Someone Needs a Tissue

I'm a huge fan of Free Speech. I believe it should be as robust and inclusive as possible. It should protect a foreign corporation advocating the violent genocide of a racial AND religious minority and the overthrow of the internet!

Folks who want to nibble out little exceptions to free speech, in cases where folks say ugly things or talk about violence, get no sympathy from me. But, if you wanted to propose that cowardly politicians who won't stand for eloquently articulated principles for fear they will lose a few percentage points of popularity or some far-off election can't ever invoke the names of men who literally put their lives on the line taking unpopular positions for no other reason than they were convinced it was the right thing to do... Well, I'd give you ten minutes.

"Matt Damon Will Make His Next 3 Flicks for Typical Teacher's Salary" Reports No One Cuz it's Not True

This video has been making the rounds on facebook and the interwebs (and I'm told TMZ) mainly on the buzz supplied by teachers and pro-teacher-minded individuals thinking that Matt Damon makes some amazing point here. I find this notion totally off-base.

First, let me say that I think what Damon says, as a factual matter, is likely pretty true: many people become teachers because they have a passion or overwhelming desire to do so. And, within reason, "shitty salaries" will not cause them to choose a different career path. Fine, great. But even accepting this as true, it is quite a leap to say that financial issues create no incentives whatsoever, and/or that those who are driven to teach no matter what the salary are thusly and by definition good teachers.

I happen to believe that teachers should be paid a lot more than they are currently. The main reason I believe this is that higher pay will attract more people to the teaching profession, and that will in turn raise the quality of teachers we're putting in front of our children. I feel as though the world is full of anecdotal evidence of people who might like to teach or have taught but are also skilled at and passionate about science, or writing, or business and they end up pursuing careers in those fields instead. Higher salaries would entice some of those folks to become teachers, or stay in the teaching profession. And yes, I believe that nearly everyone considers salary as a meaningful factor when picking a career path, whether or not it is the most important one.

So, if I believe all of those things, I don't really see how I can agree with Matt Damon at all. I'm almost waiting for some talking head idiot to appear on Fox News and cite this video as reasons why we should be paying teachers less as a way to save government money. Because Matt Damon says they will work for any amount of money!

None of this is to say that Matt Damon sounds particularly dumb here (I actually agree with his larger argument about less standardized tests, and more teacher autonomy). He's been put on the spot, and he's really pushing back against a larger argument of using free market principles generally to improve teachers' performance, a much murkier and complicated set of issues beyond just salaries. But based on the words that actually come out of his mouth, this one minute video, the argument he makes isn't all that pro-teacher.

That brings us back to my confusion. Teachers and pro-teacher folks seem to love this video, but, assuming they think teachers deserve higher salaries, what exactly is their case for why? Whatever it is, it certainly can't involve the notion that paying teachers more will improve the quality of teaching. At least not according to Matt Damon.

Debt Ceiling Deal: Lose-Lose-Lose, but it Still May Work Out

While many have rightfully decried the debt ceiling deal as the epitome of DC Kabuki theater, and avoiding our biggest problems under the guise of superficial "problem solving" meant only to look good politically, I believe it was likely an absolute disaster-stroke for Obama and his political fortunes.

On the surface and out of the box, the deal plays poorly for Obama as it makes him look like a weak-kneed capitulator. Indeed, almost no one believes he should have given up more and the dissatisfaction with his base is getting awfully loud. On substantive grounds, the deal doesn't come across as all that serious or "adult" since $1 trillion over ten years in reduced projected spending a) isn't all that much b) doesn't actually cut spending c) doesn't start until 2014 and d) can easily be undone by the five or six Congresses yet to come that can simply vote to say "yeah, no" anytime they feel like it. So, that leaves Barry with the victory of avoiding default and being the most adult in terms of decorum and compromise. That's not nothing, but untethered to results and leadership, it's not all that great.

Looking ahead, the aftermath of this deal makes things worse for winning a second term. The most conventional of all wisdoms says that re-election of a President is closely correlated with the economy. Jobs are a major issue that, left unaddressed, could create conditions whereby Americans elected a pig wearing a monacle just to kick out the sitting President. Yet, Obama has tied his own hands by conducting the debt ceiling debate on Republican terms: that the debt is serious and impacting our economy. This means a $1 trillion dollar tax cut/stimulus plan like the one passed in December '10 can't be taken seriously anymore after all this dire talk of debt andf spending cuts. It means a job program that involves spending on infrastructure or clean energy will be smothered in its crib for fear of an inability to sell it short-term. And, even if you could sell it short term, and get it passed that crazy Congress, you then hit the problem of having way too short of a long-term to see results. In other words, any seriously expensive jobs program has to have results by the first Tuesday in November 2012 or the President will get creamed for it. That all means you probably don't even start down the road of rolling out such a plan. (Did I mention that Congress is crazy?)

This may set up a somewhat inverted pyramid effect where Obama is in the reverse roll he played in the 2008 election. Back then, many Democratic candidates for Congress rode Obama's coat tails and benefitted from the starry-eyed first-time voters that were energized by Obama's soaring rhetoric and earth-shifting charisma. Now, Democrats in Congress can paint themselves as the alternative on job creation, desperate to take government money and stuff it into the overall pockets of America's working class if only these wacky Tea-Party goons would let them. Roll out a few hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky job programs with projections to create 45 bazillion new jobs in six hours, really flesh out the details and put it up for a vote and let the Republicans crush/ignore it. See how that plays.

Let Obama wax that of course he'd love to see any legislation that projects to create jobs but the Congress has to get one to him, and then use that as a hammer against the Republicans who vote against it. Top that off with the looming Bush tax cuts and how they need to expire because.. wait for it.. now again debt is serious (ignore the dissonance and hypocrisy here) and tax cuts don't create jobs evidently. Boom! You may have enough people excited to vote for their congress-critter! And hey, I mean, I guess this Obama guy is better than Romney, so I'll check the box for him too.

Things in Nutshells

The Obama administration has decided in the very same week that they will be prosecuting absolutely none of the assholes who ordered, OK'd and carried out the tortured helpless human beings until many (like 100) of them died, except for like three low-level scapegoats who apparently did those things extra bad AND that people who sell marijuana for medicinal use in jurisdictions where the law says that's OK will be cracked down upon because they are still breaking federal law.

Words really can't capture how insulting and infuriating this is - seriously, if I actually get to thinking about this, my heartbeat literally starts to increase and my eyes water a little bit - or how cartoonishly, absurdly unrecognizable the Obama Adminsitration has gone astray from the Obama Campaign that sired it.

If one were to write a novel with a magnanimous and principled main character caught up in a world based entirely on the actual facts and goings-on of this adminsitration, it would read like a slightly more subtle mash-up of the Lord of the Rings and 1984 with the allegorical narrative more tightly focused on the silly charade that is our electoral politics, and not as heavy on the corrupting influence of power or secrecy and information control.

I just have no idea how we got here. How did things go so wrong? When does Ashton Kutcher come out? What's a word that means soul-crushing disappointment mixed with stab-your-eye-with-a-fork anger?

Damn!

Glenn Greenwald absolutely slaughters the Obama administration and Harold Koh on its absurd positions on Libya and the War Powers Act. The only appropriate analogies that spring to mind are one-sided rap battles (like that scene at the end of 8 Mile) or ferocious basketball rejections (Koh went awfully weak to the hole). "Open and shut" doesn't do it justice. Damn.

And how exactly did Greenwald dismantle the absurd bullshit spewing from Obama and his minions? Did it involve some primer course on an obscure Constitutional Law concept and citations to 60 year old case law? Nope. It simply involved taking things government officials said in the very recent past, and comparing it to what they say and do now - including and especially things they said on the campaign trail. Though you've probably forgot, this is a practice usually referred to as "journalism."

Indeed, it wasn't so much Greenwald and his amazing, unique skill as much as it was Obama and Koh saying and doing things that were so radically inconsistent with the principles and views they had previously expressed. That's what makes the dismantling of their flip-floppity bullshit so thorough and so easy: All one has to do is put "before and after" statements by these clowns side-by-side on a page and let the reader do the math. Of course nearly every major voice in the media, even when taking critical approaches towards this issue, fails to do this.

Don't be a Partisan Dick

Here's an interesting interview with Senator John Kerry about Libya (go to about the 7:30 mark) and the War Powers Act. Let's set aside the stupidity of Kerry and Dean's statements, about how the WPA only applies when there are troops on the ground, and/or 50k men are dead and/or when a certain definition of "introducing into" is met. (Like Kerry would have gone along with not authorizing Iraq beecause initial projections made it seem brief and non-costly. Please.)

Instead, I'd just want to focus on the cost partisn loyalty has on our national discussion as exemplified in that clip. On this issue, the Republicans are being partisan or "playing politics", as Kerry astutely observes, and... they are also totally correct. Moreover, they are bringing up an important issue that should (must) be debated by the Congress: The United states is using force in a foreign country and causing the deaths of people, including women and children and this has been going on for 3 months. Our directly elected representatives need to weigh in, regardless of whether a statute and the Constitution require their authorization.

So really, Kerry's position amounts to essentially opposing democracy, and not for any legitimate reasons. (Indeed Kerry seems to place the burden on those opposing foreign interventions with having to prove their costly and violent enough to even be debated by our Congress.) But relies mainly on the fact that the Republicans are just acting all partisan and shit, and then Howard Dean (who made his name critizing the War in Iraq and apparently loves irony) says something stupid like "you don't play politics with American troops." And all that crap sorta flies as an actual argument.

So there you have it. When you (in this case the Republicans) come down in favor of debate, representation and democracy when it comes to major issues of life and death, your naked partisanship will be your undoing, and provide the best ammunition for your opponents, who otherwise couldn't formulate real arguments. This is the cost of being a blatantly partisan douche bag and doing things like supported shit you don't like because you like the politician doing it. You fuck up democracy. Way to go!

Jon Stewart/Chris Wallace: My Thoughts

There's not a word Stewart spokes in that much-discussed conversation with Chris Wallace that I would disagree with, when it comes to bias in the media. Wallace, and really anyone else who tries to make the "Liberal Media Bias" argument, seems desperate in pointing to a Diane Sawyer lead-in to a controversial story, or some request to go through Palin's emails. Really?

To be fair, if you gave him all day, Wallace could probably come up with 100 decent examples, and then he would argue that, together, they paint an overall picture that supports his thesis. But that still wouldn't fly. It's a high burden to prove that every major media outlet is biased in one direction, across the board, nearly all the time. And, the evidence against this position is significant and substantial. So much so that Wallace's best 5,000 examples still wouldn't put the preponderence of the evidence on his side.

We know the media isn't biased toward liberalism because we saw the coverage in the lead up to the War in Iraq, we watched the glossing over of Bush's illegal spying program, we saw the supposedly liberal media swallow whole on newly-minted, orwellianian lingo to describe what had always plainly been known as torture to protect the legacy of a conservative President committing rather un-liberal acts. Interestingly, the penultimate "liberal rag" the New York Times was centrally involved in all of those instances and was a huge help to Bush and Cheney. Those are arguably the most significant news stories of the decade (the War in Iraq and torture will surely be included in any and every history book 50-100 years from now, with footnotes about the abject media failure in each case) and should be weighted as such in this argument. But, even Stewart pulls a good example out of the salacious tabloid pile in pointing to Anthony Weiner.

Doubtless, had the media taken the high road and not put this story front and center for one week citing "more pressing issues" (or whatever), Wallace would complain that this was a conspiracy to let Weiner off the hook. Weiner is a bona fide liberal, after all. Of course, the media was relentless and ruthless towards Weiner, and the story seemed to have a life and energy that was greater than stories involving Republican legislators actually having sex with other not-their-wife people.

The media is sensational, and very lazy, and this makes them inaccurate, misleading and highly prone to over-simplification. They are anything but consistent. On the whole, the media is devastatingly shitty and it's a completely open question as to whether or not they even perform the proper function of a free press in a democratic society. All of this, as Stewart points out, is the true media bias. Any example of media shittiness that appears to help liberals and/or harm conservatives, can always - every single time - be explained, not as ideological bias, but as vapid, point-missing, sensationalistic incompetence.

And You Thought the 4th Amendment was a Law!?

Unelected Government officials are re-writing their own rules to give themselves more power and "leeway" and the losers, of course, are, by definition, innocent Americans.

See, the FBI has just gone ahead and decided that they can search databases and people's trash even without any "firm suspicion" that they have done anything wrong. Why? Because, ya know, 9/11 or something... Oh and they don't have to make a record of it because, hell, who likes paperwork, amirite?

Don't worry though, just because the FBI was found abusing its powers in the very recent past, this article axplains that they fixed that problem by, just like basically, fixing it, or "taking steps" or some such bullshit... Oh and that's according to the FBI. Doesn't that make you feel better?

If it doesn't (pussy), you also shouldn't worry because, as the article explains, the government might go through your trash even though they're investigating someone else entirely.

Agents have asked for that power in part because they want the ability to use information found in a subject’s trash to put pressure on that person to assist the government in the investigation of others.

Yes, ok, that sounds exactly (and by "exactly" I mean only in that "classic-textbook-definition" sort of way) like blackmail, but, look... uh... TERRORISTS! Ok? Do you get that?!

If wasting resources, avoiding any records and thus accountability, harassing and spying on millions of Americans and the obvious, inevitable abuse that follows, helps us to lock up 10 people, and then one of those guys was probably, almost highly likely to have one day hurt a little girl and her puppy, then it was worth it!

Got that, pinko? Let's just not even have an open discussion about this either, ok? Why do you hate freedom?

Federal Prosecutions: Pillars of Consistency or Our Favorite Vehicle for Punishing Douchebags?

Reading up on the Julian Assange press conference and one paragraph stands out to me:

..prosecuting Assange for publishing the War Logs or Cablegate documents is a challenge for the government, which has nevertheless convened a grand jury to look into the matter. Countless news organizations similarly published entire WikiLeaks documents or relied on their contents for reports. So the federal government may instead try and prove that Assange worked with Manning in leaking the documents.

Why does it matter that Assange did something extra? Of course, the simple answer is that this way the government isn't logically required to also prosecute, say, the New York Times. But that begs the question: so what if they were? The government obviously engages in highly selective applications of the law all the time. Just compare the treatment of baseball players who lie before Congress or to federal investigators, to that of FBI or CIA agents who lie before Congress, or even destroy evidence sought by federal investigators. Prosecutions of Bush Administration torturers? Non-existent! And our government is now blatantly violating the War Powers Act, and not even pretending otherwise.

So, the idea that our government and its prosecutors are bound by logic and fidelity to a fair application of the law is surprisingly and exceptionally heartening in this (apparent) case, but is not all that reassuring. I think it's just as likely to come down to whether or not they think Julian Assange is an even bigger dick (somehow) than Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. (And, he just might be so he's probably fucked.)

Which is to say, if you believe the lack of connection or conspiracy between Manning and Assange is ultimately going to make the feds call off the dogs because god-forbid they treat one arrogant prick differently than other folks who did the exact same thing (gasp!) then you're simply not paying attention.

So Many Pretty Words...

"As Winston Churchill said, the '…Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.' "

-Barack Obama. Seriously. What an asshole.

"Obviously What You're doing is Absolutely-Untouchably-Blatantly LEGAL..but I Need You to Explain Why, Serf!"

What exactly makes politicians think they can ask private actors to do things and then get mad when those actors don't do the thing requested? (I mean, I realize what makes them do that generally (egomania, insecurity, people-pleasing, borderline personality disorder etc.) but what exactly makes them do that?)

And these pols never ask these folks to stop, ya know, hitting kittens with criquet paddles, or shoving old ladies into the street, it always seems to be requests to stop doing obviously legal things.

Pretty rich too that this member of Congress expects better explanations as to the legality of the activities of private citizens than he does as to the President starting wars.

Peter King Puts on a Clinic in Assclownery

What King says there is pretty obviously factually inaccurate. When even Rumsfeld, who's got as big a dog as anyone in this fight, and is an obscene liar, admits that it wasn't torture that generated the intel, then the case is closed as fuck.

But let's assume that King was not making a total assclown of himself when it comes to basic familiarity with reality. Let's assume this was an open debate on the facts. This issue is anything but an open debate as a matter of law. The US has domestic laws and ratified treaties that make torture and waterboarding and degrading and inhuman treatment illegal. No one seriously disputes this that I've heard.

So what exactly is King saying here? What is this debate that has suposedly been "re-awakened" in the aftermath of this incident? The only thing of value in this discussion is how it affects our policy going forward, and yet I don't hear anyone saying that our laws should be changed and that we should withdraw from these treaties. Funny thing, that.

Fanboy Alert!

So apparently over at Slate it was "Let a Tiger Beat writer intern with the big boys" day. What a gushing, nonsensical, completely unsubstantiated fluff piece. I was semi-literally expecting the little note about the author that usually appears at the end of articles to say something like "John Dickerson cupped the balls of several White House officials in investigating this report."

My favorite parts:

The presidency distorts the brain like perhaps no other job on Earth. In the First Noggin, there must be many compartments locked double tight, so the president doesn't show anything on his face.

Ooh "double tight!" It's true, if I don't lock things in compartments in my brain they end up being shown "on" my face. This is why I suck at chit chat, cuz my face is screaming out "fuck you, crazy lady!" People don't like that.

Sometimes he must keep secrets even from the people who work down the hall. But each box has to be accessible immediately if a decision needs to be made.

This is also a very special skill. Everyone on my hallway at the office knows how big a David Schwimmer fan I am, and is completely up to date on which of my family members is an alcoholic. Also, I know when I tell someone a secret I want them to keep, I make sure they provide me with a detailed description of their work area layout (sometimes I need a diagram). If they work on anything resembling a hallway, I just keep that shit to myself (and my hallmates). And if they work in a cubicle!? Well then fuck me!

Sometimes however I try really hard to not tell the Hall-folks my secrets, but this has drawbacks: 1) it's totally exhausting and hurts my "First Noggin" and, 2) sometimes I try to so hard not to share it that I end up forgetting the information altogether, or, in a best case scenario, it takes me hours to access the info, like a dial-up modem downloading a JPEG of a cat wearing sunglasses. People who can "immediately" access information that they've inexplicably decided to store in their brain, should probably have their own comic book and lunchbox.

On Saturday he attended the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, where he had to tell jokes and sit through a comedy routine during which everyone watched his every facial twitch for insights into his psyche.

Oh man, it must have been so lame to sit through a comedy routine, especially when it was that dumb-ass Gallagher doing is whole crush-things-with-a-mallet shtick. Oh no, wait a second, it was the head writer for SNL, who skewered all the president's opponents. But all that champagne and gourmet food probably made the situation unbearable. I don't know much about this John Dickerson guy, but he's apparently from the Midwest or maybe the South? You know, that part of the country where they say "everyone watched his every facial twitch for insights into his psyche" where you or I would "everyone got shitfaced and laughed their asses off." Regional idioms are so wacky!

And I'm TRYING to Eat More Salad

Start at about 1:45...



"..has ended one war and is trying to end another..." Wow. My governor is a full-on propagandist. In Patrick land, "tripling our forces in" equals "trying to end", to say nothing of the two wars Obama started. Plus, look at Patrick just turtle-up when pressed at all. Embarrassing.

What a trite and meaningless interview. Watch at the 3:05 mark when Maher just says "wow." My reaction exactly. Patrick is just a talking points spokesperson. So sad. Predictable, but sad.

I thought the strategy of just saying stuff even when you know it's not true was roundly rejected by the "reality-based community" when Bush wore it out. When did that come back to life, and where are the "reality-based" folks now to point it out?

Nothing to See Here?

The new Gitmo revelations are shocking, horrific and just disturbing in a rather profound way. If you really stop and think about the horror we inflicted on some people because we thought they were useful, or couldn't muster the political will to let them go, it gets literally sickening.

This should be a time for serious shame and introspection as a nation. We should be taking a collective moment to consider what our "values" really are, and how it is we've strayed so far. We should wonder what we will tell the youngest generation of Americans when they ask us twenty years from now how America was ever capable of such a thing.

It's so incredibly sad. And, it's almost just as sad to know we're not going to stop and think of such things; to know that there's not going to be much solemnity or outrage or even discussion over this.

The fact that Presidents from each party are now forever linked to the blight that is Gitmo should allow us to come clean about what we've done and what we've become. Instead, that fact will be the central reason we delude ourselves into covering it all up.

Rule of Law = Doing What's Popular (Duh!)

This article is so disappointing on a few different levels.

First, what it reflects (assuming it is accurate), is a mix of incompetence, and weakness on serious issues of principle and campaign promises on the part of the Obama Administration and Obama himself. But given all that, the tone of the article reads somewhat sympathetically. It highlights all the political difficulties and traps inherent in any War on Terror issue, and almost seems to paint this issue as one where Obama could've been more organized, sure, but man it was tough, and public opinion polls were all against him, then one congressman wrote one angry letter, and then there was that trial where the guy got convicted, so that was (somehow) bad news...

Indeed, the article fails to seize on a rather critical point and just reports it very matter-of-factly:

The president asked Matthew G. Olsen, the Justice Department lawyer heading the task force, approximately how many Guantanamo detainees could be prosecuted, according to administration officials.

Probably fewer than 20, Olsen said.

The president seemed peeved that the number was so small, in contrast with the optimistic predictions during his election campaign that nearly all of the remaining detainees could face trial or be transferred.

"Could be prosecuted" is really just a funny way to say "there's significant evidence of their guilt." We use another funny phrase to describe people we can't say that about: Not Guilty.

In other words, the President was apparently "peeved" that sometimes you think people are guilty but can't prove it. I'm sure that's tough and all, but something he probably should've considered before signing up to be the leader of America. It's also something that Washington Post should've highlighted, that that attitude by itself, let alone all of the electoral/political/opinion poll calculations over legal questions, is completely improper.

It's the First Amendment, Stupid!

There's no reason this shouldn't be the most significant story of the entire year. Wisconsin labor laws and even military personnel brainwashing our Senators is not as significant as what has supposedly happened here.

The federal government illegally stole or infiltrated the private and personal records of a journalists at the nation's best-known newspaper because of the stories he wrote, and has now used that information to prosecute another person.

This is a massive and all-out assault on the 1st and 4th Amendment, but most especially the 1st. This is censorship, this is punishment for speech, for journalism. A free press is a nothing but a theory or an illusion in a world where the government will raid the personal information of journalists as a result of the stories they write. Indeed, the government tried to subpoena some information (as in, only the information they actually wanted) but couldn't get the results they want from those pinko, civil liberties absolutists known as federal court judges. So instead they just took all the information they could get - illegally.

So far, to my reading, it's not clear when this story began, or whether or not Obama ordered it, but he is responsible for it's continuance and the fact that the prosecution of the source appears to still be going forward. Of course this is another (though perhaps most glaring) in a long line of Obama lies, flip flops and law optionality, in the leader-loyalty of Dems who were oh-so-concerned when Bush did similar or even less terrible things. But this story is bigger than a lying politician, or hypocritical political factions.

The only appropriate response from any President of any party who claims to care one wit about the law or the Bill of Rights would be to issue an immediate apology to the journalist, fire then investigate and prosecute the officials who ordered, carried out or conspired in this, establish a new oversight body or office to ensure nothing like this ever happens again, and of course immediate drop the prosecution.

And, the only appropriate response from the public, and especially to people who claim to be journalists on TV, is absolute, unrestrained outrage.

Like All National Debates.... Wisconsin Issue Reveals How Dumb We Are

Some quick thoughts on the WI teachers Union issue

- Why is this a national story? Let the people of Wisconsin solve their own issues. Let elected officials make (most likely bad and politically motivated decisions) and let them be held to account by public opinion and elections – IN WISCONSIN. There’s not a drop of this that bleeds over at all into national or federal issues.

- That said, my personal, could-care-less view on this is that sure teachers should get paid more in general, because the amount we pay teachers is a clear reflection of how much we value education. Also, the fact that these efforts to stomp out unions have exempted police unions reveals them as a bald-faced political ploy, not a sober, judicious attempt at cutting costs.

- All of THAT said, unions for government employees is generally a bad idea. It’s exactly the recipe for corruption: campaign support (money, votes, groundwork) can so easily be traded for higher wages and pensions. Police and teachers unions do this all the time, and this is a big part of the whole “Pension Liability” crises people keep talking about. If a company gave a politician campaign support and then that pol turned around and used his office to spend public dollars to buy the company's products, I think everyone would connect the dots pretty quickly. Unions inherently invite and create the same behavior.

- The stuff that really interests me are the various displays of tribalism, dishonesty and hypocrisy that this issue is bringing out all over. It’s provided a lot of solid evidence for what I already knew: that people’s principles apply only insofar as they don’t interfere with whatever political position they need to have at that time, and that sacred cows often trump everything. There’s nothing automatically wrong with any of that, but it’s a problem when people can’t be honest about it, and talk about lofty principles but apply them like fickle preferences.
Let’s start with the “Wisconsin 14,” the group of Democratic State Legislators who fled the state in order to obstruct a vote on this issue. These are members of the same party who whined about “obstructionism” when Republicans in the Senate used the filibuster on every vote. Of course it’s easy to draw distinctions between those instances based on morality, traditions, issues of abuse etc. but Democrats made many if not most arguments about “democracy” and “duely elected representatives” and “up or down votes.” All of those arguments apply equally to Wisconsin, logically, intellectually but of course not in reality.
But that’s just the beginning… Of course political sacred cows play a big role. Were the Governor in Wisconsin a Democrat going after bloated police unions it goes without saying that the politics would be different for everyone but the AFL-CIO. Case in point, Obama proposed a budget that cut billions in heating subsidies and the reaction from the left was basically nothing. Are chants and slogans about worker’s rights more bumper-sticker ready than the same about poor people having warm homes? Or, is it that Obama is a likable Democrat while the Governor of Wisconsin is a smug, douchy (good lord is he douchy!) Republican? I’m very sure I know.

- Lastly, the hypocrisy from the left over the Citizens United ruling will not die. The Wisconsin teacher’s union is exactly the type of corporation that was afforded greater free speech and political rights by that ruling, and anyone who responded to that opinion with the remarkably lame and stupid argument that “corporations don’t have rights” must be ready to accept that this union has no fundamental or Constitutional right to protest at the state house, to distribute literature or run a website supporting their cause, or put ads on TV about this issue. Funny that no one seems to be using that argument now. Sure, maybe every person speaking out in favor of the unions and against the Governor on tv, online, in print or even on your facebook feed agreed with the Citizens United ruling, or maybe they all recognize the union is doing these things at the permission and pleasure of the benevolent Wisconsin and federal governments who could stop (arrest, censor) them at any time, but I really really really doubt that. I’m guessing most of them miss the connection altogether or have told themselves “it’s different” but never finished the thought as to why because it hurt their brain. And I’m not sure which is worse.

Wisconsin will hopefully fix their budget issue, and hopefully the people of that state will have their voices and desires heard at the next election. Our nation however, has a serious discourse problem and there's little reason to be hopeful about that.

I'm Sure Anything is Harder than Being Not Oprah

Last Friday, I saw Oprah Winfrey on the TV talking about politics. She was asked her thoughts on Obama, and whether she was happy with the job he had done. Naturally, she replied she was happy; she offered no specifics, but before concluding her response, she stated something along the lines of “and those complaining, they should trying being President for 10 days.” In addition to being transparently self-serving (Obama was essential Oprah’s first political endorsement) and oddly defensive, this sentiment is a hollow and un-democratic canard that needs to be permanently retired from political rhetoric.

First, it is interesting to note that, in addition to Oprah, it appears to be a common defense among Obama supporters that things are difficult for the man, or that not much else can be done or that the media/republicans/circumstances are making things impossible. This is interesting because George W. Bush often offered (in person or through his surrogates) this same defense: that he had to make “tough decisions” and that things are hard. At the time, I recall Bush being roundly mocked for this excuse, considering that if he was anticipating an easy gig when he signed up, then that’s on him.

Though I don’t recall specifically, it seems those who mocked Bush are now using the same defense for Obama, and so this defense is typically applied along partisan lines. That’s a pretty bad sign by itself, but the merits make this sentiment even worse. In fact, this excuse is patently stupid, and this becomes obvious upon even the most superficial contemplation.

Let’s apply this defense to another (any other) field where a certain level of skill or expertise is expected. If I hired an accountant or an electrician to perform work for me after they had sought my business and spent some time - roughly 18 months in Presidential elections – extolling their skills and competence, I would be entitled to have some expectations of their performance. Let’s imagine the following scenario playing out:

Me: I’m really not happy with your work. You performed the job and yet the power doesn’t work/I got audited and owe lots of money

Electrician/Accountant: Well being an Electrician/Accountant is really hard. I went to a lot of school and I bet you don’t know jackshit about how to do my job. So maybe you shouldn’t talk.

Here’s how I wouldn’t respond:

Me: You’re right. I don’t know a damn thing about your job and surely couldn’t perform these tasks myself. I guess I will be quiet now. Are you sure I don’t owe you more money?

Is this how Oprah handles these problems? Is she just a better person than I? Maybe, but I doubt it very much. Yet this is apparently what she wants us to do when it comes to relating to The President!? Sure, there are some contexts or situations where people who don’t step up to the task themselves shouldn’t criticize those who do. Politics is the absolute least among them.

Moreover, this sentiment fails for a pair of very simple and obvious reasons: Math and Democracy. There is only 1 person who can be President at a time in a nation of 300 million. Many people can’t be President because they’re not old enough! So, the demand that others “put up or shut up” is a tad bit unreasonable when there is no real opportunity whatsoever for one to “put up.” (Sorry Oprah, but this isn’t exactly open mic comedy night down at Houlihan’s where I’ve - whilst refusing to take the stage myself - criticized someone for spouting jokes which were “too derivative and linear.”) And, as for the request to “shut up,” that’s also problematic when criticizing our leaders is kind of a central plank to the whole democratic society, representative government concept. People need to lead and everyone else can comment and criticize and those are both important roles. Are people unaware of this? Do they hate freedom? Oprah?

I suppose Oprah would respond she’s not actually saying she wants you to shut your mouth unless you have personally served as President… but if she’s not saying that, then exactly what point is she making? Because honestly, any defense of any President’s performance that even references how difficult the job is runs into all of these problems.

As citizens, it’s our job to speak out to our leaders through our opinions, including criticisms. This includes, perhaps especially, Oprah. She endorsed the President and has arguably as much influence in our national discussion as he does. Instead of reflexive defenses, she could use her influence to hold Obama more accountable to the people, to his promises, or even just to her. She could do amazing things by highlighting the injustice, corruption and violence in our society.

Oh well, I’m sure she’s going to get around to all of that right after she gushes over the newest self-help book and has eradicated the scourge of texting-while-driving.

America (in a nutshell), Fuck Yeah!!

Shorter NFL: If, based on the available evidence, we conclude that you bought drunk girls drinks when you shouldn't have, you'll get suspended, if you kill a man by accident because of very poor decisions on your part, you will miss a whole year. BUT, if, based on the available evidence including your own bragging confession, you deliberately ordered the unlawful detention, torture and inhumane treatment of hundreds of men (most of whom are innocent), many of whom ended up dead (aka murder).... you get to sit in the owner's box at the Superbowl (with Ashton Kutcher)!!!

OR

As Bradley Manning sits in a jail cell, based on very flimsy evidence and without a conviction for the alleged crime of leaking documents (many/most of which were improperly classified), probably not permitted to even watch the Superbowl on a television, George Bush, who, based on the available evidence including his own bragging confession, deliberately ordered the unlawful detention, torture and inhumane treatment of hundreds of men (most of whom are innocent), many of whom ended up dead (aka murder).... gets to sit in the owner's box at the Superbowl (with Ashton Kutcher)!!!