Some of Nothing

Sometimes the Republic of Media Breaks My Brain
Thursday, July 3, 2008

So, the people who want out of the Iraq war the most are going to be supporters of Barack Obama, right? So, Barack Obama's supporters are going to be the ones who would be most concerned and knowledgeable about his stated intentions to get out of Iraq right? So, why is it Republicans and the media--and not Obama supporters, as far as I can tell--who are claiming that Obama has altered his stance on the war? I don't think it's changed. No one I've read today thinks it's changed. Wouldn't we be the ones who would know if it's changed since we're the ones most concerned about his position here? Shouldn't the media actually be asking the anti-war people whether or not they see a change in his position? Oh I forgot. We don't let the anti-war people talk to the media. We let Republicans complain about Obama's supposed shift in his Iraq position to the media on behalf of the anti-war people. How nice of them to hold Obama's feet to the fire for us like this!

When will our politics start to have some relationship with reality? Really, any relationship will do.

PS What part of, "We need to be as careful in getting out as we were careless in getting in," do people not understand? Seriously. Brain=broken.

UPDATE: Digby offers something more substantial than "brain=broken" on this subject. She's a better person than I am.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 9:48 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Bush v. America: If he loved it, he'd leave it

Independence Day: 1-20-09

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 9:29 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

In Which I'm Glad to Be Wrong
Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Yesterday, I said that the left has zero influence outside of left blogistan:

I actually don't mind so much that Obama is distancing himself from the left for political gain. What I do mind is the fact that doing so only buys him distance from the left and not so much political gain. In case no one's noticed lately, the left has pretty much zero influence in the media and elsewhere. Most of the time, we can be safely assured that what happens in the progressive blogosphere stays in the progressive blogosphere. Not only that, but in the case of FISA, Obama distanced himself from both the left and the right--liberals and libertarians. That's like gaining zero-squared political ground since no one listens to libertarians either.

Today, in the New York Times, I read that left blogistan is being represented in the New York Times:

In recent days, more than 7,000 Obama supporters have organized on a social networking site on Mr. Obama’s own campaign Web site. They are calling on Mr. Obama to reverse his decision to endorse legislation supported by President Bush to expand the government’s domestic spying powers while also providing legal protection to the telecommunication companies that worked with the National Security Agency’s domestic wiretapping program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
[...]
Many of them have seen the issue of granting immunity to the telecommunications companies as a test of principle in their opposition to Mr. Bush’s surveillance program.

“I don’t think there has been another instance where, in meaningful numbers, his supporters have opposed him like this,” said Glenn Greenwald, a Salon.com writer who opposes Mr. Obama’s new position. “For him to suddenly turn around and endorse this proposal is really a betrayal of what so many of his supporters believed he believed in.”

Jane Hamsher, a liberal blogger who also opposes immunity for the phone companies, said she had been flooded with messages from Obama supporters frustrated with his new stance.

“The opposition to Obama’s position among his supporters is very widespread,” said Ms. Hamsher, founder of the Web site firedoglake.com. “His promise to filibuster earlier in the year, and the decision to switch on that is seen as a real character problem. I know people who are really very big Obama supporters are very disillusioned.”

So, thanks to Glenn Greenwald, Jane Hamsher, Markos Moulitsas, and the folks who set up the FISA group at mybarackobama.com, I am proven wrong. Not only did I read about the dissent from the left in the NYT, I heard about it on the radio. And just reading and hearing out in the world beyond the blogosphere that there is actual opposition to the Democrats' FISA capitulation appeases me on the issue to some extent (NYT appeasers!). Why? Because even if FISA passes (which it better not), I feel like there will be some political gain from our loss. As weird as that sounds, it annoys me that John McCain gets to run around pretending to be all mavericky just because he sometimes lets people believe that the giant amorphous mass of right wing wackos doesn't completely own him. And because the giant amorphous mass of wackos on the left doesn't often have a voice in the world, Obama gets labeled "the most liberal senator" and every move to the right goes almost unrecognized. In other words, I'm happy when Obama gets to publicly diss the left rather privately diss the left.

I was listening to David Bender talk about the idea that, when lefties take issue with our candidate, we should keep it quiet. We should present a united front against John McCain and suffer the slings and arrows of Obama's bad decisions silently and privately amongst ourselves. While I see the value in pumping up the unity angle, I think it's more important for everyone to see that people on the left actually do hold views that contradict some of Obama's decisions. Sometimes a lot of people. That way, Obama can hold us out as the wackos that he can rebel against (did I just say that?) and be all mavericky in his own right. Not that I would advocate this strategy as a regular course of action, mind you. It's just ok to do every now and again--in situations that aren't important and don't involve the 4th Amendment, obviously.

UPDATE: If you decide to join the mybarackobama FISA group here (as I did yesterday), I strongly recommend signing up for the digest version--not individual emails. Unless your inbox is incredibly lonely, that is.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 6:36 PM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Yo Mama Got a Discount on Her Home Loan

The WaPo engages in some pretty well-unsubstantiated "symbolic issues" mongering by implying that corruption may have played a part in the Obamas' home loan:

The freshman Democratic senator received a discount. He locked in an interest rate of 5.625 percent on the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, below the average for such loans at the time in Chicago. The loan was unusually large, known in banker lingo as a "super super jumbo." Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates.

Compared with the average terms offered at the time in Chicago, Obama's rate could have saved him more than $300 per month.

Nate, at 538, offers a pretty good take-down of WaPo's fact-deprived innuendo:

So Obama's rate was 30 basis points better than the average. However, the amount of the loan and the nature of the property are not the only factors that determine a mortgage rate. Another major consideration is the creditworthiness of the borrower. According to current rate quotes from myFICO.com, a borrower with very good credit can expect a mortgage rate about 30 basis points better than someone with pretty good credit, and a borrower with excellent credit can expect about a 50 basis point discount.

Unless the Washington Post has access to Obama's FICO score -- and unless it has rented an apartment to him, it probably doesn't -- it is missing a pretty important piece of information on what Obama's mortgage rate ought to have been. What was Obama's FICO score? I don't know, but considering that...

* Obama had just gotten a $2.27 million book deal from Random House -- about $1 million more than the value of the mortgage.
* The Obamas each had exceptionally secure jobs that paid them a combined annual salary of about $500,000 per year.
* The Obamas had just sold their condo, on which they had realized a $137,500 profit.
* The Obamas were prominent public figures whose political futures depended in part on maintaining a reputation for responsibility and trustworthiness.
* The Obamas are known to be relatively thrifty and have no credit card debt but substantial savings....

But what are petty details to a "journalist" these days? And in case there was any doubt as to the true purpose of this WaPo article, the name "Tony Rezko" is tossed in right at the end there...no relation.

To be fair, maybe the WaPo is trying to up their flagging subscription rates by becoming yet another neocon tabloid journal. Of course, one could argue that they might increase their readership more quickly by becoming better at their jobs--not worse. And if they want to criticize Obama for something, let it be for something substantial. I'm keeping a list in case they're interested.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 10:02 AM 3 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Damned Chinese Imports
Tuesday, July 1, 2008

Apparently, the US's free trade agreements extend to torture techniques:

WASHINGTON — The military trainers who came to Guantánamo Bay in December 2002 based an entire interrogation class on a chart showing the effects of “coercive management techniques” for possible use on prisoners, including “sleep deprivation,” “prolonged constraint,” and “exposure.”

What the trainers did not say, and may not have known, was that their chart had been copied verbatim from a 1957 Air Force study of Chinese Communist techniques used during the Korean War to obtain confessions, many of them false, from American prisoners. [emphasis mine]

U-S-A! U-S-A!...

Sometimes you just feel like you're living in a Lewis-Carroll-Washowski-Brothers-George-Orwell movie. When Alice Met Neorwell?

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 11:18 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Things I Get Excited About: Obama Moves to "The Center" Edition

* Obama fails to take lead on FISA and campaigns for FISA-loving bluedog in the process. How many times can I talk about this stupid, jerky move? How many will it take?

* Obama fails to tear down Bush's "bridge" between church and state and instead expands his faith-based initiatives program. This only bothers me if my church of pugilism is excluded from public funding. Well, that, and if this is the only bridge that survives the Bush regime.

* Obama fails to stand behind Wesley Clark, a Four-Star General whose service gets attacked by the McCain camp after he doesn't really attack McCain's service. How many times can I talk about this incident of Obama failing to stand up against lies being told about one of his own? It depends. How many presidential elections can the Democrats lose in an 8-year period?

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 10:34 PM 4 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Things I Can't Get Excited About: Obama Moves to "The Center" Edition

I know it's been a while since I've done a Things I Can't Get Excited About, but there's a reason. The reason is that I don't like blogging about things I can't get excited about. Nonetheless, for the record, it must be done. Let the ennui about Obama moving to "the center" begin!

*Obama disses public campaign financing. Apparently, all those Republican 527s he said would be coming after him don't exist. Oh wait. Yeah they do.

* Obama disses child rapists and kinda, sorta [hearts] guns. Ditto, man. I could get outraged if it were the other way around, though.

* Obama disses MoveOn. They're big boys and girls. They can take it.

* Obama disses the flag-burning hippies. They're big boys and girls. They can take it.

Personally, I don't see any of these issues as signs of significant movement to "the center". But some people do. I fail to understand why.

Add to del.icio.us | DiggIt! | Reddit | Stumble This | Add to Technorati Faves

Nothing New byslag at 9:59 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)