Cage fight!

Ha! Probably more like, "Take this book, go to your room, shut the door, DON'T MAKE ANY NOISE, and most importantly, don't come out at any point to stare at me and make flaily hands. Okay? Okay."

I have been reading a little on the latest Bush shenanigans and I have to say I agree with Glenn Greenwald in Salon:

I confess some difficulty here in becoming particularly outraged over this latest theory. There is nothing new here. As has long been known, this administration believes themselves to reside above and beyond the reach of the law. What else would they need to do in order to make that as clear as can be? They got caught red-handed committing multiple felonies -- by eavesdropping on Americans in precisely the way the law we enacted 30 years ago prohibited -- and they not only admitted it, but vowed to continue to break our laws, and asserted the right to do so. And nothing happened.

This latest assertion of power -- to literally block U.S. Attorneys from prosecuting executive branch employees -- is but another reflection of the lawlessness prevailing in our country, not a new revelation. We know the administration breaks laws with impunity and believes it can. That is no longer in question. The only real question is what, if anything, we are willing to do about that.

Yes, it is true that, as various Democratic statements are claiming, this theory poses a constitutional crisis since, yet again, the President declares the other two branches of government impotent and himself omnipotent. But we have had such a crisis for the last five years. We have just chosen to ignore it, to acquiesce to it, to allow it to fester.

There is no magic force that is going to descend from the sky and strike with lighting at George Bush and Dick Cheney for so flagrantly subverting our constitutional order. The Founders created various checks for confronting tyrannical abuses of power, but they have to be activated by political will and the courage to confront it. That has been lacking. Hence, they have seized omnipotent powers with impunity.

At this point, the blame rests not with the Bush administration. They have long made clear what they believe and, especially, what they are. They have been rubbing in our faces for several years the fact that they believe they can ignore the law and do what they want because nobody is willing to do anything about it. Thus far, they have been right, and the blame rests with those who have acquiesced to it.

I'm afraid I'd totally do the stare'n'flail, shrift. Not out of malice...just because I couldn't stop myself.

And that is why I would include it in the instructions ahead of time. Because it wouldn't be malicious, but I'd still want to strangle you for it, you know?

But I don't wanna be impeached!

not YOU, tommyrot! Bush, and Cheney too while we are at it.

And while I sympathize with Greenwald, I often think it's ineffective to say that "we" are to blame. Honestly, what can the public do to effect an immediate change?

Put that second amendment to use?

(Hey, it's the only one they seem to like...)

tommyrot is scaring me with his Bush links this morning. Can't we just impeach him?

And he'd pay attention to congress on this because...?

Also, that would just leave Cheney in charge. I'd love it if they would just impeach Cheney though.

Honestly, what can the public do to effect an immediate change?

One thing that comes to mind is to not have re-elected him.

I finished it, I think, really calmly.

Whedonesque went to the archives and pulled up links to everything I've said about the event in question, which is all positive and assuring people that the event was legit.

And also reminded me that I set up passwords for Joss and some others at Whedonesque at the time, specifically so they could also talk about the event.

Now I feel calm.

tommyrot is scaring me with his Bush links this morning. Can't we just impeach him?

And he'd pay attention to congress on this because...?

One of the guests on the Diane Rehm show today said that, since the Executive Branch has basically said the other branches can't exercise checks and balances on it, actual charges/disciplining/impeachment of Bush or Cheney is going to come down to the Sergeant-at-Arms phyically arresting (detaining? does the Sergeant-at-Arms actually have the power to *arrest*?) one/both of them.

Which I think I would pay serious money to see.