Skip to content

Month: August 2013

Spend Sunday morning with Bill Moyers

Spend Sunday morning with Bill Moyers

by digby

Instead of watching a bunch of gasbags spout talking points and then sit around a table and gossip about it, watch this instead. (Seriously. They’re so lame they’re actually interviewing Donald Trump in Iowa on ABC right now.)

Modern American capitalism is a story of continued inequality and hardship. Even a modest increase in the minimum wage faces opposition from those who seem to show allegiance first and foremost to America’s wealthy and powerful. Yet some aren’t just wringing their hands about our economic crisis; they’re fighting back.

In an encore broadcast, Economist Richard Wolff joins Bill to shine light on the disaster left behind in capitalism’s wake, and to discuss the fight for economic justice, including a fair minimum wage. A Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, and currently Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School, Wolff has written many books on the effects of rampant capitalism, including Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It.

“We have this disparity getting wider and wider between those for whom capitalism continues to deliver the goods by all means, [and] a growing majority in this society facing harder and harder times,” Wolff tells Bill. “And that’s what provokes some of us to say it’s a systemic problem.”

Speaking of Moyers, is anyone else doing this kind of work? I’m sure the poor man would really like to retire. But he just can’t.

.

Saturday night at the movies by Dennis Hartley — Stop the world I want to get off: “Elysium” and “Europa Report”

Saturday Night at the Movies

Stop the world, I want to get off: Elysium & Europa Report

By Dennis Hartley

Elysium: So what’s the Greek word for “Arizona”?















Now, it’s very tempting and all too easy to take the rather obvious political allegory in Neill Blomkamp’s new sci-fi actioner Elysium and run with it. But I am going to take the high road. I’m not going to shoot you a Palinesque wink as I tell you the year is 2154, and the human race is reduced to two classes: the super-rich, who have ensconced themselves in a glorified gated community called Elysium (a gargantuan bio-domed space station in Earth’s orbit) and, well, the rest of humanity, who have been ghettoized back on Earth, which has fallen into complete ecological and economic ruin. Oh, the Earth rabble try to infiltrate the 1 per-centers’ big wheel in the sky via their “illegal” shuttlecrafts (oh how they try!) but the occasional shiploads lucky enough make it past Elysium’s formidable Star Wars missile defense system and actually land are quickly captured by police droids and deported back to Earth (please note I’m still keeping a straight face). Aw, screw it. I reveled in the political allegory. I loved, loved LOVED it!

I especially reveled in Jodie Foster’s turn as Elysium’s icy Secretary Delacourt, who continually usurps the President’s ineffectual requests to take it down a notch on these strident Homeland Security measures (and if she didn’t base her characterization on Governor Jan Brewer, then Stephen Colbert actually is a conservative pundit). Meanwhile, back in the States, we are introduced to Max (Matt Damon), an ex-con who works at a dreary droid manufacturing plant in L.A. The Los Angeles of 2154 resembles a giant favela (it makes the Blade Runner rendition look downright Utopian). Nearly everyone speaks Spanish (now settle…). Those lucky enough to have a steady job are still mercilessly exploited by their employers (I said…settle). While there are hospitals, they are understaffed and ill-equipped to treat catastrophic illnesses (whereas on Elysium, every mansion contains some kind of all-in-one medical appliance that appears to cure everything from a paper cut to terminal cancer via instantaneous cellular regeneration).

All of these mitigating factors are about to converge into a perfect shit storm for our hapless protagonist. A work accident exposes Max to a lethal amount of radiation. He’s told he has about 5 days to live and given a bottle of painkillers. His only chance for a cure is up on Elysium. Desperate, he reaches out to an old acquaintance (Wagner Moura) who is now a successful smuggler, to see if he can arrange passage. As Max is somewhat short on funds, the smuggler offers a trade deal. If Max does a special “job” for him, he’ll get him on a shuttle. Max agrees, but the gig goes south, and he’s soon on the run from an odious mercenary (Sharlto Copley) who does covert operations for Secretary Delacourt.

What ensues is an interesting mashup of Escape from New York with Seven Days in May (granted, Max is no Snake Plissken, but he’s in the same general ball park). As he did in his well-received 2009 feature film debut District 9 , Blomkamp deftly delivers a strong political message and slam-bang sci-fi action entertainment all in one package. While Damon is unquestionably the star, I think Copley (who seems to be establishing a Scorcese-De Niro/Herzog-Kinski type partnership with the director) nearly steals the movie with his deliriously over-the-top performance (the best scene-stealing sci-fi heavy since Dennis Hopper and his eye patch played to the back of the house in Waterworld).

Oh, by the way…the best part about this film is that the real show hasn’t even started yet. There is an unmistakable, marvelously unapologetic pro-Obamacare message in the denouement that is surely going to leave the “Aha! Hollywood lefty socialist propaganda!” crowd apoplectic and sputtering with impotent rage. They are going to go absolutely spare (if they haven’t gone so already). Man, I can’t wait. Pass the popcorn…



Two-thousand and wan: Europa Report











Over the years, filmmakers who aim to create “realistic” sci-fi dramas have been faced with a conundrum: While it may be true that “It’s not about ‘destination’, it’s about the journey”, an inconvenient truth remains…real life space journeys are tedious and relatively uneventful (Apollo 13 aside). Even our nearest interstellar travel destination (the Moon) takes 4 days (I don’t know about you, but I get antsy after 4 hours on a plane). So if you want to do a realistic film about a Jupiter mission, how do you add drama?  OK, Kubrick managed to pull it off in 2001: A Space Odyssey , but that set the bar pretty high.

To their credit, for about two-thirds of their hyper-realistic sci-fi drama Europa Report, director Sebastian Cordero and screenwriter Philip Gelatt seem headed for that bar. Framing the narrative with the “found footage” gimmick, the film is a faux-documentary that “reconstructs” a privately-funded (but alas, ill-fated) mission to Jupiter’s moon of Europa to probe for signs of aquatic alien life possibly lurking beneath its vast ice pack. The six crew members have each been chosen for expertise in their respective fields. Shipboard footage capturing the workaday mission minutiae is interspersed with somber “present day” interviews telegraphing that it all ends in tears (don’t worry…not a spoiler).

Most of the filmmaker’s effort focuses on making us believe that this is all really happening, and indeed the overall “look” is right. Special effects are seamless; all the hardware, the radio chatter, EVA procedures etc. etc. suitably authentic and convincing, but there’s one thing missing…an interesting story. There’s simply no “there” there, and the sudden 180 into The Blair Witch Project territory in the third act cheapens the film and destroys all credibility. The cast (which includes Michael Nykvist and the ubiquitous Sharlto Copley) do the best they can with woefully underwritten parts, but the resultant lack of emotional investment on my part as a viewer made it hard for me to care about what happened to whom once the mission (and the film itself) began to go horribly awry.

.

This man’s voters can’t possibly be as dumb and cruel as he is. (Can they?)

This man’s voters can’t possibly be as dumb and cruel as he is. (Can they?)


by digby

I’m not sure what this Republican congressman thinks poor people “look like”, but apparently they aren’t allowed to be physically fit. I have no idea why:

“The food programs are designed to take care of people who can’t work, not won’t work. And we all know those people that won’t work, right?” he asked the audience. “They’re abusing the program, and we’ve got to get them off of it.”

Mullin knows for a fact that food stamps are abused, because he saw them being used by people who did not fit his idea of what poor people are supposed to look like:

So I’m in Crystal City and I’m buying my groceries…and I noticed everybody was giving that card. They had these huge baskets, and I realized it was the first of the month. But then I’m looking over, and there’s a couple beside me. This guy was built like a brick house. I mean he had muscles all over him. He was in a little tank top and pair of shorts and really nice Nike shoes. And she was standing there, and she was all in shape and she looked like she had just come from a fitness program. She was in the spandex, and you know, they were both physically fit. And they go up in front of me and they pay with that card. Fraud. Absolute 100% all it is is fraud…it’s all over the place. And there you go, to the fact that we shouldn’t be supporting those who won’t work. They’re spending their money someplace.

This kind of judgment is so common among lucky people with everything that it makes you wish you could force them to go without work for a few months and run through their savings just to see how much they like it. We’ve only had catastrophically high unemployment now for five years. Not that he wants to do anything about it.

The irony is that if these people were fat he’d be complaining that we’re giving them too much food. Apparently, they need to look like Holocaust victims before they qualify. And even then, maybe not. Obviously, skinny people aren’t working hard enough or they’d have some muscles to show for it, amirite?

This attitude just makes me livid. How in the hell does someone this ignorant and selfish get elected to anything. Wait, don’t answer that …

Oh, and his contention that food stamp programs are rife with fraud is utter BS. Of course.

.

Barney Frank comes out again

Barney Frank comes out again

by digby

I confess that I have not been keeping up with Bill Maher’s show much this season because well … he gets on my nerves. But the show does feature some good guests and I really should make a point to tune in so that I don’t miss something like this:

Former Massachusetts lawmaker Barney Frank revealed that he doesn’t believe in God.

During Friday’s appearance on HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher,” Frank, who championed the decriminalization of pot while serving in the House of Representatives, admitted to smoking marijuana and being an atheist.

“You were in a fairly safe district. You were not one of those congress people who would have to worry about every little thing,” Maher said to Frank. “You could come on this show and sit next to a pot-smoking atheist and it wouldn’t bother you.”

The 73-year-old Frank shot back, “Which pot-smoking atheist are you talking about here?” drawing applause from the crowd.

Frank, who has felt liberated since leaving Congress, said if he was appointed to fill John Kerry’s Senate seat, he would’ve taken the oath on the Constitution, not the Bible.

I don’t recall in my early life that being an atheist was the sin that dare not speak its name. Indeed, my father, who was a very right wing guy was a non-believer and wasn’t very patient with those who insisted you have to believe in God or be considered some sort of deviant. And I never thought much about my social or professional situation being impacted by my status as an atheist when I was younger. It was only later, in the 90s, when it became something I started to think about admitting in polite company.

But that’s certainly how it has been in recent years, with attitudes like this becoming more prevalent despite the fact that there are plenty of avowed agnostics and atheists in this country:

This is a religious country. Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian.. We’ve got the Creator in our Declaration of Independence. We’ve got “In God We Trust” on our coins. We’ve got “one nation under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance. And we say prayers in the Senate and the House of Representatives to God. An atheist could never get elected dog catcher, much less president. — Sally Quinn

And sometimes it’s pretty extreme:

In describing the inherent bad nature of a terrorist, the novel features their horrific crimes. This is Good vs. Evil. We Shall Never Forget 9/11 Vol. II

Terrorist Trading Cards clearly identifies the evil that may sit next to you on an airplane, or it could be an avowed Atheist in the parking lot of your local grocer on a sunny morning.

The world should look at them, make fun of them, name them – shame them, recognize who they are and rid the earth of them. No comic book published, nor any nightmarish fiction written, can compare to the absolute evil pictured in this book, stated, Wayne Bell Publisher. And realize as well “They” are not finished. Imagine a terrorist with a nuclear bomb.

This, on the other hand, is perfectly normal. The man is a current member of congress:

Polling says that atheists are even more unpopular than Muslims (which is not to say that Muslims are particularly popular.) I wonder is this is much the same as being antagonistic toward gays was years ago: they just don’t realize they know a bunch of them — are probably related to them.

Frank, of course, is a two fer. And good for him for coming out the second time.

Update: Also too, a pot smoker. (A three-fer!) A similar dynamic. Many people are afraid to admit it because it’s still a furtive sort of thing and so others don’t realize they know a bunch of people who do it. Once they are aware  of that they’ll see that pot smoking atheists are stand up citizens with the same hopes and dreams as any other American.

.

Macho jerks, wired and loaded for bear

Macho jerks, wired and loaded for bear

by digby

From Think Progress:

Open carry groups are holding “Starbucks Appreciation Day” rallies across the country on Friday, including in Newtown, Connecticut, where a gunman killed 26 people eight months ago.

Starbucks currently allows customers to carry their guns in states with open carry. Gun advocates have taken this move as encouragement to stage “appreciation days,” like the one on Friday.

As many as two dozen gun advocates have stopped by the Newtown coffee shop so far today.
Across the country, many of the participants have posted “Appreciation Day” photos to Facebook where they hold their coffee and guns, and even occasionally children:

These guys are making a point and they’re making it loud and clear: If you don’t like our politics, think twice about saying so. Who knows which one of us might just be a little bit wacky and decide to take it personally.

On the other hand, at least they’re letting people know they’re armed instead of concealing them. Those guys can stalk you and if you confront them they can kill you on the spot — in “self-defense” and you’ll never know you’re dealing with a gun toting freakshow. At least with these guys you know to steer clear and have absolutely nothing to do with them. If I see someone openly carrying a gun in Starbucks — even in California where they’re not allowed to load their weapons — I just leave. It’s happened. It’s always a couple of loud mouthed white guys and they’re always talking about how they’ve been persecuted for being a gun owner. That’s a little too fanatical and weird for my taste.

Too bad for the Starbucks workers who are forced to deal with them though. I wonder if a case could be made along the lines of second hand smoke? Workplaces don’t allow smoking anymore because the rates of cancer are higher for people who are exposed to tobacco even if they don’t smoke themselves. I’m fairly sure that workers who are exposed to macho civilians with loaded guns and an ax to grind are also at a higher risk for death.

.

“Anyone who can parse this—in written form, never mind by ear—qualifies for a Supreme Court nomination”

“Anyone who can parse this—in written form, never mind by ear—qualifies for a Supreme Court nomination”

by digby

Alternet features an interesting piece on the Trayvon Martin case in which it compiles some lawyers’ complaints abut the process. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t really comment as to whether these are valid, although they sound reasonable to this layperson.

I did want to note one of the complaints however, because I wrote about it on the day of the verdict:

Is the explanation of the not-guilty verdict as to manslaughter that the jury thought it is legal for a man with a gun to initiate an altercation with an unarmed boy and shoot him dead if he starts to lose the fight and fears for his own?”

The Florida law deciding this case is abysmal, Ingber said, noting that this added to the jury’s confusion during deliberations, and in getting the charge from the judge. “Try reading the instructions. [18] Really try. I did,” he wrote. “I am an attorney and thought I knew what the elements of manslaughter were until I read this. Anyone who can parse this—in written form, never mind by ear—qualifies for a Supreme Court nomination.”

“But it’s even worse,” he continued, saying these were yet more prosecutorial blunders. “During deliberations the jury, having only the legal smarts of a mere circuit court judge, asked for clarification as to manslaughter but never received them. Why was that?”

I thought it was very odd that the jury asked for clarification of the manslaughter instructions and couldn’t get it. I read those instructions and even as someone who reads a fair amount of complicated text I was stymied as to what it was supposed to be saying. Those jurors weren’t lawyers and those instructions were clear as mud, especially since both sides had been arguing a second degree homicide case and not a manslaughter case.

Anyway, it’s an interesting article. I assume that there are just as many lawyers out there who believe the case was argued, judged and decided correctly — that’s how the adversarial system works. But for many of us out here in layman’s land, there is just something terribly wrong about a man with a concealed, loaded weapon getting out of his car against the instructions of the police department, shooting an unarmed teen-ager and getting completely away with it. Sometimes the legal system’s great complexity works against common sense logic and I still think it did so in this case. It was legal and followed all the rules so we have no means to object. But that doesn’t mean justice was served.

.

QOTD: they all look alike edition

QOTD: they all look alike edition

by digby

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this unfortunately, but the fact that it comes from a member of congress and a very big wheel in the defense procurement world — and a Californian to boot — is extremely dispiriting.

“There are people that can’t tell the difference between a Hispanic person and an Arab person. If you get an Arab that’s coming into this country to be a terrorist, they can mingle in, and they can get in here, and then they can do damage.” — Buck McKeon (R-Ca)

I’ve heard this in casual conversation. And that’s usually when someone else pipes in that you can’t trust the Mexicans either because they’re all drug lords. Also too: lazy and stealing our jobs.

Dr Lee Rogers has announced that he’s running against McKeon again in the next election. he came surprisingly close last time especially for a first time candidate going up against such a big wheel incumbent who’s been in forever. Maybe it was all the Latinos in his district who figures out what a jerk McKeon was a long time ago.

Here’s Rogers’ statement;

“The Congressman’s comments are insensitive to both Latinos and those of Arab descent. Certainly a secure border helps to make us safer, but xenophobic comments like these stoke unnecessary fears and discrimination against law abiding U.S. residents and immigrants. His comments put him the same category as other House Republicans who frequently use hateful rhetoric, like Rep. Louie Gohmert, who suggested that terrorists are crossing the border disguised as Mexicans to have terror babies in the U.S., and Rep. Steve King, who said that Latinos have calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the border.

“What we need are real solutions to fix our broken immigration system, like supporting the bipartisan Senate bill offering a pathway to citizenship for 11 million undocumented residents of our country who badly want to become legalized, pay taxes, and partake in the American dream. I wish these guys in Washington would get over their foot-in-mouth disease and start acting like responsible Members of Congress who actually do something to improve the lives of people in our country.”

I’m so sick of hearing these right wing bozos act as if it’s still 1955 and they can just blurt out whatever ignorant thought that passes through their privileged white male minds. They need to go.

You can help Rogers here. He’s a very good guy — a world renowned surgeon who specializes in saving diabetic patients’ feet. A real mensch. He’s also a real progressive.

.

Friday penguin blogging

Friday penguin blogging

by digby

Here is a live cam of two baby penguins. You’re welcome:

Live streaming video by Ustream

A live penguin webcam has been installed at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach, Calif., arguably the finest adorable-animal-viewing opportunity since the legendary Shiba Inu cam.

Two Magellanic Penguins were born one month ago at the aquarium’s June Keyes Penguin Habitat to first time parents Floyd and Roxy. They will be on public display late this summer, but for the time being can be viewed below, on the penguin webcam.

The Aquarium of the Pacific website says that Magellanic Penguins are native to the coasts of Argentina and Chile. During the incubation period of the penguin eggs, which takes between 38 and 43 days, each parent takes turns incubating the eggs. When they hatch, the adorable things aren’t able to open their eyes for an entire week.

After about 90 days, Magellanic Penguins “fledge,” or replaced their newborn feathers with adult feathers, which are water-tight. After these Aquarium of the Pacific penguins fledge, they will be on display with their older peers.

They’re not full-fledged yet…

Enjoy your evening everyone.

.

Backdoor secrets of many varieties

Backdoor secrets of many varieties

by digby

Speaking of surveillance, just today we hear of this:

The National Security Agency has a secret backdoor into its vast databases under a legal authority enabling it to search for US citizens’ email and phone calls without a warrant, according to a top-secret document passed to the Guardian by Edward Snowden.

The previously undisclosed rule change allows NSA operatives to hunt for individual Americans’ communications using their name or other identifying information. Senator Ron Wyden told the Guardian that the law provides the NSA with a loophole potentially allowing “warrantless searches for the phone calls or emails of law-abiding Americans”.

The authority, approved in 2011, appears to contrast with repeated assurances from Barack Obama and senior intelligence officials to both Congress and the American public that the privacy of US citizens is protected from the NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs.

The intelligence data is being gathered under Section 702 of the of the Fisa Amendments Act (FAA), which gives the NSA authority to target without warrant the communications of foreign targets, who must be non-US citizens and outside the US at the point of collection.

The communications of Americans in direct contact with foreign targets can also be collected without a warrant, and the intelligence agencies acknowledge that purely domestic communications can also be inadvertently swept into its databases. That process is known as “incidental collection” in surveillance parlance.

But this is the first evidence that the NSA has permission to search those databases for specific US individuals’ communications.

You’ll notice Ron Wyden is quoted there. He made a further statement about his earlier today. After praising the president for proposing a civil liberties advocate for the FISC and reforms of the use of section 215 of the Patriot Act he wrote this:

Notably absent from President Obama’s speech was any mention of closing the backdoor searches loophole that potentially allows for the warrantless searches of Americans’ phone calls and emails under section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I believe that this provision requires significant reforms as well and I will continue to fight to close that loophole. I am also concerned that the executive branch has not fully acknowledged the extent to which violations of FISC orders and the spirit of the law have already had a significant impact on Americans’ privacy.

The article does point out that the NSA documents say that people were not allowed to use that backdoor capability until the agency came up with some protocols. There is no information to date about what those might be at this point.

But I’m very sure that none of those NSA employees with the capability would ever break the rules. They don’t do that sort of thing:

The National Security Agency routinely listened in on the intimate and innocent phone calls of Americans in Iraq, including government personnel, journalists and aid workers, as they called back into the United States, according to two former NSA operators who spoke to ABC News.

The accusations that the NSA routinely listened in on Americans’ phone calls contradicts the Administration’s repeated claims that its secret spying did not listen to any Americans other than suspected terrorists.

The conduct also appears to violate the rules that govern when the NSA can listen in to Americans’ making calls overseas — which then required high-level approval for each target…

Hey, check this out,” Faulk says he would be told, “there’s good phone sex or there’s some pillow talk, pull up this call, it’s really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, ‘Wow, this was crazy’,” Faulk told ABC News.

Imagine that. Voyeurs at the NSA.

And I’m very sure that nobody would ever rationalize using surveillance for what they see as “the greater good” as these fine folks did just a couple of years ago:

A wide-ranging surveillance operation by the Food and Drug Administration against a group of its own scientists used an enemies list of sorts as it secretly captured thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama, previously undisclosed records show.

What began as a narrow investigation into the possible leaking of confidential agency information by five scientists quickly grew in mid-2010 into a much broader campaign to counter outside critics of the agency’s medical review process, according to the cache of more than 80,000 pages of computer documents generated by the surveillance effort.

Moving to quell what one memorandum called the “collaboration” of the F.D.A.’s opponents, the surveillance operation identified 21 agency employees, Congressional officials, outside medical researchers and journalists thought to be working together to put out negative and “defamatory” information about the agency.

F.D.A. officials defended the surveillance operation, saying that the computer monitoring was limited to the five scientists suspected of leaking confidential information about the safety and design of medical devices.
[…]
The documents captured in the surveillance effort — including confidential letters to at least a half-dozen Congressional offices and oversight committees, drafts of legal filings and grievances, and personal e-mails — were posted on a public Web site, apparently by mistake, by a private document-handling contractor that works for the F.D.A. The New York Times reviewed the records and their day-by-day, sometimes hour-by-hour accounting of the scientists’ communications.

This is what happens when people have the tools at hand to spy on other people. If they can get away with it they will do it, and the number of reasons they’ll find to justify it are endless.

There is every reason to be skeptical about the NSA’s oversight of its own programs. After all, Edward Snowden was able to do a whole lot of things they claim nobody can do. Is it reasonable to think that there aren’t other operatives digging in where they shouldn’t be? Or certain people who think they have good patriotic reasons to do it and can’t see why a stupid legal technicality should stand in the way? These are human beings not machines. They can talk themselves into anything.

.

If only we had waited for that review board …

If only we had waited for that review board …


by digby

The president held a press conference today and spoke of many things.  But he opened his remarks with an announcement of coming investigations and a release of information about the NSA’s secret spying apparatus. And while the President insisted that he had already been reforming the NSA so Snowden’s revelations are irrelevant in the long run, the mainstream press, at least, doesn’t seem convinced of that anymore.

Here’s Tim Lee of the Washington Post:

“I don’t think Mr. Snowden was a patriot,” the president said. “I called for a thorough review of our operations before Mr. Snowden made these leaks. My preference, and I think the American peoples’ preferences would have been for a lawful, orderly examination of these laws.”

Yet the Obama administration showed little interest in subjecting the NSA to meaningful oversight and public debate prior to Snowden’s actions. When Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked for a “ballpark figure” of the number of Americans whose information was being collected by the NSA last year, the agency refused to give the senator any information, arguing that doing so would violate the privacy of those whose information was collected.

In March, at a Congressional hearing, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper answered “no sir” when Wyden asked whether the NSA had collected “any type of data at all on millions of Americans.” We now know his statement was incorrect.

Wyden and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) had also been pressing for almost four years for access to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s legal opinions interpreting Section 215 of the Patriot Act.

Until Snowden’s disclosures, the senators made no headway. Now, the Obama administration has announced it intends to release its legal interpretation of Section 215.

Ezra Klein followed up on this with a similar takeaway, with the headline Edward Snowden, patriot. He opens with:

President Obama’s news conference today was … weird.

Binyamin Appelbaum, an economics reporter for the New York Times, summed it up sharply on Twitter: “Obama is really mad at Edward Snowden for forcing us patriots to have this critically important conversation.”

NBC’s First Read:

Snowden revelations force Obama’s hand on surveillance program

[W]hile the president has declined in the past to say whether he considers Snowden a “whistleblower” as supporters of the alleged leaker claim, Snowden’s actions were at the very least a catalyst for the coming reforms, which he says will establish additional layers of oversight to reign in possible abuses of the NSA practices.

He seemed to have been saying today that Snowden’s revelations ruined his plan to have an orderly investigation of the NSA programs even though there is no evidence that he was doing any such thing. Certainly, there is no evidence that there was any “plan” to inform the American people since the senators who were running around with their hair on fire were lied to right to their face in open testimony by the intelligence community.

The president also claimed that he had signed an executive order that would have allowed Snowden to come forward without any fear of retaliation. But the executive order the president was apparently referring to doesn’t even explicitly cover contractors

Though whistle-blower advocates have actually won increased protections in recent months, intelligence contractors have repeatedly been left out. Intelligence workers are not covered by the Whistle-blower Protection Act. When Congress passed the Whistle-blower Protection Enhancement Act last fall, at the request of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, the law’s protections didn’t apply to the intelligence community workers — both contract and government employees. When Congress added whistle-blower protections specifically for contract employees to the National Defense Reauthorization Act of 2013, intelligence contractors were again excluded.

To fill the void, President Obama issued Public Policy Directive (PPD) 19 in October 2012 to extend protections to national security workers. However, his directive made no mention of contractors. Because PPD-19 was initially classified and is actually being implemented in secret, advocates are unsure how strong the protections for government intelligence workers actually are. The directive made no mention of contract workers specifically and Canterbury said she would be “actually shocked and astounded” if the directive were interpreted to apply to contractors.

The idea that Snowden could have used this provision to jump start a debate is as fatuous as it gets. Wyden and Udall couldn’t get this information out or convince the NSA to change its ways and they are US Senators! Why in the world would a lone contractor whistleblower believe he could get the NSA to change its policies much less inform the citizens of what it has been doing? And that’s assuming he even knew how the presidential order was being secretly implemented.

Besides, these words make it little more than one of the administration’s more ludicrous symbolic gestures:

This directive is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Not a lot of meat on those bones. Snowden would have been a total idiot to rely on that executive order. (The only other law protecting intelligence contractors would have required him to secretly talk to to Mike Rogers and Dianne Feinstein and let them handle it. See: Udall, Wyden, Rockefeller above for how that works.)

It’s nonsense and everyone knows it. This great debate, which today resulted in a very public set of executive branch reforms and investigations would not have happened were it not for Edward Snowden. You do not have to call him a patriot — perhaps you think these programs are great and you hope the government keeps up the good work. But he is most definitely a whistleblower in the most classic sense of the word.

And that whistleblower was undoubtedly very well aware of the fact that the Obama administration has been uniquely hostile the very idea of a free press informing the American public of what the government is doing in its name:

There is no evidence that President Obama was seriously engaged in systematic reforms of the NSA surveillance programs prior to now. He could have put a stop to much of it long before Edward Snowden came on the scene. And he sure as hell could have called a truce in the war on whistleblowers and the press. Instead, the DOJ has been pressing forward with everything it has against reporters like the NY Times’ James Risen who has been harassed by the federal government since 2005.

The administration’s actions speak louder than words, especially these words:

[T]here’s no doubt that Mr. Snowden’s leaks triggered a much more rapid and passionate response than would have been the case if I had simply appointed this review board to go through — and I’d sat down with Congress and we had worked this thing through — it would have been less exciting and it would not have generated as much press — I actually think we would have gotten to the same place, and we would have done so without putting at risk our national security and some very vital ways that we are able to get intelligence that we need to secure the country.

Basically:

It’s time for that trope to be retired. It’s frankly reminiscent of the paternalistic bullhorn nonsense we had to put up with in the Bush administration. This is a democracy. We don’t outsource our constitutional responsibilities.

This administration, like all the administrations before it since WWII, has fiercely guarded the prerogatives of the secret surveillance state and the Military Industrial Complex.  It is the source of real presidential power and they are loathe to give up any of it until they are forced to do so by the people. This has been obvious for many decades and President Obama is no exception.

.