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.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
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.
- 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.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
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:
Here’s how I wouldn’t respond:
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
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)!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)