PJ O'Rourke once said, (and I know he's an asshole)...

[lumberjack_jeff]

... that one shouldn't pass a law unless it's worth shooting grandma over.

The basic premise is that ultimate result of violating the rules of society is getting killed.

Grandma gets a parking ticket, she doesn't pay. She gets a summons which she ignores. The cops come to her house to arrest her and take her downtown. Granny, being a cantankerous old gal, grabs her shotgun off the mantle to chase off the cops. Shooting ensues.

Is the 3 hour parking zone really worth that?

My apologies for the slight digression. Here's my point, in the context of current events.

The flipside of the above argument is the current situation. We have an adminstration which "ignores" (thanks Will Pitt) the laws it finds inconvenient. In contrast to Granny's no-parking zone society has created fundamentally important laws, which say that we don't allow presidents to lock up people without trials, we don't reveal the identity of our spies, and we do treat the record of the public's business as if it were the public's business.

So how does social enforcement of those important laws occur? What happens when an administration willfully violates laws large and small? If congress does nothing we can elect representatives who (by virtue of their party) are less likely than their opponents to sweep the crimes under the rug I suppose. So we did. Now what? What happens if they don't act? All that dry powder is useless without the willingness to use it under even the most dire circumstances. What about the courts? I seem to remember a few years ago that the administration is under court order to surrender additional Abu Ghraib photos? Where are they? In my town, if you violate a court order, the court sends the cops. Unfortunately, the cops all work for the criminal in question.

So what is an informed (no thanks to our not-so-free press) citizen to do?

What do the citizens of other countries do when faced with a government which works contrary to their interests and outside their laws?

[frogcycle]

1. we all know the answer

"When in the course of human events..."

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. And like impeachment, it would be bad form to consider it "on the table". n/t

[Truth2Tell]

2. He's a funny asshole though...

I've always had to give him that.

[JohnnyRingo]

3. I like O'Rourke

He was Foreign Affairs editor at Rolling Stone Magazine for years and seldom failed to pen a hilarious article from the conservative view.

Before that he was a contributing editor to The National Lampoon in the early 70s, when it was cutting edge satire.

I even laughed my way through his old book; "Holidays In Hell", in which he waxed humorously of his visits to the rebellious armpits of the world.

He was a conservative when the term was relatively benign and has a sense of humor, he remains far left of the current crop of "neocons" and Buxhbots.

Unlike that jackass Dennis Miller, he retained his humor after 9/11.
I haven't heard him call Dems childish names or use Arab blood as a punchline. (Though I may have missed one)

I wish more Right-wing nuts were moderate conservatives like PJ. He's a pre-Reagan era left-over from a time when politix was still a bloodless and dignified bout.

[EFerrari]

5. I like him, too. He's reflective and funny and let's try to turn him.

:evilgrin:

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. I think "Parliament of Whores" was one of the best books ever.

It was a largely non partisan indictment of those who need it.