dagblog - Comments for "How socially progressive is Obama?"

American: "What do you mean

Elusive Trope — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:39:16 +0000

In reply to Heck, most states don't even

American: "What do you mean everyone dies at the end of Hamlet?"

I was involved in implementing a prisoner re-entry initiative (although it should be referred to at least former-prisoner re-entry - but once labeled...) and the neighborhood community flipped out. You could tell them: they're going to come back home anyways, don't you want to facilitate the greatest likelihood that they don't return to crime and break into your home - it doesn't make any difference. A lot of them were just pissed because we were spending money on these "criminals" and "thugs," and a couple of them were pissed we were giving them any support - "i work my job and pay my taxes and no one is trying to help me. but you're going to help these lowlifes.

Americans do have a hard time with the notion of redemption. (The movie 16 Blocks pops into head). I think it comes in part from the thread that stretches back to Calvinists and their predestination. There are those blessed by God, and are good, and there are those forever unblessed - lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Heck, most states don't even

Michael Maiello — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 19:16:54 +0000

In reply to This touches upon a problem

Heck, most states don't even allow felons the right to ever vote again and nobody really seems to care. It's amazing how quickly we are to assume that people are irredeemably bad. If there are no second acts in American lives it's because the audience leaves the theater at intermission and never comes back.

This touches upon a problem

Elusive Trope — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:20:16 +0000

In reply to The strategic answer would be

This touches upon a problem that liberals have when it comes to the law and order facet of society: recidivism -- the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behavior.

Releasing a person with the basic understanding that they will commit a future bad act doesn't sit well with a lot of people. An abstract principle can't compete with the sensationalism of the real crimes committed after release. We all know about Willie Horton.

This can be seen about how sex offenders are now dealt with after serving their time - being put on SO lists for life and posted for the communities they live in. Assumed guilty of a future crime. A lot of people would have no problem if all felons were treated this way after serving their time.

When it comes to terrorists - or those presumed or suspected of being a terrorist, releasing them "knowing" that they will very likely go back to attacking the US in some fashion or manner, and releasing them to do their thing seems the height of insanity.

So prisons serve the function beyond punishment and rehabilitation (yeah, right) of the prisoners to that of just keeping out the general population and communities.

The strategic answer would be

Michael Maiello — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 16:41:56 +0000

In reply to Yes. So much to say about

The strategic answer would be that Awlaki, who had deep operational knowledge of Al-Qaeda, would have been worth far more to us alive than spread across the desert in pieces. But, given the complexities of capturing somebody on foreign soil and bringing them back here, the drone was expedient.

I don't exactly brim with sympathy for the guy, either. Nobody does. And I'm also sure that no matter how many times I blog that Obama isn't liberal enough or jaywalk across fifth avenue, that he's not going to drone strike me, so it isn't a practical civil liberties issue.

Until, of course, it becomes one and some guy charged with a relatively minor crime finds himself yanked into a terrorism case. Even then, the person will likely have done "something wrong," and people will say it's unfortunate but that it doesn't happen to the generally law abiding.

Yes. So much to say about

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:52:13 +0000

In reply to I think what's going on is

Yes.

So much to say about this, but I can't organize my thoughts. Fear is a powerful motivator in certain circumstances.

And NO ONE thinks THEY will be detained indefinitely. They have a hard time thinking of Awlaki as American citizens and, in his case, I do, too. But principle is very disturbing.

One of the arguments conservatives have used against liberals on this issue is: Why are you willing to KILL Mr. X in a foreign country, but if you CAPTURE him, you're suddenly very considerate of his rights?

And one could argue that one reason Obama stepped up drone attacks is so he wouldn't have to face this issue...

The American people had the

Resistance — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:32:40 +0000

In reply to Your anger is not at Barry,

The American people had the banker class/NAZI'S on the ropes.

It was Obama who selected Tim Geithner and Larry Summers in order to protect these bastards from the angry middle class.

WE HAD THEM ON THE ROPES AND OBAMA PROTECTED THEM.

Your anger is not at Barry,

Richard Day — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:17:24 +0000

In reply to I think this is about as

Your anger is not at Barry, Your anger is at the American People.

I have made the same mistake.

Did you know that the DNC is doing all they can to keep Ben Nelson in the Senate?

Nelson is a conservative, corporatist, oligarchist prick!

But, he usually (and I underline usually) does not cross party bounds to filibuster.

Every fucking repub, all of them, filibuster 99% of the time.

Steer your anger toward the filth of this nation for chrissakes!

Do you really believe that Barry could make some speech that would change things?

This country, as a voting unit, sucks.

And there is not a goddamn thing anybody can do about it.

All the leaders can do is sway.

To blame the hopes and wishes this fascist people upon Barry is nuts!

So go ahead.

Vote for the NAZIS.

Cause that is all that is left!

I think what's going on is

Michael Maiello — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:29:34 +0000

In reply to Witness indefinite

I think what's going on is that the mainstream public will tolerate indefinite detention. There's no political downside in doing it. There is political downside in opposing it as people will shriek about our collective safety.

I agree with you that some

Kudra — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 22:10:56 +0000

In reply to Thanks for a thoughtful post.

I agree with you that some parents are perhaps too conservative or neglectful or simply in denial about their teens' sexuality and my personal practice wouldn't resonate with everyone. I also believe that there are important reasons why certain substances aren't available to everyone of any age in every circumstance. Anyone who has taken hormonal birth control even in the short term knows they are not without side effects and complications. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you about the reasoning behind the decision (or any agendas therein). I'm adamantly pro-choice and pro-birth control, but as a parent of a teen and pre-teen, I can't disagree with the decision. There are bigger issues than the availability of Plan B at hand if our young teens are sexually active.

Witness indefinite

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 20:46:42 +0000

In reply to I think this is about as

Witness indefinite detention.

Franken signed on, too.

What is going on with this?