(2) Marty's co-blogger, Jack Balkin, has posted a thorough analysis of the Hamdan Oral Argument before the Supreme Court yesterday.
(3) It turns out that the editor of Ramesh Ponnuru's new book, Party of Death, is none other than serial plagiarist Ben Domenech (Digby has an incisive and rather hilarious analysis of Ponnuru's new book here).
The striking aspect of this story, among others, is that Ponnuru defended Domenech in The Corner at the height of the controversy over Domenech's selection as a WashingtonPost.com blogger without disclosing his personal relationship to Domenech, misleading his readers into believing that he was commenting objectively on the anti-Domenech accusations. I explained my thinking on this blatant conflict of interest -- the nondisclosure of which is indisputably unethical -- in an e-mail to Jane Hamsher, who has been covering the Ponnuru-Domenech relationship and wrote about the issue, including my e-mail, here.
(4) The L.A. Times article which reported on the identity of Ponnuru's editor is highly worth reading, as it provides a compelling antidote against the increasingly accepted premise that the blogosphere is filled with crazed, irresponsible, fringe radicals who are free of substance and ought to be ignored. As the article demonstrates, in the Domenech case (as is frequently the case), the blogosphere performed an invaluable function of uncovering what WashingtonPost.com ought to have discovered but failed to -- namely, the serial plagiarism of its new paid blogger.
As I have written about before (and wish I could write more about right now), so much of the resentment towards the blogosphere and the accusations of "irresponsibility" come from establishment journalists who have grown accustomed to being unchallenged and never being held accountable. They deeply resent the accountability which the blogosphere presents, and ironically, the accusations of irresponsibility against the blogosphere grow in proportion to the blogosphere's effectiveness in exposing the corruption and error which underlies so much of what the establishment media does. It is refreshing and encouraging -- as well as, I believe, a sign of what is to come much more frequently -- to see the substance and value of the blogosphere recognized in a newspaper like The Los Angeles Times.
(5) Scott "Big Trunk" Johnson, in a post entitled "Put Out More Flags," links approvingly to Mickey Kaus' protests over the display of Mexican flags at the immigration rally in California last week, and Kaus' related protest over the downplaying of this information by the Los Angeles Times. There have been many similar objections raised concerning the presence of Mexican flags at these rallies -- including, notably, by Big Trunk himself, who objected the day after the rally to the waving of the Mexican flag by a march participant and said: "I can't think of many things more likely to increase support for enforcing existing immigration law than the march of the illegals that took place in Los Angeles."
But there is one thing I couldn't help but notice -- that is, right next to Johnson's posts, and on the front page of Powerline, is an American flag, and right under it is an Israeli flag. I've never heard any of the people who protested the display of the Mexican flag object to that, and Johnson himself, who seems to find it objectionable to display the Mexican flag, seems to think it's perfectly appropriate to fly the Israeli flag.
Is there really some meaningful, rational distinction that can be drawn beteween these two acts? On what possible basis can one condemn the waving of a Mexican flag in the U.S. but think that it's pefectly appropriate and unobjectionable to wave the flag of some other country, such as Israel? Once a year, at least in Manhattan, there is an event called the "Israel Day Parade," in which tens of thousands of people parade through Manhattan waiving Israeli flags. Here's a representative picture of what it looks like:
How come Big Trunk, Michelle Malkin, and Mickey Kaus aren't objecting to that? Just to be clear - I am not arguing that it's proper to display Mexican flags or improper to display Israeli flags. I just don't see the rationale -- at all -- that would allow people such as Big Trunk to object to one while not only approving of, but engaging in, the other.
It feels to me today that our country is approaching a precipice of totalitarianism. Thank you for continuing to tug on the rope the other direction.
ReplyDeleteIf you're trying to stay away from the blog today in order to write and thought you could do that by posting a few quick items, I don't think you should have included item (5).
ReplyDeleteRaising THAT issue is not exactly a good way to stay away from the blog. LOL! It's a great point you raise, but it's not exactly one that you can just throw out there and think that it won't take any work to defend. But I am laughing about how you just threw that bomb onto the list of items as number (5), as though it's nothing more than a quick link.
On what possible basis can one condemn the waiving of a Mexican flag in the U.S. but think that it's pefectly appropriate and unobjectionable to wave the flag of some other country, such as Israel?
ReplyDeleteWhere were the protests about all the Irish flags on St. Patrick’s Day? Here in Chicago, we have many parades by various ethnic groups and flags of their nation are always prominent and displayed without disapproval.
And speaking of flags, Matt Yglesis has an interesting post about Todd Gitlin’s question, "Suppose that we got serious about the distinction between symbolic patriotism and the real thing—devotion to the common weal, including putting your money (taxes) and your body (service) where your mouth is?"
Matt responds with this question ”Everyone to the left of Richard Nixon has been feeling the brunt of accusations of insufficient patriotism for decades now, and I think we're all pretty well tired of it. We'd like a way out. This seems like the best way out. So we hope, we dream, of this redefined patriotism. But suppose we take the question as a question; suppose we do some supposing -- what happens then?”
Sadly, what passes for “patriotism” these days is “symbol worship” and really, when it comes to “symbol worship” you really can’t compete with a cult – that’s what they do.
For many years, it is the right who has defined patriotism and who has appropriated “the flag” as their own. This isn’t just Bush either. During the Reagan years, people were pissed at the Democrats for even flying flags at their convention because they so strongly believed it was a Republican Party symbol.
Too often the flag is nothing more than a symbol for jingoism and the very worst our society. This is certainly a topic that deserves more attention. I don’t know if Glenn will have time to deal with it in his book, but retrieving “the symbol” of patriotism seems to me a very important part of redefining what a true patriot is, and until the symbol of patriotism is no longer partisan, that will be exceedingly difficult.
As I have written about before (and wish I could write more about right now), so much of the resentment towards the blogosphere and the accusations of "irresponsibility" come from establishment journalists who have grown accustomed to being unchallenged and never being held accountable.
ReplyDeleteThe AP lifted a story from Raw Story about the Bush administration making it harder for gays to get a security clearance and won't credit it.
wrt the attitude of the establishment media toward the blogosphere, another area where there is a crying need for an attitude adjustment is giving credit to bloggers when their work is used in establishment media stories. Larisa Alexandrovna provides a vivid case in point.
ReplyDeleteAs the article demonstrates, in the Domenech case (as is frequently the case), the blogosphere performed an invaluable function of uncovering what WashingtonPost.com ought to have discovered but failed to -- namely, the serial plagiarism of its new paid blogger.
ReplyDeleteHow could WaPo reasonably have been expected to learn of the serial plagiarism? Is it common to vet all new employees or contracting pundits for plagiarism? If one considers the vast number of man hours individual bloggers (and their readers) put into pinning down all the examples of Domenech's intellectual crimes, it sure seems to me that no one individual at WaPo could have done that without its being a full-time job for a week or more.
Plagiarists have been employed by newspapers and their books issued by publishers before, many times. It usually takes a long time for it to catch up with the author. But the blogosphere, among the many things it has changed, is that window of time.
Especially for partisans. Once Ben Domenech arose to fame at WaPo, legions of ideological opponents set out to get him, and get him they surely did. (As to the plagiarism issue, there is nothing wrong with that as far as it goes, and much that is right about it. Factionalism is a good tool for keeping people honest, and is all but missing in national politics, to our collective detriment.)
As to Ponnuru, there is no defense for his not disclosing his relationship with Domenech when he made his public defense. How truly amusing that this opus of his is now so tainted.
And that Israeli flag thingie vis-a-vis Powerline and the NY parade, is too funny. What oh what might John's response be?
(sound of crickets chirping)
On what possible basis can one condemn the waiving of a Mexican flag in the U.S. but think that it's pefectly appropriate and unobjectionable to wave the flag of some other country, such as Israel?
ReplyDeleteThe distinction is easy if you look at it a little closer.
The folks you noted displaying the Israeli flag are US citizens who are proud of that citizenship and who also display the Israeli flag out of solidarity with Israel. This is no different from waving the Irish flag on St Patrick's Day or the Italian flag on Columbus Day.
Many of the Mexican immigrant demonstrators who were waving the Mexican flag at the LA demonstrations were also carrying signs and giving speeches claiming that the US was part of Mexico and denigrating American culture and citizenship.
Many of the Mexican immigrant demonstrators who were waving the Mexican flag at the LA demonstrations were also carrying signs and giving speeches claiming that the US was part of Mexico and denigrating American culture and citizenship.
ReplyDeleteNope, not even a good try. It is one thing to criticize those protestors who are expressing views which themselves are the target of the criticism -- such as the view that much of the U.S. belongs to Mexico and they're here to annex it back.
But that is a totally separate issue from criticizing th mere display of Mexican flags. Many of the commentators, including Powerline, criticized the flag displays themselves, and it was THAT criticism that I was raising.
Look at the pictures Big Trunk used to illustrate his protests - they are of single individuals waving the Mexican flag. There is no indication - zero - that those individuals were doing anything else or expressing any views that are at all different than the ones Big Trunk expresses by waving the Israeli flag.
And if the standard to use is that it is wrong to wave another country's flag as part of some event where offensive messages are expressed, I'd love to know what political parade doesn't include offensive messages. The Salute to Israel Day Parade always includes plenty of messages to offend anyone, and yet these same people never find the waving of another country's flag at that extremely political event to be offensive.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteTo Bart -
ReplyDeleteDo you have clear, photographic evidence of what you claim happended in California? Upon what do you base this claim?
Let me add I'm not dismissing your comment out of hand, but please provide evidence to it.
The folks you noted displaying the Israeli flag are US citizens who are proud of that citizenship and who also display the Israeli flag out of solidarity with Israel.
ReplyDeleteAnd you also have no idea if this comment is true. It's absurd to think that all of the thousands of people participating in the Israel Day parade - or the St. Patrick's Day parade - are "US citizens." The odds of that are minute. It is almost certainly the case that many of them are Israeli citizens, or Irish citizens, and that at least some are here illegally. In case you haven't heard, people from places other than Mexico come to the U.S. illegally.
Do you have clear, photographic evidence of what you claim happended in California? Upon what do you base this claim?
ReplyDeleteit is the case that there were people in the march in California who expressed the view - which is not exactly rare - that much of the United States, including California, is really Mexican land, and that no Mexican can be here 'illegally' because the U.S. is really Mexcian property.
If you want to see pictures of that, check the first post at Michelle Malkin's site, who, unsurprisingly, has dug through all the photos to pick the most extreme and offensive ones.
The striking aspect of this story, among others, is that Ponnuru defended Domenech in The Corner at the height of the controversy over Domenech's selection as a WashingtonPost.com blogger without disclosing his personal relationship to Domenech, misleading his readers into believing that he was commenting objectively on the anti-Domenech accusations.
ReplyDeleteI looked in vain for Ponnuru's "defense" of Domenech in the excerpt you reference, and I find absolutely nothing that excuses, explains or disputes the (at the time) alleged plagiarism accusations against Domenech. The only point of Ponnuru's post was to illustrate that Jane Hamsher has obvious reading comprehension problems, i.e., she completely misinterprets the posting that "Augustine" (if this is indeed Domenech) wrote on RedState.
Hamsher implies that Augustine/Domenech supports the notion, recently published in the book Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and John Donahue, that “aborting blacks reduces crime.” Augustine/Domenech does nothing of the kind. Hamsher, as Ponnuru points out in his post, obviously cannot read. The point of the Augustine post is that Black “leaders” who blithely support abortion rights are complicit in the destruction of millions of black babies, and in doing so, bring “satisfaction [to] those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people.” That is the only point of the Augustine post, which was written to decry the destruction of black children, and not, as Hamsher suggests, the opposite.
Perhaps you made an error when you created the link in your post. That is the only explanation I can think of to justify your characterization of Ponnuru’s posting as a “defense” of Domenech.
Perhaps you made an error when you created the link in your post. That is the only explanation I can think of to justify your characterization of Ponnuru’s posting as a “defense” of Domenech.
ReplyDeleteJane Hamsher criticized Domenech as a racist. Ponnuru rejected Hamsher's criticism of Domenech as being misguided and based on an unfair reading of what Domenech wrote.
Under any reasonable view, Ponnuru is DEFENDING Domenech from Hamsher's charges of racism. And whether you want to quibble with the term "defending," it is simply beyond dispute that Ponnuru owed it to his readers when commenting on criticisms against Domenech to disclose that he has a significant professional relationship with Domenech - not to mention a personal interest in defending his book editor from charges of racism.
Silly blogger!
ReplyDeleteIsraelis are honorary white people! The Israeli flag, like the Irish flag on St. Patrick's day is thus A-O.K.!
Mexicans are not white people!
Under any reasonable view, Ponnuru is DEFENDING Domenech from Hamsher's charges of racism. And whether you want to quibble with the term "defending," it is simply beyond dispute that Ponnuru owed it to his readers when commenting on criticisms against Domenech to disclose that he has a significant professional relationship with Domenech - not to mention a personal interest in defending his book editor from charges of racism.
ReplyDeleteYour post implies that Ponnuru is defending Domenech against the (soon to be proven true) charges of plagiarism, not against Hamsher's mistaken attack on Augustine's (Domenech's?) racial views. I'm glad you've clarified the fact that Ponnuru was indeed defending Domenech against Hamsher's false charge of racism and not the (at the time) alleged charge of plagiarism.
Now, is it "beyond dispute" that Ponnuru was obligated to disclose that Domenech was editing his soon-to-be-published book? After all, Ponnuru's one line post simply linked to Hamsher's comment and said, in effect, "decide for yourself."
I don’t think this is “beyond dispute.” It was well known, of course, that Domenech was an NRO writer, and thus a colleague of Ponnuru ( enjoying with him a "significant professional relationship"). Is the added fact that Domenech is (was?) his editor germane to the point of the post? I don’t think so. I do think, however, it is interesting that you do not disclose that your attack on Ponnuru comes soon after (many believe) he bested you in debate on national television. Wouldn’t this disclosure help your readers understand why you did not (at first) make clear that Ponnuru was defending Domenech against the charge of racism, rather than against the charge of plagiarism?
I find it interesting that people are assuming that the only illegals are from Mexico. I guess they haven't heard of Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua ... . The problem is not that they come here, it's that the countries they come from are so much worse, economically and possibly politically, that being an illegal immigrant in the US is a great step up.
ReplyDeleteOn what possible basis can one condemn the waiving of a Mexican flag in the U.S. but think that it's pefectly appropriate and unobjectionable to wave the flag of some other country, such as Israel?
ReplyDeleteBecause Isrealis tend to be more white.
Because we, as a part and parcel of our foreign policy, are willing to defend to our last dollar and child Isreal.
Because people on the right are more than willing to add the star of david to our own flag.
Because saying anything bad,or dregatory about isreal, or it's policies can get you branded anti-semitic.
Because Isreal is a recipient of our official foriegn aid, and mexico is the recipient of money sent home by our soon to be indentured servants?
I do think, however, it is interesting that you do not disclose that your attack on Ponnuru comes soon after (many believe) he bested you in debate on national television. Wouldn’t this disclosure help your readers understand why you did not (at first) make clear that Ponnuru was defending Domenech against the charge of racism, rather than against the charge of plagiarism?
ReplyDeleteLook, I think you make a valid point about the difference between defending Domenech on the racism charge as opposed to the plagiarism one; I'm not so sure Ponnuru did anything scandalous in that context. But the notion that Ponnuru "bested" Glenn in any debate on the NSA matter is so freakin' hysterical, well, it just ain't so. Anyone who believes that is so blinkered by partisanship that facts don't matter to them.
Dear gods. How much longer before the charges of 'anti-semitism' start flying?
ReplyDeleteLook, I think we can agree Malkin and company can and will protest whatever they wish without the least regard for intellectual or philosophical consistency.
The protests in LA, like protests anywhere, doubtlessly included some anti-American sentiments, just as any political protest anywhere might these days. To say the opinions of a few individuals within a larger gathering represent the views of everyone there is an understandable, unsupportable assumption.
Fair enough?
Anyone who believes that is so blinkered by partisanship that facts don't matter to them.
ReplyDeleteRelax, Hypatia. The remark was made in jest, in the spirit of "turnaround is fair play."
And, there's St Patrick's day.
ReplyDeleteCelebrating one's ethnicity couldn't be any more American
Anonymous asked: "Now, is it 'beyond dispute' that Ponnuru was obligated to disclose that Domenech was editing his soon-to-be-published book? After all, Ponnuru's one line post simply linked to Hamsher's comment and said, in effect, "decide for yourself."
ReplyDeleteYes, it is generally considered appropriate protocol to disclose any personal or professional relationships one may have with a person or persons involved in public matters, debates, etc., if one is commenting on those matters.
In short, Ponnaru defended Domenich, and one would infer from his nondisclosure that his defense was a neutral position based on his understanding of the facts. Their relationship having now been revealed, one must question Ponnaru's trustworthiness...is his defense valid, based just on the facts of the matter, or is it based on their existing professional or personal relationship?
If Ponnaru had revealed that initially, he could have inoculated himself from later accusations of cronyism in defending Domenich, and it would have lent his defense a greater aura of objectivity.
As it is, his defense is now suspect, as are his professional ethics.
For what it is worth, here is my first analysis of the Specter amendments to FISA. This work is a combination of unsupported assertion and a twisted view of common sense.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I believe that Arlen Specter's denials about knowing the details of "The Program" are not credible. Specter may just be fronting legislation from the Bush administration, and his conversation with Morton Halperin certainly left the impression he hadn't even read it, but I still think he knows what the program does. As both Halperin and Kris testified, it is almost nonsensical to write legislation without out any facts or details and I think Specter is smart enough to know that. Also as Halperin testified, Specter's legislation is not a general attempt to bring "The Program" under the FISA court, it authorizes a very specific program with very specific language.
Working from the starting point that Specter's legislation is an accurate attempt to legalize "The Program", I think a specific look at the legislation can be very instructive in determining what "The Program" actually does, and in demonstrating how truly sneaky Specter can be.
The DeWine bill, which is really nothing but a blank check to the President, has no need to massage the ambiguity of the written word. Specter's legislation has no such luck, and so it begins by redefining a few terms.
---
Specter:
‘‘(3) the term ‘electronic communication’ means any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system, cable, or other like connection furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of communications;
---
FISA
(l) “Wire communication” means any communication while it is being carried by a wire, cable, or other like connection furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications.
---
In this attempt to update the definition of "wire communication", we lose the phrase "of interstate or foreign."
---
Specter:
‘‘(4) the term ‘electronic surveillance’ means the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the substance of any electronic communication sent by, received by, or intended to be received by a person who is in the United States, where there is a reasonable possibility that the surveillance will intercept communication in which a person in the United States participating in the communication has a reasonable expectation of privacy;
---
Specter's language tries to replace the four part FISA definition with one sentence and in the process misplaces the phrase "and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes." None of these changes are accidental.
We also get some new definitions and the first one is interesting because we get a description of the program.
---
Specter:
‘‘(5) the term ‘electronic surveillance program’ means a program to engage in electronic surveillance
‘‘(A) to gather foreign intelligence information or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities by obtaining the substance of or information regarding electronic communications sent by, received by, or intended to be received by a foreign power, an agent or agents of a foreign power, or a person or persons who have had communication with a foreign power seeking to commit an act of international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities against the United States;
---
The highlighted language seems to give us the first degree of Kevin Bacon, by allowing surveillance of a person not declared an agent of a foreign power, as long as they have "have had communication with a foreign power."
Continuing with the definition of ‘electronic surveillance program.’
---
Specter:
‘‘(B) where it is not feasible to name every person or address [or] every location to be subjected to electronic surveillance; and
---
This is the money shot. We are dealing with a data mining program. Call it TIA, data mining, AI applied to large data sets, it is all the same thing.
Continuing...
---
Specter:
‘‘(C) where effective gathering of foreign intelligence information requires an extended period of electronic surveillance;
---
This statement seems counter to the 45 day period of Specter's legislation.
Continuing with new definitions, numbers 8 & 9 very skillfully divides a communication into "substance" and "identifying information."
--
Specter:
‘‘(8) the term ‘intercept’ means the acquisition of the substance of any electronic communication by a person through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device; and
‘‘(9) the term ‘substance’ means any information concerning the words, purport, or meaning of a communication, and does not include information identifying the sender, origin, or recipient of the communication or the date or time of its transmission.’’
--
This language gives us clues about the specific pattern analysis they are doing. More importantly, I believe this is a brazen attempt to pull "identifying information" out of the purview of the FISA court, as I expect these new definitions to be "harmonized" with current FISA law before the vote is cast. Note that these terms "intercept" and "substance" are woven back into the previous redefining of ‘electronic surveillance.’
Dividing up substance and identifying information may make sense for the traditional analog phone system or the Post Office, but the internet makes any legal distinction between the two absurd. Yes, for any given protocol, for example SMTP, we may be able to separate content from identity but the number of possible protocols is essentially infinite. There is no difference between "substance" and "identity" on the internet because those concepts can only exist in the context of a protocol. Since the tools to create and implement your own protocols are freely available, we must assume that protocols exist for which we have no definition. Since we can never know the definition of a secret protocol, substance and identity are the same.
I would like to toss out a theory that has nothing going for it except explaining the bizarre behavior of an overwhelming majority of both parties when it comes to this issue. Most everybody in congress knows what this program does, but nobody wants to admit it. Almost everyone has already bought into the idea of Total Information Awareness. With a combination of dangerously little computer knowledge and a naive faith in technology, congress believes if we just give a machine enough data we can tap God's telephone. Keep the machine a secret and the machine will keep us safe.
There has been a fundamental shift in how we view the fourth amendment that is far beyond roving wiretaps and sobriety check points, and without any public debate. I fear all of this is a done deal, but I might be wrong.
I will address the bill itself in a subsequent post but the devil is in the definitions.
Glen:
ReplyDeleteBart: Many of the Mexican immigrant demonstrators who were waving the Mexican flag at the LA demonstrations were also carrying signs and giving speeches claiming that the US was part of Mexico and denigrating American culture and citizenship.
Glenn: Nope, not even a good try. It is one thing to criticize those protestors who are expressing views which themselves are the target of the criticism -- such as the view that much of the U.S. belongs to Mexico and they're here to annex it back
But that is a totally separate issue from criticizing th mere display of Mexican flags. Many of the commentators, including Powerline, criticized the flag displays themselves, and it was THAT criticism that I was raising.
How do you separate the context in which the Mexican flag or any other flag of a foreign country is being waved?
For example, I have no problem with Mexican immigrants waiving a Mexican flag during Cinco de Mayo like folks wave Irish flags during St. Patrick's Day and Italian flags during Columbus Day. These cannot be in any way construed as an attack on the United States.
However, when Mexican immigrants are waiving a Mexican flag while also flying the American flag upside down or waving signs which say:
"This is stolen land"
"We are indigenous and the only owners of this Continent" or
"Stolen Continent"
then the meaning of waving the Mexican flag is entirely different. It is a direct attack on the United States where these demonstrators live and work.
But that is a totally separate issue from criticizing th mere display of Mexican flags. Many of the commentators, including Powerline, criticized the flag displays themselves, and it was THAT criticism that I was raising.
I do not care what others have posted. You posed a general question to your readers which I personally took issue with.
However, let's remove the signs and the desecration of the American flag for the moment. Waving the Mexican flag in protest of enforcement of our immigration laws also has a context all by itself. Basically, these demonstrators are saying: "Screw the US laws. I will come here when I please and remain a Mexican."
This is quite different from waving the American flag at such a demonstration. That says: "Let me in. I want to be a patriotic American just like you."
A flag is a symbol and symbols have different meanings depending on the context in which they are offered.
The presumption that all or most of those carrying Mexican flags are Mexican nationals calls many of the anti-immigrant comments into question:
ReplyDelete1) Many of the protesters I saw were students; I think that I can plausibly assume that many of them are American born and therefore citizens of the US.
2) Many illegals may have decided to sit out the protests, rather than run the risk of being rounded up in some kind of mass INS sweep for illegals.
3) Unless you actually do some sort of poll or head count, any such statement about most of the protesters being illegals carrying Mexican flags is highly suspect.
Given the presumptuous nature of the anti-Mexican comments, it seems that they are therefore motivated by more than just a disposition to patriotic fervor.
I suggest that this exnophobic hysteria is highly suspect in the current political environment. That is, while the TV news services run wall-to-wall coverage of the immigration issue, 1) US forces are stuck in Iraq in an increasingly deterioriating and precarious combat situation. 2) The President lies about talks going well between the Iraqi government factions and it receives no coverage. 3) Documented proof that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq comes to light and there's no airplay about it. 4) A court case that implies that the President has assumed powers he does not have receives little or no discussion/debate/coverage.
I also suggest that the reason for whipping up this xenophobic fervor are part of a long-standing political ploy. In a melting pot society such as the US, politicians can exploit the fight between different ethnic groups to play one group off another.
In the ensuing chaos and scramble for protecting their rights, individuals within these groups therefore take their eye off of other, more serious, issues such as those I have enumerated above.
The only thing saving me is that most right wingers are too ignorant to recognize the Honduran flag.
ReplyDeleteOr so filled with hatred towards anyone else except those they approve of that they think, "he'll get his when we finally take over."
It only feeds their resenment and envy because, ultimately, the way many people think these days is that if you're different you're trying to get special rights or some special advantage they they do not have.
Protestors flying Mexican flags in El Lay or the Powertools flying an Israeli flag doesn't seem to be any different from Cuban exiles flying Cuban flags in South Florida.
ReplyDeleteYet only one is seen as wrong.
Conclusion: there are no standards for behavior if you call yourself a conservative.
To Bart -
ReplyDeleteYou're again throwing out a lot of unsupported (and likely unsupportable) assumptions about what happened in LA.
You do have a point however that flags, like any symbol, mean different things in different contexts. If for that reason alone, perhaps we should cool it on the rhetoric concerning their display. After all, the Stars-n-Stripes has been proudly displayed by the KKK, the American Nazi Party, and more than a few militia groups in their rallies and marches.
As I stated earlier, there will always be a diversity of opinions at these political rallies; tarring the whole based on just a few placards is a bit like saying Fred Phelps is representatives of every Christian in the world (Penacostals, Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, etc.).
Isn't the difference between the flag displays that there are not 8 or 10 million Israeli citizens here illegally?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that there is a pretty clear line between nostalgic displays like waving flags from the country you (or your ancstors) came from BEFORE BECOMING AN AMERICAN and living in America illegally while waving the flag of the country you left.
Not only that - it is just really really stupid from and image control perspective to wave around Mexican flags if one of the goals is to normalize immigration. Shouldn't they be waving around American flags if they want to become citizens here?
yankeependragon said...
ReplyDeleteYou're again throwing out a lot of unsupported (and likely unsupportable) assumptions about what happened in LA.
No. I described the photos I saw of the demonstration accurately.
As I stated earlier, there will always be a diversity of opinions at these political rallies; tarring the whole based on just a few placards is a bit like saying Fred Phelps is representatives of every Christian in the world (Penacostals, Protestants, Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics, etc.).
I limited my comments to the group waving Mexican flags and the group waving Mexican flags, desecrating the American flag and carrying the signs I noted.
There were many, perhaps half, of the crowd carrying American flags.
I am fairly libertarian about immigration. The WASPs treated my Irish and Italian ancestors the same way or worse than the xenophobes treat the Mexicans today.
I support nearly free immigration so long as the immigrant registers so we know who is coming in, gets a job, does not commit crimes and learns the language and culture.
There is a good argument to be made that immigrants should not gain access to some or all of our government services until they earn citizenship, but I have no problem with immigration in general.
Anyone expecting the legislative races or the next Presidential election to be a cakewalk for Dems should have a gander at just released poll results from the 3/23 Diageo/Hotline. These are motivated voters and almost always vote. For Dems to make inroads in the House and perhaps Senate, they'll have to motivate more than just their base, which has always been fickle in their voting habits. They'll also have to sell Independents on the idea that Bush's problems are the Reps problems. Moral: Send these results abroad and let everyone know that the opposition is not simply going to roll over and die.
ReplyDeletelet's remove the signs and the desecration of the American flag for the moment.
ReplyDeleteFlying US flags upside down is not per se desecration.
It is the signal of distress.
And yes, though it is nominally a signal used in nautical circles on ships, protesters have taken it up as another form of showing their distress at various US policies.
There are "trends" to protesting like anything else, and these ideas that appeal, spread. Flying flags upside down has spread for exactly that reason.
the cynic librarian said...
ReplyDeleteAnyone expecting the legislative races or the next Presidential election to be a cakewalk for Dems should have a gander at just released poll results from the 3/23 Diageo/Hotline. These are motivated voters and almost always vote. For Dems to make inroads in the House and perhaps Senate, they'll have to motivate more than just their base, which has always been fickle in their voting habits. They'll also have to sell Independents on the idea that Bush's problems are the Reps problems. Moral: Send these results abroad and let everyone know that the opposition is not simply going to roll over and die.
The GOP base is not only more motivated to vote GOP and consistently turn out, they are half again as large as the Dem base.
Before you get sidetracked, by base, I am talking about people who will vote consistently and vote for their party. I could care less about any polls you show of registered voters who self identify as one party or another. In an election, only votes and not intentions count.
As a result, the Dems only win the popular vote when the GOP base fractures and votes for a third party conservative like Perot or stays home like in Bush 2000.
If the GOP base votes for its candidate, the Dems have to keep nearly their entire base instead of losing the usual 20% to the GOP and heavily dominate the independents.
As Kerry learned, its not enough to just win his base and edge the independent vote. There simply are not enough votes when you do that.
Thus, the Dems are behind the eight ball in national elections until they expand their base. That means selling actual ideas instead of being the Party of NO or Elephant Lite.
Also, I posted before that people need to pay attention to Rudy. Look at Rudy's lead among the hard core Elephant base who votes in primaries...
ReplyDeletehttp://nationaljournal.com/pubs/hotline/h060323.htm#59
Anyone expecting the legislative races or the next Presidential election to be a cakewalk for Dems...
ReplyDelete...Won't know what hit them when they watch RNC commercials featuring John Conyers as the putative chairman of the House Judiciary committee and Russ Feingold talking censure of the president. Democrats, as is their wont, are underestimating the Bush team.
All those chickens Dems are now counting are simply not going to hatch.
To Bart -
ReplyDeleteYou saw a few photos of a few members of a very, very large rally. Is it necessarily a safe assumption that those photos were representative of 'many', never mind the majority of those at the rally? I wouldn't think so.
Additionally the various comments you cite from those same photos are, in purely historical terms, fairly accurate. What we call the "Mexican War" the Mexicans refer to as "The War of Northern Invasion" and it resulted in the US seizing a lot of territory. But, again, is that necessarily a reflection of the majority of those at a massive rally concerning US immigration policy?
My point is that you can't simply state a few placards out of thousands are automatically and comprehensively representative of the whole involved, not without running the risk of presuming *every* vocal minority (be they pro- or anti-whatever) speaks for the whole of the group involved. For example, 85% of the country is self-identified as 'Christian', but I daresay not even a full 1% of them would agree with the sentiments expressed by Fred Phelps.
I'm glad to know you aren't a rampaging xenophobe on immigration and find myself agreeing with some of your views there. Nevertheless, one must guard against sweeping generalities as you've implied.
bart said:
ReplyDeleteNo. I described the photos I saw of the demonstration accurately.
No you didn't. You obliqely described the photos as Mexican nationals waving Mexican flags. In truth, you have no idea what their citizenship status was. You said:
Many of the Mexican immigrant demonstrators who were waving the Mexican flag at the LA demonstrations were also carrying signs and giving speeches claiming that the US was part of Mexico and denigrating American culture and citizenship.
The above statement was preceded by another in which you described the Israeli flag-waving crowd as American citizens. An irrelevant point to make, if you assume nothing about the citizenship of those people in the photographs. But hard not to notice in a post contrasting the differences between two groups of people.
Why DID you describe the Israeli-flag wavers as "U.S. citizens, but the Mexican flag-wavers as "Mexican immigrants"?
Further, those Israeli immigrants wave the flag, according to you, to display their "solidarity with Israel". What
exactly does "solidarity with Israel" mean?
Whereas, you describe those U.S. citizens waving the Mexican flag as denigrating "American culture". Again, I have to ask what exactly does "American culture" mean?
And as an aside, all those signs and speeches about how the United States invaded Mexico for its land are historically accurate. And as a Texan, I can appreciate the irony in how Tejas was taken, in part thanks to illegals crossing over from the Sabine. And how some of the descendants of those illegal Americans are now worried about the same.
Living in Chicago, and being of Irish descent - - it is common for me and my brethren to attend two parade festivals yearly (one for downtown, one for the south side) honoring a certain Saint from a certain Emerald Isle who banished a certain species of reptile from said Isle.
ReplyDeleteIn this city of true "big city diversity" -- where ethnic neighborhoods continue to thrive -including neighborhoods that are majority Hispanic (all varieties and most separate from each other i.e, puerto rican here - mexican there, columbian somewhere else) or Polish, or Ukranian, or Chinese, or Greek or whatever else you can find - - in all of this EVERYONE COMES OUT FOR ST PATTIES DAY and everybody has a good time.
THe Irish flag of white orange and green flies from the courthouses for the week. It flies from banks. It is painted on buildings. It is embraced in the lights of skyscrapters tuned for the season.
Everybody is Irish for the day. And we Irish dont mind an asian fella with a shamrock painted on his face. Or (gasp!) a Mexican - an illegal at one at that - drinking a guiness with his illegal friends as they watch the parade. We embrace it. We were once persecuted in this city for our ancestral homeland - "Irish need not apply" was once us.
The point being, the seeds of discrimination are sown by those already here and who fear immigration for whatever reason. "Loss of jobs that could go to Americans, we have to pay taxes to support them, there goona impregnate our white woman," or whatever new excuse is there - homeland security for example.
Had the Irish given up shortly after their arrival, St Patties day today would not be what it is here in the city. Our mayor and his family would not have dominated Chicago politics (for good or for bad) for all those years. Whose to say we can now complain against the new immigrants who are leaving their homelands for the same reasons ALL immigrants, your and I forebears, once left their respective homes for?
What difference does it make if a Mexican American carries a mexican flag? What difference does it make that an Irish American carries his? Or a Polish fella on Kasmir Pulaski day? IT DOESNT MAKE A F-IN DIFFERENCE. I am no less an American because I have these flags. Neither is anyone else. It is not insult. Its pride. That is what gets others so riled up. People have pride in their own homelands as opposed to this homeland.
It is immature and brash and pandering to the lowest common denominator to incite anti-immigrant sentiments with this flag hysterics. ALthogh i reckon the people actually swayed by this rhetoric already are in agreement on the immigration issue. These are the people who also made Germany circa 1930-40's the atrocity that it was.
Gelnn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteIs there really some meaningful, rational distinction that can be drawn between these two acts? On what possible basis can one condemn the waving of a Mexican flag in the U.S. but think that it's perfectly appropriate and unobjectionable to wave the flag of some other country, such as Israel?
I am not sure what I am about to say will be considered rational or meaningful but here goes...
As, an American who loves America... well the idea of what America is capable of being anyway - I do tend to have an idealistic approach to immigration and immigrants. I do not care, in the least, if Mexican-Americans fly the Mexican flag but in this case I think (or perhaps I wish) that those participating in the demonstrations, that are in fact illegal immigrants, should have been flying American flags.
That is to say that they are here, they apparently want to stay, they value America for some reason and it would be nice if they showed that they value it by choosing to fly the American flag in their protests.
This would show many "established" Americans that, by flying a symbol dear to us that represents what can be great about America, at least one of the reasons they want to be here is because they believe in the ideals that America is founded on. As a bonus it would also serve as a sort of slap in the face to all of those that will never see anyone of Hispanic descent as American. How could any con racist point to an illegal immigrant that hoists an American flag during a protest and say they are bad? Well perhaps they would call it manipulative but I am not sure they could make that stick.
Perhaps I am not making myself clear here as the flag, any flag, is a symbol and can obviously mean many different things to many different people. For instance it depends on context also. For myself personally - the moment our government chooses to pass any legislation that would ban the burning of the American flag I will be heading to the store to buy as many of them as I can and I will burn one a day until I am arrested.
As for the intent of immigrants - I am what I would call, perhaps incorrectly, a traditionalist in my thinking. I want immigrants who come to America, whether legally or illegally, to want to stay and be a productive part of our nation. I believe in assimilation with respect to our outlook on civil liberties, rule of law and founding principles. I also believe in incorporating certain positive cultural aspects of immigrants. This happens whether one wants it to or not anyway. In short I am not a fan of separation or segregation.
I guess all of this is to say that I think they blew it by flying Mexican flags. In this "protest" context I think the organizers of the protest missed an invaluable opportunity to both show their affection for the American ideal while at the same time sticking it to the man.
My two cents.
These are the people who also made Germany circa 1930-40's the atrocity that it was.
ReplyDeleteOh please. Does every leftist in this blog have to fall back on a Hitler analogy to make his point? Perhaps someday you'll realize that shouting HITLER NAZI FASCIST HITLER at your opponents degrades you far more than your intended target.
No one reading this blog is a Nazi. No political leader in the House or Senate is a Nazi. The president isn't a Nazi. I'm not a Nazi. You're not a Nazi. Not even the vice president is a Nazi.
Stop with the Nazi crap already. It's really boring, and it makes you look really stupid.
That is to say that they are here, they apparently want to stay, they value America for some reason and it would be nice if they showed that they value it by choosing to fly the American flag in their protests.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily disagree with you. As I made clear, I wasn't saying that I thought that it was proper for the protesters to wave Mexican flags. I always have discomfort when people -- especially in a political context (as opposed to, say, a purely cultural one) -- wave one country's flag while being in another country. At the very least, it seems disrespectful, rude and often inflammatory.
I have been in countless other countries around the world and even have lived in a couple other countries for a fair amount of time - I would NEVER dream of going to another country and walking around waving the American flag - I would not do that in a country I was visiting, and not in a country where I was living. And it's not because of how I feel about the U.S. I love the United States and consider myself patriotic. I just think it's poor form. And I agree that, in this context, it was probably politically unwise (which isn't to say that it shouldn't have been done).
So my point wasn't to defend the waving of Mexican flags. It was to point out that there seems to be a fairly blatant, unjustifiable and even somewhat ugly double standard being applied - many of the people who claim to find the waving of Mexican flags so objectionable have no trouble when the flags of other countries are waved in the same way, and -- as in the case for Big Trunk and others like him -- many of them even themselves wave the flags of other countries.
It was that double standard, rather than the propriety of waving Mexican flags, which was the focus of my point.
And as an aside, all those signs and speeches about how the United States invaded Mexico for its land are historically accurate. And as a Texan, I can appreciate the irony in how Tejas was taken, in part thanks to illegals crossing over from the Sabine.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point of this comment? Do you think the U.S. should give Texas and California back to Mexico? Are you under the impression that Mexico has a peaceful history and never engaged in aggression or warlike behavior against other nations?
Stop with the Nazi crap already. It's really boring, and it makes you look really stupid.
ReplyDeleteNo one is calling anybody a Nazi. However, its hard not to notice that part of the NSDAP's popular appeal, when it was still trying to sell itself to the public, was its intolerance of all things not "German". Nazi propaganda in the 30s, when it was trying to create a respectable political base, was centered on anti-communism, German culture, and God.
Not understanding history, and the lessons it can teach you (the power of symbolism and propaganda) makes you look really stupid.
Glenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteIt was that double standard, rather than the propriety of waving Mexican flags, which was the focus of my point.
Oh Glenn I am sorry. I understood what you were getting at from jump and I am sorry you wasted time by replying to what I had to say. Perhaps I shouldn't have quoted your statements in the first place. The only reason I did was because that particular segment of your writing is what made me want to respond with those thoughts I expressed.
What is the point of this comment?
ReplyDeleteThe point is exactly what I said. That "manifest destiny" was part of American foreign policy, and resulted in a war with Mexico for the purpose of land aquisition. Not exactly America's most shining moment. But its a historical fact, so get over it.
And Texas was liberated with the help of illegals crossing the Sabine. You think Davy Crockett applied for a visa?
What's your point? That land aquisition and annexation are okay only if your white?
adan:
ReplyDeleteNo one is calling anybody a Nazi. However, its hard not to notice that part of the NSDAP's popular appeal, when it was still trying to sell itself to the public, was its intolerance of all things not "German". Nazi propaganda in the 30s, when it was trying to create a respectable political base, was centered on anti-communism, German culture, and God.
Indeed. I am loathe to paint people with the braod brush of "Nazi", but this fear prevents many from learning how it was that the Nazi party were able to get the support of the German population to do the unthinkable.
Think about it. The study of how the Nazi party and Hitler came to convince the German people of their ideas to the point of supporting the war (I don't think the population overtly knew of the extermination policy, though it was probably by their choice) is fascinating.
And anyone who thinks that parallels cannot exist just because they were bad ignores that they were actually very competent. Don't think for a minute that shrewd and intelligent politicians in this country haven't learned their lessons on how to control popular opinion. The ascention of the Nazi Party is a prime case study for any politician who wants to control public opinion.
Let us all learn from history, not just be ashamed of it.
One quick point to respond to the anti- nazi guy: I referenced the PEOPLE of Germany - not germany's leadership and what they did. A government doesnt run itself. People must make it function. People must carry out its orders or laws. People made Germany funcion and People (not Germany) committed mass murde. Before it got to that point, the PEOPLE of Germany could have done something or spoke up or anything other than what they did do - which was sit idly by while the government went apeshit crazy. I didnt say flag waving mexicans are being hauled off to deathcamps. The bill the house passed and which most of these people were proteseting was and is draconian in nature. Assume it passed, and it didnt work and illegals were still here and still coming. What next? And what about the Halliburton contract for massive detention camps? Sound familiar to anything u read in a history book?
ReplyDeleteYeah, people should read up on their Nazi history, and also read anything by Eddie Bernays or Walter Lippman. Helps put politics in perspective.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the Halliburton contract for massive detention camps?
ReplyDeleteFever swamp lunacy.
Please don't forget to put on your tin foil cap tonight to prevent yourself from receiving those anti-Haliburton messages through the fillings in your teeth.
Glen - I enjoy your work and think you are generally right on the money on most issues. Bart, however, is destroying you in this particular Mexican flag debate. You have yet to answer his argument that context matters and that, even putting aside the upside down American flags or "stolen land" signs, the event itself was a protest over immigration laws, and in that context the flying of the Mexican flag is different than the Israeli flag examples you cite.
ReplyDeleteThe context is different, and that different context forms the basis for criticizing the flying of one flag in one context while flying a different flag in a different context.
celo said...
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone who thinks that parallels cannot exist just because they were bad ignores that they were actually very competent. Don't think for a minute that shrewd and intelligent politicians in this country haven't learned their lessons on how to control popular opinion. The ascention of the Nazi Party is a prime case study for any politician who wants to control public opinion.
Bingo! The only thing I might add, that celo may or may not agree with, is that our current crop of assholes are that bad. They seem to not only buy into the ways in which the Nazi party manipulated the German public but also come as close as any group in our history to wanting at least some of the same things that fascists, in general, believe in. Perhaps a better comparison is to that of ideals of the Italian fascists and Benito Mussolini.
Below is an excerpt from one of my favorite books. If you click my name at the top of this post you will be directed to an online version of it. It was written by a man that US Marines generally regard as one of the greatest two Marines to ever walk the face of the earth. When I was in the Marines they had a "recommended reading list for Marines." This book was not on it... I wonder why? I didn't read it until I was a few years separated. While some of the writing is dated it does correctly label fascism and even the "military industrial complex." It is an eye opener and I recommend it highly.
Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
Bart, however, is destroying you in this particular Mexican flag debate.
ReplyDeleteOK, Bart.
You have yet to answer his argument that context matters and that, even putting aside the upside down American flags or "stolen land" signs, the event itself was a protest over immigration laws, and in that context the flying of the Mexican flag is different than the Israeli flag examples you cite.
Many Israelis at the parade protest U.S. policies, whether it be an insufficiently hard line towards the Palestinians, or when Clinton was President, insufficient support for Israel.
THE POLICIES OF THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE U.S. You can protest the former without protesting the latter. You can criticize a government policy without criticizing the U.S. itself.
What the fuck is wrong with you right-wing morons that you can't grasp that criticzing Bush is not the same as criticizing the United States???????
I wonder how Glenn would feel
ReplyDeleteabout waving confederate flags since context doesn't count.
Anon writes: The context is different, and that different context forms the basis for criticizing the flying of one flag in one context while flying a different flag in a different context.
ReplyDeleteFlapdoodle. Immigrants in America facing anti-immigration animus have marched under the banner of the flag of their nation of origin, forever.
One of many possible examples from over a century ago, my emphasis:
The most public expression of Irish identity in the city during the 1860s and 1870s was the annual St. Patrick's Day parade and celebration. While always an important event for the Irish community, March 17 became even more visible during this period due to the rising power of Irish Tammany politicians and a renewed enthusiasm for radical Irish nationalist causes by both working-class and affluent Irish New Yorkers. Tammany celebrations were symbols of the political freedom the Irish had in America to observe their holiday, openly waving Fenian banners and the Irish flag. As such, the day became an opportunity to express both Irish and American identity and pride. In addition, the day served as a powerful reminder to the city's elite of growing Irish political strength. Most importantly, the day served to unite the Irish community in the city under one national and religious banner, especially in the face of hostile attacks by nativist and reformist groups.
So, with this "context" issue out of the way now, how is Powerline's criticism of the Mexican flags anything but hypocritical?
thelastnamechosen said...
ReplyDeleteI would like to toss out a theory that has nothing going for it except explaining the bizarre behavior of an overwhelming majority of both parties when it comes to this issue. Most everybody in congress knows what this program does, but nobody wants to admit it. Almost everyone has already bought into the idea of Total Information Awareness.
With a combination of dangerously little computer knowledge and a naive faith in technology, congress believes if we just give a machine enough data we can tap God's telephone. Keep the machine a secret and the machine will keep us safe.
This is a wonderful, interesting and astute post. Your theory sounds about right to me, to wit: I have suspected for some time that many of our government celebrities are computer illiterate. They have aides to do all that stuff and at their ages and stations in life plus corporatists/business model group think mentality, they don't feel they need to really learn to use technology.
And on a totally unrelated note:
Bart said: Also, I posted before that people need to pay attention to Rudy. Look at Rudy's lead among the hard core Elephant base who votes in primaries...
Oh, Bart you've made my day with this one. For all your contempt for anything that is not rubber-stamp, right wing talk radio variety, Republican talking point/focus group tested "ideas", for you to alert us to Rudy's popularity among the Republican base is just too cutesy/pootsy for words.
I can see it now. Republicans showing up at the polls to vote in droves for a person who is: 1) Pro-gay rights, 2) Pro-Choice, and 3) An admitted adulterer.
Run Rudy Run!
You have yet to answer his argument that context matters and that, even putting aside the upside down American flags or "stolen land" signs, the event itself was a protest over immigration laws, and in that context the flying of the Mexican flag is different than the Israeli flag examples you cite.
ReplyDeleteContext does not matter. Culture and politics are intertwined in America. You can't seperate them. Whose to say that those Israeli immigrants weren't trying to make a political statement? Bart seemed to think so, with his "solidarity with Israel" comment and all. What about all those "english-only" movements out there? Why do political candidates have to speak a few lines of Spanish when visiting South Texas? Culture and politics are joined at the hip.
For Mexicans, part of the struggle for legitimacy in the eyes of their white peers is a struggle to elevate their culture to a standing equal with that of whites. In Austin, I see both sides, Mexican and White, evaluate each other based on perceived differences in culture. Both sides can look down on the other, but only one side (white) doesn't need to justify their culture as "American".
When a guy waves a Mexican flag at an immigration rally, he's making a cultural and a political statement, for they are the same: my culture is as worthy as yours, and shouldn't be a hurdle to overcome in order to gain citizenship.
When he waves a sign proclaiming the history of the southwest as Mexican, he is saying: your culture was foreign once.
Sheesh.
Elliot, you are an idiot.
ReplyDeleteI (anonymouse above, no this is not Bart) am far from right wing and I abhor Bush and his policies. I also never raised any objection to criticizing the US or criticizing the current administration. "Criticism" of the government or this Administration is simply not the issue in this discussion. The issue, as Glen posed it, was whether there is any difference between flying the Mexican flag at an immigration protest, or flying an Israeli flag at a website, or at the Israel Day parade. And the answer is, of course there is a difference, because the context of the cited examples are different.
That such a simple argument causes you, Ellot, to spew incoherent and off-point invective says a lot about you.
Adan said...
ReplyDeletebart said: No. I described the photos I saw of the demonstration accurately.
No you didn't. You obliqely described the photos as Mexican nationals waving Mexican flags. In truth, you have no idea what their citizenship status was.
That is true. They could have been El Salvadorans waving Mexican flags. Highly unlikely, but a possibility.
You said: Many of the Mexican immigrant demonstrators who were waving the Mexican flag at the LA demonstrations were also carrying signs and giving speeches claiming that the US was part of Mexico and denigrating American culture and citizenship.
The above statement was preceded by another in which you described the Israeli flag-waving crowd as American citizens. An irrelevant point to make, if you assume nothing about the citizenship of those people in the photographs. But hard not to notice in a post contrasting the differences between two groups of people.
Citizenship is a key context in the meaning of the flag. If you have sought and gained citizenship, your feelings toward being an American are clear. Flying a foreign flag then indicates nostalgia.
On the other hand, if you are an illegal immigrant only here to work, are maintaining your Mexican citizenship and are waiving signs claiming that America belongs to Mexico, then flying the Mexican flag means something entirely different.
Why DID you describe the Israeli-flag wavers as "U.S. citizens, but the Mexican flag-wavers as "Mexican immigrants"?
The blogger whom Glenn mentioned is an American. The marchers with Israeli flags are probably also Americans. There is not a large Israeli illegal immigrant population in the US and it is unlikely that a groups of Israelis on visas are marching down one of our streets.
Further, those Israeli immigrants wave the flag, according to you, to display their "solidarity with Israel". Whatexactly does "solidarity with Israel" mean?
C'mon now, this isn't that hard of a concept. Israel is considered the Jewish religious homeland. It would not be unusual for Jews to be citizens of different nations and still show solidarity to what they consider to be their homeland.
Whereas, you describe those U.S. citizens waving the Mexican flag as denigrating "American culture". Again, I have to ask what exactly does "American culture" mean?
In this context, language, laws and citizenship.
And as an aside, all those signs and speeches about how the United States invaded Mexico for its land are historically accurate. And as a Texan, I can appreciate the irony in how Tejas was taken, in part thanks to illegals crossing over from the Sabine. And how some of the descendants of those illegal Americans are now worried about the same.
Ancient history. If they want to reclaim the SW for Mexico, they are no friends of the US.
The issue, as Glen posed it, was whether there is any difference between flying the Mexican flag at an immigration protest, or flying an Israeli flag at a website, or at the Israel Day parade. And the answer is, of course there is a difference, because the context of the cited examples are different.
ReplyDeleteNothing in the contexts you are arguing for constitue distinctions with relevant differences. As has been pointed out, the Irish, the Israel supporters, they historically and in the present have combined political protest with their ethnic parades, under the banner of the flags of their nation of origin (or for which they feel a tribal affinity), and have long done so. They carry those flags for the same reason Powerline has an Israeli flag bannering its blog, namely, to make a political statement.
Are you under the impression that Mexico has a peaceful history and never engaged in aggression or warlike behavior against other nations?
ReplyDeleteGlenn--
I'd be interested in your providing examples in which modern Mexico (i.e.,, post-1821, when Mexico gained her independence from Spain) engaged "in aggression or warlike behavior against other nations."
I've lived in Mexico and studied her history and I'm hard-pressed to understand what you're talking about, since I don't know of any such examples. On the other hand, there is a North American nation that has committed numerous acts of "aggression or warlike behavior against other nations" and it is certainly not Mexico.
The United States has invaded Mexico twice and even once arranged for the murder of a Mexican President. (Francisco Madero was assassinated by General Huerta in 1914 on orders of the American ambassador.) The U.S. has also invaded Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Panama, Cuba -- gee, have I missed anyone? Oh, yes, Belize -- we left that to the British.
Compared to the U.S. in these matters, Mexico is positively Ghandian in its foreign policy.
You got me - there are no such things as citizens actively securing the southern border:
ReplyDeletehttp://minutemanhq.com/b2/
Nor did halliburton get the detention camp job- it was there subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/3/23290/07607
And my tin foil hat works just fine without the fillings.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI wonder how Glenn would feel
about waving confederate flags since context doesn't count.
5:40 PM
Maybe I missed something but I think Glenn obviously realizes context does matter. He said as much in his reply to my earlier post.
Glenn Greenwald said...
So my point wasn't to defend the waving of Mexican flags. It was to point out that there seems to be a fairly blatant, unjustifiable and even somewhat ugly double standard being applied - many of the people who claim to find the waving of Mexican flags so objectionable have no trouble when the flags of other countries are waved in the same way, and -- as in the case for Big Trunk and others like him -- many of them even themselves wave the flags of other countries.
Though I do not want to speak for him - I think what he is getting at here is that it is more than a bit disingenuous to be so hypocritical in criticizing the protesters for flying a flag of their choosing when at least some of the critics themselves would proudly wave the flag of their choice regardless of context. It is the duplicity of the thing.
When speaking of Glenn's statement I think he is saying it is a mindset issue.
In response to: Why DID you describe the Israeli-flag wavers as "U.S. citizens, but the Mexican flag-wavers as "Mexican immigrants"?
ReplyDeleteBart said: The blogger whom Glenn mentioned is an American. The marchers with Israeli flags are probably also Americans. There is not a large Israeli illegal immigrant population in the US and it is unlikely that a groups of Israelis on visas are marching down one of our streets.
You realize, of course, that your answer does not answer the question, right? Why did you assume that the the ones waving the flags are illegals? As I have shown, they could just as likely, and probabilistically, be US citizens of Mexican descent or US-born citizens whose parents/friends/relatives are Mexican or illegals.
but the links dont work just fine - ah well. Regardless of the bad links, the minuteman are there - and are planning big events this april if you were to look into them (seems they got quite a following) and KBR did get the contract for the camps. But none of this really matters. The only thing that matters is your right.
ReplyDeleteThat is true. They could have been El Salvadorans waving Mexican flags. Highly unlikely, but a possibility.
ReplyDeleteThey also could have been Americans waving Mexican flags.
Citizenship is a key context in the meaning of the flag. If you have sought and gained citizenship, your feelings toward being an American are clear. Flying a foreign flag then indicates nostalgia.
A flag is a frickin symbol, and can mean anything to anybody. You (or I) don't know anything about the motivations of a person who waves an Israeli flag, a Mexican flag, or just burns flags in general. We just have interpretations about what all the flag waving is about. Your interpretation seems rooted in fear. Mine is not.
The blogger whom Glenn mentioned is an American.
Yeah, so?
The marchers with Israeli flags are probably also Americans. There is not a large Israeli illegal immigrant population in the US and it is unlikely that a groups of Israelis on visas are marching down one of our streets.
In other words, its just an assumption you pulled out of your a**. Like the assumption that only Mexican illegals rally over immigration issues.
It would not be unusual for Jews to be citizens of different nations and still show solidarity to what they consider to be their homeland.
You didn't answer my question. Nice duck, though.
In this context, language, laws and citizenship.
In YOUR context, not in mine. I'd be happy with just obeying the laws. And citizenship is kind of a given. But really, is that all there is to "American culture", language, citizenship and laws? It has been my experience that things like music, customs, and appearance are issues too. I think your being disingenuous on the question of what makes culture "American". At least in the eyes of some Americans.
As has been pointed out, the Irish, the Israel supporters, they historically and in the present have combined political protest with their ethnic parades, under the banner of the flags of their nation of origin (or for which they feel a tribal affinity), and have long done so. They carry those flags for the same reason Powerline has an Israeli flag bannering its blog, namely, to make a political statement.
ReplyDeleteThis is disengenuous. The marchers in LA (for the most part) were waving the Mexican flags to make a statement in protest of US immigration policy. The marchers in NY waving the Israeli flag were not marching in a political protest, they were marching in a "solidarity" parade, much like the Puerto Rican Day or St. Patrick's Day parades.
The messages conveyed, therefore, are completely different. In LA, the marchers used the Mexican flag to thumb their noses at the notion of US sovereignity over what was once Mexican territory. The NY marchers waving the Israeli (or Irish) flags were not engaging in political protest at all, but simply displaying ethnic or religious pride.
Since this is so, why did Glenn use the image of the Israeli flag to make his point? It does not constitute a parallel situation, nor does it illustrate hypocrisy on anyone's part, since the marchers in NY were not protesting US immigration policy. The only conclusion to be drawn is that Glenn did it as a provocation, using the Star of David because he knew it would be controversial.
If this had the added effect of supporting his point, it would be excusable. Since it does not support his point, it comes across as petulant and childish, and beneath someone of his obvious talents and capabilities.
(Not about flags, but Powerline is now suggesting that a New York Times reporter intentionally lied on the FISA story today.)
ReplyDeleteObviously, there is total disagreement on what the FISA judges said about Bush’s wiretapping. And Powerline reports completely different versions between the New York Times and the Washington Times – they of course believe the “moonie” paper. That’s not surprising, but the “opposite” takes on this story are stunning.
Right-wing blogs are crowing that FISA judges have come out totally in support of what Bush did. Blogs for Bush crows “FISA judges Say Bush Within law” and they gloat, “so much for Merry Fitzmas, Merry Censure, Merry Impeachment and oh yeah,
Merry Democrats.”
There’s more here and at Powerline
Meanwhile, over on the left, America Blog comes out with this headline:
“FISA Judges doubt Bush had authority for domestic wiretapping” and they cite (not surprisingly) the New York Times:
“In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president's constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.”
Now if Powerline, Strata, and Blogs for Bush are right, how could the New York Times even suggest that the judges did anything other than totally support whatever it is that Bush did?
We do live in parallel universe’s don’t we? And, over in Bizzaro world, they are oh, so sure they are right. We shall see, although, they didn’t bother to mention the FISA judge who resigned over this – kind of an inconvenient fact, don’t ya think?
I should have added this passage from the minuteman article - (this is my last post on the subject)
ReplyDelete“Illegal aliens and the advocates of lawlessness are taking to the streets of American cities in mobs, demanding the ‘right’ to cross our borders unchecked and colonize these United States, flying foreign flags, and turning Old Glory upside down. They demand that they be rewarded with ‘guest worker amnesty,’ the blessings of our ordered liberty, and all the economic and social service benefits the American taxpayer can provide. They decline to commit to the historical goal of becoming truly part of our nation by respecting the rule of law, playing by the rules, meeting the duties and obligations of American citizenship—and loving the land of the free and the home of the brave. They come to exploit economic opportunities while proudly proclaiming their allegiance to foreign powers."
“While the nation watches this spectacle in our streets, the Minutemen will be working night and day on America’s borders to uphold the rule of law in the name of liberty—the price for which is eternal vigilance. "
Ahhh-- that hit the spot.
NO, powerline wouldnt advocate anything "remotely" like that.
And sensenbrenner is a fascist. I cant prove it. But if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...it probably is a ________
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteHave you located a transcript of the testimony of the FISA judges before Congress yesterday?
There are dueling stories in the Wash Times and the NYT about what was said.
The Wash Times writes:
A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060329-120346-1901r.htm
However, the NYT claims that the judges were "skeptical" of this Article II power and writes:
Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president's peril."
Baker is the judge who resigned from the FISA Court.
They deeply resent the accountability which the blogosphere presents, and ironically, the accusations of irresponsibility against the blogosphere grow in proportion to the blogosphere's effectiveness in exposing the corruption and error which underlies so much of what the establishment media does.
ReplyDeleteI've been planning to write an entry about this very point as I have noticed something interesting happening in the last week. What focused me on it were three other items which relate to Glenn's statement above:
l) The first was the rather unusual set of comments President Bush made in his speech in front of military families. During the course of that long, televised interaction with that group, a "set-up" question by a woman in the audience (who was revealed later, I think, to be a person who had a family member officially affiliated with Bushco), focused on the media, and their "unfavorable" coverage of the situation in Iraq. When responding, Bush went on to talk about the Internet and blogs, and advised his listeners to get involved with the blogosphere so that they could spread a different message about Iraq and weigh in on the debate.
2) The second was a highly interesting set of comments Rumsfeld made at a press conference a few days ago. In a very petulant, sort of whiny but resigned speech in response to a question about why things were going so badly in Iraq, he complained that we were failing in the "PR" front of the battle, because our "enemy" was much "faster" and more adept than we were at getting their message out, which he characterized as "disinformation" as opposed to our "truths", and said the reason they were able to do so is because they had become very skilled in using the Internet, whereas "we" had not.
3) The third was when Scalia in his recent talk in Sweden when asked a question about corruption in the United States turned around and attacked the questioner by talking about how the difference between France and the United States was that in France, government funds were used to pay the expenses of some government official's mistress and nobody made a big deal about it, but in America, every time any government scandal came out, it was discussed endlessly, by implcation on the Internet because as we all know it certainly hasn't been in the MSM, and everyone focused on it and made such a fuss that it became a big deal.
It was really the same speech by all three of the above in that it clearly and unambiguously highlighted that what these three were lamenting was that in prior times, the government had been able to almost completely control the flow of information that was released to the public, here and abroad, but they were facing a new set of facts now, one where they no longer had exclusive control of "the message", the disinformation, the massaged "facts", and were unable to compete with the free flow of information, the instant analysis, the ability of hundreds of thousands of involved, aware, interested citizens all over the globe to participate in the dialogue, sort out the facts, and help shape the debate.
I felt very encouraged. It was like a last gasp recognition on the part of an entrenched "class" of rulers who had became comfortable, arrogant and lazy because they had the only keys of entry into the Castle, and now there were millions of hoi polloi who were "crashing the gates" and they didn't know how to deal with it.
These are not people who have ever had to deal with "truth" or true competition before, and they seem to have suddenly realized that despite all their power, despite all their tricks, despite all the insurmountable advantages of being being part of a "monopoly" which succeeds not because of excellence and merit, but because it uses force to keep out competitors, none of those centuries old advantages are determinative anymore, because there's a "start-up" company across the street that is selling such an infinitely more appealing product, truth, that it threatens the imminent
demise of the arrogant, complacent and unprinicipled monopoly.
They realize it now, but they have also come to the realization that they are about to lose their "power" because there is no amount of muscle they can apply, no number of enforcers they can send out, who will be able to crush a competitor with so many buyers.
So they are getting more desperate every day. They see that their rule which has been based on their monopoly on "disinformation" is about to end.
This general theme infuses much of what is happening now in this Administration, and sheds light on its feverish attempts to criminalize whistleblowers, muzzle and punish the media if it "leaks" information, operate outside the law as in the NSA spying matter, refuse to submit to judicial review, shut up detainees who might reveal uncomfortable truths about how we conduct ourselves in the phony War on Terrorism, etc.
It links all these things and explains why they are happening. It's the desperation of the "Old Guard" who never had to learn to shoot straight (literally in Cheney's case) because they never had to play by the rules, and now the Internet comes along and changes everything, and the old structures are crumbling before their eyes and they are increasingly trying to use ever more brutal and irrational force to keep them from collapsing.
The furious "disinformation" battle over the recent incident in Iraq regarding the massacre at the Mosque is the final, ironic demonstration of this new paradigm. Interestingly, that one incident, and who is best able to convince the public at large in Iraq that their version of what happened is the truth, may well be the beginning of the end of more than our "liberation" effort in Iraq.
So in the end, it's never what you think will be the thing that wins the war. It turns out to be the Port Deal, the Internet's role in influencing the Media to tell the truth about what is happening in a faraway war, the new bloggers who become the intellectual leaders, and all the unanticipated things which Fate throws on to the battlefield.
It turns out to be Keith Olberman's ratings.
Life is so ironic.
The link to the NYT article is
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/politics/29nsa.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
And sensenbrenner is a fascist. I cant prove it. But if it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck...it probably is a ________
ReplyDeleteThe Kotex King will get you for that. He'll turn out the lights on you and make it a felony to use the word fascist in the same sentence with his name.
"Where were the protests about all the Irish flags on St. Patrick’s Day?"
ReplyDeleteHere. Me. All these nationalistic symbols and rituals have always bothered me. Ayn Rand wrote about this very topic years ago. People whose alliegance is to reason rather than ritual have always objected to these things.
Which is why Glenn's book cover is so powerful. It's a symbol which expresses the most powerful idea in the world: liberty. An American idea. Which is why we choose to be Americans.
What idea does the Irish flag express, other than allegiance to another country based not on ideas, but circumstances of birth?
In that great speech by Thomas Jefferson (I think it was his) in which he expresses why only the American flag should be flown here, he says it all.
Since this is so, why did Glenn use the image of the Israeli flag to make his point?
ReplyDeleteTwo reasons:
(1) Because the blogger whose post I referenced and who protested the waving of Mexican flags himself is waving an Israeli flag on his blog. He's not waving an Italian flag or an Irish flag, but an Israeli flag. He picked the Israeli flag as the contrast, not me; and, independently,
(2) Because - unlike, for instance, the St. Patrick's Day Parade or the Columbus Day Parade, which do have some political overtones but tend to be more cultural than political -- the Israel Day Parade is EXTREMELY political. A huge portion of the people are expressing one very controversial political view or another, and many of those views DIVERGE from, and thus constitute criticism of, the policy of the United States.
Everything having to do with the concept of "Saluting Israel" is -- as anyone who lives outside of a cave well knows -- highly controversial as a political matter. Waving an Israeli flag in the middle of the United States is an extremely political act -- and there are people who march with anti-Palistinian signs, pro-Palestinian signs, pro-Sharon signs, anti-Clinton signs, anti-Bush signs, etc.
The Salute to Israel Parade is every bit as political as that protest was. Waving an Israeli flag makes every bit as much of a political statement as waving a Mexican flag does.
There is no principled or legitimate way to find one objectionable while finding the other to be perfectly acceptable.
As others have pointed out, I didn't argue that context is irrelevant, so please stop saying that's my point. It isn't. I argued - and am arguing - that there is nothing about the contexts of the two flags and how they are waved that allows any substantive distinction to be drawn between the two - at least none that most people would be willing to admit in good company.
This is disengenuous. The marchers in LA (for the most part) were waving the Mexican flags to make a statement in protest of US immigration policy.
ReplyDeleteAnd how do displays of Mexican cultural "solidarity" not fit into a protest over policy, when its fear of the culture in question that Mexicans perceive to be the driving force behind the policy? This is the issue.
The marchers in NY waving the Israeli flag were not marching in a political protest, they were marching in a "solidarity" parade,
What the FUCK does "solidarity" with Israel mean? Be specific.
The messages conveyed, therefore, are completely different.
The messages conveyed are completely created in your own imagination.
In LA, the marchers used the Mexican flag to thumb their noses at the notion of US sovereignity over what was once Mexican territory. The NY marchers waving the Israeli (or Irish) flags were not engaging in political protest at all, but simply displaying ethnic or religious pride.
You have NO idea why the protesters were waving Mexican flags. And you CANNOT rule out the possiblity that the protesters were engaging in a little "solidarity" of their own.
Now I have to leave for work. In a bad mood, no less.
Baker is the judge who resigned from the FISA Court.
ReplyDeleteNo Bart. James Robertson resigned the day after the NYTimes story by Risen and Lichtblau ran. Fruit of the Poisoneous Tree and all that had him worried. And by the way, the judges alluded to this principle in their testimony, hence the "skepticism" as to the legality of the program.
I've heard but have been unable to verify that Israelis can hold dual citizenship in the US. Is that correct?
ReplyDeleteEyes Wide Open said... @ 6:20pm
ReplyDeleteGreat post. Seriously that was a great assessment. The only thing I would want to add is that it may also explain the Dem leadership's irritation and discomfort also. They are being held to a higher standard also and by liberals no less and they don't like it either. Politicians and power brokers generally abhor the truth since in most cases they are on the other side of it or at the very least trying to skirt it. Speaking of this idea... to my mind and in this context it shows Feingold to be an even bigger hero than one might think. He knows the truth and he isn't afraid to voice it even if it might cost him politically. His actions show him to be operating in ways opposed to the very framework that the other power brokers are so worried about losing. He doesn't care about "control" he cares about America.
Bart errs: Baker is the judge who resigned from the FISA Court.
ReplyDeleteNo he isn't. That would be James Robertson. Baker, as is not uncommon, simply left the FISA court for another federal bench, but did not resign.
One last comment. I think the world from the beginning until now can be seen as the Age of Disinformation.
ReplyDeleteSo that is why now that the Age of Information is about to begin, I am less worried about a Dictatorship than I was until very recently.
I don't think Dictatorships will survive for long in the Age of Information, which has as its core the Internet.
And judging from how clumsy the efforts of this particular Administration have been to control the Internet, with all their laughably lockstep propaganda sites like FrontPagemag, etc., which may have won a few early battles but which are now being seen for what they really are, I'd say it won't be all that hard for the Force to defeat the Dark Side.
And here we have it:
ReplyDeleteUS admits attack target contained a mosque
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 29/03/2006)
Iraqi and American special forces who attacked an insurgent headquarters in Baghdad were not aware that their target contained a mosque until after the battle, America's most senior soldier said yesterday.
General Peter Pace, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was responding to 48 hours of unremitting criticism over the controversial raid, which Iraqi radicals claim resulted in the deaths of 21 unarmed worshippers and an imam....
The Administration said we didn't attack a mosque. The Administration said that the terrorists had dragged the bodies from another location into a mosque to foment riot.
But it only took 48 hours of unremitting criticism for them to have to cave and forego the disinformation and admit to the truth.
I am sure Pace and Rumsfeld and Bush are in a state of shock at this latest example of how truth always comes out in the end. But now, it comes out in 48 hours, instead of twenty years later in a history book.
What's funny is that all the recent statements by Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, etc. that the "Historical Judge", these days, arrives at the Courthouse in 48 hours these days.
Yippee.
BTW, anyone who wants to know what really is happening in Iraq should go to one site first: antiwar.com. It's all there, including some fantastic articles to give perspective to what's happening.
It's always the moral opposition forces which tell the truth, because they are guided by morality and not a desire to obscure the truth to retain power.
Eyes wide open: Wonder if you could clarify something...you state: "It's a symbol which expresses the most powerful idea in the world: liberty. An American idea. Which is why we choose to be Americans."
ReplyDeleteContrast with: "What idea does the Irish flag express, other than allegiance to another country based not on ideas, but circumstances of birth."
Hmmm...how many of us "chose" to be American and how many ARE American because of "circumstances of birth."
Rather confusing point you made there.
Mo said...
ReplyDeleteBart: Baker is the judge who resigned from the FISA Court.
No Bart. James Robertson resigned the day after the NYTimes story by Risen and Lichtblau ran.
I stand corrected.
Fruit of the Poisoneous Tree and all that had him worried. And by the way, the judges alluded to this principle in their testimony, hence the "skepticism" as to the legality of the program.
I had the same doubt concerning whether evidence discovered during warrantless intelligence gathering would be admissible in a criminal trial. Under the Truoang holding, that appears to be a case by case decision depending on whether the surveillance is primarily intended for intelligence gathering or criminal prosecution.
However, doubts about whether evidence resulting from the NSA Program would be excluded from trial is not remotely the same thing as "skepticism" as to whether the President has the authority to order the NSA Program without FISA approval.
Judge Kornblum provided the only quote which I have seen on that issue and he states that FISA does not infringe upon the President's Article II power, just as was assumed in the dicta from the FISA court of review.
It will be interesting to see the entire transcript.
eyes wide open:
ReplyDeleteA prayer room in a building is not a mosque any more than a hospital chapel is a church.
I notice that there is no claim that the bodies videotaped and televised on a Shia TV channel in Iraq were located in this prayer room.
I notice the Shia were so upset over this staged desecration that they went back to the negotiations to form a government after a single day.
Eyes Wide Open,
ReplyDeleteNotice the Telegraph lied when they said the U.S. Military called it a mosque. Pace said "some are calling it a mosque."
Anti-war types lie too.
anonymous, Juan Cole was right all along. He reports that what is being called a "mosque" is actually a Shiite holy site. For Shiites, however, the site the US attacked is just as sacred as a church, synagogue, or mosque.
ReplyDeleteBut I'll let Cole explain:
But somehow the joint US-Iraqi force ended up north, at the Shiite Shaab district. They say that they took fire from Mahdi Army militiamen. But there aren't any such Mahdi Army men in Adhamiyah. I have a sinking feeling that instead of raiding a Sunni Arab building in Adhamiyah, they got disoriented and attacked a Shiite religious center in nearby Shaab instead. Iraqi television angrily showed twenty unarmed corpses on the floor of the religious center, denouncing the US for killing innocent worshippers. The US military is now saying it did not enter any mosques and that anyone killed was killed by Iraqi special ops.
The Mustafa Husayniyah, however, is not a mosque and may not have been distinguishable as a religious edifice to non-Shiites. Shiites mourn their martyred Imams, the descendants of the Prophet, in centers called Husayniyahs after the Imam Husayn, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. As for the killing being done by Iraqi troops, if it was a joint mission, then the US forces are going to take some of the blame. [my empahsis]
Bart said:
ReplyDeleteI notice the Shia were so upset over this staged desecration that they went back to the negotiations to form a government after a single day.
I would like a link to information about this. As far as the reports that I have read are concerned, the Shiites have not yet returned to the negotiations.
http://www.sltrib.com/nationworld/ci_3649446
ReplyDeleteShiites return to talks
Forming a government: They had boycotted for a day in protest of a U.S.-backed incursion
glen let's just note that I don't see any people of color in that Israeli day parade. might have something to do with the panty bunching on one hand and the free balling on the other.
ReplyDeleteAnon: Interesting. For a mor ein-depth anlysis, you might wish to see the following article:
ReplyDeleteFacing a looming confrontation with the Iraqi government it helped bring to power, the Pentagon displayed pictures yesterday that it said demonstrated that a raid on Sunday had targeted an armed kidnapping gang, not men at prayer.
Iraqi television showed footage on Monday that broadcasters said depicted the bodies of Shia men who had been praying inside a mosque near Baghdad when it was attacked by U.S. troops, causing an uproar in Iraq and a rupture between the United States and the Shia-dominated government. The 16 dead were members of a Shia militia loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, a leading anti-American cleric and political power broker.
But U.S. officials suggested yesterday that the scene had been rearranged to make it look innocent, and the Pentagon showed pictures of an arms cache, including rocket-propelled grenade launchers and bomb parts, seized at the building. The Associated Press said yesterday that it could not supply the photographs because they were of such poor quality.
Regardless of the truth, experts on Iraq said yesterday that Shia politicians have been increasingly frustrated by U.S. attempts to include minority Sunnis in the government and are on the verge of a lasting rupture with the United States.
Joost Hiltermann of the nongovernmental International Crisis Group office in Jordan, a nonprofit group that works to prevent deadly conflicts, said in a telephone interview that Shias "think the U.S. is not to be trusted, that they are being betrayed again," a reference to the bitter time in 1991 when the United States failed to come to their aid when they revolted against Saddam Hussein and were slaughtered by his helicopters and troops.
Officials connected to the largest Shia political party in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, called Monday for the expulsion of U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, according to Juan Cole, a Shia expert at the University of Michigan. An alliance of all the major Shia religious parties called for security to be handed over to the Iraqis, Cole said on his Web site. [my emphases]
PS anon: So, not only did Pace and Rumsfeld lie about the fact that someone tried to set them up, they also showed immense cultural insensitivity by calling the shrine "a so-called mosque." Makes you wonder what else they're hiding huh?
ReplyDeleteIs there a single subject in the world upon which Bart is not an instantly recognized expert?
ReplyDeleteFrom war and weapons to American history to the Founding Fathers' bowel habits he aparently knows, well, everything.
Now we find he is able to look into the heads and hearts of folks both white and brown and discern their motives and loyalties based simply upon their photographic likenesses.
Your presence sir must must make for facinating dinner conversations.
This discussion comparing the waving of the Mexican flag versus waiving the Israeli flag is missing a crucial point. It doesn't matter that both are "political" as opposed to "cultural," as Glenn argues. The question is what message is the flag waiving meant to convey. In the case of Israel, these days, it is meant to show support for the Israeli side of the bitter Middle Eastern conflict, and against those who wish to destroy it. (The Palestinian flag waiving in Europe or on American college campuses, is the mirror image.)
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican flag waiving, to me, means to convey, in the best case, "we're here, more and more of us are coming over, we have rights, don't try to stop us, we're a separate nationality, and we're an extension of neighboring Mexico," and at worst, "the southwest portion of America belongs to Mexico and we plan on taking it back." Yes, both the Israeli and Mexican flag waiving is "political" -- but so what? It's the message that's disturbing.
Hmmm...how many of us "chose" to be American and how many ARE American because of "circumstances of birth."
ReplyDeleteBut we are free to leave, so we CHOOSE to be Americans. That's the point.
The illegal immigrants and the Irish marching in parades, and the Israelis and everyone else carrying foreign flags are HERE, because they also have chosen (some illegally) to be Americans.
There's nothing wrong with carrying an Irish, Mexican or Israeli flag if you are in those countries. But HERE, we have all chosen to be Americans, and the American flag represents the system of government that defines America.
rh, my "kindred spirit", at least from my point of view, you are so right about how the established Democrats' increasing discomfort and desire to hide behind familiar skirts is just another example, and a terrific one, of how those who have grown complacent, corrupt and lazy while ruling have now become frightened deer caught in the headlights of the quickly approaching "Truth Car."
I agree with the commenter who pointed out that 1) Glenn Greenwald's post disingenuously implies that Ramesh Ponnuru was defending Domenech against the plagiarism charges; 2) Ponnuru was actually making the obvious point that Jane Hamsher is a freaking illiterate (or else a dishonest hack), in that she utterly misread a post wherein Father Neuhaus *mocked* the "abortion = less crime" hypothesis by pointing out the implications of this thesis for the black population. Hamsher's reading of that post was inexcusable and indefensible.
ReplyDelete1) Glenn Greenwald's post disingenuously implies that Ramesh Ponnuru was defending Domenech against the plagiarism charges;
ReplyDeleteI love when people mis-read something completely by taking from it a meaning that isn't there, and then blame the person who wrote it for having "implied" the non-existent meaning. Where, pray tell, did Glenn "imply" that Ramesh's defense of Ben was about the plagiarism charge rather than any of the other charges?
2) Ponnuru was actually making the obvious point that Jane Hamsher is a freaking illiterate (or else a dishonest hack), in that she utterly misread a post
Given that the claim of Hamsher's which Ponnuru attacked was ABOUT DOMENECH, it is the height of dishonesty for Ponnuru not to have disclosed that when it comes to Ben, he is NOT objective.
Hamsher's reading of that post was inexcusable and indefensible.
ReplyDeleteJane you ignorant slut! How could you read that and find something remotely racist about it?
Ramesh says, "Read Hamsher's supposedly damning excerpt and judge for yourself."
Okay.
It just happens that killing black babies has the happy result of reducing crime……It is hard to argue with that….
It’s too bad about all those dead babies, but it is a kind of solution to the crime problem, if not a final solution…
White racists have reason to be grateful for what is sometimes still called the civil rights leadership….
Today’s black leaders are more compliant, much to the satisfaction of those who think we would all be better off with fewer black people…..
So if anyone finds something in that quote that remotely resembles racism, well, then, they obviously can’t read – and the very suggestion that it might be is “inexcusable and indefensible.”
Hmmm. Okay.
norsewoods writes: I agree with the commenter who pointed out that 1) Glenn Greenwald's post disingenuously implies that Ramesh Ponnuru was defending Domenech against the plagiarism charges; 2) Ponnuru was actually making the obvious point that Jane Hamsher is a freaking illiterate (or else a dishonest hack), in that she utterly misread a post wherein Father Neuhaus *mocked* the "abortion = less crime" hypothesis by pointing out the implications of this thesis for the black population. Hamsher's reading of that post was inexcusable and indefensible.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to point 1. I assumed Ponnuru was defending against the plagiarism charges, but that was not Glenn's fault -- he linked to Ponnuru's actual remaks -- it was mine. Glenn implied nothing, and there were a long series of accusations that defenders of Domenech were addressing: I should have read the link to be sure which of them it was in Ponnuru's case. Having now done so, I don't think it was so awful that Ponnuru didn't disclose his relationship w/ Domenech, but I can also see where others would disagree.
As to point 2, I largely agree with you. I am no Neuhaus fan but he is so not a racist, with his history of being a 60s civil rights activist and peace protester and all; Hamsher did misread that Swiftian post. Her criticism was totally unwarranted.
isn't is something that in order to find decent analysis of Specter's FISA bill one has to search in blogs.
ReplyDeleteThe discussion in Congress is superficial at best, ACLU, FAS, EFF don't have anything yet, main press nothing, and no congressional research surfaced yet. Kris volunteered his stuff but at 40 pages he clearly doesn't expect to be read. thelastnamechosen in this thread is the only decent analysis I've seen so far. we need the second promised part.
Headline on Hardball: Is Christianity Under Seige"?
ReplyDeleteIt appears that the Administration realizes that everyone is about to jump ship other than their hard core political Christian Conversative base (and the hidden neocons)and they will now direct their attention to inflaming that base to energize their only remaining troops.
I think it was Digby, or Eschaton, who pointed out the the minority most vilified and despised in this country, more than Islamics, more than homosexuals, more than anyone, is "atheists."
Polls show that more people hate "atheists" than any other single "group" by a very large margin.
I put "atheists" in quotes, because not all people who don't believe in any organized religion are people who spend even one second actively rejecting the notion that there is some sort of God.
Most are probably better described as agnostics who choose to make their decisions based only on reason, not dogma or ritual. They don't feel the need to find explanations for things which are logically inexplicable. They live by personal value systems.
This unfortunate "minority" has always been vilified, and has had to sit by mutely and watch as the various "Religion" battalions engage in their never-ending warfare.
PS. Talk about "unanticipated" events which happily come our way, John Dean to testify this week!
PPS. Wesley Clark: Enough is Enough.
It is personally nauseating to me to hear Nancy Pelosi ("The Democrats are the party who really cares about National Security"---yawn, yawn) speak after listening to John Dean and Wesley Clark.
Harold Ford Jr. sounds good! Anyone know anything about him?
I take it back about Harold Ford Jr.
ReplyDeleteDean to testify at Feingold Censure hearings! Wa-a-a-a-a-a-a--a-y to go!
ReplyDeleteDavid writes:
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican flag waiving, to me, means to convey, in the best case, "we're here, more and more of us are coming over, we have rights, don't try to stop us, we're a separate nationality, and we're an extension of neighboring Mexico," and at worst, "the southwest portion of America belongs to Mexico and we plan on taking it back."
David, look at your own words... you wrote "to me". At least you are aware that this is what you infer (in contrast to many other writers in these parts). That's the interpretation your mind chooses to place on the Mexican flags. Who knows if this is what the flag holder means. Big difference. And you might ask yourself what makes you think that's what they mean.
Eyes wide open,
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what you write but where in the world did you get the idea that Liberty is an American idea?
Who knows how many different peoples have embraced the concept of Liberty? As one example, the Passover Seder, celebrated by Jews worldwide for thousands of years, is a celebration of liberty.
David writes:
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican flag waiving, to me, means to convey, in the best case, "we're here, more and more of us are coming over, we have rights, don't try to stop us, we're a separate nationality, and we're an extension of neighboring Mexico," and at worst, "the southwest portion of America belongs to Mexico and we plan on taking it back."
I'm goint off on a limb here, but I'll guarantee that 100% of Latinos who wave their flags here don't think this.
Not a single one of them.
It's pride in their heritage and their home country, but there this does not mean that they don't love the US just as much, or more, than their home countries.
It is a complex thing, but please open your mind.
The following was taken from
ReplyDeleteDual Citizenship and
American National Identity - Mexico's Dual Citizenship Decision:
A Mix of Self-Interested Motivations
By Stanley A. Renshon
from here
I have not read the whole thing, as I have already made myself dangerously late for a number of commitemnts for following this discussion to the limited extent that I have.
But I felt like the whole "mexicans vs israeli" or "citizens vs illegals" thing was oversimplifying a somewhat unique and extremely complicated story of ethnic identity and pride. The "Chicano" culture (and I am a New York Jew, if that means anything to anyone) is one that has developed in a unique way over the last thirty-fifty years in this country - from the dislocation of a thriving neighborhood to make way for dodger stadium to the plight of the migrant farmworker to its current status as a courted demographic as the up and comer of the marketing world.
I don't, in any way, diminish the struggles or the identity of the European immigrants who arrived here in the nineteenth century - certainly the Industrial Revolution was a time of immense upheaval and change. But the hispanic population of the US has an extremely complex and unusual story to tell if anyone is listening.
In all honesty, I don't know where I come down on the whole debate about the hypocrisy thing. Certainly I am opposed to decrying the behavior of one group of people for doing something other groups do with impunity.
And to the person who tried to bring the Confederate flag into this whole thing, I would like to suggest you go and find the video of Carol Mosley Braun: "After the Senate approved renewal of the patent for the insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, 52-48, an enraged Braun burst onto the floor.
The flag, she said, "has no place in our modern times, no place in this body, no place in this society," and she promised to filibuster "until this room freezes over."
Comparing the Mexican flag with the Confederate Flag is to introduce other issues into an already overly complicated matter.
At any rate, here is a scholarly excerpt about Mexican-American identity with at least a tengential intersection to the topics at hand.
The issues that can arise with multiple loyalties are seen in some of their most direct manifestations in the case of Mexican Americans. Other research data suggest that Vargas' "sociological arguments" have substantial real-world manifestations. As a result, they are not just a matter of abstract controversy. Rather, they directly raise basic questions about issues of cultural coherence and attachment in American politics.
On many empirical measures, Mexican Americans stand apart from traditional or even contemporary patterns of integration into American society. Ruben Rumbaut (1994), for example, surveyed over 5,000 children from immigrant families. Half were U.S.-born children of immigrants, half were foreign-born children who immigrated here before they were 12 (the 1.5 generation). He offered each child the opportunity to self-identify by either national origin (e.g., Jamaican, Hmong), hyphenated identity (e.g., Mexican American, Filipino American), a plain American identity, or a pan-racial/ethnic identity (e.g. Hispanic, Latino, "Black").29 He found a definite trend of adopting a hyphenated American identity from the foreign-born children to those born here (from 32 percent to 49 percent). These findings, he correctly states, are indicative of a "significant assimilative trend." He notes the most assimilative groups appear to be the Latin Americans, "with the very notable exception of Mexicans. Among the U.S.-born less than 4 percent of Mexican American-descent youth identified as American (the lowest proportion of any group)..." (1994, 765, emphasis mine).
Moreover, among second-generation Mexicans, "a very substantial number identified as Chicano, virtually all of them U.S. born and all of them in California; in fact a quarter of all Mexican-descendant second generation students self-identified as Chicano, a historical and problematic identity unique to that group..." In other words, compared to other second-generation immigrant children, Asians for example, Mexicans were far more likely to select a pan-racial/ethnic identity that did not include some American component.
The same kinds of difference showed up in language use, one of the key elements of integration into a new society. Rumbaut measured facility by relying on self reports, a method ripe for methodological errors like those brought about by social desirability factors.30 Even so, he found a Mexican difference:
Three quarters of the total sample preferred English, including substantial majorities in every group...the single exceptions are the Mexicans, who are the most loyal to their native tongue, although even among them 45 percent preferred English. More than one-third speak English only with their parents, although, interestingly, a smaller proportion speak English only with their close friends (who are also children of immigrants) (1994, 767, emphasis added).
And finally, when one examines the rate of naturalization for those qualified to seek it, Mexicans again stand out. The proportion of naturalized citizens among the foreign-born population in 1997 was 53 percent for those from Europe, 44 percent for those from Asia and 24 percent for those from Latin America. Why are the Latin American naturalization rates so low? Primarily, "because of the low figure for the population from Mexico (15 percent)" (U.S. Department of Commerce 1997, 20, emphasis mine).
Sorry for the super long post
Can you spot the mistakes in this photo?
ReplyDelete(BIG PICTURE OF WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE IRAQI TOWN)
This is a picture that Howard Kaloogian, a conservative Republican candidate in San Diego's upcoming congressional special election to replace disgraced GOPer Duke Cunningham, has placed on his Web site. It is billed as a photo that Kaloogian and his party took on a recent trip to Iraq. Here's his provocative caption:
We took this photo of dowtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq. Iraq (including Baghdad) is much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it - in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism.
OK. But look very carefully at this picture. Notice anything unusual? Just like those puzzles they used to run in the Sunday comics section, see how many, um, mistakes you can spot in the photo.
When you're done, read this and also this. (But don't peek until you're done!)
The Internet detectives strike again!
PS. The picture was taken in Turkey!
Bart, work faster. I don't blame you if you can't keep up, but the big new story which apparently you missed is that Pace was forced, because of overwhelming evidence coming out on the Internet, to admit that it was in fact a mosque, and no "cover-up" happened, as the Administration originally claimed. Don't have time to post the link to the story but that's where we are now.
ReplyDeleteEven your propaganda is being so quickly outdated that no sooner than you can write it, it's already obsolete.
This is amazing!
I saw some discussion of the Washington Times article. Check this out:
ReplyDeleteFISA judges say Bush within law
By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 29, 2006
A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).
The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president's constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.”.
This was followed by a comment that the NYT had reported the story differently. Well, of course, we must go with the NYT, right? Only foolish liberals still knee jerk that reaction. Smart liberals, and everyone else, wait for the true version of the facts to come out. Wanna bet? Of course, we must except the opinions of those of Pendragon’s stripe for whom a thunderbolt from God emblazoning the facts on their forehead is required for any deviation from liberal agenda. Because Hypatia and Mr. Greenwald are 10,000 percent sure, I’ll go with the NYT.
Here is some of the questions of the Senate Judiciary Committee members and the answers of the FISA court judges from yesterday's hearing:
ReplyDeleteJudge Kornblum: Presidential authority to conduct wireless [Sic. Presumably Judge Kornblum meant "warrantless."] surveillance in the United States I believe exists, but it is not the President's job to determine what that authority is. It is the job of the judiciary. *** The President's intelligence authorities come from three brief elements in Article II....As you know, in Article I, Section 8, Congress has enumerated powers as well as the power to legislate all enactments necessary and proper to their specific authorities, and I believe that is what the President has, similar authority to take executive action necessary and proper to carry out his enumerated responsibilities of which today we are only talking about surveillance of Americans. ***
Senator Feinstein: Now I want to clear something up. Judge Kornblum spoke about Congress's power to pass laws to allow the President to carry out domestic electronic surveillance, and we know that FISA is the exclusive means of so doing. Is such a law, that provides both the authority and the rules for carrying out that authority, are those rules then binding on the President?
Judge Kornblum: No President has ever agreed to that. ***
Senator Feinstein: What do you think as a Judge?
Judge Kornblum: I think--as a Magistrate Judge, not a District Judge, that a President would be remiss in exercising his Constitutional authority to say that, "I surrender all of my power to a statute," and, frankly, I doubt that Congress, in a statute, can take away the President's authority, not his inherent authority, but his necessary and proper authority.
Senator Feinstein: I would like to go down the line if I could. *** Judge Baker?
Judge Baker: No, I do not believe that a President would say that.
Senator Feinstein: No. I am talking about FISA, and is a President bound by the rules and regulations of FISA?
Judge Baker: If it is held constitutional and it is passed, I suppose, just like everyone else, he is under the law too.
***
Senator Feinstein: Judge?
Judge Stafford: Everyone is bound by the law, but I do not believe, with all due respect, that even an act of Congress can limit the President's power under the Necessary and Proper Clause under the Constitution.
***
Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?
[No response.]
Chairman Specter: Everybody agrees with that.
http://www.fednews.com/transcript.htm?id=20060328t3970
Headline on Huffington Post:
ReplyDeleteSt. Patrick's Parade Chairman Compares Gay Irish-Americans To Neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan, Prostitutes...
Is THAT what the Irish "traditional flags" represent?
So much for foreign flags in America.
Meanwhile, the Republican who said he visited that peaceful Iraq and posted a picture taken in Istanbul on his website now blames the webmaster for the mistake, but apparently the INTERNET DETECTIVES have exposed that myth too.
Wow. Cool. Go Internet Dectectives! What a totally fun group of people!
From notherbob2 at 11:29PM:
ReplyDelete"Of course, we must except the opinions of those of Pendragon’s stripe for whom a thunderbolt from God emblazoning the facts on their forehead is required for any deviation from liberal agenda. Because Hypatia and Mr. Greenwald are 10,000 percent sure, I’ll go with the NYT."
Strange comment. I'm not sure if the writer was attempting to be insulting, condescending, or satirical.
Then again, the author was quoting from The Washington Times (more accurately The Moonie Times), said quote not really adding anything to either the purported subject nor to the overall discussion.
Par for the course.
"said quote not really adding anything to either the purported subject nor to the overall discussion."
ReplyDeletetranslation: Not a thunderbolt.
Oh no. Too funny. Scalia shoots off an angry letter to an editor in which he says:
ReplyDeleteThe Herald reported the justice made "an obscene gesture, flicking his hand under his chin" in response to a question about whether lawyers might question his impartiality in matters of church and state. The incident occurred after he attended Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross. It said Scalia had also asked a photographer not to publish a picture.
Scalia said he had explained the gesture's meaning to no avail (boo hoo, you bully-ed.) to the reporter, whom he referred to as "an up-and-coming 'gotcha' star."
In his letter he quoted from Luigi Barzini's book, "The Italians," in which he observed: "The extended fingers of one hand moving slowly back and forth under the raised chin means 'I couldn't care less. It's no business of mine. Count me out."'
Scalia said the reporter leapt to conclusions because the justice initially explained his gesture as something Sicilian.
"From watching too many episodes of the Sopranos, your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene -- especially when made by an 'Italian jurist.' (I am, but the way, an American jurist.)," he wrote.
What a crock of baloney. Did we pay his staff research that quote? First he reveals his real animus, the new "gotcha stars" (translation: independent media) and then calls anyone commenting on his gesture a bigot.
Hey Scalia, that gesture, despite how you want to characterize it, translates to "F*CK OFF" and since you are such a real American, you should know that. Everyone else does.
GOTCHA!
If it's going to take discrediting the man, fairly and without using gutter tactics or repulsive means, to reveal the true nature of how those who support fascist, yes fascist, policies operate, hey, all's fair in love and war. And we ARE at war, right Scalia? You said we were. So welcome to the war.
Comment sections can be so much fun. Here are two from the Huffington Post story about Scalia's Letter to the Editor:
ReplyDeleteMaybe he had a slight case of Tourette Syndrome and involuntarily made an obscene Italian hand gesture.
By: Bobbotov on March 29, 2006 at 11:59am
And of course, what everyone knows and Scalia thinks he can deny by having his legal aides dig up some quotes:
It's the Italian version of flipping the bird.
By: hootie1fan on March 29, 2006 at 11:59am
I post this because I believe pitstops for a little humor are important when waging long battles which can often be so discouraging.
Well now, let us cut the crap (as they say).
ReplyDelete1) Thank you Bart, for giving us the FACTS on this issue. I have to admit that I ordinarily don’t read your stuff closely because I find it boring. In general you go on too long and include too much minutae. I judge your content by the responses. Sorry. You no doubt deserve better. I am not a subscriber and cannot fact check you, but I accept that you have not Dowdized the quote.
2) “Chairman Specter: I think the thrust of what you are saying is the President is bound by statute like everyone else unless it impinges on his constitutional authority, and a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?
[No response.]”
3) Now, I know that the spinmeisters (perhaps the NYT?) will say that the judges present have no duty to jump in and therefore yadda, yadda. Any reasonable reader knows why the Washington Times reporter wrote the story the way he did. The judges' silence was eloquent, taken in the context of the circumstances and the current controversy. Eloquent.
4) It bears repeating: “...a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority. Anybody disagree with that?” [silence]
5) Plenty of room for an argument that the President’s constitutional authority doesn’t cover the NSA “Scandal”.
6) How many Senators are stepping up to vote for an impeachment on this issue? Saying they will vote for censure?
7) We have silent Senators and silent judges. !!
8) We have loud Democrat partisans.
9) I don’t know about you, but I think I have the gist of this “scandal” and I am ready to vote on it.
10) Yes, we know, Pendragon, no one has offered any facts yet.
Ted Turner blasts the media, Bush -- and himself
ReplyDeleteTurner on the Iraq war: 'This is a big waste of time.'
ATLANTA, Georgia (AP) -- Ted Turner took shots Tuesday at the media for its coverage of sex and violence, at himself for losing control of the news network he founded, and at the Bush administration for going to war in Iraq.
"There's an awful lot of superfluous news, the pervert of the day and someone that shot seven people at a fraternity party," Turner told a crowd gathered at a downtown hotel. "Who needs it all?"
Turner, 67, said he regrets losing control of CNN, which he founded in 1980, to Time Warner Inc. after its merger with America Online.
"I had a sacred trust there and I let it go," Turner said. "I thought there was no way they could phase me out, and I was wrong......"
As for Bush, Turner didn't mince words.
"We can't afford the war in Iraq," Turner said. "This is a big waste of time.
"I wish we would say, 'We won and we are going home.' We shouldn't be there. Bombing isn't a way of changing people's minds. You do that with education."
Bush lacks a true understanding of the world, Turner said.
"We had a president of the United States who had been out of the country but once before he was elected," he said.
He added, "And this guy has his finger on the nuclear trigger, too -- reformed alcoholic, nothing wrong with that."
White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri addressed Turner's war criticism.
"Iraq remains a central front in the war on terror, and it's important for the security of our nation to have a Democratic Iraq as a friend and ally," she said.
I am glad for each new person who speaks out. It all helps. Wish he would donate a billion dollars to candidates who speak truth to power, and focus on the real issues.
But I am offended that he characterizes the war as "a waste of time." Time lost isn't the real issue. Torture, lost limbs, death, injustice, an insane foreign policy, wasted lives, broken hearts---those are the real problem."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletenotherbob2 said...
ReplyDeleteWell now, let us cut the crap (as they say).
1) Thank you Bart, for giving us the FACTS on this issue. I have to admit that I ordinarily don’t read your stuff closely because I find it boring. In general you go on too long and include too much minutae. I judge your content by the responses. Sorry. You no doubt deserve better.
Forgive me for the lengthy legalize, but I am arguing in the proverbial lions' den here and crossing swords with several attorneys.
I have to be precise or these worthy opponents will spot gaps in the arguments and I will definitely read about it.
JaO said...
ReplyDeleteThe former FISA judges (four, not five) expressed no opinion on whether Bush acted illegally.
It is undisputed and the courts have universally held that the President has the Article II power to direct and conduct warrantless intelligence gathering.
The issue is whether FISA can limit or eliminate that power.
Kris avoided answering that question, but gave several areas of plenary Article II power which he believes Congress may not infringe. That admission basically gutted the expansive view of the Youngstown case that Congress may pass legislation which limits or eliminates any Presidential power.
The judges could not avoid the question entirely. They admitted that no President has ceded his Article II power to Congress under FISA and that "a statute cannot take away the President's constitutional authority."
What is clear is not a single one of these witnesses claims that the President acted illegally in the exercise of his Article II power by conducting warrantless intelligence gathering.
Therefore, if the Specter bill requiring the FISA court to rule on the constitutionality of the NSA program does somehow pass, there is no evidence the President would lose before these judges or the FISA court of review.
I watched the hearing more than once, and the Washington Times lead is grossly wrong.
No, the only grossly wrong report on this hearing was by New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau, who co-authored the original NYT article which disclosed the NSA Program to the enemy. His claim that the judges "voice[d] skepticism about the president's constitutional authority" is a flat out lie. Of course, because he may have violated the Espionage Act in his original article, Lichtblau has a great deal to lose if this program is found to be legal.
"The President's constitutional authority does not include the power to violate the constitution for a period of at least four years."
ReplyDeleteNot for four seconds.
"Your post is total spin..."
ReplyDeleteAnd you, jao, of all commenters on this blog, should know.
I just read the new Democratic Party Campaign Announcment in the New York Times.
ReplyDeleteARE THEY INSANE?
Sigh. Put me back in the Republican column. I will turn my efforts to trying to reform that sick beast from within.
If I wanted Joe Lieberman in office, I'd vote for him. The Democratic Party just revealed itself to be Joe Lieberman.
Go. To. Hell.
Sorry, I try to be concise and that sometimes leads to a comment that is unclear. I believe that jao is a spinmeister. That is clear enough, eh?
ReplyDeleteHere is some italiano education for Eyes Wide Open.
ReplyDeletehttp://italian.about.com/library/nosearch/blgestures014.htm
http://italian.about.com/library/nosearch/blgestures026.htm
capice?
nuf said said:
ReplyDelete"Tell me how the president can violate the constitution over a period of four years and counting."
I have a question for you. If the foremost FISA Court expert witness judges say he did NOT violate the constitution, why do you keep saying he did?
TheLastNameChosen:
ReplyDeleteSounds like you've been readikng my posts. ;-)
‘‘(8) the term ‘intercept’ means the acquisition of the substance of any electronic communication by a person through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device; and
‘‘(9) the term ‘substance’ means any information concerning the words, purport, or meaning of a communication, and does not include information identifying the sender, origin, or recipient of the communication or the date or time of its transmission.’’
This parallels the distinction in the domestic wiretap laws between "trap'n'trace" (or "pen register") taps, and the taps for "content" which require a Title III warrant. I'd note that signalling information is accessible through subpoena of business records (e.g., billing information) after the fact, and without the requisite Title III "probable cause" showing.
I wouldn't put too much stock in the significance of this language here; they seem to be defining "call content" type traps.
Re: Redefinition of "electronic surveillance". Yes, it cuts out three specific cases:
a). Wire intercepts when done domestically [50 USC 1801(f)(2)]
b). Radio intercepts when all the intended parties are domestic (even if the "tap" is performed outside the U.S) [50 USC 1801(f)(3)]
c). Other types of taps (i.e., not wire or radio) not covered above, if the tap is performed domestically [50 USC 1801(f)(4)]
Not sure what this means. One could argue that this would mean that the looser restrictions of the law don't apply to these last three cases, and if FISA is left intact by the law and not replaced, that would mean that one type of tap (going to the phone companies so as to do the international taps at their switch offices here for convenience's sake) would still be prohibited by FISA. And from what some folks have said, that's one thing the maladministration has done.
But what does it do to the first case (and if my comments above about FISA not being repealed are true, that's the one that counts)?:
It cuts out the restriction that the "U.S. person" is a "target" as well! It applies to all communications in which a "U.S. person" is a party. Thus, while this law would (assumedly) exempt the gummint from the FISA warrant requirement when targeting "U.S. persons", it would also impose new rules (albeit no warrant requirement) on taps where a "U.S. person" was involved where the "target" of the tap was not a "U.S. person" (e.g., the hypothetical real al Qaeda head honcho whose satellite phone was bugged). I really don't know why they'd do this. Makes little sense to me.
You know, looking at the changes, I'm not 100% sure we can attribute to malice what may very well simply be confusion and ignorance (combined with perhaps a little haste)
Cheers,
thelastnamechosen, your post on the Specter bill @ 2:13 pm was superb. Keep it up.
ReplyDelete"TELL IT TO THE JUDGE MISTER PRESIDENT. (thanks jao)"
ReplyDeleteIt's wunnerful, wunnerful, that you and jao have agreed that this jingo is appropriate. However, you do appear to be ignorant of the fact that there is one person who, in some cases, does not have to "tell it to the judge". Is this such a case? Well, that is what the the discussion is about. For you to keep chanting only discloses that you are ignorant of what the Constitution says.
So chant on for the ignorant. The rest of us will continue the discussion.
TheLastNameChosen:
ReplyDeleteDividing up substance and identifying information may make sense for the traditional analog phone system or the Post Office, but the internet makes any legal distinction between the two absurd.
That's true; I've commented on it previously WRT Title III and "trap'n'trace". There have already been fights brewing concerning "dialed digit extraction", and whether the text of short messages (i.e. "texting") should be "data" or "content".
"Dialed digit extraction" is the delivery of touch-tone digit information post "cut-through" (i.e., after the called party answers) that might be used to access an extension, a voice box ... or provide a PIN for bank transfers! Some folks think that such digits are "signalling information", and ought to be call data; but it's clear that at least some of the digits thus extracted are "communications" in any meaningful sense of the word (and the equipment that does the processing for digit extraction can't tell the difference). I'd point out that if there's a Title III warrant and they have audio, the feds can do the "digit extraction" themselves if the need to.
As for short message text, the reason it's being pushed by some to be "call data" is probably mainly historical; it got tossed into a bucket called "packet envelope data", and some folks seem to have thought that seeing as such "packet envelopes" were just digital data to begin with, the digital data of the text message is not too different. But I'd think that any rational person would say the "From: XXXXX" fields and "To: XXXXX" fileds of the packet envelope are the equivalent of the call signalling, and the actual text of the message should be the equivalent of the "call content"; that is to say, the end-to-end user communication.
In the Internet world, things are likewise fuzzy: Is a URL (the "HTTP GET" parameter) "signalling", like a telephone number? Or is it communication, end-to-end (that is to say, "content")? Problme comes with today's "interactive" web, where form data and other quite specific information as to what a person is asking about, is in the retrieval requests (just look at the "?xxx=aaaaa" stuff in just the URL at the top of this page!). If you look at what you're doing in Google, you'll see that your URLs contain quite a bit of information about what it was you were searching. So is it "data" or "content"? Doubt the senators have the slightest idea. And I'm beginning to suspect their staffs don't either.
Cheers,
Charlie the Tuna:
ReplyDeleteDon't know if you will see this, but I'm just getting around to reading all the comments, and I appreciate your point.
I didn't mean to suggest that individual npeople all over the world since time began have been inspired by the concept of "liberty."
Instead, I meant to suggest that, to my knowledge, the system of codified law which acts as an instuction book for how our nation will be run, the US Constitution, is the first in history which is centered on the notion that individual liberties are the paramount value.
Although I realize that our form of government borrows much from English Common Law and the Magna Charter, I think that neither is as stirring an affirmation of the ideas spelled out in the Declaration of Independence as is our Constitution.
I realize that some "texturalists" do not think the Declaration of Independence, with its recognition of "certain inalieanble rights" is part of our law. I am not one of those. I believe that there are rights which are not spelled out in the Consitution, but are in fact inalienable, and the Constitution was intended to be interpreted in such a fashion as to recognize people have those inalienable rights which shall not be violated by Government.
As for Passover. I don't know if anyone would ever be able to explain to me what the following has to do with liberty:
Blood
Frogs
Lice (vermin)
Wild Beasts(flies)
Blight (Cattle Disease)
Boils
Hail
Locusts
Darkness
Slaying of the First Born
or
The holiday's name - Pesach, meaning "passing over" or "protection" in Hebrew, is derived from the instructions given to Moses by G-d . In order to encourage the Pharaoh to free the Israelites, G-d intended to kill the first-born of both man and beast. To protect themselves, the Israelites were told to mark their dwellings with lamb's blood so that G-d could identify and "pass over" their homes.
So as not to offend anyone, I will refrain from commenting further on the above.
arne langsetmo said...
ReplyDeleteTheLastNameChosen:
Sounds like you've been reading my posts. ;-)
I think a witty phrase I coined back in the early 1990s is appropriate.
"A good artist borrows but a great artist steals."
Your post above is going to take at least two trips for me to empty the bank. Keep them coming.
Eyes wide open...
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding to my post and clarifying your own.
However, Passover is a celebration of freedom and liberty. It celebrates the Exodus from Egypt where the Jewish people were formely slaves.
To acquire that freedom it was necessary that blood be spilled and terrible hardships were suffered by both parties in the conflict. Just like in the American Revolution.
Mumphrey said...
ReplyDelete"And when they come up here to work for almost nothing, doing work that most Americans wouldn't touch with a fork, a bunch of ignorant yahoos paint them as some kind of reeking, criminal horde, bent on robbing our men and raping our women."
Not completely true. Illegal immigrants have been found working at a U.S. Naval base in San Diego. An Airport in Georgia, a nuclear plant, etc. These are good paying U.S. government contracting jobs and their illegal status raises national security issues as well as issues about doing jobs that Americans "won't" do.
The bottom line is that we have an out of control immigration system. While I have no problem with legal immigrants we cannot survive as a nation when we have a million people crossing our borders illegally every year. People that we don't know who they are, where they are going, or what they are doing. We have no idea if they are here to work or if they intend to do us harm ala 9/11.
The other factor not taken into account by those promoting illegal immigration is the drain on the economy they cause. Many work for cash and therefore pay no taxes back into the system that they benefit from. Just a few examples: Most if not all have no employer provided medical insurance so the taxpayer picks up the tab when they go to the emergency room and are treated for free. They attend our public schools even though they pay no tuition or taxes to support the school system. Many drive without drivers licenses or insurance which drives up the cost to American and legal resident drivers when they get in an accident and have no way to pay for the damage they have caused.
And the ones that do come here and work for next to nothing, (below minimum wage) they don't benefit from it, the U.S. worker doesn't benefit from it in part because it drives down wages for the poorest and least educated American citizens and in part because it flaunts long established labor standards in this country. The only ones who benefit from it are employers who are willing to exploit labor for their on enrichment.
tuna said: Passover is a celebration of freedom and liberty. It celebrates the Exodus from Egypt where the Jewish people were formely slaves.
ReplyDeleteThese ideas go back to Mesopotamian myths as well. See, for example, the Babylonian Enuma Elish which itself has roots in Sumerian myth. In these myths, humans are controlled and enslaved by natural forces, symbolized by various gods, and find themselves freed through battle and warfare with these same forces.
Of course, more recent history includes the Classical Greeks and their opposition to the Persian invasion.
From notherbob2 at 3:35AM:
ReplyDelete"However, you do appear to be ignorant of the fact that there is one person who, in some cases, does not have to "tell it to the judge". Is this such a case? Well, that is what the the discussion is about. For you to keep chanting only discloses that you are ignorant of what the Constitution says."
This is almost amusing. I wasn't aware there is a provision in either the Constitution or the US Code that exempts *anyone* from answering for deliberately acting contrary to statutory law. Enlighten us, please.
Unless of course you're referring to the argument that Article II trumps FISA and god knows what else.
Michael Birk:
ReplyDeletePreviously I had been relying on clause 50 USC §1802(a)(1)(B):
there is no substantial likelihood that the [electronic] surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party
Umm, that's "of any communication to which a United States person is a party".
There's more to 50 USC 1802(a)(1), namely clause 50 USC 1802(a)(1)(A):
the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;...
So this applies only to taps of exclusivcely foreign communication (like putting in a bug in the Kremlin's PBX, or hacking into and/or tapping foreign domestic communications companies. It does not apply to any taps that have any significant possibility of interception of US-foreign communications.
Michael continues:
Does that mean a data mining program like ECHELON or TIA is completely legal, since it is not "intentionally targeting [a] United States person"?
Echelon man or may not be legal, depending on what they're going for (and where; see my previois comments WRT location of the intercept [which may explain why Menham Hill is such a popular place for spooks]).
The question of whether "data mining" is legal is a different question (depending on how the data is being mined). Do you really think that a "targeted" sniff of one person would be illegal while a sniff of everyone is legal? If the sniff is for "content" (i.e., keywords), it could be argued that FISA applies. If what they're looking for is signalling information, it may not (see my explanations of the [albeit sometimes fuzzy] distinction between "call content" and "call data", keeping in mind that no warrant is required for a call data snoop -- even given the Fourth Amendment -- for even purely domestic criminal surveillances).
So, no, I don't think that Echelon evades FISA by avoiding the "targeting" requiremet. And while the details are not clear on TIA, I think the same would probably apply.
* * * * *
FWIW, I've heard requests for capability to sniff all communications to a specific TCP or UDP port. This may have been just for internal security or anti-hacking purposes. Or ti may have been someone took it into their head to try and go after (potential) file-sharing crimes (some of the various PTP music sharing schemes use specified ports for communications, and look fcr listeners on these ports or blast to these ports). This is, IMNSHO, outside the requirements of CALEA and probably outside the authorisations of CALEA as well. If this was being used for criminal investigations, I'd say it would be hard to defend in court.
Cheers,
Ah!! The ironies.
ReplyDeleteThe illegal immigrants wave the flag of the country they left demanding the same rights as those that were born here and those that played by the rules and waited in line until it was their turn.
It would be somewhat akin to me breaking into one of the expensive gated communities we have in this country and demanding the same rights and benefits of those living there by virtue of my ability to scale their wall.
While I have no problem with legal immigrants we cannot survive as a nation when we have a million people crossing our borders illegally every year.
ReplyDeleteFear mongering. Race-baiting.
People that we don't know who they are, where they are going, or what they are doing.
More fear mongering.
We have no idea if they are here to work or if they intend to do us harm ala 9/11.
I can say that about all my neighbors, or YOU for that matter.
The other factor not taken into account by those promoting illegal immigration is the drain on the economy they cause. Many work for cash and therefore pay no taxes back into the system that they benefit from.
But presumably, they are consumers. So some of the income goes back into the economy. If 10 million consumers disappeared overnight, would the economy feel it? Also, labor intensive services with low profit margins may not survive if they suddenly had to employ everyone at minimum wage. Finally, if unemployment is running at or near the natural rate, and illegals are still being employed, then could they actually be helping the economy, filling jobs that would otherwise go unfilled?
How much of a drain are they, really? Has there ever been any studies that looking into how much illegal immigrants put into the economy, as opposed to studies that just measured how much of a drain they are to social services?
A little realism must sneak into the discussion now and then, don't you think? I mean, it's not realistic to suggest that a million inexperienced and resentful prisoners are capable of replacing 5 million willing and hard-working Latino agricultural workers, so why say a think like that? To whip up racial fears.
ReplyDeletePeople keep talking about the lack of fairness putting illegal immigrants ahead of the legal immigrants on the workers list.
That doesn't have to be the case.
Then the subject switches over to 'punishing law-breakers' by sending them back to their respective countries. That's not the only 'punishment' available.
It's the old GOP game of giving you two directly opposing radical choices and acting like that's the only possibility. War in Iraq or mushroom cloud over the US. Stopping same-sex marriage or the complete disintegration of the institution. IT's tiresome, it's an old trick, and it's time we came up with a way to make fun of them for it. How about "Kill all Bushbashers or sit in the fires of Hell! WWJD?"