![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 23:59:14
In reply to Re: critiques » Dr. Bob, posted by 838 on March 6, 2006, at 17:18:59
If it ain't broke... Why bother trying to figure out how to fix it?>>
Or as I like to say, Why was John McCain interested in getting a bill passed that specifically outlawed torture by American government agencies?
To speak supportively: I admired Mr. McCain's resolution, although it seems rather redundant given that the U.S. is one of the signatories to the Geneva Convention. But his heart was in the right place, bless him.
-z
Posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 23:59:16
In reply to Re: critiques » 838, posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 17:01:15
And in the same vein, I admire Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-Pennsylvania) statements that insist that government activity respect both the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and a quite specific law passed in 1978, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, that was passed specifically to discourage such abuses as former President Nixon's "plumbing" activities, that led to his resignation (those in foreign lands will recognize the name Watergate). I admire Sen. Susan Collins' (R-Maine) determination to investigate the Federal Government's activities in the time that Hurricane Katrina swept through the Gulf Coast, though regrettably civility rules preclude me from penning words that she said in her beautiful Down East accent which I woke to not many months ago, and which gave me some faith in the system here. By the way, both of these distinguished Senators are from states that are among the Thirteen Colonies (Maine was actually part of Massachusetts at the time of the Revolution and since I often give history lessons its state motto is "Dirigo" ("I Direct.") Maine citizens have a reputation for directness. The words Sen. Collins used were quite direct, far too direct to pass as representative of American speech, but nonetheless there was a time when one could speak more directly, and some Americans long for that time, I long for it on this board.)
I am not in any way a representative American. But I am certainly one who reflects on the lessons of history, as it is said the Founding Fathers of this nation did when they wrote the Constitution, which, Sen. Specter reminded us, it is a good thing for elected officials of this nation to follow.
-z
Posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 9:08:26
In reply to Re: critiques » zeugma, posted by zeugma on March 7, 2006, at 17:16:41
me, and it is disturbing me, and turning my thoughts in directions that have driven me to frequent sites that address the issue of secession: as a matter of fact the State of South Carolina, when it seceded from the Union, did put their justifications in writing, and it makes interesting reading (and educational, to say the least):
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue....
They further solemnly declared that whenever any "form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government." Deeming the Government of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies "are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."
>>
One must remember that the Confederacy, of which South Carolina was a part, based much of their justification on the matter of slavery. They were speaking out for their right to hold slaves, who could not vote; well, women could not in the U.S. until 1920; and it strikes me that women's rights are in some danger in the U.S., though in the end the only "rights" we have in the U.S., no matter what our color, gender, or other category we fall into, are those given in the Constitution, its amendments, and the precedent of law. And as Heraclitus said many years ago, "Fight for the laws as you would for the city wall;" I take these things most seriously, hence my love of documentation. Unlike some, I am not bored by details, and unlike some, I ask questions, and unlike some, I stay up at night trying to answer those that are asked of me...but that's enough digression; on to the particular spirit which has been haunting me:
_______________________________
To the Editor:
I take issue with your March 6 editorial "Kabuki Congress" when it says that my bill "grants legal cover, retroactively, to the one spying program that Mr. Bush has acknowledged" and that it "covers any other illegal wiretapping we don't know about."
My public statements have emphasized the proposition that the wiretapping flatly violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval.
I have reserved judgment on whether the president has Article II inherent power, which would trump the FISA statute, because I don't know what the program is, and the administration will not tell us.
My bill calls upon the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which has the expertise and is leak-proof (unlike either Congress or the White House) to determine the program's constitutionality. My bill specifically does not grant "legal cover" to the wiretapping and leaves that judgment to the FISA Court.ARLEN SPECTER
Chairman
Senate Judiciary Committee
Washington, March 6, 2006[letter to the N.Y. Times, March 8, 2006]
_____________________________Interesting. It should be known that the State of South Carolina considered violations of constitutionality sufficient to secede, and that this is called the "United States," and I take this term to not apply to a nation with a body of representatives of said states that, to quote yet again, but this time a Democrat, are "trying to legislate in the dark" (Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.) [source: same paper].
I do not embrace the cause of the Old South. But the Thirteen States with which we began, and the values of New England symbolized by the recent referendums in town halls in Vermont and the motto of New Hampsire, which I will quote for educational purposes and to avoid any ambiguity, those are values I embrace:
"Live free or die."
-z
Posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 9:26:46
In reply to a Specter has been haunting, posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 9:08:26
I quoted South Carolina's statements, in part because they did look at the Constitution to see what it actually said; and secondly to avoid any hint of a whitewash on the part of this country and its officials past, present, and future, to wipe out inconvenient or even hateful details or to justify themselves by appealing to the unlimited nobility and freedom of this country. In A.D. 1852 it was politically correct to speak of slaveholding states, and of people as property; and if we disregard the laws and precedents of this nation, such as the amendments that outlawed slavery and gave women the vote, we are in danger of enslaving or oppressing even our own citizens... It is clear that i detest those who refuse to produce documents. It is clear that I do not like leisurely and disingenuous answers to simple, urgent questions, that I believe you a know a person by his or her words, and that I do not trust those who withhold relevant information and yet ask me to trust, trust, trust.
These are general principles, which are vastly preferable to ad hominem attacks. I am simply explaining how my mind works, and offering critiques of governments (NB. NOT of people) who would have our elected representatives "legislate in the dark."
"Live free or die."
-z
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 10:14:56
In reply to a Specter has been haunting, posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 9:08:26
The "Patriot Act" scares me. The thinking that wiretapping without warrants is ok as long as it's "anti-terrorism" scares me.
It's ironic. Back in the '90s (Clinton era) lots of folks moved to the woods with provisions and weapons (survivalists) because they thought the country was going to hell.
These days I'm thinking about buying my own weapons and stocking provisions. Just in case.
----
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.
- Thomas Jefferson
Posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 11:51:56
In reply to Re: Frightening » zeugma, posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 10:14:56
Auntie Mel, we may all need to stock up on provisions.
The State of New York is suing the Federal Government. Now I read (as in reed, for those as grammar-obsessed as I am) that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is suing the Federal Government over the sale of 21- not 6- ports to a foreign firm.
For those who have been awake for the past six years and not in a dream, the Port Authority, along with the NY Police Department and the NY Fire Department, conducted itself heroically in pulling people out of the collapsing towers and lost lives, too, in the collapse. (I am crying as I write this. I live in New York.)
Well, I wish them the best of luck in their lawsuit. A version of Jefferson's noble statement that anyone interested in how this government is protecting its sovereignty would state is that Those who sell their Defenses in search of Profit, will find neither.
Good luck to the Port Authority, yes, and a Brooklyn Federal court is demanding former Attorney General John Ashcroft's presence along with a gaggle of other Administration officials to explain how the activities engaged in within that district can be anything other than blatantly criminal.
Let litigation thrive, and let the heroism of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey not be forgotten!
"Live free or die."
-z
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 14:34:30
In reply to Re: Frightening » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 11:51:56
I'm a stickler for grammar myself. I sometimes (on purpose) violate it - but for the most part errors make me cringe.
I saw a book I had to buy. "Between you and I" The title is one of my pet peeves.
But, the Port Authority isn't blameless on 9/11. They cut corners quite a bit in the building of the towers and those cost savings resulted in very few escape routes.
Have you read "102 Minutes"? I'm working on it now. I wouldn't have bought it, but a local columnist and a down-home kind of guy strongly recommended it. It's about people's fight to survive and it's really well done.
And, to be technical, the administration isn't selling the ports. We still own them. The administration of the ports was done by a British company who is selling the business to Dubai.
Unfortunately, the company administering the ports isn't responsible for security. That job is still ours. From what I've seen the security in Dubai is better than ours and it could be an improvement.
What part of the North East are you from?
Posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 15:19:49
In reply to Re: Frightening » zeugma, posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 14:34:30
> I'm a stickler for grammar myself. I sometimes (on purpose) violate it - but for the most part errors make me cringe.
>
> I saw a book I had to buy. "Between you and I" The title is one of my pet peeves.
>
Violations of grammar, when purposeful, are very effective. It's a tool, really. Grammar is a game that can be played in many ways, and I get very picky when it comes to writers who can't play even one game correctly. But there's many ways to play it, and it says so much in itself (nonpolitical, well, I guess it is political in a way- the variations in dialects have been preoccupying me lately, and I enjoy the ways people express themselves. No, it's nonpolitical. I just like to hear what people say. )> But, the Port Authority isn't blameless on 9/11. They cut corners quite a bit in the building of the towers and those cost savings resulted in very few escape routes.>>
yes, when the towers were built in the 60's and early 70's. The Port Authority employees who were working in the area when the attacks occurred had nothing to do with that.
Cutting corners has tragic consequences. Short term savings= a disaster down the line. And it fosters a culture of carelessness, because if you didn't do the best you could in building the thing you rationalize it by saying that the extra escape routes were gratuitious anyway. And it's easy to say that when your budget has gone over by the time you started building. But carelessness has consequences.
>
> Have you read "102 Minutes"? I'm working on it now. I wouldn't have bought it, but a local columnist and a down-home kind of guy strongly recommended it. It's about people's fight to survive and it's really well done.
>
No, and as a narcoleptic individual involved in a fight to stay awake, survivalism was always a longer-range goal than, say, making sure I had enough coffee in the fridge. I'll check out the link, and I'd like to hear your comments.
> And, to be technical, the administration isn't selling the ports. We still own them. The administration of the ports was done by a British company who is selling the business to Dubai.
>
Yes. The issue is more complicated than usually presented.> Unfortunately, the company administering the ports isn't responsible for security. That job is still ours. From what I've seen the security in Dubai is better than ours and it could be an improvement.
>
Possible. American security is very flimsy, and one of my great suspicions is that this NSA thing is just a fabrication- not in the eyes of the Senators, of course, who are debating its legality- but a fiction made up to divert attention from the governmental problems with the CIA. A lot of CIA people have left because the Administration treated them badly. And what you get if you subtract experienced intelligence- not that the CIA doesn't have a lot to answer for, but you have to have something- is what a lot of people call "the biggest fishing expedition on earth." Like the random searches I'm warned about every day.
> What part of the North East are you from?
>
New York City. Lived here all my life.And you?
-z
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 15:33:50
In reply to Re: Frightening » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 15:19:49
You are right about the current Port Authority not being the same as on 9/11. And they were amazingly heroic, as were lots of folks who just helped out the best they could.
The book is really good - nothing sensationalized, just what happened.
I remember that day so well. I was at home, hubby had just driven off to a convention he way going to, my mom was still sleeping (I was home to take care of her for something) and I just had the Today Show on for background.
I watched the whole thing in realtime. It had an affect on me I've still not recovered from - so I can't imagine what it would be like to be there.
I'm from Houston, but hubby grew up on Long Island. We used to go there a few times a year to visit his family. And he's still got some college friends in the city. His family moved to the west coast and I don't have near the fun there.
I love New York.
Posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 15:34:55
In reply to Re: Frightening » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on March 8, 2006, at 15:19:49
Hubby always used to say, "New York, You Nork"
Posted by zeugma on March 10, 2006, at 15:39:12
In reply to Re: True about the PA » zeugma, posted by AuntieMel on March 8, 2006, at 15:33:50
I watched the whole thing in realtime. It had an affect on me I've still not recovered from - so I can't imagine what it would be like to be there.>>
IMHO, since there are people affected by 9/11 here, as well as people who saw the burning, collapsing towers as campaign material- do you realize this thought makes me uncivil? that it seems barbaric and grotesque to use footage of 9/11 in re-election ads?that, in my opinion, was the death of civility and decency, and where we all should have thought of seceding.
-z
Posted by AuntieMel on March 13, 2006, at 18:06:39
In reply to Re: True about the PA » AuntieMel, posted by zeugma on March 10, 2006, at 15:39:12
Well, I think civility died before that. But I did consider using those scenes in campaign adds tasteless to say the least.
(And if you're reading, my email is in the FAQ)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.