President Obama's Weekly Address - April 6, 2013

The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit

I'm Still Here

I've been extremely busy these last few weeks and consequently the blog has suffered. But I'm still here and soon I'll hopefully be back on a regular basis. Thanks to all who stop by here to check in.

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 30, 2013

President Obama Offers Easter and Passover Greetings

Weekly Address - March 23, 2013

Helping Protect Our Kids by Reducing Gun Violence

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 16, 2013

Time to Create the Energy Security Trust

If Only Rand Paul Would Use His Filibuster Powers For Good Instead Of Evil

This week Kentucky Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul decided to have a thirteen hour, one-man circle jerk filibuster on the Senate floor in opposition of the nomination of John Brennan as the next CIA director until he got assurances from the White House that drones would not be used to target US citizens on US soil, you know because it's happening almost daily on our streets already.

This all stems from the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born expatriate who repeatedly called for jihad against the United States, had ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers, Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was elevated to regional commader in Al-Qaeda. Yes, the same Al-Qaeda which we are supposedly involved in a war against. Not what I would call a model US citizen, that al-Awlaki. Yet all these politicians are getting the vapors over this particular drone strike targeting someone that clearly was an enemy of the US, but since he was a US citizen the logical conclusion is that clearly it can happen here on American soil, even though it's never happened. And why would that be? Enter Rand Paul.

Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to ask if the Obama Administration thought it was legal to use drones against American citizens on American soil. Holder responded with the following:

"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.” 

“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.” 

“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”

So, the answer: It's never happened, we have no intention of making it happen but hypothetically under the most extreme circumstances, it's possible. And the only thing Rand Paul focused on (as well as a lot of the media - you know, because controversy du jour) is the "it's possible" part to begin his fist shaking (and fundraising opportunity) outrage.

As David von Ebers writes, no one was worried about "the possibility" of military strikes on US soil under extreme circumstances when we were under attack.

"...the fact that the Bush Administration sent military aircraft – both armed and unarmed – into the skies on September 11 surprised exactly no one. As events were unfolding, and before anyone knew exactly who was responsible for the attacks, the President and the military were prepared to use lethal force to stop planes from hitting additional targets, even if it meant killing innocent American passengers, and regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the hijackers. 

If you paid any attention to the news coverage at the time, you knew this. And I suspect, like me, you didn’t object to it in the least. As much as I abhor nearly everything George W. Bush did as president, I can’t fault him or his military leaders for making that awful decision. What other choice did they have? If they’d had the opportunity to shoot down even one of those planes, they might have saved the lives of thousands of other innocent people. It’s an awful choice to have to make, but we expect presidents to make extraordinarily difficult choices in extraordinarily difficult circumstances... 

...Atty. Gen. Holder told Sen. Paul that the Obama Administration would do exactly what the Bush Administration attempted to do on September 11, 2001, in identical circumstances. Now I’m old and my memory is imperfect (although I did remember, quite clearly, that the Bush Administration scrambled fighter jets on 9/11), but try as I might to wrack my middle-aged brain, I recall exactly no controversy – as in none, zip, zero, nada – absolutely no controversy whatsoever following the Bush Administration’s attempt to use lethal military force that day. 

So you can understand my confusion. This is not a case where the Bush Administration expanded the powers of the presidency and the Obama Administration followed suit; instead, this is a situation where Pres. Bush’s actions were met with no controversy at the time because they were not controversial. What Pres. Bush did on 9/11 – ordering fighter pilots to take to the air, to shoot down hijacked airliners if necessary – appeared to everyone at the time to be right in the presidential wheelhouse, legally and constitutionally. Awful, yes. Illegal? Of course not."

Now, don't misunderstand. I think the usage of drones and who orders them and where are important issues. I think that their usage puts the US' moral creditability on the line (if we have any left to begin with). But it makes absolutely no difference to me whether the target is a US citizen or not. 

All these politicians wetting their diapers over the drone debate have framed the issue as a hypothetical attack on an American citizen, and the hypocrisy is astounding. What about those brown people we've been vaporizing "over there" with the drone program that we all knew about? Fuck them, what do we care about killing innocent civilians in a foreign land? Collateral damage. Wrong place, wrong time. Besides, they're probably jihad loving mooslims anyway, right?

Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen and therefore and deserved a fair trial? But those 160 guys imprisoned in Guantanamo for years without benefit of trial - fuck those guys. And so says the rest of the Senate with their continual votes not to fund the closing of Gitmo. The only thing for which Rand Paul should be given credit is for actually using the filibuster as it was intended (instead of placing a cowardly, anonymous hold on a vote) even though all it amounted to was free publicity and some campaign cash as intended.

So Rand Paul, and Tea Party wingnut Ted Cruz and Poland Spring spokesman Marco Rubio who took the opportunity to ride Paul's coattails in the latest search for the 2016 spotlight, please spare me the crocodile tears of Constitutional rights on one drone terrorist target who also happened to be an American citizen. Until Congress sets trials for everyone in detention centers like Gitmo, they should just shut their cake holes.

Must Reads

Ezra Klein: This is why Obama can’t make a deal with Republicans

Justin Rosario: How To Prove Obama LOWERED The Deficit In 4 Easy, Indisputable Steps!

Igor Volsky: Top Republicans Demand Obama Provide Coverage To People With Pre-Existing Conditions

Imani Gandy: Louie Gohmert Introduces Bill to Force Obama to Stop Golfing So Goddamn Much

Michael Calderone: Politico Investigated Menendez Claims Before Daily Caller Report

Bob Cesca: Republicans Take Credit for VAWA Even Though They Voted Against It

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 9, 2013

End the Sequester to Keep Growing the Economy

Mitt Romney Gets It. Wife Ann? Not So Much.

In a not so shocking first interview since his presidential election defeat, Mitt Rommney admitted that it's "killing him" not to be in the Oval Office. In a more than surprising admission, he blames his campaign (and I'm assuming himself) for not being able to connect with black and hispanic voters, and points to his "47 percent" debacle as the turning point of the race.

In a complete yawner, however (and who didn't see this coming), his wife Ann "I love you women" Romney is still in the dark and is perfectly willing to blame the media for her husband's rout, apparently unaware of the fact that a journalist's job is to report what her husband and his campaign say and do. Ann, being a one percenter, is so totally insulated from the real world, that it is unfathomable to her that the actions of her husband are what caused his downfall. It wasn't made up. It wasn't a lie. It happened.

Now, perhaps in the days before social media, a 24 hour cable news cycle and practically real time reporting through the Internet, a guy like Mitt Romney could have gotten away with some of his ridiculous gaffes and his real thoughts spoken in "private rooms" away from the media, but that's no longer the case. And someone who runs a 1950's style campaign in 2012 is going to suffer.

But Ann just doesn't get it because in her insular world, she can't see past the fences of her estate or the walls of her gated communities. To Ann, this was an unfair, epic takedown by the "librul" media of the only man who could possibly have the ability to run the country.

“It was not just the campaign’s fault," Ann Romney said. "I believe it was the media's fault as well, in that he was not being given a fair shake--that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was. I’m happy to blame the media.”

See - Ann doesn't get that "who he really was" was the man that showed his real side through the gaffes and statemens made in private rooms when he thought the rest of the world wasn't listening. Mitt really does think corporations are people. Mitt really does think that 47 percent of the country were voting for President Obama because they're moochers looking for free stuff. Mitt really isn't concerned about the poor because of the safety net they have - the same safety net he would have dismantled given the chance. Mitt doesn't have a clue as to what the actual income is of more than 90% of the population, and how could he? He's just as isolated and insulated as Ann.  But Ann will never understand what the rest of the world understands when she pretends to shop at Costco and doesn't have to worry about filling up her gas tank. Or paying her mortgage. Or having a job.

Now that Romney has admitted what's eating him up inside, it's only a  matter of time before we find a World Weekly News headline on the ever reclusive Mitt Romney taking a Howard Hughes turn, complete with long beard, hair, gnarled fingernails and toenails, designing his own Air Force One made entirely out of wood.

Must Reads

David Von Ebers: Why I Can't Stand Bob Woodward

Paige Lavender: David Axelrod To Bob Woodward: Why Didn't You Say 'Don't Threaten Me?'

The Rude Pundit: Random Observations on Yesterday's Supreme Court Hearing on a Challenge to the Voting Rights Act

Bob Cesca: Secretary Kerry Has Balls of Steel

Chez Pazienza: Down the Outrage Hole (Again)

Van Cliburn 1934-2013

Van Cliburn died this week. Had it not been for Mr. Rogers, I wouldn't have known who Van Cliburn was in my younger years.

And looking back, I find it amazing that our Cold War with the Soviet Union permeated everything. It consumed us. And it was all a dick swinging contest. Not only in regards to military supremacy, but the Space Race, sports, music, Rocky IV, everything was a contest. I didn't know why we hated the the guys wearing the CCCP shirts, but I knew we were supposed to hate them.

And in 1958, Van Cliburn was a part of that.

 

President Obama's Weekly Address - March 2, 2013

Congress Must Compromise to Stop the Impact of the Sequester

Rebuttal of the Rebuttal: Say What, Zach!?

Posted by DesertCroneNM

I read Zach Green's rebuttal of his critics with amusement and a little dismay. Asking legitimate questions about Unite Blue hardly qualifies as a smear campaign. In fact, I asked some of those very questions myself and was very irritated with the evasive non-answers I received. I felt many of the answers Zach wrote in his blog post defy common sense. (Previous post: Four Reasons I Broke Up with Twitter . . .)

      

First: Zach claims he supported Buddy Roemer's campaign because "'Buddy Roemer only had one issue: get money out of politics.'" No, Zach, Mr. Roemer had other issues: supporting the Keystone Pipeline, a wall along the border with Mexico, supports a flat tax, things the Tea Party is good for America (which voids his support of the Occupy movement, don't you think?), raising the eligibility age for Social Security, anti-choice, support of DOMA, and the repeal of Obamacare -- which are all anathema to liberals. Some liberals have dismissed Zach's connection with Roemer by saying that they liked Buddy while at the same time excoriating President Obama for even mentioning chained CPI. I find that odd. But like Roemer (once member of the Democratic Party and then the GOP and now Independent), Zach seems to change his associations according to the political winds. For example, Zach also hosted a Tea Party town hall on Twitter.  In fact, S.E. Cupp even tweeted her appreciation:

I'm a loyal, lifelong liberal Democrat. I'm not interested in following an organization that seems to have no political loyalties whatsoever. I have said from the time I became aware of Unite Blue, it is a money-making venture. In fact, Adam Green, Zach's father, writes in his blog:

So does this mean that Twitter development is done, and devs (developers) will just move elsewhere? No way. Devs go where the customers are, and the customers are using Twitter in increasing numbers. I do development as a business and as a businessman, I go where the money is. That is still Twitter.

Show me the money!

Second: In his rebuttal, Zach wants us to believe that he's quite naive about cookies. He writes in response to the question: Are you tracking us across the Internet with cookies?

Before people started asking this I didn’t know it was even possible. Our CTO says it is apparently. We’re not doing it, nor do I understand why we would.

 I have such a difficult time believing that the co-founder of a Twitter consulting company doesn't understand the purpose of collecting information from cookies and IP addresses. Zach's tweet below is why I am very skeptical about his naïveté about cookies. 

Hmmmmm.  What data might that be?  And how do collect that data? Cookies? IP addresses?

Third: Here's what Zach wrote about how one joins Unite Blue.  In reply to Did you steal ConnectTheLeft’s Lists?  Zach says,

No. Every member of UniteBlue has to tweet  'I want to join @UniteBlue' to get on our Lists. It started from scratch. Others can feel free to use our Lists how they like. They are public. 

Come on, Zach. You know that's just not true. I never tweeted I wanted to join Unite Blue, but there I was following Unite Blue and on the list as well. Oh, and that second account you started--We Demand A Vote--I never followed it either. Yet, there I was as a follower.  And many other twitterers have the same complaint. Again, many of us never ever tweeted "I want to join @uniteblue."  We weren't even aware of such a group till around the first of February, when we were deluged with hundreds of followers and DMs from Unite Blue.  During that time I was getting about forty follows a day, and my number of followers jumped from 1730 followers to approximately 2050 in less than a week.  So, no Zach, you didn't start your list from scratch. And this reminds me of another question. Why, if you started Unite Blue in September 2012, did we just start seeing Unite Blue follows and hashtags in February 2013? What a coincidence that UB appeared about the time TGDN also appeared on the Twitter scene. 

Also, Zach knows that you can change the name on an account and still keep all the followers, follows, and Tweets from the previous account. He knows this because his father and 140dev.com and140elect.com's CTO, Adam (not the same Adam Green from Bold Progressives), explains it so well in another blog post (which has since been pulled so here's a shot of the cached file):

We recently had a client that paid us to help build up a series of accounts for his political campaign. Most of the effort went into growing a qualified follower list for a single engagement account. This is the account that interacted with supporters and sent out various versions of the campaign messaging to test them for later use in the candidate’s own account. When the campaign finally came to an end, his staff deleted this engagement account. What a waste! Most people don’t realize it, but you can change everything about a Twitter account and still retain all the followers.  We’ve changed the screen name of accounts lots of times, and all the followers were always retained. As long as the account’s new purpose and message is similar to its previous incarnation, this seems completely ethical, and there are no restrictions on this from Twitter. You can change everything about an account, and since it retains the original user id all the links for followers, retweets, etc. still work in Twitter’s database. We’ve never had a complaint from a follower of an account that had this type of conversion.

So the next time you or a client are tempted to erase an account after you no longer need it, don’t do it. Recycle, reuse, repurpose applies to Twitter accounts. Think of all the energy used to power the servers building that account. Save it for another use.

Last, I would urge you to read another post by Adam Green. Basically, Adam discusses how he created a Twitter group, compiled a list of names, and then provided that list to a client.  Sound vaguely familiar?  (Oops! This post has been removed, too. But here's a screen grab)

I find it odd that the two of Adam Green's blog posts that closely describe Zach Green's actions with UniteBlue have been deleted from his father's blog site, 140dev.com.  But then again, I have found many things about Zach Green's venture to be odd.  However, what I find strangest of all is that liberals would so quickly and enthusiastically jump on the UB bandwagon without any curiosity about the owner of the bandwagon or its purpose.

Much grattitude to my niece @jhw2212 and Jennifer on this blog for her research, proofreading, and support.

Four Reasons I Broke Up with Twitter Or How Zach Green Stole My Playground

Posted by DesertCroneNM

Let me start with this disclaimer--I do not follow Shoq, Simon, or Karoli. Based on what some of Twitter pals have told me, dissension has broken out between their factions over who turned the Connect the Left (CTL) twitter account to Unite Blue (UB).  I don't care about that. In fact, I don't care how Unite Blue took control of the Connect the Left Twitter account. What concerns me is that UB did take take over the CTL. On February 6th, I blogged about my concerns about Unite Blue. I still have those concerns and more. Since I wrote that blog, I've taken a hiatus from Twitter.

I love Twitter. I have made some wonderful and lasting friendships there. Although I first got on because I'm a political junkie, I enjoy the nonpolitical chit chat as much as the political discussion. I have access to many interesting links and thoughtful blog posts by @smartypants32, @D_V_E, and @root_e to name just a few of my favorites.  Twitter also brings a social life right into my home, which is what I like the best.

I am a month from being 65, disabled because of severe arthritis, and degenerative spinal disease which leave me in chronic pain. There isn't an hour that goes by that I'm not in pain; therefore, I am stuck at home most of the day.  I don't want anyone's sympathy because I have a wonderful life in spite of that. What I am trying to convey is how important Twitter is to me because I'm not very mobile. On Twitter I can talk politics, mindlessly chit chat with friends, crack a few jokes, even whine and most importantly, I can forget about the pain.

Once you understand my relationship with Twitter, maybe you'll understand how difficult it was for me to leave. Some of my tweeps told me to ignore Unite Blue, and others told me to unfollow or block UB members. Both are difficult for me to do. I have a lot of longtime followers who are now UB members, and when at least every other tweet has to do with UB or has so many hashtags that take up half the 140 characters, those tweets are difficult to ignore. Nor do I want to unfollow tweeps whom I've followed and who have followed me for 2-3 years. I keep hoping they'll come to their senses soon.

I decided to take a break from Twitter. I don't how long I'll be gone--maybe I'll be on tomorrow, next week, or even next month. But as long as these four conditions exist in my time line, I'll be on hiatus.

Cultish behavior of members: The other morning when I got on Twitter, I saw many disturbing tweets that suggested folks go through their followers and drop anyone not following UB to make room for UB members. Sadly, many of the tweeps who were unfollowed have thousands and thousands of tweets while many UB members I've seen have less than a thousand tweets. UB is clearly about quantity, not quality. For many, loyalty to UB has become more important than loyalty to liberal causes or values or even longtime followers. Many tweets contain gushing endorsements of UB, proclaiming that Unite Blue has changed their lives or that UB is the most important thing that has happened to them. Other tweets brag about UB ratings, whatever that means. Although these tweets irritate me, I don't want to unfollow longtime tweeps. I just want them to get a grip.

Divisive: Since I first blogged about UB, I've received many DMs from tweeps expressing concerns about UB, but, fearful they themselves might be spam blocked by members, they are unwilling to speak out. Several of us who have done nothing more than ask legitimate questions, questions everyone should be asking, have been demonized by some UB members. In fact, I see more loyalty to UB by some than to the Democratic Party and/or liberal causes.  Unite Blue? How about Divide Blue?

Fear-based: I think the TGDN (Twitter Gulag Defense Network) threat has been highly exaggerated.  I have seen one follower spam blocked and others have told me that maybe one or two of their followers have had their accounts suspended, for which there could be a variety of reasons. This frenzy of fear reminds me of the way Bush's  Homeland Security kept anxiety levels high by using the the color-coded terrorist alert.

Inorganic: Unite Blue was not a spontaneous, organic movement. It was started by a Twitter consulting company. It wasn't started from scratch; it co-opted an already existing Twitter account.

Zach Green or @140elect stole my playground. He turned my TL into something unrecognizable--a nonstop stream of praise for Unite Blue, UB hashtags and knee jerk reactions to fear of TGDN.   I'll unite behind the Democratic Party, fellow liberals, and most certainly behind Barack Obama, but I don't see where Zach Green shares my loyalties.  I don't want to be part of the Green Gang on twitter, and  I want them to get off my playground. I miss my "old" buddies, and I want them back, not the zombiefied UB followers I see now.  (Follow up post.  Rebuttal of the Rebuttal: Say What, Zach?)

Must Reads

Mr. Brink: Glenn Beck: Progressives Have Infiltrated The WWE

Chez Pazienza: This Week in Republican Stupid

The Rude Pundit: Let Us Now Praise Skeletor for He Has Made Florida Suck a Little Less

Charles Pierce: The Shame of The Sham Shaman

Steve M.: Douthat: The Permanently Underemployed Have All The Luck

Driftglass: The Both Sides Duet

Abby Zimet: Choked To Death On Waste

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 23, 2013

Congress Must Act Now to Stop the Sequester

Must Reads

Steve Benen: A lesson on the value of inflation

The Rude Pundit: The NRA's Wayne LaPierre: Join Our Resistance and Get a Free Tote Bag

Charles Pierce: Your Daily Pope

Brian Dowling: 'Lincoln' Screenwriter Defends Depiction Of Connecticut Slavery Vote, Acknowledges Changing Details

Jim Wright: Preemptive Pessimism Isn’t A Plan

Brian Beutler: Republicans Want Off The Hook For Voting For Defense Sequester

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 16, 2013

Following the President's Plan for a Strong Middle Class

Happy Valentine's Day

Where's Marco?

Okay, I get it. He's nervous, his mouth is drying up, he can't get the saliva to form in his mouth. Anyone who's stood in front of a crowd and performed or spoken in public knows the feeling. But why in the name of all that is holy, did he feel compelled to keep eye contact with the camera when he decided to finally reach for the water bottle? And why would his people, or the RNC, or whoever was in charge of this whole debacle not have a glass of water within arm's reach?

Keep going Republicans, you're doing great!

...And the Republican Response to the SOTU

I can't wait for the 2016 Primaries.

President Obama's State of the Union Address - 2013

Must Reads

Steve Benen: Boehner's bewildering bombast

The Rude Pundit: You Can Hate Obama for Drone Strikes and Support Him on Other Things

Charles Pierce: Down The Pipeline

Katla McGlynn: Bill Maher Tells Donald Trump To 'Suck It Up,' Dismisses $5 Million 'Orangutan' Lawsuit

Imani Gandy: Racist White Rabbit at Disneyland Refuses to Dirty Paws on Black Kid’s Skin

NJ Star Ledger: Christie wrong to slam report about AshBritt cleanup contract with N.J. towns: Editorial

Jim Wright: Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL

Steve Benen: This Week In God

President Obama's Weekly Address - February 9, 2013

Averting the Sequester and Finding a Balanced Approach to Deficit Reduction