parens binubus

Last night, beloved and I managed to watch both the second installment of 24’s season premiere AND Al Gore’s speech on C-Span.com.

24 was only okay. I'm kind of irritated at the ridiculous repetition of themes. i was reminded that there are only so many forms that a national crises that require CTU's magic touch can take. But I am sick of first ladies. I am sick of Jack destroying people's lives. I am sick of his connections to people mucking up the works. Like his annoying daughter. Ugh.

Doesn't matter. I'll keep watching. And I'll enjoy it. Probably once it's an HOUR a week, and not 4 hours out of 48.

I then spent some time looking for a link to the Al Gore speech which I'd heard about I think only on a blog here and a blog there - I had heard enough to tell beloved about it, and he had heard nothing about it, went onto his computer, and said he saw nothing reported about it. I had to retrace my footsteps and finally found the link over at Scoplaw's blog. We then nestled in to watch him on my laptop, with RealPlay real big-like, making Al look a little more bloated and fuzzy than I suspect he looks in real life. we kept giggling at the little sound effects my computer was making as my sister was Googletalking me, some buddies were entering and exiting from AIM, and my Yahoo Mail Alert was making weird missile sounds, all through the speech.

While watching Al Gore, I was very pleased to see him bring up:

1. television and its numbing effect upon society, and the administration’s manipulation of that numbing effect -- also how the nature of television has removed any meaningful debate from our public fora.
2. the fear factor and the administration’s creation and manipulation of that fear factor (which pisses me the fuck off, and makes me practically not believe in terrorism – which I am sure is purely irrational, but Bush’s talk of restricting travel in honor of the bird flu also makes me not believe in the bird flu. So, as I've been told by others, even those that I live with - I am irrational.);
3. global warming;
4. Media conglomerates;
5. The responsibility of the people to be informed and to speak up;
6. The fact that there have been times in the past where the nation faced great dangers – the cold war, for example. I had never heard anyone mention before that this is not new! For us to be facing risks, dangers, and threats is not a unique situation, and by acting like it IS a unique situation – that we are in the MOST DANGEROUS TIME EVER right now, so very dangerous as to warrant this erosion of our government’s organizational safeguards – is to spit on the plight of the generations past [that is so my paraphrasing].
   

I was upset about some things, too. Beloved chastised me for my cynicism. But upset I remained:

1. that there were tons of empty seats in the auditorium. Beloved said he doesn’t think that people knew that Gore would be giving such a talk, and that perhaps if they did, it would have been fuller. Pfft. I think I was upset because I the empty auditorium also squelched any hopes that I’m harboring that impeachment may really happen.
2. that of the millions and millions of people who did not hear the speech when given, only those who are already inclined to agree are going to take the time out of their “busy lifestyle” to listen to a one hour and 6 minute speech.
3. that the appeals to “the people” to act, to make themselves heard, is not going to reach or affect those who don’t agree with his message (which is many) or those who don’t care enough to listen long enough in order to find out if they agree – or care.
4. that there are people in this country who are so tapped into the fear factor that they are unconcerned with the things that are going on. I have very close family members who say that anyone who is against torturing terrorists should be tortured alongside the terrorists. What is the answer to the question of “how do you KNOW they’re a terrorist? If there’s no trial, no fact finding, no process to be adhered to – how do you know that you’re not just torturing someone b/c they have black hair?” -- “better safe than sorry.” The same family member says he does not care if his emails are read, and no one SHOULD care unless they are terrorists. But like Mr. Ex-Vice-President said last night - *this president* is concerned about terrorists. What if the next president is concerned about pornography? And decides to listen in on everyone who may be calling those phone-sex lines (what are they called?), or monitors everyone who may be visiting XXX websites? Or perhaps – gun control? What if this very close family member ends up on a “target list” b/c it is discovered that he is the owner of SEVERAL fire arms – of many varieties – those used for hunting, and those not? And therefore, he is watched and listened to – clearly by a president he would not agree with.

A friend of mine at work and I were discussing the Alito nomination. I had seen a segment on Meet the Press a couple of weeks ago where a discussion between Tim and a couple of opposite-side senators about the nomination focused on the Roe v. Wade issue.** I was frustrated. I wanted to hear more about Alito and presidential power. To me, that is more dangerous. At least give the 2 issues equal billing!! My friend disagreed. She said that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would have much farther reaching effects, and that the presidential power issue only relates to this president, in this term. I disagreed for 2 reasons. 1) The “war on terror” has no end date. It will never end. You will never find a period in the future where there are not people who hate the United States. There was never a time in the past (if someone knows of such a time, please fill me in); and 2) because this changes the role of the president. It sets a precedent, and it WILL apply in the future.

** I also take issue with the abortion issue constantly being called the “Roe v. Wade” issue -- by everyone. Those less likely to condone abortion love to talk about the fact that Roe v. Wade was badly decided, it’s a bad decision, “even the liberals concede.” Will someone better versed in Con Law please explain to me where I’m wrong – did not Casey create a new legal structure under which abortion is to be considered? So that the "badly reasoned" Roe decision kind of doesn't matter? Did not the weird trimester test get completely replaced by the undue burden test? Isn’t Casey a better “code word” to sum up the state of the law pertaining to abortion? I understand that Roe first created the idea of a woman having the “right” to an abortion, but the framework, rationale, and even the test applied to abortion-related legislation has MOVED ON. No?

Anyway. Here’s the link to the C-Span file. It's down under "video/audio" about 1/2 way down the page. he really did an awesome job. The speech was passionate, and historical, and risky. I applaud him. And the entire hour was interesting. Sorry, Hour and Six Minutes.

If you want to skip to the summation/5 point outline, go to about minute 58. but you’ll miss a lot of good stuff!!