Post 1 of 2 for the afternoon
My old buddy Clay has started blogging a little bit again.
Actually, he’s blogged several times over the past couple months, but his posts are usually sports or education related. I’m not qualified to speak to either of those subjects.. Politics, though, I can handle.
As is typical, our opinions tend to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, although there is some common ground there, I think. I’m linking to two of his posts today and am providing my dissents and affirmations of his positions below:
A picture is worth 1000 words
(includes a comic in which civil liberties literally takes a backseat to Bush and NSA “until we catch all the terrorists”)
Clay: “I am waiting for the right to begin screaming big over intrusive government. And don't say its ok because its a war on terror or my response is "slippery slope." Its the ludicrous side of the rights arguement. No government intrusion except on moral issues of our sides choosing - woman's choice, gay marriage but not guns...”
Me: Funny, I was waiting for the left to start calling for investigations over who leaked secret info which could jeopardize national security and intelligence efforts. As far as potential for damage goes, the Valerie Plame thing pales in comparison. I have a feeling we’ll both be waiting a LONG time.
But, being a member of the vast right-wing conspirators (albeit with some caveats), I’ll pitch in my two cents:
I’ve not posted about this situation up to this point because, to be honest, I’m just not that upset by it.
1. The laws being thrown out to support each side of the argument are both ambiguous and antiquated so I don’t believe this is a blatantly criminal act as the left contends.
2. The scope of this “spying”, from what I’ve read, was essentially limited to American citizens whose contact information had been found in the course of other counter-terrorism investigations. I’m sorry, but if you’ve been chatting it up with a member of al Queda, or some other terrorist group, I’m not going to shed many tears over your “civil rights” being violated.
3. Even the Democrats are admitting that, because of a tremendous amount of latitude given the chief executive by FISA, obtaining the warrants was procedural only. In fact, W. could have gone back to get the warrants days after the fact and been in compliance with FISA. Also notable is the fact that a handful of Democrats, by virtue of being members of the House Intelligence Committee, knew about this all along. If this was a nail in the coffin of our American Way of Life, why did they remain silent for several years until the New York Times broke the story?
I think that the position that this erodes the civil liberties of all Americans and opens the door for a police state is a far more slippery slope, in my humble opinion.
That said, “THE GOVERNMENT IS INTRUSIVE!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS INTRUSIVE”.
I would be more appropriately classified, politically, as a right leaning Federalist. By definition, I believe that the Federal Government is way more intrusive than they should be and think that you would need the tachometer from a Ferrari to accurately gauge the frequency in which our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Since the ratification of the Constitution, the Federal Government has managed to expand its role in ways I don’t believe our founders ever intended and has stomped all over state’s sovereignty.
This is why I (and many other true conservatives) believe that Roe was a bad decision and sincerely hope that there’s never a federal law passed (or, god forbid, a Constitutional Amendment) which allows or prohibits gay marriage. Morality, at least in the opinion of us right leaning, non-evangelicals, doesn’t enter into it.
Actually, he’s blogged several times over the past couple months, but his posts are usually sports or education related. I’m not qualified to speak to either of those subjects.. Politics, though, I can handle.
As is typical, our opinions tend to be on opposite sides of the political spectrum, although there is some common ground there, I think. I’m linking to two of his posts today and am providing my dissents and affirmations of his positions below:
A picture is worth 1000 words
(includes a comic in which civil liberties literally takes a backseat to Bush and NSA “until we catch all the terrorists”)
Clay: “I am waiting for the right to begin screaming big over intrusive government. And don't say its ok because its a war on terror or my response is "slippery slope." Its the ludicrous side of the rights arguement. No government intrusion except on moral issues of our sides choosing - woman's choice, gay marriage but not guns...”
Me: Funny, I was waiting for the left to start calling for investigations over who leaked secret info which could jeopardize national security and intelligence efforts. As far as potential for damage goes, the Valerie Plame thing pales in comparison. I have a feeling we’ll both be waiting a LONG time.
But, being a member of the vast right-wing conspirators (albeit with some caveats), I’ll pitch in my two cents:
I’ve not posted about this situation up to this point because, to be honest, I’m just not that upset by it.
1. The laws being thrown out to support each side of the argument are both ambiguous and antiquated so I don’t believe this is a blatantly criminal act as the left contends.
2. The scope of this “spying”, from what I’ve read, was essentially limited to American citizens whose contact information had been found in the course of other counter-terrorism investigations. I’m sorry, but if you’ve been chatting it up with a member of al Queda, or some other terrorist group, I’m not going to shed many tears over your “civil rights” being violated.
3. Even the Democrats are admitting that, because of a tremendous amount of latitude given the chief executive by FISA, obtaining the warrants was procedural only. In fact, W. could have gone back to get the warrants days after the fact and been in compliance with FISA. Also notable is the fact that a handful of Democrats, by virtue of being members of the House Intelligence Committee, knew about this all along. If this was a nail in the coffin of our American Way of Life, why did they remain silent for several years until the New York Times broke the story?
I think that the position that this erodes the civil liberties of all Americans and opens the door for a police state is a far more slippery slope, in my humble opinion.
That said, “THE GOVERNMENT IS INTRUSIVE!!! THE GOVERNMENT IS INTRUSIVE”.
I would be more appropriately classified, politically, as a right leaning Federalist. By definition, I believe that the Federal Government is way more intrusive than they should be and think that you would need the tachometer from a Ferrari to accurately gauge the frequency in which our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Since the ratification of the Constitution, the Federal Government has managed to expand its role in ways I don’t believe our founders ever intended and has stomped all over state’s sovereignty.
This is why I (and many other true conservatives) believe that Roe was a bad decision and sincerely hope that there’s never a federal law passed (or, god forbid, a Constitutional Amendment) which allows or prohibits gay marriage. Morality, at least in the opinion of us right leaning, non-evangelicals, doesn’t enter into it.
posted by Big Bad Dad at 3:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home