I’VE TRIED-I’VE TOLD MEMBERS FROM THE HOUSE/SENATE INTEL/JUD.COMM. THAT SOME TERRORISTS WERE CAUGHT W/IN
72 HRS OF 5/26/04 PRESS CONF. BY ASHCROFT/MUELLER IN FLA.-THE MATTER WAS COVERED-UP/EVEN LAW ENFORCEMENT R
SILENT-JEALOUSY/ENVY CREPT IN OVER REWARDS-1 WAS FLOWN OVERSEAS 2 DENY PAYING UP.A ATTACK WAS IMMINENT
MY VIGILANCE STOPPED IT FROM HAPPENING-I HEARD A RAID
SECURED WEAPONS.
CELL WAS READY 2 ATTACK AT WILL-HAD I NOT FOUND THEM
IN TIME.SINCE NOTHING’S BEING DONE I’M LED 2 BELIEVE THIS ATTACK WAS KNOWN BY SOME 2 BE COMING-IT’S JUST THAT A REAL JACK BAUER FUCKED UP THEIR GAME PLAN-BY DELAYING IT FROM HAPPENING 4 YET ANOTHER DAY/PLACE/
TIME.
MY LIFE WAS DESTROYED WORSE THEN VALERIE PLAME-CAUSE SHE GOT PRESS COVERAGE-I CAN’T GET A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY 2 TAKE MY CASE..I GOT THIS ADMIN. + MEMBERS OF CABINET THAT R COMPLICIT IN THE CONSPIRACY 2 COVER
IT UP..2 ME THEY’RE ALL GUILTY OF “TREASON”/SHOULD FACE EXECUTION BY FIRING SQUAD 4 THEIR CRIMES.

I DID WHAT ASHCROFT/MUELLER ASKED ALL AMERICANS 2 DO
-HELP THE AUTHORITIES FIND/CAPTURE THESE PEOPLE B-4 THEY DID THEIR DIRTY DEED..2 OF THE 7 HAD REWARDS OF $25 MIL. EACH 4 INFO. LEADING 2 THEIR CAPTURE-THEY WERE ON FBI MOST WANTED TERRORISTS’LIST.
A HUGE INCENTIVE-4 ME SELF-PRESERVATION TOOK CHARGE IN MY LIFE + THE # OF LIVES WHO COULD’VE BEEN KILLED HAD THE ATTACK HAPPENED-A # OF SCENARIOS PLAYED OUT IN MY MIND.
AHMED KHALFAN GHAILANI WAS SPOTTED IN FLA. BY ME/I
CALL MIAMI-FBI W/THE INTEL ON 6/8/04 & ABOUT 7 WEEKS
LATER IT’S REPORTED HE’S FOUND IN PAKISTAN 2 AVOID PAYING REWARD..HOW DOES A(MWT)WHOSE FACE HAS BEEN PLASTERED ALL-TRAVEL THAT FAR W/OUT DETECTION + ONCE A TERRORIST GETS HERE 4 HIS MISSION THEY’RE NOT GOING
2 RISK GETTING CAUGHT BY TRAVELING ONCE IN AMERICA. KEY IS 2 LAY LOW/HIDEOUT IN THE MASSES-AS STATED BY GOVT..THAT’S COMPLETE B.S. 4 HIM 2 TRAVEL WHEN EVERY-1 IS LOOKING 4 U.

5/29/04-5:42PM-MY 911 CALL-P.S.L.,FLA. TELL OPERATOR
I’M LOOKING AT 2 OF THE 7 PEOPLE WHO WERE SHOWN THE OTHER NIGHT ON TV = SHE HAD “NO FUCKING CLUE” WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT-I TELL HER-SHE GOES BALLISTIC-AS I FOLLOW THEM/RELAY INFO. 2 HER 4 HER 2 TELL IT 2 THOSE
RESPONDING.FAZUL ABDULLAH MOHAMMED + AAFIA SIDDIQUI R
CAPTURED AT 6PM AS A RESULT OF MY CALL..
THE CRIMINAL COVER-UP CAME/EVERY-1 BUT ME HAS SWORN
2 REMAIN SILENT FROM A EDICT FROM bush-SO AS U CAN IMAGINE SERIOUS LAWS WERE BROKEN/NOTHING IS HAPPENING
AT ALL..THE WORST PART IS IN 1/07 IT’S REPORTED THAT F.A.M. HAS SURFACED IN SOMALIA/IS TARGETED 4 DEATH -YET HE GETS AWAY-HE WAS DUMPED THERE THAT’S HOW THEY KNEW WHERE HE WAS/WAS TARGETED 2 BE KILLED 2 COVER UP CRIMES THEY INITIALLY COVERED-UP..A(MWT)UNDER U.S.
FED.INDICTMENT IS RELEASED FROM U.S.CUSTODY AFTER BEING HELD LIKE 30 MONTHS 2 THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
-4 PURPOSES OF ELIMINATING THE EVIDENCE HE KNOWS/
POSSESSES.
THAT MY FRIENDS IS “TREASON” AT ITS’FINEST/MANY OF THOSE EMPLOYED BY US R GUILTY/YET STILL HOLD THEIR
JOBS OF RELEASING “SERIAL KILLERS” BACK INTO SOCIETY.
LIKE I SAID EARLIER ALL I DID WAS FULFILL WHAT WAS
ASKED OF ALL AMERICANS/LEARNED I WAS GOING 2 GET BEAT
4 MY ACTIONS-TOLD CONGRESS/MY LIFE WAS DESTROYED 4 SAVING THE NATION IN TIMES OF NEED-PERIL/DISTRESS.

TRY THESE #203-354-5130/203-354-0673 THEY R THE R4J PROGRAMS’#/THEY DON’T EXIST + HAS NO OVERSIGHT AT ALL

14TH AMEND.SEC.4-2 THE CONST.+ A 1984 LAW CONGRESS
PASSED 2 COMBAT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM “PUBLIC-LAW-98-533”-AKA THE R4J PROGRAM WERE VIOLATED-MONEY CONGRESS APPROPRIATES SHOULD B ACCOUNTABLE 2 CONGRESS
4 ANSWERS 1 WOULD THINK.
+ CONST/CIVIL RIGHTS-THE OATH TAKEN 2 UPHOLD THE LAWS
OF THE LAND/UNETHICAL CONDUCT BY MANY/VIOLATING THE PUBLICS’TRUST.
NO NEED 4 JEALOUSY/ENVY 2 EMERGE ON YOUR PART-I GOT
ENOUGH FROM ALL THESE TREASONIST PRICKS WHO NEED 2 BE
REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY.
THE TRUTH’S BEING TOLD—SPEAKING TRUTH 2 POWER.

Can’t help myself . . .  dragged down by the conversation.

Some of you characters (you know who you are) need to get your own frickin’ blogs!  Or maybe you can dig down a bit and find the respect, for yourselves and for others, to cool it with these pissing contests and all this prissy cat-fighting.

Please!

I subscribed to “follow-up comments” on this thread, purportedly on a Chris Hedges article regarding the rule of law.  Now my inbox is filling with “Butthead and Beavis.”

Get a grip!

Excuse me, but I am in no way “an apologist” for this inept, illegal administration.  I’m simply trying to get the point out that impeachment, though possibly justifiable, depending on how one defines “high crimes and misdemeanors,” is not practical.  Subpoena-enforced oversight by Congress is.  That constant drum beat from now until November 4, 2008, will help ensure that a Republican administration will not follow this one.  Any impeachment proceeding, however viscerally satisfying, including committee hearings, will do just the opposite.

re comment #68377 by Blueboy1938.  Congressional oversight through the subpoena power is not harassment.  It is called checks and balances.  It is called application of the rule of law, something that has been sorely missing for the past six years under the lawless “Unitary Executive.”  Watergate did not immediately lead to the impeachment of Nixon.  It was only when the relentless efforts of both Congress and a federal prosecutor uncovered the “smoking gun” evidence on the Nixon tapes that all but two members of Congress declared their support for impeachment.

One of those two Republi-crooks, Congressman Langrebe, when confronted by the press with the question as to how he could oppose impeachment in the face of such evidence, stated:  “Don’t bother me with the facts.  My mind is made up.” 

Only an apologist for the fascists who now control the executive branch of this government and who seek nothing less than to subvert the constitution they swore to uphold would regard application of the subpoena power as “harassment.”

#68072 by guntotin ganglion on 5/04 at 5:51 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#68050 by JNagarya

“I cut and pasted your words, from your post, which were a TOTAL fabrication of something you claim I said, WHICH I NEVER DID SAY OR WRITE, and you tell me they’re my words.”

You introduced the word “lambast/ed” in accusing me of “lambasting” this, and then that.  And those are the words you quoted.

You don’t seem capable of holding both sides of an apparent contradiction in mind simultaneously.  That sort of either/or extremist oversimplification is your problem, not mine.

#68377 by Blueboy1938 on 5/05 at 6:04 pm
(7 comments total)

“In other words, Mr. Canning, use impeachment as harassment, when everyone involved knows perfectly well that it will go nowhere.”

You are no more able to predict the future than anyone else.

“Furthermore, no one has yet issued any subpoenas.”

Both Waxman’s House committee, and Leahey’s Senate committee, have issued subpoenas.  Among those who have recieved them: Gonzales, and Condi Rice.

”. . . but they have as yet not been issued.”

Actually they have.  See above for a few instances.

“It was the courts that actually enforced congressional subpoenas against claims of “executive privilege” in the past, but, as you quite correctly point out, the courts are now populated by another sort of judicial animal.”

But Congress needn’t rely on the courts: it has the authority not only to impeach, but also to remove.

“My point is that impeachment rouses negative reaction in people who might otherwise support taking the administration to task with the very significant oversight powers Congress has, without embroiling the nation in impeachment hearings or proceedings that will polarize it, and not to the Democratic advantage, I’m afraid.”

Those same “arguments” were asserted during Watergate.  The law matters above all political considerations.

And the country is already polarized—but nowhere near the artifical 50-50 the media asserts in order to perpetuate the breathless horse race.  The majority would have no problem with impeachment, regardless the “polarization” against the minority opposed thereto.

#68081 by David on 5/04 at 2:00 am
(20 comments total)

Re: #68076 by JNagarya on 5/04 at 12:11 am

“I’m contemptuous of ignorance—especilly when it refuses to confront itself, and correct itself.  I’m contemptuous of those who know-it-all, without bothering with the effort to know anything at all based upon other than hatred of that about which it actually knows nothing.”

“You are the epitome of what you describe, contributing nothing except self-righteous, narrow-minded, amateur attacks against everyone else.”

I attack bullshit.  If you are incapable of separating bullshit from person, then you will assume an attack on bullshit is attack on person.

And that’s the failure to distingush you make.

“If you were anything close to the legal expert you pretend to be, you wouldn’t be so threatened by the opinions of others.”

I have an actual education in actual law.  You, not having that, are not a judge of it.  As for being—or feeling—“threatened” by bullshit?  Don’t be so silly: falsehood is false, regardless from which point on the political spectrum a mouth utters it.  I am opposed to falsehood; I don’t “do” groupthink” by only criticizing the falsehoods of “my” “opponents”.

“Have you tried touting your legal expertise to a psychologist?”

Are you qualified to “diagnose” others, even without bothering with the ethical requirements—face-to-face interviews, administering applicable evaluative tests?  No, you are not.  Thus you falsely accuse me of personal attack, then angage in personal attack.

Do you know the meaning of the word “hypocrite”?

Here’s another elgitimate distinction: to call a person a “hypocrite” when the person is not that is to engage in personal attack.  But to call a person a “hypocrite” who is actually that is a statment of fact.

As a matter of fact, you are a hypocrite.

“Sorry to read that you have such contempt for yourself. That explains your problem, anyway.”

I have contempt for falsehood—including the embodiment thereof by hypocrites.

In other words, Mr. Canning, use impeachment as harassment, when everyone involved knows perfectly well that it will go nowhere.  Isn’t that the epitome of disingenuousness?  Furthermore, no one has yet issued any subpoenas.  The Senate Judiciary Committee, I believe, has authorized that in the U. S. Attorney firing fiasco (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/200 7/03/senate-judiciary-committee-approves_22.html), but they have as yet not been issued.  It was the courts that actually enforced congressional subpoenas against claims of “executive privilege” in the past, but, as you quite correctly point out, the courts are now populated by another sort of judicial animal.  So, we’ll see.  My point is that impeachment rouses negative reaction in people who might otherwise support taking the administration to task with the very significant oversight powers Congress has, without embroiling the nation in impeachment hearings or proceedings that will polarize it, and not to the Democratic advantage, I’m afraid.

re comment #68210 by Blueboy1938.  You are overlooking the significant legal issues that would arise if the Democrats simply authorized a Select Committee to investigate impeachment of the VP in the same manner a Select Committee had been appointed during Nixon’s tenure.  In U.S. v. Nixon, the Supreme Court held that claims of executive privilege must give way to the need to investigate criminal wrongdoing in a criminal case.  The impeachment function is one that the Constitution grants solely to Congress.  While the Congress does indeed have subpoena power, much of it is running into executive stonewalling.  That is precisely what is occuring in the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. If subpoenas are issued in pursuit of the impeachment question, it is difficult to come up with a legal rationale to prevent inquiry under claims of executive privilege.  Of course, we do not have the same Supreme Court as we did when it decided U.S. v. Nixon.  With four Supreme Court Justices, who are affiliated with the radically subversive, Robert Bork founded, Richard Mellon Scaife funded Federalist Society already on the bench, it doesn’t take but one vote to block the rule of law.

Well, Verne Arnold, someone is actually doing something about it:  Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced House Resolution 333 on April 24, 2007 ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c 110y78YOc:: ), containing a Bill of Impeachment against Vice President Richard B. Cheney. He’s smart enough to know that, were President Bush successfully impeached first, we would have an even worse situation: a President Cheney.

Unfortunately, this has about as much chance of passage as a snowball in hell, as a practical matter.  Nancy Pelosi has already stated that she will not allow impeachment to reach the floor of the House.  She is pursuing the much more doable oversight “death by a thousand subpoenas” method of dealing with the floundering, inept, and dismally unpopular Bush administration.  She knows that there are not enough votes in the Senate to convict either the Vice President or the President in an impeachment proceeding.  She also knows that, even if the Vice President were successfully removed from office, the President would simply appoint someone who would be an attractive candidate for the Republicans in 2008 and thus cut off at the knees any hope of a Democrat taking the White House in the next presidential election.  Likewise, she knows that, in the unlikely event that Representative Kucinich’s H. Res. 333 should pass, the resulting impeachment proceeding would tie up both Houses of Congress for months, well into the presidential race, and cause blame to be leveled at the Democratic Party for dividing the country, whereas now that distinction belongs to Bush.

No, its time to put the siren song entitled “Impeachment Rag” to rest, and concentrate on helping the Democratic candidate of our choice win in 2008.  That’s because there is one thing sure:  Bush will be out of work on January 22, 2009!

Re: #68076 by JNagarya on 5/04 at 12:11 am

“I’m contemptuous of ignorance—especilly when it refuses to confront itself, and correct itself.  I’m contemptuous of those who know-it-all, without bothering with the effort to know anything at all based upon other than hatred of that about which it actually knows nothing.”

You are the epitome of what you describe, contributing nothing except self-righteous, narrow-minded, amateur attacks against everyone else. If you were anything close to the legal expert you pretend to be, you wouldn’t be so threatened by the opinions of others. Have you tried touting your legal expertise to a psychologist?
Sorry to read that you have such contempt for yourself. That explains your problem, anyway.

#68073 by Douglas Chalmers on 5/04 at 6:13 am
(240 comments total)

”#68063 by JNagarya on 5/03 at 9:59 pm: “...Make up your mind: you’re for the rule of law, or you’re against it….””

I am NOT in favor of “white mans’ law” in a country of ethnically different peoples nor their subjugation by it.”

Right.  We should have law-illiterates—“white man’s law”?—such as you determining the law, based uipon racist hatred of the allegedly racist.

“I am NOT in favor of a law which placed a criminal in the presidency of the USA - and helps to keep him there.”

That didn’t happen, as you’d know if you’d ever read the Constitution.  The Constitution gives exclusive authority to resolve election disputes, such as that in 2000, to CONGRESS.  The involvement by the SC was not legal; it was an unconstitutional usurpation of that exclusive authority.

Wouldn’t it be better to know the law before making statements based thereon?  I mean, just so one is certain one isn’t wrong on whatever the legal issue?

“I am NOT in favor of a law which usurps the inalienable right of the individual and reduces them to a being victim of policies designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy.”

So you’re against our “system of laws, and not of men” (John Adams); against democracy.  And profoundly ass-backwards in the notion that the individual is “above” the skein of laws that is society.

“Your “rule of law” is a piece of shit made up to dupe people into giving over their independence and freedom to the yoke of subservience and absolving the criminals who run the administrative system.”

You’re ignorant of law.  Why pretend otherwise?  The rule of law to which I refer is consistent with sanity: humans, not being perfect, cannot be relied upon to be perfect.  Not being perfect, they tend to violate others’ rights; thus the law, which cannot be expected to be perfect, as it is made by imperfect humans, is also intended to prohibit and punish such violations.

To paraphrase James Amdison: gov’t is the mechanism by means of which a community regulates itself.

Do you really kid yourself—or expect to fool us—that having no grounding in anything relevant to law, or the design and establishment of legal systems qualifies you do do exactly that?

“That includes conceited and contemptuous fools like yourself, Nagarya.”

I’m contemptuous of ignorance—especilly when it refuses to confront itself, and correct itself.  I’m contemptuous of those who know-it-all, without bothering with the effort to know anything at all based upon other than hatred of that about which it actually knows nothing.

None of which has anything whatever to do with “conceit”.  I’m for the rule of law because the alternative is unacceptable; it’s that simple.

And, my legendary humility should not go unremarked.

So make up your mind: you’re either for the rule of law, or you’re for the alternative, including that represented, and implemented, by the lawless Bushit, et al.

#68063 by JNagarya on 5/03 at 9:59 pm: “...Make up your mind: you’re for the rule of law, or you’re against it….”

I am NOT in favor of “white mans’ law” in a country of ethnically different peoples nor their subjugation by it.

I am NOT in favor of a law which placed a criminal in the presidency of the USA - and helps to keep him there.

I am NOT in favor of a law which usurps the inalienable right of the individual and reduces them to a being victim of policies designed to cater to the powerful and the wealthy.

Your “rule of law” is a piece of shit made up to dupe people into giving over their independence and freedom to the yoke of subservience and absolving the criminals who run the administrative system.

That includes conceited and contemptuous fools like yourself, Nagarya.

#68055 by Douglas Chalmers on 5/03 at 9:07 pm
(239 comments total)

”#68052 by JNagarya on 5/03 at 8:49 pm: “...#67806 by PatrickHenry on 5/02 at 4:31 pm
(22 comments total) “JNagarya…....” “Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.”..........”

“This “academic” is most probably from the Republican party and is only here trying to disrupt any blog which doesn’t align with their odious views of world domination at any cost.”

My comment—which you entirely deleted—was not about myself.  It was about the use of point-by-point critique as being the norm, usual—not as you asserted “unusual”.

I’m a professional, and I conduct my work in keeping with professional standards.  Your ignornace of those standards is not a reflection on me.

Nor does your irresponsible insistence upon personalizing, your smear-by-innuendo—learn how to do that from FOX, did you?—above have any relevance to my views as expressed here, or in any other sense or place.

The Bush gang has no regard for the rule of law—that being the foremost “problem” with them.  Joining them in that rejection of the rule of law is the opposite of restoring the rule of law.

Make up your mind: you’re for the rule of law, or you’re against it.

#68052 by JNagarya on 5/03 at 8:49 pm: “...#67806 by PatrickHenry on 5/02 at 4:31 pm
(22 comments total) “JNagarya…....” “Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.”..........”

This “academic” is most probably from the Republican party and is only here trying to disrupt any blog which doesn’t align with their odious views of world domination at any cost.

#67806 by PatrickHenry on 5/02 at 4:31 pm
(22 comments total)

“JNagarya…....”

“Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.”

The term for my point-by-point responses is _seriatim_ (it is not “cut and paste”)—and is only unusual to those who don’t know a whole lot about formal methods of critique, and rebuttal.  It is not only common and usual but also the norm in academics, and such a law.

And all it “speaks” about me is a concern with an application of usual and well-known—to some—standards of critique.

#67852 by guntotin ganglion on 5/03 at 2:50 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#67792 by JNagarya

”“Substantiate just one—just one—misquote.  And just one—just one—misrepresentation.””

“Ok…I quote you…

”“On one hand you lambast We the people as being ignorant, lazy, etc.””

No, you quote yourself. 

“Tell me where I lambasted We the people as being ignorant, lazy, etc.”  Tell me! Quote me! Show me…where did I writethat? Is that a misquote or a misrepresentation, you tell me…seems to have elements of both.

See above where you quote yourself, and assert that it is a quote instead from me?

Try being honest: quote—if you know how to do that—_me_—_my_ words—not _yours_—in effort to back up your assertion against me. 

“And just as a reference…to show that your choice of words indicates something unequivocal from me…

“lam·baste /læmˈbeɪst, -ˈbæst/
–verb (used with object), -bast·ed, -bast·ing.

“1. to beat or whip severely.
“2. to reprimand or berate harshly;censure;excoriate.”

I know the meaning of the word—and it was you who introduced it.  Try again: quote _me_ asnd having done that you assert.  But be certain to quote all of what I allegedly posted, instead of only self-serving snippets which you hope supports your claim.

#67716 by sje on 5/02 at 4:07 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“The endless . . . .”

An impossibilty.  You irresponsibly exaggerate and misstate.

”. . . . quarrels between JNagarya and several others are getting tiresome!”

Then don’t read them—but continue to comment on them, sight unseen.

“I find myself, while reading the comments, forgetting the original topic.”

The “original topic” is the title of the article to which these are responses, and about which commentary, and on which comment.  That title is:

“No One is Above the Love”.

That’s all I do: point out that no one is above the law.  For a theme illustrating that fact see my comments on and about the articles “It’s the Guns, Stupid,” and “Politics Aside, Guns Still Kill,” located right here on “truthdig.com”. 

In those you will find me arguing that no one is above the law—and showing that the irresponsible, regardless their justifications used to defend and maintain those justifications, are by those means avoiding reason, avoiding reality, and by those reasons avoiding responsibility.

You’re still “free” to avoid the issues I raise on precisely on that point, and in accordance with that premise and principle.  And avoid my substantiations thereof.  But would that be intellectually honest? 

Would that be responsible? 

Would that _not_ be to declare yourself above the standards that are rules of evidence, reason, fact, and law? 

Above responsibility?

#67716 by sje on 5/02 at 4:07 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“The endless quarrels between JNagarya and several others are getting tiresome!

“I find myself, while reading the comments, forgetting the original topic.”

Then don’t read them.
You need instruction on that point?

#67806 by PatrickHenry on 5/02 at 4:31 pm
(22 comments total)

“JNagarya…...thanks for the Wikpedia history lesson.”

I don’t “do” Wikpedia [sic]—it is insufficent and inaccurate.  And non-law.  I focus directly, and almost exclusively, on LEGAL history (on the occasion that .  And I certainly don’t do my research by watching TeeVee.  At my elbow are, at very least, colonial laws from New-Plimoth [Plymouth), Massachusetts-Bay, and Connecticut (the several colonies it was), earlest state laws from such as, but not only, MA-Bay and Connecticut.

For ages I have had on my hard drive, directly at hand, the constitutions of all 50 states, beginning with their first where there have been more than one.  The constitutions of the Original Thirteen were variously adopted during 1776-77, and 1780 (MA-Bay).

That, again, is the least of legal authority I have immediately at hand.

Otherwise, relatedly, I have much supplemental material, such as HISTORY, all of which are secondary, non-law, materials.

In short: I don’t bullshit.

“You assume too much.”

I assume nothing.  See above.

“Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.”

Personal attack.

“200-300 years from now and even today, your writings could be construde as “unstable”.”

Personal attack.

Patrick Henry was said by those who knew him to be unstable.  I communicate that fact to you; not knowing Patrick Henry any better than you, I don’t make up anything about him—including “defenses” which rely on denial of statements made by Patrick Henry’s own colleagues and contemporaries.  They, not I, said he was unstable.

JNagarya…...thanks for the Wikpedia history lesson.

You assume too much.  Your cut and paste method critique of others’ posts while somewhat unusual speaks volumes about you.

200-300 years from now and even today, your writings could be construde as “unstable”.

#67619 by guntotin ganglion on 5/02 at 2:42 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#67546 by JNagarya

“Sorry if I took it personally, having you misquote and misrepresent me.”

Substantiate just one—just one—misquote.  And just one—just one—misrepresentation.

“Perhaps it was inappropriate to get “personal”, but there was a certain level of incoherence, and a wandering sort of motif that I saw that reminded me of certain excesses which I will no longer elaborate on.”

It’s okay to speak with an accent, but not to see with one.

”“There is a sceond choice: educating We the people in civics—in how our gov’t is to function, based upon the rule of law, not instead on “freedom” diverced from responsibility and limits.””

“Where did “freedom divorced from responsibility and limits” come from?”

From those who talk only about freedom, and freedom, and more freedon, all of those being self-centered, with never a mention of the longer word “responsibility”.

“I never wrote anything remotely indicating that.”

Correct: you left that reality out of your calculations.

“That’s your personal baggage that arrived unbidden.”

I see: no one is respond to you unless they limit themselves to your limitations.  They are prohibited bringing in other relevant facts and considerations.

“If anything, my writing has been about educating, not telling people they have no responsibility and there are no limits to freedom.”

Your “eductaion” has been wholly abstract, divorced from concrete, realistic context.

“It’s these wild swings that brought on my “personal attack”, which I won’t do again. I will however, take offense at being misrepresented when there’s nothing I have written that comes close to communicating what you’re writing about.”

Substantiate with just one—just one—“wild swing”.  And just one—just one—“misrepresentation”. 

“And simply put, I’ve no idea where the comments about people who believe they have a right to be uneducated came from in this regard.”

They came from me; and from me direct experience with such persons and claims.  Know it or not, or like it or not, such people do exist—the Internet is rife with them—and that view, though not always articulated, is overtly obvious.  A representative example is the “responsible gun owner” who is incapable of basic logic, basic intellectual honesty—basic responsibility—but not incapable of erroneously believing and asserting that their particular fetish is an “inalienable” (it is not) “absolute” (it is not) “right”.  Their only mention of “responsibilit” turns out to be yet another specious cover for their irresponsibility.

“I write, with the hope of actually taking part in an intelligent discussion, but it doesn’t seem to happen much…mostly it’s personal agenda based rants.”

Sure you do.  But no one had better bring in facts and considerations which challenge, question, disprove or even shred that you write.  You simply want to express your view, and then have that “discussed” “as if true” without critical evaluation.  You don’t want to know whether the pregnancy is genuine, or mere wind egg.

“And excuse me for saying so, but that’s what you’re writings read like to me. They don’t read like they have much to do with me, even though they appear to be aimed my way.”

In other words, you don’t “comprehend” them, yet pretend to to understand them anyway, because they don’t have anything to do with you, they have to do with your “message”.  Failing to distinguish between yourself, and your “message, is the same failure exhibited by zealots who believe not merely that their “essage” is true, but beyond that that they actually truth.

I’ve sent e-mail, after e-mail, after e-mail to my two Democratic senators, my congressman, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid but to no effect. When I get a response, if at all, it amounts to a form letter with very feeble excuses.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the Democrats in congress try too hard to “triangulate” between what the majority of Americans have mandated and this criminal administration. This is the reason that BushCo pays so little attention to them.

#67565 by PatrickHenry on 5/01 at 9:13 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#66624 by JNagarya

“Read a biography of Patrick Henry, will ya?

He was viewed by his “revolutionary” colleagues as unstable”.

“JNagarya….....I’m sure I and several of the other bloggers on this thread view your imput as unstable.”

It wasn’t I who said he was unstable: it was his colleagues who expressed that view.  But thanks for making my point: I’m the messenger; you don’t like the message; you attack the messenger.

“Your blogs are all over the place when you are not making personal attacks on others views.”

1.  I don’t “blog”.

2.  Make sense: there is personal attack—your attack on the messenger—and there is “attack” on the view—my refutations of “views,” the message.

“Although you have no actual first hand knowledge of the 17th century founding fathers viewpoints towards their partners in crime, you accept it as fact….are you a republican?”

I accept it from their own words, child.  But their views, based upon direct first-hand experience with and observation of him, aside: Patrick Henry was an anti-Federalist—opposed to ratification of the Constitution.  But later, when he wanted to be governor, he was a Federalist.

Those are objective facts, not the opinion of those who knew him, and who reduced those views to writing.

More directly _at_ your imagined up “reality” of the realities and views of the founding era and the Founders: Patrick Henry requested of the VA House of Burgesses that he be appointed head of the VA militia.  That House of Burgesses, knowing him personally, intimately, as having been a member of that House, refused that request.  Because they viewed him as unstable.

Read a biography of Patrick Henry, will ya?  And then of such “paragons of patriotism” as Sam Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere* (to only mention a few, from only MA-Bay).

*Paul Revere was not the only “The British are coming!” rider out that night.  Rather, there were some 32 carrying the same message (one of those being John Dawes).  Revere did not make it all the way to Lexington-Concord (but John Dawes did); on the way he was captured by the British.  The British released him because he spilled the beans as to what he and his cohorts were about.

But he was politically connected, especially being Sam Adams’ favorite illustrator of Sam Adams’ false propagandas, especially but not only that of the “Boston Massacre,” which was not a massacre.  See _Boston Massacre_ (NY: Norton, 1976), by Hiller Zobell.

In sum: Henry was not on any battlefield—being “landed gentry”/“aristocrat”—while he was making so many statements in support of war, and death on the battlefield by others than himself.

Read a biogrpahy of Patrick Henry, will ya?  Stop imagining you know the history in spite of having read none of the history.

#67395 by guntotin ganglion on 5/01 at 3:49 am
(Unregistered commenter)

#67309 by JNagarya on 4/30 at 1:15 pm

“You might want to consider drinking a little less when you write…you might actually make sense if you tried it.”

Personal attack.

“First you have me lambasting We The People for being ignorant and lazy, and then I’m an idealist who is delusional about the abilities of the people to self-govern.”

It’s actually straightforward and consistent: We the people ignorant; you’re an “idealist” and “delusional” by putting the responsibility of self-governance into the hands of those who—We the people—haven’t a clue as to the underlying rules of self-governance.

“So which is it? Or is there a third choice?”

There is a sceond choice: educating We the people in civics—in how our gov’t is to function, based upon the rule of law, not instead on “freedom” diverced from responsibility and limits.

“And then you go off on people you think believe they have the right to be uneducated, spawning more people who believe they have the right to be uneducated. Wow…quite the leap to that conclusion. Your spinnin’ a might too fast for me!”

I gave it context; and it is the fact that when I was growing up, there were those who defended the “right” to be uneducated.  And that was their paramount success in life: reproducing, and teaching the offspring that they too had the “right” to be uneducated.

“Who lit up your bong? I’m thinking you either need to lighten up on the alcohol, or stop drinking the bong water after you’ve pulled a lung full. Clearly you have a load of issues that go beyond anything I’ve written, or would consider writing.”

Personal attack.

Perhaps you should stop drinking alcohol and bong water, and smoking reefer, at the same time?

“Man, for a second there I thought it was me. What a relief! Thanks for clearing that up. Now I know I don’t have to try making sense with you. Cheers!”

Perhaps you should stop drinking alcohol and bong water, and smoking reefer, all at the same time?

#67348 by R. D. Hill on 4/30 at 5:33 pm: “...But it’s what he (they) might still do which horrifies me….Russia and the US are capable of inflicting horrendous damage and loss of life…”

The “the old cold war mechanisms intended to prevent a WW III from being accidentally launched…” certainly were shaky and at all levels, R.D.Hill. It has been said that a mad sergeant could have fired off an ICBM which would have triggered a full nuclear exchange at any time during the 1950’s-80’s.

Bush’s “psychological state” as an ex-alcoholic and given his increasing age is always a concern but there must also be others who have access to the command chain for initiating a nuclear launch whether from land or from the air or sea. Its a big risk to have all that stuff on an active basis all the time.

Back in the 1950’s-60’s, especially with the Cuba missile crisis, there was a real obsession with building blast shelters in the basements of peoples’ homes and all kinds of voluntary civil defence training. With the illusory “war on terror” occupying peoples’ minds, we have forgotten how real that threat still is.

This may be the sort of thing that many of us honestly “think” about but find too impolitic to publish in a forum such as this.  Perhaps the moderators here will conclude that some of what follows is just a bit too edgy for this venue (or “ammo” for any “loyal Bushies” who might come across it), and I appreciate that.

Still, I’d like to confess that, at times, an unwashed “lusting in my heart” comes over me for some form of “street” justice to be meted out to Bush/Cheney and their entire crew:  Waterboarding Cheney before the UN Security Council, “in the round,” with Dubya, Hadley, Ledeen (and the rest) assembled around him, all in shackles, and compelled to watch?  A “road show,” maybe, hauling Dick’s archly guileful ass from one world captital to the next and repeating the demonstration? 

At such times, my lust is probably no different than the lust felt by many of the true-blue in the wake of 9/11—“Give us blood justice!”  And it was the cynical manipulation of that lust—in ways that would make Machiavelli, Trotsky, and Goerring blush—that lead to this “aggressive” war against Iraq and its entire catalog of attendant malfeasance.

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

~Robert H. Jackson (chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg)

That said, this is just mind play; a flight of fancy.  Though on a different scale, it’s kind of like the dilemna faced by the recently-resigned head of the US Agency for International Development, Randall Tobias, pondering, “Should I hire a hooker to slake my sexual appetites?”  I have personally confronted this question and, to this point, have always resolved it with a resounding, “No!”  Similarly, the “Torture Cheney Carnival Tour” amounts to passing and sublimated whim. 

That being said, what I really wonder is what real justice would look like in dealing with these petty men and their monumental crimes: Trials before the World Court with, upon truly judicious convictions, terms of imprisonment to follow?  That would suit me most fine.

Yet it seems we are scarcely likely to muster the political will in this country to instigate mere impeachment proceedings.  (Just today, Murtha says, “Not at this time.”)  Again, to me, impeachment would be just a beginning.  Something more on the order of the Nuremburg Tribunal is in order.  An “example” needs to be made (absent, I would suggest, executions).  And the United States of America owes the world community a lengthy and gut-wrenching period of national mea culpa, apology, and restitution.  Ultimately, I believe these men will be pilloried (if not literally) and reviled.  But I can only hope that this comes sooner rather than later.

Domestically, we’ve got a tremendous amount of work ahead of us, both overcoming this giant leap backwards, and resuming the fitful advance of liberty, democracy, and the rule of law right here at home.

Thank you, Mr. Hedges!

#67177 by guntotin ganglion on 4/29 at 8:11 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

#67087 by JNagarya on 4/28 at 9:47 pm
(127 comments total)

“Speaking of the failures of government, it’s past time for a Constitutional Convention.”

ON ONE HAND YOU LAMBAST WE THE PEOPLE AS BEING IGNORANT, LAZY, ETC.  AND ON THE OTHER YOU ASSERT THAT IT’S TIME TO PUT TH