Thursday, October 28, 2010
Empirically, after being immersed in the world of blogs of various kinds for some number of years now, my present view is that, at least where political action is concerned, the blogosphere may be doing, at best, only a small amount in assisting the winds of change. Simply, if not necessarily simplistically, put, despite the wide array of excellent blogs covering numerous areas vital to public life, my sense is that the many impassioned, well wrought, and sometimes even brilliant electronic scribbling that can be found on the blogosphere is not demonstrating the capacity to act as much of propulsive force for genuine, organized, political change.
Perhaps I shouldn't expect the blogosphere to have anything like the potential I would like it to have, and, yet, I am still disappointed in what I sense is, for the most part, a collective waste of energy coming from that part of the blogoshpere that seems to desire having a very different set of values in place informing our politics. Then, of course, perhaps my premise is wrong, and some nascent, ready to turn the established order on its head movement- though not the Teaparty- is, as I write, coalescing as a result of a few inspired blogs. Unfortunately, instead, my sense is that much of the energy that might be dedicated to the sort of action I have in mind is instead being spent dissecting, analyzing, and sometimes just plain fulminating against the established political order.
These are all laudable pursuits, even fulminating can, at least to some modest degree, be defended as useful, but, at the same time, I feel that, for good reasons, the forum that blogs provide overwhelmingly tend to dissipate the energies of their collective readership.
In the meantime, the established order, at least where the economy is concerned, seems to be in a well evolved state of epic upheaval, and if that perception is indeed accurate, history tells us that ineluctably the political sphere will soon experience its own brand of foundational tumult.
And while I'm quite prepared to give some unspecified sum of credit to the blogosphere for helping to assist change in the hearts and minds of some number of the populace, it seems to me that whatever effect the blogosphere is having as an agent of change, amounts to, at best, an engine for ad hoc responses to the dismal political status quo.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
I wanted to let you know that the Senator did not vote for this legislation, HR 3808, rather it passed by . This means that no one objected to the bill but individual records of each Senator’s position were not kept. Thankyou for writing in.
Derek Khanna (on behalf of Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts)
Thank you for responding. I am aware that The Senate's was a , and for the purpose of clarification, when you wrote, "no one objected to the bill", were you saying that Mr. Brown voiced no objection to what is, in my view, a very objectionable bill? If so, saying Senator Brown did not "vote" for the legislation would seem to be technically true, but, rather something else in reality. Please advise.
From Derek Khanna:
No one objected to the legislation. A large amount of legislation is done on the floor, often without physical quorum, through a unanimous consent vote. This means that unless someone objects it passes. Senator Brown did not object. He did not vote for or against the legislation.
I understand your concern for the legislation, it was vetoed by .
It was "pocket vetoed" by the President, which is a qualitatively different act, and I now have, for all intents and purposes, my answer. I am disappointed that Senator Brown did not voice a strenuous objection to a bill whose intent was an end run around proper legal process.
I made the same query concerning HR 3808 to Senator John Kerry's office and have yet to receive a reply. On that basis, and that alone, so far, the office of Senator Brown has the edge on his Democrat colleague. Finally, a vote where no one can be said to have either voted for or against a piece of legislation that ultimately passes is evidence of a deeply, not to say fatally flawed, system. I know what I won't be doing next Tuesday.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
That, in itself, doesn't surprise me. I would be far more surprised, shocked, really, were the Legislative and Executive branches of government seen to be swinging into action on all fronts, enacting a full court press to thoroughly and judiciously deal with this epic sized sordid affair. But how could they? They are in so deep with all the financial system's perfidy it would be like turning evidence against themselves, which is why I assert that the U.S. Federal government, well, at least two of the three branches, but, probably, “upon review” the judiciary as well, deserves to be impeached, and some substantial portion of its number, a group that includes many high ranking officials, subsequently ought to be vigorously prosecuted for criminal misconduct.
If anyone can tell me by what contortions the Executive and Legislative branches of the Federal government-branches peopled by officials who, in the main, systematically subvert, deny, and/or obstruct justice- possess any legitimacy, please drop me a line.
Monday, October 11, 2010
In the meantime, as we anticipate how this all shakes out, I feel supremely confident in asserting that attempts by the boundlessly vile Obama Administration to cover up and/or forestall the fall out from this festering cancer meets septicemia meets gangrene of a legal, financial, economic, political, and social (have I left anything out?) calamity will only compound our nation's grave predicament.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
"We could not have accomplished what we've accomplished without Rahm's leadership."