Obama a disaster for civil liberties?

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley writes that "the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties":

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse.

Hmm... I didn't vote for Obama (but will do so in 2012 if any but maybe two of the current crop of Republican candidates gets the nomination), but I can see this is a case of selective memory. Let's see, he ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, effectively ended the executive branch's defense of the Defense of Marriage Act's proscription of same-sex marriage. Indeed, I see some expansion of civil liberties in the Obama universe.

Y'know, the guy's not Superman. He can't do everything and still have political capital to win the other battles. The guy passed a major health care reform bill that, though imperfect and in need of tweaking whether it works well or not, everyone knew would bring out the opposition in full force at midterm elections. If a Republican is elected, we can say bye-bye to the Affordable Care Act and sit back while the Republicans do the same thing to fix the gaping head wound that is our healthcare "system" after they defeated Hillarycare in 1993-94: absolutely nothing.



So, yeah, maybe the civil libertarians will get more of what they want in a second term, but probably not all of it. Wait until the two wars have wound down and see what can be revisited. Like it or not, that's the way it works.

In the meantime, don't even pretend, as Ralph Nader did, that there is no difference between the Dems and the new crop of Republicans* that have taken root since the new millennium. The Iraq War to vanquish al Qaeda (remember that justification?!) — rabidly opposed by the man Ralph Nader helped defeat, Al Gore — is Exhibit A of that.

* The Republican Party has lurched so far to the right you can't see them because of the curvature of the Earth. I want back the fiscally conservative but socially responsible and pragmatist GOP of old. Bring back Nixonian Republicanism so that I don't have to fear for the country's future survivability when/if the Democrats lose!

...

Bozell the Clown

This was in my inbox. It's from the Media Research Center, one of those groups who thinks that, well, see for yourself:

Now what do you think would have been the reaction of the American people if on Election Day they had gone to the polls knowing that in electing Barack Obama they were electing the single most radical socialist in the history of this country. I submit to you he would never have been elected. That's the power of the media

Anyway, here's their video. My favorite part is at 3:44.

It's about my children, and my grandchildren, and their progeny as well. It's about generations to come.

We've always been a nation where left the nation in slightly better hands than they were a generation before. And that's not happening now.

We stand to be the generation that will be asked by future generations, "Why didn't you stop it?"

I want to be the generation that says, "We returned America to her greatness. There were those that wanted to destroy this country and there were some of us who said, 'No.'"

[4:30: shakes finger furiously]

That's what I want.

Can you say "demonization of people just because they don't agree with you"? I knew you could.

I wonder if Mr Bozell thinks that waging a trillion-dollar-plus gratuitous war in Iraq, allowing corporations to meddle freely in our elections, or further concentrating wealth in the hands of a few who are often those same folks sending jobs overseas are all ways in which the next generation will have gotten screwed up the ass? Yeah, why didn't we stop it?

Frankly, I don't know where he stands on those issues, but I do know I didn't hear too much about them from any of those on the right who now scream that "the single most radical socialist in the history of this country" is sending us to hell.

And on a broader note, going beyond neoconservative blowhards, this is a dangerous trend in America. We have a very fractured national discourse, where not only do those on one side listen to media from group and those on the other go somewhere else to be informed (read: propagandized), but both sides have in their ranks too many people who demonize the other side, often with fantastical narratives and angry polemics that have little grounding in fact. This is bad. Very bad.

Anyway, I suspect Mr Bozell III's progeny won't have too much to worry about. (Unless they're gay; then it's "No trust fund for you, fairy pants!")

iheartblueballs on the "myth" of cutting taxes to increase revenues

iheartblueballs apparently hates my guts, but God bless the guy for really doing his homework and laying out some thoughtful (if expletive-ridden) essays on issues near and dear to this left-of-center Democratic voter.

Case in point, about the claims made mentioned in the above title:

So confident, so condescending, and so embarrassingly fucking wrong. I always have a good chuckle whenever I hear conservatives repeat this myth — and they repeat it a lot — because they inevitably fail to provide any statistical data to prove it. They’ll offer JFK quotes or isolated data from a few year period.

The reason for this is actually very simple. There is no comprehensive statistical data to prove that tax cuts increase revenues. In fact, all available data points in the opposite direction.

He then links to a worthwhile National Review article on the subject, while adding his own relevant points. He ends with this snarky attack on the true-believer conservatives who now have the reins of power in the House of Representatives:

I’ll go ahead and make a prediction: Plenty of conservatives who believe this myth will read the article I linked to, and because it’s in the NR they’ll have a hard time claiming bias or writing it off as liberal. And then they’ll go about ignoring it because it doesn’t fit the myth they’ve held so dear for so long. They’ll probably hit the google and search for some definitive data supporting their mythical claim, but they won’t find any, because there isn’t any.

None of this will matter. The myth will continue to perpetuate, because Rush repeats it, and Hannity repeats it, and all kinds of ignorant conservative politicians keep repeating it over and over and over until all the dupes are sold.

And hey, let’s not pretend the dupes actually care about statistical data or proof. They want to believe and they want to be sold, and that makes the selling all that much easier.

Sugo haessŏyo, IHBB. I just wish you'd change your ballsy avatar so I can read your comments while out in public.

Leave Rush the fu¢k alone

Rush Limbaugh, bastion of conservative talk radio and long-time supporter of the ACLU (or is that the other way around?), is in the news yet again.

Beneath the inflammatory headline, "Limbaugh's latest drug run-in," CNN informs us that radio commentator Rush Limbaugh was detained for three hours at the Palm Beach, Florida, airport because, according to police, he had Viagra in his possession without a valid prescription.

Okay, so the guy did have legal problems surrounding how he illegally obtained painkillers and all that, but does every move the guy makes deserve this kind of press play?

Show a fucking ounce of compassion, not to mention propriety and proportionality.

Yeah, the guy can be a jerk, a polarizer, an occasional race-baiter, a deceiver, etc., etc. (and yes, I often listen to his show; unlike some people, I regularly listen to people of a different ideological bent from my own, even those I consider dogmatic, because it helps me challenge and strengthen — and occasionally alter — my own beliefs), but none of that deserves the embarrassment of having such details of one's private life splattered all over the media.

It was already iffy when the press was trying to get ahold of his medical records during his painkiller legal fiasco, but this goes beyond the pale.

The famous are people, too. I can't think of anyone who would want their use of Viagra plastered all over the place. So the guy was detained over his possession of the medication that had his doctor's name, not his, but this is going overboard. He admitted the medication was his — it had the doctors's names on it, according to Limbaugh's lawyer, to protect this very privacy — and was released without charge.

So if he ever gets detained over a traffic ticket, are we going to here about this? Is that the requisite for the press to get involved? Or is it only when he gets detained for potentially humiliating things?

Leave the guy the fuck alone.

Yeah, yeah. I know that's not going to happen. It's man-bites-dog news, and the hypocritical, merciless, acerbic, and vitriolic may not be deserving of the kind of compassion he denies his opponents (or their kids), but on principle, if nothing else, it is wrong to make this into the media story it is.

The public ain't got a right to know a fucking thing here.