Saturday, December 17, 2005

pinions of buddy don: sworn duty

the big story of the day – n i reckun thisn could be the biggest story of the year – is how bush sined orders lettin the nsa spy on us all.

spyin on amurkins by our own gummint without a warrant aint legal. period. ifn twuz dun, the law wuz broke. ifn the law wuz broke, sumbidy broke it n must be held to account.

even ifn tiz the presdint.

we are spozed to be a cuntry of laws, not men. that means aint no man, not even the presdint, that aint under the law. twuz one of the thangs we dint lack bout them kings of england whenever this cuntry wuz founded n tiz one of the most importunt points of demockrussy (aint that whut we are over in eye-rack trine to spread?).

thays three mane angles on that story.

the furstn is the fack that twuz dun atall. that means we gut to have a investigayshun n figger out whut happend when n whuther tiz even true. but seem lack twoodnt a gut this far ifn twernt alreddy purty much thar yet. ifn tiz true, then how kin thar not be a impeachment of the presdint fer violatin the constitushun he is sworn to uphold? i aint no lawyer n i aint gut no doubts that them sofists on the rite will splain why hes gut no restraints on im, but twood half to be sofistry on a counta tiz as black n white as it kin git. ifn he wonts that power, he kin ast fer it. but he caint take it without violatin our constitushun.

so thats a big a nuff story all by its ownself, josephine.

speshly since the secunt angle on the story is how them publicans is reacktin. furst articull i red on the topick (witch, i caint find it now!) mentchund arlen specter (r frum pa) furst amung all pall tishuns.

makes me wunder ifn arlen specter kin be the new howard baker, jr?

the nextn menchund twuz john mccain (r frum az). after that thay wuz a menchun of a dimcrat.

the point is, ifn this claim is true, ifn the presdint who swore to uphold the constitushun dun give orders to violate it, to brake the law, to spy on us, then even them publicans caint spin it away.

n ever publican with integrity knows it. i caint member that kinda thang happenin to mr bush since back in 2001 whenever he wuz allowd to move into the white house.

but the third angle is the one thats gut me wundern bout whar are the good guys in all this? on a counta the new york times waited a year befor they published whut they knew. fergive me fer bein a lil perplexd, but aint reportin the news the verr misshun of the new york times? aint thay spozed to warn us ifn they know our gummint is doin sumthin that is jes plane rong? aint that purt near bein a accompliss to the ack?

i half to add mitt, i dun cum to speck the gummint to make me wonta pull out my hair. but they gut power n that tends to corrupt em.

i larnt thatn the hard way: furst time i wuz old a nuff to vote, i pullt the lever fer nixon (1972, witch i tell a lil bout that time here). after that, i gut to whar i figgerd thonly way we kin be safe frum corrupt pall tishuns n even tyranny is ifn we are payin tenchun to ever enemy of the constitushun, forn or domestick.

we gut the cia n milltary n who knows who to watch out fer forn enemies, but who kin watch our fer domestick enemies, who kin hep us know whuts a'gone on?

it has to be our press. tiz thar job, thar own sworn duty. thats why i am more skeerd bout the times holdin the story fer a year than i am a'knowin the gumnint wuz a'spyin on us. i speck them pall tishuns to try thangs, but i wonta thank we kin trust the press.

i lack the new york times or wonta lack it as much as i used to before the judith millers n elizabeth bumillers n kit seelyes other such stenogruffers wuz let a'loose. i hope they cum up with sum kinda good eggsplainayshun on thisn. i wonta bleeve in em.

we need a grate press whenever the constitushun is threatend, witch that seems to be bout all the time. sumbidy has to shine the lite on inny acktivities of domestick enemies of our constitushun. ifn the new york times caint doot, who kin?

No comments: