More interesting than Bush's SotU was the Democratic response. It was delivered by a soft young Democrat, Tim Kaine, who talked about Good News (cringe). But completely omitted from the address was any talk about the hearing scheduled to be held concerning the legality (and lack thereof) of Bushes warrantless wiretaps on millions of Americans. Is that just not an issue? Do overt and causeless invasions into the lives of average Americans not licit a response, when Pres. Bush reiterated his fervor for the practice. In the words of the revered Napoleon, "Gawd."
5 comments:
Causeless? 9-11!
Zev presumably means without "probable cause". This is a technical term with a high threshold. Either that or Zev actually believes that there is no cause to monitor Osama Bin Laden's calls to the US.
well, _I_ think zev meant (he is free to contradict me ;) ) that these invasions are "causeless" specifically when they invade "the lives of average americans."
ps -
"cause" from merriam webster online
1a: a reason for an action or condition: MOTIVE
1b: something that brings about an effect or a result
1c: a person or thing that is the occasion of an action or state; especially, and agent that brings something about
1d: sufficient reason [discharged for cause]
2 a : a ground of legal action
b : CASE
3 : a matter or question to be decided
4 a : a principle or movement militantly defended or supported
b : a charitable undertaking [for a good cause]
Yehuda seems to use definition 1a or perhaps 1c. 9-11 is most likely the "motive" for the wiretaps.(though some might make arguments about longstanding evil republican agendas or somesuch...) Shmuli, being a retired lawyer, seems to like 2a (?). I wiould guess Zev just meant 1d - does 9-11 really supply "sufficient reason" for any pooicy that it may motivate?
Maybe I should have been a pedantic high school English teacher...
Shmuli wins. And so does Miriam 2a (that's a pun too, if you were wondering).
Post a Comment