Fitness for the Occasion

Facebook is watching you.  From the article:

This is Bullshit.  They could submit a list of users who opt-in to affiliates, and have them *only* transmit data for those users.  Which leads me to an interesting question.  Has Facebook submitted a list of users to collect data from?  (If so, their “no choice” argument is already a flat out lie on its part).  If not, do affiliate sites send data for *every* user, regardless of whether they have a Facebook account?

Facebook is saying they do not use the data.  They haven’t said they will not.  But they also fail to understand that sometimes people just don’t like the idea of a corporation tracking them, whether the data is erased and “never used” or not.

I can’t believe its finally been made, and is on its way.  The trailer looks fantastic.  I hope they do the complexity of the graphic novel and its take on violence justice.  It still stands out as one of the more thought provoking things I’ve ever read.

One of the greatest travesty’s of modern rhetorical warfare is the way we’ve let the past become irrelevant.  Any crime committed more than a year ago becomes “old news”, and bringing it back up again forces us to carry heavy labels like “bitter” or “sore loser”.

To truly embrace the radical act of holding our leaders accountable for their actions we must forgo any sort of impact those charges might have on us.  They are false on their face and ought to be banished with an economical expression of scorn.  Our time and energy are best used letting the barbs of polite society slide by while we go right for the throat.  In the case of actions we deeply oppose, such as starting a war based on lies, or stealing the 2000 election, we cannot and must not drop the ball.  Every power player involved on the wrong team must be held accountable.

This is especially true when politicians refuse to admit to their mistakes and proceed to repeat them.

The obvious casualties of the past’s death as a valid political topic have been: confidence in our electoral system, separation of powers, freedom of speech, habeus corpus, and a host of other topics that form the backbone of a free society.  But at the very core the loss is felt when we are unable or unwilling to make effective arguments when the dogs of the past rear their heads anew to tear at the flesh of our country.

Holding a politician to the fire for their crimes and misdeeds is powerful political theater and makes for a damning counter-argument.  If we want to win, we must hold accountable those who abuse their power.  If we want to hold anyone accountable at all, the past must count.

Oh this is good:

Who wrote that?  Have a guess.  No peeking!

Read more »

But only if we’re aggressive.

My friend Marco sent me a link to an incredibly important article.  Glenn Greenwald has effectively reframed American politics as a struggle between voters and the political class:

In 2006, we played by party rules.  True, we played hardball, and played more skillfully and effectively than ever before.  But we still played the party game.  And as Glenn notes, that left us in the lurch.  We had Democrats who were complicit, and Republicans who were voracious, and only a few from either party have consistently stood up and fought.

So what is being proposed is the creation of a long term Political Action Committee to aggressively take down incumbents who trespass on the constitution and our civil liberties:

Its simple.  By joining in this coalition, we are taking aim at any politician of any party who attacks civil liberties and constitutional rights.  And we are putting our time, money, energy where our mouth is.  There is no party loyalty.  There is simply strategy and loyalty to civil rights.

On August 8th there is a fundraising drive (from Greenwald’s article, emphasis mine):

This is a show of power.  It is a roar that should crack the marble in Washington and send political and media elites scurrying.  And we will only get that powerful an effect if enough of us join in at the top of our lungs.

There’s a number of ways to join.  Become a Sponsor.  Help spread the word.  Pledge to donate on August 8th.

This effort will determine the nature of our government and the extent of our liberty.  Its the most promising front in the defining battle of our generation.

It’s clobberin time.

Karl Rove has flown the coop!  I don’t understand how we can pretend to be a nation of laws when this guy is allowed to ignore a subpoena:

Word is impeachment is back on the table.  If handled correctly, it could provide fodder for the general election.  And any move that forces McCain to defend Bush when Obama is left with an opening to attack, is a great move.

But I could care less about impeachment.  When do the criminal trials start?  And will they ever pay for their crimes?

There’s been a lot of noise going back and forth over this story, and I wanted to make sure a few essential points make it out into the narrative.

I’ll state these three points right up front.  One, is that symbolic violence absolutely constitutes a hate crime.  Second, that the case at hand involved an honest mistake.  Third, that we need to tear down the veil of religious privilege and open religion up to criticism.

The first point comes from one of the fellows who certainly helped inflame tensions (Pharyngula):

Actually, if someone literally held a communion wafer hostage, after that wafer was viewed by believers as being the body of Christ, yes that would be a hate crime.  Imagine if that was done with a Torah taken from the Ark.  Or a copy of the Koran.  An intentional act of violence against a religious symbol that is meant to threaten a specified group of people would be a hate crime.  Smashing an idol or painting swastikas on a wall is no different than urinating on a Eucharist wafer.

However, that is not at all what happened here (Majikthise):

Not the wisest move in the book, but one that you would think would merit sympathy from members of the Church.  Wanting to share aspects of your life with friends is part and parcel of being human, and when your religious practice is a part of that, its perfectly natural to want to share it.  (Its also just as normal for the friend to be curious).  While by no means a Christian myself, I have been to church on two occasions, and was invited to a midnight mass (which I never did make).  Given this, the Church could have taken the opportunity to gently chide with a “You shouldn’t do that”, and use it as an opportunity to invite people to learn more about Catholicism.  I can understand this would be hard to do, they believe the communion wafer is the body of Christ, and it must be disconcerting to imagine it being handled inappropriately.  As hard as it is, sometimes meeting a situation like this head on with rhetorical force just creates backlash, when instead the response ought to spur sympathy and interest.  This could have been handled deftly and with skill.

Which leads me to my final point.  I hadn’t even heard of Religious Privilege until I read this (Pandagon, Manda Marcotte).  But its there, this idea that we ought not criticize believers, and anyone outside the traditional mono-theistic traditions ought to just be quiet and limit their social criticism to those who abuse their power, while ignoring the structural problems.  Which leads to the problem of hate speech vs free speech in a really unique way (Pandagon, Jesse Taylor):

Calling it a cracker, while offensive to some, is the right of all.  Religion shouldn’t be off limits to critique.

Which brings us back to PZ Myers over at Pharyngula:

He’s right, they are.  And his colorful “threat” at the end of his post is hyperbole (Majikthise):

There is a line between religious hate crimes and the freedom to criticize religion.  Charges of heresy and being burned at the stake have been replaced (in some parts of the world) by charges of hate crime and death threats.  If we want to live in a free society, we need to find the patience and the wisdom to distinguish between critique and symbolic violence.  And we need to understand when symbolic violence, if ever, is allowable under the protection of the 1st ammendment.

What do you think?  Let’s take a look at PZ Myer’s hyperbolic joke:

Now, let’s change it around and aim it at another religion:

Do you view it any differently?

Is this kind of speech allowable currently?  Should it be allowable?

I guess flat out lying is ok in the opinion section of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.  That’s how Marianne Means sets up her ridiculous on its face argument that Barack Obama is a selfish little brat who needs to offer Clinton the VP to be appropriately “gracious”.

Translation:  They are not spending every waking minute bashing the mainstream media over the head with the fact that they are working together.

The ego at play here does not belong to Barack.  Melanie has nothing to go on here.  As former President Carter noted, an Obama/Clinton ticket would have the weaknesses of both.  It would be a poor choice indeed, and not simply because we’d lose yet another voice in the Senate.

In fact, it is so far beyond the bounds of good politics for Obama to pick his former rival for the vp slot, that it seems more likely the manufactured vp dilemma is just an opportunity to hammer Obama about perceived character flaws.  Flaws that cannot be backed up.

In a field of politicians who have made the wrong call on the issues of Iraq, Iran, our civil rights, health care, and the economy, Barack Obama’s greatest strength is his good judgment.  His ability to make good calls stands in such stark contrast to his Republican rival that even when he does screw up he still looks amazingly impressive by comparison.

As it is, Melanie’s column is left stretching for fact-like substitutes:

Perhaps (when they ran head to head), it wasn’t Obama’s lack of appeal so much as Clinton’s appeal to a generation of women who fought foundational battles.

Here we get to the hell hound eaten, rotted out intestinal core of her argument.  Obama supporters are greedy little fascists, and Clinton supporters are ardent supports of Democracy and apple pie.

Bullshit.

The Hillary supporters who are still pushing for her nomination have bought into and identified with the sense of entitlement Clinton gave off like a thousand watt aura during the campaign.  Obama’s supporters (old and recent), have a mix of motivations.  First among them, for myself, is to end the infighting and move forward with the centrist establishment candidate we ended up settling on, and focus on beating the shit out of McCain in the general election.

And with that as the goal, Barack Obama would be gravely mistaken to pick Hillary Clinton ad Vice President to be.  He should be thinking about a non federal Senator/Representative who brings something valuable to the table without taking it away from the Democratic party’s power as a whole.

We are two days away from the kickoff to the Witness Against the War walk.  450 Miles to protest the war in Iraq:

There’s more here.  The nonviolent protest will include civil disobedience.  It carries a simple message aimed at both parties: End the War.  The participants (including Helene!) will be taking part in a long and rich history of social activism for the best of causes:  Peace.

McCain is weak on the economy.  He knows this, so he’s got to compensate with a crack advisory team.  Phil Gramm leads the pack:

He’s got ties to Enron, the subprime meltdown, and he’s a lobbyist.  I can see why McCain likes him.  But the best part of all is that I can suddenly see an explanation for McCain’s insistence that the war in Iraq was going swimmingly when he took his infamous walk.

Its all in our heads.

All of it!  The election, the recession, the war.  Upstrairs.  Nogginland.

We are dreamers adrift in a world that knows no mortal bounds, nothing can harm us but we must all be very afraid and patriotic.  Now vote for McCain, lord of reality.

Secrecy News has insights into the FISA bill.

Democrats may give in on offshore drilling (DailyKos).

A fascinating look at Dawkins, Atheism, and Religious Scientists over at Pandagon.  I now really want to read the “The God Delusion” in public for the discussions it could spur.

Carly Fiorina, the HP exec who is angling for a VP slot, disagrees with McCain on the basic issue of health care coverage for the pill.  As Ann points out, the language she uses “women would like a choice” is exactly what she shouldn’t use “when she’s stumping for a candidate who is blatantly anti-choice“.

Bluegal has the video, according to a supporter McCain understands the working class because he wants to ensure they have marshmellows.  And they said his tax-free summer plan was a shoddy gimick, hah!

Karynthia at the Angry Black Woman has a piece up on the impact of voting for McCain.

Evil Bender: A Grand Jury convened by petition against an abortion provider does not indict.

Finally a really interesting exploration of the problem of anti-semetic rhetoric in discussions of Israel and Palestine by the-girl-detective at Feministe.

Oh Hell YES.  MoveOn and a massive coalition of political groups asks the question on Healthcare: Which Side Are You On?

From the email moveon.org sent out:

This is an outstanding, practical, kick ass idea.  I like every part of this campaign, right down to the rhetoric.  Which Side Are You On is a brilliant choice to make the battle lines sharp.  Here’s the Dropkick Murphys doing Boston proud and covering Pete Seeger live:

I’m incredibly pumped about this.  Its past time we make health care a right.  No more discrimination based on prior illness.  No more coverage gaps for the millions of uninsured children in America.  We can change the face of Health Care and literally save the lives of thousands and improve the quality of life for millions.

MoveOn.org is asking for funding to help run this campaign.  You can contribute directly the coalition here.  I just did.

The last thing Obama wants to do is move closer to John McCain and George Bush on issues of constitutional rights.  But take a look at his own rationale for his terrible decision to vote for the FISA bill (TPM, emphasis mine):

This is crucial, and its great Obama fought for this.

Ok.  So there is no accountability for the President or the Telecoms in the past, but moving forward they are now restricted from freely spying on Americans.  The bill’s supporters essentially carved out what they could with the intention of going back later and pursuing actual accountability for crimes committed.

I don’t like that.  Its a very Republican argument to make.  Essentially “There are scary bad men so we need to spy on some of you but don’t worry it will be the right ones”.  I don’t like the FISA courts, its just that since Bush ignored them they seem downright transparent and democratic by comparison.  How sad our country is becoming.

So in essence, Obama and the bill’s other Democratic supporters (like Jim Webb) seem to have decided to trade accountability for past actions for assurance that as of this bill’s passing the illegal spying will stop.  Personally I feel this was a poor decision to make, and that this bill should have been used to embarress the politicians who supported giving complete and total freedom to the administration and the telecoms to spy on Americans “above the law”, with no stated intention of “fixing it later”.  But its an understable decision.  However now Barack Obama has another part of his platform whether he acknowledges it or not: “If elected I will hold the Bush administration and the Telecoms responsible for breaking the law, and work to ensure they are fully prosecuted”.  Although I wonder if we just saw that chance sail by?

I don’t see any reason to pretend this is anything other than an incredibly shitty decision to allow illegal and unconstitutional behavior.  Here’s roll call highlights:

Voting For this travesty: Obama, Lieberman, Hagel, Snowe, Specter, Webb, Warner, Hatch, Graham

Missing the bloody vote: McCain, Kennedy, Sessions

Voting Against: Clinton, Kerry, Feingold, Boxer, Schumer, Leahy

…

To the constituents of the Senators who missed this important vote, ouch.  To the constituents of Obama and Webb, we need to be clear this was a betrayel of trust on their part.  What a stinging dissapointment.

I want to salute those who voted against it, but at the same time I remember many of those Senators voted against the confirmation of Alito while refusing to fillibuster.  Sometimes logging an ineffectual “Nay” vote just doesn’t cut it.  The entire Senate failed us.  But they did a great job for the telecoms, so at least we can spend a little less as individuals next election season, they’ve apparently got that covered.

To be clear, I agree with Glenn completely.  McCain isn’t fooling anyone with his no show, and Obama is fucking up his own campaign:

I still support Obama, but he needs to understand he’s making it a hell of a lot harder to do so effectively.

Feeling anything south of utterly amazing?  Watch the 2008 version of where the hell is Matt:

There’s so much world to see.