>
(This is the first post in a series that will deal with the writings and general thoughts George Will is un-smart enough to make public.)
Re: Newsweek's "Last Word," December 1, 2008 edition:
Will states that "the doctrine of 'nondelegation'"... is "a necessary concomitant of the Constitution's separation of powers, [and] usually concerns improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch."
Yet Will did not, and does not, believe nondelegation to be important concerning the "improper delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch." He has never had a problem with what has come to be called W.'s Imperial Presidency.
Will only is concerned with the unconstitutionality of the recent bailouts, and supports his view with an idea he lauds in this instance, and shuns in most others.
Onward: TARP "has made Treasury Department bureaucrats into legislators; or perhaps it has made Secretary Hank Paulson the fourth branch of government."
No. Congress still is the only branch of government that can create and pass legislation, even if it is the kind of legislation Paulson and the Treasury explicitly desired.
And the bailout measure was full of enticements that bought representatives' pro-votes.
These weren't in Paulson's plan. They got there because the bailout had to go through Congress' colon.
So I'm still only counting three branches of government.
Will spouts nonsense for a bit, then this: "Socialism is not merely susceptible to corruption; it is corruption—the allocation of wealth and opportunity by political favoritism. Under democratic socialism, such favoritism is then rewarded by financial support, by those favored, of the dispensers of favors."
Will's point must be that W. ran a socialist regime. W. made his friends and supporters rich and filled his government with them, from Heckuva Job Brownie to Halliburton to giving any and every government job to Republicans (being a Repub. was a prerequisite for service, with Dems being weeded out by design in application processes).
The column's second-to-last paragraph is this:
"It serves the left's agenda of expanding the scope of politics by multiplying the forms of dependency on government. Hence liberalism's enthusiasm for enriching the menu of entitlements; hence liberalism's promotion of equality by making more groups and entities equally dependent on government."
All of this is opinion (fine in an opinion piece) unsubstantiated by any facts. It's simply the warped way Will views "liberalism."
Liberalism is (m-w.com):
1: the quality or state of being liberal2 aoften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d: capitalized: the principles and policies of a Liberal party.
And Will believes liberalism to be self-evidently evil.
Which allows one to argue rather easily that Will, rather, is evil. And also shows that he doesn't have a proper conception of what he writes about (since he believes the US is a Christian nation and loves nothing more than to profess his adoration for individual freedom, free competition, and especially the self-regulating market).
>
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Conservative/Republican pundits will say:
>
Certainly it can't be denied that the W. Administration's current handling of the Existential* War On Terror made it easier for Obama to win because, had there been a terrorist attack -- especially in the US -- voters would have been more inclined to vote for McCain. That there wasn't is a credit to the current president, who we haven't talked about for months and has done a lot of important things for the country when we weren't paying attention.
(Person making comment, and likely the host or anchor of whatever show this is said on, takes it as no-need-to-even-speak-about-it-obvious that United States-ians vote for Republicans when they're scared.)
*Existential: (1) Of, relating to, or affirming existence. (2) a: Grounded in existence or the experience of existence: empirical. b: Having being in time and space. (3) [translation of Danish eksistentiel & German existential] : existentialist.
Existentialism: A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.
Calling the War On Terror "Existential": "Existential" is a hard word to understand, and does OK in the speeches it is made to be part of. And calling terrorism an existential threat, strictly, is true: Terrorism exists and it is a threat.
But I don't think Republicans in DC and governors' mansions go in for the "analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad."
Existentialism recognizes moral relativism, and the GOP mocks moral relativism.
All of which makes everything perfect: The Bush Administration's Existential War On Terror is entirely contradictory.
Which is icing when your war is against terror: a state of intense fear. An idea! A feeling! A state of mind!
--Back on track (well, back to the one I switched to after the first paragraph): No matter what we call whatever conflict we're in, if we are, it must be won.
How?
Since universal health care was an idea cooked up by socialists and would help all US citizens and not only corporations (though it would help them immensely) or people who have so much money that they hire other people to tell them how to spend it, I will not ask for universal health care. Instead, I would like the government to know that my state of terror -- intense fear -- would almost entirely be eradicated if I was bought a new MacBook.
This war is about winning hearts and minds. The above is how to write me off as a big Mission Accomplished.
Well... Since the US is spending $5,000 per second waging its Existential War On Terror for Hearts and Minds, I'm going to get greedy and ask for a completely geeked-out MacBook Pro. Still cheaper than a second in Iraq.
...But shit. I'm already on our side. No heart or mind to win.
(In retrospect, it's nice to have written the above -- and for it to be the truth -- since the PATRIOT Act -- which was made law for the purpose of Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- has taken away at least one of my liberties: the freedom to know what freedoms have been taken away by acts of Congress and the White House.)
So, then, here's how to win our existential war existentially: Let's get our soldiers out of Iraq, where it is very easy for them to get very hurt and/or very dead, let Iraq take care of its own shit with, in part, its budget surplus--
Aside: How many times does Iraq's government have to implore us to remove our soldiers, and how many times do we have to steadfastly, resolutely, rebuke them? We have an easy out we refuse to take because, in part, idiocy has become a virtue and the White House sets the standard. And damned high.
--and give the soldiers kick-ass MacBooks?
Throw in new iPhones too.
Which would be cool but, of course, still too little. But at minimum (which it would be close to) it would be a nice addition to what our returned soldiers have received since 2002: the denial of proper health care, horrible pay, horrible name it.
Christ. Let's teach the world to sing al-fucking-ready.
(This post: with thanks to m-w.com.)
>
Certainly it can't be denied that the W. Administration's current handling of the Existential* War On Terror made it easier for Obama to win because, had there been a terrorist attack -- especially in the US -- voters would have been more inclined to vote for McCain. That there wasn't is a credit to the current president, who we haven't talked about for months and has done a lot of important things for the country when we weren't paying attention.
(Person making comment, and likely the host or anchor of whatever show this is said on, takes it as no-need-to-even-speak-about-it-obvious that United States-ians vote for Republicans when they're scared.)
*Existential: (1) Of, relating to, or affirming existence. (2) a: Grounded in existence or the experience of existence: empirical. b: Having being in time and space. (3) [translation of Danish eksistentiel & German existential] : existentialist.
Existentialism: A chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad.
Calling the War On Terror "Existential": "Existential" is a hard word to understand, and does OK in the speeches it is made to be part of. And calling terrorism an existential threat, strictly, is true: Terrorism exists and it is a threat.
But I don't think Republicans in DC and governors' mansions go in for the "analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad."
Existentialism recognizes moral relativism, and the GOP mocks moral relativism.
All of which makes everything perfect: The Bush Administration's Existential War On Terror is entirely contradictory.
Which is icing when your war is against terror: a state of intense fear. An idea! A feeling! A state of mind!
--Back on track (well, back to the one I switched to after the first paragraph): No matter what we call whatever conflict we're in, if we are, it must be won.
How?
Since universal health care was an idea cooked up by socialists and would help all US citizens and not only corporations (though it would help them immensely) or people who have so much money that they hire other people to tell them how to spend it, I will not ask for universal health care. Instead, I would like the government to know that my state of terror -- intense fear -- would almost entirely be eradicated if I was bought a new MacBook.
This war is about winning hearts and minds. The above is how to write me off as a big Mission Accomplished.
Well... Since the US is spending $5,000 per second waging its Existential War On Terror for Hearts and Minds, I'm going to get greedy and ask for a completely geeked-out MacBook Pro. Still cheaper than a second in Iraq.
...But shit. I'm already on our side. No heart or mind to win.
(In retrospect, it's nice to have written the above -- and for it to be the truth -- since the PATRIOT Act -- which was made law for the purpose of Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism -- has taken away at least one of my liberties: the freedom to know what freedoms have been taken away by acts of Congress and the White House.)
So, then, here's how to win our existential war existentially: Let's get our soldiers out of Iraq, where it is very easy for them to get very hurt and/or very dead, let Iraq take care of its own shit with, in part, its budget surplus--
Aside: How many times does Iraq's government have to implore us to remove our soldiers, and how many times do we have to steadfastly, resolutely, rebuke them? We have an easy out we refuse to take because, in part, idiocy has become a virtue and the White House sets the standard. And damned high.
--and give the soldiers kick-ass MacBooks?
Throw in new iPhones too.
Which would be cool but, of course, still too little. But at minimum (which it would be close to) it would be a nice addition to what our returned soldiers have received since 2002: the denial of proper health care, horrible pay, horrible name it.
Christ. Let's teach the world to sing al-fucking-ready.
(This post: with thanks to m-w.com.)
>
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)