Change.... for real this time.. no really

When did Obama's rhetoric start mirroring the pleas of a drug addict playing on the sympathies of a concerned family member? This really has all the signs:

He begins by pointing how bad everything used to be (Remember when I was lying in that ditch?), then he glosses over some non-accomplishment "accomplishments" (I've started filling out job applications, and I went to a meeting last night), and then some general platitudes (I'm really gonna do it this time) all building up to that crescendo where the help he desires will really get him to where you want him to be (And if you give me this money, then I'll be able to sign up for this program/buy a suit for this interview/ move into this new apartment). It continues from there: playing the victim, saying that outside forces are out to undo all his "hard work," and that this is a make or break moment... blah blah blah.

It doesn't matter that almost nothing he says here is connected to the truth. It doesn't matter that he's already told us he would "fix Washington" and create change, and a more fair and just America, and that's he's failed miserably on these fronts. It really doesn't matter that he's done nothing to address the crises that he talks about at the beginning (not that he was supposed to fix these things right away - or that it's even his job to). He knows, like the drug addict, that if he looks you in the eye and lays the maipulation on you, you'll have no choice but to cave and do what he wants. This is in fact the all-but-ostensible Democrat strategy for over a decade now. They might as well make signs and T-shirts that say "The Lesser of Two Evils!" "Not as Bad as that Whackjob!" "Vote for Me, I'll cast bad votes reluctantly." (Just as the drug addcit should confess "look, there's an 80% chance I use this money for drugs, but maybe this time I won't ...maybe.")

Of course, as funny and honest as it would be, they're not gonna make those signs, so instead they tell you that this time (maybe) they're really gonna try (maybe) and do all that "change and fairness" stuff (maybe) they talked about - this time. These 15 months of bullshit, corruption, Bush-light illegality, and lying was all just as typical as a relapse on the road to recovery.

*******

Most people seem to be focusing on Obama's request to get out the vote amongst African-Americans and Latinos as though this is racist. The simple answer is that this pretty much.... yeah it's racist. The less simple answer is that this is craven political manipulation based on ridiculous racial stereotypes and the perpetuation thereof.

To be clear, this is an ad by the Democratic National Committee whose one and only job is to get Democrats elected to office. This is not Obama championing the importance of getting involved in the process; he states that this was part of the answer to the question of how Democrats can win elections in November. Oddly, the answer was not something like "stop being shitty lying politicians" or " actually do stuff you said you would like following the Constitution and refraining from cupping the balls of lobbyists." No, the answer was basically "uhhh, get lots of votes?" Brilliant! And how do Democrats get more votes? By getting people who we all know have no inclination or ability to vote for anyone else: first time voters and minorities!!! They'll support Dems no matter how shitty a job they do! They're the heartbroken family members to Obama's drug addict. They really never had a choice.

April 19

Freedom is worth dying for.

That's a statement just about any American would agree with; that's one of the justifications we use every time we learn of a soldier's death overseas; that's what makes the movie Braveheart so fucking awesome! That statement is true as balls. Freedom is worth ding for, and thus, worth fighting for.

But, sometimes I wonder if people lose sight of that when the context changes. I'm specifically thinking of coverage of the wackjob "Patriot" groups, American citizens who plot violence against their own country's government, "domestic terrorists."

It goes without saying (and as implied by my use of the word "wackjobs" above) that I wholeheartedly endorse the usually caveats about how unjustified and preposterous all of their actions are, but I am, apart from that, a little concerned with how these issues are often covered. What I mean is that these "revolutionaries" are dismissed out of hand as engaging in behavior that is categorically unacceptable. But that line of reasoning - that violence in defense (even mistakenly) of freedom is unacceptable - is difficult to reconcile with the first sentence of this post, isn't it?

I mean, wouldn't we all agree that frequently, recently, and even currently, our government does things that are unlawful or unconstitutional, and people have a right to physically resist complying with such actions? Or even that, at some point, our very own government could, theoretically, become so oppressive and unjust that it would be justified for citizens to resort to violence in response? The answers to these questions have to be "yes" don't they?

Think about it, as Americans, we are awfully proud of our history, highlighted by an armed rebellion against an oppressive and unjust government. But let's not forget that the men who lead this rebellion had land, and influence and relatively nice lives; they were not rebelling because they were enslaved in prison camps. But has any American person ever - ever - raised a doubt as to whether the American Revolution was "too extreme," or that complaints about high taxes, unequal or non-existent representation, and a 2-tiered system of justice should have just been met with a letter-writing campaign?

Now let me again be clear that I am not defending or endorsing violence. I am actually of the view that violence is completely unjustified in just about every conceivable circumstance and that initiating violence in any circumstance is per se immoral, even when done in defense of freedom.

Which actually brings me to another sad point about media coverage of these violent "revolutionaries": it would be one thing if this coverage was part of an over-arching philosophy that consistently rejected violence in all forms, but considering how our media, and our national discourse, cheerleads us to war, then accepts it as standard and routine, or defends and excuses torture, or openly debates whether we should strike first against countries like Iran, it seems a little strange for them to dismiss as absurd the notion of people fighting for what they (erroneously) believe to be the very existence of their basic freedoms.

In other words, the reasons why we are occupying foreign countries at the cost of heavy bloodshed are open for political debate, and can be justified with revolving excuses from "spreading democracy" to fighting terrorism, but fighting an oppressive domestic government is nothing but a punchline? Any criticism of these "Patriot" groups needs to start with pointing out that our government, despite being corrupt, ineffective, opaque, unresponsive and criminal is still miles away from the point where an armed revolution is justified.

Situational Civil Liberties

The DOJ wants to be able to read your emails.

Now before you think you'd somewhat prefer that Feds not be allowed to read the emails you send and receive, you should realize that the DOJ only wants to read the emails you've already opened and thus probably read! See!? Once you realize that doesn't an awesome wave of relief just wash all over your body? No? Yeah me neither.

But this is not a joke. The DOJ is actually arguing that your privacy in your emails depends significantly on whether or not you have already read the emails. They've reached this conclusion based on a loophole-tastic interpretation (that would put insurance and credit card company lawyers to shame) of a statute that has already been interpreted by federal appeals courts to mean exactly not that. Moreover, even if the statute said explicitly what they want it to mean, it would merely render the statute unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment since that Amendment protects Americans' privacy based on what they reasonable expect to keep private, not loopholes created by federal statute.

As much as every DOJ lawyer, administrator, FBI agent and any other member of the executive branch who at all participated in this travesty is cordially invited to go and start their own country that doesn't care about privacy or rights (might I suggest they call it "Gofuckyourselfshire"), the real point for today is to point out and predict how pathetic the American response to this issue will be.

Sure, you might say this is just some lawyers arguing about warrant issues in a criminal investigation, why should people care? But that would be a fucking dumbass thing to say. This is pretty significant because it affects people's emails and could set a impactful precedent going forward. But also, this touches on the very same issues that caused such a stir regarding the Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretaps. Those were really big issues to many Americans and they were discussed heavily in the media. Remember?

Now that DOJ is borrowing some of the very same parts of those issues that made them so controversial - laxed standards to access information like library records and emails; and no warrants where warrants are specifically required by a clearly written statute - there should be a similar response, as there was to those issues, in our national discourse, no?

Good luck with that. As no one seemed to care when Democrats voted to re-up on the Patriot Act without any new limits or privacy protections (because some Republicans might have objected, and we can't have that!) absolutely no one will bat an eye-lash (other than maybe Olberman) about this new over-reach, and middle-finger to the law by Obama's administration.

And why? Isn't it bigger news when a Democratic Administration transgresses citizens' privacy rights? If new is "man bites dog" then surely this type of issue should get even MORE coverage than Bush's illegalities, right? I ask this rhetorically because, consistent with my predicting, I know this will be far less of a story.

My guess is that when Democrats do conservative things, it's just assumed as no big deal, it's "pragmatic centrism" or some bullshit. No matter how many campaign promises it violates, politicians "moving to the center" (for lack of a better term) is hardly ever news. Moreover, there can't be a news item just based on reporters recognizing, all by themselves, that a politician has lied or that an act is not legal. Someone else, like a politician, usually has to make it a story by pointing out the problem. At the time, out-of-power Democrats (including Obama) were all too happy to call out Bush's law-breaking, and prance around as the protectors of our important civil liberties. At the time these were matters of principle that could not be compromised. But now? I don't really know why they have compromised so easily, but what's definitely true is that there's really no one left to call out the President on this considering he's the leader of the only party that "cares" about civil liberties.

Whatever the intricacies of cause and effect, it's clear that the media and politicians only care about privacy, civil liberties and unlawful spying when it suits them.

When Criminals Pick Judges

Brace yourselves for what’s going to be the shittiest and most disgraceful clusterfuck of a Supreme Court Justice Selection Process ever. It will end with the appointment of some “pragmatic” and “moderate” individual, which really is code for an unprincipled, spineless, results-based judicial politician.

But oh the steps leading up to that....Here's what I'm imagining:

The President will pick someone. This person will suck, at life. Reactionary Obamatons will love her - yes it will be a woman. Conservatives will freak out like someone just beat up their grandmas and complain that the nominee is totally "out of the mainstream." This will be a wildly inaccurate statement by any reasonable measure, but old things the person said will be twisted and taken out of context to support this insane statement. The media will focus entirely on these few statements and these ridiculous arguments, and then there will be the dumbest and most insane hearings ever, where politicians and not the nominee talk for most of time, then the nominee refuses to answer basically any questions on the grounds that they might be prejudging a potential case (which is so stupid) and then, the person will get confirmed.

What will be missed is that the same man picking the new potential Justice, will be a man who is either claiming or extending unprecedented Presidential powers; A man who is rather plainly breaking the law in a few ways, by, for example, ordering American citizens killed, insisting on not prosecuting torturers even though such prosecutions are required by American law, and instituting a policy whereby human being are to be detained forever based on suspect evidence at best, and merely his whim at worst, to name a few. But fuck all that, no one's really gonna mention this.

I mean, sure it would be worth debating how interesting it is that a person doing such things is then in a position to appoint a member to the entity that is most likely (which is to say at all)to rein in those activities (read: crimes). It might make for informative and important discussion to talk about where the nominee stands on those issues and whether they believe in allowing the President to do whatever he wants as long as he uses magic words like "terrorist" or "war" or whatever. Shit, it might be nice to actually have a substantive discussion, as a nation, about what the Constitution is, says and does, and what it means to have a "Constitutional Philosophy."

But none of this will happen. Because Democrats AND Republicans all agree that the President and Congress can do whatever they want when it comes to fighting things like drugs or terrorism. They all agree that (accused) criminals and (accused) terrorists don't have rights. They ALL agree that the Constitution is something to be championed when it helps you and ignored when it stops you. So why should anyone else care about those things?

Besides, laws are just stupid and annoying and for lawyers to figure out. The Supreme Court is no longer about the law, but about political consequences. That's why the discussion this next appointment creates is going to be a national disgrace. Sadly, we don't really deserve any better.

Just Say Commerce Clause!!

W...T...F!?

Let's be clear on a couple of preliminary things: 1) The guy holding the camera is clearly being a douche; 2) The comment about "Not being worried about the Constitution" is pretty bad even if it's taken out of context, and even if he meant he's not worried whether this bill violates the Constitution (2 things which I will explain are plainly not true, by the way); and 3) The "not worried" comment is really not the point here, it's a later exchange that should be causing the stir and, quite frankly, the outrage:

When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn't know.

Of course everyone is focused on the "don't care about the constitution" comment, including Fox News folks like Bill O'Reilly who (it would be ironic if he had a shred of intellectual integrity) once said almost exactly the same thing. That's because it's easier to say This guy doesn't care about the Constitution!! then to say This guy's unfamiliar with the appropriate Constitutional Authorities!!! I don't doubt that Phil Hare (and Bill O'Reilly for that matter) care about the Constitution, but I don't think Phil Hare cares enough, or has enough concern about what his role is within the structure it provides.

The simple and undeniable fact is that any and every Congressman who has voted for a bill should be able to immediately name the Constitutional authority that allows such a bill to be written, let alone passed in either house of Congress. And, every member of congress should, as a force of habit, have determined such authority prior to voting for the bill, and really should be constantly asking himself the question as to where the authority lies while reading the bill (three times).

Mr. Hare's answer to the question about Constitutional authority raises a legitimate new question about whether or not he truly does care about the Document. And it certainly puts the lie to his defense that this comment was out of context and intended to mean he did not worry because he was confident the bill was Constitutional. First, the context seems pretty clear, and from his tone, Mr. Hare seems to be rejecting as quaint or formal the notion that the Constitution should restrain Congress from passing helpful laws. Second, it is simply impossible to be both convinced of the Constitutionality of a bill and not know what piece of the Constitution authorizes its passage. So the second piece of his defense is an absolute and blatant lie.

But this all falls under a broader issue:the fact that our politicians, and thereby our society, seems to exist in a total state of law-optionality, or selective or situational Constitutionalism. Phil Hare was a rather vocal critic of George Bush and I know from seeing him appear on TV that he opposed at least some of Bush's policies on legal or Constitutional grounds. If there is fairness in this world, going forward, Phil Hare will be essentially precluded from ever citing the Constitution to support any of his arguments or ideas, because, he should be well aware, the journalist or conservative talking head across the table will immediately point out his stated lack of concern for that same Document. If he's lucky, Mr. Hare will get a to a point where such a retort seems like a cheap shot, but they never will be. Mr. Hare, you can not disregard the Constitution and your duties within it in your haste to pass a bill you like and think is great, only to turn around and say that the Constitution must be adhered to when it suits your needs.

It goes almost without saying that the conservatives making tons of hey out of Mr. Hare's stupidity don't come across much better considering how little they cared about the Constitution when adherents to their ideology were violating it.

Still Phil Hare might look worse because really, how fucking hard is it to just say "Commerce Clause?"

Rant

This post is completely dead-on... and crushingly depressing.

I read it yesterday shortly after losing a hearing where the judge all but admitted that he was choosing to do what he thought was right even if it was not the appropriate decision under the law. The combination of these events left me rather sad and frustrated. It was a strange frustration, completely devoid of anger. It was a frustration based on the realization that no one seems to care about things I think are really important - obviously important - and that I am impotent to convince them otherwise.

As a general idea, that post sums it up nicely, albeit sarcastically:

When push comes to shove, when the truth is revealed to [the American People], they will always -- always -- do the right thing.

That is sarcastically exactly right. We have, at least lately always seemed to do the wrong thing. And be ok with it. That last sentence is really important: It's not that we won't make mistakes, but rather how we respond to them that really matters.

Swimming in my depression/frustration yesterday, I thought to myself that we are a depraved, heartless, ignorant, immoral and unjust people. I felt shame, really.

Emotionally and temporaly removed from those moments, I might have been a little harsh in that most people are kind-hearted and decent, and most people have a clear sense of what is right and wrong. But collectively? Collectively I don't think I was far off: War is something to be cheered and politicized and the deaths of innocents something to be knee-jerkingly defended and never somberly contemplated. Simultaneously, laws are something to be skirted whenever political inconveniences, or practical judgments can't be reconciled therewith. Perhaps the latter notion could be viewed sympathetically - if not outright accepted - if we had consistently demonstrated our moral awareness and clarity to be so strong and righteous that we would be wise to trust it, even over our cherished laws. Of course, we only ever seem to digress from our laws - our most basic and traditional principles - in ways that are often substantively immoral and illegitimate: to cover up murder, and abuse; to gloss over corruption where profits are prioritized over lives.

We get pretty pissed, and morally indignant about steroids and philandering golfers, but as that post highlights when we learn that our troops murdered plainly innocent pregnant women (yes plural) and then all levels of government officials conspired to cover it up we don't stop and ponder the benefits of our foreign wars, we don't call for accountability, we don't seek investigations, we don't even collectively say "how tragic." We don't do single fucking thing, we don't even fucking bring it up!

It would be easy to simply blame the giant orge-cluster-fuck that is and are our national political-media-corporate establishment, who are utterly devoid of all of the qualities indicating the presence of a human soul, that as a collective society we can't be anything other than immoral. But when I think about, as non-emotionally as possible, I am compelled to feel shame.

What He Said

Matt Taibbi has a pretty great piece up here about the catholic church scandal. Yep, he knocked that one out of the park. That is all.