What is Obama's Legacy?

In ancient or medieval times (as well as in the 20th century) when a new king or queen took control, the previous ruler's closest relatives, friends, business associates or lovers would often make themselves scarce or even leave the country or kingdom. It could be hazardous to one's health to have a valid competing claim to the throne or to be seen as too friendly to the previous leader. If the new ruler was a paranoid, vindictive, vengeful sort who enjoyed nothing more than bullying people or eliminating perceived threats, he or she might kick off a set of purges. Sometimes the new ruler hated the old ruler so much he or she would forbid the populace from speaking the old ruler's name. If the new ruler was particularly egocentric, fame hungry and thorough he or she might order the elimination of the previous ruler's public works and the striking of the previous ruler's name and accomplishments from history books. Well we don't live in a society where the new President can go quite as far as the kings, queens, pharaohs and emperors of old. Barack Obama's name will live on despite the fact that he will turn over the Presidency to a man with whom he appears to share nothing but mutual disgust. But his accomplishments? That could be a different story. After Trump's inauguration the Republicans can kill ObamaCare, as they have threatened to do many times. President's Obama's executive actions or agency decisions on climate change, immigration and wage policy will all be under the gun. The Iran nuclear deal may be tossed or greatly modified. What is done with a pen and a phone may often be undone with a pen and a phone. Much of President's Obama's legislative or executive achievement could wind up like that puppy dropped off at a shelter by a bored callous family. There's a new sheriff in town, one with rather different priorities. But all may not be lost. A President Trump may well value policy continuity more than we realize. Some Obama initiatives are popular with anti-Obama voters as long as they don't know Obama was behind them. 

Harry Reid Invokes Nuclear Option: No Filibuster for you!!!

As Vito Corleone realized, sometimes you have to deal with people who simply aren't reasonable. When such people persist in their foolishness, even after you have swallowed insult after insult, turned every cheek you have, and steadfastly tried to point out to them the error of their ways by using unimpeachable logic, further discussion is useless. You just have to call in Clemenza and Luca and let them do what they do. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally came to a similar realization today when he oversaw a Senate alteration of the filibuster rules, due to what was widely seen as irrational Republican intransigence concerning Presidential nominations for judges or even high ranking executive positions. There is of course the chance that Republicans will return the favor if they ever regain the majority in the Senate but the Democrats could not continue to accept such behavior.

I'm not a huge Obama or Democratic Party fan (look out for upcoming post on that) but there are times and situations in which you have to, figuratively speaking, hit your opponent right in his mouth. And this was one of those times in my view. The Republicans suffer under the delusion that they can stop the President's entire agenda and/or prevent him from making his preferred appointments. As Tywin Lannister might have mused, it was time to show the Republicans a sharp lesson. Although there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, the Republicans have a simple way to stop nominations they don't like. Win the Senate back and win the Presidency in 2016. Until then they need to learn that like him or not, President Obama remains the President and will make nominations as he sees fit. Republicans are quite free to vote against his nominations and tell everyone what bad choices they are. But since they lack the votes, they can't stop the nominations. It was also hard to avoid noticing that many of the stalled Presidential nominations were of racial minorities and white women-people who have been previously prevented from reaching judicial and executive positions of serious authority. This change ultimately might be a good thing for the Republicans as it will FORCE them to recognize that they are a minority party in the Senate and have lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. If they can address those issues they can retake the Senate. Until then though, they will have to dance to the tune that Senator Reid calls.  



WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled the trigger Thursday, deploying a parliamentary procedure dubbed the "nuclear option" to change Senate rules to pass most executive and judicial nominees by a simple majority vote.

The Senate voted 52 to 48 for the move, with just three Democrats declining to go along with the rarely used maneuver.

From now until the Senate passes a new rule, executive branch nominees and judges nominated for all courts except the Supreme Court will be able to pass off the floor and take their seats on the bench with the approval of a simple majority of senators. They will no longer have to jump the traditional hurdle of 60 votes, which has increasingly proven a barrier to confirmation during the Obama administration.

Reid opened debate in the morning by saying that it has become "so, so very obvious" that the Senate is broken and in need of rules reform. He rolled through a series of statistics intended to demonstrate that the level of obstruction under President Barack Obama outpaced any historical precedent.

Half the nominees filibustered in the history of the United States were blocked by Republicans during the Obama administration; of 23 district court nominees filibustered in U.S. history, 20 were Obama's nominees; and even judges that have broad bipartisan support have had to wait nearly 100 days longer, on average, than President George W. Bush's nominees.

LINK

The Federal Government wants your passwords

Allegedly the U.S. Government is obtaining or trying to obtain your various internet passwords.
I can't say that I am surprised by this allegation. The horrible thing about the post 9-11 world to which Americans have eagerly submitted is that it gave permission to the most power-hungry authoritarian impulses on the both the left and the right to run amok. We have ceded so many rights and privileges of citizenship in order to be safe that I do not doubt that a future Administration will wish to put video cameras and screens in each American's home just to keep an eye on what everyone is doing. If we have to submit to a virtual strip search in order to fly, are subject to random stop-and-frisk walking the streets, have the Post Office scanning every piece of mail that has been sent and sharing that with intelligence or law enforcement agencies without a judge's approval, and have the NSA monitoring phone records and likely phone conversations and real time web conversations, why wouldn't the government just want to make things easy for itself by just getting user passwords? No muss no fuss. They can just sign on as you and read through your email or blog posts or facebook messages without any issues. What's the big deal right? If you have nothing to hide why wouldn't you want the government to have your passwords? What are you? An Al-Qaeda supporter? A fascist? A socialist? A Green Party voter?
LINK

The U.S. government has demanded that major Internet companies divulge users' stored passwords, according to two industry sources familiar with these orders, which represent an escalation in surveillance techniques that has not previously been disclosed.If the government is able to determine a person's password, which is typically stored in encrypted form, the credential could be used to log in to an account to peruse confidential correspondence or even impersonate the user. Obtaining it also would aid in deciphering encrypted devices in situations where passwords are reused."I've certainly seen them ask for passwords," said one Internet industry source who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We push back."

A second person who has worked at a large Silicon Valley company confirmed that it received legal requests from the federal government for stored passwords. Companies "really heavily scrutinize" these requests, the person said. "There's a lot of 'over my dead body.'"The Justice Department has argued in court proceedings before that it has broad legal authority to obtain passwords. In 2011, for instance, federal prosecutors sent a grand jury subpoena demanding the password that would unlock files encrypted with the TrueCrypt utility.

The Florida man who received the subpoena claimed the Fifth Amendment, which protects his right to avoid self-incrimination, allowed him to refuse the prosecutors' demand. In February 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit agreed, saying that because prosecutors could bring a criminal prosecution against him based on the contents of the decrypted files, the man "could not be compelled to decrypt the drives."In January 2012, a federal district judge in Colorado reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that a criminal defendant could be compelled under the All Writs Act to type in the password that would unlock a Toshiba Satellite laptop.

Both of those cases, however, deal with criminal proceedings when the password holder is the target of an investigation -- and don't address when a hashed password is stored on the servers of a company that's an innocent third party.

In a display of breathtaking spinelessness the House of Representatives recently refused to pass the Amash Libert-e Act. This bill would have stopped the NSA activities concerning phone records and made it EXPLICITLY clear that what the NSA has been doing is not legal. It's important to notice that most Democrats voted for this bill, while most Republicans were opposed. While it's certain that some of those Democratic aye votes were only allowed by House Minority Leader Pelosi because she knew she already had the votes to defeat it, the fact remains that on this issue at least the Democratic and Republican Leadership as well as the White House were all united in defending the right of the NSA to gather any records on anyone at anytime. Such bipartisanship. It sort of gives the lie to the idea that the House Republicans won't unite with the President on anything. Without Republican assistance this bill would have passed the House. The President and the House Republicans are both in agreement that you don't have any rights the NSA needs to be concerned with. It's also important to point out that the Michigan Republican who introduced this measure, Justin Amash, is a libertarian. I have my issues with libertarians but when it comes to civil liberties at least, many libertarians and liberals are reading from the same choir book. And their interpretation of constitutional scripture doesn't change depending on who's sitting in the pulpit.

It ought to go without saying but I'll say it anyway. Yes it is a dangerous world out there and people in the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies must make decisions I wouldn't want to make. They know things I'll never know. And I want everyone to be and stay safe. Yadda, yadda, yadda. But I still say that unless you have a reason specific to me there is no reason for a government agency to have my password. And thanks to that little thing called the Fifth Amendment I think if you ask me for my password I'm going to tell you to commit an anatomically impossible act.

I think the time has come for us to have a constitutional convention. I'm no attorney and certainly no conservative but it looks to me as if the practices of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are stretching the limits of what our laws were meant to prevent. The new allegations of password requests are just the latest evidence of the old truism that if you give people an inch they'll take a mile. Or put another way,

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations"-James Madison

US Government Seizing Verizon Phone Records????

I don't have very much to add about the below story. It grows out of the Patriot Act, which was initially passed under President Bush and extended/expanded under President Obama. All I can say is IF this is true then it once again proves my point that when you give government expanded power to investigate you, violate your privacy and keep a watch over what you're doing, government will use it. This is not just about President Obama and/or his advisers and appointees having a disregard for privacy or limited actions to discover leaks or criminal wrong doing. Although in my opinion they certainly do have that disregard. No the problem here is that under the Patriot Act and associated legislation this is probably all completely legal. The only limitation to executive branch snooping is not the law or divided government but the caprices or morality of various people in the executive branch. This is not how our society is supposed to work but you know what I'm starting not to care any more. The Patriot Act was passed and passed again. People just don't care about civil liberties.

IF this report is true and that's a big IF it would just be another nail in the coffin of limited government and privacy. Again, this isn't just about "bad people". If I had powers to do things like this I couldn't be trusted either. No one could which is why historically the power of the state to invade your privacy had to be done under warrant, had to be specific to an action that you allegedly took and had to have some sort of probable cause.  I honestly think that eventually we ought to just get rid of the Bill of Rights, or at least the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Because IF this story is true, it's not as if anyone in power cares much about them...with the exception of whoever leaked this story.

The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries.

The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. 

The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. 

Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered. The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers.

Welcome to surveillance society. But don't worry. I'm sure the Republicans would have been worse on this issue. Or something like that. Big government is your friend. And we know that the Administration will get to the bottom of this. No expense will be spared...to find out who told the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald about all of this...IF it's true. I keep saying IF it's true because after all we know the government would NEVER grab up millions of phone records just because it could...right? Can you hear me now??

Thoughts?

Obama, Holder, Clinton: Benghazi, and DOJ AP Subpoenas

Well well well, what a difference a day makes. It was seemingly just yesterday when the President was having his inauguration and sneering at people who didn't trust the government, or thought that they were taxed enough already, thank you very much. And it wasn't that long ago that rather than answer direct questions about her role in the Benghazi situation, Secretary Clinton was screeching "What difference does it make" at questioners.

Well Madame Secretary it may make some difference after all. Yes indeed. You know just like it makes a difference that you didn't actually land under sniper fire in Bosnia. With that record of truthfulness you might understand that people don't necessarily want to take your word on something without proof.
( When you have a moment after reading this post please check out this excellent C-SPAN discussion with CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson. It's very long and not strictly speaking necessary for this post but it does clarify a great many of the issues raised by this scandal)

                          

Or it may not, it could all indeed be much ado about nothing  h/t field negro
We don't know yet. What we do know is that Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton's Chief of Staff, called Gregory Hicks, the deputy Chief of Mission in Libya, and expressed her firm displeasure that Hicks had spoken to Representative Jason Chaffetz. She was also peveed that Hicks was raising questions about the initial official explanation on Benghazi. Hicks claims that his job and competence were harshly questioned and that he was demoted. We also know that Hicks stands firm that there was a stand down order that prevented a possible rescue mission from taking place. 

The full truth has yet to reveal itself. This story is changing by the day.  By the time you read this new facts will almost certainly have been revealed. I doubt there was any sort of desire by the Obama Administration to allow attacks on American consulates. But I do think that, rightly or wrongly, whether it's in response to Republican hatred and intransigence or born out of pure technocratic arrogance that there is often an Obama Administration response to a crisis that privileges politics over all else. Maybe this is no different than any other Administration. After all why would you be kind or forthcoming with folks who have made it clear that they would like nothing better than to beat your brains out with a baseball bat?  Nevertheless when the State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, suggests removing or reworking talking points to be given to the public and media because "the information could be abused by members of Congress to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings" at the very least there is some inter-agency CYA behavior going on here.  At worst, well I don't think we have evidence to suggest the worst just yet. 

But withholding truthful but harmful information because you fear rivals will use it against you is wrong. It doesn't work. Think about your own job. If you or someone in your department have made a serious mistake, sooner or later it's going to come out. It's best to own up to it, put the truth out there, (wo)man up and take what you have coming to you. And this issue also shows the importance of maintaining calm and politesse under great stress. Perhaps if Mills and Jones hadn't felt entitled (for political reasons?) to tear Hicks a new one and demote him, perhaps he wouldn't be the country's newest whistleblower. But who can say. As I mentioned I don't think there's really anything here. The Republican eagerness to find something, anything on the President is too obvious. And Benghazi is just the latest in a long line of attacks on American institutions. 

Government agencies often defend overbroad exercises of power by tacitly assuming that the ends justify the means. So whether it's guns in New York where Mayor Lord Bloomberg sends out his minions to shake down anyone darker than Wentworth Miller, or California cops who enter a home without a warrant and taser a husband and wife on suspicion of domestic violence, people who are legally allowed to use coercion must be strictly watched and limited. Otherwise they have a tendency to get out of hand. I've written here and elsewhere that the Obama Administration has a mild to strong disdain for civil liberties. I think this comes from the top. It's nothing new in Washington. The entire reason that we theoretically want limited government authority is that the power of the government is so extensive. The government can compel you to do a lot of things against your will. But there are supposed to be limits. 

The Department of Justice ignored those limits. In a search for leaks around overseas activities in Yemen, the Department of Justice secretly obtained two months of phone records from AP reporters. It's unclear whether a judge signed off on this or not. 

NEW YORK –- The Associated Press revealed Monday that the Justice Department secretly obtained two months of reporter and editor phone records from the spring of 2012, the latest and most illustrative example of the Obama administration's unprecedented war on leaks.

AP president and chief executive officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday that "there can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters." Pruitt demanded the DOJ return the records and destroy any copies.

The AP reported that the DOJ obtained lists of "incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery." The Justice Department seized records for more than 20 telephone lines from April and May 2012....

Obama and Holder can't be bothered to prosecute banks for bad behavior. Because that might impact the world economy or something. But evidently Holder, or to be precise, his deputy attorney general, has no issue in taking steps which make a mockery out of the First Amendment.  I think this is a much larger scandal than Benghazi. The press ignored the previous tell signs like FISA or the Patriot Act or several other laws or actions that make Swiss cheese out of constitutional protections. It's only when the press' own prerogatives are seemingly violated that it raises an uproar. Well better late than never I say. Self-interest comes through again.  It's critically important to remember that everyone leaks. People do it because they want to hurt the Administration or because they want to help the Administration or because they want to settle scores with rivals or because they've honestly run across something so bad they think every citizen needs to know about it. 

You can't have a functioning constitutional republic without an informed citizenry and a watchdog press. 

If citizens would rather read about which Hollywood starlet is sleeping with which musician/athlete and the press would rather act as the court stenographer for the King, then you can kiss democracy goodbye. You can't have a watchdog press if the government is obtaining phone records that, by their very nature, show to whom the press is talking, and what they're investigating. You would have to be extra special stupid to tell a news agency about something shady that's going on if you know that the government is getting your phone records (and tapping your phone??) Actions speak louder than words. As has been pointed out much of late, the Obama Administration has prosecuted more whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined. Sometimes this moves into the realm of farce. The President grandly decided not to prosecute any of the CIA agents or others who tortured. How nice of him. I know if I were a torturer I'd be relieved. But a CIA agent who disclosed the torture was gleefully prosecuted and convicted. Actions speak louder than words, my friends.

Now on both the Benghazi and the AP situation there is no doubt that some of the President's critics are acting in bad faith. It was just a few weeks back that some Republicans were claiming that recognizing that the Boston bombing suspect had Miranda rights was somehow being soft on terrorism.  Good luck trying to find many mainstream Republicans or conservatives who enthusiastically support the Fourth Amendment. There are previous Presidents, Democrat or Republican, who have committed what I view as unethical, unconstitutional or outright criminal acts. But as the cop who stopped me for speeding a few years back told me when I angrily pointed out the other people exceeding the posted speed limit, "But I saw you." Obama has to live up his own standards of excellence, not just say he's like all the others. Despite Republican hostility, even a broken clock is right twice a day. The AP story in particular as well as the IRS issue which we wrote about yesterday may last a minute. And just as I am about to publish this I notice that the President is calling for a new federal shield law which would prevent the DOJ from doing what it just did. Right. In other news the New York Mafia's Five Families today urged passage of a law which would prevent extortion and loansharking....

Questions

1) Do you think the Benghazi and AP scandals matter or not?

2) Will Benghazi damage Clinton's future political plans, if any?

3) Do you think the DOJ subpoenas were overbroad?

4) Should Holder resign?

BREAKING NEWS: Terrorist Attack at the Boston Marathon (VIDEO)

UPDATE: President Obama addressed the nation at 6:10pm: "Make no mistake, we will get to the bottom of  this!"

From ABC NEWS:  

Two bombs exploded in the packed streets near the finish line of the Boston Marathon on Monday, killing two people and injuring more than 70 others in a terrifying scene of shattered glass, billowing smoke, bloodstained pavement and severed limbs, authorities said.
  
A senior U.S. intelligence official said two other explosive devices were found near the end of the 26.2-mile course.

"They just started bringing people in with no limbs," said runner Tim Davey, of Richmond, Va. He said he and his wife, Lisa, tried to keep their children's eyes shielded from the gruesome scene inside a medical tent that had been set up to care for fatigued runners, but "they saw a lot."

"They just kept filling up with more and more casualties," Lisa Davey said. "Most everybody was conscious. They were very dazed."

There was no word on the motive or who may have launched the attack, and police said no suspect was in custody. Authorities in Washington said there was no immediate claim of responsibility.

The twin blasts at the race took place almost simultaneously and about 100 yards apart, tearing limbs off numerous people, knocking spectators and at least one runner off their feet, shattering windows and sending smoke rising over the street.

Some 23,000 runners took part in the race, one of the world's oldest and most prestigious marathons. One of Boston's biggest annual events, the race winds up near Copley Square, not far from the landmark Prudential Center and the Boston Public Library.

Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis asked people to stay indoors or go back to their hotel rooms and avoid crowds as bomb squads methodically checked parcels and bags left along the race route. He said investigators didn't know whether the bombs were planted in mailboxes or trash cans.

He said authorities had received "no specific intelligence that anything was going to happen" at the race.

The Federal Aviation Administration barred low-flying aircraft from within 3.5 miles of the site.

President Barack Obama was briefed on the explosions by Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco. Obama also told Mayor Tom Menino and Gov. Deval Patrick that his administration would provide whatever support was needed, the White House said. (Continue Reading)

NRA Gun Ad Attacking Obama

I don't have any deep analysis here. I just want to know what do you think of this new NRA advertisement. Slate writer Matt Yglesias tweeted that he was
"Pretty comfortable saying that the president’s children are in fact more important than yours"

What do you think?

Post-Election White Rage

Now that the election is over and it is settled who will be President for the next four years a little bit of disappointment from supporters of the losing candidate is only to be expected. That's normal. I am old enough to remember how bitterly let down some people were when Reagan beat Carter and four years later turned Mondale into his personal well lubricated hand puppet. And the Bush smiting of Dukakis also left many people in my circles of family and friends wishing that things were otherwise. But if you're a mature adult sooner or later you learn that things don't always go your way. If you happen to grow up as a minority in America you learn that lesson a bit more quickly and thoroughly than seems right, as you are seemingly always outnumbered and always outgunned. Your political or aesthetic choices or styles are usually not what is popular in the cultural or political marketplace.  If you happen to raise this issue with the majority, say expressing concern about the relative dearth of black faces on mainstream magazine covers the usual response is something along the lines of majority rules, so shut up and deal. And in our society that is a honest and valid statement.

But life goes on. So people didn't agree with your position this time. That doesn't mean that life is over and you fall into a pit of despair and depression. It's only politics after all. It's not life and death, right? You move on with your life and maybe work harder to bring people around to your point of view next time. I mean it's nothing to start bawling over or hang your head down in despair is it? I have voted for plenty of presidential candidates that did not win and more than a few that had virtually no chance of winning. That's life. You make your decision and work to get people to agree with you and hope that many people can see the obvious sagacity of your choice and convince others likewise. If they won't or can't then yes in private you might occasionally wonder at their IQ levels but you would never say that in public because not only is it an ugly and nasty thing to say about people but fundamentally it's untrue. There are simply too many people who are intelligent decent honest people who see the world differently than you do to say that anyone who doesn't see things just like you do is an evil wicked person who for amusement shoots puppies in their spare time. Not to say that there aren't people like that but they probably don't neatly line up with your political opposition.

One of the things that is really interesting to me is how some leading Romney supporters have forgotten this truism and gone off the deep end in not only rejecting the outcome of the election but vacillate between soul numbing depression and white-hot rage at the voters who helped re-elect the President. If you remember just a few weeks back there were more than a few conservatives, fueled by speculation from sites as Drudge, Breitbart and a few others I won't mention, who were not only convinced that Romney was going to win but that Black Obama supporters, no doubt fueled by crack cocaine, rage and resentment would riot in the streets and have to be dealt with by police and/or the National Guard. Evidently some conservatives were eagerly looking forward to this. Well as it turned out not only did Obama win but the twitter tough guy calling for violent revolution and taking it to the streets and shutting this muyerfuyer down was none other than the very successful and very white billionaire real estate tycoon Donald Trump.

Mr. Trump, who as far as I know has never had to sleep on the streets, been locked up for years for a crime he didn't commit, been fired because of the color of his skin, wondered where his next meal was coming from, been abused by police or prosecutors, figure out which member of his outlaw organization was a police informant, make a choice between housing and medical coverage, or have any of a multitude of unpleasant experiences that tend to produce REAL revolutionaries, nevertheless saw fit to demand marches on Washington, suddenly decided the Electoral College was a disaster for democracy and said we should have a revolution. Right. Okay Donald. Meet us at the barricades but let us know which color Bentley you're driving so we'll know it's you. We certainly wouldn't want to throw rocks at our brother revolutionary. Power to the People!!!!

Meanwhile musician and racist nitwit Ted Nugent couldn't wait to let everyone know that as far as he was concerned the people that helped elect Barack Obama were all a bunch of "pimps, whores and welfare brats". As far as Teddy is concerned if you voted for Obama you are probably a subhuman varmint or soulless. There's not a huge amount of room for difference of opinion in Nugent's world I guess. Not much nuance. But at least you know where he's coming from. I don't think you can make a lot of mistakes about that. Not to be outdone conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly spewed forth that Obama's victory meant that the days of traditional America were over, that the white establishment was now a minority and that the reason Obama won was that people (hispanics and blacks) wanted free stuff and Obama was going to give it to them. Glenn Beck wept that sometimes God sucks. That's amazing, Beck's chosen candidate loses a few  times and Beck comes to the belief that God sucks. Hmm. And yet there are other people who have been through a few centuries of slavery, colonialism and discrimination who still seem to have a fierce and unbroken belief in and love of God. Perhaps Beck should check with them to see how they did it because it looks like his faith is a bit weak. 

Finally the gelatinous king of demagoguery himself, one Mr. Rush Limbaugh, went on air to claim that Obama won because we now live in a country of children and that therefore the adults (Romney) could not compete with Santa Claus. There's more but I think you get the idea. Oftentimes (white) conservatives criticize Blacks for identity politics. I think it is fair as we've discussed in the past to point out that some black intellectuals and even voters give Obama a pass on things they may not have let slide with other Presidents. The flip side of this though is that whites, and in these examples, white men, are not immune to identity politics any more than any other human beings are. This idea that whites are the norm and everyone else is practicing unfair identity politics needs to go. Whites were just fine with election results as long as white men won but insult voters and want revolution now that a black man won? I am shocked....

It bothers Trump so much that Obama is going to be President for another four years that he's calling for revolution? What is that about if not race? All the insults sneering at Obama voters as welfare recipients or children or subhuman are about nothing but race.  The truly ironic thing is that if white conservatives had been able to put away all the constant sneers about "welfare" and "affirmative action" and "man-child" and "monkey" and "wookie" and "ghetto crackhead" and "Kenyan" and "Muslim" and "birth certificates" they might have been able to make good arguments against some of President Obama's policies. But asking some of them to stop doing that is like asking a dog to stop licking itself. It's just what they do. And O'Reilly's comments are honest if wrong. Whites are not a minority and, depending on how "white" is redefined in America, may never be a minority. White is a somewhat nebulous description that expanded to include Irish, Italians, Jews, Arabs, and other previously "non-white" ethnic groups. Somewhere between 1/3 to 1/2 of Hispanics also identify as white. But what IS true is that the current Republican party can't win a Presidential election with 59% of the white vote. The numbers aren't there any more. It is no longer a given that whatever a majority of whites want is what the nation wants. The nation has expanded. I think, qualms about illegal immigration aside, that this is mostly a good thing.

After all Republicans should remember, everything that happens is God's will. Just relax and enjoy it. There's nothing you can do anyway. Just ask Mourdock and Akin. Don't worry, be happy. Snicker...

Thoughts?

Vote Your Conscience!!!!

As the election approaches it appears as if the President or his major party opponent may have a more difficult road to (re-)election than he or his partisans initially anticipated. So we see some bloggers, political leaders or media personalities scurrying forth to invoke fear and hurl insults against independent minded people who are not going to vote for either major party candidate. They congratulate themselves on their supposed wisdom in their voting choice and demand that others do likewise. They trot out their favorite policy hobby horse to convince you that you MUST vote for their candidate. If that doesn't work then they insult your intelligence or question your membership in whatever involuntary racial/gender group to which you happen to belong. Finally if all this fails to persuade you they'll trot out the spectre of the OTHER GUY getting to make appointments to the Supreme Court and talk ominously about the 2000 election. If their guy wins they will be back to mock you as a loser. And if their guy loses they will rush back to spew putrid vitriol in your general direction. Nader and Perot loom large as betes noires for them.


Ho-hum.

My conscience and vote belong to me. Nobody else. Anyone who lectures me that I am somehow "wasting" my vote by not voting for their favored candidate can kindly go attempt an aeronautical anatomical impossibility with a rapidly revolving tasty pastry.

One man with courage makes a majority. To thine own self be true. Whether you want to vote for either major party candidate, any small party candidate, write in a candidate, or refrain from voting altogether, it is your sacred right to express your political preference. That's right, your political preference, not anyone else's. You have the right to dissent. Your vote is not owed to anyone except yourself. Remember that regardless who you support next week. Vote or do not vote as you like. Someone who tries to convince you that your vote won't count unless you vote as THEY see fit is really nothing more than a bully. Don't let their fear determine your vote. Your issues and beliefs are just as important as anyone else's. Stand up for what you believe. Let your conscience be your guide. Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

Sununu, Powell and Racism

It's silly, a little tiring and probably bad for my blood pressure to keep up with and blog about every stupid utterance that comes from major party campaign surrogates, especially racial shots from right-wing Republicans. It is what it is. But every now and then someone says something which goes a bit beyond the normal silliness and fluff of election year political statements and reveals something a bit uglier.

This was the case with former Bush Chief of Staff, former New Hampshire Governor and Romney campaign adviser John Sununu who, when asked about General Colin Powell's endorsement of President Barack Obama, could only sputter that it must have been because both men are black. Right.

When you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to look at whether that's an endorsement based on issues or he's got a slightly different reason for endorsing President Obama," Sununu said, adding: "I think when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him."

 I don't usually pay attention to endorsements because I don't really think they mean what they used to mean but I think I would have read about or remembered the uproar if Colin Powell had endorsed candidates for President like Shirley Chisholm, Dick Gregory, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Cynthia McKinney or other humans who met the American standard for blackness. However I think all of those people struggled along the campaign trail without the Powell endorsement. Watch the Sununu video below.

This is a really interesting statement because it reveals some things about how Sununu sees the world and how he sees Black people. The immediate question that comes to my mind is whether Sununu will vote for Romney because both he and Romney are white? I would venture to guess that Sununu would say no and claim that he's voting for Romney because of issues x, y, z. But he's evidently unwilling to extend that same presumption to Colin Powell, strictly because Powell happens to be black. Never mind any of Powell's achievements, statements, beliefs, worldviews, experiences or the experiences of people who have worked with and for Colin Powell.  In a slip of the tongue Sununu showed that to him race trumps all. I guess all of those Black people who constantly voted for one white candidate or another are invisible. And when whites voted for whites that was just fine. But you blacks all stick together see. 

Many times people like to tell themselves that racism or us-them thinking is an artifact of the lower classes, the working classes, the kind of people who drive pickup trucks, own lots of guns, wave Confederate flags and have to take a shower as soon as they get home from work. Well, no it's not. Sununu is a very accomplished man and he's also a Mensa member. Chances are he's smarter than you are. But intelligence is no barrier to racist thinking. Sununu has eagerly taken on the role of Romney's attack dog, the Gregor Clegane that every now and then slips the leash and bites someone before the candidate rushes up and puts the muzzle back on the beast. Sununu has a history of race-baiting or outright racist remarks about the President and/or his supporters. So he's doing his job. His remarks are no accident. He didn't slip the leash; he was unleashed. He's appealing to a very ugly (small??) portion of the Republican base, one which doesn't really think that anyone black has any business being in the White House unless they're serving tea. The ironic thing is that given Sununu's Southern European/Middle Eastern origins, it wasn't that long ago in American history that his "whiteness" could be questioned. And in some places in Europe it still would be. And how in the world does someone who was born in Cuba of all places get the nerve to lecture the President of the United States on "how to be an American"? The only answer to this is that to a lot of people, too many people, American = whiteness. The election of a black man to the Presidency makes it painfully obvious that American <> whiteness. And it never did, really. This country was mixed from the start.

If you've read this blog before then you know I'm not really a huge Obama fan. There are legitimate honorable reasons to vote for either major party candidate or any other candidate that best suits you. The irony is that Obama has mostly governed (feminist and gay rights sympathies aside) as a center-right politician, as what used to be called a Rockefeller Republican. His race has excited the far right to primal screams of hatred and disgust at the idea of "losing their" country and constant evocations of Obama as "an affirmative action president" (witness Donald Trump's fascination with Obama's grades and birth certificate or Palin's fascination with Obama's blackness). But Obama's race may have also made people on the left who would otherwise be up in arms over unemployment, entitlement reform and civil liberties mute their opposition, precisely because they don't want to be on the same side as some right-wing yahoos. The fact that Sununu feels comfortable calling a woman journalist and a news organization "groupies" shows that should Obama win re-election some right-wingers will literally explode from the dissonance between what's in their heads and reality. Of course the same is true of some on the left if Romney pulls it out. And either way I'll be there to laugh at the loser. Count on that. But my bigger concern is that whichever millionaire wins the election there will still be numerous Americans who think just like Sununu does. And many of those people are comfortably ensconced in positions of power in businesses and organizations where they can hire, fire and promote people. Some of them are even in law enforcement or politics. Think they'll be fair minded? It's not for nothing that Col. Wilkerson said that the GOP, his party, is full of racists.

QUESTIONS
1) Was Sununu out of line?
2) Does he owe Powell or the President an apology?
3) Should the President make a stronger statement about Sununu?
4) Why hasn't Romney been pressured to drop Sununu?

Let's bomb Iran!!!

You may have noticed that Iran is in the news a lot lately. Israel Someone has been murdering their nuclear research scientists while various politicians in the United States and Israel and elsewhere are pounding the drums for war. The cause? Well they say that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb and will attack Israel. Therefore we (by which they mean the US) must attack Iran immediately otherwise it's just like 1939 all over again and we (by which they mean the US) are appeasing Hitler. The President, mistakenly in my view, spoke before AIPAC on Sunday, where he said that he was willing to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu will meet with President Obama on Monday to presumably make more of these arguments and attempt to get even firmer commitments of war. After all, before the election is when Netanyahu's influence over President Obama will be at its peak.

There are many problems with this line of logic. Honestly I am too disgusted and too busy with other things today to go off into a long essay about this. I am trying to write shorter pieces anyway. So let's just stick to a few pertinent facts here.

1. According to the US NIE estimates of 2007, 2010 and the most recent, Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. Period.
2. The same malicious mendacious miscreants who lied us into war over Iraqi WMD are currently saying the same things about Iran. Of course even a broken clock is right twice a day but given that the costs of war are immense and these malicious mendacious miscreants are known to be liars, one should at the very least check what they say to see if it passes the smell test. And if you lean closer for a good whiff, I think you're going to smell rotten eggs. Again.
3. Iran has not attacked the United States.
4. Israel has nuclear weapons of its own.

Netanyahu, a senior Israeli official actually had the chutzpah to accuse an AMERICAN general of saying something "that served Iran's interests." Now I am hardly the most jingoistic fellow around but in my view if you're taking American money (which Israel is to the tune of over $3 billion in official aid each year) then you need to keep a civil tongue. Where the hell does some foreigner get off talking about an American military leader in such a way?

So to reiterate, a foreign client state (with the help of domestic warmongering neocons, chickenhawks, and neo-colonialists) is trying to bully the United States into greenlighting its attack or preferably making its own attack on Iran. Didn't we JUST go through this? As any dog trainer will tell you when a dog pulls on the leash you must immediately adjust its attitude so that it understands that you, not it, are the one in charge. Otherwise you're gonna get pulled every which way when you go for walks. It is easiest to correct this when the dog is a puppy. Doing so when the dog is full grown and stronger than you is quite painful for you and the dog. But corrected it must be. It's long past time that the US gave Israel a collar pop and stopped moving. The Israeli right wing doesn't seem to understand who's holding the leash in the relationship. Or maybe I don't understand...

Do I think that the mullahs in Iran are nice people? Of course not.
But the world is full of countries run by people that are not so nice. I don't think it's the job of the United States to run around overthrowing governments that it doesn't like.

War with Iran is not in the interest of the United States. We don't need increased gasoline prices. We don't need more body bags coming home.  We don't need to spend billions more on war. We don't need another occupation. And unless I missed something China and Russia are not on board with attacks on Iran. Feeling misled by the US war on Libya, China and Russia vetoed a UN resolution on Syria. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Will they go along with an attack on Iran?

Something has gone very wrong in the American body politic. Another war of choice should not even be up for discussion at this point. I think that because of the volunteer Armed services, the incredible amounts of firepower that we possess and the good fortune to mostly have avoided battle in this country, most people don't have any understanding of the costs of war. Our idea (non-military) of war is something in which the other side does all of the dying. From a purely pragmatic point that may be a good thing but most of the people who think that probably aren't worried about their children being born deformed from depleted uranium usage, their daughters turning to prostitution to provide for the family, or having to worry about getting clean drinking water.

Am I the only person who remembers this quote???

"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”


Questions
1) Do you think either the US or Israel should or will attack Iran this year?
2) What impact would a possible war with Iran have on the fall election?
3) Will an attack on/war with Iran prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons program or make it more likely?
4) Why don't we have an off switch for wars anymore?

More Racial Politics: Is it Better to Look Like You or Work For You?

 Choice is an illusion created between those with power and those without.

California’s latest Supreme Court news has sparked a debate that some colleagues and I’ve been having for years.  Governor Jerry Brown’s decision to nominate Goodwin Liu has become a controversial decision. Many feel that Brown passed over several Latino and African American candidates to nominate Liu, an Asian who by all accounts is a liberal and strong supporter of civil rights.  So we find ourselves asking the question again.  Which is more important: that you have a person that looks like you in a position of importance or you have a person who will work for you in a position of importance?

Now clearly I understand that these two things are not mutually exclusive.  I believe we would all agree that having someone with a similar racial and/or ethnic background who also has a point of view that runs parallel with the majority of folks within that same background would be preferable.  However, I fear those days may be behind us.  I hate to be cynical – no, I don’t – but am I the only one who believes that someone like Thurgood Marshall, an “Anomaly,” a champion of civil and individual rights, State accountability, and Federal oversight, would not get the support of a Senate comprised of Tea Partiers? 

We can never see past the choices we don’t understand. 

Since this Neo-esque “Anomaly” only comes around when it is time for the Source to reload the Matrix, we are left with a choice: which is more important, the person or the work they do?  A case can be made for either side.  Since Obama’s inauguration, I’ve had to challenge myself and my positions on this issues.  I like to think of it as growth, maybe it’s bias; hell, maybe it’s both.  What I do know is that I often find myself conflicted.  On one hand, diversity adds value to all aspects of life.  It is very possible for a white male to grow up with very limited access to other races and cultures, informing his political opinions and positions.  And while he may bring value to a discussion, I do believe there is legitimate concern if everyone involved within his decision making circle all come from that exact same background.  So while I understand the political fallout from Justices Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina” comments, I disagree with her detractors.   I do expect a Latina to bring a perspective her colleagues may not have; I expect the same from a White Male.  Clearly, there’s value in having diversity introspectively; there is also value in the extrospective.  Seeing people that look like you in various places of success and authority is a vital piece of any culture.  Not only does it support one’s need to be accepted and respected, it also makes the impossible seem possible; this is especially true for those who aspire to reach heights previously not open or available to them.  Prior to President Obama’s inauguration, the vast majority of African Americans never imagined that anyone other than a White Male would be president in their lifetime.  It was literally an image that we could not view because it was one we had never seen.  All that to say, I believe the Hispanic and African American citizens in California have a point, I do believe you need to see a face that looks like yours in power positions.

However, does this accurately illustrate the willingness of our leaders to work on the behalf of the Black community?  I’m not convinced it does.  As we’ve seen with the nomination of Clarence Thomas, simply putting a black face on the bench doesn’t mean you are reaching out to the black community.   Prior to joining the blog, several of us debated – ad nauseam – several political issues.  Who did more for the African American community, Clinton or Bush?  Arguments were made for both sides of the aisle: Clinton’s Administration saw the first female U.S. Secretary of State and the highest-ranking woman in the history of the U.S. government, Clinton, at the time, had the most diverse cabinet in history, and more African Americans appointed to the federal bench than any other President.  Conversely, Bush’s Administration (II) topped Clinton in high-ranking diversity of cabinet.  Bush was ground breaking in his appointments of the first African American Secretary of state, serving not only as the highest-ranking African American but also the highest-ranking African American female in the history of the U.S. government.  He nominated the first Hispanic Attorney General in addition to filling three of the four highest-ranking positions with minorities.  However, when asked, the Black community supports Clinton over Bush in a landslide.

No, you’ve already made the choice. Now you have to understand it

I think the Black community must be very careful with their requests.  Sometimes you actually get what you are demanding; and it ain’t always good.  The Janitor and I were conversing with friends of ours on a similar topic.  If, for example, Alan Keys was elected the first Black president, shouldn’t we cheer for that breakthrough equally as loud as we did for Obama?  Despite Keys’ clear Grand Canyon type gap in political points of view from the large majority of Black folks, shouldn’t we celebrate the accomplishment of an African American kicking through the glass ceiling?    Not to my surprise, many of my friends said “No.”  With the Key's example, the ascension of the first Black Man to the position of President of the United States would not trump the fact that his political views were completely opposite of 90% of the Black community.  So why then do we turn around and put that type of pressure on our government executives?  We’re okay with equating who our Presidents and Governors select for a given position with their support of the Black community.  Doesn’t that seem a tad bit hypocritical?    

I digress…

This is simple political arithmetic.  President Bush (the First) put a Black man on the SCOTUS.  President Obama put the first Hispanic female on the SCOTUS; yet he is criticized for not “looking out” for the black community.  Question!  Whose nominee would you say has the best interest of the Black community (and other non-white citizens) at heart?   My blog partner, The Janitor, said: “…the most important aspect of any judge you can nominate is not the color of their skin but rather it is the judicial ideology that they subscribe to.  A progressive Latino, White, or Asian can do just as much to champion the progressive agenda in the courts as a Black judge.”  I believe this to be true.  It makes sense.  Should we start to focus more on the policies of the individual instead of their racial makeup?  What is the break-even point?  Is it acceptable to have zero representation if your needs are being met?  After all, many landmark civil right issues were passed without Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and others in the White House, Congress, or SCOTUS.  While it is important to have diversity, diversity of thought, and a makeup in leadership that reflects the makeup of the country, it is also important that those who make up the leadership actually work on issues that are important to the Black community - YOUR community.  In today's America, can this be accomplished without people who look like you speaking for you?  I don't know. 

If you can’t get both, which is more important: someone that shares a racial and/or ethnic background with you, or someone who will fight to improve your quality of life?

Should we criticize a government chief executive (president or governor) on their political nominations based solely on race?

President Obama Press Conference: Opening Statement

It’s a sad day in the United States when we have a Congress that refuses to do its job and the President has to take to a podium to remind them how to do it. The President seemed slightly forceful in his delivery and sure that a deal would be reached regarding the raising of the debt ceiling.



Is it just me or does anyone else feel like the Congress is having a misguided debate? Why are we re-debating the budget, wasn’t this resolved in April? To the average American who doesn’t subscribe to the hocus pocus math that the GOP is trying to feed us, it’s simple - raise revenue, reduce the debt. Why can’t they understand the simple concept of mathematics? If you have a 9% unemployment rate, you have less people paying federal, state and local taxes. The economy is not a result of the deficit, the deficit is a result of the economy. We should not be talking about the deficit right now, we should be increasing revenue to the treasury and putting people back to work.

More people working = More people paying taxes / More people paying taxes = More revenue to the Treasury / More revenue to the Treasury = Lowering the deficit = The possibility for the heinous tax cuts that the GOP is so married to

This Congress promised the American people an economic recovery. They began their session in January and have done NOTHING to promote that recovery. The President listed a number of options that are currently being held up in Congress. A bill to make it easier for entrepreneurs to patent a new product or idea, a bill to put construction workers back on the job rebuilding roads and bridges through loans to private companies, states and local governments, a bill fixing our trade agreements to allow American businesses to sell more goods and services to Asia and South America, and a bill further extending the middle class tax cuts an additional year. All things the President says he is ready to sign immediately should Congress send them to his desk.

Part 2:


Part 3:


Part 4:


Part 5:


Part 6:



Is the debate around the deficit a legitimate debate?
Is Congress broken?
What do you think the Congress should do to further progress the recovery?