From Various Files

From the "Even a Stopped Clock is Right Twice a Day" file: Cal Thomas, uber-right wing commentator, just called on liberal commentators to give the same satiric treatment and overall attention to Andrew Young's case of foot-in-mouth that they did to US Senator George Allen's use of an ethnic slur.

I already did, thank you very much. But I agree with Thomas in that the errors, omissions, sins, and otherwise stupid actions of everyone, no matter what side of the aisle s/he occupies, must be fair game and must be brought to light by everone in the commentary biz, be the commentator of like or dissimilar general world views.

It is distasteful for me to admit that someone as mean-spirited and vindictive as Cal Thomas often is can be correct about anything, but in this case, he is. And now I am going to go wash my hands for having posted this.

* * * * * * * * * *

From the "Let's Blame the Victim" files: a recent letter to the Editor of the Omaha World-Herald claimed that the reason we lost Vietnam is that the draftees doing the fighting were less than motivated to accomplish the tasks set before them.

That idea is beyond offensive. It is downright odious.

We lost Vietnam for three main reasons: (1) politicians, not military men, made not just strategic, but tactical, decisions; (2) public perceptions in this country were that we were losing the war, especially after the Tet offensive; and (3) you can't fight and win a guerrilla war with conventional armies.

Too bad neither Dubya and his minions nor the Israelis have recognized this in regards to Iraq and Hezbollah, respectively.

* * * * * * * * * *

From the "Hold Your Enemies Closer" files: Op-ed columnist Jonah Goldberg recently posited that liberals have an inconsistent view of the US Constitution. For certain purposes, liberals want the Constitution to be a living, flexible, expanding document. For other purposes, however, liberals insist that the document remain rigid and inflexible.

He concludes that liberals have it backwards, because of where they want the Constitution to be flexible vs. where they want it to be static. He says the Constitution should be flexible to allow us to fight the war on terror, and should not be construed to forbid prayer in school, for example.

As I read his article, I knew instinctively he was wrong, but it took me a while to reason out why. He's wrong because the Constitution's ultimate purpose is to describe and limit the power of the government vis-a-vis the freedom of the individual citizen. Or else what's the use of our championing the concepts of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"? Still, his is the sort of conservative op-ed column that everyone must read, because on the face of it, his argument has a certain seductive power. In other words, it's thoughtful and reasoned, not just a piece of partisan screed, and thus deserves a respectful response/refutation.

Goldberg says there is nothing wrong with the warrantless wiretap program and other such efforts to fight the war on terror because the executive branch has the sole power to conduct foreign policy and wage war--and besides, "al-Qaida is using new technologies the founders never could have imagined."

I might agree with him, except for one small detail: these warrantless wiretaps are happening on US soil without any judicial supervision or oversight. The executive has the power to conduct foreign policy and wage war, but the legislative branch has the sole power of the public pursestrings (how can you fight a war when Congress won't pay for it?), and the judicial branch has the sole power to decide which actions of the other branches do or do not pass Constitutional muster.

Checks and balances are the heart of the Constitution. To posit that any branch can act without at least input from the other two is to ignore the very structure on which our government is built.

I don't disagree with Goldberg that present technologies, never conceived of by the founders, make it easier for terrorists to turn our liberties into "weapons against us." I do disagree with Goldberg when he says that that makes it OK to limit or even curtail those liberties.