MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Where are all the keyboard activists now? So far none of the anti-war critics of the President have bothered to mention that the White House is threatening a veto of the House committee version of the defense authorization bill. This bill attempts to launch a worldwide war without specific targets or reasons, block detainee transfer from Guantanamo, and mess with the president's efforts to reduce active nuclear warheads under the new START treaty and trying to kill the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
The question has to be asked, why hasn't the preeminent blogging war critic written about this? Oh, right it just doesn't fit the appropriate narrative of Obama = Bush III = Vlad the Impaler = Pol Pot = the Cloverfield Monster.
Comments
When you refer to the preeminent blogging war critic I assume you mean me. Who else could it possibly be? If I am wrong though, I wish you would name the person you are referring to. Thanks in advance for the citation, or the correction, whichever it turns out to be.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:19pm
Haha. She said "preeminent", dude. She's CLEARLY talking about *MOI*.
by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:49pm
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:00pm
yeah, well sometimes clarity is overrated...
by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:15pm
True enough. I could actually see more clearly when purple haze had a spell on me.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 3:34pm
Hey, she mightta been talking about the ever-cryptic Jolly Roger, ya know, dude! I, of course knew she couldn't have meant moi since she used the preeminent qualifier; I...am post-eminent all the way. (It does mean 'before or after one has had an enema, doesn't it?)
by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 4:59pm
Perhaps she wants to take up a collection to hire a more preemminent pro-war blogger here; it's true, no one particularly enemas that here. Are you in?
by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 5:05pm
LULU is a preeminent war blogger, hmmm, I had no clue, but did you read the articles, because all I did in the blurb was add a little flair, you know to get the people to read the articles. This is how the news section works.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 5:56pm
Don't be hard on yourself, someday you might get a clue. If you do I still hope you will clue me in as to who you cluelessly thought was the preeminent war blogger. I would like to check out his or her work. I am a very critical reader, I bet I could find tons of dumb things they had said to the rest of the clueless world. Maybe enough to write a blog about.
O yeah, I did read the article, thanks for the link.
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 6:58pm
If you're talking about the McKeon re-write, last Obama had mentioned was that he hadn't decided whether or not to support it; close call, huh? I saw a list of considerations he had about some parts of the bill yesterday or the day before, but not McKeon's total re-write.
You think he doesn't have enough war powers now?
Have you taken time to study his administration's additions to the secret sections of the Patriot Act he just signed after virtually no debate on the floor? Obama has abolutely followed Bush's lead and de facto law on intelligence gathering, but has added to it, one more step in the direction of a police state.
You remind me so much of a certain blogger snottily taking bloggers for not blogging about the Obama DoJ sending a team to Arizona to reign in Joe Arpaio (who is still going stronger than ever over a year later). So blog it yourslef, TMccarthy; don't use some crap accusation as a weapon; it makes you look silly.
And please don't be under any illusion that the NDAA he'll sign will be any grand thing for human rights or civilian rights. Please.
by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 2:38pm
It was rather cute seeing you quoting the ACLU, though, Ms. Mccarthy; next you'll be linking to Glenn Greenwald.
by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 4:44pm
Stardust, are you serious? 1. This is not the Cafe, where I had one screen name, my name, tmccarthy0, it is the screen name I use. As for looking silly... hahaha yeah it's me that appears silly. Oh OK.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 6:27pm
Nope, it was another blogger altogether; thought I was clear about that. If you wrote a similar blog about Arpaio and the DoJ, I never saw it.
by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 6:30pm
No I didn't, I am just saying that this isn't the cafe, and this is a news item, you don't have to like my snarky intro, but it is news and I put it where it is appropriate. You don't have to like my snarky intro Stardust, but it goes exactly where it should go, as it is an issue I do not write about.
Anyway I will check with AMan to clear up the issue of your getting to police whether I've written a blog or have submitted a news item.
by tmccarthy0 on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 6:38pm
??? Police what???? You assumed it was you I referenced when I said you could write the blog or post it without skewering other bloggers for NOT writing about it as another blooger at the Cafe did. Please ask him to police what you will, and little sense as it makes to me.
Oh: and to ty to be even more clear: the blogger I was speaking about who engaged with a 'Flair' similar to yours was a HE; you are not. I did not give his screen name. This blogger has nothing to do with you, hard as it may be to imagine, save for the similar flair.
You're out in the weeds on this one.
by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 7:16pm
Sooo... you're talking about me, right? That man of mystery, doing enigmatic menacing things. That's me, right?
Somebody here is talking about MEEEE, goddammit!!
by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 7:43pm
Not me! I mean, not me?
by A Guy Called LULU on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 7:51pm
by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 7:58pm
Jeez, Lulu; you already told us you are a bit on the hazy side.
by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 8:52pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxUuDPNbkJk
by Resistance on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 8:01pm
Wow. Toby Keith rapping! So awful it's ... awesome.
;0)
by Obey on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 8:09pm
I adore talking about you, dear; but you just did NOT have the bitter-blogger Flair of the aforementioned one. This, I think, is the more YOU you....
Ahhhhhh....ahhhhhhh....thees ees the Pug....
by we are stardust on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 8:45pm
I thought Dagblog had already issued a citizens arrest writ for Obama for war mongering?
C'est vrai, non?
So his availability to curtail a state of perpetual war, continue funding for DADT, or his ability to fund START, which were all mentioned in the White House brief as issues, are moot points, are they not?
by NCD on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 6:18pm
Good to know. Thanks for sharing, tmc. We'll take our little victories where we find them!
by Ramona on Fri, 05/27/2011 - 9:28pm
Interesting. A blog post of extreme meta emo butt-hurt sadness posing as a news link ... with not a single shred of content from the supposed news article in question. So this is how you con people who would ordinarily choose ignore such whiny tripe into having your nonsense pop up in their faces?
Since this is honestly a blog about the work of other bloggers more than about the ACLU article you highlight as an excuse... my question in response would be: how does this mitigate or negate the legitimate observations and criticisms raised previously by others which far outnumber and outweigh this one bit of theoretical shining goodness?
The funny part is that Obama finally did something you think can be spun as decent from a progressive standpoint and you didn't even bother to make the post about Obama. You made it what this action by Obama says about how clever you are to support him without question - then didn't even have the huevos to toot your own horn and went out all passive-aggressive stylie into a meta-bitch at fellow bloggers who have been pissing you off recently (by not being unquestioningly supportive enough). No matter how lame Obama manages to be, his uncritical supporters demonstrate an ability to amplify his lameness with absurd fanboyism to the point they even overpower stuff he could get positive credit for. LMAO.
Although seriously. You'd have to be awful moist in the panties for Obama to get very enthused by this. We're supposed to be surprised that a president who has claimed executive powers more far reaching than Bush would threaten to veto a bill over provisions that limit his executive power? In what universe? Yeah, if something comes along that helps Obama and also meets with the approval of a constituency he usually pisses on, sure he'll do it. No big surprise there.
But there is one important thing being approached in a misleading way that should be highlighted. The part of the bill that "attempts to launch a worldwide war without specific targets or reasons" certainly appears to have WH support on some level. In a practical sense it appears to provide legislative cover for some of the questionable stuff Obama is currently doing by executive fiat stretching the AUF - basically codifying and placing a formal structure (with oversight) on Obama's current policy. Unless he's got himself a John Yoo 2.0 it seems he'll need something like this sooner or later - we are almost out of targets that can be said to have responsibility for 9/11. OTOH, there is an amazing amount of power in having his action authority defined only through secret memos and executive orders - and operationally he is currently doing everything the legislation authorizes (and more) anyhow. I'll bet he wants congress mucking around in that as little as possible. It is an interesting dynamic but he is by no means threatening to veto over the provision - just saying the issue "merits extensive consideration".
With due respect, you have highlighted this particular round of political gamesmanship with all the intellectual heft of a schoolgirl agog over Justin Beiber.
by kgb999 on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 3:50am
In yet another spate of irony, the same day this news came out:
"The Obama administration has created and staffed a new position tucked inside their communications shop for helping coordinate rapid response to unfavorable stories and fostering and improving relations with the progressive online community.
"This week, Jesse Lee will move from the new media department into a role in the communications department as Director of Progressive Media & Online Response," read an internal memo from Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer, provided to The Huffington Post. "For the last two years, Jesse has often worn two hats working in new media and serving as the White House's liaison with the progressive media and online community. Starting this week, Jesse will take on the second role full time working on outreach, strategy and response."
The post is a new one for this White House. Rapid response has been the purview of the Democratic National Committee (and will continue to be). Lee's hire, however, suggests that a portion of it will now be handled from within the administration. It also signals that the White House will be adopting a more aggressive engagement in the online world in the months ahead. [snip]
His new post may require even more delicate hand-holding. Instead of managing the administration's web presence, he will be pressing to make the administration more popular on the web. In that respect, his Twitter account could also become an interesting window into the status of the always emotional, occasional testy dance between progressives and the president.
Lee enjoys good relationships with much of the online community, but as a member of the administration for the past two years he has also had his moments of friction."
by we are stardust on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 7:42am
Oh great. That "smear Greenwald et al" project which got leaked is finally up and running? This should be fun to watch...
by Obey on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 8:14am
Mebbe HB Gary will be Lee's first contractor...
by we are stardust on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 8:50am
What is frightening is how openly it all is conducted: the DOJ openly helping out BofA by referring them to Hunton & Williams who openly contract security firms to conduct surveillance and smear campaigns. What is disturbing is that in those emails and presentation docs they indicate this is a perfectly common practice...
And the pols in Washington won't investigate, because ... wait for it... that's the DOJ's job.
Uh huh. The DOJ is supposed to investigate a conspiracy they themselves instigated.
Oh but, there ain't no conspiracies honey.
Just git that unpleasant Glenn Greenwald fellar to shut up...
by Obey on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 9:16am
Well you seem to have nailed it, Pug. Is there a word for situations that go far past being ironic? I mean some of this stuff makes you laugh it's so eye-popping, head-jerking crazy.
And yet Thomas Drake is facing 35 years in prison for whistle-blowing to save the NSA billions of bucks, James Risen of wire-tapping fame they are still dragging in fron of grand juries, Dana Jill Simpson of Don Siegelman fame...she says the Obama administration's making war on whistleblowers. And will prosecute anyone handling pot in the states where medical marijuana was voted legal. (Some caveats, but I don't know they're useful distinctions.)
And correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Holder's office been letting the big banks know ahead of time that they might be investigated for fraud or wrong-doing ahead of time so that they can offer to meet to arrange some...uh...fines?
by we are stardust on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 9:53am
Interesting.
First thing I thought was it would make Josh Marshall's work as an editor a lot easier, he'd get an official daily talking points memo now to help him decide where to put coverage resources, rather than trying to imagine what the Obama administration and the DNC wants him to cover, as it often appears to me he has been doing since 2008.
But then I checked it out further and turns out Jesse Lee is mentioned here at TPM about "Obama blogosphere outreach" by Jared Bernstein back in Feb. 2009 by Matt Cooper,
Here's Greg Sargent at TPM in Nov. 2008:
Here's Lee's bio used in an announcement on "key staff" from the White House in Feb. 2009:
That said, what would be the "progressive blogosphere" beef about doing this? I read often enough lots of bitching from progressive blogosphere activists that the Obama administration is lousy at messaging, needs to improve its messaging, needs to counter what the right wing media machine does, etc.
I don't like it, but then I don't like the advocacy/activist journalism that is a lot of the blogosphere, that many, including Josh Marshall, like to trumpet as being the future of political media. I'd rather have the kind of journalism where people tell us, like Sam Stein here, who the talking points memo people are for the various interests, and what talking points they might be pushing at the moment and why, rather than helping out on the talking points for the political interests one prefers. Just because the right wing does it doesn't mean I want some from the left wing; there's a reaonable argument to be made that in the current media environment one needs to be out there pushing spin to manipulate the voting public, but that doesn't mean I desire to be a consumer of that spin. I prefer journalism that tries to hunt down and decode the spin from all sides, it gets rarer all the time, sometimes it seems everyone blogging wants to spin, everyone blogging fancies themselves a Jesse Lee, with the holy grail of "going viral."
by artappraiser on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 1:14pm
Can't speak for 'the progressive blogosphere', but I think it's fucking hilarious! I love hired or volunteer commenters coming on to blogs to spin me around! As far as indie media and blogs, as long as they are beining subsidized by corporate ads, they are not INDIE. (Paging Josh Marshall and his MSNBC gigs, etc....) As long as they are playing for a Team (red or blue) they are not INDIE!
Gotta go; groceries and Chinese takeaway are comin' up the driveway, but I grabbed this to say how I feel right now about everybody talkin' at me:
by we are stardust on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 1:45pm
Good call, TM. But let me know when he gives up on the Bush era secret domestic spying and stops doing things like reauthorizing the Patriot Act without a hint of debate.
He's not equal to Bush, by any means. But Bush is a very low bar.
by Michael Maiello on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:00am
In all seriousness, Destor, in what area do you see him as an improvement on Bush on civil liberties and related matters?
The surveillance state? the imperial executive? harassment of whistleblowers? torture/targeted assassination of US citizens? Undeclared drone-based warfare without oversight? The patriot act extension? Ignoring the War Powers Resolution?
Seriously, apart from the knee-jerk "he's one of us" reaction that we all have, and the occasional encouraging rhetoric, what concrete moves do you see?
I ask quite sincerely because I'm perhaps losing sight of some very important anti-Bush reforms. I keep hearing he isn't as bad, but very little in terms of substance to support it.
by Obey on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 10:10am
Is Destor drumming his fingers on his desk, brow knitted, trying to find an answer? ;o)
p.s. I thought of one: Obama declassifying lots of documents and changing the number of years past which they would automatically be declassified if no govt. agencies objected. So I googled for more about it, and found out that according to this, it wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I I tried.
by we are stardust on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 12:14pm
Let me give it a try:
At least vaguely related to this, you have better protections for labor rights at the NLRB, and at the Supreme Court level, you have Sotomayor who seems in favor of civil liberties (whereas Kagan has an awful record as solicitor general).
by Obey on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 12:52pm
Agreed, and if you want to add in civil rights to civil liberties...well, you can add in DADT repeal, though I still think that Gaga helped. ;o) And the first thing that I saw Obama objecting to in the McKeon version of the NDAA was delaying the implementation of the act (we spoke of it on another blog, I remember).
So with the civil rights criterion I googled for more, but sadly I found more groups stating the opposite. In education of kids of color and major protection for LGBT citizens. Lily Ledbetter, etc. And this position paper on criminal justice. Can't possibly comment; I'm bailing for now...
Wonder what a blog on your original question to Destor might elicit...the civil libertarians I read are just gobsmacked on this administration. CCR is the only organization we send our crap twenty bucks to in these frugal times. ;o)
by we are stardust on Sat, 05/28/2011 - 1:13pm
"...you can add in DADT repeal, though I still think that Gaga helped..."
Ah yes, another in the classic Firebagger series, "Everything Bad that Happens Under Obama is His Fault and His Alone; Everything Good is Due to the Heroic Efforts of Progressive Blogger."
by brewmn on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:46am
You and your Firebagger names, Brew; grow the fuck up. Gaga is a blogger now? Well, Harry Reid's a Tweeter! Did ya miss this part of Gaga/Reid and her video appeal to Congress?
"Pop star Lady Gaga wasn't in the Senate chamber Saturday, but she was among the celebrities virtually taking part in the historic vote to repeal the 17-year policy known as "don't ask, don't tell."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Saturday sent Lady Gaga a message on Twitter: #DADT on it's way to becoming history. Later he tweeted: @ladygagaWe did it! #DADTis a thing of the past.
After the Senate voted 65-31 to give final congressional approval to end the ban on openly gay troops, Lady Gaga tweeted: Can't hold back the tears+pride. We did it!i Our voice was heard + today the Senate REPEALED DADT. A triumph for equality after 17 YEARS.
The Grammy Award-winning singer inserted herself into the debate in September when she addressed 2000 people in a Deering Oaks Park, Maine, rally where she stood alongside Air Force, Army and Marine veterans who were discharged because of the policy."
p.s. Obama's DoJ did finally stop defending DOMA in court; well, pretty much...kinda. But both efforts took some major LGBT groups announcing they would withhold contributions to re-elect. Glad they had some financial muscle, myself, but it shouldn't have taken that, IMO.
by we are stardust on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:33am
First, how many people have been added to Gitmo since Obama took office? Also, if you read the Jane Mayer piece on whistleblower prosecutions, it's pretty clear that we are still dealing with the fallout from the excesses of the Bush adminstration.
That Obama hasn't walked back these excesses back far enough or quickly enough is a fair criticism. That he is expanding them is a valid criticism only on the fevered mind of market-niche hogging polemicists like Greenwald.
But you don't have to take my word for it; you can take the ACLU's. A quick Google search turned this up (apparently, your search engine also has an ingrained anti-Obama bias):
http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-issues-report-...
by brewmn on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 12:24am
Give me a break!
Brew, read the first line:
January 19, 2010.
It's from a year and a half ago! Before Manning was tortured, Before Al Awlaki was targetted for assassination, before the War Powers Resolution was ignored, before any number of measures large and small involving expansion of surveillance and eroding whistleblower protections.
And he hasn't added anyone to Gitmo ... because he's assassinating them all with drones!
I don't think Democrats would be so sanguine about these moves, if it were a Republican doing them. And so, the Republican wouldn't get away with it. Now we have two parties united in their support for the imperial executive.
by Obey on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 8:06am
Manning wasn't "tortured," by any definition of that term currently in use. And, as the Mayer article pointed out, Obama hasn't expanded either surveillance or whistleblower protections; almost everything in her article is based on action taken under Bush, and are simply wokring their way through the legal and policy processes. The War Powers Act, the constitutionality of which no President has acknowledged, has been "ignored" for like, what, two weeks? And, whether you and I like it or not, Afghanistan and the tribal areas in Pakistan are a war zone; so calling the drone strikes "assassinations" stretches that term beyond any useful definition as well.
But, other than being flat-out wrong about nearly every item in your list (or, at least, putting Firebagger spin on each one to distort them beyond fair debate), great comment.
by brewmn on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 10:43am
Isn't sleep deprivation torture?
It used to be, until Democrats started defending it. I guess the meaning of words changes depending on who's president.
Al Awlaki is in Yemen, you ignoramus. Is that also a battlefield? Maybe, but then we are basically saying anyone, Americans included, can be assassinated anywhere without legal recourse. I brought him up specifically because the ACLU themselves sued the government for targeting him.
My point about worrying trends on whistleblower protections comes from this kind of thing, from the New Yorker:
When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined.
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1NkvM179Z
by Obey on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 11:32am
Blew right past this one, perhaps:
"The Obama administration has also retained its authority to engage in extraordinary renditions."
And the Patriot Act hurry-up-and-pass-it urging by Obama used reasons that simply didn't hold water, includes all these reaons to spy on American citizens that are so secret that DiFi doesn't want it debated in public, about which Ron Wyden's press release says this:
"Speaking on the floor of the U.S Senate during the truncated debate on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT ACT for another four years, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) – a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- warned his colleagues that a vote to extend the bill without amendments that would ban any Administration’s ability to keep internal interpretations of the Patriot Act classified will eventually cause public outrage.
Known as Secret Law, the official interpretation of the Patriot Act could dramatically differ from what the public believes the law allows. This could create severe violations of the Constitutional and Civil Rights of American Citizens.
I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for ten years, and I don’t take a backseat to anybody when it comes to the importance of protecting genuinely sensitive sources and collection methods. But the law itself should never be secret – voters have a need and a right to know what the law says, and what their government thinks the text of the law means, so that they can decide whether the law is appropriately written and ratify or reject decisions that their elected officials make on their behalf."
and from washingtonsblog:
"On September 10, 2010, President Obama declared:
Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. Consistent with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register the enclosed notice, stating that the emergency declared with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year.
The terrorist threat that led to the declaration on September 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. For this reason, I have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after September 14, 2010, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat.
The Washington Times wrote on September 18, 2001:
Simply by proclaiming a national emergency on Friday, President Bush activated some 500 dormant legal provisions, including those allowing him to impose censorship and martial law.
Just a few points...and not all of them are from Glenn Greenwald.
by we are stardust on Sun, 05/29/2011 - 9:03am