FDL: "Please, Mr. Moulitsas, tell us, what is the proper, non-privileged, multi-cultural view of the 'privacy issue'? Is it one that stays within the confines of what’s allowed by the Democratic Party? Is it one that is relevant to the war on women, or voting rights, or immigration, but ignores the collapse of the rule of law and the justice system (which is far from a 'white privileged' issue)?"
FDL supplements its posting with a word from our leader, from the days when he was free of the burdens of leadership and leveraging our antagonism for the previous leader:
That video, from August 1, 2007, comes from this speech. Here's the text of the clip. "This Administration," of course, refers to the Bush Administration:
This Administration also puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand. I will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.I'm sure the Obama Administration can argue that it hasn't lost track of any of these fine abstractions, and that the Obama who spoke all those words in 2007 simultaneously knew the leftist critique of what he was saying — that law protects those already in power and manipulates the electorate to support the continuation of that power. Rhetoric about reverence for law is the way to acquire power in America, and Obama was great at that.
That means no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient. That is not who we are. And it is not what is necessary to defeat the terrorists. The FISA court works. The separation of powers works. Our Constitution works. We will again set an example for the world that the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers, and that justice is not arbitrary.
This Administration acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our security. It is not. There are no short-cuts to protecting America....
Both FDL and Kos are doing political theater here. They are both on the left and both attacking Obama for not skewing further left. They seem to be diametrically opposed, but they are not. It looks like FDL is devoted to the rule of law, all the time, on every issue, but Kos is saying the rule of law is a con, and powerful people use it selectively, to protect what they want. But I think both want the rule of law to protect all the things they think matter and then to be applied consistently. FDL is trying to pressure Obama to do that, and Kos is expressing dismay that it is not being done.
The stuff about race is just to stir you up. As usual. Don't take the bait.
पोस्ट्स
२४ टिप्पण्या:
So is splitting up families by deporting children to countries they’ve never been to and don’t speak the language. So is harassing American muslims.
First of all, the anchor babies would have been born here and been US citizens. Any child born outside the US has been to their country of origin. Secondly, the Feds are not monitoring Muslims as a policy, so that one goes out the window. I guess blacks, latinos and asians don't mind big brother watching their every move. Who knew only whites (and only white males, I assume, because they are the only ones with privilege) cared about their constitutional right to privacy (unless we are talking about unfettered access to abortion, because that is all about female privilege, which doesn't exist, except when it does)
Kinda' early in the morning to be wading through FDL and Kos Perfesser. Three cups of coffee and the bait might be tempting, with the right amount of ant-acid to offset the burn.
How can they do good if they don't have power? Right? Goodness is nothing if it doesn't come from the top down, amirite?
For Kos, the things that good people do with power are good, and for the advancement of good it is paramount to keep good people in power.
For Firedoglake, the things that bad people approve of are bad, and good people with power should work to oppose those things, and to the extent that they do not they become less good, but above all the bad people must be kept out of power.
For people who don't worship the state, goodness and power have a very different relationship. In a democracy, the people you disapprove of eventually get the power you gave to people you did approve of.
For politicians this is useful. Imagine two cars racing on a dirt road. The drivers yell things at each other, the cars throw mud on each other, the spectators have very strong opinions about who they want to win and why. Yet both cars go by the same road to the same place at nearly the same time.
What if Snowden is a plant, and the NSA & Co. do not actually have all the access sites and abilities that Snowden is supposed to have published, but that it is all about spreading confusion and suspicion among the opposition plus making them go to work to protect their sites and thus creating movement that the NSA can detect?
Uhm, this "we kinda don't trust government unless of course we're in charge and even they we don't really trust people 'cause power tends to corrupt" meme --- How does this work with the idea that a big, powerful, government program is the answer to all of humanity's woes?
Seriously, I've never seen more internal conflict as when an aging hippie argues (on one hand) that the government is trying to keep him/her from doing weed and watching him/her from above, yet believes that they should have lots of free stuff as they get older!
but Kos is saying the rule of law is a con, and powerful people use it selectively, to protect what they want
If powerful people use it selectively, it's not the rule of law, is it? Are KOS saying you can never have rule of law because it will always be manipulated/ignored by the powerful? If so, what is their suggested fix for that? More regulation?
Based on what I've seen from candidates for office in San Diego and New York, the "War on Women" is being led by the Democrats.
@ :33 "Ignoring the law when it is convenient" gee Obama - your actions as Prez speak louder than words!
@ :50 "the law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers" I call BS on that Prez!
Lastly, have you noticed how his manner/cadence of speaking has changed from when he was running for President to now?
Remember when the Left fought, instead of apologized for and defended, The Man?
"Rhetoric about reverence for law is the way to acquire power in America, and Obama was great at that."
Yep - a bunch of voters took the bait.
Ponder the example of Walter Lippmann. Wally was the pundit's pundit of his era. His private secretary was a Soviet spy. He nonetheless felt that charges of Communist infiltration were hysterical and overdone. A good American knew that there were values higher than loyalty oaths. It is particularly edifying to compare his nuanced, balanced approach to spy scandals to that of his approach to the internment of foreign nationals (even native born "foreign nationals") during WWII. He felt that just as no citizen could claim the right to live on an aircraft carrier, no "citizen" could claim the right to live in a strategically important war zone. He was one of the earliest and most aggressive proponents for the round up of Japanese Americans. To his dying day he was proud of his resistance to McCarthyism and support of internment.....We thus see illustrated the important moral lesson of how the key issue of civil rights are not the rights themselves but who has them and who determines who has them. As a general rule, those who are detrimental to a leftist program lose their civil rights in proportion to the effectiveness of their opposition and those who are supportive of a left leaning program gain civil rights accordingly.
"Kinda' early in the morning to be wading through FDL and Kos Perfesser. Three cups of coffee and the bait might be tempting, with the right amount of ant-acid to offset the burn."
I get out my big magnifying glass for the ants, not acid, when I do my early morning insect politics.
6:40 isn't that early here at Meadhouse. This didn't merit my "written strangely early in the morning" tag.
Yep - a bunch of voters took the bait.
A great deal of those voters were superficial and didn't give a fig for Obama's policy's or rhetoric. A great deal of his support was, shall we say, skin deep.
It's not anchor babies that are at risk for deportment, but children dragged over the border as minors by their parents. Theses are the people who are referred to as being the "Dreamers". Where is the outrage over the inequities to these children?
Kos knows that the daily abuses of "stop and frisk" to people of color is a bigger insult to freedom than the NSA intrusions, and that white people are overreacting to NSA intrusions, that both are not optimal. I think he's pointing out the lack of equal outrage by white people to stop and frisk.That is my take.
Remember when the Left fought, instead of apologized for and defended, The Man?
Problem for them is, now they are The Man.
He says the same things over and over. I saw the clip and thought, I wonder if he will talk about our "best traditions" and if it's a "false choice."
I really stop listening when I hear his stock phrases. As irritating as his deflection of any responsibility.
Inga is in the right ball park here. Kos is making the rather pedestrian observation that people get upset with things when they affect me but not when they affect others. He's just making it using the liberal lingua franca of racism. Surprised that FDL didn't understand it.
Or is this the first gauntlet thrown in a liberal schism? Those who never tire of calling people racist and those who are tired of perpetually being called racist.
Inga, when I hear those opposing stop-and-frisk turn around and oppose the various thug subcultures that generate the need for it, they will gain more credibility in my eyes.
Until then ...
... their protests, my friends
sound much like breaking wind ...
... their protests sound much like breaking wind.
ScottM, even more of Obama's support wasn't even skin deep ... it was based upon the fear of their skins being irritated by possibly-credible criticism from conservatives about their own choices in life.
That's why they vote for the "cool guy" ... they don't think he will harsh their mellow about those choices.
What they don't get, is that such "prevention" only leads to even more and deeper irritation. Detroit is finding that out, now.
You give both Kos and FDL too much credit. Freedom from gov't anything is anathema to anyone on the Left. That includes freedom from gov't spying. They are as insincere as their Lord and Master, Obama.
What FDl is saying unless there is a guarantee that the evil party will never regain the executive.....
Inga's point? Not sure. Government breaks up families every day. Even families composed of citizens.
The left has a long history of violating the rights of some to enhance the rights of others. According to Soviet theology the urban proletariat were the vanguard of the revolution and the most deserving off all classes. Thus the Bolshie dedicated over 30% of their national budget for several years in order to build the Moscow subway.. Rural peasants didn't figure into their reckoning. The. chandeliers in the Moscow were made possible by malnourished Ukranian peasants......The higher moral purpose of auditing Tea Party groups is to ensure the election of those Democrats who are opposed to stop and frisk. So who can argue with Tea Party audits.
I think Obama would cancel a meeting with Putin because of bad treatment of gays much sooner than he would cancel a meeting with an Egyptian leader because of bad treatment of Copts.
@Inga: but children dragged over the border as minors by their parents. Theses are the people who are referred to as being the "Dreamers".
That's what you've been told, and what you want to believe, but the law as written will also cover "children" in their thirties who lived in Mexico six months out of every year--and won't bother to check anyone's background to see if they qualify, regardless.
It's like how alcoholism and drug addiction count as disabilities, and they can go to college for free as "rehabilitation" and collect Social Security. These laws are to help the disabled. Who could be against helping the disabled? But the government does not use words the way you and I do.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा