Tuesday, January 24, 2006

"It's just a goddamned piece of paper"

Yes, the Bush administration is trying to tell us that spying on us will make us safer. With these types of statements, they attempt to distract us away from their full court press to increase presidential power. So along those lines...

Today, in a wide ranging internet search I found several very interesting tidbits of information: Bush, in an end of the year push to get Republicans to support the renewel of the Patriot Act and after facing some oppostion concerning its Constitutionality (yes, many Republicans still believe in the Constitution, and God bless them for it), actually said (screamed apparently)... wait for it... "stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!" Wow, did he just say that? Personally, I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, pro-choice or pro-life, pro-government or pro-business, pro-war or pro-peace, this statement should shake you to the core. It should also unveil the real purpose behind Bush's ordering of NSA spying.

Another bit of info I came across was perhaps just as insidious. In the renewel of the Patriot Act, the same documant that prompted the above outburst from the Bush-man, there is a little known clause that allows for the creation of an actual Federal Police Force, with the power to conduct warantless arrests of any person conducting an "offense against the United States." That sounds like a substantial shift toward the police state, if you ask me. And, not that they didn't have plenty of other reasons but is that why there were Republicans balking at the Patriot Act renewel?

My conclusion, this President needs to be stopped, and impeached if neccessary. Otherwise, we can say goodbye to freedom.

Monday, January 23, 2006

And the Bush-man cometh

This week we will be treated to a storm from the of Bush brigade on the NSA spying deal. Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former head of NSA, will give a speech Monday, Alberto Gonzalez will take his turn on Tuesday, and all that will be followed by a visit by Bush to the NSA on Wendesday. I will be very interested to see what they have to say. My bet: 9/11.

Bush has used 9/11 for justification of every last detail of his "War on Terrorism," and frankly it's wearing a little thin. It still may work, however. A quote from Mitt Romney (found in the New York Times) illustrates why: "The eavesdropping is a big matter on the coasts for people who are inclined to dislike the president," Mr. Romney said. "The great majority of Americans think it is the president's first responsibility to protect the lives of the American citizens in an urgent setting where there is a threat of terrorism."

I find this to be a fascinating quote. I shall plumb it a little here. Essentially Mitt is saying that people living in the coastal zones, where the bulk of the US economy is located (57% of civilian income in 13% of the land area) and thus containing the most likely points of attack for terrorist organizations (experts predict continued terrorist focus on economic targets) are more concerned about the damage Bush is doing to the constitution than his fantasies about terrorists lurking around every corner. Shouldn't this tell us something?

The people most likely to be hurt directly by terrorism in this country are precisely the people who are least concerned about it. Strange, very strange.

So why does the rest of America continue to ignore the wisdom of there coastal brethren in favor of Bush's tired explainations? I think the answer lies in marketing. The Bush administration, through the hand of Karl Rove, has been expert at depicting every issue that might challange Bush's logic as black and white, as good against evil. But this is assertion, in itself, is nothing new and has been stated thousands of times before. The real question is why does this strategy work so well with middle America?

My belief is that this administration is taking advantage of a broad anti-intellectual movement within the US. This movement has, perhaps, been cultivated by the Ann Coulter's of world. But I believe it runs much deeper than that, and is more evidenced by the prevalence of Intelligent-Design than by New York Times reading latte-drinking liberal jokes. Unfortunately for those of us who are analytically inclined, nuanced arguments, no matter the message, may never reach this segment of society because they prfoundly distrust the form of our arguments.

How do we deal with this, when the way we speak leaves our arguments stillborn? Perhaps the answer lies in an as-yet-undefined hybrid between the straight-forward moralistic speech of the populist and the subtle mind of the intellectual. Perhaps we just need to use a bit more cunning, a baser form of intelligence.