They've Got the Whole Wide World in their Hands, and they are Beginning to Sweat

John Boehner's Future Daughter
(Image Credit http://www.takemoto.com.br)

From the Cook Report:

"Somehow, though, Obama and congressional Democrats have to give Republicans, at least the ones who want to resolve this—and I would put Boehner in that category, regardless of what he has said in recent days—a place to land, some way to get to yes."

But how do the democrats give something to the GOP, without giving them something? How do you avoid setting a precedent for paying ransom money without paying any money? How can modifying the very law that the GOP was hopelessly gunning for this entire time be anything *but* paying ransom money?

McGregor mentions the often-referred to 'face saving' measure. But this is the whole crux of the problem; Republicans need more than just a window dressing to take home. The activist base threatening to primary these politicians want blood - actual blood. I think that they want to defeat, or more accurately politically destroy Obama even more than they want to remove Obamacare. You point out that Americans want Obamacare fixed. Of course they do. Now what part? What measure is significant enough to appease the horde of Tea Partiers? Contrary to popular belief, the ACA doesn't actually institute death panels. And as you certainly know most people like most of the things that are in Obamacare. Any fair estimation of the GOP's preference for a healthcare plan is that they don't have one; they will champion whichever weekly (and ever-increasingly laissez faire) idea the Heritage Foundation prints. And then when Obama says okay, the GOP will have to abandon it.

Because the Tea Party's priority isn't governing. They're often not very concerned with winning. They just want the other side to lose.

How do you negotiate with a kidnapper whose family is held hostage by fanatics?

Iranian Diplomacy Spoken In the Forrest

But will anyone hear?

From the NYT:

Iranian nuclear negotiators will offer a new proposal on Tuesday that is intended to persuade world powers that the country’s nuclear program has only peaceful aims, a top official said on Sunday.

On another day this would be exploding across the news boards, or so I would have thought.  The Washington Post had an Op-Ed below the front page.  CNN still doesn't have it.  Fox News puts it in fourth place in the world section, which is not exactly the most prominent focus of their website.  

Is this because of the (admittedly epic) drama going on in Washington, or an instance of "war sells" syndrome, i.e. we may avoid a stupid war, and this is not that important?

And if the West can broker a deal to relieve tensions, this may put a feather in the cap of the sanctions-as-diplomacy folks.  A big, shiny feather.

The War President

From the New York Times;

 President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

...“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.” 

Should we attack the Syrian government?  Punish them for their murder?

The only honest answer that I can come up with is that I don't know. Anyone who says they can predict what will happen is misguided at best, and an ideologue at worst. Rawanda or Kosovo, Libya or Iraq; we can make historical references till we run out of breath, but in the end the future in unknowable. We are the most powerful country in the world, and as such have taken our role as hegemon to intervene militarily many times - for good and for bad. I have no CIA briefings to go on, no DoD snakes whispering lies in my ear, no secret footage of Assad's forces pushing the button or otherwise. How can I know? How can anyone know, the President included?

Don't believe anyone who says they know. Period. Arguments can be made, predictions cast, but there are no good options here, and Obama could have decided to attack or ignore the situation without consulting anyone; such is the ungodly power of the President these days. But he has chosen to honor the principles of the this country as it was founded. Though the rules of war have been violated by Presidents time and time again, he has stuck with the rules of the flag, tattered and torn they may be. Whatever the result, I can only say one thing, as someone who is as proud to be an American citizen as I ever have;

Bravo Mr. President.

Letter to the BLM about fracking

Includes depressing realism.

"Dear Secretary Jewell,

I'm fully aware that the BLM will probably not ban fracking on its lands, though I wish it were otherwise.  But please consider restricting it as much as possible; we are playing with fire, fire we barely understand (at least outside of the offices of Exxon), and this is nothing but a great danger to the lands that the BLM is tasked with caretaking and conserving.  These lands belong to every citizen of United States. They belong to the oil companies and their employees as well. But how can a rational person believe that breaking up shale and sediment in a haphazard way will not result in contaminating groundwater?  When we need that water for farming, or drinking, or when the land itself starts to die and wither where will Chevron and Shell be? How will they replace this land?  Shall we just tell our children and grandchildren that the need for cheap oil and gas was more important than having vast forests and canyons and beautiful untouched land?

Please consider the interests of the country before those of a few companies, no matter how massive and profitable they are.

Sincerely, 

Renny Young"

Diagrams of the most commonly spoken words by Presidents during their State of the Union Addresses.

As guesses as to which President?

And no, it's not Obama.  Although I'm curious to see his result, I suppose it won't be finished until he's out of office.

(hattip Conor Friedersdorf)

Those who would give up Essential Common Sense to purchase a little Temporary Ideological Certainty, with earn neither Sense nor Security

I had a recent conversation (if you could call it that) on BoingBoing, discussing the recently-re-leaked NSA programs, and President Obama's comments in particular.  I think it is telling of the rhetoric and drastic reactions that the leaks are causing; reactions that may have been considerably less extreme had PRISM and the phone dumps been revealed by the President or government, and in a more measured manner.  

Me: 

"I think it's important to recognize that you can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."Can someone please try and explain how that statement can *possibly* be wrong?"

millie fink: 

"It's a false dichotomy, and a lie by omission.
It totally overlooks the reality of what's being imposed on us in terms of loss of privacy, along with the many risks of overreaching surveillance. Have you ever heard, for starters, of a novel called "1984"?" 

Me again, with a response far too long for the setting:

"Yes, I think I remember reading in seventh grade.  You're probably right, of course, so I'll alert the people and we can storm the Ministry of Truth together.Can you even take yourself seriously, saying that?  If so, I'm very impressed; I haven't managed to muster that kind of fanatical zeal for anything since Firefly was canceled.And my entire point is that trying to have either security or liberty is a false dichotomy; it can't possible to have both entirely, OR just one or the other because of the very nature of the statement.  Is it really impossible for you to imagine a situation in which limits on the government’s ability to track down criminals and gather intelligence on terrorists could prevent some useful information? Is there no scenario in which using more invasive technology, techniques, or just plain aggressive interviewing could lead to better policing?Of course even the most radical extremist has to admit that police should be able to hold someone in a police station if they're found with blood on their hands of a street down from the murder. Likewise, the government should be able to tap peoples phones, email, and other communication when they have clear evidence of an immediate and present danger to people's lives. This situation very clearly sits between extremes; the government did and does actually have legal authority to carry out these invasions of privacy by law, by approval by all three branches; legislative, judicial, and executive.   Could this still be a violation of constitutional rights? Of course; I think you, I, and plenty of people including those doing the surveillance could easily agree on that. However that line is much, much fuzzier then most will admit, probably because it makes the answer more difficult. What makes it even more difficult to judge is when we don't even know what's going on, which is why I think Snowden’s leaks were an incredibly brave and helpful thing to do. That said, I can't imagine how prism hasn't helped the government track down and find bad people. So where should the line be drawn?  How do we reign in what are clearly unconstitutional searches by any reasonable standard while still allowing the government access to critical information? I ask myself that continually, but it doesn't help when people freak but and have impossible delusions of never needing to have any possible rights of privacy invaded.  I believe there is a great deal of truth to candidate Obama statements; especially when examining the atmosphere post-9/11 when torture was sanctioned government policy, and the only question for the Intelligence – Industrial complex was how to expand more. That has been reigned in, in significant ways. It has also not been controlled in other significant ways. Candidate Obama didn't have to sit down and be told about foiled plots to murder innocent Americans; but President Obama doesn't have to face up to the American public when the creepy surveillance programs are all secret."

Obama may already have lost people like this; the libertarian, the civil-rights fighter, the freedom-liberal, the paranoid and conspiracy-bent – this portion of the populous may have never supported any current president in any situation.  But this certainly isn't going to make things easier for him and the spooks.

The Republican Party's Evolution Problem

LGBTQ Nation has a shocking new story out - GOP dumps plan for more ‘inclusive’ party, reaffirms anti-gay marriage platform.  


I think this is a positive step for the country.  It will only be after the GOP burns to the ground - in a spectacular inferno of twisted cultural values, ruthless political amoralism and self-delusional fairyland - that something resembling a competent opposition party will emerge.  

It may take awhile.  Or it might not.