Forced Adherence to Orthodoxy

Read the whole column:

Forced adherence to orthodoxy is the most potent weapon in status quo preservation.

That's how our political debates remain suffocatingly narrow, the permanent power factions in Washington remain firmly in control, the central political orthodoxies remain largely unchallenged. Neither party nor its loyalists are really willing to undermine the prevailing political system because that's the source of their power. And neither parties' loyalists are really willing to oppose serious expansions or abuses of government power when their side is in control, and no serious challenge is therefore ever mounted; the only ones who are willing to do so are the Crazies.

Thus, for the two parties to ensure that they, and only they, are recognized as Sane, Mainstream voices is to ensure, above all else, the perpetuation of status quo power.

After all, how much Change can you expect when the new president's pick to lead the Department of the Interior was Ken Salazar. Hey, he's a Democrat, it's all good...right?

[Ignore "Read More"]
Read more...

The Right May Rely On The Mendacious, But Everybody Needs The Sycophants

Sure, the Republican bullshit on health care reform ("death panels", "government takeover of the economy") and financial reform ("more bailouts") either gets repeated uncritically by the MSM or amplified by Fox News. That ain't a news flash. If it is, spend some time here and here.

But just as I had focused on the lubricant that lets Republican bullshit slide by so frictionlessly, leave it to GG to keep me in check regarding something on the other side of the aisle, something less obvious but no less pernicious:

National political reporters are furious over various White House practices involving transparency and information control, but are unwilling to say so for attribution due to fear of "retaliation," instead insisting on hiding behind a wall of anonymity (which Politico, needless to say, happily provides). Isn't that a rather serious problem: that the White House press corps is afraid to criticize the President and the White House for fear of losing access and suffering other forms of retribution? What does that say about their "journalism"? It's the flip side of those White House reporters who need the good graces of Obama aides for their behind-the-scenes books and thus desperately do their bidding: what kind of reporter covering the White House would possibly admit that they're afraid to say anything with their names attached that might anger the President and his aides? How could you possibly be a minimally credible White House reporter if you have that fear? Doesn't that unwillingness rather obviously render their reporting worthless?

Worthless, for sure. And dangerous, too. This same dynamic helped us march uncritically into our unending War on Terror.

[Ignore "Read More"]
Read more...

Now I Don't Usually Do This, But, Uh

I just donated, via PayPal, $20 to Glenn Greenwald. I don't ever donate anything to anybody. Sure, tons of people and organizations deserve my money. But GG? I feel compelled to support him.

I know y'all are sick of me linking to his blog, and I understand that. So I'll take this opportunity to tell you why I support Mr. Greenwald even more than I agree with him--and if I merely agreed with him the thought of donating would never cross my mind, trust me.

Because he's fucking objective. That's it. He has his political beliefs and his personal biases, sure, but he exhibits his respect for the U.S. Constitution by applying its principles and the letters of its laws to the topics of the day in an even-handed and open-minded fashion.

And that means he's going to piss off far more people than a run-of-the-mill columnist or blogger who tosses red meat to his faithful day in and day out, only writing an occasionally contrarian piece to keep them on their toes and his name on people's lips . Some days Mr. Greenwald does nothing but piss off the very people who want to agree with him, but can't because they're so blinded with Obama-love or Republican-hate. Only an idiot or a very principled man would try to earn a living doing that, and he is nobody's fool.

So that's where I stand. I may post links to other writers I respect, but only Glenn Greenwald gets my motherfucking money.

As for the title of this post, well, that was just an excuse to reference this. And if you're new to my blog I will absolutely reference that masterpiece for any and all reasons.
Read more...

Really? It's Gonna Be Like This? (SCOTUS Content)

I don't like the sound of this:

"The prospect that Stevens will be replaced by Elena Kagan has led to the growing perception that Barack Obama will actually take a Supreme Court dominated by Justices Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush 41), Roberts (Bush 43), Alito (Bush 43) and Kennedy (Reagan); move it further to the Right."

I start to worry when GG isn't the only one saying it. I really start to worry when this dickbag agrees.

Just as the health care bill passed only because the Obama administration made its deals with the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies before Congress battled it out, I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama nominate someone like Kagan in an attempt to avoid a fight...which would, of course, like health care, still result in an ugly fight that they barely win.

But these situations are quite different. With regard to the health care fight, once you can swallow the cynicism, you can see the deal with Insurance and Pharma at least took out the two opponents with the most skin in the game. But when it comes to nominating a Supreme Court justice, this is nothing but a partisan, ideological fight--it's straight up Donkeys v. Elephants, and there is no deep-pocketed giant who can put its thumb on the scale to make sure you lose.

So does it need to be said you're a shitty negotiator if you telegraph right away what you're willing to give up? Does it need to be said you're even shittier if that becomes your trademark style? Seems like it. I mean, c'mon! Nominate some 9th Circuit liberal freak show--or even a Muslim!!--and let The Opposition lose its collective mind. Then dial it back a few notches and nominate somebody still to your liking, but someone much more acceptable to the Opposition relative to your "first" choice.

Unless of course Obama has no desire to counteract the Supreme Court's 30 year tack to the right, in which case...
Read more...

Make No Mistake: This Is Who We Are. This Is What We Do [UPDATED]

[UPDATED: I've linked to Glenn Greenwald's follow up to his post I linked to yesterday. You can see it after the jump.]

We may think we've made the world safer for ourselves with the hundreds of billions we've poured into our Middle East escapades, but delivering death from above upon unarmed civilians just doesn't make me feel any safer. Angry survivors probably don't have those warm, fuzzy "liberated" feelings.

But wait. If my taxes were never raised to pay for it, then it hasn't cost me anything, right? And it's not like those hundreds of billions could have been spent on anything else, right? Ok, carry on then. 
Greenwald's follow up
Read more...

The Forgotten Word In a Famous Phrase

The Famous Phrase: "military-industrial complex", from President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address.

It's too bad Eisenhower dropped "congressional" from the draft of his farewell address. You can poke around the web for more specifics on why he did that, but it's easy to imagine that a desire to go out on a high note and not toss a grenade at another branch likely prompted such a choice.

In any case, today my man Glenn Greenwald chronicles a textbook case which illustrates what Eisenhower warned about.*

It didn't have to be this way.

It doesn't have to stay this way.

*Unlike many (most?) of my posts on politics, this one isn't partisan at all: there are guilty motherfuckers on both sides of the aisle.
Read more...

Now Read This (Advanced Political Content)

Ok, yesterday I hipped you to Michael Lind, a reasonable center-left writer whose brief articles appear from time to time on Salon.com. I know you haven't read all the links I highlighted yet. That's cool.

Nevertheless, today I want to post about the man, the myth the legend, Glenn Greenwald. He's a featured blogger at Salon.com. (Yes, another Salon shout-out, I know.) Now, just because I used the "b" word doesn't mean Glenn's not a badass motherfucker with serious credentials. He's a constitutional scholar, bitches. Progressive to the core, so much so that he pisses off tons of middle-of-the-road and Establishment Democrats every day before you've brushed your teeth.

He posts almost daily. He doesn't pull punches. He holds feet to the fire and calls out liars and bullshitters. He help keeps the needle on my righteous indignation meter pinned in the red. He looks like Ron Reagan, Jr. (that's not really a plus, but I felt compelled to mention it. Nobody else seems to).

Bottom line, he helps me cut through the bullshit. Maybe he can do the same for you.
Read more...

Bill Moyers Runs My Game on Bill Maher's HBO Show

Eminent progressive journalist, thinker and public television personality Bill Moyers was a guest on Bill Maher's HBO show this weekend (clips here, here and here).

I learned of this reading Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon.com. Greenwald quotes Moyers at length; I'm going to quote only the portion that sparked the title of my post (emphasis mine):

Money in politics -- you’ve had in the last 30 years, money has flooded politics . .. the Supreme Court saying "money is free speech."  It goes back to the efforts in the 19th Century to give corporations the right of personhood -- so if you as a citizen have the right to donate to campaigns, then so do corporations.  Money has flowed in such a flood into both parties that the Democratic Party gets a lot of its support from the very interests that -- when the Republicans are in power -- financially support the Republicans.  

Yup. That's what I've been talking about.

(I haven't read the rest of Greenwald's post--I popped over here to make this post--so don't take me referencing Moyers' quote as an endorsement of any of the other stuff Greenwald quotes at length.  I'm not saying don't read it; I'm just saying I haven't yet.)


Ok. Take these thoughts about how thoroughly corporate influence is woven into our legal-political framework, combine them with the second half of Paul Krugman's latest NYT column, and you've got a rough picture of what it is I think we're up against.

No punchy send off. This shit scares me too much.
Read more...