General Hayden and the Democratic Party
If we ever wanted a clear and current example of the utter uselessness of the Democratic Party, and why we need to just go ahead and build a party for leftists, oppressed nationalities, women and sexual minorities, this is it. General Michael V. Hayden was the architect of a clearly illegal effort to spy on millions of people without probable cause of anything, and he now represents the final push by the Department of Defense to consolidated its unitary control over intelligence. Nothing this administration has done smacks more of nascent fascism except the roundups and detentions of the unaccused.
Will the Democratic Party stop this confirmation? No. Because a majority in the polls — who don’t NOW have a fucking clue what the implications are of this program, and still see Ay-rab terrorists under every rock — are sort of supportive of the idea of domestic spying. No notion that just like the war the Democratis supported for exactly the same opportunistic and unprincipled reasons — allowing hundreds of thousands of people to be killed, maimed, poisoned, displaced, and driven mad — because they put polls ahead of any sense of human decency.
Mark my words, this piece of shit party will not do nearly as well as they thnk in November, even with the election handed to them on a silver platter, because people are seldom inclined to vote for corpses — which is what this party is.
The public will be further educated on this issue, and the polls will shift; we shifted them on the war. Then this sorry Weimar Republic formation will be stuck with the justifiable impression that they are a pack of cynical wind-sniffers.
An excerpt from the news:
“Lawmakers in both parties reacted angrily to news about the collection of the phone records of tens of millions of ordinary Americans, a far more sweeping NSA program than the one Bush acknowledged late last year.
“That program, which Hayden led and has played a central role in defending, was described as one in which the agency eavesdropped on international calls, including those in which one end was in the United States, involving at least one suspected terrorist.
“The administration has neither confirmed nor denied the latest reports. But Bush said Thursday that the program did not involve listening to domestic calls without warrants and that it was narrowly aimed at al-Qaida and “fiercely protected” Americans’ privacy.
“Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, sidestepped questions about the phone call database report after a meeting with Hayden but said he has “no specific problems” with the general going into the confirmation hearings.
“Democrats are treading carefully in their criticism, mindful that they risk opening themselves to criticism of being weak on security if they attack too aggressively.
“The public appears to be broadly tolerant of the program, according to early polling, which is in line with earlier surveys that showed Americans generally willing to accept the previously revealed NSA warrantless surveillance program.”
Robin Hering:
We don’t know how many Americans are afraid to answer polls honestly.
Another point, at the Hartford Courant:
But a University of Connecticut poll released Friday suggests that as people hear the views of those opposed to the collection of private information, support for the government’s practice could wane.
The nationwide UConn survey was conducted between March 27 and May 7, before the latest news came out, but well after reports that the National Security Agency had conducted domestic surveillance without first seeking the required court approval.
Seventy-five percent of those surveyed said they oppose having government agencies monitor e-mails and phone calls of ordinary Americans, including 59 percent who were “strongly opposed.” People were also adamantly against the government monitoring Internet activity.
Samuel Best, director of the UConn Center for Survey Research and Analysis, pointed out that those questions dealt with infringements on people’s very personal information. By comparison, strong majorities approved of longstanding invasions of personal privacy as a matter of public policy – such as allowing the government to make background checks on potential gun owners, allowing employers to give drug tests and permitting schools to conduct IQ tests. Two-thirds also said they support requiring married women to notify their husbands before having an abortion.
“People differentiate between different types of invasion of privacy,” Best said. “The more successful the Bush administration spins [the NSA's recordkeeping] as centered on the war on terror, the better people feel about it.”
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-privacy0513.artmay13,0,767203.story?coll=hc-headlines-nationworld
14 May 2006, 12:14 amDirk:
Hello from Germany:
This article was published in the USA 70 years ago:
”
Most people support “Final Solution”
by thereisnospoon
Fri May 12th, 2006 at 05:32:46 PM EST
BERLIN, 1936–A majority of Germans support the “Final Solution”, a once controversial program to rid the German nation of its strongest domestic enemies, according to a recent poll conducted by the Goebbels-founded newspaper Der Angriff.
The new survey found that 63 percent of the German people said they found the program to be an acceptable way to combat moral weakness and economic woes, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it. (Those 35 percent are due to be rounded up any day now, which should boost approval for the program significantly).
A slightly larger majority–66 percent–said they would not be bothered if the SS collected records of personal telegrams and postal mail they had written in order to seek out traitors in their midst, the poll found.
Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate treason and economic sabotage outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential threats “even if it intrudes on privacy.” Three in 10–31 percent–said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. (The SS denies reports of the disappearance of many of the more prominent members of that 31 percent).
A clear majority approved of the way the Fuehrer was handling privacy matters.
The popularity of this program is leading many Party politicians who would otherwise object to stand down and remain quiet. “It seems fine to me: after all, they’re not coming for me!” said Gunter von Falkenhausen, who spoke on condition of anonymity, but whose identity has been provided to us by the SS.
——————————”
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2006/5/12/173246/665
Dirk
14 May 2006, 4:07 amJim Withey:
How to approach politics in this complicated world?
15 May 2006, 8:39 amSome fundamental ideas have to be stated, leaving the more complicated problems for the sharpies to figure out and adjust to.
This is not Nazi Germany. It could become like it, but the process is much more difficult and protracted. In my opinion, there are two main reasons why this is so (others can sdd more or rebut this if they choose). The first has to do with ethnic diversity. It seems clear to me that it would be hard to organize a totallitarian state in the U.S. on the basis of race. There are too many ethnic and cultural impediments for that to happen easily. That is a fortunate buffer against such tyranny, certainly slowing the effort down a great deal. This is why the right-wing thrust has been undertaken with religion first, and with mixed and seemingly contradictory racial approaches. Christianity is the one common element among the majority of ethnic groups. This I believe acts as a brake on the ability of the state to achieve total domination.
I believe that geography also plays a significant part in the equation. The size and geographical position make less likely a totalitarian gamble. I think that the Germans decided to gamble based to a certain degree on their geographical position.
I question and mostly oppose the idea of abandoning the Democrats. Sure the Democrats aren’t progressive to any degree, but they will in all probability buy time for the people to organize resistance to the right. The abandonment of the Democrats could turn a disciplined retreat into a disaster. The worst aspect of the right is its Christian base, which will be ever more energized by Republican victories. The Democrats will most likely provide time for the secular forces to organize in a more slow and deliberate fashion.
I just don’t trust most of the so-called “experts” out there to be sincere about giving people the straight dope. These charismatic “leaders” have to be questioned as much or than the more obviously lousy ones we find in the mainstream.
In short I don’t think we should risk catastrophe by subscribing to some plan or plans that probably don’t have any short term hope anyway. Resisting the right is the priority in my mind; I think building an alternative will take time and can not be done anyway under the tutelage of con artists and phoneys. Build a movement rather than a party, at this time, is I think the most sensible approach.
Jim Withey:
I’d like to reiterate my previous point about the Democrats.
16 May 2006, 6:39 amI would not say that the Democratic Party is one of progressive values, yet I am reasonably sure I’ll vote for at least some of them this fall. For those people who aren’t afraid to cast a vote (they can’t know who you’re voting for, can they?), I suggest that voting Democratic in general (there may be exceptions) is a sensible rearguard activity.
It’s one thing to criticize the Democrats and other politicians, but that doesn’t mean they won’t offer significant resistance to the obviously dangerous and atrocious Republicans. They can whether by intention or not buy time for the populace to resist and hopefully reverse the right-wing mowement of society. Even if you’re inclined to start a new party, you can still take the small amount of time to vote for the best candidates available while you do so.
People I think, particularly in this country, have a tendency to think in terms of “if not A then B”. I’ll admit to this sort of error myself, in getting sucked in to a way of thinking or a group because it stands in opposition to some other way of thinking or group you have come to see negatively. Two of the causes I can find of this problem are naivete and also not taking the time to think things through. It happens to many of us to some degree, maybe all of us to some degree.
Regarding naivete, I offer a statemment from Gore Vidal, who at least has contributed some important ideas and information to the debate. (In one of his books of essays, I seem to remember, there is a passage that has someone calling his work “cheap patrician rant”. to which he wrote something to the effect that if he’s a patrician then he’s ranting at great cost. Rather interesting, No?).
The statement is I believe from a speech at the National Press Club many years ago. It was given I believe as a reason for having history being the backbone of any education system. It was I believe, something to the effect of trying to adjust to society without knowing what the society is about, in relation to lack of historical knowledge. Even though it might have been said by a patrician, it’s a worthy statement.
I guess it seems less likely people would make mistakes of naivete if they had a good historical education. I’m not against naive prople, as I have been naive myself many times. It’s just that understanding the world to hopefully make it better for yourself and others is made more difficult by being naive. You get taken advantage of too easily.
There are many pathways to trod in life, each with risks and rewards, but having a good understanding of history is in my opinion important and relevant. I hope I never forget that.
Timothy R.Anderson:
It may not last long but it is , for now, happening.
The “bloggers” at Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Of America ” have finally put together the financial section that I recommend. Please visit their website http://www.iava.org and please click on ” Scoring
” in the I.A.V.A. blog section.
My apologies for being off-topic. There is a good
16 May 2006, 3:59 pmreason why I am doing this. Timothy R. Anderson
blubonnet:
I think if our communications are to be exposed to them, they should show EVERY single communication to us.That was Rhandi Rhodes idea (Air America radio)
I think we should be able to watch him on a screen in the Whitehouse and EVERY where they go, just like that movie with Jim Carey where they had a TV show of his life for all to see, but he never knew it.I wish I could remember the title of it.
Those cons are so slinking, sly, and slimy, we should NEVER let them out of our site. (But they are one of the most secret administrations in US history)
They just ought not be there. Period. Legality is a thing of the past. It all started with the 2000 s…election. No legal considerations from there on out. We who are paying the salaries are just fat out of luck. We pay them to destroy the country and it’s laws?
All the talk of polls, I am thinking that the military industrial complex’s vast ownerships of most all of the MSM, forever skewing our perceptions, will just buy up some polling companies and tout them as the best and “most reliable” through their their MSM, and can make it appear a “close race” for the next actual elections. Therefore still able to swindle it again.
I don’t know what we are going to do. We can’t just not vote. A vote for the worst party results by just not voting. Repugnant party wins again. Of course they all suck. You’d think that just getting people to come along and reject the right wing insanity would give us a chance, but then, how do you tell them what those of us that have looked more extensively know, that they are being CONTROLLED by MSM, by the MIC, and that they are more evil than most have the capacity to imagine since the MIC (military industrial complex) and their many paid liars make their way into their livingrooms?
17 May 2006, 2:46 amR.S. Morris:
“I think if our communications are to be exposed to them, they should show EVERY single communication to us.”
Funny that you should mention that: our esteemed Wyoming legislature just passed a bill making all communications between legislators and “others” (read: lobbyists) confidential. Oh yeah, unless the legislator signs a waiver, then it’s ok. The governor vetoed it (an act I appreciated greatly from a normally hardline conservative “Democrat”) but the legislature overrode his veto easily.
“Checks and balances?” Yeah…right.
17 May 2006, 10:33 amStopHayden:
Hi, couldn’t agree more with your comments on Hayden. posted a comment on huffpo about it and it was deleted. wondering why?
You suggested your readers call congress, but if they go to http://www.stophayden.org they can send a one click message to all thier reps.
We’ve got to stop hayden. HuffPo seems to be intent on blocking links to stophayden.org, when it’s clearly something readers want to know about – maybe you can help get the word out about this grassroots campaign?
Thanks!
17 May 2006, 12:56 pmJim Withey:
Regarding the Democrats, we don’t know if they’re headed for the dust bin of history. We just don’t know. Let’s hope not until an alternative is ready. Our compass can’t tell us that.
17 May 2006, 2:24 pmMike D.:
The extent of monitoring wasnt a suprise to me. As an old sci buff and technician it wasnt hard to imagine the
possibilites with the internet and computerized phone switches. The question is what are they really after?
Experts have commented that this is no way to catch terrorists, are they after political intell? commercial?
The idea that they are trying to catch people who talk to reporters is plausible.
I must agree with Stan, the Deomocrats are not going to
20 May 2006, 9:00 pmdo jack. And I agree that they are going to flop in the midyear elections. The question is how do we start a national party that works for us and not the rich corporate interests.
COMtns:
Regarding the Democrats, we can look and see and watch what they do and don’t do. We can see what they are willing to fight for, and for what they are not willing to fight.
Its up to us to create an alternative if we find that lackiing. What we can’t do is sit around and wait for an alternative to magically appear.
2 June 2006, 8:27 pmCOMtns:
Its a mistake to try to compare American fascism with German fascism by arguing specifics. Yes, German fascism was based on the idea of a master race. But that doesn’t mean that American fascism has to be based on the same exact idea. American fascism can take its own course, but still be just as nasty all the same.
What’s to be gained by following the Democrats at this time. They refuse to provide any real alternative or opposition to the Republicans. In fact, they seem to be positioning themselves the same as in 1992. In 1992, the American people had abandoned the idea of continuing to support the Republicans. Bush I was running below 40% in the polls, and it was clear he could not be re-elected. So the Democrats stepped in to continue the Republican platform until such a time that the Republicans had regained credibility and could be returned to office.
Look at the Clinton years … you’ve got foreign wars and bombings. Not on the scale of Bush, but still a lot of people were being killed and tortured by death squads and American bombs. You’ve got Welfare Reform dismantling part of the New Deal. You’ve got the WTO and NAFTA and the beginnings of the out-sourcing of America’s jobs overseas. Basically, you’ve got an agenda that is awfully pro-corporate republican. Its just that the Republicans couldn’t have passed it in the 90′s so the Democrats stepped in and took over the job.
If you listen closely to the Democratic leaders now, they are saying basically the same thing. They are willing to continue the Republican agenda in exchange for changing the signs on their doors from Minority Leader to Majority Leader. But they are really making it clear that part of the deal will be no investigations or charges for the Republicans. And really very little change in Iraq. And they seem to be largely supportive of a war in Iran.
Vote Democrat if you don’t really want change.
2 June 2006, 8:42 pmMark:
I’m sorry Jim but as my grandmother always told me “Hope in one hand, crap in the other, and see which fills up first.” I’m among those trying to build an alternative, but nothing new is going to have the space necessary to really grow until the Democrats are torn down. The illusory opposition needs to end so some real opposition can take over. That of course means a period of very real struggle and hardship; not a popular message, but one people need to hear.
3 June 2006, 3:03 pm