Month: May 2009

Psikhushka

by digby

In case anyone’s wondering what a legal rationale behind an Obama preventive detention scheme might be, here’s Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in an FDL live blog earlier today:

.

Get ‘Mo Gitmo

by digby

Following up on dday’s earlier post about Elizabeth Bumiller’s sleight of hand, I happened to catch John Harwood and Norah O’Donnell chat with the former Bush Head Cheerleader in a different segment about the political dimensions of the Guantanamo debate. Harwood, one of the dullest, robotic villagers out there, actually makes Bumiller look reasonable by comparison when he reflexively defines Obama’s political challenges in terms of punching the hippies:

Harwood: Elizabeth, this is going to be a huge problem when he tries to site these prisoners. Does that mean that the president didn’t make progress yesterday, politically speaking, in terms of laying out this case? Is it simply too early to judge that?

Bumiller: I think he’s getting a lot of push back, from, not only from, well he’s getting hit from both sides, from the left and from the right. He’s getting hit from the right, of course, from people like Cheney and from the congressional districts, and from the left because he’s now saying that there are some of these detainees who cannot be tried because of lack of evidence or because of tainted evidence.

Harwood: I suspect he doesn’t mind getting hit from the left as much as he does from the right.

Of course not. Getting hit from people who have a 20% approval rating and who have absolutely no credibility with the American people is far more frightening than getting hit for continuing the policies of that 20%. That’s not even a question. It’s political suicide for any Democrat to fight Republicans when it comes to a male appendage measuring contest, everybody know that.

Harwood is one of the worst and his automatic assumption that Obama would far rather battle those who actually believe the nice words that Obama himself speaks about American values than to battle those who think everything he says is silly and naive says it all. That’s your village — cynical, twisted and incoherent as usual.

The good news is that the other side is actually being heard, which is a bit of a surprise and does signal that somebody, whether it’s ACLU press releases or the conduit of Greenwald to Maddow, is getting through to a few people in the MSM:

Bumiller: But, the ACLU, the civil liberties groups and human rights groups are frankly, appalled,that they’re hearing this from this president who they thought was just going to turn around on these Bush Cheney policies.

O’Donnell: Well this idea, which I think many people noticed it on the left, this preventative detention, that Obama has come to accept, which is this argument made by the Bush administration, embraced by Cheney, that some people you might not be able to set them free and you might not be able to try them because of national security reasons. And now, president Obama seems to acknowledge that there might be this preventative detention, which I know some people have made fun of as some sort of like the “Minority Report” sort of like that movie with Tom Cruise, that you would keep people, trying to prevent …

Bumiller: Yeah, yeah… without charges. And you know the left is saying that this is a repackaging of Guantanamo. Now what Obama is saying, we don’t have any details yet, he is trying to come up with a legal framework to make this part of our law. As you know, what Bush did was just declare these people were enemy combatants, and that’s, of course, being challenged in the courts right now. And I am certain that whatever Obama comes up with in terms of a legal framework will also be challenged so this will be in the courts for a long time.

If we can get the quivering, pantswetting congress to pass a law to make indefinite detention legal, I guess that makes all the difference. The fact that it goes against both the letter and the spirit of the constitution will work itself out eventually. (Or not — remember what kind of majority we have on the supreme court these days.)

The Minority Report allusion is a good one except that as far as I know, the government isn’t even close to having a super-duper computer system that can see into the future to find out who might be a danger. We don’t even know if these people we’ve locked up for years and years already in our GWOT gulag did something in the past. In fact, our civilian justice system often convicts innocent people even with all the safeguards we have in place. The idea that the government just “knows” who’s dangerous and who isn’t is absurd. That’s why we have a judicial system in the first place.

Update: The village weighs in on Goldilocks, flip flopping and campaign promises:

MSNBC:

Helene Cooper, Washington Post: I think Vice President Cheney did president Obama a great favor yesterday by allowing him to take a middle ground. You have people on the left, you know the ACLU, saying that Obama hasn’t hasn’t been going far enough and you have Cheney on the right saying this, and Obama is able to appear that he’s rising above all of this. And he’s sounding the voice of reason.

[later in the show]

Harwood: how big a problem do you think the flip-flop issue is for Obama?

Cooper: I think it’s always an issue. The reality is that you say a lot of things when you’re running for president and then you become elected and you start to see the intelligence. This has long been the Republican argument. You start to see the intelligence and things look a lot different when you’re getting that …

CNN:

Carville: I think he’s starting to make some changes and just because President Bush did it, doesn’t mean everything he did had to be necessarily wrong and you have to evaluate each thing on its merits.

John Roberts: But is it true or untrue that during the campaign, the president spoke out quite strongly against these military tribunals and then has said in the last 24 hours, where prudent, he will try people through a military commission system.

Carville: Right. I also think that what he said was that he wanted to have more safeguards in there. But you know, a campaign promise is one thing.

But he said he wanted to close Guantanamo and he’s going to do that. And we’ve got people there, obviously the president was saying when he was with Steve Scully [on C-Span] we’ve got people there who probably never should have been there in the first place who may not have liked us when they got there but they sure in the heck don’t like us now and I don’t have a good answer for what to do with those people. That’s why opening the thing in the first place was not the smartest idea ever.

Bill Bennett: Yeah, it wasn’t the smartest idea I ever heard of to make this promise when he can’t keep it and James is one of the best campaign strategists around and this tells you why the American people are cynical about the campaign business. As you say it’s only a campaign promise.

Well fine. But the president does seem to be learning on the job. The critical question about the Obama presidency is the education of the president. He is figuring out some things on the job and that’s a good thing because he’s getting a recognition of reality. Those daily briefings are a lot different that what he was given on the campaign bus every morning.

What in the world can these briefings possibly be telling him about prisoners we have locked up for six years? In fact, if the intelligence is so shocking that the mere idea of putting a suspected terrorist on trial puts the whole country in danger, I think we all have a right to know what it is.

This is utter nonsense. Obama’s problem is political, pure and simple. They are afraid of the shitstorm the Republicans are stirring up. There are many dangerous terrorists or would-be terrorists running around free today, including one by the name of Osama bin Laden. Showing the world that we believe in the rule of law will go a lot farther to make this country safe than any other thing he does. He knows it, he’s just made a political calculation that it will be too distracting or politically risky to do the right thing. Fine. But let’s not kid ourselves.

Charlie Savage, who has been a great reporter on these issues, said this on MSNBC:

Charlie Savage: Don’t believe the hype. There is very little daylight between what the Obama administration is doing and what the Bush administration is doing, especially in its last four years in power. Both Obama and Cheney seem to be setting up situations that there’s this vast gulf between them and it’s just not true. On military commissions, on indefinite detentions without trial, on predator drone strikes, on CIAs extraordinary rendition program, on warrantless wiretapping, the key elements of the Bush counter terrorism policy have now been embraced, with some tweaks, by the Obama administration.

The exceptions are, the Obama administration has shut down CIA prisons where the red cross was not allowed to visit and he has said we are not going to have this regime of coercive interrogations, which seems to be the thing which vice president Cheney is most upset about. But really .

Harwood: but Charlie, you are saying that 130 million voters were fooled by our choice last November?

Savage: Well, to finish the thought on the interrogations, the Bush administration dropped the coercive interrogation program around 2004, 2005. They didn’t waterboard anyone after March of ’03, so the sense that now Obama has changed something that put us at risk makes little sense in light of that history.

But that doesn’t mean that there is not a big difference between Obama and Cheney. It’s just not the one that they’re talking about. The big difference is that Vice President Cheney has a big investment in a vast conception of the president’s theoretical power as commander in chief to bypass laws and treaties at his discretion to protect national security. And Obama does not seem to have that ideological stake. Obama thinks the congress can pass laws that the president has to obey. But once congress has done that, Obama seems perfectly willing to exercise these same sorts of programs with these same powers.

The interesting thing about that is that the Bush OLC believed that the congress had granted the president the power to do anything he felt he needed to with the AUMF, but that he didn’t really need that under the powers of the Commander in Chief. They always had a fallback.

This just amounts to changing process and getting cover on specificity. As we’ve seen just this week, when it comes to national security all the hawks have to do is look sideways and the Democrats will crawl all over each other to see who can look the “toughest.” Obama’s position is better, obviously, because a president seizing dictatorial powers is outrageous unto itself. But as far as national security policy, it’s a difference without a distinction.

But then, we’re told by villager after villager that it’s totally naive to ever think a politician will uphold his campaign promises, so the whole thing is silly. And I agree. Campaign promises are often worthless because the media takes this attitude whenever it suits them. But projections of a candidate’s “intent” based upon wishful thinking is even less than worthless. The only thing to do is get very explicit promises and show that you will hold politicians to them.

And as to the torture regime and whether or not Cheney is correct in saying that Obama has “reserved for himself” the right to torture despite his promises, you be the judge:

Note: I transcribed these excerpts. And as a general rule, if there is no link, that will be the case.

I’m sure full transcripts will be available at the web sites for CNN and MSNBC in due course.

.

Mark Bittman’s Expertise

by tristero

While I do think that eaters desperately need representation of their interests in DC – much of the food Americans eat really isn’t food but elaborately perfumed chemical goo; a lot of the industrially-grown real food truly tastes like cardboard; the food system is not sustainable; etc, etc – I’m not sure I completely agree with my bloggy colleagues Jill Richardson and Ezra Klein that Mark Bittman is the person to do it. As far as I can tell, from reading his wonderful blog, his brilliant columns, his great cookbooks, his pretty-good manifesto Food Matters, and watching his videos, Bittman’s truly deep interest lies in preparing and eating food not in the details of food/agriculture policy. His expertise is not in doubt, but it’s not really the relevant expertise. Yes, he’s knowledgeable about food policies, but from what I can tell, he has not done the kind of in-depth research that others, such as Marion Nestle or Michael Pollan, have done. In fact, Food Matters illustrates that perfectly. The first half is just a decent rehash of Pollan, et al – Bittman’s heart doesn’t seem in it. But the second half is wonderful, all these quirky, delicious recipes and meals. So, when Bittman says,

I’m qualified to speculate about policy but I’m not really qualified, in Washington, to talk about policy. The soda tax is an interesting proposal. Ending some of the subsidies that have proven so destructive over the years would be a good thing. But I’m not going to be part of those discussion. I’m — and I’m not being modest here — not qualified to be part of them.

I believe him. Ezra says,

Bittman doesn’t have to lead the discussion. But he shouldn’t walk away from it.

Which strikes me as unfair. Bittman has often spoken out, and written passionately about, how awful the food industry is. He is planning to write even more. More importantly, Bittman has demonstrated by example and through his writings the positive importance of home cooking and sensible eating. If Bittman believes that the way he practices his cooking and eating – informally, un-systematically, and with both humor and skill – don’t scale well to the klieg lights and rigid Kabuki of Congressional hearings – and I don’t think they do – that is hardly walking away. Rather, that is embodying the very values – local, small, personal, intimate, and cheerful – he espouses.

Bittman is leading by example, but we need a very different voice in DC. Oh, yes, and like Jill says, sin taxes aren’t the greatest thing, but if a tax on soda and beer is the way we’re gonna get decent healthcare in this country, then yeah, it’s definitely worth serious consideration.

Decision

by dday

The California Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on Tuesday morning at 10am PT on whether or not to throw out Prop. 8, a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in the state. Brian Devine has the best legal description of this anywhere, which you can read here. The Court isn’t really looking at the law itself, but whether a change of this type violates the limited ability of the people to amend the Constitution through an initiative; in other words, whether Prop. 8 was an amendment, which is legal through the initiative process that was used, or a revision, which requires a more deliberative process.

Based on the oral arguments, most people believe that the Court will not overturn Prop. 8, but may allow the 18,000 marriages that were consummated when same-sex marriage in the state was legal to remain that way. But the Court could surprise.

The initiative battle and particularly the aftermath of Prop. 8 have sparked a tremendous amount of activism in the state and nationally. Regardless of the outcome, the group at Day of Decision will hold nationwide events praising or protesting the Court ruling. On Saturday, 70 civil rights and progressive groups are sponsoring Meet In The Middle For Equality, a large gathering in Fresno, CA.

Lucas O’Connor remarks:

All of which adds up to yes, Prop 8 has proven to be one of the best organizing points in recent decades for the state of California. It’s been a perfect storm of tactical and technological innovation from facebook and text messaging plus orgs like Courage Campaign and CREDO meeting resurgent activist energy and experience coming from the issue and the ’08 presidential campaign legacy.

Like with the Dallas Principles, those battling for equality have devised new outlets for activism which have amped up the pressure for action at every level. 300,000 people have signed the pledge to repeal Prop. 8. Grassroots groups have sprung up out of nowhere, with more coming on line every day. There is no equal to the activism and organizing this has set off.

If I have any faith left in the ability for California to manage its seemingly intractable governmental problems, it’s because I see this effort that has been launched in the name of rights and equality, and dream that it can be scaled up into a larger progressive movement that expands the fight for justice. Such an organizing effort has never even really been tried in the nation’s largest state, and if successful could spread like wildfire across the country.

.

Media Enablers

by dday

Many are justifiably angry at the Democrats for enabling the stupid Republican bedwetting about real live terrorists coming to American maximum security prisons. But the media plays right along with this fearmongering and enables it to a frightening degree.

The front page headline in yesterday’s New York Times blared: 1 in 7 Detainees Rejoined Jihad, Pentagon Finds. Disturbing! Although how this would reflect on the Obama Administration and not the one who released all these “jihadists” is an open question.

Problem is, the Times and other outlets have run this story before. And scratching just an inch beneath the surface always reveals there’s no actual evidence for the claim. The last time such a report was released, back in January, the Pentagon got caught including among those who had “returned to the fight” former detainees who wrote editorials criticizing US policy.

Meanwhile, the writer herself is disavowing the story in an interesting way.

New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller is now casting doubt on the claim in her front page story today, pounced on by the right and quickly picked up on cable, that one in seven detainees released from Guantanamo “returned to terrorism or militant activity.”

Appearing on MSNBC today, Bumiller said “there is some debate about whether you should say ‘returned’ because some of them were perhaps not engaged in terrorism, as we know — some of them are being held there on vague charges.”

Aside from the fact that the Pentagon has no real statistics on this (they don’t tag the detainees they release), there’s what Bumiller alludes to here, which is that seven years unjustly detained in a confined cell probably makes you at least open to hating the United States, whether you were a “terrorist” beforehand or not.

The Times actually changed their lede in online editions, but of course not in the paper – and cable news ran with their headline yesterday. The Washington bureau chief Dean Baquet has no problem with this:

I think Elisabeth answered it properly in this interview. Reading some of the criticism it seems that people are saying it undercut the story. It did not. The story was about the estimate of the number of people who ended up, by DOD”s account, as being engaged in terrorism or militant activity after leaving Gitmo. That still stands. The change was an acknowledgment that some assert that not everyone in Gitmo is truly a terrorist. Some critics have said that Gitmo is also filled with people who aren’t truly terrorists.

Anyone who is reading a significant retreat in the story, or as us somehow saying the story is wrong is looking for politics where it ain’t.

The point is this: traditional media outlets have abetted the blatantly false argument that the “worst of the worst” sit in cells at Gitmo and must never be set free. This not only serves Republican ends as they cling to an issue to get a victory for themselves, but serves the White House, as they try and make this distinction of suspects who can neither be tried or released. Once again, the forces of the status quo and the media megaphone are uniquely aligned.

.

Confederate Memorial
by digby

American history scholars are asking President Obama to end the practice of sending a wreath to the confederate memorial this Memorial Day. (It used to be sent on or around Jefferson Davis’ birthday, but Daddy Bush changed the practice to Memorial Day, presumably so that the confederate soldiers would be honored alongside other soldiers who had fought for America . Except, you know, they fought against America, but whatever.)

I was going to write about this before, because the whole confederate wreath thing had been a bit of a flap back when Bush was first in office and we all got tweaked for jumping on an erroneous Time report that said Bush had reinstated the practice after his father had discontinued it. But then I thought about it and realized there there was almost zero chance that Obama would discontinue this practice. In fact, it will be a total shock if he does it, even though it would probably be very meaningful to a lot of his African American supporters.

Aside from his promise to mediate rather than confront culture war issues, it is also the kind of thing that will probably only end with a “Nixon Goes To China” moment. I would guess that if the Southern Republicans ever wise up and realize that they need to represent more than the confederate states and their conservative myths and folkways if they want to be a national party again, they will have one of their own heal this wound. Maybe Haley Barbour could do it if his rumored presidential bid takes off.

Not that I think there’s anything wrong with asking. It’s nuts for the president to honor confederate war dead on Memorial Day, and the confederate memorial itself is a monument to Lost Cause Mythology, which is simply not a healthy thing for anyone. At some point, that must be reckoned with. But Obama is not going to be the guy to do it.

.

Unlocking The Secrets

by digby

Many years ago I read a book called “Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country“by William Greider. And it blew my mind. At the time Paul Volcker was unioversally hailed as the man who wrung the “excess” out of the economy after the allegedly self-indulgent 70s. And the great Randian apostle Greenspan was just building his reputation as the oracle of economics. Until I read this book I had barely even heard of the Fed, much less understood that the American economy was essentially in the hands of some High Priests, unanswerable to anyone, least of all the great unwashed masses who allegedly aren’t equipped to handle something so important as money.

That was over 20 years ago. And a fine mess we’ve found ourselves in today, all of which could have been predicted if one read the book and took Greider’s thesis seriously. But we’d better take it seriously now, for reasons fundamental and political, because the fiscal scolds, the plutocrats and the aristocrats (all pretty much the same people) are about to launch a huge campaign to not only curtail any more domestic spending but cut deeply into “entitlements.” And they will do this without ever even looking at the massive amount of money that’s flowing out of the Fed right now, completely unaccountable to anyone. They will say that the little old ladies must eat cat food, but nobody can breach the temple of the Federal Reserve because it must remain independent (as if it is independent of the Big Money Boyz who actually run things.”

Representative Alan Grayson is trying to change that:

The Federal Reserve has refused multiple inquiries from both the House and the Senate to disclose who is receiving trillions of dollars from the central banking system. The Federal Reserve has redacted the central terms of the no-bid contracts it has issued to Wall Street firms like Blackrock and PIMCO, without disclosure required of the Treasury, and is participating in new and exotic programs like the trillion-dollar TALF to leverage the Treasury’s balance sheet. With discussions of allocating even more power to the Federal Reserve as the ‘systemic risk regulator’ of the credit markets, more oversight over the central bank’s operations is clearly necessary.

This is all taxpayer money, of course. It really doesn’t just grow on trees. It seems like a no-brainer to me to demand some kind of oversight for this massive, unprecedented transfer of wealth, for which we only have the Fed’s word that any of it will ever be seen again.

Now, the politics of this are odd. Basket cases like Ron Paul and Michele Bachman are backing this for their own kooky conspiratorial reasons. But there is also a method to their madness — they sense that there is a populist fever building out in the country and they want to own it. This would be a bad thing because these wingnuts are not only crazed demagogues, they have a nasty habit of combining their populism with know-nothingism, racism and xenophobia that’s very dangerous. It’s a potent cocktail of hate that will not be helpful to anyone.

Democrats will be very, very foolish if they leave this field to the Republicans. It should, by rights, belong to the party that actually gives a damn about the economic survival of average people instead of those who feel that average people should have the “freedom” to starve. But the way it’s going, they will have this all to themselves.

Anyway, Grayson is trying to get some more Democratic sponsors for the bill. Jane Hamsher explains how you can help:

Please join me, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, James K. Galbraith, Dean Baker, Bill Black, Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge, Yves Smith of NakedCapitalism, US PIRG, Public Citizen, Mike Farrell, Digby, Rob Kuttner, Ian Welsh, Bill Greider, Stirling Newberry, ANWF, Les Leopold, Mike Lux and others in supporting Alan Grayson and asking Democratic members of Congress to cosponsor the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Where does your member of Congress stand? Find out here. And if they aren’t one of the 135 136 Republicans or 30 29 Democrats cosponsoring this bill, why not? Sign the statement here that will be circulated to members of Congress as Rep. Grayson tries to get the 53 more cosponsors needed to pass the bill. And be sure to check the box if you’d like to have your name publicly displayed on the page.

Keep in mind that when everyone starts moaning and groaning about how we can’t afford health care and we have to cut back on education and other “entitlements,” the federal reserve will still be writing blank checks to major players in the financial system and nobody knows where its going or why they’re doing it. And they will get away with it unless somebody besides some right wing cranks demand it.
.

Let’s Get Serious About Fighting Terrorism

by digby

Batocchio forwards this press release.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC – Seeking to quell fears of terrorists somehow breaking out of America’s top-security prisons and wreaking havoc on the defenseless heartland, President Barack Obama moved quickly to announce an Anti-Terrorist Strike Force headed by veteran counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer and mutant superhero Wolverine. Already dubbed a “dream team,” their appointment is seen by experts as a crucial step in reducing the mounting incidents of national conservatives and congressional Democrats crapping their pants.

“I believe a fictional threat is best met with decisive fictional force,” explained President Obama. “Jack Bauer and Wolverine are among the very best we have when in comes to combating fantasy foes.” Mr. Bauer said, “We’re quite certain that our prisons are secure. Osama bin Laden and his agents wouldn’t dare attempt a break-out, and would fail miserably if they tried. But I love this country. And should Lex Luthor, Magneto or the Loch Ness Monster attack, we’ll be there to stop them.”

The move has already earned widespread praise, and veteran columnist David Broder hailed the bipartisan nature of the team. But not all were convinced. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) scoffed, “I thought the president was a Spiderman guy. And what a surprise that a Canadian would use knives on his hands versus a good ol’ fashioned American Uzi.”

Mr. Wolverine, who also goes by Logan, responded, “What’s wrong with Canada? I fought alongside Captain America in World War II, bub. I’m happy to help out.”

Some critics have expressed concerns as to whether Mr. Bauer is the best choice to counter the potential threat of a super-villain such as Magneto, a dinosaur stampede or an alien invasion. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded that while Bauer lacks conventional super-powers, he can withstand extreme amounts of pain, has near infallible judgment, can teleport across Los Angeles and Washington D.C. at will, and can go 24 hours without sleep or relieving his bladder.

Should the task of protecting the country prove too difficult for the super-agent and super-hero on their own, Crime-Fightin’ Jesus has offered to lend a hand “in a pinch,” although he says he would rather spend his time helping the poor “if at all possible.” Republicans insist that a law-enforcement approach to terrorism is ineffective.

The Kimberly-Clark Corporation, manufacturers of Depends adult diapers, has already come out strongly against the announcement of the Bauer-Wolverine dream team, claiming that their increased sales are helping spur the nation’s economic recovery. Republican Newt Gingrich also condemned the president’s actions. “President Obama seems to think that crapping one’s pants is a bad thing somehow,” said the former Speaker of the House, “but crapping one’s pants is what this country was founded on. The Reagan Revolution wouldn’t have happened without fear of evil Soviets and welfare queens. And say what you will about President Bush, he kept this country crapping its pants for seven long years after 9/11.”

The White House declined to comment.

Finally, a sensible solution to a serious problem. Now let’s move on and talk about how to repay the national debt by 2010.

.

And I’m A Member Of British Royal Family

by digby

This just cracks me up:

In October, Bill O’Reilly renewed his contract with Fox News, winning a multi-year deal paying him roughly $10 million per year — placing him well above the top 0.1 percent of income earners. O’Reilly also reportedly charges $50,000 per speaking engagement. Yesterday on his show, O’Reilly said he supports more fuel efficient cars because he has a “middle-class…sensibility”:

INGRAHAM: And what this is, whether you like the green initiatives or not, ultimately, will end up being a continued war on the prosperity of the middle class of America. That’s what this is. It’s part of the remaking of the middle class of America – O’REILLY: Why, why, why? Look, I consider myself a middle-class guy. Even though I make a lot of money, my sensibility is there. INGRAHAM: Yeah.

Watch it: O’Reilly’s middle class “sensibility” curiously favors the wealthy. Last July, he complained that if President Bush’s tax cuts “on those making $250,000 or more” are repealed, “me and other rich folks” would have to finance “folks who dropped out of school, who are too lazy to hold a job, who smoke reefers 24/7.” This isn’t surprising, of course. A Wonk Room analysis found that O’Reilly saves over $400,000 per year under Bush’s tax code. In March, speaking to anti-tax crusader Glenn Beck, O’Reilly accused “30 percent” of the public of being “jealous” of the rich, saying they want to “take from the rich and give to the poor.”

Being middle class isn’t a “sensibility” even though wealthy celebrities like O’Reilly love to think of themselves as regular guys. Just because you prefer beer to champagne, it doesn’t make you middle class. It’s about how much money you have, period.

The Census Bureau shows the middle 20% of the country earning between $40,000 and $95,000 annually and The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a non-partisan and non-profit organization, reports that the middle class has conventionally come to mean families with incomes between $25,000 and $100,000 each year.

Bill O’Reilly hasn’t been middle class in decades and his interests simply don’t intersect with middle class interests. But he and other wealthy, know-it-all, angry white male celebrity blowhards have managed to convincde an awful lot of people that what’s good for Bill O’Reilly is good for them. It’s a beautiful scam which sadly, is not being exposed for the con it really is, even now.
.

Looking In The Rearview Mirror

by digby

I have much the same reaction to Obama’s speech this morning as Greenwald and dday. Actions, not words are what matter in this case. Unfortunately, the last administration lied so constantly and so blatantly in the name of national security that the new president has to make a much stronger case and demonstrate his commitments much more visibly before anyone will believe America has changed its policy. Just saying you believe in the constitution and that America should live up to its values isn’t really good enough. After all, Bush used to say the same thing.

But in case you are wondering what the congressional Democrats specifically have in mind about Guantanamo, here’s a little clue:

Andrea Mitchell: The president acknowledges that the real difficulty is what to do with those prisoners who you are not able to bring to trial and they are still a danger to the United States. And he talked about keeping them in prolonged, what he called prolonged detention, while working that out with judicial authorities and the congress, presumably legislation. Is that doable?

Dianne Feinstein: Yes. The laws of war very clearly say that you can keep a combatant in detention for the length of the conflict. Now this is a bit of an unusual war in that sense, but it is, in fact, a war and it is going to go on.

Therefore, if somebody is judged to be an unlawful combatant, and they remain a threat to our national security, what needs to be evolved is a process whereby their detention is periodically reviewed, either by a court, which I would prefer, or by a military panel and a determination made as to whether the threat still continues.

Now this would happen, I would think, annually, in a lengthy detention, but there is no question in my mind that somebody who is classified as an unlawful combatant can, in fact, be kept in detention until the end of this conflict, which means terrorism, against the United States, against her allies, and in the world abates.

So, basically, we are right back where we started if Feinstein speaks in any way for the administration and the Democratic Party. We are still in a “war” against a method of violence, which means there is no possible end and which means that the government can capture and imprison anyone they determine to be “the enemy” forever. The only thing that will change is where the prisoners are held and few little procedural tweaks to make it less capricious. (It’s nice that some sort of official committee will meet once in a while to decide if the war is over or if the prisoner is finally too old to still be a “danger to Americans.”)

There seems to be some misunderstanding about Guantanamo. Somehow people have gotten it into their heads is that it is nothing more than a symbol, which can be dealt with simply by closing the prison. That’s just not true. Guantanamo is a symbol, true, but it’s a symbol of a lawless, unconstitutional detention and interrogation system. Changing the venue doesn’t solve the problem.

I know it’s a mess, but the fact is that this isn’t really that difficult, except in the usual beltway kabuki political sense. There are literally tens of thousands of potential terrorists all over the world who could theoretically harm America. We cannot protect ourselves from that possibility by keeping the handful we have in custody locked up forever, whether in Guantanamo or some Super Max prison in the US. It’s patently absurd to obsess over these guys like it makes us even the slightest bit safer to have them under indefinite lock and key so they “can’t kill Americans.” The mere fact that we are doing this makes us less safe because the complete lack of faith we show in our constitution and our justice systems is what fuels the idea that this country is weak and easily terrified. There is no such thing as a terrorist suspect who is too dangerous to be set free. They are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. There is not some finite number of terrorists we can kill or capture and then the “war” will be over and the babies will always be safe. This whole concept is nonsensical.

The real terrorists, I’m afraid, are the self-serving hawks who promise to explode a political dirty bomb in the halls of the capitol every time someone tries to be sensible about American foreign policy and national security. They are still running things. They have always run things. And the sorry fact is that their dominance is a decades long model of bipartisan comity.

.