Connor Coyne

It’s a typical week, in that there are plenty of things that you ought to be angry about. High on the list is the New York Times report that Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers. Of course, given the sound-bite nature of reportage these days, it’s easy to lose the sequence of events here. They are fairly laid out in sequence by BarbinMD… specifically that despite Democratic tough-talk (“violence to the constitution” and “the stonewalling is unacceptable and it must end,” a la Harry Reid) subpoenas have been slow coming. Now, not only do formal charges in response to an illegal program that puts us on par with Russia seem unlikely, but the program is about to be written into law.

Why can’t the Democrats fight as tough as they talk? They don’t have to become Republicans in order to do it. They don’t have to be mean or hypocritical… just firm and assertive. How does this sound: For every Presidential veto that Congress will not override, the Democratic leadership will (in the absense of pressing legislation) turn its energy toward investigations of the abuse of power in the last decade. It doesn’t have to be stated outright: it can be an “understanding.” To paraphrase alan1, there’s a time for rhetoric and a time for lawyers.

This time, I feel an above average sense of betrayal. Opposition to unconstitutional wiretaps isn’t, after all, a fringe liberal position for Democrats to take up, nor are their numbers so soft that they can reasonably defer to perceived expediency.

This is a decade where the Republican party charges to the right in pursuit of their radical and inconsistant base. This is a decade where the Democratic party charges to the right, abandoning their patient and long-suffering base. At what point does a protest “vote of conscience” become acceptable again?

Tom‘s on a roll this month. I always like his blogging, political and otherwise, but this month he’s been even more prolific than usual. Last Friday he analyzed God and the religious right as suggested by Oklahoma State Senator Ernie Chambers:

Human beings tend to make Gods in our own image. We imagine Gods that reflect our hopes, our deepest yearnings, what we see as the best in ourselves.

So what does it tell you about the Religious Right when the God they imagine is a violent, vindictive, total shit?

The Democratic Socialists of America are throwing a convention this November 9-11, in Atlanta of all places.

I wish I had more money, so that I could go.

I also wish they had better web design, so that I could read about the convention without feeling like I’m reading about a preschool Easter Egg hunt. That has to be the least flattering picture of Bernie Sanders ever.

Unfortunately, my source is the American Family News.

“We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes — and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers,” asserts Sali.

Well this is spectacular. For the 900th time one of our Representatives is talking about the Founders’ intentions without having bothered to learn who they were or what they believed. Such luminaries as John Adams and Benjamen Franklin were both Unitarians and surely would have scoffed at the idea that earthly prosperity is somehow meted out in a straightfoward Salian way. Thirteen signers were Freemasons, an organization which is open to both Hindus and Muslims and many other faiths, and has heavily incoporated Islamic tradition and cosmology since its conception. Even the Chrisian majority of the Founding Fathers had a practical and flexible vision of their faith which corresponded with a growing democracy. Conservatives are right to assert that the country was more predominantly Christian at its inception than it is now; they are historically wrong in thinking that the era’s Christianity was as rigid and unyielding as their own “faith.”

According to Congressman Sali, the only way the U.S. can continue to survive is under that protective hand of God. He states when a Hindu prayer is offered, “that’s a different god” and that it “creates problems for the longevity of this country.”

The most appropriate question is whether the Founders themselves would have felt comfortable in Sali’s congress.

If you like, you can write and ask him yourself.

… that some computer was making a note of the fact that you were, today, visiting this blog. That note was archived, backed up, made subject to keyword search. This record of your visit will be available, without your knowledge or consent, to people you don’t know, at any given moment, and finally for years to come.