Thank you for proving my point. You know nothing of my political beliefs. But if I criticized McCain, I must be from the left. Because the distinction has nothing to do with positions, only with whether I’m in your tribe or not.

These litany of abuses come from when we as citizens have not done our job. Little by little; bit by bit we have lost our freedoms because generations of Americans have believed that these other institutions would enforce our will. I hope the short amount of time has awoken Americans to what has been going on for well over a century!

These things have happened because we have delegated our responsibilities to organizations such as the ACLU, NRA, and the Media. Whatever these organizations are we must understand that our freedoms and rights are our responsibility. When we don’t show up to vote, when we don’t call our representatives, when we don’t stay involved- what can you expect? The only reason things have gotten this bad is because we have allowed them to.

This discontent is the wages of our sins which in this case was complacency and laziness. Why do it yourself when you can give money for someone else to do it for you? “It’s not my job to call my congressman, that’s why I give money to the NRA.” You wonder why things have gotten to where they are now? You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror!

P.S. Sebastian thank you for running a great site. You know you are working hard and are effective when Helmke has to mention you in his satanic jihad against human rights.

Besides the fact that that is a rediculous statement on it’s face, Reaganomics (as the left likes to call them) was first proposed by JFK. Of course that is where Reagan learned of it. He was a democrat back then.

Stormy Dragon said:
Bringing it up is an insult to my intelligence.

No it’s not. It’s a joke. And that you and others on the left don’t get it is very telling.

Yes, if you mean actual progressives/convservatives/libertarians. But that’s only 10-15% of each party. Most people merely say progressive/convservative/libertarian things (usually without really understanding the meaning of what they’re saying) but act in an entirely different fashion.

Take the recent thing with McCain accusing Obama of liking arugala. For someone who actually cares about public policy, this is completely irrelevant to anything I care about. Bringing it up is an insult to my intelligence. Yet I know a lot of ‘convservative’ Republican for whom that sort of crap is a big deal. And there’s a lot more of them than there are of me.

I’ve got my own reasons to dislike Obama and not vote for him. His gun controlling past for sure, but I’ve got plenty of solidly Lefty reasons not to vote for him either.

As one of my favorite Lefty political blogs provocatively puts it: “They American Left May Not Be Much, But It Won’t Be Anything At All Until It Ditches The Democrats”.

I don’t think a lot of those disaffected people are as amiable to police misconduct as you might think. But keep in mind, I’m making generalizations here, to which there will be exceptions. I agree that the left/right divide has elements of tribalism, but would you go so far as to day the divide has no ideological component to it at all? Sure, there are some people who pick their political party based on family and community traditions, but if that were the only case, our political landscape would forever be static.

Surely there’s an ideological component to divide between progressive Democrats and conservative/libertarian Republicans in this country, no? One of my big concern about Progressive Democrats is they don’t seem to have the same blanket concern for civil liberties that they once did.

No, but I wanted to refute your ‘if the liberal elites don’t start worrying about this, they’re going to face a revolt’. The disaffected people you mention by and large have no problem with police abuse itself, and indeed will cheer them on as tough on crime crusaders. The only time many of them bring it up is situationally if it becomes a convenient cudgel for bashing a liberal. As soon as the situation passes they forget about it, because they aren’t sincerely bothered by it.

The left/right divide in the country is largely based not on any substantative policy differences, but purely out of tribalism. So a discussion of what the left should do is pointless: the right doesn’t hate the left for what they do, but because they’re The Other, and vice versa.

I’m reading the appeals court opinion (pdf). The relevant section on whether the stream is considered a “waterway” is on pages 2-8.

To roughly summarize, the question is if the waterway is part of the “waters of the United States.” Moses argues that it is not, since Rapanos v United States states that “waters of the United States” covers “relatively permanent,
standing or continuously flowing bodies of water.” The court disagrees with this interpretation, since the Rapanos case specifically states that it does not exclude ““seasonal rivers, which contain continuous flow during
some months of the year but no flow during dry
months.”

So on that basis, this seasonal river can be included under “waters of the United States”. It contains continuous flow during the spring thaw.

The court did not charge Mr. Moses on any of his actions prior to 2002. Between 2002 and 2005, the court claims he was sent several notices to cease his actions, to which he did not respond.

Bryan Fischer, the author of the article, is part of the “Idaho Values Alliance”. An organization with a name like that sets off the same mental alarms as the phrase “It’s for the children.” Truth and accuracy are irrelevant, if ignoring them helps the agenda.

You notion of dignity is a important one, you only need to look to the ghetto culture to realize how important “respect” is to man’s sense of self worth. People will kill and die for it even in a culture that broken that it is unable to impose any morality of it’s own.

As to Mr. Moses, I am certain that the technicals details are murky. I am also fairly certain, that he had property, that he owned and controlled, and had for a long time. I see no indication that he changed what he was doing, a bureaucrat changed the interpretation of the rules on him and took from Mr Mose’s his right to own and use the property, that was previously his.

The ownership of property and the consistent even application rules of society are the ways that man in modern society has to possess dignity. Bureaucrats attack both, independent of the party in “charge”.

I don’t deny that. But is corruption and abuse of power really something we want the left and right agreeing on?

On the issue of police corruption and abuse of power, the right’s record is just as execrable as the left’s.

I think a lot of the anti-Bush rhetoric is pretty over the top, but a lot of the actions of The Administration in prosecuting the War on Terror have been atrocious. Arguing that American Citizens, arrested on American soil, can be subject to military detention without recourse to the courts is outrageous. But I also think the issue of how to deal with prisoners of war isn’t a topic that’s as cut and dry as many folks would like to believe. That’s not to say that a place like Guantanamo is necessarily lawful, but I wouldn’t be so quick to suggest that it isn’t either. The extent of the president’s military power during war is certainly a topic of debate, but it’s a serious one, and there hasn’t been much serious debate about it, outside of blogs. And not much among left blogs that I’ve seen.

I don’t really disagree. The powers that be agree on far too much intrusion into people’s business than I think is acceptable. I’m using the left as the example here, because I think they are most guilty of missing the big picture. They were on board with civil rights for blacks. They’ve championed a lot of minority groups that have traditionally been denied rights. That’s a good thing. But I think they need to look beyond that. In the larger scheme, liberty, everyone’s liberty, needs just as much protecting. Now more than ever. In some ways, I’m making an appeal to those types that they can make common cause with a lot of disenfranchised people, but aren’t because of cultural biases. We can still argue about health care, and still argue about global warming, checking power of corporations, taxes, etc. But on a lot of things, there should be common outrage.

I understood that did not cover temporary waterways. But this is useful information. Is there any link you can provide that would give a better account of what went on here?

Well, in general, it’s a stereotype. You will find lefties who get it. I’m speaking of the left collectively. Individual mileage may vary.

Aside from that, and this is one I DO care about: Trickle down/supply-side economics have proven so disastrously silly and unsuccessful more than once now. Why do Republicans keep pushing these canards. I’m not advocating welfare state, but trickle down just doesn’t work. I’m an economist. And (I think)even a pretty good one. I’ve had some success in starting 3 for-profit businesses and 1 non-profit business.

The reason I bring this up is that it contributes to your elite-versus-everyone else issue. Even if the Laffer Curve holds true, Republicans have basically gone one step farther and now claim that basically any tax cuts increase revenue. The supply side economics have helped the wealthy (of which I probably qualify) get wealthier, while buying power is down in almost every other demographic from inflation and (more importantly), real-wages are down across middle and lower class sectors. People say we’re not in a real recession because GDP is still positive, but I’m not sure that that’s the correct view anymore. Even if GDP is up, with real buying power lapsing on two fronts, unemployment increasing, and the dollar devaluing, we’ve got some issues, and the “elite” gap is widening.

Now, I do agree that incentives matter, high tax rates are bad. However, in government we have some kind of bizarre Keynes/Friedman mix that is: Cutting taxes is good, increasing spending while cutting taxes is good. And Bush has setup just as much us-v-them as any other president, and more than most.

And talk about “dignity deficit.” During the War on Terror, people were castigated for questioning Bush as Treasonous. And millions bought stupid magnets for their cars as though they actually supported something other than the yellow magnetic ribbon industry. You here, state that questioning the government is not only good, but the obligation of sovereign citizenry, but we sure have traded a lot of our dignity and liberty over the last few years to the Republican fear mongering.

P.S. I’m not a Democrat. I registered independent and have voted both ways, depending on locale and issues.

I will do whatever I can to draw attention to the plight of this innocent man. I will be writing some letters to senators and congressman, hoping that someone will have a spine and stand up for this man.

Anthony

The new left in American does not and never has cared about civil rights.

The ACLU is a Leninist front organization and should never be mistaken for comporting with the ideals expressed in its name.

New leftists are not interested in American ideals for the simple reason they despise them. Their aim — singly and collectively — is the destruction of Western civilization and its replacement with a socialist utopia.

And they imagine that they will be among the elect who rule that utopia.

M

In regards to the “clearing brush out of a waterway” article, the author is Bryan Fischer. He’s extremely biased and unreliable. Rumor says he’s good friends with the developer he’s defending. Reading the opinion from the appeals court, the case appeared reasonable. Waterways are federally owned. Access is allowed, dumping of waste is not allowed. Dredged material is waste. It is irrelevant that there is not water in the riverbed at the time he’s dumping, because when the water does come down, it carries the waste with it.

I am deeply concerned about the interest of some on the left in eliminating “hate speech”. I think those who want to eliminate this are still a small minority.

III

III