The Agitator has a piece from today that convincingly destroys the thinking behind David Brooks's recent column that calls for Americans to be "better followers" (no kidding).
You can read the rest of the thoughtful piece at The Agitator. (credit to Glenn Greenwald tweet for link)
*these contemporary debates would be framed powerfully by the common reading that goes on in American Literature courses (thinking of Transcendentalism in particular).
* * * * *
speaking of Glenn Greenwald, here he talks about our country's current counter-terrorism approach:
digby picks up this line of thinking in his Killing them over there so we don't have to kill them over here piece from yesterday. If this current President has extended a foreign policy that we liberals found reprehensible under President Bush and can't/won't get anything done w/ this Congress, tell me again why we must work so hard to get him elected? With Mitt, at least the Dems would be unified in opposition to policy that ultimately makes us less safe and less responsive to even the basic needs of our fellow citizens.
Yet Mitt's inability to correct his "re-interpretations of facts" (some used to call these "lies") worries me. Is it a crazy leap to see someone who seems to lack any capacity for truth and integrity, and who steadfastly refuses to "set the record straight" on easily demonstrable falsehoods could simply institute some form of martial law and do whatever he thought he was right? If one considers himself entitled to be the leader, why not? If you've read enough Ayn Rand you can almost see the thinking that would get you there . . .btw, it's the same mindset that informs the David Brooks piece on being better followers. According to this elitist theory, some men--very seldom women--are just better suited to making decisions for the rest of us. Democracy is messy and tedious. They know what is best for us, the rabble.
Democracy is being destroyed right before our eyes, and we're like the lobster in the every-increasingly warm pot of water--we won't know what happened until it's too late. Unless we get involved. And vote. I really think it's got to bubble up from below; there is seemingly little hope that it will be top down reform. It starts w/ conversations and electing local leaders who are responsive to their constituents. Why would Republicans or Democrats at the national level want to change anything?
As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
* * * * *
Hina Shamsa, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, on drones violating the law of the land and why it's a problem not just now, and not just for us:
* * * * *
and I'll leave you with a couple tweets:
yea, Peter, that should help our standing in Muslim countries.
So those of us who question authority do so not because we’re vain or think we’re better than everyone else. On the contrary. We question authority because we recognize that human beings, ourselves included, are flawed. And we’ll always be flawed. Which means that we will build flawed institutions and produce flawed leaders. We question authority because we recognize that not only is authority (another word for power) inherently corrupting, but also because we recognize the perverse values, priorities, and notions of merit upon which authority is generally granted.
You can read the rest of the thoughtful piece at The Agitator. (credit to Glenn Greenwald tweet for link)
*these contemporary debates would be framed powerfully by the common reading that goes on in American Literature courses (thinking of Transcendentalism in particular).
* * * * *
speaking of Glenn Greenwald, here he talks about our country's current counter-terrorism approach:
Far from believing that another 9/11 can’t happen, I’m amazed that it hasn’t already, and am quite confident that at some point it will. How could any rational person expect their government to spend a full decade (and counting) invading, droning, cluster-bombing, occupying, detaining without charges, and indiscriminately shooting huge numbers of innocent children, women and men in multiple countries and not have its victims and their compatriots be increasingly eager to return the violence?
digby picks up this line of thinking in his Killing them over there so we don't have to kill them over here piece from yesterday. If this current President has extended a foreign policy that we liberals found reprehensible under President Bush and can't/won't get anything done w/ this Congress, tell me again why we must work so hard to get him elected? With Mitt, at least the Dems would be unified in opposition to policy that ultimately makes us less safe and less responsive to even the basic needs of our fellow citizens.
Yet Mitt's inability to correct his "re-interpretations of facts" (some used to call these "lies") worries me. Is it a crazy leap to see someone who seems to lack any capacity for truth and integrity, and who steadfastly refuses to "set the record straight" on easily demonstrable falsehoods could simply institute some form of martial law and do whatever he thought he was right? If one considers himself entitled to be the leader, why not? If you've read enough Ayn Rand you can almost see the thinking that would get you there . . .btw, it's the same mindset that informs the David Brooks piece on being better followers. According to this elitist theory, some men--very seldom women--are just better suited to making decisions for the rest of us. Democracy is messy and tedious. They know what is best for us, the rabble.
Democracy is being destroyed right before our eyes, and we're like the lobster in the every-increasingly warm pot of water--we won't know what happened until it's too late. Unless we get involved. And vote. I really think it's got to bubble up from below; there is seemingly little hope that it will be top down reform. It starts w/ conversations and electing local leaders who are responsive to their constituents. Why would Republicans or Democrats at the national level want to change anything?
As Frederick Douglass said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."
* * * * *
Hina Shamsa, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, on drones violating the law of the land and why it's a problem not just now, and not just for us:
This is an excerpt from the piece, which ran in the USA Today.White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan admits that the U.S. targeted killing program sets a precedent. Russia, China or Iran may claim tomorrow, as our government does today, the power to declare individuals enemies of the state and kill them far from any battlefield, based on secret legal criteria, secret evidence and a secret process. That is the world we are unleashing unless the program is stopped.
* * * * *
and I'll leave you with a couple tweets:
On CNN, GOP Rep. Peter King defends Obama's drone program: it "carries out the policies of righteousness and goodness" (from Glenn Greenwald)
yea, Peter, that should help our standing in Muslim countries.
If Watergate happened today Obama/GOP would call for indictments of Deep Throat & media would cite break-in as proof of Nixon's "toughness" (via Greenwald)this would be the basis for a good piece--why have we become such lapdogs for our leaders and for our media?
No comments:
Post a Comment