Yesterday's men, probably not.
Bush has failed in Iraq, but he has power as long as we stay there. He has consolidated his power over the American government, castrating Congress and taming the Courts.
He likes the toys, helicopters, jets, and carriers. He knows nothing he does will cause an impeachment because he has a surveillence state that can silence all opposition. His public opinion polls are at rock bottom, yet he still wins all of his congressional battles. He will not give up these toys easily.
In essence, he has raw power, not dependent upon public opinion. The public only worships idols and cares only for its baubles. Politics is too much like work. It is like the ring in LOTH. It will affect him. It gives him total freedom. What will he do?
Posted by Nobody at May 26, 2006 11:19 AM"A surveillance state that can silent all opposition."
Last I saw, there was a hell of a lot of opposition in both the print, video, and online media. I don't think he can silence it.
Posted by Musmanno at May 26, 2006 11:21 AMpss nd ms, hr's tny glmps f prhps bfr nd ftr prsnt tm vl, < hrf="http://nws.cm.cm/2100-1028_3-6077353.html?prt=rss&tg=6077353&sbj=nws" rl="nfllw" trgt="_blnk">T&T
[Editor: ignore=off]Musmanno, the test will be an arrested jouralist, accused of publishing state secrets. The backlash might be loud but the message would be sent. Merely muting the opposition, giving them pause before they speak, would serve Bush well in his final years. We'll never know what isn't revealed due to the fear of imprisonment. What stories even now are being held back because of threats?
Posted by steve duncan at May 26, 2006 11:37 AMSteve:
That's a good point about the chilling effect. I expect that a journalist arrested in a case like that will be acquitted on first amendment grounds, but I wouldn't count on anything in this day and age.
Posted by Musmanno at May 26, 2006 11:42 AMThanks for the link, scout. As large corporations have more and more control over the content we access, these types of concerns become very real. And of course a company like AT&T can't violate your first amendment rights because they aren't a government entity, so the need for protections against invasions of privacy becomes even stronger.
Posted by Musmanno at May 26, 2006 11:46 AMThis is just another example of the major press uncritically parroting the administration line: the leaders "remorsefully talked about mistakes made". Admitting "mistakes", that was the decreed story line and the "independent" press took it hook, line and sinker, without comment.
Does anyone think Bush was really "admitting mistakes" in his Iraq "policy"?
I think Nobody is essentially correct in his various posts today. Nobody has stepped back and taken a good look at the bigger picture, which is one of tremendous success by Nero Jr. in enormously enhancing the power of the executive, with no political harm resulting from his absolutely horrible opinion polls, which should be paralyzing him.
Words without action or effect might as well be silence. Dems can't even bring themselves to effectively oppose Nero's nominees.
Posted by euzoius at May 26, 2006 11:55 AMz, yh, s stv's bn pntng t fr wks, DC pprs t b sdtd. Lttl Bsh cn't d wrng, dsn't fr plls f nly bcs gts cn rd, nd wh frs gt?
[Editor: ignore=off]Great posts today. I think the blog community can short circuit the eavedropping problem in a matter of a week. Everyone who posts or uses the phone should incorporate key words into the conversations. Imagine, gazillions of "red flags" popping up all over the country. There simply is not enough manpower to followup. The whole scheme will implod. Iraq. My poor garden looks as if an assassin droped a bomb on it - a mushroom cloud, for example.The whole plot of land is full Bush....
Posted by sara swati at May 26, 2006 12:48 PMpss, whl w r ll dwn hr rgng bt ds, phlsphy, sclgy, tc. t th pnt f pkng n ch thr, th crp lrds r th phrc lttl pnks lghng t th wrld.
Pls cnsdr tht rq ws mst sccssfl dvntr t ths kng mkrs. Hstrclly, th ‘dvd nd cnqr’ strtgy s mrly qck nd drty cvr fr th tr crp sclgcl tctc f scl cntrl. nd ths scl cntrl s t smply ntrdc 2300 kk ds nd lt th lcls fght t t. Thy wll prft nd dmnt n tm.
Th rsn fr th DC trsh rnnng th cntry s d t th bv, bt wtht whl lt f gns nd bllts.
Hwvr, n rq, Plstn, Ngr, Sml, jst t nm fw mdrns wth l, r, s n th cs f Hms, n srl scrty crtn, th bv 2300 ds trnslt nt 2300 rmd nd ddly gngstrs/grps wth t mch tststrn t st sd thr grndlss dffrncs lng ngh t fgr t wh th nmy s: r crp lrds nd thr mny hndlrs. (Knd lk th mrcn ndns wh cldn’t gt n llnc tgthr t cntr th S; shld mntn tht Tcmsh, rnd 1812, wld flly ndrstnd wht ’m wrtng bt. Ys, th crp lrds knw hstry, nlk th rst f s.)
Thrfr, th lng trm vrsn f th bv dvd nd cnqr tctc s mrly wy f kllng ff th bttr fghtrs, trng t th mthrs nd fthrs, nd crtng sch bldy chs tht thy wll gr t hv th MF, Wrld Bnk, nd nyn ls t stp th fghtng nd ffr prtctv ldrshp. Th l n’t gng nywhr, nd ths ft bys cllng th shts r strvng, r nythng.
W ll knw bt th mntr, ‘jst fllw th mny,’ why dn’t w s t t ndrstnd r rlrs nd thr rlng dlgy? gss w cn’t gt bynd th stpd TV, hh?
S, wht’s th ltmt crp lrd gl? vryn s ssgnd t rsrvtn. ’ll gss w’ll hv sm Bng, r whtvr ls tht brmff fl ws wrkng n t mk r ftr brght nd TV-lk. Yh, nd t lst r wmn wll b hppy, f nly fr tw scnds. Thy’ll gv s shs n th rsrvtn, rght?
the Duh-Dumbya Code.
Posted by sara swati at May 26, 2006 12:58 PMYeah, and at least our women will be happy, if only for two seconds.
You want to explain this remark?
Posted by iamcoyote at May 26, 2006 01:26 PMMusmanno wrote, "A surveillance state that can silent all opposition."
Last I saw, there was a hell of a lot of opposition in both the print, video, and online media. I don't think he can silence it.
He may not be able to silence "it", but he certainly can stifle "its" creative genious.
Let's play a mind game.
Assume you are a business person in Phoenix trying to find out how to do a deal legally and to minimize taxes. You need to speak with your lawyer in Nashville by telephone and to discuss a deal close on the fair side of the line of legality. You know you are trying to stay legal, but you want to explore where the line between legality and income tax evasion lies. You know your conversation could be badly misconstrued against you.
Assume all of your phone and telephone calls are being tapped as they probably now are or soon will be (Bush knows he can get away with monitoring metadata without getting caught--it's just a small slip on the slippery slope to monitor all of the contencts since the infrastructure is in place). Assume as is now the case that "intelligence" information can be swapped with law enforcement under the existing provisions of the Patriot Act.
Now, imagine whether or not you can have a frank conversation.
Will you be buying a plane ticket or use the phone?
Also, if net neutrality is not preserved, many sites like Leftcoaster simply could be blacklisted. Given the filtering capacity of the internet perfected for the China market by Google and Microsoft, any pocket of resistence could simply be blocked.
Now, everytime you speak on the telephone or write an email, you must assume it is being captured, filtered, word searched, pattern matched, voice-to-texted, and recorded.
Watch your backs and be careful what you say.
My speach on the phone and electronically has already been stifled! How about yours?
Posted by Nobody at May 26, 2006 02:02 PMMuch as I want to believe you Pessimist - does this smirk look like someone expressing sincerre regret?
Posted by Jim Faith at May 26, 2006 02:17 PMeuzoius stated a succinct truth, "Words without action or effect might as well be silence."
News and news of war has become entertainment. Even those who act are stymied. Congress is all words and no action. All members except a handful are collaborators and/or cowards.
Now that there are no checks on Bush's ring of power, the question is what is his WILL.
So far, we have seen Bush's WILL acting strongly to consolidate the power, we have yet to see its full manifestation as Bush slowly learns he is unrestrained. He still seems to believe his WILL is somewhat restrained although less and less so.
Ask your neocon and liberal friends what they would do beyond mere words if Bush declared himself Caesar. I have asked many the question and the only answer I get is "Nothing, I am powerless. I have a family and job, etc., etc."
Now the essential question for the Republic (if it still exists at all) is will Bush learn the power of his WILL. The country is now ripe to be taken. Does the WILL take dominion over the power. It is now up to the Decider.
"To will or not to will?", That is the question for George Bush.
Posted by Nobody at May 26, 2006 02:23 PMCyt, whn sw yr qstn, t tk mr thn cpl mnts t fgr frmwrk f dscssn tht wld tk lss thn cpl pgs. Th qstn s, why r mdrn wmn dscntnt/nhppy? Th shrt nswr s tht r dprvd cltr gnrs th Bblcl rl f chn f cmmnd, Chrst, hsbnd, wf, chldrn.
Nw, wtht dbt, vry thghtfl wmn, wmn tht hs nrml mtr hsbnd tht s ttlly cmmttd t hs wf, knws hw t b hppy, bt hr (r pssbly thr) sclzd prd/prvrsn prclds ths ctlztn. n nthr wy, th mdrn fmnzd/scl-vctm fghts hr nnr nstncts f nttn nd fmly knwldg.
Lt m s mr cncrt xplntn, nt tht y wll lk r dslk t ny mr thn nythng thr xplntn brch.
Mn gt mrrd fr n rsn: thy cn’t gt thr ftr wf t f thr mnd. D y gt th pctr? Th wf, n ctlty, s dmnt vr th ml. Th hsbnd crvs th wf’s bdy, bt ftn nly thrgh hr ccptnc f hmslf; ddtnlly, sh mst, t th vrydy lvl f lvng, pprv f hm. m nt tlkng bt rbtc sbsrvnc, bt smpl rspct. Tht’s ll, rspct f physcl strngth, thnkng, tc. m nt tlkng bt th ndlgd hsbnd wth th wf rnnng t th rfrgrtr fr br, tc. m tlkng bt th Gd frng wf tht wll tlk strght, hv rspct, knws bt whn h’s jst gtt hv sm gd sx, nd sh wll hv mn tht wll d jst bt nythng xcpt by hr nw cr vry mnth. H’s ptty n th hnds f gd wf. Sch n hsbnd lvs t pls hs wf, n mttr f h grmbls whn n bd md, bcs vn whn h’s n bd md, h knws tht nly hs wf knws hw t pls hm. s th yng Gd frng hsbnd mtrs, h stps mt-grmblng bcs h knws tht h cn’t fl hs wf, s sh gt hm by th blls nywy.
Wthn th Bblcl mrrg, nd lthgh th chn f cmmnd s Chrst, hsbnd, wf, nd chldrn, wvs rl vrydy lf, fr th bv rsns. Rlly, th hsbnd’s rl s sprtl. s thy stdy th Bbl, t s th hsbnd’s ndrstndng tht bcms pprnt, nd thn th wf’s thrgh hr hsbnd. nd ths s th nly tr src f hr rspct fr hr hsbnd. n vry thng ls, th wf kcks hs ss, bt ds ths wthn th bv frmwrk. t s crtcl tht bth r tr nd cmmttd t ch thr.
nythng tsd f th bv Bblcl mrrg s grndd n dmnsm, scl flth, whch r ll fndd wthn r nnt dprvty. Hr s th src f hr nhppnss.
So, because the dessicated corpse in your basement seems to love her captivity because you enjoy sex with her, that means all women will enjoy living in concentration camps if there's a tv?
Can you offer proof of your assertions? Where are the scientific studies, scout? I want the links to them from reputable journals. You say you've been married for 30 years to one woman, you have a sample of one, buddy, so you have no credibility whatsoever, ya womanhating creep.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 26, 2006 03:32 PMcyt, wht dn't y ndrstnd n th bv? nd hw cn y ndrstnd nythng whn y fll bck pn yr dmnc nsprtns?
n th ftr, f y cn’t wrt wth cvl sns, thn dn’t wrt r sk qstns. t mks y lk smll nd prvn lvr f Stnsm nd yr prvrtd rlgn f sclr hmnsm.
Stv, wld y lk t wht ths cyt wrt, pls lk t wht wrt, nd tll m wht st hr ff?
sbmt tht sh s ntntnlly dsrptng th st, nd hs dn ths rptdly. s mmbr f th dmcrtc prty, wnt t dd tht st dsrptns nly hlp cs cnfsn wth yngr mmbrs f th prty.
Hv w nt ftn spk bt th flr f th DC whrs nd whrmngrs t d th rght thng? Lk t jst wht hppnd n th hll 'fft tdy. Yt, thy r nt ccntbl t n vtr.
Cyt s trll, dsrptn nd dsgstng. nd sh nvr cntrbts nythng bt ht nd dscntnt. Wht ds t tk t rmv sch grphc trsh?
Whn wll cyt b hld ccntbl fr hr cntnd bhvr f st dsrptn?
[Editor: ignore=off]Sorry, scout, but that wasn't supposed to post, I thought I had cancelled it when I shut down my other computer.
The thing is, your ideas about women have no basis in fact, and to say that all women would enjoy a concentration camp if there was tv is just nuts. Especially when you have no proof of your assumptions. You throw off comments about women in general as if they are fact, and that's anger inducing.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 26, 2006 04:16 PMcyt, cn dl wth psts s th bv, tht shw hnst ntrctn.
Pls d m fvr CRFLLY r-rd th bv rspns t yr qstn bt my slly 'tw scnd' hppnss rmrk. 'll gt bck ltr.
Mnwhl, whl w'r hr tlkng crp, pss jst ht pn smthng mprtnt. 'm hr fr th st, crtnly nt bng nsltd by y.
[Editor: ignore=off]I'm here for the site, certainly not being insulted by you.
You're absolutely right, and I regret the nasty comment above very much.
Posted by iamcoyote at May 26, 2006 04:51 PMI just always assumed that he and the dessicated corpse had a strictly platonic relationship. At least until their love (and chain of obedience) is consecrated in the eyes of the Lord.
Posted by jondee at May 26, 2006 07:02 PMWell, my little comment won't be so nice. Scout, you have no respect for women other than god-fearing, husband obeying, child-bearing chattels. I have nothing but contempt, not for you personally, but all you believe in. You and your beliefs belong in the second century.
Posted by tempus at May 26, 2006 11:11 PM"Really, the husband’s rule is spiritual. As they study the Bible, it is the husband’s understanding that becomes apparent, and then the wife’s through her husband."
This is the belief of Mormons, some Fundamentalists and the Charismatic church. People are responsible for their own spiritual growth and "personal" walk.
They may be Yesterday's Men, but their actions will be live on to the detriment of this world.
Posted by Judith at May 27, 2006 05:24 AMHey, where is GOW?
Posted by Judith at May 27, 2006 05:25 AM"And all the rain falls down ,Amen,
on the works of last year's man."
Last Year's Man
Leonard Cohen,
1970
There are PE drugs out now that can help men who last only 2 seconds.
Drinking 30 cans of beer prior to sex is also a very effective home remedy.
Posted by TIKI AL at May 28, 2006 04:27 AM