Links With Your Coffee - Saturday
- The real McCain - Los Angeles Times (tip to inwit)
The media portray him as a GOP maverick. He's really a die-hard conservative.
- Obama Supports FISA Legislation, Angering Left | The Trail | washingtonpost.com
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) today announced his support for a sweeping intelligence surveillance law that has been heavily denounced by the liberal activists who have fueled the financial engines of his presidential campaign.
In his most substantive break with the Democratic Party's base since becoming the presumptive nominee, Obama declared he will support the bill when it comes to a Senate vote, likely next week, despite misgivings about legal provisions for telecommunications corporations that cooperated with the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program of suspected terrorists
- A Fair and Balanced Tim Russert Obit—By Ken Silverstein (Harper's Magazine)
The truth is that on any night of the week Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show” does more in a two-minute segment to show in politicians’ own words how venal, dishonest, contradictory and just plain dense they can be than Russert did in his Sunday services. Russert’s master was always the political structure he grilled, but never fundamentally questioned. You always knew whose side he was on: power, not truth — and, by power, I don’t mean his own, of which he had plenty, but the powerful men and occasional women he invited to his Versailles.
- blog.talkingphilosophy.com » All man’s miseries
‘All man’s miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.’ — Pascal
Maybe philosophers are better than anyone else at sitting in quiet rooms alone. Most of us like it. it’s part of the job description. We read something and then think about it a bit. We stare out of windows. Sometimes there is a bit of finger-drumming or earlobe-pulling involved. We do plenty of brow-furrowing. Jerry Fodor says that he does his best thinking in showers, but probably he’s an exception. Sometimes there’s a bit of music, but most of us get to work in quiet rooms. Maybe we’d be miserable if we couldn’t get on with it in that way.
- Scientists rally against creationist 'superstition' - Science, News - The Independent
- The Columbus Dispatch : Science teacher dissed evolution
"With the exception of the cross-burning episode. … I believe John Freshwater is teaching the values of the parents in the Mount Vernon school district," he said.
- Point of Inquiry- PZ Myers
P.Z. Myers PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris and the author of Pharyngula, the most heavily-trafficked science blog online.
- Language Log » What did it mean to ‘bear arms’ in 1791?
Comments
On Obama and FISA, we will see whether and how hard he fights against retroactive immunity. I share Glenn Greenwald's skepticism.
No, "I tried to get amnesty out" is not acceptable. "I did not vote for the bill because I couldn't get the amnesty out" is the only thing that is.
This is a typical "compromise": compromise means giving the Bush administration what they want after a bit of theater and some token gestures of half-assed resistance.
Greg Sargent has the best commentary I've seen yet:
I'm going to write to Obama's campaign--and encourage other of his supporters to do likewise.
via Greenwald:
sorry! The Sargent link is Here
Obama clarified his statement on FISA saying that he will fight to have immunity removed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/21/politics/horserace/entry4200105.shtml
I like a little bravery mixed in.
Okay - I wrote Burton. What about Dean?
"No, 'I tried to get amnesty out' is not acceptable. 'I did not vote for the bill because I couldn't get the amnesty out' is the only thing that is."
Well, a shrug of the shoulders and a meaningless "No" vote (which is exactly what I expect we'll get from The Messiah) isn't acceptable to me. What that would be is further confirmation of Obama's supreme political cowardice and total lack of substance.
Want to earn my support, Barack? Do your job. Defend the Constitution and stop this despicable piece of legislation. Then I'll start to believe in hope, change, faith, and all that other bullshit you're selling.
Right now, the Congress is basically split between Democrats and Republicans. Dems have a slim majority, and considering the number of conservative Democrats, said majority is not a majority at all.
Like it or not, every senator and member of the House has to work with fell Congressmen/women. Them's the facts.
Has to work with "fellow"..
105 Democratic representatives voted for the bill. Obama doesn't have the political capital to win this battle. It's silly for him to make his last stand here when he's fighting for the presidency--the larger war.
That's not to say that people shouldn't put pressure on him, however.
The words "conservative" and "liberal" have outlived their usefulness.
"Liberal" has been successfully turned into a bad word by years of effort by fat, heavily drugged talk show hosts.
"Conservative" has evolved to mean: right wing fanatical hateful totalitarian sadist.
Let's review the old meanings in brief:
Liberal is basically the idea that government serves the interests of society by spending public money on infrastructure and a safety net, thereby improving the quality of life for all.
Conservative is the idea that people will do better in the long run with little or no safety net, and that business should be allowed to do as it pleases with little or no government interference.
There are plenty of good arguments to defend either side. But telling someone else they can't have an abortion, for example, is not conservative, it is fanatical. Talk about not minding your business. Sending our defense forces overseas for the benefit of a select few corporations is hardly conservative, rather it is opportunistic, cynical, utterly unconscionable mass murder for profit, with a side of war crimes.
McC@nt is not a Conservative. The correct political term for him is "Pig."
"Liberal" or "Progessive" means rights for gays, pro choice (that is the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion), "constitutional" rights as concerns abortion, but a reconsideration of "constitutional" rights as concerns every Dick and Harry having the "right" to own a gun, a firearm.
"Obama doesn't have the political capital to win this battle. It's silly for him to make his last stand here when he's fighting for the presidency--the larger war."
Really? When did Barack Obama's personal political ambitions become more important than defending the Constitution and upholding the law? Oh wait, I know -- the answer would be the first day The Messiah stepped foot in the Senate. Since every cynical position he's taken during the last three years (opposing impeachment, voting for the Patriot Act, continuing to fund the war that he supposedly opposes, refusing to support a filibuster to stop Bush's horrific judicial appointments, etc.) can all be filed under "Mustn't jeopardize presidential aspirations."
And you say this is a lost battle? I thought Obama's particular skill set was the ability to build coalitions, get people to work together, and create change. At what point can we expect Captain Change to actually demonstrate these incredible abilities, rather than simply paste them to the front of every podium he happens to step behind?
And let's add, running up a few trillion dollar deficient after starting with a couple trillion dollar surplus, isn't conservative. And cutting taxes in time of war isn't conservative. And giving no-bid contracts to your cronies, isn't a free market conservativism, it's corporatism.
Yes, I'd considered that. But, while I think you're making a reasonable point, I ultimately disagree: he had the guts to outline a different foreign policy view than saber rattling on Iran, Cuba, and much else. And he has consistently opposed the Iraq war from the start and advocated withdrawal, whether or not those were politically popular views (although withdrawal is now, of course, the popular view). In my view, that ought to be much harder, and require much more political capital, than simply stating the fact that FISA allows the government to monitor anyone they want, any time, for pretty much any reason--and I have no problem with that. What is at issue is whether there is independent oversight exercised on the people doing the spying, which is the point of getting a retroactive, ex-post facto warrant from a secret FISA court.
That is, it is not a national security issue--all of the necessary means for any kind of spying you want are already in place. I sincerely believe that the only reason we're having this absurd debate in the U.S. right now is because Bush and the telecom companies violated the law. I see no reason, on this of all issues why Obama, who a constitutional scholar and taught the subject for years, cannot simply lay out clearly what the issue is, and change the terms of the debate.
It seems to me there is room for reasonable disagreement on how to deal with Iran, because they do, in my view, pretty obviously have nuclear ambitions, and they are a threat to both Israel, and the long term stablility of Iraq. Whether or not we're going to follow the constitution is not an area where there can be reasoned disagree because that social contract is the necessary basis of shared assumptions and norms for any political disagreement in a democracy. That is why I find Obama backing down, if that is what he ends up doing, so intolerable. I would be disappointed if he took the Bush line on Iran, but it's not crazy talk. Giving away the 4th Amendment--that's crazy talk.
The democrats in the House showed this why the American people don't trust them to deal with national security--it's not because they don't have ideas, but because they don't stand for anything. They ARE weak. And to quote a commentator I read today, if the democrats are merely going to be carbon copies of the Republicans, why not go for the original? (I'm here spelling out a line of reasoning in order to explain a public perception, not endorsing it, but...).
Yeah, it is clear that the calligraphs of this country really don't care about anything in the Constitution, except the Second Amendment - and then only if one ignores the leading clause. But what is pitiful with Democrats is their willingness to trash the Constitution every time they want to appear tough.
There is meaning to the phrase "...why not go for the original?" and that is if you are calligraph and really do want an authoritarian country (and he makes no bones about it when you read all he's written) - then are you going to vote for a Democrat? No - obviously. So whose votes are these guys going to get? People to whom this issue is unimportant - which is, sadly, the majority of Americans, aren't going to be impressed with capitulation to the Bushites or a principled stand for the Constitution - they are out of the picture on this issue. So, Obama has little to lose by doing the right thing here - and I really think he will undermine a segment of his enthusiastic base if he caves here.
Calligraph? Do you mean caliphate?
I don't even understand the "why not go for the original?" To me, that was an asinine statement. Why not go for power instead of the wimps who are afraid to stand up to power? Because you hope when the wimps get some power, they will be better (and, since they have been in the past, this is not delusional).
I do not understand why he is not fighting this (or any other Democrat. Didn't Nancy Pelosi vote for this??) Is it to show Democrats are willing to do "what it takes" - suspend the Constitution? Is it because they are in the pocket of the telecoms? Have they been promised some support from the telecoms if they just get them through this? Is there some tradeoff we are missing? (I don't know if these are the right questions since I haven't been reading about it - it just makes me mad.) All I know is this administration sucks and it's better the devil you don't know than the one you have had for 7 years who is truly a nightmare. The bar has been set at the bottom - worst President ever. I have faith we can do better than that except by a continuation of the same. Was the commentator who wrote that David Brooks?
Yes. And she's proud--she insisted up on the clause about the law being the "exclusive means" for the authority to wiretap (meaning, basically, that the president's authority to wiretap derives from specified intelligence protocols, not from his status as executive).
See here
But of course, when the Bush administration claims it "interprets" the new bill differently than it's plain, obvious, and ordinary meaning, we see the problem. That even on this the democrats won a purely verbal victory, which Bush does not see himself as bound by, and that is the whole problem.
Let me make two quick remarks on the "carbon copy, original" comment.
First, I said
Second, suppose for a moment, Tim and Jill that you are not the well-informed people you are, who clearly care a lot about a range of political issues enough to comment on them pretty consistently at a public political blog for eggheads (i.e., here), but the average American voter, who doesn't follow the news much beyond the sound bites. Now you hear that Politician A (a republican) says that American is great danger, and we must use every possible means at our disposal to prevent this danger, and therefore should do X (=some extreme policy); Politician B (a democrat) says, well, I agree with Politican A that we're in grave danger, but let's not do something as drastic as X, but rather Y (=some watered down version of X).
That is what it means for Politician B to be a carbon copy--it seems obvious that if you believe in the great danger, and accept the terms in which it's understood, but don't know much about policies X and Y other than that Y is a weaker version of X, one which Politician A says will actually endanger us, you're best bet is to with Politician A.
That is the democrat's problem--they don't have the guts to change the terms of the debate, but come up with "compromises" that elicit a few purely verbal concessions that have significance only for them (such as the law being the "exclusive means" when the bill was supposed to restrain a president who doesn't even recognize the law as a constraint on his authority in the first place). And those are the terms of a losing battle, which is why it is so dreadfully important, to my mind, that Senate Democrats take a stand on this, and it is irresponsible of Obama, of all people, to use it as a political football.
The statement from Pelosi now confuses me even more.
I know you were advocating the carbon copy statement - it's just one of those that infuriates me because it is bumpersticker thinking. Your scenario is very realistic and I do get it but...how bad does it have to be for people to say ENOUGH - even just to teach the incumbent a lesson.
Phidippides - Calligraph is a frequent right wing commenter on this blog. :)
D'oh. No morning coffee before I wrote that.
As for FISA, here's an Occam's Razor question: we assume that Republicans vote for FISA because it accords with and expresses their values. But we try to find other reasons for Dems voting for it: pandering, fear, etc. Why not just assume that Dems vote for FISA because it accords with and expresses their values, too?
Agreed. So while I myself do not endorse bumperstickering thinking but was only trying to represent it, as you know, I have no good solution to the problem. But, more generously, I think a large part of politics involves the creation of a shared sensibility or "common sense", a set of emphases and attitudes that are taken as a shared basis of discussion. This need not be pernicious, but I think the Bush administration has done a masterful job at creating such a 'common sense'--anyone who opposes their extreme positions either does not have an identifiable position or one that appears prima facie an unworthy of serious consideration. That is why if you publicly oppose one of their policies such as the FISA bill, you need to reject the assumptions underlying it, not just the policy itself, and so change the terms in which an issue is understood. Once you accept their favored terms for the debate, inevitably you've given the game away. That is why I keep insisting that this is not, pace the Bush Administration, a debate about national security, since the difference between the Democratic and Republican positions is not a difference between those who think the executive should have certain spying powers and those who don't, but between people who agree that there are circumstances where such surveillance may be necessary, but disagree on whether it should be subject to independent, judicial oversight. Once the issue is put in those terms, the obvious absurdity of the Bush administrations claims that opposing them puts Americans in danger is revealed. But you simply lose that argument if you grant at the outset that the debate is about national security.
Glenn Greenwald--characteristically--has a nice analysis of Pelosi's role, and how the so-called "compromise" has been represented in the media
Adam - Sorry - I obviously meant you weren't advocating it... :)
I read Greenwald's column and, of course, end up getting infuriated. I've just been hoping things would be stable so we could get a Democrat in and THEN start in on them. :( Ha!
How is Hillary going to vote - does anyone know?
I think that's a really great point, Adam. The re-framing of the argument. I thought they were supposed to get better about that...
And Phidippedes - I actually think the same thing about the Republicans that I do the Dems - they are all going for some kind of political capital - not that it expresses their values. I don't think there are a lot of true believers on either side...
Adam, You have hit the nail on the head. The Democrats don't know how to lead anymore. They are so busy reacting and accepting the right-wing's terms on debate, they are perpetually looking weak. When our system of government was created, the nation's security was much more precarious than it is now. These extreme responses to external threats, like terrorism, should be characterized by Democrats as what they are: cowardice. Even Colbert sees this. Remember when Mitt Romney mouthed,
to which Colbert replied,
The point being, of course, is that the "9-11 changed everything" chant is bullshit. It is way past time to say this publically and in no uncertain terms. Historically speaking, the nation is as secure from threats as it has ever been. Are terrorists a threat? Of course, but if the nation could maintain its commitment to the Constitution in the face of much worse threats (however unevenly applied in practice), it can do so now. Democrats need to appeal to our citizens' courage. I think this could be a major political winner too; I think the people of this country are fed up with Republicans who appeal to our fears.
Understood ;-)
If this were not about the constitution, I would agree. I'm still chewing over your comments on the other threat, though.
Obama is masterful at it. That's what made me so excited about him--'transformational' not because I think he's a saint, but he has political cunning in spades, and must see, I think, that part of Bush's early political successes was setting the terms of the debate.
I think this is exactly right, Tim. They can go further on a lot of other issues as well--like these cynical fucks who talk incessantly about flag pins and supporting our troops, but fail to give them medical care and refuse to give them worthwhile and workable educational benefits. That is not only cruel, it's simply foolish. Or their incessant talk about national security and then letting New Orleans languish in chaos for 5 days following Katrina.
on the other thread, not threat!
Post a comment