Distinguishing Dark Places from Sweet Spots
I eventually came around to the words to "Dark as a Dungeon" today, finally displacing the loathsome image of Matt Lauer playing trauma-queen for 20 minutes over the W. Virginia coal mine tragedy this morn. That is a terrible story, but like so many others in the past decade or so, not the sort of thing that IMO should be the prime or almost sole focus of anyone pretending to be attending to or in Lauer's case being paid to supposedly inform us about critical world events. Lost children, inoperative unsaveable comas, anything connected with the folks unPeople magazine thrives on; there's no justification for this stuff elbowing aside true mainstream issues, nor should we tolerate media who foster the absurd upstaging.
That said, I guess I might be criticized for somewhat the same offense, please bear with me as I give the Man in Black some room:
Dark as a Dungeon
J. Cash
Come all you young fellers
So brave and so fine
And seek not your fortune
Way down in the mine
It'll start as a habit
And seep in your soul
Til the streams of your blood
Run as black as the coal
Well it's dark as a dungeon
And damp as the dew
Where the troubles are many
And the pleasures are few
Where the rain never falls
And the sun never shines
It's dark as a dungeon
Way down in the mine.
There's many a man
I have seen in my day
Who lives just to labor
His whole life away
Like a fiend for his dope
Or a drunkard his wine
A man will have lust
For the lure of the mine.
[chorus]
That was a horrific mining accident, made so much worse for the families involved by the inept handling of limited, uncertain intelligence available deep underground. It is a reminder why it is routinely tough to get quick answers at accident scenes. Our hearts go out to those who lost family members in this tragedy.
But getting back to my original point, there is no excuse for spotlighting this personal tragedy into an event that blots out matters of far more wide-ranging future consequence. How many folks spent the day dwelling on mines to the exclusion of the Bush war of occupation and all the pointless associated deaths? How about the lawbreaking acts of lobbyists and presidents? I'm going to skip the K-street felons for now (that includes you, jackalope!) and focus here on the latter (while I may still have your attention).
I'm posting below what seems to me some great analysis of the NSA warrentless eavesdropping, making it ever more clear just how indefensibly illegal this was. Old Clueless basically confessed front and center. Now the question is, how do we deal with criminals in this country? Obviously under some circumstances we simply execute them regardless of signs of rehabilitation (that would be Arnold) or first mock and then execute (George).
But I think a strong argument could be made that we are at a bit of a balance point here between a republic ruled by law and a fiefdom - or worse. I'm not the flag-burning tax-defying type myself (some might say more the periodic babbling-blogger sort). But I think it is beholden on all of us to consider that this may be a rare time when little pushes and even faltering first-time participation in what's left of the process of democracy in this country may count for a lot. Speaking out, writing letters to the editor, and refusing to be distracted by the latest racy scandal, tragedy, or other mainstream media event could actually contribute to change things for the better.
Maybe you will find inspiration in this great stuff, which catches our little chickenhawk, AWOL, unelected egomaniacal psycopath out there in his best Lord of the Flies, "I AM THE PRESIDENT," law-be-damned behavior:
Listening to the Bush Administration and its defenders try to justify George Bush’s deliberate and ongoing violations of the law, one can’t help but notice that the Constitution and Congressional statutes sure do seem quite "flexible" in the hands of those seeking to defend him -- a particular irony given how stridently Bush followers rail against such legal theories in other contexts. The defenses being dredged up to justify Bush’s law-breaking certainly are notable for the liberties they take with "conservative" principles of legal argument, as well as with how sharply they contradict the legal views which the Administration itself previously claimed it believed in.
The central problem for the Administration is that George Bush deliberately engaged in conduct which FISA clearly and expressly makes it a crime to engage in. All of the legalistic smoke screens aside, the issue really is that clear. That’s because the Administration cannot escape the plain and easy-to-understand language of Section 1809 of FISA:
"A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."
The Administration itself admits, as it must, that it engaged in electronic surveillance in a way that FISA expressly prohibits (by doing so secretly and without judicial approval). Section 1809 says that anyone who does that is guilty of a criminal offense. The law here is clear, and Bush’s violations of the law are equally clear. That presents the Administration with obvious difficulties in defending George Bush.
[snip]
What we really have from these paragons of Judicial Restraint trying to defend George Bush is everything except plain language and original intent – the very tools of construction which these "conservatives," when not concocting legal defenses for the President, claim that they believe in. That’s because the plain language of the law is crystal clear ("A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute") and leaves no doubt that George Bush broke it.
The clarity of this law is why the Administration is reduced to peddling legal theories which, no matter how they are sliced, amount to a claim that George Bush has the right to break the law. And to argue that he has that right, they are employing on George Bush's behalf the very legal theories which advocates of "judicial restraint" have spent the last two decades ridiculing and attacking.
That said, I guess I might be criticized for somewhat the same offense, please bear with me as I give the Man in Black some room:
Dark as a Dungeon
J. Cash
Come all you young fellers
So brave and so fine
And seek not your fortune
Way down in the mine
It'll start as a habit
And seep in your soul
Til the streams of your blood
Run as black as the coal
Well it's dark as a dungeon
And damp as the dew
Where the troubles are many
And the pleasures are few
Where the rain never falls
And the sun never shines
It's dark as a dungeon
Way down in the mine.
There's many a man
I have seen in my day
Who lives just to labor
His whole life away
Like a fiend for his dope
Or a drunkard his wine
A man will have lust
For the lure of the mine.
[chorus]
That was a horrific mining accident, made so much worse for the families involved by the inept handling of limited, uncertain intelligence available deep underground. It is a reminder why it is routinely tough to get quick answers at accident scenes. Our hearts go out to those who lost family members in this tragedy.
But getting back to my original point, there is no excuse for spotlighting this personal tragedy into an event that blots out matters of far more wide-ranging future consequence. How many folks spent the day dwelling on mines to the exclusion of the Bush war of occupation and all the pointless associated deaths? How about the lawbreaking acts of lobbyists and presidents? I'm going to skip the K-street felons for now (that includes you, jackalope!) and focus here on the latter (while I may still have your attention).
I'm posting below what seems to me some great analysis of the NSA warrentless eavesdropping, making it ever more clear just how indefensibly illegal this was. Old Clueless basically confessed front and center. Now the question is, how do we deal with criminals in this country? Obviously under some circumstances we simply execute them regardless of signs of rehabilitation (that would be Arnold) or first mock and then execute (George).
But I think a strong argument could be made that we are at a bit of a balance point here between a republic ruled by law and a fiefdom - or worse. I'm not the flag-burning tax-defying type myself (some might say more the periodic babbling-blogger sort). But I think it is beholden on all of us to consider that this may be a rare time when little pushes and even faltering first-time participation in what's left of the process of democracy in this country may count for a lot. Speaking out, writing letters to the editor, and refusing to be distracted by the latest racy scandal, tragedy, or other mainstream media event could actually contribute to change things for the better.
Maybe you will find inspiration in this great stuff, which catches our little chickenhawk, AWOL, unelected egomaniacal psycopath out there in his best Lord of the Flies, "I AM THE PRESIDENT," law-be-damned behavior:
Listening to the Bush Administration and its defenders try to justify George Bush’s deliberate and ongoing violations of the law, one can’t help but notice that the Constitution and Congressional statutes sure do seem quite "flexible" in the hands of those seeking to defend him -- a particular irony given how stridently Bush followers rail against such legal theories in other contexts. The defenses being dredged up to justify Bush’s law-breaking certainly are notable for the liberties they take with "conservative" principles of legal argument, as well as with how sharply they contradict the legal views which the Administration itself previously claimed it believed in.
The central problem for the Administration is that George Bush deliberately engaged in conduct which FISA clearly and expressly makes it a crime to engage in. All of the legalistic smoke screens aside, the issue really is that clear. That’s because the Administration cannot escape the plain and easy-to-understand language of Section 1809 of FISA:
"A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute."
The Administration itself admits, as it must, that it engaged in electronic surveillance in a way that FISA expressly prohibits (by doing so secretly and without judicial approval). Section 1809 says that anyone who does that is guilty of a criminal offense. The law here is clear, and Bush’s violations of the law are equally clear. That presents the Administration with obvious difficulties in defending George Bush.
[snip]
What we really have from these paragons of Judicial Restraint trying to defend George Bush is everything except plain language and original intent – the very tools of construction which these "conservatives," when not concocting legal defenses for the President, claim that they believe in. That’s because the plain language of the law is crystal clear ("A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally— (1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute") and leaves no doubt that George Bush broke it.
The clarity of this law is why the Administration is reduced to peddling legal theories which, no matter how they are sliced, amount to a claim that George Bush has the right to break the law. And to argue that he has that right, they are employing on George Bush's behalf the very legal theories which advocates of "judicial restraint" have spent the last two decades ridiculing and attacking.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:05 PM
0 comments
