NYT Editorial Board Fails to Make Their Case

I find one aspect of the New York Times editorial today (suggesting that Edward Snowden should be given clemency) to be helpful. Finally, in one location, we have someone making a list of all the "horrors" revealed in the Snowden leaks. To be honest, I've been trying to figure this one out for a while now. And I keep coming up with "where's the beef?" So lets run through them real quick and see where things stand.

Of course the biggie for everyone still seems to be the metadata program. That's the one where the government collects date, time and number on all domestic phone calls. As the editorial mentions, there are conflicting court rulings on the constitutionality of the program. If there is going to be a final word on it, that will have to come from the Supreme Court.

Next they point out that NSA "broke federal privacy laws, or exceeded their authority thousands of times according to their own internal audit." That the NYT editorial board sees this as such an egregious outrage is interesting given that further down they link to their own paper's statement about it:

It found that there had been no willful violations of the rules, and that fewer than 1 percent of queries by analysts involved errors.

The next two have to do with NSA breaking into data centers to collect information and efforts to undermine encryption systems. Sorry, but this brings a big "Duh" from me. If we're going to task the intelligence community with spying on telecommunication activities, this is what they're going to do.

A biggie for lots of folks these days is that James Clapper lied to Congress when asked about the metadata program. As I see it, he was asked this question in an open session of Congress. If it was legal for him to talk about it in public, then why didn't the Senators who were so concerned talk about it? Perhaps Clapper should be called on the carpet for lying. But wouldn't he have technically been equally complicit if he had disclosed classified information in a public forum? Shouldn't the spotlight also be placed on Senator Wyden for asking a question that he knew it would be illegal for Clapper to answer?

Next comes the claim that the FISA Court ruled one of the NSA programs to be unconstitutional. Lets review this one more time. In Oct. 2011 the court ruled that an NSA program did not contain sufficient safeguards to protect the privacy of Americans whose information was collected while surveilling foreign targets. By November of that same year, NSA had returned with more stringent protections and the Court ruled the program constitutional.

The final point is mind-boggling in that it simply states that a federal judge ruled the metadata program unconstitutional. But the very same editorial had earlier pointed out that another judge had reached the opposite conclusion.

All of this belies their final statement:

When someone reveals that government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law, that person should not face life in prison at the hands of the same government.

I'd say that the NYT editorial board needs to rethink their claim that "government officials have routinely and deliberately broken the law." Reforms might well be worth pursuing. But accusing people of breaking the law is a serious charge that they didn't even come close to demonstrating.

The populist committed to dealing with income inequality: President Obama

Sometimes I get really tired of reading the lazy superficial political analysis of many of our so-called "liberal" pundits. This time its E. J. Dionne who joins the chorus of people suggesting that newly inaugurated Mayor Bill de Blasio joins Senator Elizabeth Warren in sparking a resurgent left to combat the radical right. In his view, politics sounds like a game of tug-o-war and the problem has been a lack of muscle on the left forming a counter-weight to the lunacy on the right.

For a long time, the American conversation has been terribly distorted because an active, uncompromising political right has not had to face a comparably influential left. As a result, our entire debate has been dragged in a conservative direction, meaning that the center has been pulled that way, too.

If you listen carefully to what he's saying, its all an either/or struggle and if the left got as uncompromising as the right, we'd wind up somewhere in the middle. Yeah, right. I guess it never dawns on these people that that's exactly what the strategists on the right want...total gridlock that sends everyone away screaming "a pox on both your houses!" Or perhaps Dionne just thinks that the Republicans have been fooling us all these years with their commitment to total obstruction and that they would have caved in their demands if only there had been a more uncompromising left. That's why I call this kind of analysis lazy. I doubt he's even bothered to think it through. Its a theory that sounds good in abstract. But when you go beyond the superficial, it makes zero sense.

Of course Dionne trots out the tired old lefty arguments to bolster his case about how Obamacare was simply a give-away to the insurance companies with - GASP - no public option.

Obamacare is complex because the government is trying to create a marketplace in which people shop for private insurance and receive government subsidies if they need them. It goes to a lot of trouble to preserve the private insurance market. The system does not even include a government plan as one option among many.

There is no mention of the fact that Obamacare begins the process of decoupling health insurance from employment, includes the largest expansion of Medicaid in the program's history, or initiates huge changes to the private insurance business model (no exclusion for pre-esisting conditions, no medical underwriting, no lifetime limits, guaranteed essential benefits and overhead/profit limited to 15% of premium dollars). What we got is the most sweeping progressive change to health care in our country's history after over 100 years of failed attempts. But in Dionne's eyes, it was all just a cave to the uncompromising right.

Dionne goes on to herald the populism of politicians like de Blasio for talking about income inequality. And like Peter Beinart (who started this whole meme) he totally misses that the populism was also fueled by the new Mayor's gorgeous bi-racial family and his promise to end the ridiculous stop and frisk policies of his predecessor. In other words, de Blasio energized the Obama coalition in New York City...big time! You want leftist populism - that's where you're going to find it in this country's future. Our mostly white punditry keeps missing that one.

If you want to find a national figure that has championed populism to take on the issue of income inequality, you need look no further than our current President. As I've demonstrated before, tackling those issues is something President Obama has talked about from the beginning and is the reason he ran in the first place. Campaigns that were fueled by small donors, efforts to build on that with OFA and a message that "nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change" might not rely on the word "populism," but no one can doubt that it is at the heart of what he has been committed to from day one.

So I welcome these new faces like Mayor de Blasio and Senator Warren to the table. But lets not forget who set it in the first place. That would be the guy who threw out the failed tug-o-war gridlock way of thinking about politics and built a coalition to actually get some real stuff done.

Bring on the wussification!

Recently Media Matters demonstrated how Fox News has been obsessed with the wussification of America. What I hear from that is a fear and rejection of all of the things that have traditionally been defined as feminine....nurturing, compassion, empathy. But lets be honest, its not just Fox News. Take a look at the commentary from both the left and right critiquing President Obama and you'll hear the constant extortions to "man up, grow some balls, etc." Its still true in this day and age that the worst insult to a man is to be compared to a girl (or even worse, a f***ot - an unmannly man).

Take a look at this trailer from a recent documentary titled The Mask You Live In to see the impact this has on boys.

If we are ever going to free ourselves of the authoritarian impulses that rely on fear and oppression, we are going to have to free our boys from the expectation that their manhood is something they have to prove. Our human potential for nurturing, compassion and empathy are no more "feminine" than strength, courage, and toughness are "masculine."

Here's Riane Eisler explaining why that is so important.

I believe that the reason Fox News is concerned about wussification and so many political pundits are calling on President Obama to "man up" is that what it means to be a man or woman is in the process of changing and that is threatening whole belief systems that are built on these stereotypes. In many ways feminism has begun the process of freeing women from them, but we've lagged in understanding what that means for men.

And so now we have a leader of the free world who regularly challenges us to tackle the empathy deficit, is not afraid to lead from behind, and is completely comfortable with the use of soft power. In other words, he has no desire or need to prove his manhood to anyone. People entrenched in the old patterns and stereotypes are terribly uncomfortable with that and tend to get surprised when he also has the courage and strength to go after Osama bin Laden or just say "no" to Republicans about negotiating on the debt ceiling.

While we are culturally struggling with this kind of change, President Obama is providing a wonderful example to young men who are able to envision a world where boys don't have anything to prove anymore...one where it is ok to let someone touch their soul.

How Obamacare will change the job market

As we've watched the rollout of the health insurance exchanges over the last few months, all eyes have been on the numbers of uninsured that are getting coverage. That is to be expected.

But in the back of my mind has been the thought of how Obamacare will change the job market. Here's a quote from the NYT that sums it up pretty well:

“With coverage,” she said, “I can be my best self. Health insurance won’t control my job choices.”

While we've all been focused on those who didn't have insurance or were covered by junk plans, I suspect that this law will also shake things up for many people who have felt that their job choices were limited due to the fact that their health insurance was tied to their employment.

For example, how many people have avoided starting their own business because to leave their current position would mean losing their health insurance? How about all those who might take early retirement (creating job openings for younger workers) if they could find affordable health care prior to Medicare eligibility?

As people begin to become aware of their options as a result of Obamacare, I believe these numbers will grow...opening up a whole range of possibilities for impact on economic development and employment opportunities. That's a story that isn't being told right now, but something to keep an eye on.

Will 2014 be the year we finally end perpetual war?

This year one of the most important articles I wrote was about the reduction in the number of drone strikes. But that was way back in February. On May 23rd President Obama gave a speech about our counterterrorism efforts and focused specifically on our policy about the use of drones.

In the Afghan war theater, we must -- and will -- continue to support our troops until the transition is complete at the end of 2014. And that means we will continue to take strikes against high value al Qaeda targets, but also against forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces. But by the end of 2014, we will no longer have the same need for force protection, and the progress we’ve made against core al Qaeda will reduce the need for unmanned strikes.

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. And even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists; our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose; our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty.

America does not take strikes to punish individuals; we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured -- the highest standard we can set.

He didn't promise to immediately end the use of drones, but provided us with the circumstances under which they would be used. And so, with 2013 coming to an end, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how this year compares to what has happened in the past.

This is data I compiled from the Washington Post and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism

A headline in Pakistan Today reflects what you see for that country in these numbers: Drone strikes lessen to all time low since 2008. It is also important to note that over half (7) of the drone strikes in Yemen came in July/August this year during the time that intelligence reports of threats prompted the US to shut down embassies all over the Middle East.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has been quite critical of President Obama on the use of drones, had this to say about the result of his efforts to curtail civilian casualties.

There were no confirmed reports of civilian deaths in the six months after the speech. However this could be a continuing trend rather than a direct consequence of the speech. Total civilian casualties have been falling since 2009, and the average number of civilian deaths in each strike has also been declining over the past four years.

I realize that we've all moved on from fear-mongering about drones to worrying about the NSA. But the truth is that President Obama is keeping his promise to bring an end to perpetual war. And as we look forward to the day our troops come home from Afghanistan in 2014, its pretty clear that he meant what he said back in May 2012.

My fellow Americans, we have traveled through more than a decade under the dark cloud of war. Yet here, in the pre-dawn darkness of Afghanistan, we can see the light of a new day on the horizon. The Iraq War is over. The number of our troops in harm’s way has been cut in half, and more will be coming home soon. We have a clear path to fulfill our mission in Afghanistan, while delivering justice to al Qaeda...

This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end.

How bad are things for the GOP? Their new mantra is "no fools on our ticket."

Lots of people are making predictions about what is going to happen in 2014. My suggestion is that we all join Stephen in stocking up on popcorn to watch the battle that is about to be waged in the Republican Party. It promises to be highly entertaining.

After years of pandering to the lunatics in their ranks as a way to gin up Obama Derangement Syndrome, the 1%ers in the party have had enough. And of course, their response is to assume that they can buy the party back from the lunatics if they just spend enough money. Why would that surprise any of us coming from the folks who think money can fix anything?

And so on Christmas day, the Wall Street Journal told us that the Chamber of Commerce plans to spend $50 million "to support establishment, business-friendly candidates in primaries and the general election." But what was really amusing is how low they've set the bar.

"Our No. 1 focus is to make sure, when it comes to the Senate, that we have no loser candidates," said the business group's top political strategist, Scott Reed. "That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket."

Might I suggest that when the best you've got is "no fools," its time to rethink a few things?

On the other side of the coin, the lunatics are gearing up for a blood bath. These are the folks the Chamber so affectionately calls "fools." How do you suppose they're going to react to that? Yep, the very same energy the Republicans fueled to win the 2010 midterms is now being unleashed against their own establishment.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving party...bring on the popcorn!

Color Commentary

When you look at a picture like this, what stands out to you? If, by chance, you noticed how overwhelmingly "white" the White House Press Corp is, then give yourself a gold star. The closer the people in the photo are to the front row, the more you're seeing the group of folks who have made it to the top ranks of the profession of journalism...and the less likely you are to see a person of color. 

Given the fact that in just a few years time, white people will lose their majority status in this country, you'd think that this would be changing. Well, according to Politico, you'd be wrong. They recently published a list of the 10 journalists to watch in 2014 and there's not a person of color to be found apparently. David Dennis noticed. And he came up with a pretty good reason for why this continues to happen.

A few months ago, I wrote a commentary for the Guardian about how unpaid internships create an unfair funnel system to media outlets. They create a homogenous voice that excludes those who don't have the money or privilege to work for free. This, to me, is the biggest challenge facing the media.

If being able to work for free is a requirement to getting your foot in the door at most media outlets, that would do a pretty good job of excluding a variety of points of view - including those of people of color.

Obviously Dennis has talked to various publications about this deficiency and he hears the same old line one often hears when white employers seem to have good intentions about diversifying their work force, but fail..."we just can't find qualified applicants." Dennis has a great response:

...the internet is full of thousands of people writing about issues from diverse perspectives every day. There are blogs, websites and even Twitter feeds full of brilliant, poignant and diverse writing pushing envelopes and driving conversations. These writers just need bigger platforms to affect change and shed light on issues.

There is no excuse if people are really interested. The talent is out there. But bringing it in would mean change - and there's the rub. Whether its media or some other business, the truth is that changing the demographics of your work force beyond tokenism is going to change your business. When it comes to journalism, that is likely going to mean a change in the kinds of stories that are covered and the kinds of perspectives that are included. By not being willing to go there, much of our current media will maintain the lens that distorts their racial, cultural and patriarchal view of the world.