In case anyone is interested in debating if we
actually 'learned' anything from 'the sixties'
and the 'vietnam era' and the current set of
issues that are in play today.
I originally sent this to a veteran's group mailing list in
which there was some 'unresolved' questions about the policies
of 'dissing the president' - given previous constraints about
whining about Clinton that the list owner was concerned about
during the previous administration.
>> I find the complete lack of respect for the office of the president
>> shown on
>> this list to be disgusting. And quite a contrast to the list's policy
>> during the last administration headed by a man who disgraced his
>> office and
>> the White House.
> You will have to help me out here.
> In what way is this an issue about 'the office of the president'?
> From what I have seen so far, the attacks have been
> on the lack of an actual policy position of any
> clarity or coherence coming out of the "office". As such
> this is not about 'attacking the man' as it seems to be
> about attacking a complete lack of 'moral character' with
> respect to the policies of the 'government'.
> I can appreciate that those who hated 'policy by poll numbers'
> are perchance a bit confused by the current process of having
> the 'policy debates' conducted in the press by 'insider leaks'
> so that the administration can send out their trial ballons
> and see which way the wind blows.
> Allow me to offer four URL's and we can resolve who is on
> the side of which:
> IF we assume that Ashcroft is actually opposed to the creation
> of a new special domestic spying organization - is his opposition
> to the process a part of the clear 'lack of respect' for the
> 'office of the president'????
> Or is the fact that the liberal media's coverage of the OBVIOUS
> part of Karl Rove's Efforts to sell the current president as the
> next Andrew Jackson, well, a bit stilted, in the fact that they
> are not addressing the clear problems of
> Worcester vs. Georgia
> in which Jackson allowed the US Supreme Court ruling to langish
> unenforced, so that He could move the Cherokee off of their native
> lands and hence hand those lands over to the Great Plantation Owners
> as the true 'pay back' for their loyalty to the Party.
> I drop this all into play since most americans who 'survived'
> the 'vietnam era' have still very unresolved open issues with
> whether or not they openly support the government blindly, since
> of course the government alone knows... Or is it possible to
> still sit in opposition to the Government Policies, a tradition
> that goes back to Davy Crockett who OPPOSED Jackson on his
> policy of forced internment.
> Some here of course recall that the american civil service
> system came into existance to END the Jacksonian policies
> of Patronage, and were a part of the complications of the
> vietnam era as to whether or not allowing federal employee's
> to 'unionize' was merely a 'democratic' effort to return
> to their sinister roots of Jacksonian Patronage. Others of
> course would be obliged to wander down the problems of the
> whole 'revolving door' of the Military-Industrial-InfoTainment
> Industry and how the PuzzlePalace Wonders were rotating out of
> their billets as Panderers of the Pentagon to Congress, into
> the more lucrative jobs as Panderers of "Defense Establishment
> firms" to the Pentagon...
> We might likewise discuss the 'cultural crisis' level of the
> problems that some americans had with the whole 'civil rights'
> issues of the 'vietnam era' - and the obvious problems of J.Edger
> getting a bit out of hand with 'domestic survaillance' that was the
> very root of the FISA to begin with. Some of course blame Nixon,
> and his decision to use CIA assets to do the Watergate Break-In
> and other domestic politcal partisan politicing - but we all of
> course normally list that under Nixon's DEEP FONDNESS for the
> wonders of Jacksonianism... All of which also spun out the
> Church Committee and the rest of the evil encroachment on the
> power and pomposity of the Executive.
> But of course since the 2000 campaign season was all about
> preventing the "manchurian candidate" McCain from getting the
> GOP nod - we all of course know that the current administration
> hopes most folks have 'gotten over' the whole "vietnam era"
> thing, and are ready to get on back down the road to those
> happier and kinder days of the fifties when everyone so openly
> trusted the administration.... Because, well, we were in a
> Cold War with the Forces of Evil, and there were Evil Doers
> and their Fellow Travelors Everywhere....
> I would of course love to draw the parrallel's between the
> economic policies that ran rampant in the vietnam era and
> the current crisis in the administration, but there is the
> small problem of developing an argument from silence. All
> we know so far is that the Current Administration has all
> but Gutted the SEC, we are now adrift without any form of
> corporate governance regulation at the federal level - and
> this could be a policy of 'privatizing' that portion of
> the government, or hoping that the states will step in
> and provide the required level of 'consumer protection'
> if they believe in such things.... But it is not yet
> clear that this is really an actual 'policy' or merely the
> fall of the cards and a 'complication' that the current
> administration has not yet seen the poll numbers as to
> wether they should have a policy more complicated than
> the Karl Rove Survay Says Show....
> Or am I merely pointing out the Obvious bits?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Dec 16 2002 - 22:52:38 EST