Democrats finally pass a law! Er wait, it does WHAT?!

[Pangloss]

Gotta love the political irony in this, especially coming just days after the Pakistan statement from Barrage Obomba. Just two years ago Democrats were OUTRAGED about warrantless wiretapping of American civilians placing overseas telephone calls to suspect terrorist nations. So much hay was made over that issue that it surely contributed to the mid-term elections that put Democrats in the legislative majority.

 

My how times have changed. Over the weekend, carefully away from the prying eyes of the mass media, congress, for once, acted quickly and quietly. The new law signed by President Bush yesterday allows the federal government to wiretap any overseas call placed by American citizens... without even a FISA warrant!

 

Senator Diane Feinstein was one of the most outspoken critics of the administration on this issue back in 2005. But yesterday she was one of the bill's most outspoken supporters!

 

So quiet was the development that the press wasn't even aware of it until the president called a surprise signing session at the White House Monday afternoon. So much for public debate on important issues!

 

Interestingly, the new law does allow Democrats to split hairs and try to save political face. Senator Feinstein, for example, said in 2005 that the president's actions "called into question the integrity and credibility of our nation's commitment to the rule of law". Well now warrantless wiretapping certainly has the "rule of law" behind it!

 

So... can somebody tell me how Democrats are any different from Republicans on this issue? Anybody?

 

<crickets chirp>

[Daecon]

One uses a donkey and the other uses an elephant?

[ParanoiA]

So... can somebody tell me how Democrats are any different from Republicans on this issue? Anybody?

 

Well that's just it...the democrats have been trying real hard to be different from Republicans for years now concerning these things. Rather than admit that many techniques and ideas used in this "War on Terror" by republicans are shared by democrats, they've put their elections and power above the nation's interest by trying to find a way to be different.

 

Criticizing everything the other party does always sets you up for this kind of hypocrisy. And with our media, they always get away with it.

 

So, I'm not surprised their true colors have shone here...and I'm equally not surprised nobody really knows it. They'll probably continue to receive credit for opposing Bush on it as well...

[Sisyphus]

There were really two issues before, the surveillance without a warrant, and the overstepping of executive power. Both were and are Constitutionally questionable. The Democrats are now hypocrites with regards to the first but not with regards to the second (after all, it's legislative now!). Perhaps there's actually less hypocrisy if you look at individual records and public statements instead of treating "the Democrats" as one entity, but I don't know.

[ecoli]

I think if the republicans had sponsored a bill like this, the media would have been all over it. I sincerely mistrust the "do-no-wrong democrats" position the drive-by media has taken... or so it would seem.

[iNow]

When are we going to leave these archaic divisions of Democrat and Republican behind us and wake up to the fact that we are a global community of living organisms?

 

The time we waste arguing with people who choose to wear a different button on their chest... I swear.

[ecoli]

When are we going to leave these archaic divisions of Democrat and Republican behind us and wake up to the fact that we are a global community of living organisms?

 

The time we waste arguing with people who choose to wear a different button on their chest... I swear.

 

I think that will happen when politicians start to have more loyalty to the American people than to their party and lobbyists. In other words, when the way our government works is fundamentally changed... which would require a presidential candidate who would institute a paradigm shift in government.

[Sisyphus]

BTW, why do you think this is getting no attention? It was on the front page of the New York Times. How much more attention do you want?

[ecoli]

BTW, why do you think this is getting no attention? It was on the front page of the New York Times. How much more attention do you want?

You mean today?

 

Isn't that bit after the fact?

 

I knew about this bill because I read about it on the BBC... but I didn't see it on any other source that I recall. Though, admittedly, I mostly read the BBC.

[Pangloss]

BTW, why do you think this is getting no attention? It was on the front page of the New York Times. How much more attention do you want?

Oh it's getting plenty of attention today, in spite of the fact that it was a blatant Take Out The Trash Day move. The bill didn't even come before the House until Saturday.

 

Incidentally, both Obama and Clinton, knowing full well it would pass, voted against the bill on Friday. Neither spoke out against it. Too hard at work on the campaign trail, you know.

 

Only now, after the bill has passed, are we starting to hear from opponents. Nancy Pelosi called it unacceptable and vowed to change it. In fairness, she did have a busy weekend, getting two promising new energy bills through the House (cancelling earlier tax breaks for the oil industry and forcing alternative fuels on power companies). But she allowed the bill onto the floor. As Speaker she could have stopped it if she'd wanted to, just as she could have stopped the Iraq spending bill. She made a choice.

 

Paul Kane's writeup of the weekend's events in his Capital Briefing column in the Washington Post today is an interesting read.

 

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2007/08/the_houses_last_call.html

[ParanoiA]

When are we going to leave these archaic divisions of Democrat and Republican behind us and wake up to the fact that we are a global community of living organisms?

 

 

To be fair, I only hear this particular question when it's the democrats being beaten on. Of all of the threads in this Politics subforum, republicans are beaten about relentlessly and only now, blatantly picking on democrats, do I see this question come up - post number 6 no less.

 

You are right, no doubt. But partisanship seems to be quite popular, even among those of us who claim not to be...

[Realitycheck]

In this day and age, with all of the new dynamics going on in the world around us, sometimes it seems so comical that everything we do hinges on a paper written 200 years ago. Kind of like adhering to the Bible.

[ecoli]

In this day and age, with all of the new dynamics going on in the world around us, sometimes it seems so comical that everything we do hinges on a paper written 200 years ago. Kind of like adhering to the Bible.

 

On the contrary! The constitution is timeless, in my opinion. It can be interpreted as needed to fit the times. But, I believe that a paradigm shift to a conservative small government, as defined in the constitution is needed to stop the many economic problems that are/will be plaguing our country. I didn't think this way until I saw a bunch of youtube videos by Ron Paul.

[insane_alien]

In this day and age, with all of the new dynamics going on in the world around us, sometimes it seems so comical that everything we do hinges on a paper written 200 years ago. Kind of like adhering to the Bible.

 

i'm not an expert on the political and legal systems of the USA (or anywhere else for that matter) but isn't that the point of amendments. the fact that the rules can be changed to keep up with society.

 

i mean it doesn't mean that the laws should be completely replaced every few decades just to keep up with the times. that would be wasteful as some laws can remain in place for hundreds of years and be just as relevant as they were when first written.

[ParanoiA]

In this day and age, with all of the new dynamics going on in the world around us, sometimes it seems so comical that everything we do hinges on a paper written 200 years ago. Kind of like adhering to the Bible.

 

It's exactly that attitude of disrepect for that paper that has led to the mangled version we follow today. It's why men can die for their country at 18, but can't drink a beer until they're 21.

 

To understand the reason for this regard and eternal reverance for that paper written 200 years, you have to consider the opposite. What if we didn't care a thing at all about what that piece of paper said? If we didn't, laws would mean nothing. There would be no law and no order.

 

In order to not be ruled by certain men, but rather the whole public, we chose to be a nation of laws, not of men. A nation of laws can only work if we respect the process of how the laws are created and documented. We have agreed that paper will serve as the medium for documenting these laws and respecting that paper is how we respect the law of the land.

[Saryctos]

It's why men can die for their country at 18, but can't drink a beer until they're 21.

 

curse the power of the purse!

[Realitycheck]

Well, for one, I was probably being a little too flippant. It's just that when we have laws protecting gangster rappers, drug cartels, and terrorists, of all things, things really don't make too much sense.

[ParanoiA]

Well, for one, I was probably being a little too flippant. It's just that when we have laws protecting gangster rappers, drug cartels, and terrorists, of all things, things really don't make too much sense.

 

Actually they do though. What doesn't make sense to you, is the idea that some problems are for the government to fix and some are for free society to fix. Since we've disregarded respect for this 200 year old document, in recent decades, we've developed a psychology where we think laws should fix all problems.

 

The laws protecting gangster rappers are the same laws that keep our country from corruption of state power over the individual. You have to keep in mind, that incrementalism is extremely powerful. You toss a few of these laws to make it easier to prosecute drug cartels today, then come back and visit in 50 years and see how the state has abused the absence of those laws. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

Instead, we established our justice system with the intent that we'd rather let 10 guilty people go free than to punish 1 innocent person. We wanted a justice system that would give an innocent person the best chance to prove themselves - by putting the onus on the state to prove guilt - not the other way around. That's a powerful difference there. You don't appreciate it until you experience the supposed "justice" systems throughout the rest of the world.

 

Keep in mind, there was thousands of years of historical reference at the time our constitution was drafted. It is quite a thoughtful document.

[iNow]

To be fair, I only hear this particular question when it's the democrats being beaten on.

I appreciate that this may be the only time you perceive hearing it, but I can honestly state that it's not the only time I state it.

 

 

We're a planet, not a country... not a state... not a city... not a county... not a street... not a house... not a political party. A planet.

[swansont]

I think if the republicans had sponsored a bill like this, the media would have been all over it. I sincerely mistrust the "do-no-wrong democrats" position the drive-by media has taken... or so it would seem.

 

 

But they did. The bill was sponsored by McConnell and Bond in the senate (S. 1927). Both are Republicans.

 

Shameful as its passage is, to spin this to say that the democrats passed this ignores that it was the republicans that cast the majority of the yea votes — 16 dems in the senate and 41 in the house voted for it. Yes, they could have blocked it if they all voted as one, but there you go. Apparently it was more important to some not to be held over into their vacation time. Still, it needs to be renewed in six months.

[ecoli]

I appreciate that this may be the only time you perceive hearing it, but I can honestly state that it's not the only time I state it.

 

 

We're a planet, not a country... not a state... not a city... not a county... not a street... not a house... not a political party. A planet.

 

and what is this supposed to mean?

 

Yes we're a planet, but last time I checked, there is no global government.

[iNow]

and what is this supposed to mean?

 

Yes we're a planet, but last time I checked, there is no global government.

 

Can I treat your question as rhetorical, or do you really want me to explain this?

 

 

To get a sense of the context in which I stated that, please click the username portion of my signature and listen (and if you're so inclined, the link in the quote is pretty shnazzy too, but off topic here so not appropriate to this conversation).

[ecoli]

Can I treat your question as rhetorical, or do you really want me to explain this?

 

unless it has some real relevance to the topic at hand, not really.

[iNow]

unless it has some real relevance to the topic at hand, not really.

 

I'll take that to mean, yes, you do want me to explain.

 

We waste loads of time arguing "across the aisle." People aligning themselves by party instead of by issue. The party system worked in the past because the issues were local to the colonies. There was a relatively small population that could actually be represented by a select group of individuals weighing the opposing ends of the spectrum.

 

Now, fast forward a few centuries, and put the context in terms of a global population over 6 billion. The bell curve is smoothing, and the individual differences are countless. There are parallels among many of us, but you'll be hard pressed to find two people who agree on every issue.

 

So, why align with one group instead of representing your people as an individual? Why fling mud at others for being the same as you, but with a different label?

 

Six to one, half a dozen to another, ya dig?

 

Now... the broader point (which I think is magnified on a forum such as this) is that it's archaic to continue thinking as a small collective in a township or a nation. We are connected globally, instantly, and our activities are not limited to our backyard, but the entire sphere we call home.

 

So, why waste our lives arguing with one another about what color shirts we should wear... when we could instead spend that energy improving the future of ourselves, our children, and our planet by realizing that we're but a fraction of a speck of nothing suspended in a moat of dust, and will accomplish more by realizing this greater connection we all share?

 

 

Is there any benefit for remaining a two party system? Aren't the two parties just different shades of the same gray? Is there any benefit for continuing to think of ourselves as an isolated country instead of an isolated globe?

[Pangloss]

Is there any benefit for remaining a two party system? Aren't the two parties just different shades of the same gray? Is there any benefit for continuing to think of ourselves as an isolated country instead of an isolated globe?

 

Sure. The problem is getting a significant enough portion of the population to agree on positions outside of the box they're putting us in.

 

With a lot of issues you can get people to agree only on generalities and not on specifics. So for example you might convince the majority of the country that Iraq has been handled poorly -- I think the polls clearly reflect that. But does that mean that the majority of the country wants to develop a losing strategy in the middle east? Surely not. It's the specifics that cause the heartburn. The devil is in the details.

 

The real problem in this country isn't that we're divided, because I really don't think we are. The problem is that we're not paying attention, so we're being managed by a very small group of people who are very clever about giving us yesterday's garbage and convincing us it's a hearty and fulfilling meal.