When my brother and I were young, anytime we played Monopoly together, he had a habit of changing the rules mid-showdown. He knew that I was too lazy to read all of the instructions, so we’d have this faux negotiation of our own house rules at the beginning of each game.
If, during the course of a transaction, I cried foul, he assured me that I misunderstood the rules. Even if I found a citation in writing directly from The Parker Brothers’ text that ran contrary to what he was up to, he’d insist that we had agreed at the beginning of the game to ignore that particular mandate. So, no matter what, something that was right there in ink was suddenly twisted into his word against mine.
Yeah, he’s a Republican. Always has been. Since my post about the veggie breakfast sausage, we’ve actually discussed the election peacefully. We were both amazed. It would take me too long to analyze just how it happened – to discover what exactly has changed in each of us to allow such a conversation to occur without my shedding tears. (“Park Place was MINE!”)
Political discussions with Republicans always feel dangerous to me. My pulse rises, I become completely inarticulate, my stomach aches, and I get angry. Very angry. I wish – oh, how I wish, that when I’m faced with a Republican, even one who loves me, like my brother, that I could have Glenn Greenwald sitting at the table with us.
His column yesterday was spot on genius. I’m having trouble linking directly to it, so if you follow the links, you’ll have to scroll to Thursday, September 18. His point was that while the hackers that committed the serious crime of violating Sarah Palin’s privacy should be apprehended and prosecuted, “it’s really a wondrous, and repugnant, sight to behold the Bush-following lynch mobs on the Right melodramatically defend the Virtues of Privacy and the Rule of Law.” Excerpt:
“The same political faction which today is prancing around in full-throated fits of melodramatic hysteria and Victim mode (their absolute favorite state of being) over the sanctity of Sarah Palin’s privacy are the same ones who scoffed with indifference as it was revealed during the Bush era that the FBI systematically abused its Patriot Act powers togather and store private information on thousands of innocent Americans; that Homeland Security officials illegally infiltrated and monitored peaceful, law-abiding left-wing groups devoted to peace activism, civil liberties and other political agendas disliked by the state; and that the telephone calls of journalists and lawyers have been illegally and repeatedly monitored.
“And the same Surveillance State Worshipper leading today’s screeching —Michelle Malkin — spent the last several years deriding those who objected to the President’s illegal spying program as “privacy crusaders” and “constitutional absolutists” and “civil liberties absolutists”.
“Shouldn’t these same people be standing up today and insisting that if Sarah Palin has done nothing wrong, then she should have nothing to hide? If Sarah Palin isn’t committing crimes or consorting with The Terrorists, then why would she care if we can monitor her emails?”
I’m resisting the urge to reprint his whole piece . . . check it out – he makes several more highly legitimate and interesting points. And if you’re not interested in what’s legitimate then hang on to that Get Out Of Jail Free card because something tells me we’re going to have a new sheriff in town soon. And he’s taught classes on constitutional law.