Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil liberties. Show all posts

3.08.2008

Why I am still for Obama

Yes, yes he has all those horrible qualities like charisma, optimism, and hasn't spent the last twenty years in Georgetown, but ...

I like Obama because he spent time overseas in school as a kid, has a varied and multi-cultural background, and might be able to stand on the world stage with other world leaders and not be so arrogant. He's the anti-Bush. I really think a President can only set a tone (or invade stuff).
No matter who is the next President there won't be any universal health care and we will be Iraq for another decade.
But the longer this goes on, the more Clinton makes me sick.

Any other the three front runners would be better than Bush because they are all competent. McCain is the hardest to read, because he has reversed himself this year on almost everything he has ever stood for, in order the get the Republican nomination. So the hope with him, is that he is really just I liar and isn't really planning on serving W.'s third term. One thing about him that is consistent is his world view -- namely that war is the natural state on humankind. Maybe that comes from his background from a family of officer-class military elites, maybe it is even true, but it's a little too Julius Caesar for me.

Clinton just depresses me, because she is really invested in the 50/50 blue/red divide. She enjoys perpetual political war. She courts it. In '92 the thinking in congress was that they were going to have to give something in terms of health care reform to the Clintons. Maybe not everything they wanted but something. However, she walled herself and her team off completely, came up with a giant plan in secret, presented it in a take-it-or-leave it manner and accomplished the near impossible in allowing a Democratically-controlled congress to reject it. As President I don't believe she will work with people. She will work against them. Why? Because she would rather fail and be self-satisfied in her superiority, then get something achievable. If nothing gets done in her administration she will always have the Republicans and the media, or sexism to blame. I see it every day in the way she campaigns. Temperament-wise she is closest to W. than anyone else who has run this cycle: "I am right. My side has all the good ideas. If you aren't with us, you're against us." It scarcely matters what the issue is, or who the opponent is: could be Obama, or Kenneth Starr, or MSNBC, or whoever. It doesn't matter to Clinton, an enemy is an enemy.

I don't want to sit through four more years of that.

I think getting a new guy in there, one who hasn't been entrenched in Washington power for close to 20 years is the best chance of shaking things up. The worst thing for our decaying republic is to continue the concentration of power into the few. A McCain or a Clinton presidency won't do much to reverse the Bush years of steady-slide into soft fascism, because it keeps the same people in power that have been in power, and those Bush power plays against the constitution won't be given up easily because power is difficult to give up. But if you get a new group, there is a chance at least. Maybe. The alternatives are either rewarding the party that has destroyed the economy by borrowing billions from China to prosecute an unnecessary war for fun and (by openly embracing torture and trashing habeas corpus) given aid and comfort to radical Islam. Or to put the spouse of a popular former leader into power like a banana republic would.


Technorati Tags:


2.27.2008

Fred Rogers is the man!

From Larry Lessig's Free Culture:

[A] court in California had held that the VCR could be banned because it was a copyright-infringing technology: It enabled consumers to copy films without the permission of the copyright owner. No doubt there were uses of the technology that were legal: Fred Rogers, aka "Mr. Rogers," for example, had testified in that case that he wanted people to feel free to tape /Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood/.

"Some public stations, as well as commercial stations, program the "Neighborhood" at hours when some children cannot use it. I think that it's a real service to families to be able to record such programs and show them at appropriate times. I have always felt that with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the "Neighborhood" off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the "Neighborhood" because that's what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family's television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been "You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions." Maybe I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important." [23]

23. /Sony Corporation of America/ v. /Universal City Studios, Inc.,/ 464 U.S. 417, 455 fn. 27 (1984). Rogers never changed his view about the VCR. See James Lardner, /Fast Forward: Hollywood, the Japanese, and the Onslaught of the VCR/ (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987), 270-71.

1.12.2008

Nevada Teacher's union tries to block in-casino caucusing

Which would hurt Obama and voters in the Obama-endorsing Culinary Workers Union. Clinton's side seems to think that voter suppression works to their advantage. How Republican of them.

via Sullivan.

Moyers on "predator of the hour" Murdoch

1.08.2008

Huckabee wants to change a fundamental definition of who is American

Namely, if you're born here, you are a citizen. Not if Huckabee gets his way. Then your pedigree would count as well. This would never pass, but tells you something about the guy, doesn't it? And this is sure to be a voter getter among the Republican faithful.

[snip]
Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.

Link.

12.26.2007

What she said

Arianna Huffington is zeroing in on the crucial issue - the consquences of the Bush powergrab for years after the administration leaves office. Who among the current candidates, once elected, will have the courage or the understanding to give some of that power up. Once upon a time George Washington was offered the highest office for life -- a Crown if he wanted it. He said no. Who today is capable of saying no to sweeping powers of the executive once they begin to feel the draw of that power January 20, 2008? Anyone?

[snip]

Looking back over the last year, it's one of the most important issues America faced. Looking ahead, it could turn out to be the "sleeper issue" of the 2008 presidential race.

I'm talking about executive power, the way it is used -- and has been abused over the last 7 years.

In a very revealing piece in the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage lays out the results of a questionnaire the Globe sent to the presidential candidates on the limits of executive power, asking their views on the Bush administration's expansive view of presidential authority.

It's hard to overstate how vital this issue is, or how far off the media radar screen it remains. Indeed, it's hard to think of another issue in which the importance-to-the-public/attention-paid-by-the-media ratio is as out of whack.

[...]

It's easy to imagine the next president saying: Sure, Bush used his increased prerogatives to do damage but, trust me, I'll use them to do good.

LINK.



And for a 150-page primer on the current threats to our rapidly-vanishing open society check out Naomi Wolf's July 2007 book: The End of America: Letter's of Warning to a Young Patriot. Not a cheery read -- though Wolf does attempt to remain optimistic, and never attempts to seduce by overstating her case. It's a disturbing work, but perhaps being disturbed is preferable to the increasing anxiety and feelings of helplessness that come of not admitting to myself what is really going on in this country.

12.23.2007

Nah ... I can't happen here.

The good old days: NYT: Hoover Planned Mass Jailing of 12,000 in 1950. The sad thing is that I won't be a bit surprised if I see bloggers, pundits, or some of the Republican presidential candidates offering defenses of such a scheme. Along the lines of "well, err the intent was reasonable, I'm sure. I mean, you can't have people running around speaking unfavorably about the government, about the military, not in a time of war. But we don't advocate taking anyone's rights away -- just suspending them for awhile. Detainees who can manage to prove their innocence of acts of dissent to the satisfaction of designated authorities will eventually be released."

Tags:

, ,