Some of Nothing

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)  

General Wes Clark is Fired Up and Ready to Go!
Monday, June 30, 2008

Since Obama's busy waffling like an old-skool Democrat (patriotism speech, notwithstanding), we can all now get behind Wes Clark and, as atrios puts it, form a "mancrush" on him when he says stuff like this:

John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as President. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country - but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions. And in this area his judgment has been flawed - he not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq, but has time and again undervalued other, non-military elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America But as an American and former military officer I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

Hey-A Democrat that doesn't back down at the first sign of controversy! Is it even scientifically possible?

Needless to say, Wes Clark is getting hit pretty hard for making what should be a blatantly obvious and innocuous comment. Consequently, the folks at VoteVets.org put up a petition to stand behind him.

Help get Clark's back: http://ga3.org/campaign/petitionclark!

And don't make him angry:

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

Nothing New byslag at 9:42 PM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Barack Obama says: "The Center...Myyyy 'The Center'!"

There's been a lot of talk about Obama's move to "the center" recently. Much of it has revolved around the political necessity of doing so. Like many people with actual principles, I think that's crap. We liberals put the Quotes of Irony around "the center" because, in spite of our elitist over-education, we have never been able to locate this place called "The Center" on a map. "The Center" is actually "The City" in the satirically-minded The Tick comic/cartoon. It's no place that's supposed to represent all places. Which means that even trying to just get there is pointless, because you'll never be able to find it. You'll just keep going and going and going until you realize that you're completely lost. And in spite of what the media claims, nobody actually lives there. Because there is no there there.

In other words, "the center" is all about framing. The establishment media love talking about "the center" because it means less work for them. They can just trace an imaginary line between the one extremist Republican standpoint and one of the many less extremist Democratic standpoints, then casually point news consumers to an imaginary point in the center of that line, and call it a day. Republicans love talking about "the center" because they can all just hang out together on the far, far right, let the media do its center-loving job and know that, no matter where the imaginary center is found, it will be a lot closer to them than it is to people like me. If the Democrats hung together on the far, far left, this would naturally negate the Republicans' center advantage, but they don't. In the name of diversity, Democrats don't hang anywhere together but, instead, let their members go wherever the mood strikes them--preferably toward "the center" after the media tells them where that is. Then, they let the people who are supposedly living in "the center" call them unprincipled and weak. This is called politics.

Using this strategy, Democrats fight Republicans like The Tick fights crime--often succeeding in spite of themselves. They simultaneously decry the incompetence of the Republicans in power while bending over backwards trying to prove that they themselves are no liberal Democrats. They talk about how Republicans are no fans of the worker and then extol the virtues of reaching across the aisle to work with them. The inconsistencies of this position are easily discerned on a gut level, if not easily intellectualized. So, whenever Democrats do happen to get something done to advance a worker's agenda, the average person still isn't quite sure whether they did so out of principle or out of expediency. To continue with The Tick analogy, did they use their keen insight and sense of purpose to sniff out the Idea Men's plans and prevent them from blowing up The City's dam, or did they just hear about it on the news and happen to show up barely in time? These are the kinds of questions rational voters--even liberal ones--ask themselves about Democrats.

The latest attack on Obama's bi-partisan bona fides exemplifies this problem for Democrats. Obama has worked with Republicans on securing loose nuclear weapons and helping to make government more transparent. But apparently, that's not deemed "politically courageous" enough. So, what does Obama do? Move to "the center" by giving Republicans what they want on FISA. Well, that'll show 'em. Maybe if Obama does more to help Republicans destroy the economy, lie us into war, hate on teh gayz and teh womynz, and torture some more people, he'll be "politically courageous" enough to be president. Of course, we already have a president who's that "politically courageous", so maybe we should re-think our strategery a little. Maybe when asked whether or not we've been brave enough to go out on a limb by defying the evil Democratic Party, we should actually ask which positions held by the evil Democratic Party are in need of defiance. One time Obama defied the evil Democratic Party was before we invaded Iraq. Of course, at the time, he was defying Republicans too, but apparently, defying both parties isn't "politically courageous" enough.

In summary, every time Obama is asked when he's gone out on a limb to work with Republicans, he should remind people that he's done what he thought was right but that Republicans, by and large, suck. That the notion of "the center" is a creation of Republicans and the media--both of whom, by and large, suck. That, sometimes, just because something is labeled "liberal" that doesn't mean it is, or if it is, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. And that, periodically, Democrats do the right thing because it's the right thing and not because they were too politically incompetent to do anything else. And it would also be cool if he would sometimes remind us to "honk if you love justice!" Just cuz that would be funny:

For more about the insipidity of "The Center", here's Greenwald and Digby to start.
And for more The Tick, here's the beginning:


UPDATE: Obama camp disses Gen Wes Clarke for pointing out the obvious fact that getting shot at doesn't necessarily mean you're qualified to be President:

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Run, chicken, run! Run to nowhere and see where you find yourself. Or as Josh Marshall says:

But if it really is a fear of getting things focused on McCain's war record or experience it really is the kind of mistake Democrats habitually make. Take a look. McCain's entire campaign is about his time as a POW and the claim that his war service makes him uniquely qualified to be the country's commander-in-chief. They're pushing the fact that he's been on the national stage for four decades, whereas Obama's only been there for four years. That is almost the entirety of his campaign. So it's out there. It's already a key focus of this campaign.

John McCain's claim to experience, based in large part on his military service, is a key issue in this campaign. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

"The Center" sure looks like weak knees from here.

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

Nothing New byslag at 8:08 AM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

FISA: The Left's Symbolic Issue
Friday, June 27, 2008

A couple of months ago, I mercilessly mocked David Brooks for referring to Obama's mildly controversial acquaintances as "symbolic issues". Why do I find Brooks' description so hilarious? Because anyone who picks up a book from time to time knows that symbolic meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Example: David Brooks wears eyeglasses; I see his glasses as a symbol of his shortsightedness. What does my interpretation of David Brooks' glasses actually indicate? Well, it indicates at least two things: 1. I probably don't wear glasses; otherwise, I most likely wouldn't think of them as being symbolic of anything (other than sheer genius, of course). 2. Due to my ideological differences with David Brooks, I am pre-disposed to consider him shortsighted; the wearing of glasses can have a variety of symbolic meanings, so my own pre-disposition toward him is likely to be a major determining factor.

Unfortunately, however, the symbolism of David Brooks' glasses doesn't say much, if anything, about David Brooks. Just like Obama's mildly controversial acquaintances don't say much, if anything, about Obama. To people who aren't big fans of Obama, his acquaintances are either symbols of his hidden Marxo-Fascist agenda or symbols of his political cravenness (depending on their mood, I guess). To people who do like Obama, his acquaintances are symbols of his openness to diversity of opinion (or whatever; honestly, we don't really care). Notice how quiet the right wing is about the symbolism of an avowed Communist announcing his support for John McCain (Symbolism? What's that?). But in spite of the inherent subjectivity of symbols, our human tendency to seek and recognize patterns reinforces our desire to seek and interpret abstractions to reinforce said patterns. Meaning we [heart] symbols. A lot.

Like Glenn Greenwald and many others, I am inclined to see Obama's support for the Democrats' FISA capitulation as a symbol of the failures I see in the Democratic Party, en masse. Obama claims he wants to "change the mindset" that got us into the Iraq War. Well, we on the left see this FISA capitulation as a symbol of the mindset that got us into the Iraq War (or, as Greenwald calls this mindset, "The New Republic Syndrome"):

The number one problem facing the Democratic Party is that, as events of the last week demonstrate, it continues to be plagued by The New Republic Syndrome, one of the most fatal political afflictions that exist. In 2002 and 2003, The New Republic was one of the leading crusaders for an attack on Iraq, railing against what it called "the intellectual incoherence of the liberal war critics." In a February 2003 Editorial, they decreed that "the United States must disarm Iraq by force" and declared war opponents guilty of "abject pacifism."
[...]
Also in 2004, The New Republic endorsed Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for President, using its endorsement to attack Howard Dean and his liberal supporters as suffering from "an old Democratic affliction: an excessive faith in multilateralism and an insufficient faith in the moral potential of U.S. power" and said that Dean supporters were "dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld."
[...]
Despite those forced mea culpas and reversals, TNR never actually learns. Today -- in a post bearing the very sensible and Serious title: "Keeping FISA in Perspective" -- TNR is here, via Josh Patashnik, to tell you that there's nothing truly disturbing about the FISA bill that is about to pass...

To make matters worse, Obama's newly found FISA stance is now being discussed as a symbol of strength rather than weakness because it means he's got the audacity to stand up to the all-powerful dirty hippie civil libertarian lobby:

All of the decades-old, conventional Beltway mythologies are trotted out here to praise Obama. Democrats move to the "center" by embracing hard-core right-wing policies. Democrats will look "weak" unless they turn themselves into Republican clones on national security. A President becomes "strong" when he tramples on the Constitution and the rule of law in the name of keeping us safe. Democrats must embrace the Right and repudiate the base of their own party, and they must support Dick Cheney's policies while "standing up to the ACLU."

Nothing says "change of mindset" like disregarding the people who you've always disregarded, right? We, on the (what I might call "moderate") left, have seen a pattern here. And it's one that we don't like very much.

Nonetheless, because sometimes a FISA bill is just a FISA bill, and symbolism is inherently subjective in nature, I am inclined to look to other--more concrete--sources of outrage about this issue. Luckily, there are plenty of negative consequences to be found:

There were, however, a few sour notes during the proceedings. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) complained that the bill "actually permits the government to perform mass, untargeted surveillance of any and all conversations believed to be coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized finding, and without a requirement that wrongdoing is believed to be involved at all." Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH): "these blanket wiretaps make it impossible to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency." Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) invoked the specter of past intelligence abuses, such as the wiretapping of Martin Luther King and the FBI's controversial COINTELPRO operation—an argument Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) dismissed by conceding the political abuse of surveillance powers in the past but asserting that "those days are behind us." (The latter development coinciding, as chance would have it, with the passage of legislation prohibiting warrantless wiretaps.) Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) warned that the compromise legislation would "redefine the Fourth Amendment, and thus the fundamental relationship between the government and its people" by licensing "a fishing expedition approach to intelligence collection."

"Untargeted surveillance", "blanket wiretaps", "fishing expedition"...none of that really works for leftists, in general. Even if we were willing to concede that a blanket wiretap is sometimes just a blanket wiretap, it still doesn't sound good. And in our darker moments, we are pre-disposed to interpret these things as symbols of a police state. As symbols of a possible hidden "Marxo-Fascist" (minus the "Marxo") agenda, if you will. Maybe even as symbols of political cravenness (depending on our mood, I guess). If only we had people like David Brooks around to ask more questions about these "symbolic issues". I guess he's too busy digging through Obama's garbage looking for his "I [heart] Chairman Mao" pin to bother.


NOTE: The entire time the "liberal" media were beating up on Obama for his reversal on campaign finance, left blogistan was beating up on Obama for his reversal on FISA. What does that symbolize?


Also, thanks to xkcd for using the Creative Commons (non-commercial) copy left license, thereby allowing me to bastardize xkcd's Stand Back (Science) design.

UPDATE: FISA delayed and FISA's worse than you think. This means more action needed.

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

Nothing New byslag at 4:35 AM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

FISA: The Mullet of Compromises
Monday, June 23, 2008

An hour out of my weekend was spent in finally getting the long-overdue summer haircut. I generally dislike taking the time to get my haircut for a variety of reasons, one of which being the fact that I hate smelling the products they put in my hair for the rest of the day. Nonetheless, whenever I do get my hair cut, I generally try to get a little more out of the time by chatting up the haircut person and learning more about his/her business. In this case, the lady was telling me about how a big part of her job is trying to mediate between competing priorities of an individual client. She said that people often come in wanting her to give them hair that's dark-but-light or short-but-long, and as a professional, she uses her skills to try to achieve a reasonable compromise. And apparently, not all compromises are created equal.

A compromise that haircutters employ to get people like me into their chairs more often is to use less smelly hair products. The way they deal with the dark-but-light issue has traditionally been by adding highlights. And generally, these compromises are seen as being successful. However, I think we're all familiar with the traditional short-but-long compromise of the mullet. And as any mullet Google search will prove, the mullet is generally seen as being...um...less successful. So, what does this all go to show? Compromise can sometimes make us all look really, really stupid.

Just ask the Democrats in the US House of Representatives whose recent "compromise" on the FISA bill continues to, as Glenn Greenwald points out, make them look weak, corrupt, and stupid:

The very idea that Democrats would lose elections if they didn't support this bill is false on numerous levels. They could have easily removed the issue simply by voting to extend the PAA orders for 6-9 months. More importantly, Karl Rove's central strategy in the 2006 midterm election was to use FISA and torture to depict the Democrats as being Weak on Terrorism, and the Democrats crushed the Republicans and took over both houses of Congress. Pelosi's claim that they support extremist Bush policies in order to avoid election losses in "swing districts" is dubious in the extreme -- an excuse to feed to Democratic voters to justify their complicity in these matters.

But whether true or false, this "justification" is precisely why I believe so fervently that the only option we have to battle against continuous assaults on core constitutional and civil liberties is to target the very seats that the Democratic leadership constantly points to in order to justify their behavior. What the Democratic leadership is saying is quite clear: we will continue to trample on the Constitution and support endless expansions of the surveillance state because that is how we'll win in swing districts and expand our Congressional majority (Hunter at Daily Kos -- "one leftist blogger" who spews rage "on the Internet" -- has one of the clearest statements on why this bill is so abominable). The only objective of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer is to have a 50-seat majority rather than a 35-seat majority, and if enabling the Bush administration's lawbreaking and demolishing core constitutional protections can assist somewhat with that goal, then that it what they will do. That's what they are saying all but explicitly here.

In other words, the FISA amendment truly is the mullet of compromises.

For entertainment purposes only:

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

Nothing New byslag at 11:02 AM 5 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Is Obama Democrat-Light?
Thursday, June 19, 2008

First, I have to say that I appreciate Obama's habeas corpus position. I like how he's fighting back against McCain's fear-based campaign tactics. And I am glad to see a high-profile Democrat finally throw this administration's failures back in its face on a regular basis. With that said, I'm right there with Glenn Greenwald in his scathing attack on Obama's support for a pro-wiretap blue-dog Democratic incumbent, John Barrow:

The Atlanta Constitution-Journal reported yesterday that Barack Obama -- who has been claiming to be so emphatically opposed to warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, to say nothing of the Iraq War -- taped a radio endorsement this week for Rep. Barrow, with the specific intent to help him defeat Regina Thomas in the Democratic primary (h/t sysprog)

By all accounts, Regina Thomas is much more progressive than Barrow. Of course, this means that Obama hasn't learned his Lieberman lesson, which is disappointing as hell because we want a President who can be taught--for a change. But beyond that:

Making matters much worse here, Obama -- who has removed himself almost completely from the pending eavesdropping and telecom amnesty debate -- recorded this ad for Barrow on the eve of that bill's passage, all in order to keep in power a key Democratic supporter of this FISA/amnesty bill. Yet telecom amnesty is not merely a side issue but is one of the purest expressions of what Obama claims so vigorously to oppose in Washington.

Of course, all of this is happening at a time when the McCain camp is calling Obama "a typical politician":

Today, Barack Obama has revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama...The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people...

McCain's accusation is the result of Obama's decision to refuse public financing for his campaign, a decision with which I agree. Nonetheless, Obama's reputation is being damaged two-fold by his failure to stand up against the FISA "compromise". First, to liberals, he looks like someone who says one thing and does another (aka typical politician). Second, one line of attack that McCain is using is that Obama hasn't taken "political risks" when legislating. Well, the fact is that Nancy Pelosi and other mainstream Democrats are lined up behind this "compromise". And once again, Obama fails to take the political risk of defying/leading them. In other words, his mediocre behavior on this issue makes him look weak. And that's what a typical Democratic politician looks like these days.

That said, the entire FISA affair only really proves that there is no cohesive left wing of the Democratic Party (shocker!) and that all this talk of "reaching across the aisle" means nothing more than doing whatever Republicans want. It also means that real liberals are still fighting for a voice in mainstream political discourse, which is governed by the notion that being a "maverick" means not always being a complete f'ing "terrorist fist jab" lunatic. That's called asymmetry.

Can we please not have an "anybody but the white guy" election this time around? Pretty please? Needless to say, this was not the best day for Barack Obama to ask me for money. Maybe we should elect Michelle instead.

UPDATE: Rather than wallow in despair and frustration, I called Obama's campaign headquarters at 866-675-2008 (pressing 6 for "other questions") and spoke with Tyler, a campaign representative. He said that he's been getting calls all day on the issue, and I told him that I felt that Senator Obama was in a unique position to show some leadership here and guide the House and Senate to a more appropriate decision. He said that he would pass my message (and all the others) along. Please call if you think there should be a penalty for illegal wiretapping!

UPDATE 2: If you were thinking of donating to Obama's campaign today, might I suggest donating to the PAC v Retroactive Immunity instead? We need to make it clear that lack of leadership will not be rewarded.

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

Nothing New byslag at 11:18 AM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

A Bunch of DNChildren
Saturday, May 31, 2008

If I ever forget that I don't have the patience required to have children, I will revisit this episode from today's DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee mtg:

A group of public officials -- allies of both Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and Barack Obama -- walked out of the hearing room to discuss their willingness to come together on a plan to seat all their delegates, each voting at half-delegate status, but representatives of the Clinton campaign from outside Florida interrupted their press conference to dispute the idea that the Clinton campaign agreed with the plan. [...]

Clinton campaign surrogate Lanny Davis stood outside the circle and interrupted, raising his voice in protest that the Clinton campaign had agreed to anything less than a 100% seating of the delegates at 100% of their strength.

Nelson noted that he was speaking "on behalf of the voters of Florida," not on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

"They're misrepresenting our stance," Davis said repeatedly.

Then Arthenia L. Joyner, Clinton's designated Florida representative, approached the circle.

"The campaign is only for 100%," Joyner said. [...]

"Are you a paid staff member for Clinton?" Ausman asked Davis.

"Actually I'm just a friend," said Davis.

"Are you a designated representative of the Clinton campaign?" Ausman, who may be a foot taller than Davis, asked.

"I am not," Davis said.

"Why don't you let the designated representative speak for Clinton and you be silent?" Ausman said, more a statement than a question. "Are you from Florida?"

"Why don't you go about your business?" Jones asked Ausman.

"As a matter of fact I will not be silent," Davis said, "you're not going to silence me." [...]

MFP and I often talk about how we wished our American cultural upbringing had encouraged more healthy, vigorous debate. I told him how, when I was studying in England for a semester, going to a public debate was a fun, raucous, educational evening. The Brits would take a witty insult with good humour, unabashedly exchange strange new ideas, acknowledge and concede points without loss of face, etc. And while there are many things about British culture I think we could get by with less of--draconian reliance on tradition, social stratification by economic class, unhealthy feelings of global superiority, alcoholism (for starters)--there's one thing I wish we could have kept more of. The ability to argue like adults.

I'm starting to find all politicians appalling.

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

Nothing New byslag at 4:38 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Lieberman Concern Trolls at the Wall Street Journal
Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Holy Joe starts his rationally-challenged article with a question:

How did the Democratic Party get here?

I actually thought this was a good beginning. I've often wondered how the Democratic Party could have ever included Joe Lieberman, let alone put him up as a VP candidate. But apparently, that wasn't where he was going:

How did the party of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy drift so far from the foreign policy and national security principles and policies that were at the core of its identity and its purpose?

I agree. How did we, the Democrats, ever let the fear mongers push us into a stupid war with no real moral foundation or path to success? Oh wait. That wasn't where he was going either:

Beginning in the 1940s, the Democratic Party was forced to confront two of the most dangerous enemies our nation has ever faced: Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In response, Democrats under Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy forged and conducted a foreign policy that was principled, internationalist, strong and successful.

Well, there was that whole Bay of Pigs incident. Not to mention the Vietnam War, which Kennedy has some right to claim a part of. And I guess the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were straightforwardly principled actions according to Lieberman. But that was such a long time ago, and blowing up entire cities of innocent civilians is an easily forgettable event. I'm sure the few families of those people that remain don't even remember their names anymore. So, it's all good. I digress:

This was the Democratic Party that I grew up in – a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American, a party that was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders. It was a party that understood that either the American people stood united with free nations and freedom fighters against the forces of totalitarianism, or that we would fall divided.

Hmmmm....being "proudly pro-American" means judging the world beyond our borders while completely forgetting to judge ourselves? I think there's another term for that: hypocrite. And when we talk about "freedom fighters" are we talking Iraqi insurgents? Cuz I think our US soldiers in Iraq may have a problem with us standing united with those freedom fighters. Just a guess....

Long story short, Lieberman's concern troll article is lengthy and not worth all the words he used to write it, let alone all the words required to make fun of it. I just wish the Democratic Party wouldn't put up with his imperialist recklessness anymore.

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

Nothing New byslag at 9:52 AM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Sam Seder: Not-for-Morons Liberal Talk Radio
Friday, April 11, 2008

Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes quit this week after she was suspended for making extremely inappropriate comments about Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro. Sam Seder fans were hoping that he'd get Randi's time slot. But apparently, Air America management thinks the word "celebrity" still means something because that's who will be Randi's replacement. Not one celebrity, but several. Throughout the month, and starting with someone named Richard Belzer (who I had to look up). Which begs the question: Am I the only one who sees the reliance on celebrity as a step in the exact wrong direction?

Having watched Sam Seder over the last few years grow into a brilliantly innovative host, I can't help but see this situation as yet another example of a huge generational divide. Sam has been on the leading edge of, not just liberal talk radio, but of strategic liberal community building. I've blogged before about Sam's engagement with the netroots and author communities. And his use of technology--including the Sammy Cam, IMs, and the Samsedershow blog--indicates that he knows who his listeners are, what they want, and how to give it to them. Not starting out with a lot of celebrity name cache, Sam has been forced to prove himself by continually honing his skills and building his knowledge base. And he's brought his listeners along for the ride. So, if we see Seder as leading by example, he's teaching us that being clever, insightful, knowledgeable, diligent, and innovative is the best way to prove your liberal values.

On the other hand, Air America's management seems to think that liberal talk radio listeners don't really appreciate those qualities after all. While it's possible that some members of the celebrity lineup that management has in mind for Seder's slot have some of the better characteristics that Sam has displayed, it's highly unlikely that we, as listeners, are going to be privy to them within a week. And it's also highly unlikely that any of the celebrities that show up in Seder's slot will be able to teach his listeners anything about liberal politics and policy that we don't already know. This move by Air America management indicates to me that they, like the establishment media in general, think that their audience is composed of morons. That we care more about flashy names (whoever they are) than we do about liberal values and strategic community building. Or maybe they think that flashy names are liberal values. Either way, I think they're wrong.

If you think they're wrong too, email pcollins@airamerica.com to let AAR management know that Sam should get a regular weekly timeslot.

UPDATE: Per Barack's comment, I set up a petition on Care2 urging AAR to give Sam a daily show. Sign it, if you like!

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

Nothing New byslag at 8:22 AM 3 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Democrats: Unprincipled or Unrealistic? CNN Reports--You Decide
Monday, March 31, 2008

Glenn Greenwald has been relentlessly articulating some of the significant problems caused by the asymmetry of reporting on Iraq (one of which being the fact that we've spent five (5) years involved in a war that was supposedly going to take 6 months). As part of his point, he highlights a video of Charlie Rose interviewing two Iraqis about what the war has cost Iraqi citizens:

Even now, Americans are inundated with "The Surge is Working!" rhetoric and hear almost none of the views expressed in this interview, just as -- prior to the invasion -- they were exposed to every shade and color of pro-invasion advocates while the anti-war view was drastically minimized and even suppressed. Amazingly, nothing has actually changed from that 2002-2003 period when -- as even Howard Kurtz documented in one of the better (and only) pieces of establishment journalism examining pre-war media coverage -- actual war opponents were buried, rendered invisible, and war advocates were amplified and celebrated. That's still happening.

Atrios has frequently said that the range of acceptable establishment political opinion in the U.S. spans the suffocatingly narrow gamut from The New Republic to National Review (or: "From The New Republic to The Free Republic"). The substantial body of opinion to "the left" of the pro-war (or, at best, anti-war-execution) New Republic is excluded as fringe and unserious, while nothing substantial exists to the right of National Review. There is never any outer boundary on the Right.

In his post, Greenwald included the video clip of the interview, which is absolutely essential viewing for everyone--if, for no other reason than its rarity of viewpoint.

And almost as if designed expressly to illustrate Greenwald's point, CNN features this interview with Brooking's Institute's decidedly pro-war Michael O'Hanlon and CNN's very own Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, who's there to "keep him honest":

First, we can tell how "honest" Starr keeps war-groupie O'Hanlon by the very serious-looking glasses she's wearing and her very grave demeanor. Aside from that, we can further tell how serious she is when she says this at the end of the interview:

Right now, General Petraeus, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff all say "No mandated timetables for withdrawal. We have to stay until the job is done." That is not what the Democrats want. What do these commanders do if a Democrat wins and a Democrat sticks to that campaign promise [getting us out of the war]? What the Pentagon may be hoping behind the scenes is, if a Democrat wins, they'll do what they all do when they do win; they'll wiggle out of their campaign promises a little bit and reality will take over and nothing will fundamentally change for the troops. At least for a while. [emphasis mine]

I almost don't know what to say here. Barbara Starr: CNN "correspondent"/voice of the Pentagon?

First, who determines when "the job is done"? Who sets the mission? Who nominates the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs? Last I heard, the President does those things. And if Barack Obama came in tomorrow and said "hey guys, we're refining our mission..." is he then denying "reality"? No. He's being the President. That's his job. And while his job is to listen to advice from his trustworthy advisers, he's still the Commander-in-Chief (or as Bush likes to call himself, "the Decider"). For the benefit of Barbara Starr--Pentagon mouthpiece correspondent--here's an easy-to-follow chain of command diagram: The People-->The President-->Secretary of Defense... That's what the rest of us call "reality".

According to Barbara Starr/Pentagon, Democrats get to choose between being completely unprincipled (as they always are, apparently) by breaking their withdrawal promises and being completely unrealistic by keeping their withdrawal promises. Which means that our only choice to avoid such wholly unAmerican folly would be to vote for McCain, I guess. Bomb, bomb, bomb...need I go on? Obviously, CNN's Pentagon correspondent's way of keeping O'Hanlon "honest" is by juxtaposing his pro-war view with the Pentagon/Starr's pro-war view. Apparently, the rest of us just need to learn to stop worrying and love the bomb.

Note: As Crooks and Liars and Atrios have noted before, this isn't the first time Barbara Starr has gone all Faux Newsy on our asses. C&L documents Starr's righteous indignation at the military's accusing the media of trying to "hype" the supposed threat from Iran. Apparently, Starr hasn't seen Katie Couric's starring role in John McCain: Behind the Music or bothered to watch her own news network--as C&L illustrates in their posted video. Beyond that, if what Barbara Starr says is true, and the military lied about the media's role in hyping Iran, how do we know that they're not lying about withdrawal timelines from Iraq? I wonder if Ms. Starr ever bothered to look into that.

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

Nothing New byslag at 8:07 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Other People's Genius: Action Items Edition
Friday, March 28, 2008

Without further ado...

* John McCain broke FEC rules. Sign Firedog Lake's FEC complaint letter to make him pay.

* Big money donors are helping Hillary hold Democrats hostage by threatening to withhold cash. Sign MoveOn.org's petition to support Nancy Pelosi's stand for democracy.

* Darcy Burner and other Democratic Congressional candidates want to help get us out of Iraq. Sign on to their Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq.

Happy other people's genius Friday!

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

Nothing New byslag at 9:09 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

If Only They Didn't Hate Us For Our Freedom
Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Lately, I've been in the process of pursuing what, to me, is an important question: Who is generally more rational--liberals or conservatives? That is, are members of one end of the political spectrum more likely to be reality-based, logical, introspective, intellectually honest than those of the other? Well, after hours of surfing liberal and conservative blogs for anecdotal evidence and cracking open my copy of Don't Think of an Elephant, I've decided (for now anyway) that's the wrong question. With conservatives and liberals trading sides these days over what has been the biggest foreign policy disaster many of us have ever seen, a more appropriate question might be: Who is generally more rational--those who support the Iraq War or those who oppose it?

And Jon Stewart helped me decide:

It depends.

Many of us have discussed the challenge that anti-war folks have getting taken seriously by the media and supposed experts in foreign policy. And Jon Stewart shows us one of the reasons we have this challenge. It's easy to disregard people who dress funny, pull crazy stunts, and often can't articulate their position in an intelligible fashion. That said, is Dick Cheney's outright dismissal of American opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom any more rational because it comes with a suit and a maniacal smirk? Jon Stewart's "I spread democracy. I'm a pusher, not a user" Dick Cheney impression suggests not. So, if we recognize the fact that people from both sides can be absurdly irrational, how do we move our thinking forward to prevent more of it?

Well, for starters, we don't elect John McCain:

“We're succeeding. I don't care what anybody says. I've seen the facts on the ground," the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide. The events transpired as bin Laden called on the people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to ‘help in support of their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task.’”

Apparently, Bush's sunny optimism rubbed off on McCain during their impassioned embrace. Nonetheless, after five years of foreign occupation and civil liberties rollbacks, you'd think both liberals and conservatives would have gotten wiser by now. And maybe some of us have. But the fact that John McCain's poll numbers are still high and the fact that the media still covers up his false foreign policy statements suggests many have not. Many involved appear to have learned very little over the last 5 years. So, the question now isn't: Who's more rational--those who support the war or those who oppose the war? The question is: Why do John McCain, the media, and Dick Cheney all hate America?

Obviously.

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

Nothing New byslag at 3:10 PM 2 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Throw Away Society
Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Sadly, I haven't had a chance to post in a while. Obama's speech on the complexities of race and family relationships and loyalties yesterday was amazing, and it would have been nice to be able to read, watch, and talk more about it at the time. But my trusty old laptop was having none of it. After the third restart and the fifth force-quit of the day (accompanied by minutes of staring at Mac's dreaded spinning ball of time), I finally had to pack it in. The hard drive is going, so the entire computer spent all of last night in the freezer. And along with the hard drive, the logic board has exhibited its own share of frailties. I would say that I don't know why I keep it around, but that would be a lie.

It's true that there are shinier newer laptops out there that use less power, are thinner and lighter, and actually work all the time, but I can think of a thousand and one reasons why my laptop is still better. First, my laptop was a gift to me from my favorite person in the world. It helped me prepare for the GREs, enabled me to write some of the best papers I've ever written, and didn't even balk when I used it to write some of the absolute worst papers anyone has ever written. Yes, my laptop and I have had our disagreements. There are times when I couldn't get it to see things my way. When I couldn't get it to wake up from a nap or stop thinking...and thinking...and thinking long enough to respond to me. But along with the head-holding frustration has come the joy of success from a job well-done and a complex interdependent relationship.

My laptop has been around the continent with me. It's been in states that I'd prefer not to see again. It went along with me when my mother died of cancer, and it helped me write her tearful obituary. It went with me when my grandfather died a few months later and allowed me to keep up on my schoolwork during that emotionally exhausting trip. And a year later, its screen was shattered on the last hour-long leg of a fourteen hour flight to the funeral of my favorite person in the world's father. Some might think that my laptop is too young to have had all these experiences and that they wore it down, making it slow and ornery. Nonetheless, the obstinate sluggishness of my laptop didn't stop said favorite person from finding a new screen on Ebay and replacing my laptop's broken one by removing every single screw and part imaginable and putting them all back together again.

I'm not going to lie and suggest that my laptop came out perfect after all of this trauma. Its bouts of recalcitrance have increased as has my impatience with it. Sometimes, its inability to understand the simplest of commands would be mind-numbingly infuriating. Nonetheless, I've understood where it's coming from. Because my laptop and I have had a history together, I know where it's foibles are. I know that it doesn't always mean to do the things it does. And when it froze up multiple times during Barack Obama's bold and insightful speech yesterday, all I could do was shrug and start it over again.

Now, insightful readers may think I'm using my loyalty toward my laptop as an analogy to explain why I can empathize with Obama's loyalty toward his friend, Reverend Wright. That's only partially true. Fact is, my laptop may frustrate me and cause me pain sometimes, but it's never shamed, offended, or even really hurt me or the people and things I care about. No. Those things were never done by my laptop nor are they likely ever to, because my laptop--much as I may love it--is still a stupid piece of equipment whose one and only job is to do what I tell it to do.

The only things in my life that can shame, offend, and hurt me are the people I know. For instance, when my laptop helped me write my mother's obituary, it didn't mind when I left out the fact that she was a regular Fox News watcher who sometimes made shamefully ignorant, racist, or homophobic statements. She was a bright woman, a loving mother, and a generally kind person, so we kind of forgot about that other stuff. And when I helped clean out my grandfather's home after he died, I let others have the Rush Limbaugh paraphernalia and the questionable adult material and opted to keep his set of National Geographics on DVD-ROM to remember him by. I don't look forward to the day when technology advances to the point at which those disks become obsolete. And whenever my favorite person talks about his father in loving terms, I don't interrupt his reverie by bringing up all of the painful sexist comments I heard his father make. Instead, after that funeral, I used my laptop to help me scan in hundreds of old family photos that his mother sent me so that he could have a copy.

After reading several reactions to Obama's speech, I guess some Republicans would (ironically) object to my even bothering with these people with whom I so vehemently disagreed on many levels. Well, those Republicans can be stupid if they choose. But if I won't toss out a simple laptop that can no longer reliably do its one and only job and has to spend the night in the freezer, it's highly unlikely that I'm going to throw away society.

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

Nothing New byslag at 8:25 AM 6 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Things I Can't Get Excited About
Monday, March 10, 2008

Periodically, the world around me grows all abuzz about certain events, technologies, national holidays, etc that I just can't force myself to get excited about. Instead of employing my traditional strategy of ignoring such apparently newsworthy information, I'll post it to the SoN blog so that readers might either share in or rebel against the ennui.

* NY Governor Eliot Spitzer gets busted for hiring prostitutes. Curious if Charlotte Allen would consider this mistake..."embarrassing".

* Tucker Carlson loses his show. Gets replaced with a different white guy. Jon Stewart had nothing to do with it.

* Google sites launched recently. Filed with Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter on my list of things that I want to love but just don't care enough about to do it.

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

Nothing New byslag at 9:55 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

The Thing That Hillary Supporters Just Don't Get

Amazingly, Hillary Clinton's uber-supporters just don't seem to get what it is about Hillary's most recent campaign statements that the rest of us find so appalling. Tom Watson says:

To be a Clinton blogger in the progressive blogosphere is to be hated, shunned, passed without notice in the street...We're Rovian in our embrace of the monster, closet Bush backers and much worse - Lieberman types! Oh, the pain. The pure pain. I can't stand it. Makes me want to quit, embrace that messianic goodness, and stand down - for the sake of the party, of course - from any pursuit of a Clinton presidency.

And James Wolcott says this about people who claim that they cannot, in good conscience, vote for Hillary in the general, should it come to that:

Look, I understand the knocks against Hillary Clinton, truly I do. There are no flaming arrows fired her way that I haven't seen traverse the air before, no bill of indictment drawn up containing charges with which I'm unfamiliar. Reciting her sins and liabilities has become a familiar refrain, but if it's the Gregorian chant you live by, if you find Hillary Clinton such an insupportable choice for the Democratic nomination that you prefer to suckle your pride and idealism rather than soil your conscience should she be at the top of the ticket, fine, have fun with that...

In spite of the fact that I will probably vote for Hillary in the general (if highly unlikely scenarios come to pass), I definitely empathize with and even approve of the general disdain for her recent campaign trajectory. The fact that Hillary supporters clearly just don't get this disdain says a lot to me. So, for the good of the few, allow me to explain.

While I've mentioned before that I'm not a big Hillary fan, my lack of fandom came in the form of sincere apathy rather than pure, unadulterated loathing. I have never liked the company she keeps or the baggage she carries, but she's a politician, so I figure those are just a couple of the many negatives that comes with having so much "experience" in politics. And as I stated previously, I defaulted to Obama after Edwards bailed because I think Obama has some unique leadership abilities and feel that we, as a country, desperately need to move in a new direction. However, it wasn't until I watched Hillary make this claim, that I ever had a purely visceral negative reaction to her:

Hillary Clinton: I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

It boggles the mind that any self-respecting liberal Democrat would not revile these words. What she's implying here is that, while she and her buddy McCain were serious experts working hard in 2002 to help GW Bush put us into a war in Iraq, Obama and his frivolous hippie peacenik followers were simply lazing around their coffee shops chatting about how they're just way too cool for war. Hillary's belittling statement utterly ignores the overwhelming support that this idiot war received from the majority of elected officials, news outlets, and American people, and it completely discounts the important judgment and moral courage it took to stand up against these forces at the time--especially as a politician.

So, when Hillary Clinton unabashedly decides to channel GW Bush, Rush Limbaugh, and the New York Times all at once to tell Obama and other war critics that their vocal opposition to deadly stupidity really doesn't mean that much after all, I can only find it within myself to muster one kind of response: pure, unadulterated loathing. I loathe the bizarre fantasy that it takes serious, experienced people to start wars. I loathe the heinous impact that this might-makes-right mindset has on our culture and on our standing in the world. But mostly, I loathe the fact that war gives an incompetent, addle-brained president an opportunity to play dress-up and stand in front of a cheering crowd to blithely declare "Mission Accomplished" as if he had ever performed a single brave, meaningful act in his entire life and as if the dying, maiming, and destroying were even close to being over. And loathing is not the kind of response I want to have to the nation's first female president, thankyouverymuch.

And for the record, here's a video of Obama's silly little 2002 speech as spoken by his silly little supporters:


Go Obama! Kick Hillary Clieberman's ass!

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

Nothing New byslag at 3:38 PM 0 dispense karmic justice! (or just comment here)  

Horror Shows
Thursday, March 6, 2008

Apparently, Samantha Power, one of Obama's foreign policy advisors, called Hillary a "monster" to a UK reporter. Of course, this comment was presumably intended to be "off the record", but sometimes it's hard to tell. The debate at Talking Points Memo has gone from whether or not this statement might actually be good for Obama to wondering what kind of monster Hillary might be (should she be one). Personally, I'm going with zombie.

The reason I say zombie is that I think Hillary is mindlessly following traditional campaign strategies that I don't find inspiring. And I get the sense that she doesn't really find them inspiring either. In fact, it seems that Hillary is most inspiring when she isn't being a "politician" but instead is being a wonk. In her most animated state, she can be smart and articulate, but she doesn't use those qualities to her advantage in a way that feels self-motivated. A Hillary speech can periodically sound like one long, low mumbly groan. It's as if she's being lead by her campaign people rather than leading her campaign. In my mind, that's very zombie-like. Plus, all the major news outlets say that she eats people's brains.

As for Obama, at the risk of sounding racially tone-deaf (somehow), I'm going to have to go with poltergeist. He can inhabit a space but still have an ephemeral quality. People are either frightened or possessed or just intrigued by him, but no matter what, they definitely know he's there. Whether he's a good poltergeist or not can sometimes be in question, and you may wonder if you should exorcise him or rather help him fulfill whatever mission he needs to fulfill to be sated.

That said, these questions may not be the ones we, as Democrats, should be asking at this moment in time. I mean, this is an election year, and we are trying to take back the WH and all. So, the real question should be, "What kind of monster is McCain?". For that, I'm going with mummy (for obvious reasons).

In other words: Democratic candidates--Stop hurting each other and go slay McCain before he wakes up.

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

Nothing New byslag at 7:29 PM 1 dispenses karmic justice! (or just comments here)  

The Enemy Within
Tuesday, March 4, 2008