Monthly Archives: May 2009

The one issue GOP

Posted on by

Frank Rich, in today’s New York Times:

The speech itself, with 20 mentions of 9/11, struck the same cynical note as the ads, as if the G.O.P. was almost rooting for a terrorist attack on Obama’s watch. “No one wishes the current administration more success in defending the country than we do,” Cheney said as a disingenuous disclaimer before going on to charge that Obama’s “half measures” were leaving Americans “half exposed.” The new president, he said, is unraveling “the very policies that kept our people safe since 9/11.” In other words, when the next attack comes, it will be all Obama’s fault. A new ad shouting “We told you so!” awaits only the updated video.

The Republicans at least have an excuse for pushing this poison. They are desperate. The trio of Pillsbury doughboys now leading the party — Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Cheney — have variously cemented the G.O.P.’s brand as a whites-only men’s club by revoking Colin Powell’s membership and smearing the first Latina Supreme Court nominee as a “reverse racist.” Republicans in Congress have no plausible economic, health care or energy policies to counter Obama’s. The only card left to play is 9/11.

As Rich also notes, the mainstream so-called liberal media once again refused to question the claims made by Cheney in his speech designed to play on fear rather than truth. Only McClatchy newspapers prepared a point-by-point analysis of the falsehoods in Cheney’s speech. Recall that McClatchy was one of the very rare media outlets that seriously questioned the run-up to the Iraq war, prepared by the same reporters as this story, back when McClatchy was Knight-Ridder.

State secrets: more of the same

Posted on by

The Obama administration’s DOJ continues to fight using the so-called “state secrets” doctrine.  The most recent example was a filing late at night on Friday, as highlighted by Jake Tapper.

The al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, investigated for terrorist financing out of its Oregon offices, sued the government alleging it was targeted under the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program.

In the middle of the night the Justice Department filed its response in the court case, telling a federal judge, who has ordered it to disclose information in the case, that Justice is still asserting the state secrets privilege.

“The Government must continue to oppose the disclosure of state secrets in any further proceedings,” the Justice Department wrote.

The judge has said he will institute sanctions against the Justice Department for not complying with the court’s orders.

Tapper’s article links to a page on the Obama campaign website:

“The Problem” is described in part as the Bush administration having “invoked a legal tool known as the ‘state secrets’ privilege more than any other previous administration to get cases thrown out of civil court.”

Mysteriously, during the approximately eight hours that have elapsed since the publication of the article on the net, the linked page has disappeared.  However, thanks to Google, you can look at a cache of the page here (as of April, 2009) that clearly shows the anti-”state secrets” position of the campaign.

Change you can’t believe in.

Democratic thinking

Posted on by

Matt Taibbi succinctly summarizes what is wrong with the Democrats.

Why is the Gitmo decision classic Democratic Party thinking? Because when certain of us said we wanted Gitmo closed, we sort of meant a change in policy – we didn’t mean just physically closing the plant, moving the prisoners elsewhere, and leaving the policies essentially unchanged. This is what this generation of Democrats does every time: every time they come to a fork in the road, they try to take it.

There’s always some sort of semantic twist involved with their policies, an asterisk, some kind of leprechaun trick to get around doing the simple right thing. They’re all for gay rights, and then once the lights come on, they’ve basically codified the closet by ushering in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

They campaign against the war in Iraq, promise to get us out, and say they were against it all along — and then once they get in power, they start using words like eventually and in 4-6 years and once the situation stabilizes. Later it turns out that what they meant by being against the war all along was their conviction that we should have invaded on a Thursday instead of a Tuesday, or some such bullshit.

It is why I could never join that party. I fall more in the libertarian vein, without the blind devotion to economic liberty and low taxes above all other principles and without the belief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior.  But liberty is critical. Wars fought because we have the power to do so without more are wrong (for us and for the countries where we fight). Government intrusion via electronic surveillance in the name of security is wrong. Torture of anyone is wrong. Gitmo was unnecessary and counter-productive. Violations of the Constitution are wrong.

But it is rapidly becoming clear (surprise!) that Obama is in fact a Democrat. As Taibbi concludes:

I still like Obama, in a lot of ways. Having a president with less ability to inspire public confidence at a time like this, with our economy in such a death spiral, would be a disaster; God knows where we’d be right now with a McCain or a Mike Huckabee at the helm. But this guy has to show some stones somewhere along the line. He has to just forget the DC game and just take a clear stand on an issue like this sometime. He’s kind of running out of time to rescue his all-important first impression.

But don’t get me started on the current Republican party either.

More non-change you can believe in

Posted on by

Declan McCullagh describes yet another Obama policy initiative falling into the no-change-at-all column.

The U.S. president has announced a comprehensive cybersecurity strategy for the federal government, saying Internet-based threats have risen “dramatically” and the country “must act to reduce our vulnerabilities.”

A 76-page White House document calls for a new way of looking at Internet and computer security, saying that private-public partnerships are necessary, collaboration with international organizations will be vital, and privacy and civil liberties must be respected in the process.

Sound familiar? The year was 2003, and the president was George W. Bush, who wrote the introduction to what he called a “National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace.”

Declan even offers a detailed side-by-side comparison of the two plans in the form of a test. See if you can guess which versions were proposed by which President.

Obama should resign

Posted on by

At least Ted Rall thinks he should. I am not ready to go that far. Yet. However, he does seem to be breaking more than his share of campaign promises.

We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

The latest from Wasilla

Posted on by

The anti-christ will be gay. Nuff said. Perfectly sums up the views of the religious right who believe that repeating simply that “gay marriage is wrong” is some sort of logical arguement, while it is not. It is merely a statement that “I believe same sex marriage is wrong.”  They never continue with any explanation as to why it is wrong or harms heterosexual marriage other than claiming that if it is legalized the bigots lose the right to stop gay marriage. Where is the harm to others?  This is like arguing that allowing women the right to vote somehow damaged the right of men to vote.

Quote of the day

Posted on by

If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case, which is, from my point of view anyway, nothing more than…a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses. If you belong to something like that in a way that’s going to convince me and a lot of other people that it’s got nothing to do with race. Even though the logo of La Raza is “All for the race. Nothing for the rest.” What does that tell you?

Tom Tancredo

By the way, La Raza does not mean “The Race.”

We recognize that some people might be confused about our organization’s name, our mission, and our work. Much of this is understandable. Compared to some of our venerable counterparts in the civil rights and advocacy community, we are a relatively young institution representing Latinos, a historically disadvantaged and often misunderstood ethnic minority. We have a Spanish term in our name, “La Raza” (meaning “the people” or “community”), which is often mistranslated. Furthermore, we are engaged in some of the most controversial issues of our time, which we believe is essential if we are to stay true to our mission.

As an advocacy organization engaged in the public arena, we know that some will disagree with our views. As Americans committed to basic civil rights, we respect anyone’s right to do so.

But it is also clear that some critics are willfully distorting the facts and deliberately mischaracterizing our organization and our work. Recently, we have been the subject of a number of ad hominem attacks that we believe cross the line of civility in public discourse.

Further, “All for the race. Nothing for the rest.” is not and never has been the logo (or motto) of La Raza.

Don't smile at the DMV

Posted on by

Instructions forbidding smiles at the DMV seem totally unnecessary to most people. What could be more smile-inhibiting than the typical Bataan death-march ritual of dealing with the worst expression of state bureaucracy?\’a0 Well, in Virginia DMV offices “customers” are instructed not to smile for photos. Why? So facial recognition systems have a better chance to work. Screw that. When did the government gain the right to force law-abiding citizens to provide what could be the equivalent of finger prints.
\

DMV officials say the smile ban is for a good cause. The agency would like to develop a facial recognition system that could compare customers’ photographs over time to prevent fraud and identity theft. “The technology works best when the images are similar,” said DMV spokeswoman Pam Goheen. “To prepare for the possibility of future security enhancements, we’re asking customers to maintain a neutral expression.”
\

\
At a Manassas DMV branch yesterday, that translated to a simple directive: “Don’t smile.”
\

\
That’s exactly what a DMV attendant told Manassas resident Maria Quispe when she sat down against the white backdrop and attempted to look happy for the photo she would be carrying around for much of the next eight years.
\

\
“Say cheese,” said her stepdaughter, Alexandra Lopez.
\

\
“No cheese today,” the DMV attendant said.

Don’t smile at the DMV

Posted on by

Instructions forbidding smiles at the DMV seem totally unnecessary to most people. What could be more smile-inhibiting than the typical Bataan death-march ritual of dealing with the worst expression of state bureaucracy?  Well, in Virginia DMV offices “customers” are instructed not to smile for photos. Why? So facial recognition systems have a better chance to work. Screw that. When did the government gain the right to force law-abiding citizens to provide what could be the equivalent of finger prints.

DMV officials say the smile ban is for a good cause. The agency would like to develop a facial recognition system that could compare customers’ photographs over time to prevent fraud and identity theft. “The technology works best when the images are similar,” said DMV spokeswoman Pam Goheen. “To prepare for the possibility of future security enhancements, we’re asking customers to maintain a neutral expression.”

At a Manassas DMV branch yesterday, that translated to a simple directive: “Don’t smile.”

That’s exactly what a DMV attendant told Manassas resident Maria Quispe when she sat down against the white backdrop and attempted to look happy for the photo she would be carrying around for much of the next eight years.

“Say cheese,” said her stepdaughter, Alexandra Lopez.

“No cheese today,” the DMV attendant said.

Breaking: Obama changes definition of "change"

Posted on by

This is a breaking news bulletin. Excerpt, read the whole thing.
\

In a slight shift from his campaign trail promise, President Obama announced Monday that his administration’s message of “Change” has been modified to the somewhat more restrained slogan “Relatively Minor Readjustments in Certain Favorable Policy Areas.”