Politics

The Shadow That Hangs Over Obama's Second Term

Saturday, 19 January 2013 17:00

Junod writes: "On Monday, President Obama will talk about protecting children during his speech. But he knows that over the next four years he will be asked to make decisions that will result in the killing of the children, not because he is an evil man but rather because he has readily and rationally accommodated himself to the necessity of evil."

President Barack Obama. (photo: Leigh Vogel/WireImage)

The Shadow That Hangs Over Obama's Second Term

By Tom Junod, Esquire Magazine

19 January 13

�

n the days following the massacre in Newtown, CT, there was a genuine sense of moral panic in the United States - the sense that we had lost the ability to protect our children from evil. At the same time, there were stirrings of a moral confidence verging on triumphalism, a sense that the relativism said to beset modern America might at last give way to clarity. At Sandy Hook Elementary, evil had done us the favor of staring us in the face. We could no longer deny either its existence or its nature. We could resist it only by embracing the idea of it. We could even define it without provoking the usual partisan disagreements:

What is evil? Evil is what murders children.

It is a handy definition because it is an unequivocal one, and it has framed the argument that has arisen in Newtown's wake. The NRA has used it to promote its idea that the only answer to a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun; President Obama has used it to lend urgency to his Administration's attempt to differentiate between the guns used by good men and the killing machines used by bad ones. Before the President introduced his gun-control proposals last week, his spokesman Jay Carney said that "if even one child's life can be saved by actions taken in Washington, we must take these actions"; indeed, before the President introduced his gun-control proposals last week, he introduced four children who had written letters imploring him to protect them and their kind and whom he had invited to be on hand for his speech. It was a feat of political stagecraft meant to deliver the implicit but unmistakable message that at stake in the President's call for meaningful legislation was nothing less than their very lives, and it made clear that children, too often the victims of gun violence, would now occupy the moral battleground in the gun-control debate:

"This is our first task as a society, keeping our children safe," the President said. "This is how we will be judged.... Because while there is no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there is even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there is even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."

And so Monday, on the day set aside for the remembrance of Martin Luther King's birthday, the man who will be inaugurated for his second term as President of the United States will be a man who accepts - and has been energized by - the idea that evil can be identified as that which kills even one innocent child. He will also be man who has killed innocent children himself, by the dozens and perhaps by the hundreds, as a direct consequence of his orders.

Now, this post is not the first to remark on the difference between President Obama's words and actions - his words regarding the lives of children in America and his actions regarding the lives of children in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere. In the immediate aftermath of Newtown, a few bloggers and tweeters pointed out that the President seemed to care a lot more about children dying by Bushmaster in Connecticut than he did about children dying by drone in Wurzistan, but most Americans not only forgave that kind of contradiction; they appreciated it, because they understood that caring more about American kids than Pakistani ones is the President's job. He is, after all, our Commander-In-Chief, and he is, after all, prosecuting a war against a stateless enemy in Al-Qaeda, and children, after all, have died in war since the beginning of time. Barack Obama cannot be compared to Adam Lanza because no matter how many children Barack Obama has killed he has not tried to kill them, he has not made killing them an end in itself, he has not killed them for killing's sake, he has not killed them to expunge his own demons or, God help us, for pleasure. He has killed Pakistani kids - and Afghani kids and Yemeni kids and even one American kid - because he is living up to his sworn obligation to protect American kids, even if kids from other parts of the world have to die in the process. He is absolved by intention, even if his intention ends inevitably in accidents and the accidents end up inevitably in line with the President's own idea of evil.

The rub, of course, is that there are no accidental drone strikes. The Lethal President has built the Lethal Presidency from his own moral pedigree, from the notion that the Lethal Presidency exists not to kill but to end the killing. We have heard from this White House that it does not take killing lightly, and that the President himself takes the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of ultimate power. We have heard that each killing is carried out with precision technology, and is the result of intense and even agonized deliberation. The problem is that whenever the White House describes the process by which the killings are undertaken, it seems to be talking about a process that has killed dozens or maybe even hundreds of people, when in fact it has killed thousands, including children. By the White House's own terms - its own advertising - the killing of children can't be entirely accidental. There must be a calculation for it when the President's advisors produce their disposition matrices; there must be room for it in the President's own deliberations. War has always killed children, as part of its madness; what distinguishes the Lethal Presidency is that when it kills children it does so from the madness of reason.

Humankind has changed the definition of evil in the course of its existence. It once measured evil in terms of madness; now madness, duly medicalized, has become exculpatory. We know nothing of Adam Lanza, except that he was "troubled," and perhaps on the autism spectrum; what intensified the initial apprehension of his evil was not the suspicion that he was in the grip of psychosis during the murders but rather the suspicion that he was not. It is evil that exists as a byproduct of reason that we find unforgivable now - evil advanced with cool calculation, for a cause, towards an end, with no feeling or regret - and it is reason rather than madness that hangs its shadow over the children killed by Barack Obama.

On Monday, he will talk about children during his speech. He will talk about protecting them, educating them, encouraging them, and inspiring them, and he will talk about working hard to make sure that the future is theirs. He will talk about children, in other words, in the same way as he talked about them four years ago, with the difference that he knows now how hard it is to protect them, not just from people like Adam Lanza but from people like him. He knows that he will be asked to make decisions that will result in the killing of the children, and that he will do so, that he can do so, not because he is an evil man but rather because he has readily and rationally accommodated himself to the necessity of evil. Four years ago, we did not know this about him. We know now, and although many Americans will applaud him for being able to do what needs to be done, there are others, I among them, who will never get over it.

61 comments

David Brooks Is Pathological

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10204">Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine</a>

Friday, 18 January 2013 15:30

Chait writes: "Moderate Republicanism is a tendency that increasingly defies ideological analysis and instead requires psychological analysis. The psychological mechanism is fairly obvious."

New York Times columnist David Brooks. (photo: unknown)

David Brooks Is Pathological

By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine

18 January 13

�

oderate Republicanism is a tendency that increasingly defies ideological analysis and instead requires psychological analysis. The psychological mechanism is fairly obvious. The radicalization of the GOP has placed unbearable strain on those few moderates torn between their positions and their attachment to party. Many moderate conservatives have simply broken off from the party, at least in its current incarnation, and are hoping or working to build a sane alternative. Those who remain must escape into progressively more baroque fantasies.

The prevalent expression of this psychological pain is the belief that President Obama is largely or entirely responsible for Republican extremism. It's a bizarre but understandable way to reconcile conflicting emotions - somewhat akin to blaming your husband's infidelity entirely on his mistress. In this case, moderate Republicans believe that Obama's tactic of taking sensible positions that moderate Republicans agree with is cruel and unfair, because it exposes the extremism that dominates the party, not to mention the powerlessness of the moderates within it. Michael Gerson recently expressed this bizarre view, and the pathology is also on vivid display in David Brooks's column today.

Brooks begins by noting that the Grand Bargain on the deficit, which he has spent the last two years relentlessly touting, is not actually possible. Why is it impossible? Because, he writes, "A political class that botched the fiscal cliff so badly are not going to be capable of a gigantic deal on complex issues."

Oh, the political class? That's funny. In 2011, Obama offered an astonishingly generous budget deal to House Republicans, and Brooks argued at the time that if the GOP turned the deal down, it would prove their "fanaticism." Naturally, they turned it down. Obama continues to offer a bargain including higher revenue through tax reform in return for lower spending on retirement programs, but Republicans refuse to consider higher taxes. So, in summary, this proves "the political class" is to blame.

What Obama should be doing in response, Brooks argues, is push for policies that provoke no opposition even from the craziest of the Republicans: "We could do some education reform, expand visa laws to admit more high-skill workers, encourage responsible drilling for natural gas, maybe establish an infrastructure bank." Brooks argues that these issues would be uncontroversial enough to "erode partisan orthodoxies and get back into the habit of passing laws together." Then, maybe we could pass some laws under a future president.

Note that solving actual problems is besides the point here. Brooks is almost explicit about this. He begins with the need for initiatives that he thinks will lead to happiness and comity between the parties in Washington, and then comes up with policies that might fit the bill. Not surprisingly, viewed from the standpoint of an agenda designed to make life better for Americans in some way, shape or form, Brooks's proposed agenda is strange. Let's consider his ideas:

Education reform. I love education reform. Obama passed a sweeping education reform in 2009. Brooks writes a column the next year fulsomely praising it. (Obama "has used federal power to incite reform, without dictating it from the top.") Is there more education reform to be done? There may be, but I don't know what it would be, and Brooks doesn't seem to know or care.

Expand visa laws to admit more high-skill workers. Would this really pass right away without partisan animosity? Brooks says yes. We don't have to guess. Democrats tried this last month. Republicans loaded it with poison pills and killed it dead. So instead they're trying to do it as part of comprehensive immigration reform.

Encourage responsible drilling for natural gas. Wait, how much more encouragement do we need? The country is undergoing a massive natural gas boom:

Is there some element to natural gas policy that needs fixing? Does Brooks just think the two parties should get together and congratulate each other for all the natural gas being produced?

Establish an infrastructure bank. Okay, this one is a good policy idea. But is it something Republicans would easily pass without rancor? In fact, Obama has been asking for this very thing for years now. And Republicans have called it dead on arrival.

So Brooks's proposed alternative agenda consists of either empty list-filler or actual policies that Obama has proposed and Republicans have killed. But instead of this happy term of modest accomplishment, Obama is pursuing a nasty, partisan agenda. Step one of this devious ploy is to, as Brooks puts it, "invite a series of confrontations with Republicans over things like the debt ceiling - make them look like wackos willing to endanger the entire global economy."

Right - Obama is the one inviting confrontations over the debt ceiling. Never mind that, before 2011, the debt ceiling was just an occasion for routine posturing, and Republicans insisted on turning it into a showdown with real, dangerous stakes. Also never mind that Obama offered to sign the plan - proposed by Mitch McConnell! - to permanently defuse the debt ceiling and let Republicans use it to posture against him rather than actually threatening a global meltdown. And never mind as well that, by refusing to cave in to extortion, Obama seems to actually be defusing the real danger to the world economy.

This is all Obama's fault because it makes Republicans "look like whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy." Brooks displays an almost surreal lack of interest in the underlying reality that Republicans actually are whackos willing to endanger the entire global economy. It is his responsibility to conceal this reality from America.

Worse, argues Brooks, Obama is nastily choosing an agenda intended only to harm Republicans. Obama's proposals on gun safety and immigration, he writes, are "wedge issues meant to divide Southerners from Midwesterners, the Tea Party/Talk Radio base from the less ideological corporate and managerial class."

Brooks asserts, but does not actually explain, that Obama chose these issues for the purpose of dividing the opposition - as opposed to trying to cut down on mass murders and fix a huge field of broken policy. Brooks concedes that Obama's proposals here are moderate, but believes that the moderation is what makes them so nasty. By appealing to mainstream Republicans, he is splitting them from the most extreme Republicans!

You would think proposing policies that large numbers of Republicans agree with would qualify as the kind of centrism and bipartisanship Brooks has spent the entire Obama presidency calling for, but now that it's here, it turns out to prove just the opposite to him.

67 comments

FOCUS | Take Action on Filibuster Reform

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15952">Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company</a>

Friday, 18 January 2013 13:15

Excerpt: "Unless the Senate reforms the filibuster at the beginning of the new 113th Congress - that's as soon as next Tuesday, January 22 - the minority wrecking crew remains in charge for the next two years."

Bill Moyers is interviewed by Val Zavala, 01/06/12. (photo: SOCAL Connection)

Take Action on Filibuster Reform

By Bill Moyers, Moyers and Company

18 January 13

hen a political party's in the majority, it wants to change the filibuster� until it falls from power and winds up the minority. Then it suddenly becomes the filibuster's biggest supporter. Bill says such hypocrisy "has cost the Congress its standing in public respect and cost our democracy the capacity to address the problems that threaten to overwhelm us."

But hope of resurrecting the Senate's noble purpose by reforming the filibuster is being championed by a diverse group of organizations and activists, including The Democratic Initiative and Fix the Senate Now. They want to take the filibuster, which can now be easily and quietly activated, and restore its original, public use (Think Mr. Smith or Mr. Sanders). Time is not on their side, however. Unless the Senate reforms the filibuster at the beginning of the new 113th Congress - that's as soon as next Tuesday, January 22 - the minority wrecking crew remains in charge for the next two years.

See four suggestions below to make your opinion loud and clear. Learn even more by watching Bill's conversation with union leader Larry Cohen this weekend.

As Bill says, "End the silence. Speak up now. But do it quickly - the clock's ticking."

A Filibuster Reform To-Do List:

1. Contact your senator to tell him or her that you support filibuster reform and the end of the silent filibuster. Calling 1-888-717-0911 will connect you automatically based on where you call from. You can also find Senate contact information here. Or call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (202-224-3542) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell ( 202-224-2541) directly, and tell them where you stand.

2. Share graphics on your Facebook timeline letting your friends know that you support filibuster reform. Download graphics made by Fix the Senate Now at their website.

3. Follow #FixtheSenate tweets and send your own tweet with your position on the issue. Also, tweet any interactions or contact efforts you had with senators.

4. Link to or embed Fix the Senate Now's YouTube video.

26 comments

Different Rules for Plutocrats

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</a>

Friday, 18 January 2013 09:00

Gibson writes: "26-year-old Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz faced up to 35 years in federal prison for the 'crime' of downloading academic files from the JSTOR database, with the intent of publicizing the research for anyone to have free of charge. Contrast that with the recent news of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who was on the hot seat for gambling with and losing $6 billion in other people's money in a high-risk trading scheme."

Aaron Swartz was being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (photo: Reddit)

Different Rules for Plutocrats

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

18 January 13

Reader Supported News | Perspective

�

n feudal societies, the king and his barons lord over the serfs, who devote their lives to toiling for their masters' gain. The serfs live by one harsh set of rules, and the lords live by another. A serf who steals from a lord would face a serious prison sentence or death, while a lord could simply buy off anyone he needed to convince of his innocence should he ever commit a crime. In that respect, the United States is one of the world's most true-to-life examples of a feudal system.

26-year-old Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz faced up to 35 years in federal prison for the "crime" of downloading academic files from the JSTOR database, with the intent of publicizing the research for anyone to have free of charge. In addition to his prison sentence, he faced up to $1 million in fines. This didn't include any money that Swartz, a man of modest means, would have to raise to pay for his legal fees and court costs in a battle of attrition with the federal judicial system. After Swartz' suicide, his dad told the media his son "was killed by the government." The federal prosecutor, Steve Heymann, along with US Attorney Carmen Ortiz, believed in punishing hackers to the fullest extent of the law, and relentlessly pursued him despite knowing he was a suicide risk.

Contrast that with the recent news of JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, who was on the hot seat for gambling with and losing $6 billion in other people's money in a high-risk trading scheme. Or with executives at HSBC, whom were found to have been laundering money for drug cartels and terrorists. Or with executives at UBS Bank, who pled guilty to rigging the LIBOR interest rate, needlessly bleeding millions of debtors dry on hefty student loan interest payments and mortgage payments. Both HSBC and UBS paid fines that amounted to several weeks of income for the banks. Jamie Dimon had his salary cut from $23 million to $11 million. Jail wasn't even considered for these titans of high finance, despite their open complicity in bilking millions of people out of their hard-earned money, and aiding criminals.

While federal prosecutors sought to throw the book at a 26-year-old hacker who tried to distribute information for free, federal regulators are sitting on their thumbs when it comes to community drinking-water supplies. The Obama EPA recently silenced their own report that detailed how hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, made groundwater supplies in Texas undrinkable once the oil and shale gas companies caught wind of it. After the fossil fuel industry threw enough of a fit, the EPA halted the investigation dead in its tracks.

The scales of Lady Justice have been tilted in favor of the corporate elite for decades now, regardless of which party is in power or the person in the White House. There are reforms ready to ease the harshness of federal prosecution of computer crimes, like Zoe Lofgren's "Aaron's Law." There is already legislation on the books to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act of 1937 that would break up the big banks. Countries like Iceland, Argentina and Germany have already taken criminal action against bankers that ruined economies and upended lives with their destructive greed. But the cold, hard fact is that those laws won't be passed, and those bankers won't be arrested until we pressure our elected officials to do so. And if this current crop won't, then let's overrun the Congressional midterms in 2014 and refuse to elect anyone running for office unless they vow to do so.

Carl Gibson, 25, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Old Lyme, Connecticut. You can contact Carl at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

30 comments

The Executive Orders Translated

Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104">Charles Pierce, Esquire</a>

Thursday, 17 January 2013 14:40

Pierce writes: "Slate's Dave Weigel helpfully has listed the 23 Executive Orders issued by the president today in connection with his initiative on gun violence. Let us put them all through the helpful NRA Tyranny Translator and see what we get."

Obama signs several executive orders on his administration's new gun control proposals Wednesday. (photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Executive Orders Translated

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

17 January 13

late's Dave Weigel helpfully has listed the 23 Executive Orders issued by the president today in connection with his initiative on gun violence. Let us put them all through the helpful NRA Tyranny Translator and see what we get, OK?

Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

(The singular of "data" is "tyrant." Look it up.)

Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

(You'll get my schizophrenia when you pry it from our cold dead hands.)

Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

(Someone in Vermont will know what I'm doing. The jackboot of Ben And Jerry's is on my neck.)

Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

(First they came for the insane, and I said nothing, because I was not insane. Then, they came for the felons, and I said nothing, because I was not a felon. Then they came for the Christians in my town...wait, maybe I am insane.)

Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

(See? SEE? The gun is already seized. They're putting together "new" regulations but they're already talking about "seized" guns. False flag! False flag!)

Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

(I am bunkered down outside, near the curb, in case the ATF invades my property by mail.)

Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

(We have that now. It's called Everybody Gets A Gun. We already are working on the updated version; Everybody Gets More Guns.)

Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

(First, the CPSC came for the toys....slippery slope! Slippery slope!)

Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

(If criminals are outlawed, only outlaws will be criminals.)

Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

(My right to lose my gun and have a cannibal murderer find it cannot be abridged.)

Nominate an ATF director.

(If the jackboot fits...)

Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

(Wait, I like this.)

Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

(Wait, I'm supposed to say that I like this.)

Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

(Sure. The CDC will declare gun violence a disease and we'll all have to get vaccinated and then we'll all get autism and the UN will control our minds.)

Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

(The AG is going to "challenge the private sector" to do something. Probably at gunpoint. Fast And Furious! Slippery Slope! False flag! False flag!)

Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

(My right to threaten to shoot my boss in front of witnesses cannot be abridged...)

Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

("Resource" officers? What kind of "resources"? "Natural resources", perhaps? Agenda 21! Fast and Furious! Slipperyy slope! False flag! False flag!)

Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

(We already have a plan for this, too. Pistol-packin' Padres.)

Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

(Socialism!)

Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

(Double socialism!)

Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

(Quadruple infinity socialism!)

Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

(You know who else launched national dialogues?)

I wish us all luck.

Charlie has been a working journalist since 1976. He is the author of four books, most recently "Idiot America." He lives near Boston with his wife but no longer his three children.

10 comments

More Articles...

<< Start < Prev 3181 3182 3183 3184 3185 3186 3187 3188 3189 3190 Next > End >>

Page 3181 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

Name:	*
Username:	*
E-mail:	*
Password:	*
Confirm password:	*
Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.