« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Ends And Means
How long are we going to let politicians justify what they do by telling us they have better information than we have?
Yesterday, I noticed that Obama had figured out during the campaign that the fact that the Bush administration and the telecoms broke the FISA law is mitigated by "the degree to which the underlying program itself is, in fact, necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks."
As a matter of fact, the necessity of the underlying program, i.e., electronic surveillance, has apparently convinced Mr. Obama to support revising FISA even if he can't get the telecom immunity provision removed. That's in contrast to supporting a filibuster of the bill if it contains immunity for the telecoms.
I figured that change in Mr. Obama's position was the result of him receiving some inside information about the success of the surveillance program that the average citizen doesn't know.
So I asked some questions about that information. Questions like where did the information come from? When did Obama get it?
And we discussed the issue. We discussed it up one side and down the other. We compared efforts to strip immunity from the FISA bill to Kabuki theater. We argued about whether Obama's change of position was actual or apparent, and, if actual, whether it was a hypothetical or a real flipflop.
We said we knew Obama would disappoint us eventually, because we're far left of center. We allowed as how we don't have enough information to know whether he's a slick politician or smart and idealistic.
We argued about the nature of the 4th Amendment. We said the time for action had long passed. We fretted about the power of the military and the police. And gave up on the idea of reining them in. And we lamented the fact that we were being asked to do more than vote and act as a skeptical citizen.
We decided we're hard-eyed pragmatists as well as hopeful idealists, and we're not cynical.
We talked about Obama's motivations. We wondered if Democrats are afraid of an October surprise in the form of a terrorist attack, maybe even one allowed to happen so it could be blamed on the Democrats, because there is nothing Bush won't do.
We talked about filibusters and cloture and ways for Obama to weasel out of the vote, and about how if Hillary Clinton were leading the Democratic Party she’d do the same thing. We ran through all of the arguments that come down to: What are you going to do? Vote for McCain?
And, in what has to be the sappiest inside-outskie, ends over means argument of the day, we imagined that if Obama blocks the new FISA and a bomb went off here as one did in Madrid before Spain's elections, Obama just might lose the election.
But the one thing we never talked about is how long we're going to let politicians get away with telling us they don't have to explain their decisions to us when the security of America (that's us, by the way) is at stake.
Now the one thing Obama doesn't need from us is advice on how to get elected. Obama is the ultimate politician. And what politicians do is convince people like us to let them exercise the power of the government on our behalf.
And Obama is good at getting elected. It's all he's done. From his time at Harvard Law, through his career in state politics, his run for the U.S. Senate, and his successful campaign to represent the Democratic Party in the 2008 general election, Obama has convinced people to empower him. He will play this issue in the right way to get elected.
There are people who have knowledge about how the world works. They know where the game is played.
And then, there are the rest of us.
"I think what is clear is that the way the program operated broke the law that was existing at the time,” Obama said Monday at a news conference in Jacksonville, Fla. “On the other hand, what I’ve also seen and learned is the degree to which the underlying program itself is, in fact, necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks."
What did he learn?
It’s a long way from asking me to believe in my ability to bring about real change in Washington to asking me to trust him because he knows things I’m not allowed to know.
But is it really such a stretch to notice that the exact same language could be used to justify condoning torture?
Is it really a stretch to get from saying: “What I’ve also seen and learned is the degree to which the underlying program itself is, in fact, necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks” about electronic surveillance to saying exactly the same thing about torture?
As a matter of fact, you don’t even have to change the wording. Just the meaning of the “underlying program.” Or do you even have to do that, since none of us knows what the underlying program is or was in the first place?
Here's Feingold today.
"This bill will effectively and unjustifiably grant immunity to companies that allegedly participated in an illegal wiretapping program - a program that more than 70 members of this body still know virtually nothing about. And this bill will grant the Bush Administration - the same administration that developed and operated this illegal program for more than five years - expansive new authorities to spy on Americans' international communications . . . There is simply no question that Democrats who had previously stood strong against immunity and in support of civil liberties were on the losing end of this backroom deal."
Here's Dodd last night.
"Retroactive immunity is on the table today; but also at issue is the entire ideology that justifies it, the same ideology that defends torture and executive lawlessness. Immunity is a disgrace in itself, but it is far worse in what it represents. It tells us that some believe in the courts only so long as their verdict goes their way. That some only believe in the rule of law, so long as exceptions are made at their desire. It puts secrecy above sunshine and fiat above law."
So, exactly what is this information Obama has that justifies his going along with the FISA compromise? Feingold doesn’t seem to have it. Dodd doesn’t seem to have it. Where did Obama get it? Shouldn’t he at least share the source?
Until he does, I wish he wouldn't tell me he's trampling on my rights for my own protection.
Comments (103)
I agree with you here Billy. The lie that they knew something we didn't was the cover story for the Iraq War. It's the reason I didn't vote for Hillary because I thought it was a pile of b.s. Who had better access to people in the know than she did? I couldn't believe her. Now, I don't believe Obama. I don't care about the street politics crap in Chicago or even over campaign finance but I do have to trust a President on issues like war and this is one of the war issues for me. Are they lying us into war again? Is some poor innocent naive 19 year old going to go off to "serve his country" and get blown to bits because they're lying to us about intelligence again? I can't stop it, but I don't have to vote for it.
June 25, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heya Bluebell. I understand the concern that lies can lead to war.
But. (1) Sometimes Presidents know stuff which is TRUE, which they say we can't know because of national security. This has been the case in every single gov't I know of & under every President. FDR didn't tell us everything he knew about Pearl Harbour. JFK & Bobby didn't tell us all they knew about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
And (2) There is a subset of times when they LIE about stuff, and cloak it under the same national security banner. But not telling us true stuff (because it would aid/abet the enemy) is different than making shit up, and hiding that fact.
If you don't trust Obama on this stuff, hey... a lot of this is about judgment, and gut feel. I don't trust any politician 100%. But if trust is the issue, and nothing/nobody can determine that for you, then the question becomes, "Who do you trust more?"
June 25, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still wondering how he knew Hussein was "absolutely no threat to his neighbors" back in 2002.
June 26, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, Quinn, you make a good point but you open up a whole can of worms here. If Obama or the president is going to be defended because they might know something that we don't, then we make the same mistake that many folks did back in 2002. During the 2004 campaign, I tried repeatedly to defend Senator Kerry's Iraq vote based on this notion that, under the circumstances, he just had to place trust in the commander in chief. I said that even though I opposed the resolution in 2002 from the sidelines like most of us.
I think I still wrestle with this notion that, to some extent, deference on military matters to the commander in chief is not something that we can just say "never again" about. But I don't think we can take what we as a nation learned from the mistakes of 2002 and just throw it away.
Finally, on Obama and trust, I am only voting for him because he is the Democratic nominee. I categorically reject, and I do so respectfully but with conviction, that Senator Obama has demonstrated any tangible reason for earning our trust. Fresh and new and young and vibrant and barrier breaking are all good things, but these criteria don't have anything to do with earning trust. That's why I have a real problem with this notion that we should wait until he's elected and then we will see that he can be trusted to make the right decisions. On what basis can we say that when he is flip-flopping (and to this pragmatist undestandably so) on something as big as FISA?
Finally, on the issue of whom do you trust more, I don't think that Obama wins that one nationally against McCain. I think folks trust McCain; that's not his problem in the aggregate. His problems are the incumbent president, economic chaos, and discrimination on the basis of age, but on matters of security he will not lose the trust battle against Obama. That's not to say I favor his approach to foreign policy; I don't. But I am only one American.
June 26, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
bslev & gasket, i'm gonna reply way down the page if that's ok. these are good points, i just don't wanna block traffic.
June 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
quinn esq, your argument is lazy.
Obama expresses no firm political ideology to base a gut reaction on. He uses a religious lexicon to palliate voter rage against the government. Now that we have accepted his ministry, he is telling us he is all-knowing. And we accept.
It's not a question of who do you trust more. It's a question of whether you want a man or a minister as president.
June 26, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, readytoblowagasket how do you occupy your time when there are no Obama-bashing Billy Glad posts up to sycophantically defend? Please get a new schtick.
June 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's "bashing" about it? Please define.
Is it bashing Obama to wonder where he got the information that goes into his decision-making?
June 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am going to tell you a number of things, but if you really want to be a good journalist you only have to remember two words: governments lie"
- IF Stone.
I don't trust them, the founders didn't trust them either. If they'd trusted them, there wouldn't have been a Bill of Rights. They faced far more powerful foreign and domestic threats and they were far better able to understand that this was not an excuse for abandoning civil rights.
June 26, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Understood. Disagree, but understand.
I will never believe the underlying program could, or would mean torture. If I believed him capable of even the thought, I would never have supported him. And I have since the day he announced. Yes, it is such a stretch.
June 25, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is it a stretch? Obama is not firm on anything except winning.
June 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this the same Billy Glad who was ecstatic about Senator Clinton's willingness to "obliterate" seventy million men, women, and CHILDREN, plus all other life forms in one Nation, and let the fallout kill many millions more in neighboring countrys?
Who knew that Billy Glad was our very own Dr. Strangelove with a soft chewy civil liberties center!
June 25, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Well put, Liam.
June 25, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same Billy Glad who believes that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified and right.
June 25, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a sneaking suspicion that I may have misread you earlier...
But I took some meds and am OK now-
June 25, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were never really on board the whole "Yes We Can" thing, so I must take your observations in the context of your being a persistent critic of Sen. Obama from the start.
That said, few Democrats are happy with Sen. Obama's position on FISA and how it has changed.
Those of us who really DO want Obama to become president would note that John McCain also supports the FISA bill and, were he president, would operate the program in a far more draconian fashion than Obama will. Nothing is gained by bashing Obama. The liberties you espouse in your post can only be eroded further by such criticisms.
Then, too, you overlook the fact that Obama never said he was going to let you in on what he has learned. Nor is he required to in order to cast an informed vote in his favor.
Obama does have his reasons for supporting FISA, and even if they amount to only a political calculation, that rationale is as potent as any national security argument. Obama's reasoning, shrouded as you would pretend it is, suffices entirely — precisely because the alternative is to hand the White House to a genuine, avowed war hawk opposed to an entire range of civil liberties. And the national security implications of that are staggering, for every single reason you reduce to a mere Obama flip-flop.
June 25, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How?
June 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, I'm trying to think of a time when liberties were eroded by criticism.
All I can come up with are times when liberties were strengthened by criticism or when liberties were eroded by complicity.
June 26, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
By getting John McCain elected, dickhead.
June 26, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you're that obtuse.
June 26, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't name a time in history when "liberties were eroded by criticism" (your words). I don't want hypotheticals. I want past examples. Proof.
I'll wait for you to research it. Thanks.
June 26, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
How 'bout this criticism:
"John Kerry is a weenie who didn't earn his purple hearts and will give America to the terrorists."
GET IT YET? Probably not.
June 26, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I don't get it, since I don't accept Republican talking points as my truth. Here, do some fucking reading for a change, instead of regurgitating scare-tactic nonsense you hear on TV. You might learn something.
Lemming.
June 26, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Maybe We're The Ones Who Have Dumbed Down" Billy Glad ask as the title of two threads back to back, and then he posts this thread. All three about the same subject. Notice how he is now saying "we" . I guess he must be sitting on Turdblossom's knee as he types.
Here is the game. The Republican Trojan Horse Troll has decided that the best way that McCain can win is to paint Obama as being no better, and of course if you post three thread on the same subject at the same time, then that allows you to monopolize the reader posts billboarding on TPM.
Turdblossom has taught his Grackle Bird pet the tricks of the trade.
June 25, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfair. He explains on either of the other titled posts. May not matter to *you*, but perhaps to others.
Unfair.
June 25, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfair my Arse. Billy Glad is a pro at this thread posting. He knew what he was doing. He is the self described Grackle Bird who likes to foul other birds nests.
When Bill Grackle Bird cries Oops Oops Oops, then you know that he has just soiled another nest and is darting for cover.
June 25, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be calm. If you are correct, others will know.
June 25, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that true? I didn't read the post. i never read anyone's posts. Too much work and so often too few rewards, no?
June 26, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think we've dumbed down, I think we've been knocked down so many times it's just easier to go along.
I have to say though, that no matter how many times I've been through this, I just keep getting back up, surprised and disappointed every single time...
June 25, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
THANK you, ma'am!
May I have another?
;)
June 25, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we've effectively had our voices taken away since Ronald Reagan. During Reagan/Bush, liberals turned to other outlets, like nonprofit organizations that represented their needs and concerns. For example, environmental orgs' membership and donations surged, and field projects expanded.
When Clinton/Gore were elected, liberals relaxed. Ironically, support for those same organizations drastically fell off because people believed the govt was on their side. Nonprofits suddenly couldn't make ends meet and had to scramble for other resources, cut whole programs, change their focus, form relationships with the business world (if they were lucky).
Then along came the radical administration of Bush/Cheney. The Shock Doctrine. Take everything away from everyone and funnel all resources into the new Wild West: the Middle East. Take away everything the American people take for granted: first their voices, then their rights.
I believe Bush would have done it anyway. 9/11 just made it easier.
June 26, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Gasket.
What makes me nervous is when Obama says he agrees with anything out of Bush/Cheney's playbook.
I am beginning to realize that even my low expectations for him were too high.
June 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That made me laugh, bee. ;-)
June 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What made me laugh, btw, is your honesty, not your disappointment.
June 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know.
We good.
June 26, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. That's heavy bug. Yikes.
June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Bruce. You can't be surprised. I've always said the leftovers weren't "left" enough for me.
:(
June 26, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damned fine tango, Billy. Though I'm sure I know that song. God, what WAS it? Got it! Ramones - "Nonsense On Stilts."
This is the remake though, jazzed up from yesterday. I think Twista did it. Yep. Retitled it too. It's "(Secretive & Shifty) Obama (Gets Stretched) Til He's Torturing People." I like the original.
1. Yesterday, Obama was "ignorant," but since he learned things, that made him.... slippery. But today? Much more JOOOOSE! Obama's actively denying us details about national security threats. And damn, I'd know I'D like to know WHO exactly wants to get us, and are they in a cave or a boat, do they have walkie-talkies and shit. Cos I got an inquiring mind too!
2. Yesterday, we needed to know what/when/where Obama knew the new info. Though that "discussion" "we" had, I donno. It kinda got buried under the extra dirty laundry you threw on top. Today though, you've selected a favorite item, and Obama's gonna wear it, and it's... torture! Which is COOOOL! I love arguments that "streeeeeeetch" Obama all the way to torture.
So. Obama's keeping us from knowing (sexy) national security stuff, and - if we stretch him far enough - he'd torture people. Which I'll chew on for a bit, 'cause I have this tendency to write waaaay long. But, top of my head, my responses would be:
1. Oh. My. God. That would make him the 1st President to keep national security shit secret since... ummm. Well darnitalltohell Billy, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF EM DID IT. Damn! Who knew?!
2. Yes. It's true. An argument which justifies secrecy or surveillance on national security CAN, logically, be made to justify torture. It's just that it's... wait, don't be all jumpin' in... TORTURED LOGIC! Prizes all round! 'Cause Bill Clinton, JFK, FDR - hell, their entire Cabinets - knew secret stuff, and they COULD have argued that also justified... torture. Or the invasion of Nebraska. Or something. Well, anything actually.
June 25, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I also loved the demolition of that "sappy" (and "means over ends") argument that the Republicans might pull some sort of stunt, I donno, like maybe in October, that they could then use to paint a Democratic Presidential candidate as soft on our enemies. Yessirree Bob, that WOULD be one helluva soft-headed argument. Wow. I wouldn't want to be the fool that made that argument yesterday! I think it was Des. Yeah. I'm sure it was. Des always was too soft, too means-over-endy for me.
Ark Ark! Mars Attacks! (etc.)
June 25, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep your tortured logic off my rug, he'll stain it. Why did you bring it here, to my apartment? Are you talking on a cell phone? Oh my God, I don't know you. Operator, someone stole my phone, this is a prank call, this is....
Actually I don't think I made that argument (maybe the stout has a mind of its own), but considering this is the guy who was supposed to *REVERSE* all the excesses of the last 7 years, that supposedly Hillary would be too tied to corporate America to do, it's a pretty bad start to say, "well gross national eavesdropping and wiretapping can stay if they have to... and by the way, if I'm President and I want some corporate giant to do my illegal bidding, I sure want them to know I have their back".
June 26, 2008 5:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
The shapeshiftr is fading...
June 25, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spelling is a symptumm...
June 25, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep.
He lost me at the unfounded specter of torture, too.
Quite a Rovian ratcheting, don't you think?
June 25, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mentioned it in reply to his "earlier" post. Too easy to make a point that isn't one.
June 25, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
On his part
June 25, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE?!?! Something in your pocket BG? Because you're sure not including me or many others here!
June 25, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the Republican talking points, a-hole. You have got to be the sorest loser on the planet.
June 25, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy,
You've added a ton to this debated by focusing on the question of what it is, exactly, that Obama says he now knows that changed his opinion.
I've been more concerned with the fates of millions who have legitimate civil complaints that deserve a court hearing without congressional interference.
No doubt that this issue is far more intricate than it's been made out to be, and it's too important for people to say that it should be shoved aside because of the election.
June 25, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on out & play, Billy! Coz otherwise, "we" aren't gonna have nearly as good a debate, or near as much fun. Why, I can feel the sap rising in me already! Put down that frickin' macaroni, willya?
Tango!!! (Or pogo. Your call.)
June 25, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, I'm not sure, because one can never be too sure on TPM who is foolin' who and who is playing it straight, but I believe, if you are what you seem to be, that you are the perfect guy to take on Billy G, the greatest manipulator of all time. I will sit back and watch.
June 25, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's gone Rove on us.
Man Behind the Curtain.
He throws the meat to the dogs and hauls proverbial ass.
Torture? Where the fuck did THAT come from?
Glad stirs shit with his finger.
June 25, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
With his FINGERS!!!???
ewwwwe!!!
June 26, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, he's scared. That's why he's got that ludicrous hat pulled down over his face. He's trying to figger out a stragety. He loves the kudos but the slap-downs make him feel like an abused kid all over again. Give him time. He's lobbying hard for a way to get rid of stinkers like me. Then he'll be a little chatterbox again.
June 26, 2008 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neeed you, quinnnn
June 25, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course he has no such information. He's trying to convince us that the shit he's feeding us is really ice cream.
June 25, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo BillyG,
playing thou
Ouranos?
Making like a
bitter pea,
for all to see.
Got news for thee,
Obama ain't no
Kronus!
Apollo,
is he.
June 26, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
;-)
You know he cannot, BillyG. He'd be accused of being a traitor. Loose lips sinking ships. The McCainites would be all over him like the biggest plague of Old Egypt.
In his own words. The man can think.
June 26, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh yeah, that link - all kudos to LBP.
June 26, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. Thanks so much for that link, Cricket. One of the things that really impresses me about the guy is the fact that he doesn't put himself on a pedestal. When's the last time George W. Bush posted his thoughts on a public blog?
It would appear Senator Obama gave us fair warning long ago. Not surprising. What is surprising is how open he is about his own doubts and reservations. It's just so damn refreshing to support a politician who doesn't think I'm either a threat to his primacy or a total freakin' moron.
June 26, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
From the same link:
And yet, Cricket and hrebendorf tell me that with the FISA legislation, Obama is unilaterally disarming in the face of expected future Republican attacks.
Yeah, great link, thanks.
June 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you're just being stupid. Stop being stupid, OK?
June 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sometimes wonder if you did some serious damage to your own brain in your youth, hrebendorf. Your ability to read into what Obama says is fantastic (as in marked by extravagant fantasy per Webster's).
As usual, Obama is vague when it really matters in the Kos diary Cricket linked to. He says, I think this perspective misreads the American people, but he never goes on to define his read of the American people. Like "hope" and "change" and "unity" and "reaching across the aisle," my definitions of these concepts are likely different from yours, which are very likely different from Obama's. I have always chafed at this vagueness from Obama; it's characteristic of someone who has been in academia too long.
When Obama is specific, he shows a shocking lack of original thinking. His whole Dean-inspired argument against filibustering Roberts in order to win Democratic seats in Nebraska and North Dakota is preposterous:
The decisions from the Roberts Court will affect the rest of our lives, which so far doesn't look too promising for a "progressive" agenda, no matter if we elect a Democrat for president for the next 20 consecutive years. Adding one or two Democrats to the minorities in Montana and Nebraska won't affect our lives at all.
In the end (according to actual voters in 2006), the midterm elections were about Iraq. Any Democratic gains had to do with Iraq, not with whether Roberts's nomination was or wasn't filibustered. Obama was wrong about Roberts.
Don't talk to me about stupidity when you merely idolize a politician instead of thinking for yourself, hrebendorf. I can see now why you chose your career: it wasn't ever going to challenge you. Trouble is, now whenever you are challenged, you just bite.
June 26, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, fucking North Dakota, not Montana. Same difference, though.
June 26, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be fuckin' with North Dakota, Gasket. Once they get together with South Dakota and form GREATER MUSCLIER DAKOTA, they're gonna come lookin' to settle some scores. I know those people, they got wood-chippers in every outhouse, and they're ready to use them.
Oops. Sorry Dakotans. Meant "spa," not "outhouse." Misspoke.
June 26, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does sound like you know those people, quinn esq.
June 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watchit bud. Got my wood chipper revved up, ready to roll.
But first, I got some possum to process.
June 26, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I once hit a deer in Montana, watched him skid across the road like a hockey puck. Stopped by a bar to see if anyone wanted some fresh roadkill. "Why don't you take him?" "I'm vegetarian." "Oh, I see - you just kill 'em, you don't eat 'em". I think my welcome wore out pretty quickly after that.
June 26, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
huh? how Gasket?
June 26, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because of where your comment landed, I'm not sure what you're asking me, Cricket.
June 26, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't hear him "unilaterally disarming" anything. I see a pragmatist making a compromise because of how deep the complicity has run. I see him making a pragmatic decision to pursue this differently now to get greater returns later. In that diary, he said it would be hard and would require sacrifices. We can be hard eyed paragmatists today to see our ideals and our hope restored tomorrow. I believe him.
June 26, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Bill of Rights shouldn't be one of those sacrifices, nor should any honest broker even insinuate that it should be.
June 26, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I
Agree.
June 26, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. I'm totally confused. But then again, it's after midnight here in NY right now and I'm a bit befuzzled with insomnia and a bit of the wee hops and barley that.
Is it just me, then, that is sensing deja vu just now? Is it just me who read these almost very same words just a night ago, or was it two, I can no longer keep count. Because I remember reading this almost same post just as the weekend ended, and so therefore, I've read it at least three times already.
But, I digress. I've been saying all day today -- oops, sorry, that was actually yesterday -- that there must be a full moon or something. Because everybody was acting weird. Weird at the office, weird on the parkway, weird in the supermarket, weird right here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKvCEUJfQA4
June 26, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy's gonna keep pitching this greaseball straight on through to election day. Then he's gonna sit back, secure in the knowledge that he's made absolutely no difference whatsoever. I only wish I could be there the first time he's forced to say, "President Obama". :)
June 26, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Billy:
TPM UnAmerican Activities Committee, or its moral equivalent, appears to be on your tail. Your changing avatars cannot shield you forever. They will find you in that spider hole and I predict that you will look up for a brief moment and return to your snicker's bar. That will be sign of courage and they will be momentarily ambivalent about their assigned task. But then they will take you Billy, with force if necessary, and nobody knows if they will respect your rank and the traditional conventions attendant to such circumstances. Stay focused and good luck.
June 26, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got him confused as someone else - Billy is disguised as a fig plucker in the Pashtun region along the border, passing freely as he assumes different dialects and guises for the guards. And gets a good penny for his wares to boot.
June 26, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's a cunning old codger that Billy Glad. That's why I think he just may survive this onslaught. Of course, there are many months before November and there will be many opportunities to test the parameters being set by committee.
June 26, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nailed it, Bruce. The new McCarthyism.
June 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, rbtg, I think it's a temporary phenomenon but I appreciate that you catch my drift. We ultimately must forgive our progressive brothers and sisters even if they know damn well what they do. It's hard for any of us to be consistent when there's an election to win. But this FISA thing is an eye-opener indeed.
June 26, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why progressives think they will (will, not might) lose the election over FISA. They can argue the existing law is sufficient to protect us against terrorism, not to mention that this particular bill has many flaws.
Besides, actual polling shows that a significant majority of Dems are against domestic spying, which contradicts the majority opinion being expressed here. A healthy number of Republicans are opposed to it too. So the argument that Dems will lose in the fall because of FISA is a false one.
So that leaves the immunity business. Haven't seen the polling on this, but I can guess that Americans won't side with the telecoms for breaking the law.
Talking about the issue is Ping Pong. And for some reason Barack must be shielded from it all. and he must not be expected to be forthcoming to the voters.
I feel like I am visiting a parallel universe where Democrats are now Republicans.
June 26, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats have been Republicans for a long time. There's but a handful you can count on and the list that opposes FISA will include most of them. Most of them, like Harkin, aren't that young anymore and it's scary to think that they're not being replaced with ones likely to carry on the good fight.
June 26, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
BILLY'S STRETCHES
The torture stretch was tortured logic and torturous to read. That's why Dodd didn't get a nibble for in his presidential bid. He fails to see the illogic of the "slippery slope" argument that people on both sides use to scare us. Just because, for instance, I smoke dope doesn't mean I'm going to use heroin. Some other more addictive person might. But I won't, haven't for, um, thirty five years. I never smoke at or before work, and a few years ago, I'm down to once every few months at a party.
Feingold and Dodd didn't address the issue of the urgency of our need for the collection of data tools the bill provides. Billy is one of the few who did, but geez!!! What a stretch to imply that because Obama didnt' say where he got his information that he was hiding it. Suddenly, this progressive constitutional law professor is a McCarthyite, as in, "I'm holding in my hand a piece of paper with the names of known communists...." Often, the paper often was blank. Maybe Obama actually is Howdy Doody. Anything's possible, according to Billy. This brilliant, beloved man has morphed into an opposite personality who wants to pull the wool over our eyes and violate the constitution in the bargain.
June 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
To bslev & gasket from top of page. I've read you two across multiple posts, listen to what you say, agree & respect it. There's no "but." In my own wanderings, I've found myself on various lists (often for pathetic reasons), party to bugged-calls (on the other person's phone), threatened by politicians, etc. Nothing national security'ish or even important about my words or actions even. e.g. At 18, I went on a youth exchange to Malaysia. Was interviewed & asked me about coops. I said that back home, farmers set them up for reasons XYZ. I didn't know this view was labelled a "communist" position in that country at the time (there, the Government set up all coops.) I got pulled on the carpet, by Mahathir his bloody self, and THEN stuck on a "security risk' list back home! Which cost me 2 jobs (including on a legislator's staff.) And at the time, I was a CONSERVATIVE! So I do "get," even from that little I've run into, why people want their politicians well away from spying machinery.
That (long anecdote) to the side, I just find there's no way I can keep the politicians as far from the spook-ware as I would like these days. Which drives me nuts. I do NOT have an answer, so Gasket, you're right that my arguments on this are weak.
Anecdotes & experiences shape you though. And mine have been shaped by some experiences with Muslims & Islam. In 79-80, I lived with Muslim families in Malaysia. Loved them. Gentle people. Open. Warm. At the same time, because the Iran thing was heating up, the Mullahs got whooping up the locals. One night, a batch of us North Americans were dancing in a house. Came outside, and found stacks of wood had been shoved underneath it (it was on stilts.) 20+ men were there, with torches, the Mullah-dude in front, deadly serious & ready to burn us down. Inside. Because we'd been dancing. not even touching, this was 70's style, 10 feet apart stuff. ONLY the fact that we'd bothered to learn to speak Malay got us loose. They were so shocked that we had made this effort, and could apologize in their own language, that we were allowed to go.
That, plus being caught up in the 7/7 bombings in London, with my brother - done by local, acculturated, Muslim citizens - taught me - personally, in my gut - that people will kill (relatively) innocent people. And that underlying anger can be set off very quickly, by hothead leaders, or wider events.
Did I leave my Malay village? Nope. And most of the people kept on embracing us, with real generosity. Did I stop taking the tube? Nope. But it all shaped me. (And I DO apologize Billy, for writing these long things on your post. I just don't know how to write short enough. Seriously. Apologies, but I'm just gonna plunge on if I may. Dock me some time later, willya?)
So what to DO about it, politically? Well, I HAVE to take the threats, in 1 of 10,000 cases, as real. Will spying - legal & illegal - catch innocent people? Yes. Will it fuck them up unfairly? You betcha. Do I want that ended? Yes, I do.
gslev. On Iraq, I opposed BOTH wars. I travel, I read, I love history. America today, to me, just IS an Empire, right or wrong. Which means, it has a history that millions of people have been harmed by. Other Empires would have done worse, I know. But when fire falls from the sky on your family, you feel it fairly deeply. And they're just GOING to be angry. And if they can, some of the younger & hotter types are gonna throw punches. The roll-call of nations messed with is long. Iran '53. Chile. Vietnam. You know all this. The fact that Saddam was - in SOME ways - "our" boy, and the fact of oil, and domestic posturing, and oil again - meant that I found both decisions to go to war with Iraq to be incredibly shallow, brutalizing, paths forward.
The deference to the CIC, and that "partisanship ends at the water's edge" thing, I just find to be weak-minded in most cases. Yeah, if the Nazis were in full force and powerful, and actively landing big blows, I'd get it. But this wasn't that. So most of the time, I find the nationalistic stuff to be way overdone. It's steroids, and they're being pumped in daily. The flag-waving, the flag-pins, all that. and again, it's partly personal. My family - and thus, my life - has been strewn across 3 countries - America, Britain & Canada. I'd just like to see it brought down a notch. Which is why "deference" in matters of war, in cases such as Iraq, felt like hogwash to me. I preferred the response of the British public (which can be pretty ham-handed at times, I know.) They protested loud & long & in public. They changed their funding, party support, you name it. And then, they decided, in 2005, to stay with Labour anyway. In SPITE of this. But then got rid of Blair. Not the worst path, I think. (And yes, they were hit by terrorism too.)
Which brings me (at last, at last!) to Obama vs McCain, and FISA. I find the immunity thing to be secondary to the surveillance shit, as I believe you two do as well. The telecos are most likely (based on the little I know), more complicit than conspirator. I don't LIKE them, but it doesn't gut me to see them "walk." As I wrote earlier, the list of the active conspirator is so long in America today that we'll never even plow through 1/2 of it.
Which leaves me with surveillance & the follow-on secrecy. This really angers me - maybe not as much as it does for you Gasket, but nonetheless. If America is - or was - an Empire, it just WILL have people who want to smack its citizens around (and not just its leaders.) And if you CAN find out about it, ahead of time, you have to. Same as in Britain. And no, you can't let that info become too too public. Sometimes, maybe. But not always. So some politician is gonna see some of the spook-info the machinery captures. (And YES, I want the scope of that snooping drawn as tightly as is possible. And no, I don't know how tight that is, or whether FISA goes too far. I'd be interested to learn more on that.)
But after however much info is captured, the question becomes which politician do you want seeing it? And I agree with you both, "trust" is a big issue here. (And one which McCain will do relatively better on, I agree also. We'll see if that changes.) I don't entirely trust Obama. Nope. Don't entirely trust my own Mum, and I mean that. People are complex.
But I have found some few things, some signs, that I would trust him. These are odd things, and limited in the weight I'll place on them, and inevitably somewhat "personal" to each of us. I know critics can paint anything he's ever done as meaning he's "on the make." I find that a bar too high. None of us would pass it. (Which is why I wish Billy would use those multiple brains of his, and his deeper cultural sense of what's happening, to pose the truly nteresting questions that I'm sure go through his and our brains. Not just to say, FISA decision leads to torture.)
An example, and then I'll Shut The Fuck Up. Obama could have EASILY gone on from Harvard to get rich, fast. It would have given him big money connections, contacts, for any future political career. He didn't. And I have lots of friends who took the big bucks path, and I felt it was a bad choice for them too. I'd say,so far,