Re: Yoo's Minn. Strib op-ed

I would like to thank the Minneapolis Star Tribune for giving John Yoo a platform to respond to this latest controversy in which his legal work plays a foundational role.

In light of the recent disclosure (by the NY Times) of wholesale wiretapping of the communications of US citizens by the NSA and Bush's decision to bypass the Congressionally mandated judicial checks and balances on the use of this executive branch power, John Yoo's legal work for the Bush Administration has once again resurfaced as a prophyllactic justification for their actions. In this context, I was very interested in reading Mr. Yoo's editorial to see what additional insight he could provide into the thinking of the administraton regarding this matter.
Unfortunately, Mr. Yoo has chosen to try and muddy the waters of public discourse by conflating a strawman(*) with a non-sequiter(+) with a little can't-talk-about-the-NSA-because-its-classified thrown in and then concludes ... what? that we don't always declare war? ...

It's too bad he has chosen to try obfuscate and duck the NSA issue instead of enlighten and clarify the administrations thought processes for us. I wish I could say I expected better of him.

(*)The false characterization that "Liberal intellectuals
believe that Bush's exercise of his commander-in-chief
power has exceeded his constitutional authority and led
to a quagmire in Iraq. If only Congress had undertaken
the solemn process of declaring war, they have argued,
faulty intelligence would have been smoked out, the
debate would have produced consensus, and the American
people would have been firmly committed to the ordeal ahead."

(+)the rest of the op-ed regarding historical context of
presidential authority to commit our military to foreign
hostilities with or without Congressional approval or a
formal declaration of war.

Hook, line and sinker

I am now able to confirm that my brother has taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.

First, he called my mother to verify what my fiancee told him. My mom told him something to the effect that we've been dating for so long that my fiancee is fully justiied in doing this.

Next, out of the blue, I hear from a mutual friend of my brother (who is not in on it) that he is extremely upset at my fiancee and my mother and that he has been ranting at all of his friends about it (but not a peep about it to me).

This friend didn't buy the story and contacted my fiancee to tell her what my brother has been saying. So now we have another co-conspirator.

More to come...

The perks of bloggerhood

One of the many dubious perks of bloggerhood is that you get invited to spend your time participating in studies of bloggers.

True Words of the Day

In those parts of the world where learning and science
have prevailed, miracles have ceased; but in those parts of
it as are barbarous and ignorant, miracles are still in vogue.
-- Ethan Allen, Reason the Only Oracle of Man (1784)

Practical Jokes Happen....

I'm getting married in about a month and I figured that this is an excellent opportunity to try to punk my brother. He's usually pretty skeptical, but sometimes he isn't, particularly when confronted with things that tie into his strongly held beliefs.

First, I called my mother and told her I was playing a practical joke on my brother and to make sure she didn't spill the beans when he calls her.

Next, I cast the line. I had my fiancee call my brother and tell him that she was throwing a surprise wedding and not to tell me or it would ruin everything.

I fully expected that my brother wouldn't take the bait and would immediately come to me, since a surprise wedding is preposterous on the face of it (even if it's a shotgun wedding, you are given notice). We would have a laugh, I would tell him the truth and that would be that....

But he didn't come to me. In fact it has been ten days and not a peep about it. I think he's taken the bait.

More to come.....

Re: DIRELAND: DEEP THROAT'S CRIMES: Mark Felt, Constitution-shredder

Doug Ireland wrote:

"After Mark Felt (photo left) outed himself as the legendary “Deep Throat” in the Watergate case last week, there was a media rush to canonize the FBI’s former Number Two man, and politicians proposed he be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. But in all this gush to make Felt a hero, there has been little or no mention of Felt’s prime role in COINTELPRO -- the most gigantic domestic political spying and disruption operation ever in American history, illegally conducted by the FBI."

What a load of non sequiter!

For those too young to remember, Felt was canonized 30 years ago, although pseudonymously. Merely attaching a face to the pseudonym doesn't change that. History, facts and the court of public opinion have deemed him and his actions righteous. This opinion won't change even when he turns out to be an exemplar of Hoover's FBI and little better than the pillars of morality in the Nixon administration.

I got a huge kick out of watching the Nixon "club Fed" fraternity queue up on the TV spin zones to whine and moan about the failings (he didn't have unblemished motives) of the man who ratted them out for their malfeasance. Talk about splinters and logs! Looking back, it must really stick in their craw that Reagan pardoned him.

The crooks seem to think they are being given another shot at rewriting the history of Watergate. But they are writing their own epitaphs, not Felt's. Their tirades remind me of prison house rants where the inmates are all innocent, facts and convictions notwithstanding, and the cop who busted them is the real bad guy.

Bismarck's Statemanship

I came across this while reading up on the history of the Prussian-Austrian war and it struck me that there are some American officials who could have learned something from this.

"Woe unto the statesman who makes war without a reason that will still be valid when the war is over. After the war, you will all look differently at these questions. Will you then have the courage to turn to the peasant contemplating the ashes of his farm, to the man who has been crippled, to the father who has lost his children?" - Otto von Bismarck, 1850

Even though Bismarck was a disciple of military might and its use and dearly wanted to conquer Austria (and at the time most of Prussia supported it as well), he gave this speech in part because he believed Prussia was not ready at that time to win a war with Austria. And he was likely correct in that thinking. In no small part, through this speech, he was successful in convincing the Prussian King, ministers and parliament to avert war with Prussia at that time.

It is well worth noting, that after Bismarck had bided his time and built the Prussian army into a force capable of defeating the Austrians, he led the Prussian army in war against Austria and won.