Pro-Anti or Anti-Pro (a discussion with my muse.)

My muse has been banging the gong in my head for about two hours now. Before you ask… Yes. There is a gong in my head. It was put there years ago by men in white coats who said it would be used to keep my wits from colliding up against my colossal ignorance. To this day I do not know who those men were. One of them looked suspiciously like my Uncle Chester.

(Long pause.)

Yes. My muse must be banging on it hard, because I’m sure she isn’t just getting my attention for attention’s sake... It’s not her Modus operandi.

(Pause.)

So I’m just waiting for her to rear her beautiful head…

(Looks at watch. Silence.)

I am rather sure that she’ll begin shortly.

(Looks at watch. Silence. Looks at watch again. Silence.)

I’m serious… I am. ...She’s banging the gong so friggin’ loud she must be in one hell of a lather over something.

(Pause.)

Something has her furious! Some injustice or war or genocide or fool or politician or thief- but there I go repeating myself.

(Pause.)

When this happens, and it happens more times than I’ve the pills for, she will, rather quickly, begin to do her thing…

(Looks at watch. Silence. Knocks on forehead.) 

Hello? You can stop banging and get to work, muse. ...Hello?

(Silence. Begins to pace about the room grunting and in general making the headache worse.) 

Say something! Move my fingers already would ya? I don’t have all night and the faithful readers will tire of this idiotic monologue soon and hit the back button, or some link... anything to rid themselves of what isn’t theirs! Namely, my headache!

(Looks about the room desperately to draw attention from the bombardment. Nothing. Begins to pace wildly and grit teeth.)

Stop banging the damn gong and speak! I demand that you say something or take my wrist and begin to type something worthy! Now!

(Silence.)

Come on, muse! I’ve been very patient and you know it! Please? Please? Please?

(You’re groveling.)

Of course I’m groveling! It’s your gonging that is driving me to it! Your incessant clanging is causing me to do things that I would otherwise never do!

(Ha! You always grovel. I’ve told you so many times how unbecoming it is on you. Remember?)

For God’s sake! Must you be such a pigheaded mule?

(That’s better. Still, it is rather evident that you need me to write. I mean you mix metaphors like Michael Steele mixes his definition of conservatism.)

Oh god! That was pathetic, muse!

(Was it?)

Hell yes it was! Just ask the readers here if your metaphor was any better than any of mine. Go ahead. Ask them. I dare you.

(You’ve done it for me, dear. But mine was not a metaphor.)

Huh? …Oh. Yes.

(Silence. Puts fingers to temples. Muse is again banging the gong.)

For the love of all things! This has not been the best of weeks for me, muse! You of all people should know this!

(Sudden stop.)

Oh. No. That didn’t come out the way I intended it. I didn’t mean to imply that this weeks writing has not been your best, muse. I meant, outside of the writing, I’ve had a bad week. Understand? Don’t take it the wrong way. I didn’t-

(You’re groveling again!)

Sorry.

(You need to lighten up, Mark. You need to stop taking things so seriously, because they’re not.)

They’re not?

(No.)

But what about Madoff and torture and war and Sudan and the economy and joblessness and homelessness and hunger and-

(I was talking about your personal life, you schmuck. You’re too serious about yourself.) 

I am?

(Yes. The other things, those outside of you, are serious. You see?) 

Yes. (Beat.) No. I don’t think I get it…

(That’s because you’re not supposed to “get it”.)

I’m not?

(No.)

But… Wait? But… Wait a second… What am I supposed to not get? Myself? But I do get myself. I do! I get myself!

(Really?)

Yes.

(Okay. In what way do you “get yourself”?)

I… Well I… I know what I stand for. Yes! I do! I understand that little missy!

(Then by all means do tell…)

Okay. (Resolutely.) Do you mind? I know I’m resolute about the forthcoming list!

(Sorry. I couldn’t help myself.)

Of course you couldn’t. (Rowwrrr...) Stop it.

(Okay. Sorry. Please, Mark, tell us what you stand for. I’m sure the good readers are just dying to know.)

...Sarcasm noted... Okay. Ummm… I’m against unjust and non-defensive war. I’m against needless starvation. I’m against genocide and theocracy. I’m against tyranny. Against corruption and homelessness. I’m against torture and the death penalty. I’m against Prop 8. Against child abuse and sex slavery. And I'm certainly against racism.

(Muse clears her throat, which causes Mark to think faster, which, in turn, causes his headache to near migraine speed.)

I’m anti-war. Anti-anti-choice. Against slavery of any kind. I'm against pedophilia and against those that would force their religion down the throats of an unwilling populace. I’m anti-empire. Against preemptive strike. Against-

(Muse relentlessly and ferociously bangs the gong!)

Holy crap! Give a guy a heads-up, no pun intended, (none taken) before you bang the goddamn gong! I’m telling you what I’m against! What the hell else do you want from me?

(Muse bangs the gong!)

WHAT? WHAT? TELL ME!

(I thought you were going to tell us what you were for not what you're against.)

Stand for, stand against- like there’s a difference?

(Muse bangs the gong much harder than before and Mark storms out of the room holding his head and screaming...)

© 2008 mrp/thepoetryman

On The Final Steps In "Crossing The Rubicon"

Last year, I wrote the following concerning President G.W. Bush and his seeming never-ending quest for absolute dictatorial powers (emphasis added):

(Expand the post)

Let us fast-forward to today and focus on the following recent news items:

A) President G.W. Bush considers himself not just the Commander-in-Chief , the Decider and the Decision-Maker anymore, but also simply the Commander Guy;

B) The Bush administration has stipulated that the president had the constitutional authority to decide for himself whether to conduct surveillance without warrants and therefore does not need the consent of Congress to do so;

C) This is in line with the fact that President G.W. Bush has brushed aside hundreds of laws already with his signing statements;

D) Congress has already put in the books the Patriot Act and the Military Commission’s Act, both giving the President the power to deal effectively with America’s enemies (powers which include looser surveillance restrictions, indefinite detentions, use of torture, loss of habeas corpus, etc.);

E) President G.W. Bush, in defense of his veto of an Iraq war spending plan passed by the Democratic-led Congress that would have forced him to begin pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, sent the message to Congress that he considered the legislation unconstitutional because it infringed on his presidential powers;

and F) Meanwhile, cries continue to clamor for the need of a Unitary Executive, of a strong and powerful leader who must be above the quaint laws of the republic, because "in stormy times, the rule of law may seem to require the prudence and force that law, or present law, cannot supply, and the executive must be strong".

With these items in mind, go read the U.S. Constitution (especially Articles I-III which define the powers of the three equal branches).

One does not need be a Constitutional lawyer or expert to understand that, especially with regards to item E), President Bush is essentially claiming that the constitutional roles and powers of the Congress are unconstitutional.

In short: the President now stands above the Rule of Constitutional Law - particularly in times of crisis presented by external (re: global terrorism) or internal (re: home-grown terrorism) threats.

History clearly shows that such points of view and radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, along with the slow erosion of the rule of law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crisis, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of the Roman republic.

Has President George W. Bush effectively "crossed the Rubicon"?

Do these days represent the critical period which will lead eventually to the end of the American republic?

Now read this news item (emphasis and extra links added):

(...) President Bush has quietly moved to expand the reach of presidential power by ensuring that America remains in a state of permanent war.

Buried in a recent proposal by the Administration is a sentence that has received scant attention -- and was buried itself in the very newspaper that exposed it Saturday. It is an affirmation that the United States remains at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban and "associated organizations."

Part of a proposal for Guantanamo Bay legal detainees, the provision before Congress seeks to “acknowledge again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

The New York Times' page 8 placement of the article in its Saturday edition seems to downplay its importance. Such a re-affirmation of war carries broad legal implications that could imperil Americans' civil liberties and the rights of foreign nationals for decades to come.

It was under the guise of war that President Bush claimed a legal mandate for his warrantless wiretapping program, giving the National Security Agency power to intercept calls Americans made abroad. More of this program has emerged in recent years, and it includes the surveillance of Americans' information and exchanges online.

"War powers" have also given President Bush cover to hold Americans without habeas corpus (...)

Times reporter Eric Lichtblau notes that the measure is the latest step that the Administration has taken to "make permanent" key aspects of its "long war" against terrorism. Congress recently passed a much-maligned bill giving telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for their participation in what constitutional experts see as an illegal or borderline-illegal surveillance program, and is considering efforts to give the FBI more power in their investigative techniques.

"It is uncertain whether Congress will take the administration up on its request," Lichtblau writes. "Some Republicans have already embraced the idea, with Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, introducing a measure almost identical to the administration’s proposal. 'Since 9/11,' Mr. Smith said, 'we have been at war with an unconventional enemy whose primary goal is to kill innocent Americans.'"

If enough Republicans come aboard, Democrats may struggle to defeat the provision. Despite holding majorities in the House and Senate, they have failed to beat back some of President Bush's purported "security" measures, such as the telecom immunity bill.

Bush's open-ended permanent war language worries his critics. They say it could provide indefinite, if hazy, legal justification for any number of activities -- including detention of terrorists suspects at bases like Guantanamo Bay (where for years the Administration would not even release the names of those being held), and the NSA's warantless wiretapping program.

Lichtblau co-wrote the Times article revealing the Administration's eavesdropping program along with fellow reporter James Risen.

He notes that Bush's language "recalls a resolution, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001... [which] authorized the president to 'use all necessary and appropriate force' against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks to prevent future strikes. That authorization, still in effect, was initially viewed by many members of Congress who voted for it as the go-ahead for the administration to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, which had given sanctuary to Mr. bin Laden."

"But the military authorization became the secret legal basis for some of the administration’s most controversial legal tactics, including the wiretapping program, and that still gnaws at some members of Congress," he adds.

And let us not forget about torture and other "necessary" actions required to "fight" this now-official, never-ending Global War on Terrorism(TM).

Once again, we should keep very much in mind the ever convenient rationale of security agencies as they perform their "duty":

(...) This means that anything can and will be viewed by our security agencies within the narrow, paranoid prism of terrorism and threats to security.

Anything.

From blogging to writing a dissenting letter to a newspaper editor to a journalist trying to do investigative work to gathering at a coffee shop to rant about politics to reading "suspicious" stuff (books, blogs) to organizing/participating in activist actions (letter/phone/email campaigns, peaceful protests), etc., etc., etc.

Because any such activities may or may not - immediately or at some point in time or never at all - lead to acts which may or may not "threaten the safety and security of citizens or the integrity of the country's critical infrastructure".

So just in case and to be safe, let's monitor and survey and spy away on the citizenry.

And that is the ever convenient rationale of authoritarian security states for spying on their citizens.

Conclusion - no one is safe indeed:

It is a given, demonstrated fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as shown so far) actually justified.

Anything and nothing can - and will - be held against you.

Because in the mindset of governmental security agencies, everyone is suspect, everyone is guilty. Period.

Welcome to the Security State governed by the all-powerful President-Pontificate, who will win (someday in the far, distant future, perhaps) the never-ending Global War on Terror(TM).

The last, final few steps in crossing the Rubicon are being be taken.

Should he be still alive today, I am convinced that George Orwell would say: "I told you so".

Thus the slow march toward tyranny is nearing its completion.

Any questions?


(Cross-posted from APOV)

AMERICA=TYRANNY (CARLIN on education)

The Face of the Internet...

BBC News...
Amnesty International has warned that the internet "could change beyond all recognition" unless action is taken against the erosion of online freedoms.

"The Chinese model of an internet that allow economic growth but not free speech or privacy is growing in popularity, from a handful of countries five years ago to dozens of governments today who block sites and arrest bloggers," said Tim Hancock, Amnesty's campaign director. "Unless we act on this issue, the internet could change beyond all recognition in the years to come.

More and more governments are realizing the utility of controlling what people see online and major internet companies, in an attempt to expand their markets, are colluding in these attempts," he said.

Twenty-two-year-old Egyptian blogger Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman was imprisoned for four years in February for insulting Islam and defaming the President of Egypt.

Fellow Egyptian blogger Amr Gharbeia told the BBC that the internet was allowing people to express themselves: "The web is creating a more open society, it is allowing more people to speak out. It's only natural that upsets some people."

We are in for it my friends...they just cannot stand for us to have a free hand on the internet...not only do they want to censor us...they also want to get paid for it too.

(end of post)