Obama's first evil act as president

[vigilant]

Well vigilant I don't think he'll do any of those things. That list is what I would construe as movements in the right direction, and I'm sure we won't see them happen. What will happen is that he'll ostentatiously take meaningless steps, and while your attention is on the left hand held high in the air, the right hand will be in your wallet.

Prestidigitation, colloquially called... magic.

Here are a few possible ways:
- Closing Gitmo (and repeatedly boasting about how great America is to do that), and moving the captives to unknown jails in other countries
- Getting one or two unpopular CEOs (Pandit?) to quit in shame while the rest carry on looting
- Implement a great public works programme, in which wages will be low and returns to capital artificially high thanks to no-bid contracts to connected companies
- Moving "combat troops" out of Iraq while the mercs and that giant embassy stays

See the kind of thing I mean?

I think I read your post too hastily and did not catch the true context, and my apologies for doing so. I think you and I are on the same page. I went back and read your post again, as well as your recent one, and it seems I missed your context. My apologies. I'm reading a little too swiftly today because i'm busy.

[Col. Quisp]

What would Obama need to do for you [the collective you] to say, "That was great; Obama is actually not as bad as I suspected"?

.....
For a start.

Charging Bush and Co. as war criminals for their admitted torture?

Oh, and pledging to close Gitmo within a year? Come on....a lot can happen in a year.

I am not an obama "hater." I genuinely like the man, btw.

[chiggerbit]

Looks like Obama is already having to come up with exceptions to his orders:

http://tinyurl.com/cb3wjb

[ninakat]

I will also watch as the bashers twist themselves into knots showing exactly how and why those things are really just shameful acts of evil.

I just think that is a very unfair characterization of those of us who don't trust Obama. I know you're being highly sarcastic, but the true "shameful acts of evil" are not the crumbs of change that of course are a positive move toward justice and transparency -- the shameful acts of evil are the substantial issues several of us listed above.

I would love to be proven wrong, and I will be happy to admit it IF AND WHEN substantial change takes place.

Depressing, but hey, it's RI, so what should I expect?

What are you implying? Seriously.

[Col. Quisp]

I'd like to know what is meant by that last crack, also. WTF? Coming from a moderator? If you look down upon us all and think of us as paranoid cranks, then I suggest you move on.

Wonder how long it will be before Jeff changes the seeing eye graphic above to put Obama's mug in there?

[cptmarginal]

Why is it that lists of positive things Obama could do are almost always limited to reversing major media scandals? For example: Iraq, torture, the bailout...

Whatever happened to reversing some of the major changes which have occurred in the fundamental character and organization of the US government? There was a statistic being quoted a year or two ago that the federal govt tripled in size post-9/11. There are many agencies and groups within agencies which are wholly new, a new structure of intelligence, new rules for the military which allow the executive branch to have a private army, etc. Just because the outside facade has remained basically the same doesn't mean we should miss all of the real action.

Buckminster Fuller was right about LAWCAP (lawyer-run capitalism). You can make extremely complex or arcane changes to the laws of the nation, changing the rules of the game for all of the important and trivial players, while still maintaining the same stupid veneer of "government". We are, for the most part, not privy to the consequences of such legal changes because we are not inside the loop of the business deals which make this kind of world operate.

To me, it seems accurate to posit that the organization for the "War on Terror" represented a huge sea-change within the functional structure of government. Even setting aside the major problems with the ideas of Presidential power and responsibility (which are often ignored anyway), it is clear that anybody who sets himself up as a terror warrior will be utilizing this "new government".

Bucky knew:

"The U.S.A. is not run by its would-be "democratic" government. All the latter can do is try to adjust to the initiatives already taken by LAWCAP's great corporations. Nothing could be more pathetic than the role that has to be played by the President of the United States, whose power is approximately zero. Nevertheless, the news media and most over-thirty-years-of-age U.S.A. citizens carry on as if the president had supreme power. All that he and the Congress can do is adjust to what the "free-enterprise system" has already done. They are riding on the snapping end of the power-structure dragon's tail."

(though, of course, the current situation being described is a bit different from the context of this quote. try this to clear it up a bit: "All that he and the Congress can do is adjust to what the "war-on-terror system" has already done. They are riding on the snapping end of the power-structure dragon's tail.")

[ninakat]

Looks like Obama is already having to come up with exceptions to his orders:

http://tinyurl.com/cb3wjb

Interesting find, chig. They've really painted themselves into a corner on this whole lobbyists-in-government issue. Will they give waivers to these lobbyists who were nominated (Bill Lynn, and Bill Corr)? They should nix these nominations, of course. Anything short of that will simply prove that Obama's executive orders are meaningless.

[vigilant]

Buckminster Fuller was right about LAWCAP (lawyer-run capitalism).


Yes he was. What happened to the 13th amendment to the Constitution of the United States? It got swept under the rug. The 13th Amendment basically in a nutshell said this...(this is not verbatim, its my paraphrase)

"Royals and lawyers are forbidden from holding public office. When lawyers and royals are allowed to confound the laws with language the common man can not understand the people and the nation will be in peril. Only people from the common ranks of life can hold office"

So what happened? Royals and lawyers slid the 13th Amendment out of the Constitution and hid it. They claimed it was never properly ratified but I have seen some things that make me believe that is not true. It was published in many state manuals of operation. If it was published in these manuals of operation it indicates that these states ratified and passed the amendment. The powers that be have argued on small meaningless technical issues that it was not "technically legally" properly ratified.

Which is why the assholes were barred by the 13 amendment in the first place...There was an attempt made to keep "mirror speak" out of the equation, but it didn't work.

[cptmarginal]

That is very interesting about the 13th amendment, I had not heard of that. Lawyers don't need to hold any office in order to manipulate situations, though - they easily operate behind the scenes. We do not know the identity of pretty much anyone on the team of lawyers which drew up the Patriot Act, for example. And the enormous complexity of that document is a perfect example of just how different the current structure of power really is. The stuff about taking away civil liberties is not really important at all in comparison with the flood of arcane changes to laws. Yet what gets all of the publicity?

In many cases, it seems like a sort of "limited hangout" is built-in and operating from the start, allowing years-long controversies which ignore the important facts.

Victor Marchetti:

"A 'limited hangout' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."

[professorpan]

Ninakat, I think executive orders to shut down Gitmo, illegal CIA prisons, and to stop torture are more than "crumbs." That is most definitely substantial change, and I'm amazed that you and others can't see it through your cynicism.

Of course we will watch to see how those orders are carried out, with a critical eye. But they are a bold refutation of the outlaw actions of the previous administration. That's progress, and indicates that other good things MAY be on the horizon.

I can see Obama as capable of both good and bad things, based upon his words and his record, but it appears many can only see him as malign.

What are you implying? Seriously.

That this isn't the place to have a serious discussion of politics from a practical, realpolitik perspective. That the dominant strain of thought rejects the possibility of humans as conscious agents for good, and relegates them (them, of course, not us) as mere pawns pushed around by nebulous but all-powerful manipulators.

I reject that. I think some people in government are good, compassionate, and wise. I think sometimes those people can make good things happen, in spite of the bastards around them. I believe in participatory democracy, despite its flaws. And I am an optimist about humans in general and what lies ahead of us.

Yet so many criticize without offering solutions, encourage disengagement rather than participation, and would rather make old ladies cry than allow them to experience a bit of (drum roll, please) hope for their future.

[chiggerbit]

Sheesh, I see that DNI appointee Blair refused to answer a direct question about whether water boarding was torture or not. All he'd say was that there would be no water boarding or torture under him, and from that answer people were "to infer" whether he believed it was torture or not. So, one of those "that depends" answers. Shhh, don't look back.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Do we all wind up poisoned by the same hatred we think we're fighting?

[professorpan]

For anyone interested, I think Glenn Greenwald sets the proper skeptical (in the true sense) and cautiously optimistic tone re: Obama's executive orders:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ ... index.html

[RocketMan]

I think it would be best to leave professorpan to his own devices, as he clearly is unable to address people with whom he disagrees with anything approaching respect. Surely there are less adolescent ways of dealing with opinions or world views diverging from one's own than screaming "hater"?

I think that what distinguishes leftist commentary to Obama's election is the well-founded suspicion that commentators like Paul Street, Chris Floyd, Glenn Greenwald and John Pilger express. Whereas most of the right and the establishment worship power uncritically (especially when in "serious" Republican hands), the left (well, at least the thoughtful left) remains suspicious of it, even when wielded by someone perhaps closer to their own political leanings (that's not to say Obama is on the left in any meaningful way).

Looking at the historical record (the REAL historical record) of the American presidency I find scant justification for starry-eyed optimism here. Unless you want to argue that "Maybe THIS time..." which just doesn't it for me. Not one bit.

[cptmarginal]

Do we all wind up poisoned by the same hatred we think we're fighting?

Probably. It often seems to me that the amount of poisoning is directly proportionate with the extent to which a person defines their attempts at analysis or participation as a battle.

Or at least they're intimately related variables.