Two choices:

A) Watergate, "rule of law", presidential removal, congressional investigations, dogged investigative journalism, bi-partisan defense of constitution, jail terms, no wire-tapping, Church committee, exposure of CIA "abuses", ban on assinations, War Powers Act, "political optimism", etc....

B) Bush-era, "Fuck the Law", nobody gets nailed, bipartisan coverups, no investigative journalism, Teflon, "Fuck the Constitution", nobody goes to jail, Torture, Robotic Republicans, Dipshit Democrats, Wiretapping, Rendition, unchecked executive power, unending hypocracy challenged by nobody except through bombastic momentary sound bites, unlimited "Executive Power", worthless Political Parties, worthless Elected officials, worthless courts, worthless prosecutors, worthless laws, "political pessimism", etc...

Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Why... explain.

Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?
.

Two choices:

A) Watergate, "rule of law", presidential removal, congressional investigations, dogged investigative journalism, bi-partisan defense of constitution, jail terms, no wire-tapping, Church committee, exposure of CIA "abuses", ban on assignations, War Powers Act, "political optimism", etc....

B) Bush era, "Fuck the Law", no body gets nailed, bipartisan cover-ups, no investigative journalism, Teflon, "Fuck the Constitution", no body goes to jail, Torture, Robotic Republicans, Dipshit Democrats, Wiretapping, Rendition, unchecked executive power, unending hypocrisy challenged by nobody except through bombastic momentary sound bites, unlimited "Executive Power", worthless Political Parties, worthless Elected officials, worthless courts, worthless prosecutors, worthless laws, "political pessimism", etc...

Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Why... explain.

Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?
.


Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Oh, a trick question for the sophomores. It's actually Zen like but a few syllables too long.

These two events are NOT discordant in substance, not at all. With Watergate/Nixon we had a seven year war going, large sums money were being made, wealth transferred from working to the ultra upper class, and death was served up on a conveyor belt on a regular basis - a lot of deaths for citizens and millions for "enemies."


Why... explain.

We had investigations and the removal of a president, much to our credit, even if the reasoning was not thorough and intellectually honest. Didn't Nixon bomb a country without any authorization? Wasn't that a charge that failed in impeachment?

There was "dogged investigative journalism" and it was lonely too, I bet. I don't go for the Woodward as intel mole. I think the right things happened and Bradlee was the right editor for the times.

The "bi-partisan defense of constitution" was more a function of Nixon's longevity and nastiness. He had offended so many, it was pay back time. If they'd wanted to defend the constitution, they would have fallen down on their knees and begged forgiveness for allowing a war to be declared by the executive branch, for having allowed the BIG LIE of the Tonkin Gulf resolution to stand. That was a crime in and of itself. Not correcting that, left the precedent open for subsequent use - allow a president who wants war to manufacture a war based on a false incident. That was treason.

"Jail terms" for the perps were fine. They had those country-club jails but time is time. The big crook didn't go to jail, however.

The "Church committee" is one of two distinguishing features of this era compared to the current. There was a real opportunity to learn and stop the madness. The will to act was not there despite Church's gutsy actions. He's one my heroes and I don't have any so that's how good he was.

During this time, there was still a certain modesty left plus common manners that restrained those in power, to a large degree. The restraint prevented total theft - they didn't seal everything that wasn't nailed down. They stole a lot but not everything.

They also avoided the brutal power lust that makes a total mockery of the presumed system in place. This was the cusp between the people fighting for and getting change and the end of all responsiveness to the people which started with Reagan. Those in power had enough respect for us to make it look like we really had something going allowing us to rid ourselves of a deviant in the White House. The demands for removal succeeded, in part, due to a sense of obligation: At least have enough courtesy to respect the illusion that this is happening for the right reasons. Unfortunately, it quickly morphed into another argument for "American exceptionalism" and thus became part of the poisonous pedagogy of our political system.

What's different about the Bush ere?

A matter of proportion and the absence of any degree of restraint by the rulers, big money, explain our current state.

"Fuck the Law" - yep. It's out there and in our face. Lies about WMD; indifference to 911; lawyers from a crack pot law school populating DoJ; and no effort to appoint judges other than ringers for the worst impulses of business.

"Nobody gets nailed" is an extension of the Nixon period. Nobody got nailed for much then. Viet Nam was a big crime but nobody who planned, financed, supported, enabled or lied about it got nailed. That was the big ticket item - anybody go to jail for that.

As for the rest, it's a matter of consistent application of tyranny now compared to the inconsistencies in that effort during the Nixon period. This is a major mistake, if citizens have or are able to mobilize power. They've stolen too much, lied too much, and trashed any degree of law too much. The notion of "bipartisan foreign policy," an excuse for financial colonialism, has been expanded to "bipartisan" sanctions for domestic tyranny. There is nothing that Bush can't get because there is nothing of importance to defend by both Democrats and Republicans. The proof of this is provided every day. There is a loyal opposition in this country buty you won't find it in Congress.

This brings me to my main point:

There has been an inevitable and essential conspiracy of silence regarding any crime by the party in power because both parties are involved in an even bigger conspiracy – silence on the biggest crime. Kennedy got shot, no serious investigation took place and nothing much was shared, other than the stuff designed to create a variety of conspiracy theories. Another Kenned got shot, same thing; King, "much more nothingness." But even worse, we had the Joint Chiefs of Staff put "Operation Northwoods" on the table and guess what? Instead of the Chairman being jailed immediately, Lemnitzer was made Supreme Commander of NATO. This willingness of both sides to tolerate the outright negligence of the other when crimes against the people and Constitution took place made both parties partners in crime. Pretty hard to dump that partner, turn him in, or prosecute him.

Sure, we have changes in power and investigations but there can never be any real punishment of members of the ruling party because there were so many bipartisan scandals in the past or occurring at the time that any real investigation should take place. Transformation is perpetually denied by this collaboration.


Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?

The era is a continuum, beginning with a point of decline, the elimination of any protections to the system through bipartisan tolerance of crimes against the people. The decline reached its full definition in the Bush era. That's the inconsistency in the system that results in an irresolvable contradiction - when you have a system that will not protect itself from crimes, you end up with people who have license to manipulate the system to their personal ends for personal gain. You end up with a population that's smart enough to figure out that "they're all crooks, what difference does it make who you vote for?"

No need to be "outraged" about this, it all makes sense. It couldn't have ended any other way. Hell, these people watch the earth coming to and end and say "there are two sides to this issue of climate change." They're total assholes.

Two choices:

A) Watergate, "rule of law", presidential removal, congressional investigations, dogged investigative journalism, bi-partisan defense of constitution, jail terms, no wire-tapping, Church committee, exposure of CIA "abuses", ban on assinations, War Powers Act, "political optimism", etc....

B) Bush-era, "Fuck the Law", nobody gets nailed, bipartisan coverups, no investigative journalism, Teflon, "Fuck the Constitution", nobody goes to jail, Torture, Robotic Republicans, Dipshit Democrats, Wiretapping, Rendition, unchecked executive power, unending hypocracy challenged by nobody except through bombastic momentary sound bites, unlimited "Executive Power", worthless Political Parties, worthless Elected officials, worthless courts, worthless prosecutors, worthless laws, "political pessimism", etc...

Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Why... explain.

Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?
.

The first example is to the second as the Great War is to WWII.

The first is wrong, and falsely seeing it as right - in terms of the outcome - led directly and inevitably to the second.

Both can exist in a 35 year stretch because one could not have existed without the other, and because it took 35 years for the illusion of the "victors" that they had won to wear off.

Two choices:

A) Watergate, "rule of law", presidential removal, congressional investigations, dogged investigative journalism, bi-partisan defense of constitution, jail terms, no wire-tapping, Church committee, exposure of CIA "abuses", ban on assinations, War Powers Act, "political optimism", etc....

B) Bush-era, "Fuck the Law", nobody gets nailed, bipartisan coverups, no investigative journalism, Teflon, "Fuck the Constitution", nobody goes to jail, Torture, Robotic Republicans, Dipshit Democrats, Wiretapping, Rendition, unchecked executive power, unending hypocracy challenged by nobody except through bombastic momentary sound bites, unlimited "Executive Power", worthless Political Parties, worthless Elected officials, worthless courts, worthless prosecutors, worthless laws, "political pessimism", etc...

Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Why... explain.

Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?
.

The first example is to the second as the Great War is to WWII.

The first is wrong, and falsely seeing it as right - in terms of the outcome - led directly and inevitably to the second.

Both can exist in a 35 year stretch because one could not have existed without the other, and because it took 35 years for the illusion of the "victors" that they had won to wear off.

Very good. We actually agree, and I'm the verbose one;)

"Merry Fucking Christmas" as the song goes.

[quote=anaxarchos]Two choices:

A) Watergate, "rule of law", presidential removal, congressional investigations, dogged investigative journalism, bi-partisan defense of constitution, jail terms, no wire-tapping, Church committee, exposure of CIA "abuses", ban on assignations, War Powers Act, "political optimism", etc....

B) Bush era, "Fuck the Law", no body gets nailed, bipartisan cover-ups, no investigative journalism, Teflon, "Fuck the Constitution", no body goes to jail, Torture, Robotic Republicans, Dipshit Democrats, Wiretapping, Rendition, unchecked executive power, unending hypocrisy challenged by nobody except through bombastic momentary sound bites, unlimited "Executive Power", worthless Political Parties, worthless Elected officials, worthless courts, worthless prosecutors, worthless laws, "political pessimism", etc...

Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Why... explain.

Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?
.


Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Oh, a trick question for the sophomores. It's actually Zen like but a few syllables too long.

These two events are NOT discordant in substance, not at all. With Watergate/Nixon we had a seven year war going, large sums money were being made, wealth transferred from working to the ultra upper class, and death was served up on a conveyor belt on a regular basis - a lot of deaths for citizens and millions for "enemies."


Why... explain.

We had investigations and the removal of a president, much to our credit, even if the reasoning was not thorough and intellectually honest. Didn't Nixon bomb a country without any authorization? Wasn't that a charge that failed in impeachment?

There was "dogged investigative journalism" and it was lonely too, I bet. I don't go for the Woodward as intel mole. I think the right things happened and Bradlee was the right editor for the times.

The "bi-partisan defense of constitution" was more a function of Nixon's longevity and nastiness. He had offended so many, it was pay back time. If they'd wanted to defend the constitution, they would have fallen down on their knees and begged forgiveness for allowing a war to be declared by the executive branch, for having allowed the BIG LIE of the Tonkin Gulf resolution to stand. That was a crime in and of itself. Not correcting that, left the precedent open for subsequent use - allow a president who wants war to manufacture a war based on a false incident. That was treason.

"Jail terms" for the perps were fine. They had those country-club jails but time is time. The big crook didn't go to jail, however.

The "Church committee" is one of two distinguishing features of this era compared to the current. There was a real opportunity to learn and stop the madness. The will to act was not there despite Church's gutsy actions. He's one my heroes and I don't have any so that's how good he was.

During this time, there was still a certain modesty left plus common manners that restrained those in power, to a large degree. The restraint prevented total theft - they didn't seal everything that wasn't nailed down. They stole a lot but not everything.

They also avoided the brutal power lust that makes a total mockery of the presumed system in place. This was the cusp between the people fighting for and getting change and the end of all responsiveness to the people which started with Reagan. Those in power had enough respect for us to make it look like we really had something going allowing us to rid ourselves of a deviant in the White House. The demands for removal succeeded, in part, due to a sense of obligation: At least have enough courtesy to respect the illusion that this is happening for the right reasons. Unfortunately, it quickly morphed into another argument for "American exceptionalism" and thus became part of the poisonous pedagogy of our political system.

What's different about the Bush ere?

A matter of proportion and the absence of any degree of restraint by the rulers, big money, explains our current state.

"Fuck the Law" - yep. It's out there and in our face. Lies about WMD; indifference to 911; lawyers from a crack pot law school populating DoJ; and no effort to appoint judges other than ringers for the worst impulses of business.

"Nobody gets nailed" is an extension of the Nixon period. Nobody got nailed for much then. Viet Nam was a big crime but nobody who planned, financed, supported, enabled or lied about it got nailed. That was the big ticket item - anybody go to jail for that.

As for the rest, it's a matter of consistent application of tyranny now compared to the inconsistencies in that effort during the Nixon period. This is a major mistake, if citizens have or are able to mobilize power. They've stolen too much, lied too much, and trashed any degree of law too much. The notion of "bipartisan foreign policy," an excuse for financial colonialism, has been expanded to "bipartisan" sanctions for domestic tyranny. There is nothing that Bush can't get because there is nothing of importance to defend by both Democrats and Republicans. The proof of this is provided every day. There is a loyal opposition in this country buty you won't find it in Congress.

This brings me to my main point:

There has been an inevitable and essential conspiracy of silence regarding any crime by the party in power because both parties are involved in an even bigger conspiracy – silence on the biggest crime. Kennedy got shot; "nothing," no serious investigation took place and nothing much was shared, other than the stuff designed to create a variety of conspiracy theories. Another Kenned got shot, "nothing"; King, "a whole lot of nothing." But even worse, we had the Joint Chiefs of Staff put "Operation Northwoods" on the table and guess what? Instead of the Chairman being jailed immediately, Lemnitzer was made Supreme Commander of NATO. This willingness of both sides to tolerate the outright negligence of the other when crimes against the people and Constitution took place made both parties partners in crime. Pretty hard to dump that partner, turn him in, or prosecute him.

Sure, we have changes in power and investigations but there can never be any real punishment of members of the ruling party because there were so many bipartisan scandals in the past or occurring at the time that any real investigation should take place. Transformation is perpetually denied by this collaboration.


Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?

The era is a continuum, beginning with a point of decline, the elimination of any protections to the system through bipartisan tolerance of crimes against the people. The decline reached its full definition in the Bush era. That's the inconsistency in the system that results in an irresolvable contradiction - when you have a system that will not protect itself from crimes, you end up with people who have license to manipulate the system to their personal ends for personal gain. You end up with a population that's smart enough to figure out that "they're all crooks, what difference does it make who you vote for?"

No need to be "outraged" about this, it all makes sense. It couldn't have ended any other way. Hell, these people watch the earth coming to and end and say "there are two sides to this issue of climate change." They're total assholes.[/quote:3r6pr8an]

Did I miss something sensei?

Did I miss something sensei?

Nothing to miss... just soliciting opinions. These are among the most obvious questions of our times and rarely get discussed, perhaps because they are so familiar. My question is kinda simple: This latest Bush thing -

1) Is it an "anomoly" which will be fixed or fix itself in the next period?
2) Is it the norm, the confusion arising from it coming from the real "anomoly" of the Civil Rights/Vietnam/Watergate era?
3) Is it something new, different from not only Watergate but from what came before?
4) None of the above...

I thought both Mike and your answers were interesting and a little more than the standard answers to this, even when the question gets asked. They sure beat "Bush is a Lizard-bitburger...", or "Dominionism ate our country".

I dunno about you, but I am hearing the blues all over the web - Bad blues, too... Not up to Albert King... Not even up to Magic Slim.

http://www.bluesartstudio.com/Komponenten/TH-Magic+Slim.jpg

Did I miss something sensei?

Nothing to miss... just soliciting opinions. These are among the most obvious questions of our times and rarely get discussed, perhaps because they are so familiar. My question is kinda simple: This latest Bush thing -

1) Is it an "anomoly" which will be fixed or fix itself in the next period?
2) Is it the norm, the confusion arising from it coming from the real "anomoly" of the Civil Rights/Vietnam/Watergate era?
3) Is it something new, different from not only Watergate but from what came before?
4) None of the above...

I thought both Mike and your answers were interesting and a little more than the standard answers to this, even when the question gets asked. They sure beat "Bush is a Lizard-bitburger...", or "Dominionism ate our country".

I dunno about you, but I am hearing the blues all over the web - Bad blues, too... Not up to Albert King... Not even up to Magic Slim.

http://www.bluesartstudio.com/Komponenten/TH-Magic+Slim.jpg

The "blues"... I gotta a million of them:


I know a million Leftists (well not quite that many) who are fundamentally aware of the root problems and can impressively talk about them all day but haven't lifted a finger to change anything.

I know many others who've poured their blood into changing things, who've laid down in front of trains losing their legs but still didn't change anything.

Then we've got some who write fantastic books that other Leftists buy but they live within the system and keep playing along.

When I look at how easily the antiwar movement caved in, it's downright embarrassing and I won't blame the Liberals because all their nasty tricks times two never should have stopped the Left from continuiing to organize and pursue things.

I don't think the problems is Liberals. I think most Liberals have their hearts in the right place and that with the right leadership they'd do what's right. The big problem is weeding out the complicit bastards, saying no to the gatekeepers and having some tolerance for other people's differences.

Do you see Medea Benjamin as a Leftist? I do. And while it was downright embarrassing to see her shilling for Kerry many Leftists vilified & crucified her for following her conscience (never mind that many of them caved in and voted for Kerry too).

I guess it all boils down to who you define as a Leftist. We have so-called Leftists who cheered when Israel butchered people in Rafah- don't make me bring up any names here. Others who were shilling for Edwards pseudo populism before the first shot was even fired.

Who are all these Leftists working for meaningful change? Even a ton of the Veterans for Peace members hang out on their remote properties 90% of the year thinking, talking, educating others the best they can, showing up for protests, but what meaningful change are they really working towards?

What meaningful change can you really work towards in this comfy country? How many people are willing to say hell no to the energy companies, stop driving, refuse to pay utility bills and go without light in their homes? How many people will refuse to go to work and support the system? Not even the "Leftists". The book sellers keep writing books and selling them- not a single one gives those books away or tours for free.

How many people do you really think are like you? Willing to walk around in home-made pants to keep as many dimes as possible out of the system?

Sorry to sound so bummed out but I am. Extremely bummed out. I see us as inherently selfish, intellectually superior and too willing to blame "Liberals" for our own failures when we won't even talk with them except to sneer and yell from our own compromised comfort zones and say they're hopeless. Sorry to seem so cynical.

My baby done left me,
Sure enough she took up with another man.

My baby done left me,
Sure enough she took up with another man.

Wa Wa, Wa Wa, wawawawawa....

Very good. We actually agree, and I'm the verbose one;)

"Merry Fucking Christmas" as the song goes.

Hey Mike I heard that there was a big right wing campaign pressuring Huckabee to free Dumond because he was supposedly railroaded by Clinton. I guess my chestnuts got roasted on an open fire after all.

I dunno about you, but I am hearing the blues all over the web

Yes, interesting isn't it?

Things are shifting quickly and I don't quite fully understand it yet. Somehow this change hinges on the contrast between the Huckabee campaign and the Clinton campaign. Clinton is supposedly to the left and Huckabee to the right because of their positions on the cultural war issues. Yet we have a right winger taking economic positions to the left of the Democratic candidate. This is trouble. It exposes the hypocrisy of the liberals. The "left" positions on the cultural war issues made for nice camouflage and disguised the true nature of the Democratic party and liberalism—very conservative, operating as a top-down aristocracy.

Two choices:

A) Watergate, "rule of law", presidential removal, congressional investigations, dogged investigative journalism, bi-partisan defense of constitution, jail terms, no wire-tapping, Church committee, exposure of CIA "abuses", ban on assinations, War Powers Act, "political optimism", etc....

B) Bush-era, "Fuck the Law", nobody gets nailed, bipartisan coverups, no investigative journalism, Teflon, "Fuck the Constitution", nobody goes to jail, Torture, Robotic Republicans, Dipshit Democrats, Wiretapping, Rendition, unchecked executive power, unending hypocracy challenged by nobody except through bombastic momentary sound bites, unlimited "Executive Power", worthless Political Parties, worthless Elected officials, worthless courts, worthless prosecutors, worthless laws, "political pessimism", etc...

Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Why... explain.

Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?

.

So cover-ups and whitewash worked better 30 years ago? I am almost sure I missed something...

Two choices:

A) Watergate, "rule of law", presidential removal, congressional investigations, dogged investigative journalism, bi-partisan defense of constitution, jail terms, no wire-tapping, Church committee, exposure of CIA "abuses", ban on assinations, War Powers Act, "political optimism", etc....

B) Bush-era, "Fuck the Law", nobody gets nailed, bipartisan coverups, no investigative journalism, Teflon, "Fuck the Constitution", nobody goes to jail, Torture, Robotic Republicans, Dipshit Democrats, Wiretapping, Rendition, unchecked executive power, unending hypocracy challenged by nobody except through bombastic momentary sound bites, unlimited "Executive Power", worthless Political Parties, worthless Elected officials, worthless courts, worthless prosecutors, worthless laws, "political pessimism", etc...

Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Why... explain.

Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?

.

So cover-ups and whitewash worked better 30 years ago? I am almost sure I missed something...


Two eras... in both illegality, cover-ups, and whitewash appear undeniable. In the one, the "system" jumps to it and through selflessness, bipartisanship, and love of Constitution, sets everything right again. In the other era, nobody does jack except come up with cynical excuses as to why they will not lift a finger to set anything right despite a sustained "tut, tut..." rising in the body politic. Which is "typical" of American history and American political institutions? Or is the entire narrative wrong?
.

Two eras... in both illegality, cover-ups, and whitewash appear undeniable. In the one, the "system" jumps to it and through selflessness, bipartisanship, and love of Constitution, sets everything right again. In the other era, nobody does jack except come up with cynical excuses as to why they will not lift a finger to set anything right despite a sustained "tut, tut..." rising in the body politic. Which is "typical" of American history and American political institutions? Or is the entire narrative wrong?

Lemme take a stab at this. The whole Watergate drama was not typical of American history. It was a system response to the times, when many more Americans were "engaged" with politics due to 'Nam and the Civil Rights Movement. People had expectations which were not being met, some demonstration was in order to reassure. Nixon's stupid game probably would have been papered over in another time but a dog & pony show was needed and Nixon was an unliked and unlikable sumbitch anyway. Sacrificing Nixon, ending the draft, the bloody gearing down of the war, these satiated the opposition without even getting near the core issues of class and imperialism, mission accomplished.

The current deal is more of the same old shit with a vengeance. The "vengeance" comes from several factors, one being the arrogance and hubris of the current team in charge. But those pigdogs couldn't let it all hang out without a legislature more bought than ever by their mutual masters, a result of the transparent legal graft of campaign financing. Add to this the ruling class's nerviness about control of resources which translates to a greater taste for adventurism both foreign and domestic.

They do what they gotta do, they play it by ear. If Fordism and the New Deal were what was required to maintain stability, stability meaning that they aren't toppled, they'd swallow it and wait to recoup, as they are doing now. The growth of the oil based transportation infrastructure has allowed them to abandon Fordism. Their reliance on their mastery of psyops has encouraged them to dismantle what's left of the New Deal. It looks like the plan is now to back off a little, at least to appearances, make a show of the Dems acting as a corrective, all the while it's business as usual. See, the system works, ho ho.

The narrative is wrong, there's no either/or here, only contingency guided by the overarching dictum of the maintenance and aggrandizement of wealth/power.

Two choices:

A) Watergate, "rule of law", presidential removal, congressional investigations, dogged investigative journalism, bi-partisan defense of constitution, jail terms, no wire-tapping, Church committee, exposure of CIA "abuses", ban on assinations, War Powers Act, "political optimism", etc....

B) Bush-era, "Fuck the Law", nobody gets nailed, bipartisan coverups, no investigative journalism, Teflon, "Fuck the Constitution", nobody goes to jail, Torture, Robotic Republicans, Dipshit Democrats, Wiretapping, Rendition, unchecked executive power, unending hypocracy challenged by nobody except through bombastic momentary sound bites, unlimited "Executive Power", worthless Political Parties, worthless Elected officials, worthless courts, worthless prosecutors, worthless laws, "political pessimism", etc...

Which one is "wrong", which one is typical of American history, which one is discordant?

Why... explain.

Next question: How is it possible for both to exist in a 35 year stretch? Are all the "outraged ones" simply saddled with the wrong point of reference?

.


Two eras... in both illegality, cover-ups, and whitewash appear undeniable. In the one, the "system" jumps to it and through selflessness, bipartisanship, and love of Constitution, sets everything right again. In the other era, nobody does jack except come up with cynical excuses as to why they will not lift a finger to set anything right despite a sustained "tut, tut..." rising in the body politic. Which is "typical" of American history and American political institutions? Or is the entire narrative wrong?
.

I'll take what's behind curtain #3, Monty.