[tomder55]

Here is the latest op-ed by the great Victor Davis Hanson in it's entirety.
[QUOTE]What Our Media Taught Me


I've been over here in Europe for about ten days, getting a different perspective on our illustrious media and how it is handling the various Obama “troubles.”

Perspective and distance are sometime valuable. I used to think, given the enormous size of the bureaucracy and the tragic nature of the human condition, that from time to time disasters would overwhelm us — and there would be not much the president of the United States could do about them. But after Katrina, the media taught me that neither the mayor nor the governor nor the Army Corps of Engineers nor the people of New Orleans were at fault for either the vulnerability to the chance of a catastrophic Katrina or the response after its arrival. No, you see, the commander in chief is the ultimate arbiter of successful or unsuccessful reactions to all such disasters. OK, so be it.

So while I am not inclined to blame Barack Obama for the scandalous federal laxity in the now polluted Gulf, the media long ago taught me that I most certainly should.

I don't play golf. Never have swung a club. But in the spirit of live and let live, I also never cared much for deconstructing the game in terms of culture and sociology. The media, however, in 2002, taught me that I should in the case of George Bush — that his swing and even his use of a golf cart reflected a certain class disdain for us, or at least a frat-boy frivolity at a time of two ongoing wars. So while I would like to give our present president a pass on his obsession with playing golf at a frequency far in excess to poor George Bush's, I cannot. I am conditioned now to grasp that Obama's golf craze is a sort of self-indulgence reflective of a disturbing narcissist who entertains a shocking indifference toward the rest of us.

Press conferences were always painful to watch. Finger in the wind pundits try to one up their commander in chief, who, in turn, is always one slip of the tongue away from global scandal. But the press during the Bush administration also taught me that we need these feeding frenzies frequently, and must demand that our executives prove to be both eloquent and veracious. So while I don't much care whether Obama stutters off the teleprompter, or idiotically says things like “corpse-man,” or misleads us on matters of fact, or even grossly says things such as the beheading of Daniel Pearl “captured the world's imagination ” the media lectured me that I very much should care — namely, that President Obama almost never gives a press conference, and on the rare occasions when he does, we know why he was wise not to have done so in the past.

I used to think leadership meant from time to time taking on public opinion, advocating an unpopular position in a genuine belief it was for the long-term good of the country. However, here too the enlightened media taught me once that it is not so. When George Bush wanted to reform Social Security, Barack Obama was widely quoted by the press as a voice of wisdom in warning Bush not to beat a dead horse — given that the public polled overwhelmingly against any changes in Social Security (apparently fiscal insolvency will alone be the remedy for long-needed changes). In other words, we live in a democracy, and even a popularly elected president should not ram down something the people don't want. Note that argument was advanced again with the Bush insistence on the unpopular (but ultimately successful) surge in Iraq.

Therefore, while I want to say that it was the president's prerogative to push through an unpopular health care takeover, and to oppose a very popular Arizona law, I have learned that it was almost undemocratic that he has done so. The press instructed me on that again. Why tear apart the country, virtually create a tea-party movement, or pit Arizona against California by stoking the fires of resentment by so diametrically opposing what 60 percent and more of the people want?

Once upon a time, I also thought we were in an existential war with radical Islam. For thirty years and more, terrorists have evoked their religion as they tried to blow up, shoot, or behead Westerners. After the mass murders of 9/11, I thought George Bush was wise to adopt things like intercepts, wiretaps, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, Predator attacks, and taking the fight to both the Taliban and oil-fed murderous Middle East dictators like Saddam Hussein. But then the media established that these were all not only anti-constitutional measures, but quite unnecessary acts as well. Instead, the anti-terrorism protocols and wars abroad were a reflection of an executive branch out of control, one that could only be stopped by popular agitation, the enlightened criticism of Hollywood artisans, law suits, filibusters, and constant press opposition. So while I am inclined to applaud that Barack Obama has trebled the number of Predator missions, kept Guantanamo open, adopted the Bush-Petraeus plan in Iraq, escalated in Afghanistan, kept renditions and all elements of the Patriotic Act, I confess now that all this is very wrong, without utility and a veritable coup on the part of the executive branch to overturn the separation of powers as established in the Constitution. The media, alas, taught me that too.

Nothing is worse that public servants taking money by abusing the public trust or horse-trading in matters of the public interest. Even the incessant narcissism of putting their names on every bridge or building they authorize with public money nauseates me. So I was glad to see all those right-wing crooks and hypocrites from Duke Cunningham to Larry Craig leave in disgrace. Shame on them! The watchdog media reinforced my inclination to give them no quarter.

So while I would like to cut some slack for the memory of the late John Murtha, or a poor harried Chris Dodd, or an elderly Charles Rangel, I simply cannot. All the good that they did surely cannot balance out their serial ethical lapses. If a Timothy Geithner skipped a few taxes, or a Chris Dodd got a break on a loan here and there, then they rightly must descend into the Abramoff inferno with Cunningham and Foley and Craig. I admire an old admiral like Joe Sestak and understand quid pro quo is the mother's milk of politics, but thanks to the watchdog media during various ethical problematics in the Bush administration — from the federal attorney firings to Halliburton — I now realize that there can be no tolerance for even the appearance of moral ambiguity. So let the tough media inquiries continue.

Somewhere around the millennium, a new style of aggressive, public-interested, and astute reporter began sermonizing in print, advising on the Internet, and lecturing us on television. At the time I mistakenly assumed that reporters were too often partisans who were creating new, almost impossible standards of probity in order to embarrass conservative opponents: they wanted Republican scandal first, news second. But now, I see that they were simply laying nonpartisan new ground rules for the Bush administration so that they could later prove their integrity and professionalism when a member of their own faith would come into the new crucible of public examination. There was never, you see, a hate-Bush media. So we will shortly see that now as they unrelentingly turn their scrutiny on Barack Obama and his legion of ethical and competency lapses.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavish...dia-taught-me/

Ps Hanson's article was too large to utilize the sarcasm font even if it qualifies.

[Catsmine]

Maybe we could just do the link in purple? Regardless of the font, it's beautiful.

[tomder55]

I tried .It still appears blue.

The bloggers have been on this Sestak story for months. Try as they might,the MSM will not make the story go away.

[excon]

Once upon a time, I also thought we were in an existential war with radical Islam. For thirty years and more, terrorists have evoked their religion as they tried to blow up, shoot, or behead Westerners. After the mass murders of 9/11, I thought George Bush was wise to adopt things like intercepts, wiretaps, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, Predator attacks, and taking the fight to both the Taliban and oil-fed murderous Middle East dictators like Saddam Hussein.

Hello tom:

It's not surprising that since your writer thinks "things like intercepts, wiretaps, Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, and Predator attacks", are just hunky dory, that he'd be a bit upset about the Sestak job offer.

You guys are something else. I mean, really - you're WAY out there.

excon

[tomder55]

You wrote previosly about Sestakgate
political horse trading IS the stock in trade of politicians.

Or in otherwords "everyone does it so it's ok. "I wonder if you were saying that during Watergate.

I have on a number of occasions pointed out that in cases of national security crisis President's have exercised latitude in inherent executive powers .You countered that you did not care about the specific circumstances that justified the response and instead argued a rather rigid limits on the President's authority. But in this case you brush it off as "everyone does it" .

Victor Davis Hanson is first and foremost a historian . He can cite in greater detail than I the historical circumstances of the precedences behind decisions made today. He is absolutely correct that Bush made the right call in taking on jihadistan wherever it emerged .

[excon]

You wrote previosly about Sestakgate
political horse trading IS the stock in trade of politicians.

or in otherwords "everyone does it so it's ok. "I wonder if you were saying that during Watergate.

He is absolutely correct that Bush made the right call in taking on jihadistan wherever it emerged .

Hello again, tom:

I'll admit my ignorance here... I maintain my stance that horse trading is what SUCCESSFUL politicians do. I did not know that this particular horse trading was illegal. I don't know why it would be, but that's not the point.

I think Obama is lying about it, and shooting himself in the foot in the process. There ARE more important things going on in the world... But, you guys think blow jobs and promises of jobs are more important than the serious Constitutional violations that are taking place right in front of us. All the while you yawn, and look for gotcha stuff...

Want to know why people HATE Washington?? That's why.

excon

PS> I agree with you above, but Jihadistan AIN'T happening ON MY PHONE, and that's where he looking for it.

[Catsmine]

But, you guys think blow jobs and promises of jobs are more important than the serious Constitutional violations that are taking place right in front of us.

Hi, Ex.

I DO happen to think perjury (about blowjobs, about murder, about what Hillary wears to freakin' bed, whatever) and bribery (see US Code Title 18, section 600) are more serious than obeying orders with a competent (maybe wrong) legal opinion attached are.

Remember the fallen.

[excon]

I DO happen to think perjury (about blowjobs, about murder, about what Hillary wears to freakin' bed, whatever) and bribery (see US Code Title 18, section 600) are more serious than obeying orders with a competant (maybe wrong) legal opinion attached are.

Hello again, Cats:

Not me. Besides, if a legal opinion is WRONG, the judges who wrote it, are FAR from competent. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers wrote their stuff in clear and concise terms. If they wrote it in the legalese of today, NOBODY could figure out what it says. But, I can figure out what the Fourth Amendment says, and it says the government needs a warrant to listen to my phone calls.

In my view, the LOSS of our Constitutional rights, particularly THIS one, poses grave threats to our nation - whereas a blow job, or LYING about a blow job doesn't. It's not even close.

excon

[Catsmine]

Not me. Besides, if a legal opinion is WRONG, the judges who wrote it, are FAR from competent.

Okay, competent is the wrong word. What was Little Al's line? "Controlling legal authority," that was it.

Some place I read about a really good idea: a "Plain English" amendment that makes any statute not comprehensible to a high school reader unconstitutional. It would have a codicil defining a high school reader.

Wouldn't it be fun to put ALL the lawyers out of work?

[tomder55]

but Jihadistan AIN'T happening ON MY PHONE, and that's where he looking for it.

That is just not true .FISA's wall between domestic law enforcement and foreign intelligence proved dysfunctional and contributed to our government's failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks. President Bush corrected the problem and Congress and the courts have modified it further.
Presidents have had electronic communication monitored during war on their authority since Lincoln. Congressional paranoia following Watergate led to the over-reaction called FISA .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Let me say again that if a legal opinion is WRONG, the judges who wrote it, are FAR from competent. Fortunately, our Founding Fathers wrote their stuff in clear and concise terms. If they wrote it in the legalese of today, NOBODY could figure out what it says. But, I can figure out what the Fourth Amendment says, and it says the government needs a warrant to listen to my phone calls.

In my view, the LOSS of our Constitutional rights, particularly THIS one, poses grave threats to our nation - whereas a blow job, or LYING about a blow job doesn't. It's not even close.

I stand by what I said, and I'll say it again, if you want.

excon

[tomder55]

Save the strawman critique about Clintoon for someone else . I thought there were more substantial reasons for impeaching him than a sleezy disgraceful sexual affair . If it were up to me the charges against him would've been treason ,not high crimes and misdemeanors.

Neither yours nor my 4th Amendment rights have been violated and I'd love to see you prove otherwise . But yes ,people in this country communicating and giving material support to the enemy have been tapped . I thank my government for doing so.

[excon]

Neither yours nor my 4th Amendment rights have been violated

Hello again, tom:

And, you know that how?? Because the Constitution says so, or because the government says TRUST me?? Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

Sooooo, I gather from your lackadaisical support of the Fourth Amendment, you wouldn't mind if congress overturned the Second Amendment, but PROMISED you that you that they're only going to take guns away from the bad guys.. Sounds the same to me... Tell me how it isn't.

I can't tell if you TRUST the government, or NOT. Does it depend on what you had for breakfast?

excon

[tomder55]

Because I can read the Constitution too. The 4th says
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The government has no reasonable cause to wiretap me as I am not in communication with jihadists plotting to attack the country ;nor do I give them material support.

What I marvel at is things like electronic survaillence ,detentions ;just about everything you complain about I can find historical examples of throughout our history. But you make it sound that history began in 2001.

[Catsmine]

Because I can read the Constitution too. The 4th says
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Thanks for quoting it for me, Tom.

Lessee here... nope, no mention of public utilities in this one either. Sorry, Ex. Looks like those "controlling legal authorities" you said were incompetent said your phone was private.

[excon]

Thanks for quoting it for me, Tom.

Hello again, Cats:

Of course, if THAT'S what it says, then it's left for government to decide what's reasonable... Do you really think that's what the Fourth Amendment says?? IF the government thinks it's reasonable, they can search?? Really?

But, in fact, it's for a JUDGE to decide, based upon a sworn oath depicting the actual object to be seized and/or where some contraband is specifically located... The NSA spying violates it, pure and simple. I don't care HOW many times congress tinkers with it. Plus, the fact of the matter is, congress has no authority to make laws that cancel MY Constitutional rights.

That's just so.

excon

[Catsmine]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Constitution of the United States of America

Nope, still no public utilities.

[excon]

Nope, still no public utilities.

Hello again, Cats:

Yes, public utilities. Cats, check out Katz v. US.

Representing the majority opinion, Justice Stewart wrote, “One who occupies [a telephone booth], shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world.” [2] Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determine if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversations can be made in public areas.

Justice Harlan’s Concurring opinion summarizes the essential holdings of the majority: “(a) that an enclosed telephone booth is an area where, like a home, and unlike a field, a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) that electronic as well as physical intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (c) that an invasion of a constitutionally protected area by federal authorities is, as the Court has long held, presumptively unreasonable in the absence of a search warrant.” [3]

The Katz case made government wiretapping by both state and federal authorities subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements.[4]

excon

[Catsmine]

Hello again, Cats:

Yes, public utilities. Cats, check out Katz v. US.

Representing the majority opinion, Justice Stewart wrote, “One who occupies [a telephone booth], shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume that the words he utters into the mouthpiece will not be broadcast to the world.” [2] Certain details, such as shutting the door on the telephone booth, help determine if a person intends for a conversation to be private. Thus, private conversations can be made in public areas.

Justice Harlan’s Concurring opinion summarizes the essential holdings of the majority: “(a) that an enclosed telephone booth is an area where, like a home, and unlike a field, a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy; (b) that electronic as well as physical intrusion into a place that is in this sense private may constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment; and (c) that an invasion of a constitutionally protected area by federal authorities is, as the Court has long held, presumptively unreasonable in the absence of a search warrant.” [3]

The Katz case made government wiretapping by both state and federal authorities subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements.[4]

excon

There's those controlling legal authorities. Judges are subject to being overturned, even SCOTUS. The words on the parchment are not.

[excon]

The words on the parchment are not.

Hello again, Cats:

That's a pretty originalist viewpoint, for sure. But, it doesn't take into consideration the INTENT of the founders when they wrote the Fourth Amendment. Katz fixes that. Certainly, if they thought that my PAPER mail couldn't be searched, they'd think my EMAIL couldn't be either.

Nonetheless, Katz is law. Therefore, the government needs a warrant to search my email, and they ain't got one.

excon