Obama is Frodo

Continuing the theme from my last post, Glenn Greenwald links to this Daily Show clip today about Obama's reversal on many of his civil rights campaign promises.

Jon Stewart is right Mr. President, "Throw the ring into the fires of Modor, you think you can handle the power but you can't."

Here is the Daily Show clip:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Respect My Authoritah
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Conspiracy Theories

I am currently showing my AP Government juniors Bill Moyer's documentary on Iran-Contra and the CIA's role in Latin America during the Cold War called "The Secret Government." The premise of the documentary is that there has been a nefarious secret government, controlled by the CIA, acting on behalf of the American people without their knowledge. The implication of the documentary is that there would be outrage if people knew about these actions by our government.

One average citizen interviewed in the documentary concludes that he now assumes that this type of criminality is going on all the time and the only difference about Iran-Contra is that they actually got caught. This may not be an unreasonable conclusion but I believe the really scary conclusion is that the types of outrageous crimes that used to be done in secret that Moyer's documents are now simply done out in the open. So what is the reaction of the American people? It seems to be a collective yawn.

The evidence of the crimes that are carried out in our names, the modern equivelents of Iran-Contra or the overthrow of Mossedeq in Iran or the overthrow of in Guatemala, are right in front of our noses such as:

1) The United States has admitted to torturing people, over 100 in total, to their death (see also Glenn Greenwald's post on the topic):

More than 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody in Guantánamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. The U.S. military itself called 34 of these confirmed or suspected homicides. This is one of them: a 47 year-old Iraqi man whose autopsy report concludes “The severe blunt force injuries, the hanging position, the obstruction of the oral cavity with a gag contributed to this individual's death. The manner of death is homicide.”

2) Rendition of people to other countries to be tortured:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

3) The elimination of habeas corpus, the basis of English Common Law:


Luckily the Supreme Court stopped this particular egregious power grab in the case Boumediene v. Bush:



4) The killing of civilians by unmaned drones controlled by the military and CIA:

Some of you might be inclined to dismiss this as an abberation of the American goverment which only occured because of weak leadership by George W. Bush that allowed rogue advisers such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, etc to run roughshod over the Constitution. Unfortunately it appears President Obama is continuing many of these crimes in the name of the American people:

Glenn Greenwald captures the disappointment with Obama's continuation of Bush anti civil liberties record despite campaign promises to the contrary:

Here's how the NYT describes the article on its front page:

The opening paragraph of this Washington Post article today says much the same thing:

As a candidate for president, Barack Obama offered himself as a clear alternative to Bush-era anti-terrorism policies. Governing has proven muddier.

Both articles quote the hardest-core Bush supporters as heaping praise on Obama for what he has done in the area of "national security," terrorism and civil liberties ("Pete Wehner, a member of Karl Rove’s staff in the Bush White House [and a current National Review writer] applauded several of Mr. Obama’s decisions this week"). Indeed, all week long, and even before that, the greatest enthusiasm for Obama's decisions on so-called "terrorism policies" and civil liberties (with some important exceptions) has been found in the pages of The Weekly Standard and National Review.

For Conservatives Thankfully the Apple Doesn't Fall Far From the Tree

The Republican right has long been associated with the principle of meritocracy. Like it's devotion to limited government, one might be sympathetic to their cause if they actually upheld these principles in reality as opposed to simply championing them rhetorically. (See this article for conservatives self-serving and selective embrace of federalism to illustrate their limited government hypocricy.)

The bench of A-List conservative celebrities who have demonstrated little value other than serendipitous genetic lineage is long and sad:

I'm not the first person to point out this irony.

Glenn Greenwald, summoning all the righteous anger he is known for, writes (see this post and this post as well):

Just to underscore a very important, related point: all of the above-listed people (Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, Chris Wallace Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz, and Liz Cheney) are examples of America's Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work -- The American Way. By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor -- who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice -- is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement.

I just want to make sure that's clear.

This topic inspired a blog post after I read a typical vapid, conventional wisdom peddling mush of an article from the tragically unaccomplished Megan McCain who has, for obvious and downright depressing reasons been given the perch of contributing author to the ultimate nexus of Hollywood and politics, The Daily Beast.

Matthew Ylgesias captures the disappointment many of us feel that someone like Meghan McCain has been given a microphone to pontificate on the issues of the day:

So instead I’ll just say that the fact that Meghan McCain is, apparently successfully, launching a career as a political pundit capable of garnering a book deal worth hundreds of thousands of dollars all based on being the daughter of a failed presidential candidate should give people pause about the meritocratic nature of American capitalism. I mean, more power to her. But I’d sleep better at night knowing she’s going to pay a very high tax rate on that book deal, and the money could be put to use giving Pell Grants and health insurance to kids who don’t have multi-millionaire celebrity dads.

But some of you might be inclined to give Meghan the benefit of the doubt so let's go to the record, in this case her article entitled "Obama's Oil Spill Insanity."

In the article we get piercing insights such as:

As we push Day 50 of this oil spill, I find myself questioning why it has taken so long for the mainstream media, aside from James Carville and Chris Matthews, to start putting extreme pressure on the president. I wonder whether the media, or the American public, for that matter, would be reacting to this oil disaster differently if a Republican were in office right now.

What would this "extreme pressure" accomplish? Is it in BP's interest to slow walk a solution? When the company is losing 25% of it's share price I would say that the company is probably already experiencing "extreme pressure" from its shareholders. Meghan's desire for the President to engage in some histrionics stems from the naive belief that the executive holds mythical powers to solve all problems.

This is in stark contrast to the Katrina disaster which the government saw coming and supposedly planned for. Only after did we learn that Bush had installed his crony, Brownie, whose previous experience was managing thoroughbred horses, to prepare our disaster response.

I grew up vacationing in Destin, Florida, and to hear that the oil has now reached that area is heartbreaking. Anyone who has been to Destin knows how spectacular its white beaches are and how tragic the idea of them covered in oil is. I am scared, I am upset, and I am angry that the media and the American public aren’t putting more pressure on the president. Yes, it is just as much BP’s problem, and the company should be held equally accountable. I also don’t begin to understand the extreme bureaucracy involved with a British oil company in the context of this oil leak. But what I need right now is more intense leadership from my president. And I need more emotion. Maybe these are things he is incapable of doing or his administration doesn’t think is a smart idea. I no longer care.

This paragraph is almost too rich to tackle, but I'll attempt to translate:

I grew up vacationing in Destin, Florida, and to hear that the oil has now reached that area is heartbreaking. Anyone who has been to Destin knows how spectacular its white beaches are and how tragic the idea of them covered in oil is.

Translation:

I grew up rich and privileged and had the opportunity to vacation in Florida unlike most of you sorry, middle class saps. Now that my conspicuous carbon consuming habits have finally affected me in a tangible and obvious way it is now clear to me our dependency on oil has tragic consequences.

Please pay no attention to the fact that my father, facing a challenge from the Tea Baggers, has abandoned all of his principled stances on global warming and limiting greenhouse gases.

I am scared, I am upset, and I am angry that the media and the American public aren’t putting more pressure on the president.

Translation:

Eager to reinforce the stereotype of my generation as grown up children, when confronted with adult problems I get scared, upset and angry like I used to get when I was six years old and I yearn for a father figure to take care of these overwhelming and perplexing problems.

Speaking of perplexing...

I also don’t begin to understand the extreme bureaucracy involved with a British oil company in the context of this oil leak. But what I need right now is more intense leadership from my president.

Translation:

Well here I can't really translate, just comment. If you can't begin to understand an important aspect of the issue maybe you should refrain from pontificating about it on the pages of a prominent website. And I can't even begin, or possibly I don't want to begin wondering what in the hell she means when she says she wants "more intense leadership from my president." Intense? Really? Just a bizzare choice of adjective.

Here is someone else who couldn't begin to understand the ways of the modern world. Although unlike Meghan this character knew all to well the ways of the modern world and was simply trying to pull a fast one on the guillable American public:



Here is another classic:

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer @ Yahoo! Video

Maybe these are things he is incapable of doing or his administration doesn’t think is a smart idea. I no longer care.

Translation:

I am not going to think about this problem any longer. I'm just going to sit around and pout and sip Cosmopolitans at elite, night clubs none of you could ever dream of gaining entrance to until my emotional pain is salved.

Meghan concludes with:

The idea of waiting until August for this leak to be stopped is infuriating. I do believe Obama is working as hard as possible, but his problem is that he is not conveying this to the American public. I want him to show me how angry he is. Because at this point, it seems as if his trips to Louisiana are things he is doing in between hanging out with rock stars.

So she concedes that she has no problem with anything Obama is doing she just really needs him to show he cares. So I'm at a loss as to what is the whole point of this article. If she knows that Obama is working as hard as possible why is she so distraught? It seems as if she is just lashing out like spoiled brat teenager. Maybe this is not as it seems but simply what it actually is.

Meghan McCain follows in the ineffectual footsteps of her nepotistic brothers and sisters. The only unique flair she adds to this well worn path is that she throws a temper tantrum while she does it.

Everyone gets a trophy?...um...er...I mean blog.

If you look to the right of these posts there is a "blogroll" of links to the bloggers I read consistently. However these writers are just the tip of the iceberg of an amazingly large and diverse universe of political bloggers; they just happen to be the one's I enjoy reading the most.

This site maps blogs in the political sphere. How often a blog is linked to, indicating its popularity, is indicated by the size of its circle. The identification of the blog as liberal, conservative, or professional is determined by who links to them. Here is a screen shot of the tool, though you should check it out directly at their site.

Blogs seem to have a bad reputation as a self indulgent endeavor by narcissistic people. My blog name, Delusions of Grandeur is a nod to this idea. George Will captures this conventional wisdom in this column.

Moneyquote:

Richard Stengel, Time's managing editor, says, "Thomas Paine was in effect the first blogger" and "Ben Franklin was essentially loading his persona into the MySpace of the 18th century, 'Poor Richard's Almanack.' " Not exactly.

Franklin's extraordinary persona informed what he wrote but was not the subject of what he wrote. Paine was perhaps history's most consequential pamphleteer. There are expected to be 100 million bloggers worldwide by the middle of 2007, which is why none will be like Franklin or Paine. Both were geniuses; genius is scarce. Both had a revolutionary civic purpose, which they accomplished by amazing exertions. Most bloggers have the private purpose of expressing themselves for their own satisfaction. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is nothing demanding or especially admirable about it, either. They do it successfully because there is nothing singular about it, and each is the judge of his or her own success.

According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 76 percent of bloggers say one reason they blog is to document their personal experiences and share them with others. And 37 percent -- soon, 37 million -- say the primary topic of their blog is "my life and experiences." George III would have preferred dealing with 100 million bloggers rather than one Paine.

However this is the wrong way to think about blogs. I look at blogs as an opportunity to listen to an extremely engaging conversation between highly intelligent and thoughtful people. Once you get to know the personalities and relationships involved the back and forth between these people can be quite engaging and enlightening.

I can't go back to college again and attend all those intellectually stimulating lectures I should have gone to instead of playing another game of Madden's. But now that I am more serious I can seek out some of the most engaging minds and writers and read their observations and ideas in nearly real time.

Despite George Will's protestations this is a wonderful thing. George just can't seem to escape the roll of old-fogey. See this article as exhibit B and this earlier post of mine about how George seems to be losing his fast ball.

George concludes his article by connecting the phenomenon of blogging to the self-esteem culture that gives every young girl and boy a trophy:

Time's issue includes an unenthralled essay by NBC's Brian Williams, who believes that raptures over the Web's egalitarianism arise from the same impulse that causes today's youth soccer programs to award trophies -- "entire bedrooms full" -- to any child who shows up: "The danger just might be that we miss the next great book or the next great idea, or that we will fail to meet the next great challenge . . . because we are too busy celebrating ourselves and listening to the same tune we already know by heart."

The fact that Stengel included Williams's essay proves that Stengel's Time has what 99.9 percent of the Web's content lacks: seriousness.

Seriously George? 99.9% That is a bold statement.

I venture that George is engaged 100% in being an elitist snob who bemoans the loss of his and his buddies gate-keeping power.

And this loss of power comes not a moment too soon.