Counterpunch ran a rant by John Steppling yesterday, titled The Magic Liberal.

As you can deduct from the title, the author takes aim at liberals, with focus on their public reaction to Comey's defenestration and their sudden love affair with institutions (law enforcement/intelligence agencies) that have proven time and time again to be an enemy of the public.

Check out this (admittedly rather long) snippet:

And so we return to the firing of James Comey. And this story has less to do with the Trump’s motivations and the fact that Comey probably needed to be fired (though not because of anything to do with Russia Gate) than it does with the sudden open embracing of throughly corrupt and compromised institutions.

I’ve had people tell me the integrity of the Judiciary in peril. One wonders how such sentences can be uttered with a straight face. I have read people writing of the attack on Democracy signaled by Comey’s firing. What can that possibly mean to anyone who says it? The anti democratic actions of Obama over 8 years seems to pass unnoticed. What was NDAA? Obama expanded surveillance, prosecuted whistleblowers and expanded military tribunals. And this just scratches the surface. What was TTP for that matter?

And yet, if you can find me a liberal willing to actually debate this, I will clean your house for a year, free.

No, the New Victorian, the american white educated liberal is in crises. He or she is in a panic over Trump not because they fear global conflagration or nuclear annihilation, but because their Yoga class might get cancelled. They are forever aggrieved over the violation of feelings — of selected vulnerable groups. This never includes the poor, Arabs, Communists or Africans. Well, ok, on occasion it does include Africans but only in very broad abstract ways (i.e. when George Clooney argues for saving South Sudan or whateverthefuckever it was he was on about).

The adoration of the White Helmets, a proven group of psychopathic jihadist mercenaries is a perfect example. The White Helmets fit the white paternalist narrative. It is a form of colonial logic. The subaltern needs rescue. And its just so wonderful that some clearly teachable Arabs can help themselves with the rescue. Lets give them an Oscar. The style codes are what matters here.

@harlequinn

i have witnessed many of my more right leaning friends on social media ask a very similar question,but ignore that the attorney general is first,and foremost,an agent of the court.

sally yates did nothing illegal.she simply was upholding a lawful injunction passed down from ninth circuit court federal judge william orrick.(who is a republican,for what it is worth).

what yates DID do was ignore an executive order commanding her to challenge the injunction,which she refused and told her subordinates to do the same.which is considered gross insubordination,and the reason she was fired,but she had every right and legal cover to ignore that EO.

the DOJ,and subsequently the attorney general,are not their for the presidents leisure.they are part of the judiciary branch,which is separate from the executive.though every president has replaced the current attorney general with one that most aligns with their politics.

the fact that so many diehard rightwingers see what yates did as anti-patriotic is a stance that i find very disturbing.that somehow by disobeying the president,she crossed some imaginary line,and therefore should be punished for her disobedience.

which she was! she was fired.

but to imply that disobeying an executive order is tantamount to treason,goes against the very ideology of our constitutional republic.the president is not KING.he does not wield absolute power.

and to pretend what yates did as illegal,and treasonous, for disobeying the president.... is fascism 101.

@Asmo @Phreezdryd

i get his arguments using historical precedent,and i actually agree,but i dont see how c-160 in its current form can be used as a bull whip.there would have to be heavy complicity from the judiciary to abuse which in essence is simply an addendum to an existing human rights statute.

and as i stated,or thought i did,i really enjoy his arguments for free speech and the usage of language in cultural and societal dynamics.

if you take away the more rabid of protesters who rallied against peterson,without really even listening to his lectures.a.k.a muglypuff.those people are true believers,and their minds will never be changed,because they refuse to even allow a discourse to even transpire.

the only actual abuse i saw was by his his own employer:university of toronto.

many of the protest i saw against him were fairly tame in comparison to other supposed "anti=sjw",because if you listen to peterson he is nowhere near an anti-sjw.

in my opinion,it was the decisions of the university of toronto that created this false image in regards to peterson,and for those who are unfamiliar with dr petersons take on free speech,and the misuse and abuse of the current trend of pronoun-political-footballing you really should give him a listen.

he certainly has a libertarian lean to his lectures,but his arguments are sound.

thanks you two for clearing some things up for me.
much appreciated.

It's like he's dropping half or a third of every word between complex words as they enter his brain and he confuses them with each other, almost like when you drop syllables in espanol. Except he's dropping syllables on words that he imagines are the words he's looking for.

Ex. Esigdesigejucation: Escort signature designated digested judiciary education. He drops syllables on each word he confuses in his thought process.

I'm going to implement "esigdesigejucation" in my daily life.

Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, nails Comey hard on the FBI's advice to not prosecute HRC:

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/070516_Letter-to-Director-Comey.pdf

Further down on the Onion...

Here is a step-by-step guide to how U.S. Supreme Court justices are selected:

Step 1: Supreme Court vacancy opens after a sitting justice dies, retires, or is promoted to the Galactic Circuit
Step 2: President wistfully crosses out own name from list of potential candidates
Step 3: Official presidential nominee slowly lowered by rope into Senate Judiciary Committee pit
Step 4: Nominee charged one-time $30 background check fee
Step 5: Candidate asked whether they see themselves in exact same place 35 years from now
Step 6: Judiciary Committee members ask nominee whether they capable of writing a dissent that could be described as “blistering”
Step 7: Candidate attests they have no opinion whatsoever on issue of abortion, don’t know what it is, and frankly have never heard such a word uttered before
Step 8: Senate takes nominee out to drinks to see how they act in casual, informal setting
Step 9: Nominee stands as their predecessor’s robe is draped over them to see if government can save a few bucks on not ordering a new one
Step 10: Following months of direct questioning, witness testimony, and poring over the nominee’s qualifications and judicial history, the Senate votes on whether they like the president or not
Step 11: If confirmed, justice takes oath of office and is assigned a bench buddy to help them through their first few opinions
Step 12: If candidate not confirmed, process repeats indefinitely until other party holds White House or country is awash in the hot, crimson blood of neighbor killing neighbor, whichever comes first

That's kind of a silly thing to say.
Do you really think they could say anything even if they wanted to?

They have no choice but to return respect, even when it's not given in return. It's their Royalty. And in cultures that are so closely ruled by the system, no one would ever dare speak up against them. (out of fear)
You never speak out against those who rule you. Speaking up against the Saudi Royalty would mean instant death.


Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Farhan Al-Saud, who spoke to RT from Dusseldorf, Germany, confirmed reports of increased prosecution of anti-government activists and said that it’s exactly what forced him to defect from his family. He accused the monarchy of corruption and silencing all voices of dissent and explained how the Saudi mechanism for suppression functioned.

“There is no independent judiciary, as both police and the prosecutor’s office are accountable to the Interior Ministry. This ministry’s officials investigate ‘crimes’ (they call them crimes), related to freedom of speech. So they fabricate evidence, don’t allow people to have attorneys”, the prince told RT Arabic. “Even if a court rules to release such a ‘criminal’, the Ministry of Interior keeps him in prison, even though there is a court order to release him. There have even been killings! Killings! And as for the external opposition, Saudi intelligence forces find these people abroad! There is no safety inside or outside the country.”
http://rt.com/news/saudi-arabia-opposition-prince-374/

I believe the problem is with the government's use of competitive judiciary : where each side debates their case, regardless of merit, and the expectation is that the 'right' argument will win simply because truth should naturally be able to present a stronger argument.

This assumption not only leads to some face-palm-worthy cases/charges, it also inevitably leads to people being convicted in situations where everyone involved knows with absolute certainty that the defender is innocent (often because quirks within the rules of the official process).

In this case, the "right" thing to do is : Apologize to the man, and refund him any costs that he's incurred so far due to this mess.

But "process" requires that the government push their argument to its absolute limit, even with zero merit, because the officially sanctioned way by which the situation is resolved is via argument in court (conveniently, the need to do this is also decided by people working in court - effectively excusing their professional existence and securing their very employment).

There is no 'admitting there was a mistake'. A mistake has to be proven in court. So even though everyone involved knows that the man is not at any fault, they will still force him to spend his time and money arguing a case, just to jump through hoops, and in the end it's _extremely_ unlikely that his personal costs will be refunded to him (lawyer fees, etc).

In the mean time, everyone on the government side is simply doing their 9-5. None of this is a burden to them, and it's in fact 'how they put food on the table'. If they aren't charging him, they're charging someone else. This is just another day at the office.

The guy getting screwed can't say 'no thanks, I'll not participate', because men with guns will show up and drag him away (police arrest for not going to court). It's effectively a predatory practice whereby the government fleeces people. Everyone involved knows it's meritless, but they simply force you to dance [else go to jail], and collect some fees in the process.

Because, really, what's at stake is not 'the truth' or 'justice'. It's simply "process". An excuse to inflate the number of court cases, to keep court spending high (to secure next year's budget - "use it or lose it" accounting), to keep collections high, and generally keep the high paid welfare cases (9/10 govt employees) employed.
TBH, for a country that supposedly "hates communism", actual communist countries haven't even managed to work it out this well. (I'm not talking fairy tale boogey man communism like you see in old propaganda. I mean the practical day to day actual workings. Vast government employment, bureaucracy, "process above all".)

-scheherazade

Ok, now I know you're either trolling or an idiot.

So, on one hand, we can do away with the foundation of every judicial system in the developed world and basically bring in Judge Dredd (adding in cruel and unusual punishment just for good measure).

And on the other hand, we need to fix the judiciary system so that it's 100% completely infallible.

Congratulations! You've somehow managed to present two ideas; both completely and utterly retarded and at the same time contradicting each other.

That's actually impressive in its stupidity.

If there's irrefutable evidence that a suspect is guilty, a trial is an utter waste of time and taxpayer money. Executions themselves don't have to be expensive either. Get rid of death row, get rid of fancy lethal injections. Just break the criminal's neck and dump him in a hole or incinerate him. That would be far, far cheaper than providing him with food, shelter, medical care, etc, for the duration of his sentence.

The reliability of our judiciary system is another matter entirely and separate from the matter of punishment. It's definitely flawed and would need to be reworked before enacting any of the changes I've proposed.

You don't need to climb to 45 000 feet to depressurize a cabin. Both pilots had no history of "zealotry" or instability. Anwar Ibrahim is more-or-less a progressive in Malaysia, he wants an independent judiciary, calls anti-gay laws "archaic", and supports Israel/Palestine peace -- hardly Taliban material.

We're not even sure it's a hijacking at this point.

@bobknight33
cognitive dissonance+circular logic=your comment

you state its all the governments fault.
you give an example of massive amounts of "aid"

care to clarify that position?

because i actually agree with you but i suspect it is for different reasons.

when we look at government subsidies (welfare/aid),the largest recipient by far is american corporations.we even subsidize CEO pay,not to mention subsidizing their slave wage work force.

so can you tell me who the TRUE welfare queens are?

and did you just equate our government and its corporate socialism to being "kind,nice and trying to do the right thing"?
and that somehow this government altruism is bad for capitalism?

seriously?

it wouldnt happen to have anything to do with the army of corporate lobbyists that stampede congress/senate and the judiciary now would it?

all with their hands out.looking for some tasty welfare.

noooooooo...corporations are GOOD for the economy!
they are the "job creators" (like wall mart) and all that extra profit will rain down upon us common folk like mana from heaven.

here is how our current system plays out:
socialism for the rich.
capitalism for the poor.

we dont have capitalism.
our government is bought.
they no longer work for you,nor me.we have become irrelevant.

capitalism.
sounds like a great system.
we should try it sometime.

Ideology and Insanity are not mutually dependent.

You can have :
Sane Ideology
Insane Ideology
Sane non-Ideology
Insane non-Ideology

The principles of an individual can be constructive or destructive, whether or not they are part of an ideology.
What matters is the specific principles, and not whether or not they are associated with an ideology.

As individuals, we have animal impulses.
These include :
- Feeling combative in the presence of a verbal threat or insult.
- Feeling combative (inclined to silence/sensor) in the presence of ideas that are at odds with one's own.
- Feeling impulse to take shortcuts to reward (eg. stealing money fast vs earning money slow).

Ideology helps to fix these things.
This includes :
- Personal feelings don't take precedence over other people's physical condition.
Words are only words, actions are what makes a tangible measurable difference. We are masters of our own emotions, only ourselves can be blamed for our happiness or malcontent.

- Inherent equality of individuals. Ideas out in the open can live or die by their own merit as determined by all people. Censoring is taking privilege over other people by predetermining for them what ideas they are allowed to consider.

- Respect for domain. Doing as we like with what is ours, and not affecting what belongs to others.


"The moon does not care" (TM).
Nothing is intrinsically universal.

There are worldly concepts native to life on earth (protecting one's children, guarding one's domain, suffering/pain response, etc), but the higher order concept of "Idea X is _unacceptable_" is a purely human invented "meta" issue.



Sanity is Rationality is Logic ... which in turn is the ability to find a path from state A to state B.

For example:
[Given A=alive]
If your desire is to survive (B=alive), then eating poison is illogical.
It would be insane then to eat poison, as it would not be a path from A to B.
But if your desire is to die (B=dead), then eating poison is logical.
It would be sane to eat poison, as it would be a path from A to B.

Point being, people like to view the world with their own goals in mind.
Given that other people invariably have different goals in mind, the judgment of sane or insane becomes relative ... that's not "just words", that's quite real.
If a miserable person with a painful disease eats poison, is it logical for a healthy happy individual to say "that's insane"?



Much of our body politic is the projection of a subset of people's standards onto a larger population, with disregard for the other people.

At this point, politically, we are mired in populism, and we lack ideology - even though we were handed a pretty good one at the beginning.

Instead of having some guiding concepts that we use to restrain emotional impulses, we [as a society] fly off chasing populist agendas fed to us by our "team" (party) of choice.

Ironically, often rooting for a position that we are at odds with. (eg. "I hate the Affordable Care Act" even though "I like having coverage for pre-existing conditions")

The constitution does a good job at laying down the rules for an equitable relationship between government and people, but it's practically a dead document these days.
Elected officials neglect their obligation to represent and instead fashion themselves as leaders.
Lawmakers pass laws in violation of the constitution day in and day out.
Judiciary enforces lower laws that are constitutionally null.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of happiness aren't just words. They're text from the highest law of the land.
Under such a standard, you would think that it would mean that a person would be able to lead their personal life as they please. But not as it stands.

Most of our public debate, is about whether or not people should "allow" other people to do things with themselves or other consenting individuals.
"Allowing(y/n)" people to do drugs [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to have firearms [while not harming others].
"Allowing(y/n)" people to marry [while not involving others].
etc.

With the main objections being "I'm not physically involved, but I wouldn't do things that way if it were me, so I choose to have hurt feelings (and call that a personal involvement), and subsequently push my personal standards onto others".
It's a selfish, impulsive, capricious, predatory behavior ... lacking any meaningful ideological temperance.

-scheherazade

Here's the long-list from a famous -hacked-to-bits and otherwise forgotten document's grievance rider which seems a poignantly appropriate reason enough to want to shove a vote up someone's ass and rotate it:

Of King George:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Someone needs perhaps to revise the list and start hoarding ammunition and conscripting, because methinks the "vote" be fast-resembling, fuck-all. I don't vote and I am damn sure not going to be quiet any time soon...Average Joe and Jane voters have already effectively been "opted out."

Getting a warrant to search a house isn't that simple. It takes more time than they had plain and simple. I can't fathom how anyone could think that police, having reasonable grounds to believe that an armed suspect who had committed several murders of innocent civilians in the previous hours is contained in a specific neighborhood, should stop, contain and commence writing search warrants for every house they want to search. Each one taking at minimum 1-2 hours to type, and additional time to be read and approved by the Judiciary. In fact, it would be reckless and irresponsible to do this and allow any other people to be killed in the meantime. This is why exigent circumstances clauses exist. It has never been seen on this scale before and that is due to the extraordinary circumstances.

To argue there shouldn't be an "exigent circumstance" clause, is also ridiculous. If police believe on reasonable grounds, that a suspect is in his house they need a warrant. If they believe he is currently destroying evidence of the crime for which he is a suspect, they do not need a warrant. But rest assured, the police MUST articulate their use of exigent circumstances every time it is used and the scrutiny from lawyers and judges will be fierce. People seem to think that it is a free pass for police to do what they want with no recourse. It is not.