Irony and Free Speech
00:38 - Conyers begins speaking.
01:54 - Conyers begins talking about US authority overseas.
02:14 - Conyers begins talking about torture at Guantanamo Bay.
05:34 - Sensenbrenner interrupts to notify Conyers his time has expired. Between 1:54 and 05:34, the Patriot Act was not mentioned once; subjects ranged from Guantanamo Bay to racial profiling.
05:50 - Sensenbrenner reminds those present that when the Democratic minority requested the hearing, they delineated the scope of the hearing, "which would be the reauthorization of the USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act."
06:15 - Sensenbrenner expresses his dismay that the subject matter of the hearing, so far, has had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. He then lists all the members of the committee who requested the hearing, but did not attend.
07:23 - Conyers interrupts to raise a point of order, but delays at the request of Sensenbrenner.
07:30 - Sensenbrenner resumes.
Sensenbrenner's pretty pissed by this point. He complains about the number of hearings the committee's had, and the number of times the Democrats have had the same witnesses testify. He's only marginally polite; he's nicer than I am, but not by that much.
10:28 - Sensenbrenner makes clear that the stated scope of the hearing will be the scope of the hearing, and that off-topic matters will not be tolerated, or included in the hearing record, and quotes the exact subsection which provides for that. I bet he's a hit at parties.
11:09 - Conyers begins to speak again. He complains that Sensenbrenner is hostile. [He is.] Then he complains that the stated scope isn't the stated scope. Then he explains that the scope of the hearing will not be adhered to.
12:55 - Sensenbrenner explains that the rules will be enforced as they are written.
13:09 - Conyers begins to get snippy.
My player isn't working properly, and any time it meets any sort of resistance - slow connection, drive usage - it stops playing and won't resume. It's taken me an hour to get through these 13 minutes of testimony, so I'm giving up!
I think I've given some of the flavor of the hearing. I think it's pretty clear that the Democrats were using this hearing as a way to sneak peripheral issues in the back door of this hearing. Conyers has some clever justifications for that; if anyone else can get the video to play, and get to 13:09, that's where he starts what I think is the most clever of them, but now I can't get it to play so I can quote it. It's Bulldrek-worthy logic/evasion, though.
Anyway, let me try to answer Cain's questions based on my memory of the hearing, and based on the chunk I just watched; I still haven't seen it in its entirety, but I've seen the exciting parts, and this piece of the beginning.
Sensenbrenner's a pretty big windbag. He's not very nice, he's obsessed with order, and he lets people get under his skin too easily. This hearing must have nearly given him a heart attack. Nevertheless, he /constantly/ tries throughout the course of the hearing to get people to restrict themselves to the stated scope of the hearing, and they just ignore him. [What else can they do? Their comments are already written up, and the plan - whichever plan it might have been - was already in motion.]
If you saw it, Cain, I truly believe you'd agree. You'd cheer, don't get me wrong, but you'd agree that Sensenbrenner's actions were not out of order.
01:54 - Conyers begins talking about US authority overseas.
02:14 - Conyers begins talking about torture at Guantanamo Bay.
05:34 - Sensenbrenner interrupts to notify Conyers his time has expired. Between 1:54 and 05:34, the Patriot Act was not mentioned once; subjects ranged from Guantanamo Bay to racial profiling.
05:50 - Sensenbrenner reminds those present that when the Democratic minority requested the hearing, they delineated the scope of the hearing, "which would be the reauthorization of the USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T Act."
06:15 - Sensenbrenner expresses his dismay that the subject matter of the hearing, so far, has had nothing to do with the Patriot Act. He then lists all the members of the committee who requested the hearing, but did not attend.
07:23 - Conyers interrupts to raise a point of order, but delays at the request of Sensenbrenner.
07:30 - Sensenbrenner resumes.
Sensenbrenner's pretty pissed by this point. He complains about the number of hearings the committee's had, and the number of times the Democrats have had the same witnesses testify. He's only marginally polite; he's nicer than I am, but not by that much.
10:28 - Sensenbrenner makes clear that the stated scope of the hearing will be the scope of the hearing, and that off-topic matters will not be tolerated, or included in the hearing record, and quotes the exact subsection which provides for that. I bet he's a hit at parties.
11:09 - Conyers begins to speak again. He complains that Sensenbrenner is hostile. [He is.] Then he complains that the stated scope isn't the stated scope. Then he explains that the scope of the hearing will not be adhered to.
12:55 - Sensenbrenner explains that the rules will be enforced as they are written.
13:09 - Conyers begins to get snippy.
My player isn't working properly, and any time it meets any sort of resistance - slow connection, drive usage - it stops playing and won't resume. It's taken me an hour to get through these 13 minutes of testimony, so I'm giving up!
I think I've given some of the flavor of the hearing. I think it's pretty clear that the Democrats were using this hearing as a way to sneak peripheral issues in the back door of this hearing. Conyers has some clever justifications for that; if anyone else can get the video to play, and get to 13:09, that's where he starts what I think is the most clever of them, but now I can't get it to play so I can quote it. It's Bulldrek-worthy logic/evasion, though.
Anyway, let me try to answer Cain's questions based on my memory of the hearing, and based on the chunk I just watched; I still haven't seen it in its entirety, but I've seen the exciting parts, and this piece of the beginning.
Almost 100 percent. Seriously. While you'd have approved of what they have to say, I don't think you'd have condoned their complete avoidance of the scope of the hearing. It's /real bad./Cain wrote:What percentage of the "Democratic witnesses" testimony was off topic?
"Civil liberties." The clever Conyers justification I mentioned before claims that all civil liberties are under the purvue of the hearing, and not just those relating to the Patriot Act. [It's much more logical the way he explains it, though. Still wrong.]Cain wrote:Was there a context to their statements, linking Gitmo to the Patriot act?
Whew! None. I mean, he puts up with it for about 5 minutes at a time. He is absolutely hysterical about rules and order, and this sort of thing just boils his noodle. While I'm willing to claim that the Democrats intentionally made an end-run around the scope of the hearing, I'm not quite willing to suggest they did it knowing that Sensenbrenner wouldn't be able to tolerate it, and would thus precipitate the chain of events that followed. I wouldn't be surprised, but I can't justify making the claim based solely on the evidence I have.Cain wrote:And what amount of off-topic talk was allowed by Sensenbrenner on other topics?
Sensenbrenner's a pretty big windbag. He's not very nice, he's obsessed with order, and he lets people get under his skin too easily. This hearing must have nearly given him a heart attack. Nevertheless, he /constantly/ tries throughout the course of the hearing to get people to restrict themselves to the stated scope of the hearing, and they just ignore him. [What else can they do? Their comments are already written up, and the plan - whichever plan it might have been - was already in motion.]
If you saw it, Cain, I truly believe you'd agree. You'd cheer, don't get me wrong, but you'd agree that Sensenbrenner's actions were not out of order.
I can't watch the thing for a few days, what with having to take the test in a couple of days, but if you're talking about the part I expect you are, I recall his first justification to be something along the lines of: "The PATRIOT Act itself contains language which authorizes Congress, and this committee in particular, to oversee all investigations having to do with the War on Terror!TM We didn't specify that the Hearing on the Reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act was to be limited only to the clauses in the PATRIOT Act that require reauthorization. Thus, we can discuss anything relating to the War on Terror!TM, and we'll be cool under that Congressional oversight line.". . . if anyone else can get the video to play, and get to 13:09, that's where he starts what I think is the most clever of them, but now I can't get it to play so I can quote it. It's Bulldrek-worthy logic/evasion, though.
There is then a need to guard against a temptation to overstate the economic evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar, or worse, evils in earlier ages. Even though some exaggeration may, for the time, stimulate others, as well as ourselves, to a more intense resolve that the present evils should no longer exist, but it is not less wrong and generally it is much more foolish to palter with truth for good than for a selfish cause. The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with the romantic exaggeration of the happiness of past ages must tend to setting aside the methods of progress, the work of which, if slow, is yet solid, and lead to the hasty adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines of a charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good sow the seeds of widespread and lasting decay. This impatient insincerity is an evil only less great than the moral torpor which can endure, that we with our modern resources and knowledge should look contentedly at the continued destruction of all that is worth having. There is an evil and an extreme impatience as well as an extreme patience with social ills.
That's the part. I think it was "civil rights violations, and not just civil rights violations relating to the Patriot Act," instead of War on Terror, but same difference.
You should watch it when you get a chance. I mean, as much of it as you can before running to Washington with a machine gun. It's pretty funny. You like to think these people would be a little more adult, but it's just Cain and 3278 all the way.
You should watch it when you get a chance. I mean, as much of it as you can before running to Washington with a machine gun. It's pretty funny. You like to think these people would be a little more adult, but it's just Cain and 3278 all the way.
-
FlakJacket
- Orbital Cow Private
- Posts: 4064
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 2:05 pm
- Location: Birminghman, UK
Ever thought of running for office Earl? There's no way in hell you'd get elected with your record and who you are, but imagining you as an independent senator or congressman just gives me the giggles.3278 wrote:You like to think these people would be a little more adult, but it's just Cain and 3278 all the way.
Mayor of DC. 'Nuff said.There's no way in hell you'd get elected with your record
_<font color=#5c7898>Run, don't walk, to the nearest exit.</font>
<font color=red>It's funny how lately it seems, that I'm left alone with just my dreams,
and even though my dreams are few; it's funny how they're all of you!
- The Love of My Life</font>
<font color=red>It's funny how lately it seems, that I'm left alone with just my dreams,
and even though my dreams are few; it's funny how they're all of you!
- The Love of My Life</font>
Actually, yes. However, there's a friend of mine who works in Michigan state government, and I asked him once what my chances were. His considered opinion is that I'd be unlikely to be able to be elected to anything beyond the county government because of the public scrutiny involved. And frankly, I couldn't even do that, locally; I'd need to relocate to somewhere where people are less familiar with me. I do still think about it sometimes, though.FlakJacket wrote:Ever thought of running for office Earl?3278 wrote:You like to think these people would be a little more adult, but it's just Cain and 3278 all the way.
Get dual-citizenship and run here?3278 wrote:Actually, yes. However, there's a friend of mine who works in Michigan state government, and I asked him once what my chances were. His considered opinion is that I'd be unlikely to be able to be elected to anything beyond the county government because of the public scrutiny involved. And frankly, I couldn't even do that, locally; I'd need to relocate to somewhere where people are less familiar with me. I do still think about it sometimes, though.FlakJacket wrote:Ever thought of running for office Earl?3278 wrote:You like to think these people would be a little more adult, but it's just Cain and 3278 all the way.
-
Anguirel
- Freeman of the Crimson Assfro
- Posts: 2278
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 12:04 pm
- Location: City of Angels
Do you run as individuals in Canada? I thought it was a parliamentary system so it was done by party... I totally say we need a Bulldrek Party! Our platform is free booze until you're too drunk to notice what else we're doing.Szechuan wrote:Get dual-citizenship and run here?
complete. dirty. whore.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.
_Patience said: Ang, you are truly a font of varied and useful information.
IRC Fun:
<Reika> What a glorious way to die.
<Jackal> What are you, Klingon?
<Reika> Worse, a paladin.
<Jackal> We're all fucked.