The State of the Union: Less Safe, Less Free
There is a reason why Democrats were unwilling to applaud the Patriot Act. It is because there is something fundamentally unpatriotic about it. It sacrifices a certain amount of individual liberty in return for a vanishingly small increase in personal safety. Who was it who said that the man who is willing to sacrifice his liberty for his safety, deserves neither? It wasn't President George W. Bush, who has authorized warrantless and unwarranted wiretaps under the theory that that is a military action he has the right to do in the "war" on terror. Mark that well: Not simply for the duration of the war in Iraq, but as long as there is terror. In other words, he thinks he has the right to "disappear" a part of the Bill of Rights...the protection against illegal searches and seizures...and the only reason to stop will be once there is no one in the world who advocates terrorism. Given there have steadily been advocates of terrorism for roughly the last thousand years, this is not a temporary sacrifice of liberty that the President took away from us, secretly, without any color of law. It is permanent.
The President's recent argument that the FISA court can be ignored was because the FISA courts were created in 1978, and as such are hopelessly dated. That was the whole argument: How can you take seriously a law that's almost thirty years old? Imagine, then, how much less respect the President must have for the Bill of Rights, or for Social Security. We know his prescription drug "benefit" is no such thing, but rather a benefit for insurers and drug companies; of the few who signed up immediately, nearly as many are paying more than before, as are paying less. Here in Minnesota, a retired doctor studied each of the over 50 private plans offered under the rubric of the alleged drug benefit (something he had both the time and the medical qualifications to do, unlike most seniors). He discovered it is much cheaper for him to order his drugs from Canada than to subscribe to any of those programs.
There were a couple positive signs in the President's speech, however.
I wholeheartedly agree we should end earmarks in legislation, which the President could make happen overnight: He need only say he would veto all legislation until a bill reached his desk which put an end to earmarks, which is the most corrupt and corrupting part of the legislative process. It would take that level of commitment by the President to end earmarks, pork barrel money which is favored by nearly every legislator as bribes to try to secure the votes of their constituents. If he is unwilling to make that level of commitment, he was either lying or utterly unserious when he advocated reform of earmarks.
I also favor the United States seeking independence from foreign oil. I await with interest the President making a serious effort toward that goal. ANWR is irrelevant to the effort; there is simply too little oil there to make any difference. Most of our oil consumption is for vehicles; the conversion of our cars so they do not run on oil is a necessary first step towards independence. That's a major step for the President to make, but if he isn't willing to make it, he is actually opposed to oil independence; which would come as no surprise, given the root of the President's personal fortune came from a bail-out of a failed business venture by oil interests.
There were just two signs of hope that the President might do things of material benefit to all Americans, to make this country less corrupt by ending earmarks; and more safe, by increasing our economic independence. Unfortunately, the President was probably just kidding.
7:09:33 AM 
|
|
