HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

So much to read, so little time... Here's a small sampling in no particular order of the facts and rumors of facts I found on the Internets this weekend:

Let's start with a fun one. The multi-threaded and rapidly mushrooming corruption scandals have so badly knocked Republicans off their game that they're now arguing that holding them accountable for crimes they've pled guilty to in court is... wait for it.. an attempt to interfere with their constitutional rights! Talk about a pathetic talking point! Josh Marshall has the details on a scandal most of you have probably long since forgotten - the Republican party sanctioned and led criminal conspiracy to disrupt Democratic party get out the vote activities on election day in New Hampshire.

Bin Forgotten? Hardly. Vanity Fair has an amazing portrait of bin Laden that I've only just now found the time to read. Its an oral history culled from conversations with family, friends, and even a few co-conspirators. It leaves many more questions than answers, but sometimes knowing what you don't know is more important than knowing what you do. You know?

While I'm pointing you towards Vanity Fair, might as well also highlight their take down of the NY Times. If you're sick hearing about the grey lady's problems you might want to skip this. But if you're curious about the future of journalism in the United States, take time to take this in.

That's not to suggest, however, that the NYT is all bad. Here's an interesting piece from this weekend's Magazine about the case of bin Laden's driver and what it means for our fearless leader's endless war on terror.

Speaking of which, here is yet another "I simply cannot believe they are that brazen" moment from the current occupiers of our White House. Apparently the President has routinely been adding "signing statements" to legislation indicating that if and when he doesn't agree with the law he will choose to ignore it. And no, I'm not exaggerating. The good lord knows I wish that I was, but I'm not. Even worse, this story is older than it seems. Congress has known about this since 2003, even once attempting to do something about it. The result? Bush added a "signing statement" that said he'd ignore their attempt.

You know, I've always wondered what a constitutional crisis would look like. Now I know. What's baffling is that no one seems to care. A comforting thought? What if Bush successfully strengthened the executive just prior to a massive realignment showed the Republican Party the door.

Because yes, I'm going to make the claim once again. This is yet another sign that a realignment is coming. If conservatism once stood for anything it was small government and restrained authority. That a conservative Republican president, along with his most influential supporters, is now arguing that the president should have unrestrained authority for the full duration of a decades long undeclared and unending war, you know the train has come fully of the tracks. By way of example, this excerpt from a recent article in the most important conservative magazine in the nation, The Weekly Standard:

Thus it is wrong to accuse President Bush of acting illegally in the surveillance of possible enemies, as if that were a crime and legality is all that matters. This is simplistic, small-r republican thinking of the kind that our Constitution surpassed when it constructed a strong executive. The Constitution took seriously a difficulty in the rule of law that the republican tradition before 1787 had slighted. The difficulty is obvious enough, but republicans tend to overlook it or minimize it because they believe, as republicans, that power is safer in the hands of many than in those of one or a few. Power is more surely in the hands of many when exercised in the form of law--"standing rules," as opposed to arbitrary decree. Republics tend to believe in the rule of law and hence to favor legislative power over executive. Yet the rule of law is not enough to run a government. Any set of standing rules is liable to encounter an emergency requiring an exception from the rule or an improvised response when no rule exists. In Machiavelli's terms, ordinary power needs to be supplemented or corrected by the extraordinary power of a prince, using wise discretion. "Necessity knows no law" is a maxim everyone admits, and takes advantage of, when in need. Small-r republicans especially are reluctant to accept it because they see that wise discretion opens the door to unwise discretion. But there is no way to draw a line between the wise and the unwise without making a law (or something like it) and thus returning to the inflexibility of the rule of law. We need both the rule of law and the power to escape it--and that twofold need is just what the Constitution provides for.

The entire thing reads like that. Yes, thats right. A conservative is arguing "forget the plain language of the laws," we're at war, and that means anything goes. This article really deserves a full and detailed take-down, but in its absence, one quote and response:

Separation of powers was a republican invention of the 17th century, but the Framers improved it when they strengthened the executive. They enabled the executive to act independently of the legislature and not merely serve as its agent in executing the laws. In the current dispute over executive surveillance of possible terrorists, those arguing that the executive should be subject to checks and balances are wrong to say or imply that the president may be checked in the sense of stopped. The president can be held accountable and made responsible, but if he could be stopped, the Constitution would lack any sure means of emergency action. Emergency action of this kind may be illegal but it is not unconstitutional; or, since the Constitution is a law, it is not illegal under the Constitution.

Never mind that the constitution explicitly states that the president "executes" the laws and that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." No, no. What the Framers REALLY meant was that the President could make up laws during times of emergency as he sees fit. Even though they never once said that, not even in the sections of the Federalist Papers he so selectively misquotes.

But no. No detailed takedown. Because the sight of a conservative arguing that we need to read between the lines of the Founders words to allow unrestrained executive power in times of unending emergency is enough of a takedown in and of itself. Mother Jones is right: Bush really is trying to repeal the Magna Carta.

But let me step back for a moment on this one. It's modern-day conservatism that gave us Abramoff and DeLayism after all, so why on earth should I be surprised about any of this? This isn't power for principle's sake. It's power for the sake of power and nothing more. What's so odd to me is that principled conservatives never saw it coming. You create a philosophy built around contempt for government but then seek power anyhow. Isn't it obvious how easy it would be for those withoutt principles to use your message for their own personal profit. Because that is, after all, precisely what they have done.

Yes, DeLay did announce he wouldn't seek a new term as majority leader, but he's not stepping down from Congress, and the Ambramoff scandal is continuing to unfold. At first glance it seemed that The NYT had a good summary of the latest news, but after reading this takedown of that piece, never mind. Instead check out this this from the NY Times and this from the LA Times on yet another brewing scandal linked to both Abramoff and DeLay. Looking for more? Head over to Firedoglake for what promises to be the very latest.

Or not. With the Alito hearings getting underway today they're likely to be all Sam all the time. But for those of you who don't have time to watch the hearings yourself this should be your go to site for ongoing analysis. Who says new blogs can't break big anymore?

But back to the corruption thing for a moment. Man, I really wish that Josh would hurry up and launch his muckraking blog. Until then it looks like we're going to have to make do with The Daily Muck. But if today's is representative of what's to come, colour me impressed. I mean.. .Abramoff might have worn a wire? Even if its only a rumor I'll take it!

And on that note, happy Monday!

--------