This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on July 18, 2007 4:50 PM. The previous post in this blog was Guess who got away. The next post in this blog is More on the Spokane torture shrinks. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Comforting news

Just when everybody's noting how dangerous Al Qaeda's become once again, thanks to our good buddies running Pakistan and the excellent strategery coming from the White House, along comes a new executive order to make us all feel safer.

Think the wording's a little overbroad? Tell it to Tony Scalia and Clarence Thomas -- ha ha! No, really. We're at war. We're fighting ter. Don't say anything.

Comments (13)

As I mentioned to Jack, the interesting thing about the wording of this Executive Order is how it can be interpreted in at least two ways. Does it prohibit an "act" or "acts of violence? Or does it prohibit an "act or acts of violence".

With our good friend Alberto Gonzelez still at the helm (you're doing a great job Gonzo) I would submit that it is subject to the interpretation that ANY ACT which in the determination of the Secretary of the Treasury and the Dept. of Defense undermines the 'safety and security of Iraq' - like, say, a VOTE to withdraw the troops - or perhaps, a PROTEST against the war, subjects that person to a seizure of their assets under this Executive Order. It at least is subject to that interpretation, and, given our illustrious Vice President's recent machinations as to whether he is or is not in the executive or legislative branch of government, is not too outlandish.

If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.

I think you can safely read "act or acts" as both being modified by "of violence." But that doesn't make these guys any less scary to me.

... perhaps, a PROTEST against the war

Or, perhaps, even blogging comments that may be construed as being against the war. Forget about free speech, that's down the drain as well as your assets.

I'd love to smash a fresh horse dung pie in W's face because I disrespectfully disagree with his abhorrent policies on the "war" in Iraq. I therefore certainly pose a "potential" threat of violence that is connected to the conflict in Iraq. Come and get me you Mother F_ _ _ _ _ _ Bastards!

Don't worry, Kevin, your IP address ( is safe with me.

Besides, right now they're busy making up excuses for this.

Jack, I agree with you that both "act or acts" are probably, in the most reasonable sense, modified by the "of violence" tag.

But remember, this is an administration about whom a staffer opined (loose translation) you people live in the world of reality - we [GWB administration] make our own reality. Followed by something about us now being an 'empire'.

So, a reasonable intepretation of this language, pursuant to accepted rules of statutory construction (which no doubt, according to the lawyers for the executive branch will not apply to an executive order as an EO is not a statute - parsing hairs) may be unlikely to happen. And hence my concern, frankly. Because the Cheney/Bush team have demonstrated time and time again that they will SAY ANYTHING even if contradictory to their own prior statements, contrary to the law or simply stupid, to bolster their position that the executive branch is totally above any law of the land.

When the democrats took a slim majority in the Congress, I was frankly adamantly opposed to the idea of impeachment. Not any more. I think its the only way to get us out from under King George.

Remember Gonzo's read on the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus . . . .

Ah yes, the unitary executive; the gift that keeps on giving. I suppose the Constitution is scribed on W’s toilet paper.

the unitary executive

That one goes back to Ronald "Who? There Were So Many Meetings" Reagan.

The whole concept of George W. Bush signing an "executive order" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

To say what you mean, Jack, write: "an act(s) of ...." Singular or plural.

That is not what is written. What they mean it to mean, is not what you, reasonable person, think and expect it to mean.

But, hey, when the public runs so ragged in their wage-slave ratwheels, that nobody catches the math problems, it's a good bet that nobody catches the grammar-fault act(s), either.

You're trained in legislative language, I'm trained in physics math.

The major math problem getting scant traction, is that the REACTION energy of Tower pulverization is NOT equal-and-opposite the reported ACTION energy.

Try that again. For the first time in the history of the universe, (actually, three times in the same day!, shares of gravity went up or something), the REACTION was NOT equal-and-opposite the ACTION. Or vice versa, same same.

Small consequence. The energy numbers are 100,000 ACTION and 10,000,000 REACTION.

Seems like it's time to act on this.

Clicky Web Analytics