Senator Holier than Thou
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum believes that the US government has the right to spy on people in their homes in order to enforce his idea of acceptable sexual behavior. This is, to say the least, way off the mark for what is expected and needed from our elected representatives.
Government has NO place in the bedroom. Laws that cannot be enforced without violating other fundamental laws, or that can only be enforced selectively, are BAD laws and should not be passed. Senator Rick's view of the world is one where his kind of Christian militant can define what the rest of us can legally do in private. There is not a chance that we will accept this. While most of the press on his verbal diareah focused on the gay issue, the real point of contention is that he objects not just to gay sexual behavior but to a host of sexual practices that are common in the hetero world as well. I personally can't believe this guy is a US Senator. It seems the standards are falling lower and lower. Just what we need, a senator that believes in magic invisible beings who tell him what sexual behavior is acceptable. For many people, believing in magic, invisible beings who make demands on them is grounds for commitment to a mental institution. This is an interesting topic, how is it that some people's irrational belief is worthy of respect and other's causes them to be committed? There is a world of political theory involved in that question! Talk among yourselves.
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Bush's Oath
Remember when Dubyah made the big speech about the 'Oath' he took - the oath he was going to keep? He implied that the oath motivated his attack on Iraq. But what oath did he take? The Presidential oath does not commit the president to defend the country, it commits him to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States!" This is a completely different thing. On this score Bush strikes out. His actions, far from defending the constitution, have attacked and limited it at every turn.
According to the constitution, all treaties, once ratified, shall be considered part of the supreme law of the land. In other words, ratified treaties become an extention of the constitution itself. The UN Charter, which we not only ratified but largely authored, expressly forbids a pre-emptive attack of one country against another. It endorses the use of force in only two situations: (1) self defense in the face of immediate attack, and (2) a UN sanctioned action in response to a generally perceived threat.
The US attack on Iraq satisfies neither of these restrictions and is therefore illegal under the constitution. The war on Iraq was fundamentally unconstitutional and thus a violation of Bush's oath of office. As such it was an impeachable offence, and yet this clown is being praised for it. This is how far we have sunk in the mire of self-serving hypocracy.
If we're gonna have Democracy in Iraq, can we have some here first?
I am one human being. I have no power on the world stage and little power in my own country beyond my one vote, which I can use to pick between candidates selected by others for reasons unknonwn.
Is this what is meant by 'Democracy'? To cast a vote every couple of years between Tweedledom and whoever - one or another of a 'bought and paid for' set of pre-approved candidates who are guranteed not to threaten the powers that be. I remember Kruschev in the 'Kitchen Debates' with Nixon, then VP under Eisenhower, who replied to Nixon's charge that Russian voters had no choice, when he said "Oh, you mean like the choice between the millionaire Harrimon or the millionaire Rockefeller?" It was, all things considered, one of his better moments. And a real insight into what American politics is really all about. If you can't afford to buy your way into play or have friends who will do it for you, you will never actually be a 'player' in America's political arena.
Remember when Dubyah made the big speech about the 'Oath' he took - the oath he was going to keep? He implied that the oath motivated his attack on Iraq. But what oath did he take? The Presidential oath does not commit the president to defend the country, it commits him to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States!" This is a completely different thing. On this score Bush strikes out. His actions, far from defending the constitution, have attacked and limited it at every turn.
According to the constitution, all treaties, once ratified, shall be considered part of the supreme law of the land. In other words, ratified treaties become an extention of the constitution itself. The UN Charter, which we not only ratified but largely authored, expressly forbids a pre-emptive attack of one country against another. It endorses the use of force in only two situations: (1) self defense in the face of immediate attack, and (2) a UN sanctioned action in response to a generally perceived threat.
The US attack on Iraq satisfies neither of these restrictions and is therefore illegal under the constitution. The war on Iraq was fundamentally unconstitutional and thus a violation of Bush's oath of office. As such it was an impeachable offence, and yet this clown is being praised for it. This is how far we have sunk in the mire of self-serving hypocracy.
If we're gonna have Democracy in Iraq, can we have some here first?
I am one human being. I have no power on the world stage and little power in my own country beyond my one vote, which I can use to pick between candidates selected by others for reasons unknonwn.
Is this what is meant by 'Democracy'? To cast a vote every couple of years between Tweedledom and whoever - one or another of a 'bought and paid for' set of pre-approved candidates who are guranteed not to threaten the powers that be. I remember Kruschev in the 'Kitchen Debates' with Nixon, then VP under Eisenhower, who replied to Nixon's charge that Russian voters had no choice, when he said "Oh, you mean like the choice between the millionaire Harrimon or the millionaire Rockefeller?" It was, all things considered, one of his better moments. And a real insight into what American politics is really all about. If you can't afford to buy your way into play or have friends who will do it for you, you will never actually be a 'player' in America's political arena.
Coming up for air
I have spent the last couple of months holding my breath and not blogging for fear I would go off on a total rant. Now I can, somewhat, breathe again, though the anger is still very much in play. So, I will try a return to commenting on the world as brought to us by Bush and company. Maybe I can do this without total meltdown.
Are Americans as truely ignorant of their history and political system as they seem - proudly - to be? I hope not, but the ongoing failure of anyone of note to take a stand for the common man against commericial media dominance indicates that serious media/social critics must find a place outside the mainstream in which to operate. The received "truth" of things is now in the hands of commercial TV hacks who proudly trumpet the superiority of the American way. Anything else brings on a charge of "anti-Americanism." Since I've never known what "Americanism" might be I have no understanding of what anti-Americanism is.
I continue to be depressed that so many otherwise rational and seemingly humane fellow citizens are not only willing to see our government kill and maime thousands of Iraqis for dubious reasons, but they actually applaud it! They feel good because of it! How is it possible that a 'Christian' feels jov and elation at the suffering and/or death of someone they don't even know, half way around the world, whose relation to anything having to do with us is mostly bound up in suffering the undifferentiated punishment we have chosen to impose on the Iraqi population as a whole?
This is vile. And I believe we will have to pay for it many times over.
I have spent the last couple of months holding my breath and not blogging for fear I would go off on a total rant. Now I can, somewhat, breathe again, though the anger is still very much in play. So, I will try a return to commenting on the world as brought to us by Bush and company. Maybe I can do this without total meltdown.
Are Americans as truely ignorant of their history and political system as they seem - proudly - to be? I hope not, but the ongoing failure of anyone of note to take a stand for the common man against commericial media dominance indicates that serious media/social critics must find a place outside the mainstream in which to operate. The received "truth" of things is now in the hands of commercial TV hacks who proudly trumpet the superiority of the American way. Anything else brings on a charge of "anti-Americanism." Since I've never known what "Americanism" might be I have no understanding of what anti-Americanism is.
I continue to be depressed that so many otherwise rational and seemingly humane fellow citizens are not only willing to see our government kill and maime thousands of Iraqis for dubious reasons, but they actually applaud it! They feel good because of it! How is it possible that a 'Christian' feels jov and elation at the suffering and/or death of someone they don't even know, half way around the world, whose relation to anything having to do with us is mostly bound up in suffering the undifferentiated punishment we have chosen to impose on the Iraqi population as a whole?
This is vile. And I believe we will have to pay for it many times over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
