss out all your rights if you happen to get born to the wrong parents.
Excellent, excellent, Glenn. You're very brave to wade out in your hip boots and help to illuminate some of these dark and dreary places.
ReplyDeleteI have my own pet peeve with Goldberg, I'm an Alaskan who has been to the Arctic Refuge a few times, and as such he has been irritating me with his trip there a few summers ago.
He repeatedly calls it a "godforsaken place," with misleading remarks like:
"The oil industry says it would need to use only 2,000 acres-an area no bigger than Dulles Airport, outside D.C.-to get that oil."
and
"Never mind that they invariably show the beautiful parts of the Arctic refuge where it would be illegal to drill (only a small portion of the reserve can even be considered for exploration, according to an act of Congress)."
Well, true, yes, but misleading. The coastal plain, the part set aside for consideration, is the only part that interests the oil companies. The rest is mountains.
And the 2,000 acres would not be in the shape of an airport - we're talking about myriad drilling pads spread over the coastal plain and connected by a web of roads and pipelines not included in the figure.
And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Those pools of water that Goldberg found so annoying are where you can find nesting red-necked loons and such...but enough, before I launch into an even longer off-topic speech.
Columnists like Goldberg treat every topic the same way - instead of grappling with their opponents' real arguments, they walk an audience they can confidently assume is largely uninformed on any given issue down the bypaths and into the tangled weeds.
Maybe this explains why Jonah can't go to war. He needs to stay home and defend his house--and his children--with a gun to prevent them from being strip-searched.
ReplyDeleteThat is, of course, the world that would result from Jonah's little fantasy.
emptywheel
I take great solace from the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that it protects. I take great solace from the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that it protects
ReplyDeletei find this particular delusion hillarious. what good is your hunting rifle gonna do against a government that can barricade you in your house and saturate you for days with tear gas and sonic weapons ?
Charles, it's a slippery slope thing. You don't get partway down and then say "oh, shit!" You fight against it at the very beginning.
ReplyDeleteWell, this is either the beginning, or partway down the slope already. Whatever else it is, it is NOT too soon.
Jake
It's actually quite typical of the right wing mentality. Lots of rules but they don't apply to them: They don't mind strip searches for others, but it better not happen to them or their loved ones. And you just KNOW if one of their daughters got pregnant they would be racing to an abortion clinic so fast your head would spin.
ReplyDeleteAnon mds:
ReplyDelete"Relaxing our foolishly draconian, counterproductive drug laws is another cause that can cross the political divide."
Are you seated? I agree with you.
In fact, i think it quite possible that the drug laws could be overturned using the "Roe v. Wade" Right to Privacy,(which I also approve of).
After all, if it's a civil right, and none of the governments' business what medical procedure you have performed...then it's none of the governments' business what "medicines" you choose to take.
I don't see how we can square a Right to Privacy and still bust folks for possession for personal use.
Regards;
cleek:
ReplyDelete"i find this particular delusion hillarious. what good is your hunting rifle gonna do against a government that can barricade you in your house and saturate you for days with tear gas and sonic weapons ?"
What do you think the "insurgents" in Iraq basically are, dipstick?
And you are only making assumptions that it's A "hunting" rifle...
...and that I would be the ONLY one barricaded in "your house".
Regards;
You want self-absorbed? Take a look at some of the comments...you'd think the world was coming to an end.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Bulgeboy's in a funk 'cause Bush is turning out to be the dictator he (likely) always claimed Clinton would be.
Glenn, fantastic post. This is the pathology of these sick, shortsighted cowards.
ReplyDeleteAs for the non-arguments of folks like bilgeman (perfect handle, by the way,)they seem to prove the point pretty handily.
"Whut're yoo guys screamin' about with this "rights" crap? Yer just mad cuz yoo LOST, HAHAHA -- pass the cheetos..."
- mercury
"We have a culture, a heritage and countless institutions which stand opposed to dictatorship."
ReplyDeleteAnd Mr Goldberg is not a part of any of it.
Bilgeman, there are a lot of us over here on the left who are fond of ALL TEN amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, not just the second. We keep wondering why the 2nd is all you guys are willing to stand up and get mad about, why all the others just get a "oh, quit whining!" response when threatened.
ReplyDeleteYou complain about people screaming it is the end of the world. Do you have any idea how frantic you guys sound when someone proposes outlawing a particular type of assault weapon or armor-piercing bullets or what have you? Ah, but when it comes to arguments YOU hold dear, it is different, right?
We are a nation of laws, not men. It's not just one law or one itty bitty part of the constitution that this administration is violating. The whole picture is pretty ugly, and it is virtually unchecked power.
If you have a shred of libertarian impulses within you, you'd be shouting "impeachment" from the rooftops instead of apologizing sarcastically because some whiny liberal got his feelings hurt over some little kid getting strip-searched.
Take all your verbal bullying and put it to some good use. Take a broad look at the indicators of our nation's health, from our liberties to the electoral process (corruption and campaign finance) to our fiscal state to our system of checks and balances. Now which party controls all three branches of government again?
Oh, right. Yours. Yeah, you must be real proud.
If Jonah is writing his columns from an office in his home, then he's already exposing his daughter to more mind-destroying substances than the dope peddler whose daughter was strip-searched at Alito's behest.
ReplyDeleteJust once I wish Jonah would offer proof that some factor, other than who his mom is, was responsible for his landing a slot at NR.
And let's be clear, Jonah's attitude here is exactly the same as Alito's. In his dissent in the case (Doe vs. Groody), he writes:
ReplyDelete"I share the majority’s visceral dislike of the intrusive search of John Doe’s young daughter, but it is a sad fact that drug dealers sometimes use children to carry out their business and to avoid prosecution. I know of no legal principle that bars an officer from searching a child (in a proper manner) if a warrant has been issued and the warrant is
not illegal on its face."
(Note: The majority opinion said that the warrant did not cover the wife and child.)
Alito is basically saying that these kids do not have rights because their parents are suspected drug dealers.
observer:
ReplyDelete"We keep wondering why the 2nd is all you guys are willing to stand up and get mad about, why all the others just get a "oh, quit whining!" response when threatened."
Prolly the same reason that the Left flips out when the 9th and 10th Amendments,(which cover the Right to Privacy), get threatened...
The 2nd gets threatened more than any other, and it reaches the arm of the government directly into Americans' homes...like the R2Life crowd reaches directly into womens' uteruses(sp?).
Similarly with drug laws...reaches right into your home. Hey,if you want to sit on your couch, drop 3 tabs of acid and smoke meth all day long, well...you go.
Just so's you understand that your kids will be the ones to learn the hard way what "visiting the sins of the father upon the children" is REALLY about.
"It's not just one law or one itty bitty part of the constitution that this administration is violating."
Interesting...let's look at some Lefty sacred cows:
Can you have "Women's Rights" if you aren't a woman?
Can you have "Gay Rights" if you aren't Gay?
Can you have "Minority Rights" if you don't belong to a Minority?
All of these, cornerstones of the modern Left, are offensive to the 14th Amendment..."equal protection of the laws".
But that notion doesn't seem to stop Leftie partisans from getting all bugaboo over promoting those issues, does it?
Do Righties sound ridiculous over "pro Life" and "Gun Control"?
Admittedly, sometimes yes...
But no more ridiculous,(and a lot less often,and a lot less insulting), than the Left over it's pet grievances.
"We are a nation of laws, not men."
Y'know, the laws were made by men,(until the 19th Amendment was ratified), then those laws were made by men and women over 21,(until the 26th Amendment).
You can't have the laws without also having the people who made them, functioning in a specific culture and with a certain agreed-upon mode of making those laws.
Those people, us, and that system, ours, are under attack from without.
If the laws be destroyed, we can make them again anew, but if the people be destroyed...what then?
We can repair what damage, if any, we cause ourselves. It is much more difficult to repair the damage others do to us.
"Take a broad look at the indicators of our nation's health, from our liberties to the electoral process"
We are still masters of our own fate. Record voter turnout, and people are getting interested and engaged,(thanks to the MSM stranglehold being broken).
The spread of mass telecommunications in private hands dealt the death blow to the socialist dictatorships in Eastern Europe.
Don't be afraid that it will happen here.
Regards;
I said in response to a whole other sample of stupidity from Jonah in my most recent blog post:
ReplyDeleteIf that was how she was gonna use it, Jonah Goldberg is all the proof anyone needs that God should have never given Lucianne a uterus.
Suppose one of us calls local law enforcement in the community where Jonah Goldberg resides. Suppose we allege that Mr. Goldberg is selling meth from his residence, and he commonly hides it by taping meth-filled baggies under his newborn's diapers. Suppose we convince a narcotic officer that this demands immediate action. Suppose they get a warrant. Suppose they bust Mr. Goldberg's door down this evening. Suppose they strip-search Mr. Goldberg, his wife and their child. Suppose they find nothing and leave, no charges filed. Suppose Mr. Goldberg will defend this practice then?
ReplyDeleteAs we all know, if the procedural niceties are forgotten in the process of arresting or investigating persons of integrity such as Goldberg, Limbaugh etc, there would be a righteous outcry about police harassment and consitutional rights. Hell, even when the procedural niceties are followed, the righteous rightwingers cry out at the unsavory political motivation of it all (voir Delay) or the pure evilness of it all (voir Limbaugh) whilst the same proclaim far and wide their willingness to see other people's procedural niceties suspended or forgotten.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a shred of libertarian impulses within you, you'd be shouting "impeachment" from the rooftops instead of apologizing sarcastically because some whiny liberal got his feelings hurt over some little kid getting strip-searched.
ReplyDeleteSsshhh.....
Their side is winning.
The death certificate of this country will read "Murdered by Vince Lombardi".
Instead of "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of the law" as the Palladium of the Republic, we've got "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing".
First time reading. Sheer brilliance. You have created a squealing fangirl.
ReplyDeleteMan Bilge,
ReplyDeleteYou're all over the map and incoherent at that:
Prolly the same reason that the Left flips out when the 9th and 10th Amendments,(which cover the Right to Privacy), get threatened...
Not to mention the 1st and 4th. It's interesting, the Fourth through 8th amendments all have to do with the rights of the accused specifically designed to curb the power of the state and respect individual rights.
You can't have the laws without also having the people who made them, functioning in a specific culture and with a certain agreed-upon mode of making those laws.
Right. And that's the point of Glenn's post. We're not only getting away from the functioning laws — but also any agreed-upon mode of following them.
All of these, cornerstones of the modern Left, are offensive to the 14th Amendment..."equal protection of the laws".
This is absurd. The fight for Women, Gay and Minority Rights is specifically for the aforementioned to gain assurance of equal protection of the laws, not supercede them.
We can repair what damage, if any, we cause ourselves. It is much more difficult to repair the damage others do to us.
I'm trying to follow this: So, because of, say, 9/11, we had to administer self-inflicted wounds to our system of governance because only we can fix this damage?
Record voter turnout, and people are getting interested and engaged,(thanks to the MSM stranglehold being broken).
Delusional. Just because there are more people in this country (ergo, more votes) doesn't a healthy democracy make. Proportional turnout is at record lows.
The spread of mass telecommunications in private hands dealt the death blow to the socialist dictatorships in Eastern Europe.
Which must be why you're supporting massive media consolidation here? The Internet may be many things, but the U.S. has had mass communications in private hands for more than 200 years. That "MSM" you so rail against, is only a bias issue for conservatives. As is evidenced by your lockstep support of Big Conservative Government, if the MSM was spouting your company line (as some argue it has been for a long, long while), I'm sure that you wouldn't have much problem with it. It is, after all, privately held.
Well said. Let's suppose some police officer thinks Jonah is a terrorist. Under Jonah's standards, he would not mind them crashing into his house, searching his his closests, and then tossing him into jail for months without being able to see an attorney.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteYours is a sound, thorough argument, clearly superior to that of Mr. Goldberg.
Just don't expect Mr. Goldberg to admit that he is wrong. Mr. Goldberg learned long ago from his mother, Lucianne, the Heidi Fleis and Jessica Cutler of the 60s and 70s Beltway, to deny at all costs.
What is really infuriating is that this is a partisan position. I can even understand people who are so afraid of terrorists/drug dealers/you-name-it that they are willing to give up their rights for protection.
ReplyDeleteBut would these same people really give up these same rights if we were under a Democratic adminsitration? Hell no!!!
Jonah had a quote on a Starbucks cup, something along the lines of "if it's better to let 10 guilty men go free than send one innocent man to jail, then why not let 100 guilty men, or 10,000 go free".
ReplyDeleteAre we to presume, even with his shiny new daughter at home, that he'd be willing to do a bid at Rikers to keep 10 guilty men off the streets?
I guess I still don't understand, Bilgeman, why you don't value all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights. They're all good ideas. I just don't see how you say, "You can pry my gun from my cold, dead fingers," while at the same time saying, "Warrantless searches? Huh! Sounds reasonable! What are you liberals whining about, anyway?" Crap, man, libertarianism is an important political philosophy, not just some dollar menu where you get to pick and choose which are your favorite unchecked powers of government.
ReplyDeleteBush is the enemy of the libertarian made all the more dangerous because (like all the great enemies of liberties) he wraps himself in nationalism (patriotism). He's also the enemy of fiscal conservatism, and he's the best friend of both judicial and executive branch activism. Maybe I'm crazy, but what exactly do Republicans stand for, then? Anything Bush wants, and we'll find a rationalization for it? Have you no pride, no sense?
You want to claim that the terrorists are a bigger threat to our way of life than a government that routinely violates our constitutional protections when convenient. I don't buy it. This administration, right now, is taking away our liberties. That's a real threat, not some pie-in-the-sky, they're going to detonate nukes all over the place, season 10 of "24" fantasy.
And they've already shown that they're not competent enough, even with the constitutional tools at their disposal, to stop an attack. Look at the 9/11 commission report, for crying out loud. And Clinton sure managed to stop terrorist attacks (Millennium plot, anyone?) and give proper warnings (which were then ignored) to the current bunch of incompetents without violating the FISA statute or rendering people out for torture routinely or sticking people in prison indefinitely without judicial oversight.
It just seems so damned LAZY for Republicans (I can't call them conservatives) to let Bush do whatever he wants to win the war on terror. At the very least, you should be demanding that not only he win, but he win while protecting our liberties. It *IS* possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Oh, and how about explaining why these liberties were violated? Exactly who got bugged when they blew through the FISA statutes? Is there any doubt there were political motives, since after all, Democrats are considered terrorist sympathizers?
And if you want to bring up "equal protection under the law", that's another topic. I'd love to hear from you a list of "special" rights that, say, gays are asking for that wouldn't apply equally to all Americans.
I think the answer is simple. We should pass a law outlawing any strip searches of minors.
ReplyDeleteWhat could possibly go wrong? What Republican would argue against that? I see no unintended consequences, the neo-cons are so dumb!!
Excellent post Glenn.
ReplyDeleteThose "legal niceties" are what distinguishes us and makes this country great.
I ask people like him: What makes America great? What freedoms did our soldiers fight for?
Jonah, like so many others, simply do not care about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because those protections are for "other people."
Excellent job Glenn.
9/11 has shown what sniveling cowards live in this country. Scared out of their wits that the terrorists will get them they will trample over every aspect of a free society they love to venerate in political jingo but are too cowardly and small minded to actually tolerate. The brave men who founded our country based it on principles that require mature and honorable people to bravely defend it, and they would weep with shame today over the empty patriotism that people like Goldberg display. It is a tyranny of small minds and cowardice propped up by the power of the state that those real founding patriots gave us tools to fight, but which are now being abandoned by crybabies like Goldberg and his ilk.
ReplyDeleteIt used to be Patrick Henry saying "give me liberty, or give me death". Now its Trent Lott saying "When you're at war, civil liberties are treated differently," or John Coosey, Rep. from Louisianna saying anybody who isn‘t willing to give up civil liberties “can go elsewhere."
New line to be sung prior to this years super bowl:
Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave. O'er the land of the enslaved, and the home of the coward.
I do not share your sentiments. It is true, there has been a lot of abuse, and that our system, trusts that the people are good, and care. I believe, people still care. They are looking for alternatives. They vote for Bush and co, because the Democrats, have become a bunch of pandering pencil pushers.
ReplyDeleteIn 08, a dark horse can emerge to run our party, and clear us away from this current constitutional crisis. Restore faith and unity in the United States. It is going to be a Gov, perhaps Warner from VA? It cannot be Clinton, she is for this war. It has to be someone outside of Washington..and the establishment. We are going to win back congress, and the WH, we just need a message."They are evil" may not win it for us.
GOD BLESS AMERICA!
This is an awesome comment section discussion and there have been countless seriously great posts here.
ReplyDeleteSomeone just sent me an e-mail about what Jonah and the rest of his NR friends were saying about Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzalez and the like during the Clinton Administration and I responded with this:
"I am not unsympathetic to the anti-Government rhetoric that served as the foundation for those objections. I basically think that if someone wants to go into the woods and have a racist retreat or have a big house with guns and a weird religion, they should be free to do so.
But it just amazes me how all of that stuff about wanting to limit the power of the Federal Government went right out the window the minute they got their hands on the Federal Government."
The way in which they shed each and every one of their alleged principles the minute they got control of the Govenrment - and then even more so once George Bush began scaring them and promising to protect them - is really one of the most reprehensible displays of intellectual dishonesty I think I've ever seen.
And everyone who has pointed out that the minute they no longer control the Federal Government, they will revert right back to their prior position, is absolutely right. Only then, it will probably be too late. Excessive government power is a genie that does not get put back into the bottle, at least not without major upheaval.
Per Jonah,
ReplyDelete"We have a culture, a heritage and countless institutions which stand opposed to dictatorship. And the wall between dictatorship and liberty does not stand or fall depending on whether or not drug dealers have extra legal manuevering room to hide drugs in the pants of their ten year old daughters."
**********************
The 'wall' stands or falls exactly and continously on whether anyone, drug dealer, terrorist, or average 'law-abiding citizen' may expect to have his or her civil liberties upheld and her/his innocence believed until he/she is proved to be guilty of crime(s) charged. Every instance of violation by the government of ANYONE's civil liberties is a chip out of that wall, which is the US Constitution. I find it odd or even hypocritical that those who deem the constitution to be cast in stone (millstone) and the text from 200+ years ago to be adhered to as written, i.e. not a living document, subject to societal changes, would use the 'culture' we have to hide behind when they defend their indefensible ideas of who is to be treated poorly because of alleged acts alleged to have been done by others.
Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying 'Revolution every now and then is a good thing.' It doesn't have to be violent, and voters have the opportunity for revolution at least every two years. As long as the party in power remains in power because of money, greed, corruption, overwhelming arrogance, and just plain idiocy, we who see it that way have no other choice than to clean House, and Senate and White House.
Bilgeman, would you be OK with President Hillary Clinton having the imperial right to have you spied upon or thrown in jail without due process?
ReplyDeleteNo rational party would make enduring, structural changes in the fundamental law of a polity that would redound to their disadvantage upon their inevitable return to opposition unless they never intend to return to opposition.
So it appears that the best scenario is that they're crazy, and from there, it goes right downhill...
In the US the Bushites go after "Bad People". In Iraq they go after what they refer to as the "Bad Guys." It's all so much more convenient than taking the time to contemplate just what constitutes "bad." That might lead to too much thought.
ReplyDeleteBilgerman says:
ReplyDeleteCan you have "Women's Rights" if you aren't a woman?
Can you have "Gay Rights" if you aren't Gay?
Can you have "Minority Rights" if you don't belong to a Minority?
All of these, cornerstones of the modern Left, are offensive to the 14th Amendment..."equal protection of the laws".
So, by your argument, any attempts to actually put the requirements of the 14th Amendment into effect are violations of the 14th Amendment?
A very cute, if not utterly paradoxical argument,
besides we are all so keenly aware of just how willing right-wingers are to grant anything resembling equality to anybody who doesn't conform to their particular preferences
That was a pleasure to read.
ReplyDeleteSuperb work.
Shorter Bilgeman:
ReplyDeleteMy right to own a gun trumps your right to speak - so zip it if you know what's good for you.
Wow. just Wow.
ReplyDeleteThanks for a brilliant and clear discussion on the issues at hand.
It is becoming increasingly clear that America is sliding into an abyss...no laws needed when the powerful suspect...and everyone follows the powerful so as to avoid suspicion.
There are many of us who hoped that the citizenry would reach its limit by now and that some counterbalance could be created...our country and Constitution have weathered some pretty serious storms in the past after all. But sadly, very sadly, no such luck.
Sun's going down now in America. Dream of Freedom.
Can anyone seriously comprehend living in a country with H.Clinton as president and utilizing these same powers? Would you be comfortable with that?
ReplyDeleteWhy would Republicans want to establish new precedents for the Executive's power when in only a few short years we could be looking at a Democrat-controlled government?
The only explanation I can think of off-hand is that Republican policy leaders do not ever intend to leave office.
It’s basic civics. It’s something we learn in the sixth grade.
ReplyDeleteDon't count on it.
The new breed of neo-con civics teacher is personified by Betsy Newmark, an award-winning teacher and blogger, who is celebrated as an icon of the right because of her (i) fearless synonymization of market economics with democracy; (ii) unnerving defense of Orwellian government action; (iii) tireless vilification of liberals and, actually, all expressions of statesmanship that challenge conservative orthodoxy; and (iv) effortless dismissal of educational standards (along with the NEA).
You think the conservative war on the teaching of evolution is bad? Wait until you see what they have in store for the teaching of civics and social studies.
The United States of America: BANANA REPUBLIC!
ReplyDeleteThe Warren Court was a "dictatorship"?
ReplyDeleteI've never heard of a dictatorship that ended segregation, upheld the rights of the accused to counsel, and protected the right to use contraception.
What a jackass.
Brilliantly written, and thoroughly explained, Glenn.
ReplyDeleteOf course, you could have just said "Conservatives are weak-minded cowards," and accomplished the same thing, but you know, I appreciate you taking the time to SLOWLY grind the knife of logic into his gut. Repeatedly.
Well done.
It's kind of sad, actually. How much easier to say "Fair point. I took some rhetorical license--one of the hazards of internet publishing." And then explain what you meant without whining.
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenwald, your post regarding Jonah Goldberg's shocking willingness to turn the Constitution into a meaningless document is moving and persuasive (not that I need any persuasion on this subject). I find myself wishing that I could grab some people I know by the scruff of the neck and force them to read it, but a code of behavior that would be completely foreign to Mr. Goldberg prevents me from doing that (plus, the Secret Service probably wouldn't like it).
ReplyDeleteI wish more Americans would open their eyes to the dangers of opinions like Goldberg's but it's not because of lack of excellent and forceful articles like yours. You're a hell of a writer.
How much easier to say "Fair point. I took some rhetorical license--one of the hazards of internet publishing." And then explain what you meant without whining.
ReplyDeleteBecause what he wrote that led to Glenn's "gotcha" is what Jonah really thinks and feels. Unlike many here, I'm not left-wing, and, among other things, I think Sam Alito's dissent in the case giving rise to this discussion is entirely reasonable. But he wasn't endorsing that cops don't need warrants to strip search children(as Jonah does), or advocating strip searches of tots at all. The cops are charged with enforcing heinous drug laws, and it is a fact that people do use children to hide drugs. Alito just didn't think that cops who make a good faith mistake about the scope of a warrant -- or, actually, he thought the warrant could be read as including the search of the child, and I don't, but that is another matter -- should be subject to a lawsuit.
But back to Jonah. He doesn't have a libertarian cell in his body. If cops began routinely storming homes looking for drugs, porn, terrorist plots & etc -- all without warrants and in violation of the 4th Am -- Jonah Goldberg wouldn't bat an eyelash. He evinces no ability to understand why that would be a bad thing.
Is it, in effect, a bill of attainder to declare that children of drug users may be searched just because their parents are drug users?
ReplyDeleteI bet Jonah Goldberg would like to strip search little kids himself.
ReplyDeleteI guess we can strip search Tom Delay's children, looking for cash, right now, today!
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, many Americans may not be too concerned about the Bush Administration's attack on American values, but they will be. In my lifetime, I've seen stories like this develop. It takes a while for a lot of Americans to absorb the enormity of the kind of thing Bush is doing because they just don't want to believe a President is capable of such an action. Oral sex is easy to grasp, but an ugly grab at power and an illegal attack on rights is a little more complicated. But I have faith in Americans. It takes them a while, but this is one that they will eventually come to understand, and then the backlash will be immense. I so clearly remember wondering why nobody was upset about Nixon and Watergate (regular Americans, not the media), and sure enough, not a year later, they were getting ready to light torches and run him out of Washington on a rail. There's plenty of time before '08 for that to happen, and happen it will. The American public may be slow to wake, but once roused they burn hot.
ReplyDeleteBilgeman said..
ReplyDelete(Americans are fat, stupid and effete if they don't march to this particular political agenda, right?).
Since when are the Constitution and the Bill or Rights "this particular political agenda"?
Did it strike you how utterly silly that comment was?
Bilgeman said..
What do you think the "insurgents" in Iraq basically are, dipstick?
And you are only making assumptions that it's A "hunting" rifle...
...and that I would be the ONLY one barricaded in "your house".
So you own fully automatic rifles, grenades, military grade high explosives (like those plundered from the ammo dumps we didn't guard in Iraq), and rocket launchers?
That is what I think the Iraqi insurgency is.
Further, I don't think that the Iraqi insurgency could _ever_ drive us out of Iraq if we refused to leave. Do you think than an American insurgency would drive the US Government and US Military out of the US? Do you think us 'mericans would fare better with inferior weapons than the Iraqi Insurgents? How about with the existing law enforcement, government infrastructure in the US? You suppose it's EASIER or harder for us to intercept insurgent communications in the US or in Iraq. All new data and telecommunications infrastructure in the US has to be designed to allow quick and easy access by our government for survailence purposes.
The only way an insurgency in the US against the federal goverment could succeed would be if all Americans rose up together, simultaneously, and our volunteer army refused to defend the Republic. In reality, what could happen would be, one group might rise up, they would be crushed, the Governent would spin the story that they were terrorists (or worse, Liberals) and the rest of America would go back to Lost or Desperate Housewives.
Bilgeman states..
Similarly with drug laws...reaches right into your home. Hey,if you want to sit on your couch, drop 3 tabs of acid and smoke meth all day long, well...you go.
Apparently you should go read some Locke and Rousseau. I don't believe in infringing on personal choices and rights, BUT I understand that some laws are in place to protect the overall benefit of the republic.
This is why we tell companies that they can't dump straight Dioxin into rivers. Sure, we are restricing their right to do what they want, but their right infringes on others rights.
Your drug law argument is very 1 dimensional. There is more to drug laws than personal choice. Unregulated, open drug abuse harms society and it infringes on other people's rights. I've got a right to be safe from stray heroin needles and psychotic meth-heads when I walk down the street. I've got the right and expectation that I can drive to work without someone T-boning me after an 8 day meth bender.
I'm all for responsible drug laws, but there needs to be laws. We are in the wrong direction now but there needs to be regulation and legalization. If we'd put 1/100th of the Drug Czar's budget into finding reliable field-sobriety tests for Marijuana and other drugs, we could repeal most drug laws. Legalization would slash the cost of drugs. That would put drug lords out of business. Most gang activity would cease as there are only so many avenues of organized criminal activity. Short term, drug abuse MAY increase but we could easily increase drug treatment and prevention/education by 10 fold and still save money.
bilgeman says...
Interesting...let's look at some Lefty sacred cows:
Can you have "Women's Rights" if you aren't a woman?
Can you have "Gay Rights" if you aren't Gay?
Can you have "Minority Rights" if you don't belong to a Minority?
All of these, cornerstones of the modern Left, are offensive to the 14th Amendment..."equal protection of the laws".
Interesting. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about.
Gay Rights are not ADDITIONAL rights. They are EXACTLY about the equal protection of the law is all about.
Women's rights and Gay rights laws don't grant new, special rights to minority groups. They try to prevent certain groups from having their rights trampled by explicitly enumerating those rights.
So no, I.. as a man.. don't qualify for woman's rights and I'm fine with that. Believe it or not, I don't mind that I don't have laws enumerating my right to vote just like men. Oh wait, that's right. 'I've' always had the right to vote because 'I' am a white male land-owner. That was sarcasm if you have trouble understanding that silly bit.
bilgeman says..
If the laws be destroyed, we can make them again anew, but if the people be destroyed...what then?
We can repair what damage, if any, we cause ourselves. It is much more difficult to repair the damage others do to us.
I thoroughly disagree.
On your first point, by that logic the people of 1930s Germany didn't need to worry so much. (honestly, I'm sorry for a Nazi referrence but this one fits well). So, the Nazi party grabbed power and began to erode the rights of their citizens. 'We can always fix that later.. it's the people we need to worry about. Hey, where's the Sienfelds?'
Why would you espouse an ideology that it's OK for us to allow malfeasence to slide? Because eventually we can get around to fixing it?
On your second point:
I think the damage we do to ourselves is MUCH more difficult to un-do. Pearl Harbor? We lost ships. We lost Seamen. The nation was not in grave peril by that act, even Hirohito said 'we've awoken a sleeping Giant'. He knew that the horrible attack on Pearl Harbor was nothing but a bruse to the US. 9/11? We lost manhattan real-estate. Our stock market dipped. We lost several thousand people. This was a horrible horrible act, one that still chokes me up when I really think about that day, but in the grand scheme of things that day in and of its self did not really threaten this nation as a whole. We are so much more than a block in NY and a few thousand people. I know I sound like I'm trivializing the deaths of innocent people, I'm not. I'm trying to look at this from a detached perspective. So far, the attacks on this nation have not come anywhere near seriously damaging our country beyond repair. If Osama could acquire dozens of Nukes that might be different but that's not what we are dealing with here.
Internal attacks on our liberty are much more dangerous.
How long can we allow our freedoms to erode? How long can we allow the un-abashed power grab from the executive wing of our government? How long can we act like a new colonial power in this World before more groups and nations begin to back away and take a stand against us? How easy will it be for us to change this course we have set ourselves upon? History has not been kind to other nations who have gone down this road. They did alter course eventually, but always at a terrible price and often only through outside force.
IMHO
ReplyDeleteOur Television culture has a huge influence on our 'get up and go' to fight corruption in our government.
Think about what happened with Clinton. (FYI. I don't trust politicians in general so spare me the comments on how much I must love Clinton) Here is a president that had an affair, and played words games with the public. It was on the television 24/7.
Then there is Bush. No need to go into the details there. My point is that you simply don't see the same level of coverage about the things Bush has done.
What if the coverage of giving the ok to torture was given the same level of coverage as the Monica scandal?
What freaks me out is that we such good consumers of what the television tells us, that I don't think we realize how bad it really is.
In other words. There is no fervor for a fight, because we haven't been told to fight.
(when I say "we" I mean the majority of folks consuming main stream media as 'the truth'.)
Jonah Goldberg is the perfect symbol of the current Right Wing- clueless, lazy and ignorant of history, law and the implications of ignoring both.
ReplyDeletePeople like Jonah are always willing to abdicate the rights of others but then look at how they react if they can't walk into a store and be serenaded with a chorus of "Merry Christmas"- the outrage!
Jonah is a great poster boy for another reason- he basically has no knowledge or qualifications about anything- it was his hanging out with his rich mommy during the monica lewinsky scandal that elevated him to conservative pundit and "writer."
He's an embarrassment, but a fitting one.
Comrade Goldberg is a loyal disciple of Party doctrine. Therefore he knows the State is deeply concerned with the welfare of children, except for those children whose age is greater than zero (as pfc suggested upthread). It is to be accepted that the State looks the other way while children are deprived proper education and health care. After all, the State is not God, except when the State interferes with personal matters regarding a brain-dead person. And the State properly dispenses with "niceties" such as safeguarding the precious dignity of a child, given what is at stake: the possibility that our prison population might be merely two million, rather than two million and one. (The US has more than two million people in prison. This is highest prison population in the world, both in absolute and percentage terms [pdf]. More than a million Americans are in prison for non-violent crimes [link]. "1 in 37 adults living in the United States" are in prison or have served time there [link].)
ReplyDeleteAfter all, the State is properly concerned with safety; that is, the safety of the profits of the legal drug dealers ($200 billion/year), who are greatly threatened by the competition posed by the illegal drug dealers. Spending $24 billion/year to incarcerate a million non-violent offenders is a small price to pay, to protect such a large revenue stream.
Comrade Goldberg knows the State is Good. Comrade Goldberg is a conservative. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
About the Second Amendment, I don't think the Bush Adminstration cares any more about your Second Amendment rights than they really do about abortion. They use these issues to persuade ordinary citizens that they have a reason to vote against their own economic self interests, and to convince them that these industry captains really care about them.
ReplyDeleteIt's quite an interesting alliance, really, blue-collar workers and oil magnates.
the always insightful jukeboxgrad nails it: This is highest prison population in the world, both in absolute and percentage terms [pdf]. More than a million Americans are in prison for non-violent crimes [link]. "1 in 37 adults living in the United States" are in prison or have served time there [link].)
ReplyDeleteAfter all, the State is properly concerned with safety; that is, the safety of the profits of the legal drug dealers ($200 billion/year), who are greatly threatened by the competition posed by the illegal drug dealers. Spending $24 billion/year to incarcerate a million non-violent offenders is a small price to pay, to protect such a large revenue stream.
All absolutely true, and the overwhelming numbers of these non-violent offenders have their lives destroyed by the state because they have been convicted of using, giving, or selling substances the govt doesn't like.
Prison is a moral issue.
Jonah and others can wax all moralistic about everything under the sun, but are strangely quiet about the fact that hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens are, or have been, locked in cages and had their lives destroyed because they did what Rush Limbaugh did, that is, to find dealers who will sell them the drugs they want. Rush is rich, so he doesn't have to deal in order to get his supply, but many others do, and so millions of drug users become "dealers" when they sell to their circle of friends, or even if they just share their weed.
These fiendish criminals, if caught, rot in prison, frequently after the state has sent men with guns storming into their homes and terrified their kids, and sometimes strip-searched them.
I ask Jonah: Is this the America he thinks the Founders envisioned? Criminalizing activities that "require" cops to strip search kids on a relatively regular basis? All to wage a war on plants and chemicals, they would have countenanced a teeming prison population larger, per capita, than almost every repressive regime's on the planet?
"Can you have "Women's Rights" if you aren't a woman?
ReplyDeleteCan you have "Gay Rights" if you aren't Gay?
Can you have "Minority Rights" if you don't belong to a Minority?"
Nice try. They're called "Constitutional Rights." They don't disappear if you happen to be a woman, gay, or a minority.
Sorry, I know others have addressed this particular quote from Bilgeman better. Excellent post by Glenn. Watching the Doughy Pantload scramble to retreat from his totalitarian position on the Corner has been sickening. Particularly his bizarre contention that when he says, "It may be wrong for the cops" to conduct warentless strip searches of children (my emphasis), it is unthinkable that rational people might question his respect for the Bill of Rights.
Doughy Pantload has status as a driver of the national dialogue (much as that status is undeserved). His words call for more examination than Joe Public's. Yet he is consistently shocked, shocked! when people take him at his published word, and call him out for his irresponsible arguments.
I don't wish his daughter to be strip-searched. I do understand the reflexive desire to wish such a thing upon Pantload after reading his latest. Still, I'd urge commenters here to ditch such comments ... they don't make us look principled.
Jonah makes me feel like I have fallen into a Kaftka novel. He and his ilk do not deserve to be Americans.
ReplyDeletedjmm
I know this is gilding the lily, but as I was reading Glenn's post this poem came into my head:
ReplyDeleteFirst they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
--Pastor Martin Niemöller
I don't want anyone to think that I am equating our current government with the Nazis - it's just that the erosion of any one group's liberties should be a warning to us all.
--JD, Denver, CO
Annonymous - there's a thought. To strip search DeLay's kids ... and if you think you'll find drugs in a drug dealer's kid's pockets, what would you find in DeLay's kids' pockets? (hint, it wouldn't be bug repellent) I can't decide if these neo cons are setting themselves up for an insanity plea or if they have just decided not to go.
ReplyDeleteWe're talking about a Jonah Goldberg idea here.
ReplyDeleteI mean that says it all.
What a loser.
Hypatia, thanks for the kind words. Yes, prison is a moral issue. Any country that imprisons a million non-violent offenders starts to look like a police state. We should set some of them free in order to make room for the violent offenders at the top of our government.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Bush et al, let's remember that our Moralist-in-Chief has a long admitted track record as a drug abuser (yes, alcohol is a damaging and dangerous drug).
And speaking of alcohol, it was careless of me to only mention pharmaceutical drugs ($200 billion/year in the US) and totally forget about other big money in legal drugs: nicotine ($300 billion/year worldwide) and alcohol ($23 billion/year in the US, measuring liquor-store sales only).
Of course some people sell questionable substances and make a lot of money and become Secretary of Defense (link).
But if you live in poor coal-mining country in Pennsylvania (link) and you sell a substance the government doesn't like, a government employee might ask your kid to drop her pants (pdf), and folks like Jonah will applaud. Great country.
One of Jonah G's comments today at The Corner:
ReplyDeleteI absolutely believe the police should have a warrant before they search people under such circumstances. How anyone could think I don't believe that is sort of beyond me.
Hmmm. Maybe because his column stated:
...as a plain moral common sense issue, if you are a drug dealer and keep drugs on the premises with your child, you get zero-point-zero sympathy from me if your kids are searched, warrant or no.
Could that be it???
Why doesn't JG just make a cameo appearance here and confess that he didn't mean it the way it sounded, if, indeed, he didn't?
And maybe while he's here, he might read some of your prior posts Glenn which are a model of how to put a clear, incisive argument together - with many hidden lessons in logic and rhetoric and how wielding the truth is so much more powerful than slithery ambiguity. And maybe exposure to a consistent conservative like Hypatia who voted for Bush but doesn't sanction his bid for monarchical power - maybe that would give him pause.
Silly, I know, but I have this optimistic view of human beings that they can sometimes change through exposure to, you know, the marketplace of ideas.
This is a very short comment to say:
ReplyDelete• I really appreciate the manner in which you eviscerated not just mr. Goldberg, but the current American zeitgeist.
• You left out "mean-spirited and mindlessly aggressive" in describing the characteristics of Mr. Goldberg and his ilk. I mention this because it is one thing to apathetically allow ill to be done in one's name, and quite another to actively urge on the violence. Which, it seems to me, is as much a part of the current culture.
• Lastly, I cannot help but wonder when I see Mr. Goldberg's name: why bother?
It is interesting that Robert Heilbroner thought that the end of the free, liberal market society would eventually be a capitalistic state where the highest duty would be not to oneself but to the state and the capitalists. Freepers are already there. Golberg is the brainless regugitator of the state worshipping adulation of one who identifies with the fearless leasder.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteThis is one of the most brilliant well-written things I've ever read. You expressed so eloquently what I've thought, but never been able to articulate. Thank you so much.
Okay, so we all agree that A) Goldberg is a nimrod and B) the country is going to hell in a handbasket. My question is: what can we do about it? (Er, B, that is; A is kind of a lost cause.)
ReplyDeleteI can't see what I can do, at least I alone -- I vote, but will my vote truly make a difference* when election-time comes around? I'd run for office, but I'm no-one from nowhere, who'd elect me (though I'm pretty sure I'd do a better job than most people in office currently... Hell, most of the people commenting here would do a better job!)?
* That is, will my vote be allowed to count? If The Powers That Be can choose to disregard laws without qualm, what is to prevent them from acknowledging a vote for the opposition? And yes, I know this sounds somewhat hysterical -- I'm just wondering.
One person makes a pretty lousy revolution force, even with a gun. A million-plus people marching on The Mall would at least show solidarity, but unless we're willing to sacrifice our lives, there's no way it'll remove anyone from office or install someone else.
So: what do we do? How do we convince others that these things are Really Happening without sounding like wingnuts ourselves?
Wow 126 mouth foaming, Hitler is here, run for your lives, irrational fear induced responses. This Goldberg guy must do something pretty good to get everyone so worked up.
ReplyDeleteIn glancing over the posts I noted consistent misstatements of facts and over hyped analogies that would make a lying democrap senator on the Judiciary committee blush.
So to set the record straight.
1. The case under discussion was NOT a criminal law/suppression of evidence case.
2. The case was a civil lawsuit for liability against the police officers.
3. There were absolutely NO, NONE, NADA allegations in *THIS* case that the strip search was abusive in any manner. No attorney for the mother or the girl complained that the strip search was abusive in the manner in which it was carried out.
4. The police DID HAVE A WARRANT. A JUDGE SAID THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE A CRIME WAS BEING COMMITTED TO JUSTIFY ISSUING THE WARRANT.
5. The principal issue in the case was whether the police when being sued for MONEY were entitled to immunity, AS IS NORMALLY THE CASE.
6. The rule of law at issue was that if the police reasonably believed they had authority to conduct the searches (EVEN IF THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT HAVING THE AUTHORITY AS LONG AS THEIR THINKING THEY HAD AUTHORITY WAS REASONABLE) then the police would have immunity in this lawsuit for MONEY.
7. Since there were no allegations of the search being conducted in an abusive manner the only question was whether it was "reasonable" for the police to believe that they had the specific permission of the Judge to search everyone found on the property to be searched.
8. Since the police asked for this authority in their affidavit and since the judge said the affidavit was incorporated into the warrant, it could certainly be argued that it was "reasonable" (even if not correct in fact) for the Police to believe the warrant did provide for them to search everyone found on the property, and therefore in this civil suit for MONEY (not a criminal trial or motion to suppress evidence) Judge Alito ruled that the reasonableness standard was met, in light of the confusing language of the warrant which wasn't the police's fault, and therefore the Police in this suit for MONEY would be entitled to immunity.
10. The non-abusive strip search was conducted in a private bathroom, by a police woman, with the mother and daughter together the whole time. The parties in question did NOT remove all their clothing, and they weren't fingered by the female officer. At all times the females remained clothed in their bra and panties. Their private parts were not fondled.
Sorry for the sanity interruption, now back to the regularly scheduled hysterical rants based entirely on everything except the facts of the matter.
Here let me start you all back off... Damn those republican Bush storm troopers, I'm tired of James Earl Jones breathing heavy on my phone and asking to finger my daughters... I say in the name of peace and non-violence we must kill all these horrible Hitler youth running our country into the ground, the sky is falling the sky is falling.....
Says the "Dog"
I liked this one so much I'm posting it on my own blog. Bark... Bark... Woof Woof.
I keep thinking that these days we are answering basic questions about governments, republics, and liberties, which seemed fairly settled in the 1700s among the smart-thinkin.
ReplyDeleteWe have to explain why people create governments and why we need them, and why we have "rights" and why we need them, and how come we made systems of laws and why governments need to follow them.
I don't think we're going back to 1930's fascism, nor 1890's McKinley-administration imperialism.
We're going back to pre-Reformation times, proudly.
"Americans have sat by more or less passively by while this Administration detained American citizens and threw them into a military prison without charges being brought, without a trial, and without even allowing them access to a lawyer. Many are basically indifferent to revelations that the Bush Administration is eavesdropping on American citizens in secret and with no oversight of any kind. And worst of all, a sizable portion of the population is acquiescing to the fact that we have a President who was just discovered breaking the law, and rather than expressing shame or remorse once he was caught, has vowed to continue doing it based on the theory that he has the right to violate the law and that it's for our own good."
ReplyDeleteAmericans are hypnotized by TV and other media, all owned by people in whose interest it is to perpetuate the One Party State. People have grown so used to using the TV for their consensus reality that they are especially susceptible to manipulation. Until Democrats gain inroads into mass communications (and they don't appear to be particularly motivated, frankly), nothing will change. i've become very disillusioned, and the most recent Daou Report didn't help...
For the past couple of months I have been reading the comments by the truth squad pundits at the National Review On-line from the Plame contraversy thru the Torture Scandal to the Illegal Evesdropping to Alito.
ReplyDeleteSome of these so-called conservative thinkers came to prominence on TV during the Clinton/Lewinsky Scandal.
Their holy, better than you mantra and their Family Values are better than your Family Values mantra had me staring at the TV with my mouth wide open in disbelief.
Where do people like the Jonah Goldbergs of the world get their chutzpah?
Is it genetic? Or do their parents from birth tell their little darlings that whatever they do or say is always good and noble. That only they know what the absolute truth is. That only they drink the truth at their own Oracle of Delphi.
I, on the other hand, have doubts about myself and some of the choices I have made in my life.
I try not to judge other people who have made bad judgments or inappropriate moral decisions in their lives. I have not walked in their shoes.
Sometimes there is an absolute right or wrong. But Life is not always white or black. Sometimes it is not easy to pass judgments on other people.
But these Goldbergs and these O'Beirnes of the world know somehow what is better or more moral than we poor unfortunates who have questions and uncertainties about life.
It is not just a political or judicial philosophical difference.
They charge thru life calling other people and their beliefs wrong, immoral, criminal, sometimes, can I say it, lesbian. Now they call people traitors or evil doers.
Dare I say it? Am I jealous of their certainty, their direct pipeline to God, be HE Christian or Jew-- of course HE can't be Muslim which would be an abomination?
Will these CASSANDRAS ever be outed and exposed for what they truly are -- UNAMERICAN?
Thanks for the great essay. I think you hit a home run with it. One complaint....why do you label Jonah, and the rest of the bootlickers who provide cover for the Republican Syndicate "conservative"?
ReplyDeleteThey torpedoed States Rights, 1st thing. Balanced budgets, right to privacy, nation building, and moral character have all been deep-sixed.
So, they aren't conservative and they're certainly not progressive liberals. We need a new term to describe this political phenomena. I got it! Criminals.
Someone should accuse him of a crime and insist that he be cavity searched. See how if he's still singing the same tune.
ReplyDeletebirdseatbugs said:
ReplyDeleteOne person makes a pretty lousy revolution force, even with a gun. A million-plus people marching on The Mall would at least show solidarity, but unless we're willing to sacrifice our lives, there's no way it'll remove anyone from office or install someone else.
______________________________
Dangerous words.
i have been wondering where the people were who voted Al Gore when the Supremes stopped the counting of votes (not just the second counting: the first counting of some that had not been tallied properly by the machines) in Florida in 2000. Did i understand correctly that Gore had a 500,000 majority of the popular vote? Where were all those people when their votes got invalidated? Where was the outrage?
But your talk of guns and sacrificing lives sounds as if you may endorse sedition and may not be appropriate for this venue.
"The Dog" seems to miss the point. What ever the specific details of the warrant-less searching of the accused drug dealer's daughter, Glenn's problem with Goldberg's post, agreed with by me and I would imagine most people who have posted a comment, is that Goldberg, "as a plain moral common sense issue," argues that drug dealers (and undoubtedly suspected terrorists) should be presumed guilty because the government knows best and that children should be punished for their parents not proven guilt. As he so casually dismisses Glenn's post and the vast majority of comments made so far, should we presume that "the Dog" doesn't worry about such "technicalities" as the right to be assumed innocence until proven guilty, or the right to not be punished for the guilty actions of another? But of course King George knows best. Yes, all hail his divine majesty! (As the Founding Fathers roll in their graves...)
ReplyDeleteI don't think he's missing the point. More likely he's earning points towards a GOP Teamleader mug, or maybe a fleece pullover. The system is explained here.
ReplyDeletepzykr said...
ReplyDeletebirdseatbugs said:
One person makes a pretty lousy revolution force, even with a gun. A million-plus people marching on The Mall would at least show solidarity, but unless we're willing to sacrifice our lives, there's no way it'll remove anyone from office or install someone else.
______________________________
Dangerous words.
i have been wondering where the people were who voted Al Gore when the Supremes stopped the counting of votes (not just the second counting: the first counting of some that had not been tallied properly by the machines) in Florida in 2000. Did i understand correctly that Gore had a 500,000 majority of the popular vote? Where were all those people when their votes got invalidated? Where was the outrage?
But your talk of guns and sacrificing lives sounds as if you may endorse sedition and may not be appropriate for this venue.
------------
Let's start over! I have a tendency to get distracted, and sometimes that results in two ideas getting squashed together that should be very separate. I didn't realize it until you replied, but the bit about "one person (even with a gun)" and "million-plus marchers" should have been divided more completely. I apologize for this error.
What I meant to say (and did not) was actually this:
One person, even armed, cannot possibly make a difference by trying to foment revolution themselves. Therefore that idea for effecting change is right out.
An unarmed mass of people, marching about on The Mall, would at least show that there are enough unhappy people in the country that they're willing to come from far and near to show that they are unhappy. This, too, will not actually make a difference in the long run -- a mass of humanity on the mall won't do anything to change who is (or is not) in office. So that idea is out, too.
I'm not actually advocating sedition -- for one thing, doing so would require me to put my money where my mouth is by leading the charge and I'm not yet ready to die. For another, I'd much rather try all of the legal options first and save bloody revolution for the absolute last.
I have no idea about the voters for Gore in 2000; I can't remember who I voted for (other than Not Bush) and as I wasn't nearly as politically aware then, I wasn't paying attention. This time around, I couldn't afford to go to Florida/DC and it's not like I could go visit the Supremes/counters and politely ask them to please take my point of view as the Gospel truth.
My question still stands, though: what can we do?
Thanks birdseatbugs, for setting an example for the approach Jonah Goldberg could take to set the record straight.
ReplyDeleteLet's start over! I have a tendency to get distracted, and sometimes that results in two ideas getting squashed together that should be very separate.
Now that's what a person who realizes he's fallible says when he writes something that conveys a different message than he intended.
michael:
ReplyDelete"Bilgeman, would you be OK with President Hillary Clinton having the imperial right to have you spied upon or thrown in jail without due process?"
We already had that, pal. Where were YOU from 1995 to 2000?
Do you remember Craig Livingstone and "Filegate"?
Remember "Carnivore" and "Echelon" and the Pretty Good Privacy flapdoodle?
Or did all that disappear right down your memory hole?
Be Honest.
Regards;
jay:
ReplyDelete"This is absurd. The fight for Women, Gay and Minority Rights is specifically for the aforementioned to gain assurance of equal protection of the laws, not supercede them."
That's how it's SOLD,but that's nothow the policies get implemented, chum.
The P.R. claims that it's nothing more than a fight for equality, and who could reasonably oppose that?
But then we get told that "equality ain't enough"...the group in question gets "more equality". To "correct past injustices".
Are you trying to claim that such legislation is NOT "superseding" them?
Affirmative Action...Title 11...and since Gays aren't as far down the road as minorities and women are, we can only guess at what kinds of programs will be advanced to "remedy past discrimination" against them.
And who is it that allegedly committed these "past injustices"?
They were probably white, probably male, and probably heterosexual...and not necessarily all three of these subsets.
So, at whose expense are these "corrections" taken?
And if you try claiming that this isn't the Left "visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons", I'll cheerfully call you a damned liar.
Fact of the matter is, the Left sold out it's ideals of equal protection of the laws for pet constituencies.
And it's proving not to be enough to maintain it as the philosophy of governance.
IOTW, you cannot and you will not win elections by catering to minority lesbians, see?
Regards;
Anaonymous,(Al Qaeda on the Internet):
ReplyDelete"Shorter Bilgeman:
My right to own a gun trumps your right to speak - so zip it if you know what's good for you."
Do you think that your IP can't be traced simply because you didn't fill out an e-blogger form?
Are you going to claim that your 4th Amendment Rights were violated when the Feds come for you for publishing this?
D'you think Glenn Greenwald is going to fly up from his beach in Brasil to defend you?
When the "Eye of Sauron" falls upon you for making terrorist threats over the internet,(which is a felony), you'll be surprised how many people will disavow you and your actions.
Welcome to your nightmare.
Minimal regards;
ffakr:
ReplyDelete" I don't believe in infringing on personal choices and rights, BUT I understand that some laws are in place to protect the overall benefit of the republic."
I refer you to the words of Brother observer:
"Crap, man, libertarianism is an important political philosophy, not just some dollar menu where you get to pick and choose which are your favorite unchecked powers of government."
It seems, according to observer, at least, that we must either have "all or nothing"...Anarchy or Tyranny.
And you are, apparently regretfully, casting your vote for tyranny.
So, to riff the old joke, we've already established what you are, we're now just haggling over who gets prosecuted, and for what.
"Gay Rights are not ADDITIONAL rights. They are EXACTLY about the equal protection of the law is all about.
Women's rights and Gay rights laws don't grant new, special rights to minority groups. They try to prevent certain groups from having their rights trampled by explicitly enumerating those rights."
I covered this in a reply to another commenter...please refer there.
"I thoroughly disagree.
On your first point, by that logic the people of 1930s Germany didn't need to worry so much. (honestly, I'm sorry for a Nazi referrence but this one fits well). So, the Nazi party grabbed power and began to erode the rights of their citizens. "
You disagree, understood, and the Nazi reference is a valid one...I won't invoke Godwin.
But there are other examples, from our own history that speak in support of my contention.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and ruled as military dictator, and not only did the Republic survive in spite of it, but it survived BECAUSE of it.
Likewise, the sainted Democrat FDR interned tens of thousands of American citizens in camps for the duration of WW2...did we as a nation, once and for all betray our ideals because of the fact?
Of course not, we won the war, and the Nisei were released, and reparations were made,(albeit tardily).
"I think the damage we do to ourselves is MUCH more difficult to un-do...History has not been kind to other nations who have gone down this road. They did alter course eventually, but always at a terrible price and often only through outside force."
We are not "other nations", friend, we are who and what we are.
And I ken that this is what Goldberg was talking about with his "culture and institutions" copy.
Regards;
Regards;
The P.R. claims that it's nothing more than a fight for equality, and who could reasonably oppose that?
ReplyDeleteBut then we get told that "equality ain't enough"...the group in question gets "more equality". To "correct past injustices".
Wow...so you oppose civil rights for women and gays because so long as they're unequal to you, your rights remain secure. And you're bellyaching at others here for "regretfully, casting your vote for tyranny." But since that's your vote too then what's the problem?
brambling:
ReplyDelete"It's quite an interesting alliance, really, blue-collar workers and oil magnates."
Nice to hear from someone who rememembers the role that class plays in politics.
It is a poser, ain't it?
The thing is, where did the Democratic party go?
As far as blue-collar labor is concerned, the Dems COMPLETELY abdicated the field.
In spite of many, many unions being in favor of it, we can't get the ANWR drilled for oil, despite the blue collar jobs that that would create, because the eco-greenies are opposed to it.
The lesson hasn't been lost on us...the "Tree-Huggers" swing a "bigger dick" in the Democratic Party than Labor does.
So be it.
Similarly, the Dems fall all over themselves to extend benefits to illegal aliens, despite the fact that illegal alien labor disproportionately impacts working class Americans in depressed wages and benefits.
Again, the lesson is quite clear...the Dems care more for illegals because they think Hispanics MIGHT vote their way, than they do for working-class citizens who might not.
So be it.
During Clinton's first two years in office, when he enjoyed a Democratic House AND Senate, the "Striker Replacement Bill" never COULD seem to make it to the floor for a vote, but NAFTA was fast-tracked.
Thought we wouldn't notice that?
So be it.
What is left? What does the Democratic Party have to offer the working-class citizen if that citizen is not ALSO a member of a pet "Victim Group"?
...not much. Not much at all.
So what's left?
The rich shitpoke and the blue-collar worker can always speak the same language of money.
To put it simply, I can't buy the crap she sells if I'm not paid enough to afford it.
That much is a fact. But that's a beginning.
Regards;
bruce garret:
ReplyDelete"Wow...so you oppose civil rights for women and gays because so long as they're unequal to you, your rights remain secure."
If you have to mischaracterize what I said, then we're not really having a discussion...you're just "mentally masturbating", it may feel good, but it's not much of an achievement.
Read carefully, dimwit.
"Equal Rights" and "equal protection under the law" means just that.
The Left, however, has betrayed those ideals to mean in practice, discriminatory programs like Affirmative Action and Title 11.
You may convince yourself that this is not so,(I reckon it shouldn't be TOO strenuous for you to do so), but there are millions upon millions of Americans who know good and goddamned well otherwise.
The proof is at the polls.
Regards;
Bilgerat ranted: "Do you think that your IP can't be traced simply because you didn't fill out an e-blogger form?
ReplyDeleteAre you going to claim that your 4th Amendment Rights were violated when the Feds come for you for publishing this?
D'you think Glenn Greenwald is going to fly up from his beach in Brasil to defend you?
When the "Eye of Sauron" falls upon you for making terrorist threats over the internet,(which is a felony), you'll be surprised how many people will disavow you and your actions.
Welcome to your nightmare.
Minimal regards"
What in the hell are you talking about? Talk about overreacting! And you were the one who accused everyone of reactionary whining just a few posts ago.
Honestly, how ANYONE could construe that innocent snark as a threat is beyond me.
-A different Anonymous
Another Anonymous:
ReplyDelete"Honestly, how ANYONE could construe that innocent snark as a threat is beyond me."
When it happens to you, you'll know it.
If your passion gets the better of your reason, you shouldn't post things on the internet.
But we'll just see what the Feds think of it, shall we?
Regards;
Imagine the response if the government were using sneak and peek warrants or other Constitutionally challenged means to search for legal weapons.
ReplyDeleteCan't you hear the howls of outrage now?
First, to "the dog": Aside from one anonymous commenter, no one in this discussion has brought up the issue of sexual molestation.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you so eager to?
We are "worked up" about the abrogation of constitutional rights idiots like Jonah are happy with, namely warrantless searches, which are representative of the kinds of abuses of power we've become accustomed to since 2000. Your entire comment is typical "knock down the strawman" crap that wingnuts resort to because they just can't seem to win a legitimate argument.
And to "bilgeman": I originally said: "Crap, man, libertarianism is an important political philosophy, not just some dollar menu where you get to pick and choose which are your favorite unchecked powers of government."
You put that quote through your wingnut filter and regurgitated the following: "It seems, according to observer, at least, that we must either have "all or nothing"...Anarchy or Tyranny."
Since when is following the Bill of Rights the equivalent of Anarchy? I mean, seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?
As for all the "equal protection" nonsense. You let me know when you come up with a right that gays are asking for that wouldn't be granted to everyone equally.
"Likewise, the sainted Democrat FDR interned tens of thousands of American citizens in camps for the duration of WW2...did we as a nation, once and for all betray our ideals because of the fact?
ReplyDeleteOf course not, we won the war, and the Nisei were released, and reparations were made,(albeit tardily)."
--
So, by this logic, we can round up all males 18 to 25 and jail them until they're in their 30s because that's the demographic that commit most of the crimes?
Why not kick out all latinos because that's what illegal aliens are?
Why bother having laws at all?
sanna lawrence:
ReplyDelete"Imagine the response if the government were using sneak and peek warrants or other Constitutionally challenged means to search for legal weapons.
Can't you hear the howls of outrage now?"
They already did, but you weren't paying attention.
Under the National Instant Background Check legislation, it was illegal for the BATF to keep records of whom had LEGALLY purchased what firearm.
They did it anyway.
The records were to hae been destroyed within 72 hours of the purchase being approved.
Claimed that they needed to keep these records for up to 6 months,(AFAIR), for "auditing" purposes.
Had you realized that that happenned?
Clinton supported the ATF in their law-breaking, and the Left supported Clinton.
There ya go...nearly everything that you are accusing Bush of WANTING to do has already BEEN done by the Clinton Administration,(including making war on nations that were no threat to us...remember Kosovo? Somalia?).
Regards;
Read carefully, dimwit.
ReplyDeleteI can read. You said The P.R. claims that it's nothing more than a fight for equality, and who could reasonably oppose that?
But then we get told that "equality ain't enough"...the group in question gets "more equality". To "correct past injustices".
...and that was after someone challenged this little fragrant piece of disingenuous rhetoric:
Can you have "Women's Rights" if you aren't a woman?
Can you have "Gay Rights" if you aren't Gay?
Can you have "Minority Rights" if you don't belong to a Minority?
It was put to you that women and gays and minorities are fighting for equal rights, and you sniffed that's only how it is sold.
Now...never mind that you had just said previously that it wasn't how it was being sold. What you're saying there, clearly, sickeningly, is that a struggle for equal rights is never about equal rights. You're saying that a struggle for equal rights always morphs into a grab for ...uhmm...special rights (sound familiar?). So in order to keep your own rights intact, you have to oppose the struggle of women and gays and other minorities for equality, because such a struggle is never what it seems, and must always lead to your own rights being diminished or lost.
And that's what you think, isn't it? Better to keep some people second class citizens, then risk loosing your own status. When women fight for their rights, they're fighting to take away rights from you. When gays fight for their rights, they're fighting to take rights away from you. That's how you can look at a fight for women's rights, and gay rights, and minority rights, and ask how you can have those rights too, if you're neither a woman, or gay or a minority. It isn't about these groups gaining their rights, but about them gaining something over you. Human rights, by this reckoning, are a zero sum game. A struggle for equality is never what it seems. Any gains one group makes, must come out of your skin.
So you have to oppose equality, because as you said it's never really about equality. That's only how it's sold. That's always how it's sold. There is, by your reckoning, no such thing as a struggle for equal rights. At least not when it comes to certain groups of people: women, gays, minorities.
And to get to this point, you pretty much have to throw away any concept of principle. It doesn't matter how just the cause is, because somewhere in the fold there may be people who are only using it to advance their devious agendas. Those people have to be opposed. Even if it means turning a deaf ear to injustice.
Because after all, the only rights that really matter...are yours. Now take a look at yourself in the bathroom mirror and see the face of your enemy, the one who is only interested in his own agenda at the expense of the rights of other Americans, staring back at you.
To Mel Backstrom:
ReplyDeleteIf everyone here is all hysterical over something Goldberg said that has NOTHING to do with Judge Alito that would be one thing and in which case maybe I did miss the point.
But this strip search thing was being tied to Judge Alito, and in addition to that the facts WERE and CONTINUE to be seriously MISSTATED as regards the specific case decision in which Judge Alito participated.
Even after I posted the facts of that case you, Observer and others here keep referring to a warrantless search. The police had a WARRANT. The question had to do with the meaning of the warrant and the reasonableness of the police's interpretation of that warrant. The case was for money damages, and did NOT allege that the search of the mother and daughter was an abusive search conducted in an improper manner for that type of search. Posters here continually reference persons being fingered and cavity searches none of which are appropriate analogies to the specific case in which judge Alito participated.
If Goldberg discussed fact situations not applicable to the Alito decision, I'm fine with taking that out on Goldberg, but don't try to tar Judge Alito with facts not present in the specific case in which he participated.
Judge Alito participated in making a decision about a lawsuit for MONEY that involved a WARRANT and the interpretation of that WARRANT by police.
Says the "Dog"
Glenn --
ReplyDeleteThank you for an interesting essay.
Bilgerat --
The form "Shorter Bilgerat:" is blogspeak for paraphrasing an opponent's statement in a sarcastic and derogatory manner. (S)he wasn't threatening you, but rather ridiculing your fantasy of shacking up with a bunch of guys and stroking your guns to defeat the great liberal conspiracy which even now is reaching out to envelop you in its slimy tentacles. But by all means waste the government's time with your bizarre fantasies -- it's not like they have anything better to do.
Yours -- Ally
bruce garret:
ReplyDelete"Now...never mind that you had just said previously that it wasn't how it was being sold. What you're saying there, clearly, sickeningly, is that a struggle for equal rights is never about equal rights. You're saying that a struggle for equal rights always morphs into a grab for ...uhmm...special rights "
That has been the sad record of the struggle for equal rights...as it has been implemented by the Left over the past 40 years.
Are you going to deny that this is so?
Better put in ear plugs to shield you from the peals of laughter that will then issue from those of us who have been, and are being, discriminated against by the programs that your agenda sponsored.
"So in order to keep your own rights intact, you have to oppose the struggle of women and gays and other minorities for equality, because such a struggle is never what it seems, and must always lead to your own rights being diminished or lost."
As long as YOU lot are flogging it, you bet yer sweet li'l bippie.
Are you going to try to argue that Affirmative Action is NOT at the expense of white people?
Are you going to try to advance the notion that Title 11 does NOT deny finite budget dollars to males in order to benefit females?
Oh...but it's all about the "making up for PAST injustice", ain't it?
Only...you never seem to be willing to foot the bill yourself.
It's always some OTHER schmoe.
Well, ace, I'm that schmoe...and you Lefties aren't going to pay your "Guilt Bills" on my account anymore, see?
"Because after all, the only rights that really matter...are yours."
Exactly. Precisely. Bullseye!
Because hard experience has taught me that nobody else is going to be concerned about my rights BUT me.
Certainly not the Left...not with it's record.
I was threatened with violence on this very board...not ONE of you Lefties here spoke up to reprove the Anonymous coward. Including you...O mister compassionate guardian of "rights".
Where were you? What did YOU have to say?
Not a fuckin' thing.
But two Leftie posters have opened their shit-lips to defend the coward AND the terroristic threat.
I'm supposed to trust YOU?
I'm supposed to think that YOU are anything even approaching fair?
You're not nearly as moral and good as you THINK you are.
And I am certainly not as stoopid as you wish I would be, chum.
The arrogance of the Left just LOVES to define FOR me what my interests are, what my morality should be, and what my rights are.
And when told to go piss up the rope, they work themselves into a high dudgeon.
So much so that NO racist, sexist or moral insult is considered too much. NO violent threat is unjustified.
Pack of fuckin' hypocrites trying to have you join the chorus singin' "Kumbaya" while they reach for your wallet...that's the Left for ya.
At least the Right tells you up front that they want your wallet.
Bilgeman, nobody threatened you. You just have a reading comprehension problem.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous was putting words in your mouth, that's what 'Shorter Bilgeman' means.
Read it again and think for a minute before you make a complete fool of yourself by running off to report a threat to the feds.
Shorter Bilgeman:
"My right to own a gun trumps your right to speak - so zip it if you know what's good for you."
another anonymous half-wit:
ReplyDelete"Bilgeman, nobody threatened you. You just have a reading comprehension problem."
Hey, have you ever had to take employer-mandated "Sensitivity Training"?
Do you know WHO defines what "sexual harrasment" or "racial discrimination" IS?
It's not the clown who opened his mouth or the dim-bulb who circulated a memo.
It's the victim...the person who makes the complaint is the one who determines what harrasment is.
Not you.
Don't believe me? If you have a job, look it up in your company policy handbook. It should be in there.
Oh, but I forgot, I'm not a member of your politically-approved "victim class", so I have no rights...
...none at all.
I'm not at all surprised.
Regards;
ReplyDeleteIt's the victim...the person who makes the complaint is the one who determines what harrasment is.
Oh, alright.
In that case, stop threatening me or I'll go to the feds.
The poster formerly know as anonymous
The fake Echelon talking point along with a lot of the other myths about the violations of the 4th amendment committed by the Bush administration, have been dealt with effectively by Media Matters here.
ReplyDeleteBilgeman, you've got some serious issues with the truth and with victimhood (your own). Imagine you could have the life you currently have, same job, same income, same house, same family, but you and your entirely family are African American, and you live with it from that point forward. Do you really think you would be better off? Come on.
All this crap about the threat of affirmative action or sensitivity training. God forbid you have to sit through a class or something. God forbid we give a black kid a break. Your selective outrage is notable because, like most conservatives, you don't give a crap about "legacy" admissions to colleges, which is most definitely ongoing affirmative action for whites.
I mean, you're willing to conjure outrage about affirmative action out of thin air, sure, in the middle of an argument about warrantless searches (that's the topic here, "dog", not your sexual fantasies or Alito). But when it comes to a real, ongoing program (not just some pie-in-the-sky liberal proposal that not even all Democrats agree on), you don't care enough to inject your outrage into the discussion.
I wonder why.
Observer,
ReplyDeleteSexual fantasies? I'm not the one spending all my working hours with underaged boys and girls. That's your province. The only person here seeing sexual things in the discussion is you. Stop projecting your improper thoughts about all those teanie boppers onto others and get some help ok?
Saw your post about walmart a bigger load of big union NEA sponsored crap their could not be. Its no wonder more and more parents home school their kids these days. We've let all the losers who couldn't make it in some real major become the teachers, and they are just a bunch of blue collar mindless union goons masquerading as persons with an education about something.
Says the "Dog"
tim:
ReplyDelete"What? So the be all and end-all of domestic policy ought to be to maximize benefit for the dominant class?"
Oh, is that what I am?
Strange you should say, because
I'm actually working class...card-carrying 3rd generation Union member and everything.
But when it's convenient for you, I'm "the MAN", huh?
"Of course Affirmative Action diminishes the dominance of white males"
Go re-read what I wrote, ace. I said "whites"...YOU are the one who tossed in "males", at least where AffirmAction is concerned.
If you want to discuss this issue, I'll have to insist that you speak to what I've actually said...not just shit that you make up...'kay?
"of course programs that demand equity in government spending on male-or-female-only programs will result in less money being spent on men"
Y'know, I don't know if you are aware that females outnumber males both in college admissions, but also in graduation rates.
Females are also FAR less likely to drop out of secondary school than males...but these facts are hardly EVER mentioned in your circles, since that would serve to take the heat off the profitably-boiling "Victim Pot".
No, better that your partisans keep whining about how us "dominant class" has it made...
BTW, chum, you DO know that females are a MAJORITY in this country, right?
"This isn't "guilt money" - it's recognition of a disparity and an attempt to correct it."
Of course it's "guilt money"...you're only fooling yourself when you make such a statement, chap.
If there's a disparity, then why don't YOU "correct" it with your OWN resources?
I told you why...y'all ain't as good and noble as you think you are...THAT'S why.
"And yes, I foot the bill, just like everyone else. "
Really? How? How has Title 11 and Affirmative Action negatively impacted you?
And if it indeed has, why are you apparently okay with it?
"If this means that a fifth-generation legacy student gets rejected from his university of choice in favor of a kid from the inner city "
Now there's a strawman argument if ever I saw one...yeah, pal, you sit around and sing "The Internationale" against wealth and privilege, right?
Oh, BTW, sonny, the only "legacy" I ever got was directions to the union hall.
But there I go, demolishing that "dominant class" stereotype that you cannot live without.
"What you have instead is a less priveleged group. That's not a punishment, it's removing an unjustly held privelege."
Oh, wait a minute...there it is, see?
When it's convenient for you I'm the "dominant class", but then you finally have to admit that your policies DO take a bite from SOMEONE, then I'm merely a "less-privileged group".
But it's okay, in your mind, because whatever my great-great grandpappy might have had was "unjustified".
Arrogant much?
Look, hotshot, this matter started with a discusion of the 14th Amendment, the one that proclaims "equal protection of the laws".
Now the Left can get on its' high horse and make all the high-falutin' speeches moralizin' about "equality" and "civil rights" it wants to,(although the audience for it keeps shrinking), but when it comes down to where the rubber meets the road, y'all are the worst form of tyrant...the moral hypocrite.
"cause if that were the case, you'd have a shitload of people in this country being prosecuted for a lot of lynchings, workplace discrimination, hate crimes, etc"
My wife is half American Indian,(was that another stereotype of me you held that I thought I heard bursting?), and let me tell ya something.
If you think that you can make a future with someone by focusing on past injustices, real and imagined, you are sadly mistaken.
At a certain point, you have to make a conscious decision to put that heavy bag of broken bricks down and go on from there, or you get to spend your sunset years lonely and bitter and nursing your grudges and hurts.
That's what is happenning to the Left today...y'all are a worthless bag of bricks that do far more harm than good,being jettisoned over the side.
If you ever stood up and became as committed to equality in deed as well as in word, and kept that commitment for decades, you might have a shot at governance again.
But I don't see that happenning for many many years.
Regards;
kbikoy:
ReplyDeleteInteresting reaction. I live in Alaska most of the time, and I was there during the pipeline years. Although the pipeline brought a good deal of money into the state, there was some resentment of all the outside, mostly Texan, workers that were brought in, and from what I understand, the new pipeline, if they do drill in the Arctic Refuge, would require far fewer workers, with specialized training, and they would even more than last time be mostly brought in from outide.
Most Alaskans are for drilling but a sizable minority are against it. I'm against it even though I probably would benefit financially one way or another. I just really love the place and don't want to see it drilled until we've taken other obvious measures like setting fuel efficiency standards for SUV's. In my mind (as an economist) it's a matter of scarcity value. Both the oil and the wilderness have scarcity value. Right now, the wilderness has the highest scarcity value. It's not an emergency until it really is an emergency, and in the meantime, you are opening up to development the last remaining piece of coastline where drilling isn't allowed. That's not "balancing" environmental needs with oil needs - that's drilling everywhere. All environmental concerns aside, and they are real, the place will be cordoned off for security reasons and nobody will be able to float down the Hulahula to the coast any more.
I know the Teamsters came out for drilling, but that not until in Bush's first term and some members were unhappy about it. I wasn't aware of much union support otherwise, but I could be wrong. Indeed, the oil companies haven't lobbied much for drilling either. It's more of a symbolic political battle, the oil bullies want to show the Greenies who's really in charge. It's also been used for years to attract environmentalists' energy to the apple pie fight to preserve the "last remaining pristine wilderness" and thereby sap their energy for other issues.
The Alaska Democratic Party has always had both labor types and Greenie types. They get along pretty well but sometimes there's some conflict. I really don't understand what any blue-collar worker could possibly see in the GOP given their tax restructuring, Social Security destroying ways. Certainly on a local and state level the Dems tend to be better.
I can understand why you're disillusioned with the Democratic Party, they don't seem to have in general much fire in their belly, although I was impressed with Al Gore's genuine passion tonight.
Why not join your local precinct, and work to make it more pro-labor again? You can usually affect things at least at the local level. In Alaska, seems like union types still tend to join the Democratic Party.
brambling:
ReplyDeleteActually, I posted as "kbikoy"...typed the anti-spambot key in the wrong line.
"Although the pipeline brought a good deal of money into the state, there was some resentment of all the outside, mostly Texan, workers that were brought in"
Hey, I'm from Louisiana originally, so I know what you're talking about vis-a-vis the "culture clash"...but I rather think that the resentment didn't extend so far as to not selling 'em beer and cigarettes, right?
Even Texans gotta eat.
"if they do drill in the Arctic Refuge, would require far fewer workers, with specialized training, and they would even more than last time be mostly brought in from outide."
Let me ask you to recall what the Port of Valdez was before the Trans-Alaska pipeline...a lumber and fishing port, right?
Those tankers brought in a sum of skilled jobs for Alaska residents...pilots, tug-boat crews, chandlers, longshoremen...right on down the chain.
"I just really love the place and don't want to see it drilled until we've taken other obvious measures like setting fuel efficiency standards for SUV's."
Y'know, it might surprise you, but I like wilderness too...just not enough to condemn people I have no beef against to an economic hardship that they didn't have to suffer.
BTW, did you know that some of the best fishing in the Gulf of Mexico is off the production platforms?
So it's not as if producing petroleum and protecting wildlife are mutually exclusive goals.
I think it fascinating that you seem to have swallowed the SUV "red pill" while living in Alaska.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about "mini-vans"?
What is an "SUV" but a 4-wheel drive mini-van?
This is an urban vs. suburban/rural "New Yorker-vision" meme.
It's all very well for the Boston Globe, New York Times, Washington Post and such editorial boards to demonize the eeeeeevil SUV...but I'd observe that all of those cities are more or less served well by mass transit rail systems.
That does one no good in the 'burbs, and the 'burbs is where MOST of America apparently wants to live.
"I wasn't aware of much union support otherwise, but I could be wrong."
Add the maritime unions, very likely the longshoremen, I'd say also the OCAW, (Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers).
But all of 'em stymied because you want, if you wish, to float down the Hulahula to the sea.
"Indeed, the oil companies haven't lobbied much for drilling either. It's more of a symbolic political battle, the oil bullies want to show the Greenies who's really in charge."
It's fairly dogmatic to portray this as a fight of the "oil bullies" against the "grass-roots Greenies", but t'ain't necessarily so.
We're talking about what transpires when the AFL-CIO sits down among themselves, and then presents their agenda to the DNC.
It's not time for the two-minute BDS "Bush Hatefest" yet...that's later on the meeting agenda.
Frankly, the American-employing "Oil Bullies" don't HAVE to lobby very hard for the ANWR drilling. Either the OPEC will set it's price for crude below what it would cost to produce in the ANWR,to keep the petrodollars floating in, or...the market will do their lobbying for them, you're an economist, you should know the truth of what I say.
" I really don't understand what any blue-collar worker could possibly see in the GOP given their tax restructuring, Social Security destroying ways."
Ahhh, but how many blue-collar white male workers do you really know?
As I recall the breakdown, 6 of 10 union members voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980...so it's not like this is a new phenomenon.
And, hard as it may be for some to believe, I don't swallow the GOP program hook,line and sinker either, but where they're right...they're right.
On ANWR, they're right.
"I can understand why you're disillusioned with the Democratic Party, they don't seem to have in general much fire in their belly"
Oh, they've got fire in the belly, but it's for all the wrong reasons,(from where I sit), some of which I've shared here.
"Why not join your local precinct, and work to make it more pro-labor again? You can usually affect things at least at the local level."
Oh, indeed one can. Twelve years ago I earned some of my "thug pins" by loosely working for the Dem nominee in the Maryland gubernatorial race...and he won it, narrowly.
Parris Glendenning...remember him?
He was, by the end of his term known as the "Gray Davis" of the East Coast.
So unpopular that his successor, Robert Ehrich, is the first GOP Governor of Maryland since Spiro Agnew.
Learned a lot on that campaign, (not all of it to my benefit).
Two of the main things was that the "Democratic Stronghold" that is Maryland lost all of the voters in a 5 mile zone on either side of I-95, the place would vote like Indiana.
Put broadly, suburban resident, with all that that entails, equals conservative voter.
Second thing was amazement that no-one doing the campaign research that may have realized that trend was listened to.
Of course, Glendenning DID win, but like Clinton's Administration, it was Pyrhhic victory.
Regards;
observer;
ReplyDelete"God forbid we give a black kid a break."
Y'know, I'm all for giving a kid a break, but I am not for denying a deserving kid a break just because he or she doesn't have black skin.
Like it or not, that's racist on its' face.
"Bilgeman, you've got some serious issues with the truth and with victimhood "
As do you, chum, as do you.
"Imagine you could have the life you currently have, same job, same income, same house, same family, but you and your entirely family are African American, and you live with it from that point forward."
What, and swap my role as your designated "bad guy" to being your designated "pet"?
No thanks.
What our goal should SHOULD be, is that at least as far as our government(s) are concerned, the color of your skin should make about as much difference as the color of your eyes.
(Forgot who said that, but it was probably a Liberal...back when Liberalism STOOD for something.)
THAT, chummie, is Libertarian...not the "We're gonna use the Power of the State to give a [insert pet's name here]kid a break" social engineering.
Regards;