…just who will oversee the overseers?
Still, TARP’s avowed purpose was to help healthy banks resume lending following the economic meltdown of 2008; it was never meant to become a congressional slush fund. Or was it? It’s time for Treasury to disclose all records about all contacts it has received from congressmen concerning the distribution of TARP funds. Anything less than full disclosure will fuel more public worries about possible cover-ups.
When the “objective” press becomes more interested in partisan activism than reporting facts — and when the government begins granting itself exemptions to Constitutional law, under the rationale that they are answerable, really, only to themselves (and, down the road, perhaps to an electorate that will remain mostly ignorant of the transgressions being committed in their names) — we have lost the kinds of checks and balances needed to run a democratic republic.
To people like Tom Friedman, who pines for the ease with which the autocratic Chinese government can implement social engineering projects without having to convince the public, this breakdown of the republic (which, I’ve long argued, is an inevitable result of the co-opting of the press by the left) is a feature, not a bug: after all, what good is freedom if what it offers isn’t in keeping with what our betters within the ranks of the progressives believe is what is best for us? — and so, best for them, as the self-appointed architects of the coming Utopia?
Is it any wonder, then, that to many on the left, the Constitution represents not a binding social contract, but rather an outmoded impediment to progress? Is it any wonder that, in order to circumvent that contract, the left (and many “pragmatists” on the right) embrace an idea of interpretation that allows a document imbued with original meaning to become a set of marks whose meaning is constrained only by the cleverness it takes to create new texts out of existing marks — and then the ability to peddle that new text as an “extension” or “augmentation” of the original meaning? Is our Constitution really but a document that changes from moment to moment, based on the whims of how a majority of “reasonable people” are able to interpret it — with the binding “reasonableness,” in many cases, settled by a 5-4 vote along partisan ideological lines?
Without an anchor to tie ourselves to, our liberties are — like signifiers to the deconstructionist — subject to drift. And once those in power realize that they are not restrained by anything solid — by any kind of permanent tether, in a post-Enlightenment world — power itself will only be constrained by the self-control of those who most desire its increase.
And that’s hardly who you want guarding your liberties.
Polls indicate a dozing public may be slowly rousing from its forty year nap. History says it’s going to take a backhand across the face to fully wake them.
Authoritarians mostly deal in backhands. So it’s all kinda circular.
And we all know homos and cumsluts have issues with self-control.
The interesting thing is that the Constitution is supposedly subject to various schools of interpretation used at various times in support of writing whole Amendments out of it (See Second Amendment), while at the same time no flexible interpretation can be used with reference to the texts of great “Progressive” achievements. (See, Roe v. Wade and its progeny) It becomes clear then that what is afoot is not good faith interpretation, but rather a series of not so clever word games – and what can be said about government by means of word games?
Related?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574572091993737848.html
TARP was a LOAN program with the repayments going back to the Treasury. It was never intended to expand the debt permenantly. Any SPENDING vs LOANING of TARP funds is a direct violation of the law pure and simple.
There should be lawsuits to stop this illegal activity of raiding TARP funds for spending.
That both principles are and were violated tells us loads.
Including that we’re all racists.
“Any SPENDING vs LOANING of TARP funds is a direct violation of the law pure and simple.
There should be lawsuits ”
Lawsuits?
I was thinking traitor trials. These fucks swore to defend the Constitution, that really is their ONLY job. I mean, if they aren’t doing that, what they are doing is subversive to the US government.
Who? How about Paul Ryan as an initial nominee? He appears to grasp the problem.
Ratchets, in our politics, only move to the left. Time soon to break the appalling pawl.
Tom Friedman reminds me of that whore Pablo Neruda, except without the talent, the sense of literary motion, and the nobel prize. Okay, so he reminds me of the whore part.
Time
soonnow to break the appalling pawlIt’s been several moons since anyone waxed appreciative of Jake Tapper.
Paul Ryan is a delicate blossom what we must protect until he is sturdy enough to weather a national campaign.
We can’t do him like laska.
Tom Friedman reminds me of a little boy. He writes in baby blue like Peggy Noonan writes in pink.
Bob Richardson from Illinois in re Iraq:
Progressive religion much? Phew. Must be a terrible burden having to implement the Laws of God and History the livelong day.
It appears to me that the proggies refuse to even acknowledge the existence of said “drift”. Tunnel vision, willful ignorance, or evil intent? Or all three?
Rush had a caller yesterday who told the story of some snot-nosed 27 year-old bank examiner that walked into a major bank and told them to call in the loan of a rock-solid citizen who owed 2 million on an asset base of 12 million.
In the end, that will be the legacy of the Obama administration; a bunch of punks who have never had a real job using their government positions to call in the loans of men who’s shoes (if there was true social justice) they would be shining.
Feh.
when does our little country’s headlong decline into a contemptible impoverished oppressive eurogay shithole become passe you think?
When the birthrate per capita skyrockets hf, due to general impoverishment generating fears for the survival probabilities of small broods. (See Third World.)
“when does our little country’s headlong decline into a contemptible impoverished oppressive eurogay shithole become passe you think?”
When everyone speaks Chinese.
No, no, Baracky. You can’t have the intertubes.
Paul Ryan is apparently trying to redefine progressive. I’m confused.
Tongue in cheek Lee? Or for reals?
zomg and NG just got pregnanted
we’re on our way!
Seems so sferr. It looks like he wants to describe the left as “Progressivists” now.
On the every journey first step theory then I take it?
I was wondering more about your reaction than him though.
I said my reaction. Confused.
Ah, ok. So I don’t think he’s redefining really. The difference is between the people then and the people now, more or less. La Follette and Wilson were idealistic believers. Whereas after more than a century of tearing down the structures of the metaphysics upon which their idealism was constructed, folks today mouth the words without the feelings to back it up. I think is where he’s going with that.
Well, as long as I don’t have to start identifying as a classical progressive, ‘cuz that’s just too ridiculous to consider…
The problem with progressivism 100 years ago is, it had a short horizon and, once it was reached, it either had to disband or change direction.
I’d say FDR had a lot to do with what the movement decided.
“…I don’t have to start identifying as a classical progressive…”
You lost me on that one.
She could always just go get herself scraped, hf.
“You lost me on that one.”
It had to do with this, from #22
Pending on “Early Progressives wanted to empower and engage the people”; which I can think possible, yet constrained within the context of the sense of justice prescribed by Hegel and others, these late 19th early 20th century believers like Roosevelt, LaFollette, and Wilson (we say) meant well, weren’t cynical about it in the least; thought they had the keys to the unfolding of Being or Spirit in the world and wanted nothing less than to do good with their certainties. (But folly, alas!)
Progressivism was bad in Wilson’s time and it’s bad now.
Does Ryan’s description of early progressivism jibe with Liberal Fascism?
I haven’t taken the time to analyze the two, but methinks he’s giving the first ones too much credit.
JINX with Jeff, again.
I’d say he owes me a Coke but I hate that stuff.
An eclair, on the other hand?
I haven’t suggested it wasn’t bad, I don’t think. I don’t think Wilson et al were under the influences our modern sort of progressives are under though. Which is all Ryan’s getting at at bottom, I think.
When the empty shelves start showing up in grocery stores.
That horizon may be longer than early progressivism, but it’s still finite. Once it’s reached they’ll change direction yet again.
When you’re waiting in line for gas. And bread.
OK. CK McCleod over at HotAir says this, which sounds to me like utter nonsense:
WTF? I am undoubtedly missing something. Were these things NOT part of the Republic before the early proggs?
That’s a disturbing piece, ain’t it, d?
ckhotair asshat
ck be pedaling paul ryan progressive-ism
Eighty-four years ago, Calvin Coolidge neatly summed up the lie of progressivism:
Precisely.
I think McCleod overreads Ryan. Ryan, it seems to me, reads the early progressives in the manner of a decent intentionalist. This doesn’t turn Ryan into a progressive in the least.
Heh, reading through that piece by MacLeod I noticed the use of “illiberal”. That’s at least three people using an incredibly rare and impossible to understand word in one day. Fucking weird, huh, Sam?
Towards the topic, I’d say MacLeod is out to lunch on this and Ryan would be wise to stop trying to present the Wisconsin Idea as part of his bio or backstory. It’s a loser.
Yeah, I agree sdferr, it doesn’t make him a progressive. I don’t understand why he wants to muddy the waters though.
Who wants to muddy the waters? MacLeod?
Comment by Mr. W on 4/6 @ 10:50 am #
Mr. W, one only need look at whom the Dems in IL have put up for the US Senate…
Seems like Ryan is trying to play word games to attract the muddled middle, those who reflexively identify as “progressive” because, hey, who doesn’t want progress? He’s saying, you want real progress? You got to look back and see how we did it old-school, ’cause those calling themselves “progressive” today? Bunch o’ wankers.