what exactly is right about 'Rights'?
Having been out of the limelight for a few years, Newt Gingrich is back, (probably figuring that his sh*t doesn't stink anymore than any other Republican), and he is taking an up-front position on freedom of speech. Read about it here and here.
My first impression on reading this rather sporadic report is that we are talking not just about speech, but also due process, and other rights that we consider to be fundamental. I even wondered if Mr. Gingrich was aware of what he was proposing. A great deal of what he had to say involved the issue of surveillance, a privacy issue, (we know how much the party values that), and the rules of evidence and self-incrimination. He may have used the term "free speech" just to cover most of the basics. In the same speech, he also assailled the separation of church and state, as impediments to free speech. I guess he doesn't want any competition in the business of enslaving the proletariat.
I think that Mr. Gingrich is still nursing a hangover from his days inside the Washington elite. I believe that he is sincere in these thoughts, but it occurs to me that he is approaching this from one of two perspectives. The first is that of a professional politician who lives in a world insulated from the same realities that his constituents live in. These are people more accustomed to making rules than living with them. The other perspective, one that I have often pushed off as slightly paranoid, is the perspective of a despot, (or despot wannabe).
This is a man who is considering a run for the White House in 2008. I hope that he does run, it will make things a lot clearer for the rest of us.
Shut up and take a walk Newt.
My first impression on reading this rather sporadic report is that we are talking not just about speech, but also due process, and other rights that we consider to be fundamental. I even wondered if Mr. Gingrich was aware of what he was proposing. A great deal of what he had to say involved the issue of surveillance, a privacy issue, (we know how much the party values that), and the rules of evidence and self-incrimination. He may have used the term "free speech" just to cover most of the basics. In the same speech, he also assailled the separation of church and state, as impediments to free speech. I guess he doesn't want any competition in the business of enslaving the proletariat.
I think that Mr. Gingrich is still nursing a hangover from his days inside the Washington elite. I believe that he is sincere in these thoughts, but it occurs to me that he is approaching this from one of two perspectives. The first is that of a professional politician who lives in a world insulated from the same realities that his constituents live in. These are people more accustomed to making rules than living with them. The other perspective, one that I have often pushed off as slightly paranoid, is the perspective of a despot, (or despot wannabe).
This is a man who is considering a run for the White House in 2008. I hope that he does run, it will make things a lot clearer for the rest of us.
Shut up and take a walk Newt.
posted by eccentric recluse at 10:55 AM
9 Comments:
In the same speech, he also assailled the separation of church and state, as impediments to free speech.
Jesu Cristo Santa Maria Mio Dio.
Or something like that.
Isn't that just like an American politician. He enters stage right - again - as soon as he thinks he isn't as bad as the previous act. "Hell, I'm not as much of a schmuck as a pedophile..."
The corrupt, political body has gotten so good at pre-scanning candidates; for such a long time; that a truly good (any part of the right/left spectrum)politician doesn't exist, as that would expose the golden goose's neck for chopping. One term in congress nets a pension health/care package to be envied by someone who spent 40 years running a company, creating wealth/jobs for hundreds. It's a racket and the people who actually make things and provide services are footing the bill. Congress members spend little, if any time, NOT trying to get re-elected. Sure.. they DO plenty of party-line work that may appear to have good intentions. But seriously.. who really believes Pelosi, Kenendy and Kerry are truly liberal ? They're super-rich elitists, no better than a two-faced boardroom member..and about as likely to allow their fortunes to be subject to redistribution as the Bush clan and all their oil buddies.
Anyway.. I'm no fan of Newt's, but I do believe, by political/congressional standards, he's a decent man; certainly no more contemptible than 95% of that crew in DC.
I used to ask people what they thought of Newt (years ago) and after the scowl left their face uttering, "He's terrible".. I'd ask why they thought so and never got an answer referencing anything other than something along the lines of the "wither on the vine", mis-quote. Nobody could ever challenge one of his political stances outright, without regurgitating media-propoganda.
Don't get me wrong.. like I said, I'm no fan of his or the right-wing policy (any extreme policy).. But I do believe he's one of the more honest and intelligent politicians.
bc~:
he might be, but in this particular instance, he has had trouble making a coherent argument for anything. of course there are limits on many things, but he has not proposed one, not one measure to combat terrorism, only the notion that we should accept and get used to our fundamental rights being curtailed. I want specifics here.
as a point of history, the government has sometimes pushed the line, in some circumstances and even gotten away with it, (I point to the intelligence effort in WW2), with little or no public outcry, because it was widely seen as warranted and justifiable, as well as isolated in terms of how and when it occurred. After the war, some, notably J. Edgar Hoover, continued the employment of illegal surveillance and abuses of individual rights, practices that contributed to the atmosphere of the McCarthy era, destroying the lives and careers of more than a few in many fields on the strength of innuendo and who they knew.
Newt has merely opened the door to the possibility that we should roll over and take it. If he has any serious, specific proposals, I am listening. Otherwise, I really have enough partisan crap to wade through already.
Therein lies a problem. He won't be give the proper forum and exposure to fully elaborate. Remember, Repubs don't like him either. There's a reason he was left to the partisan, media slaughter and the congressional right let it happen. With him (or someone like him) as Speaker.. people like the Bush mob wouldn't be able to have lobbyists not only running a legislative agenda... they're actuall WRITING legislation.
Like him or not.. both sets of career politicains are terrified of him..
Now, the overstepping by government is something I probably fear more than you (I'm a closet anarchist), but you gotta look at the big picture. There really have to be "no limits" when you're fighting a war. Tempered warfare is a bad thing. Collateral damage is unavoidable, cold war or otherwise. I'd imagine that the old IRS ruined as many lives as McCarthy-ism. Until a few, short years ago, the population at large considered that bound over-stepping, government entitity as a necessary evil. We can't have the purest of all freedoms, all the time, especially in time of war. If ends ever do justify means, it would be post-war victory.
You don't have to worry about Newt, for two reasons. One, he's no threat to the freedom (who's foundation is security) he cherishes as much as anyone. Two, both parties, and both media sects, will see to it that he's good and demonized.. again.
Demonized..again BH? Well after that little preformance I'd say he should be!
In New Hampshire (Live free or die ring a bell?) at a dinner in support of the first amendment. Good Lord the man should be demonized but probably won't be.
You mark my words. These ideologes won't stand by the words they spout now if and when someone of the other party is elected president in 08.
JB
Newt wouldn't win even if he ran.
He probably would live, just have no chance of being elected. I don't know, but Newt may be in the same boat as Hillary Clinton--(and I might be wrong here)--supported by the outer reaches of the party, somewhat overlooked by the centrists, running to establish influence in both the party and the Congress. That is a commodity not dependent on the electorate, not as subject to scrutiny by the media. ted kennedy has it, and he is not really liked by either party, but he is respected for what he can do, and keep from being done.
sorry, that should have been Ted Kennedy, although there is a certain justice to the non-capitalization...
شركة كشف تسربات بسيهات
شركة كشف تسربات بالظهران
شركة كشف تسربات بجدة
شركة كشف تسربات بالجبيل
شركة كشف تسربات بالاحساء
Post a Comment
<< Home