(no subject)
Thursday, 23 February 2006 10:24![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
earthbelow
To all the "oh, don't panic about abortion rights just because Alito got nominated" type folks out there,
It's time to panic.
I love being right, but I wish it wasn't about this.
Let's see. We've already got a late-trimester case before the court which does NOT include an exemption for the mother's health and now this.
When exactly *would* you like me to panic?
When the president turns major American ports over to a United Arab Emirates-run company which isn't require to keep it's documents on American soil?.
Oh, wait. He's already in the process of doing that.
Gee, guess it's time panic.
It's time to panic.
I love being right, but I wish it wasn't about this.
Let's see. We've already got a late-trimester case before the court which does NOT include an exemption for the mother's health and now this.
When exactly *would* you like me to panic?
When the president turns major American ports over to a United Arab Emirates-run company which isn't require to keep it's documents on American soil?.
Oh, wait. He's already in the process of doing that.
Gee, guess it's time panic.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 24 Feb 2006 00:59 (UTC)As for the matter of the ports... badly bungled by the Administration, but it's a non-story. 1) the ports were foreign owned to begin with (having just been sold by British interests to UAE interests), 2) their security would still be handled by US customs and such, as had been the case under their previous ownership, and 3) while I've heard the whole "some of the 9/11 hijackers came from UAE and had money from UAE!" cries, I've yet to see any evidence of wrong doing against anyone involved in this specific company, or their government. But because it's an Arab company, we must be extra suspicious...
Isn't that the very essence of racial profiling?
Having said that, the Admin should have seen this reaction coming, and done a better job of laying the groundwork to cut it off. But even I have never accused the current Admin of massive intelligence. :)
no subject
Date: 24 Feb 2006 01:45 (UTC)It's not that I believe Alito to be foaming at the mouth to completely ZOMG wreck all of America forever. However, upholding a lower court's ruling and being in a position to essentially remake the law of the land are two different things.
And given the ability to overturn this ruling and sitting on a conservative bench, I have very real fears that he will do it. I realize that Roe v. Wade was decided with a conservative bench sitting, but I think the political climate was much different back then.
I also think that Alito was selected and placed for these types of issues.
And as much as I'd like to believe that this man can make a decision against the interest of the President that put him into power - I know better. This is Washington. This is about power.
When it comes to power, nobody has ethics or morals. Only agendas. Some of which can be useful, some of which can be devastating. This time, I believe Alito's agenda is going to be devastating.
He can have all the years of experience and can make all the assurances he wants. He's a human being and he's being given power and not because he's the best for the job. He's being given that power for a reason.
I don't think Bush would have dared to put him or Miers up unless he expected them to do what he wanted. I don't see the Bush administration having an interest in appointing fair and competent justices. I see them wanting to extend their influence as far as possible.
Also - as far as other reactions go - I can honestly say that it's probably also related to the conservative upswing in the government lately. I've seen lots of news stories about challenging abortion rights and overwhelming legislative damnation for gay rights. I try to take them with grains of salt, but frankly - they're *scary* and disheartening especially when I read about other countries taking positive measures to extend abortion rights and gay rights.
I've yet to see any evidence of wrong doing against anyone involved in this specific company, or their government. But because it's an Arab company, we must be extra suspicious...
My problem is not where they're from. I was trying to both be sarcastic and summarize the article, therefore it might have sounded like I was. Frankly, I'd be suspicious if they were *French* and the article had said that Bush just turned over our ports to a French company without requiring documents to be kept on American soil.
The fact that any routine security procedure is being bypassed for this company makes me very suspicious, especially since I have not been able to find a reason why it is that they would need to do that.
BTW, I was well aware that our ports were being British run before this. My problem is that the documents aren't being kept on American soil.
Also the phrase "a full investigation will be conducted" in the article is very scary. Because I'd like to think a full investigation would be done BEFORE anybody turned any ports over.
It's also quite a stupidity on the part of the administration because a) most people have only to see the word "Arab" and think Arab=Muslim and get panicked and b) this is coming on the tails of repeated news accounts of Muslims getting angry over cartoons.
If the government isn't going to do anything to improve the state of stupidity of the American people, it can at least try to work around it. Sheesh.
Bush is digging his own grave here.
- Meg
no subject
Date: 24 Feb 2006 13:48 (UTC)And they call me a cynic... ;)
While I don't quite share your conviction here, as it IS more a matter of belief and conviction than it is fact and evidence, I won't argue with it. I can at least say that I do partially see where you're coming from, as I've never been particularly keen on the system of having the President appoint and the Senate confirm Supreme Court nominees. As long as political bodies (be it the White House or Congress) are involved, political considerations will be a factor in both appointments and confirmations, which can undermine the Supreme Court's designed role in the system of checks and balances--especially in a two party system where both parties are to varying degrees married to their extreme wings, as is the case today. Unfortunately, short of the emergence of a credible third party, I've never been able to think of a satisfactory system to advocate in its place.
That's a bit of an illusion, IMHO. Have things taken a conservative upswing from the Clinton era? Yes. Have we returned to the way life was like under Reagan and Bush 41? Oh hell no, things are nowhere near as bad now as they were then. For one, the culture as a whole has moved closer to the middle ground now than it was then, and two, the Christian Coalition and other ultraconservative factions don't have nearly the same influence over the GOP as they did then. I'm not saying they don't have ANY influence over the Republican party, but in those days, they WERE the Republican Party. Halfway through Reagan's second term in '86, the idea of a moderate Republican having the stature or national profile than John McCain has today, for example, would have been inconceivable--and the notion he might have been a serious contender for the nomination in '88 would've been utterly ludicrous. Today, the idea of Pat Robertson making a run for the nomination is laughable. In '88, when he actually DID make a run, it was a little scary, as while it would have been an upset for him to beat Bush 41, it wasn't unthinkable.
We're not too far off from a war within the Republican Party for control, between the moderates and the right wingers. Indeed, we're starting to see the first signs of it already, and it's only going to intensify--especially if Cheney doesn't step down to allow G-Dub to appoint someone who'll serve the VP's traditional role as a two term-er's designated successor. And the calls for legislation you reference are part of that war. IMHO, they're equal parts a powergrab by the Religious Right--sensing their time in the driver's seat is waning, so they better try to get as much of their agenda enacted into legislation while they can--and a response to the right wing base being panicked by certain elements of the left unwisely escalating the battle before the public is ready for it (see Gavin Newsome).
That's a refreshingly different response than most of what I've seen (and my apologies if I unfairly lumped you into that group), but frankly, if they were French, i don't think you or I or anyone else in particular would even be aware of the story, because I sincerely doubt the mainstream media would have called it to our attention if this was a transaction involving France or Germany or any other member of the Western European club.
The one truly interesting thing in this whole story is Bush's veto threat. One, it's so uncharacteristic (as he hasn't vetoed ANYTHING in 6+ years), and two, it was such a surprisingly escalation of the dispute. That suggests one of two things: either Bush is a bigger idiot than even his harshest critics contend (which doesn't seem humanly possible), or this contract is a case of quid pro quo in exchange for cooperation from a services provided by the UAE, which the Admin considers so vital that they don't feel they can allow this deal to fall through.
Or perhaps a combination of the two. :)
no subject
Date: 25 Feb 2006 17:19 (UTC)Thing about all this is? While it's great political theory, it hurts people on the ground. In practice. Common people who don't have a damn thing to do with the Republicans getting ready to have a showdown at the GOP Corral. Common people who *do* get hurt when laws are passed not for the good of the people, but for the good of certain factions.
So if I'm alarmed by the Conservative Upswing, it's because I know I'm going to feel the impact of it not as a person who somewhat identifies liberal, but as a *citizen*. If I'm alarmed at a group in power trying to pass laws to inhibit my rights because they're afraid of losing power, I don't see that being an overreaction.
Not to be a complete nerd, but Gandalf had the Balrog beat until that last little whiplash on the way down. And it *killed* him. So excuse me if I (or my rights) don't wanna get *killed* by somebody's last ditch efforts in Washington.
That's a refreshingly different response than most of what I've seen (and my apologies if I unfairly lumped you into that group), but frankly, if they were French, i don't think you or I or anyone else in particular would even be aware of the story, because I sincerely doubt the mainstream media would have called it to our attention if this was a transaction involving France or Germany or any other member of the Western European club.
I agree. If it'd been a French or German or *hell* even a Japanese company, we wouldn't have batted an eye at this.
But seeing as how I do know about it, the details are disturbing. Especially since I could see someone using these shortcuts as a means to do damage later on. Not from Dubai, mind you. But once you leave a crack, all kinda termites can get it.
But some of this is the fault of the people that Bush is basing his entire constituency on. Hey, you wanted to ride the crest of conservative Christian racist bigots all the way to the top, well now it's coming back to bite you on the ass. Because conservative Christians racist bigots generally don't care to know the difference between the UAE and Iran and Iraq. They see Arab, they think *kill*. So if they're burning you for this, then you had it coming, Dubya. You should've pandered less to the IDIOT demographic.
That suggests one of two things: either Bush is a bigger idiot than even his harshest critics contend (which doesn't seem humanly possible),
You're so cute and young and idealistic.
Bush has but one superpower. He possess 10x the stupid of ordinary men! Bwahahaha!
Okay, maybe that's sort of
a conservative estimateextreme.It's only 5x the stupid of ordinary men.
- Meg
no subject
Date: 26 Feb 2006 01:47 (UTC)Alarm is an overreaction when there is no real Conservative Upswing, and when the key word in all this is "trying." A lot of common people will get hurt if such laws are passed, yes... but they have to be passed first, and by and large they're not--for the reasons already given (the culture has moderated, and the extreme forces don't have the same strength they once had).
Take the attempt to pass a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage a couple of years back, when the GOP couldn't even manage a simple majority. 15-20 years ago, they'd have gotten that majority easily--though I expect they still would have had trouble getting the necessary two-thirds for an amendment to pass. What you're portraying as a Conservative Upswing is in actuality a last gasp, by a desperate faction increasingly losing the influence to achieve the very aims you so (rightly) fear.
And I'll match you geek for geek: I truly wish I had a TARDIS, to show you what life in a predominantly, oppressively Conservative culture was really like. This ain't it. Not even close.