More Guns? Great!

It seems that the group that's been knocking down gun regulations - first in D.C., then in Chicago, now has Maryland in its crosshairs (sorry, I couldn't resist). And so the literalism continues. Yes, the long-dead fellows who penned the Constitution were brilliant guys. But how did a "well-regulated militia", et cetera, morph into the right to head to the grocery store with a handgun on your hip? Yes, you can have the last Valu-Pack of strip steaks! No need to wave that thing around. By the way, you have some froth on the right corner of your mouth...there, got it. Good. By the way, I dig that American flag polo shirt.

If we want to be so damn literal, I have two proposals:

1. Continue to assume that Founders were infallible men - but not men who could see a future of semi-automatics and extended clips. That means no adapting the Second Amendment for modern times. Muskets for everyone! No complaining, especially from you right-wingers who are always whining about activist judges.

2. Find the nearest mad-scientist geneticist, and have him or her hook you up with the real deal. Who's gonna fuck with you once you're packing these babies?

Olbermann Turns Critic, Positive Developments

Keith Olbermann is generally viewed (rightly so) as a big Obama supporter/cheerleader, so it's a bit surprising - but very gratifying - to see him smacking the administration around on its continuation of the Bush Secrecy Doctrine.

At the same time - and since I've been so negative towards the Prez on his economic policy and the above constitutional issue - he's kicking ass on plenty of issues:

• Gates' Defense budget - it actually makes a lot of sense! Never mind that it has no chance of getting through the House; too many districts are home to weapons-making factories. But it's refreshing to see. Next, any chance of getting cuts across the board, and shrinking the war industry in general?
• Obama is reaching out to Iran, both in his recent video to the Iranians, and his decision to become involved in current nuclear talks. And there are no signs that he asked Israel's permission! Quite to the contrary, actually.
• The government's long-standing (an largely ineffectual) policy of isolating Cuba might be coming to an end.
  

The Problem with Democrats

[Note that the post is the problem, singular, not problems; I don't have all day!]

Over the past...30 years (?), it seems to me that Republicans have been very successful in moving the accepted political spectrum farther and farther right - what was Right is now Center, Far Right is now just Right, Left is now Far Left, you get the picture. Don't ask me why that is, or how it came to happen, but I think there's ample evidence. Even in Clinton's eight years in office, this process was going on; look at welfare reform and the SEC during that time, as a few examples.

Democrats have been in charge on Congress for a few years, and stand in opposition one of the most unpopular presidents in history. But are they actually in opposition? Not really. Even the party's presidential nominee has fallen into an all-too-familiar Democratic trap: the fear of appearing weak on national security, which of course leads to actually becoming weak in defense of one's principles. Congressional Democrats, as a block, only allow themselves token, symbolic opposition to Bush policies; Glenn Greenwald is calling this The New Republic Syndrome. I'm glad our congressman, John Sarbanes, voted against the latest bipartisan disaster, and plenty of other Democrats did as well. But what to do when the House "leaders" are in opposition to the majority of their own party? Either try to change their minds, or remove them from these leadership positions. Too bad it's so difficult (read: expensive) to run against an incumbent. It's a sad time for Democrats when both Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer can't be relied on to protect the Constitution. At least the sprinkler system at the National Archives is still on the job (I hope!).

The merits of the FISA bill or other Bush administration positions can be argued, I suppose - you won't read me defending them, but one could make a go of it, I guess. But without any meaningful opposition, no substantive defense of those positions is even required; proponents can throw the flag around this bill (or a potential war with Iran, or a morally and intellectually bankrupt energy policy), question the patriotism of those in genuine opposition without addressing their real concerns, and be home in time for the summer recess.

House Dems Locate Their Spines

Better late than never, right?

That About Sums It Up

Here's a portion of a comment that was a response to this Salon article about Mike Huckabee and his biblical designs on the Constitution:

Why is it that policies set forth under claims of national security, religious conviction, patriotic values and democracy are not subject to the same criticism as independent policy proposals? Is it because these constructs remain extremely effective and highly repeatable insulators to open discourse? Policies put forth under these four umbrellas are packaged in this way just in order to silence dissenting views.

Yeah, why is that?

Monday Is Wiretap the Internet Day!

Don't worry, it's not one of those occasions upon which you need to buy something for your boss (unless you work at the FBI or in the White House, then maybe it's appropriate). Just another day in which the current administration wakes up, grabs a coffee and a bran muffin, and a little later after everything has worked its way through, wipes its collective ass with our Constitution. Just the regular AM routine, nothing special. The first Slashdot comment to this article is excellent, by the way.

Meanwhile, Alberto "Midnight Rendezvous" Gonzalez is still the AG, Dick Cheney is still allowed to carry a gun, and the Master Shrub himself still thinks we're going to 'win' in Iraq. Someone explain to me again how Clinton got impeached, while these guys are still in power? And how does even one-third of the public still support these crooks?