Comments (28) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Bill_Clay said, 4 months ago

   The “CHANGE FASTER!” whining is starting to sound like a broken record.

2. 

   edmondd said, 4 months ago

   A cynic who is also an idealist. Maybe that’s not a bad idea. Yet the price for boldness requires conviction, selflessness, and sacrifice. Are we truly willing? I’d like to think so.

3. 

   mattro53 said, 4 months ago

   Any change, other than cosmetic, would be welcome. Are we willing to sacrifice? The idealist in me says of course, the realist (cynic) in me says never.

4. 

   motivemagus said, 4 months ago

   Never thought Ted Rall would sympathize with a Bush perspective. Part of Bush’s problem is rushing headlong into something without a clue. Incrementalism can also indicate forethought…

5. 

   cdward said, 4 months ago

   I’m with you motive. There may be times to go for broke right out of the gate, but more often an incremental approach is the best way to make slow but steady progress.

6. 

   Bill_Clay said, 4 months ago

   Slow, but steady, wins the race. It was true when Aesop wrote it 2,500 years ago and it’s still true today.

7. 

   edmondd said, 4 months ago

   Martin Luther King Jr. also complained about “incrementalism”, yet the end result did not stem out from a reckless behavior, (other than precipitating his own assassination, though of such sacrifice he was thoroughly, passionately willing to suffer if necessary), but out of boldness and conviction. Maybe there’s a fine line between these traits, boldness and recklessness.

8. 

   Cpt. Jay said, 4 months ago

   Or, history can be summed up by the Obama mantra: “What we lack in resolve and follow through we make up for in good intentions.” …

9. 

   parkersinthehouse said, 4 months ago

   are you kidding motive? rall is a lib-hater. agree that bush is a headlong rusher without clue, but what made you think rall might not sympathize with w - he’s always sympathized with w. rall’s one of the most angry obama-haters we’ve read.

10. 

    DrCanuck said, 4 months ago

    Rall hates everybody. Equally.

11. 

    mattro53 said, 4 months ago

    Rall, like me, is a radical. Although we don’t hate libs, you do sometimes strike us as ineffective. What some people call incrementalism, others call infinitesimal steps.

12. 

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    In his own way, Malcolm X was as effective an instrument of change as Martin Luther King Jr. Incrementalism isn’t ALWAYS the way to go. When Truman desegregated the military, he didn’t do it incrementally, he just issued an executive order. It was the right thing to do. It can cause short-term disorder, but it means that the desired equilibrium will be reached that much sooner. Liken it to ripping off a bandage; the quicker done, the better.

    If it is a good thing to do, why not do it NOW?

13. 

    mattro53 said, 4 months ago

    If not now, when? 2012 could be too late.

14. 

    TrickyPickle said, 4 months ago

    Sure, as long as you know it’s a good thing, extremely rare in occurrence and in the definite interest of the people. There’s a name for leaders who do things by executive order against the will of the people. It’s ‘Dictator’.

15. 

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    It’s something that should be used sparingly, true, but some things ARE appropriate to be dealt with by executive order. Here are some things that I think Obama SHOULD have ordered on Day One:

    Immediate suspension of the Patriot Act, pending review; immediate cessation of warrantless wiretapping; immediate cessation of waterboarding, and a commitment not to use torture on prisoners; abandonment of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and the allowance of openly gay personnel to serve in the military; expansion of marriage benefits to same-sex partnerships throughout all branches of the Federal Government; suspension of all Bush-era policies concerning environmental protection (sic), pending review; commitment of Federal monies towards alternative fuels (clean, renewable), with the goal of eliminating dependence on fossil fuels within 20 years (similar to Kennedy’s commitment to landing a man on the moon).

    There are the famous checks and balances in place to prevent government by ukase, but those powers which ARE wielded by the Chief Executive could have been used effectively. And by doing these things EARLY, rather than waiting to enact “midnight regulations” at the end of his term, means that by 2012 people would have had time to see that these were the right things to do.

16. 

    Gladius said, 4 months ago

    If you expand the use of executive order too much you have a couple of possibilities. 1. Congress will act to maintain their area of jurisdiction. They didn’t plot and scheme to get into positions of power to hand it all over to the President. 2. You get away with it a la Jackson and the expansion of Presidential authority. If this is the case don’t forget that that poweris gonna be passed on to someone else and there’s no guarantee that you’re gonna like it. aaaand possible continued expansion of powers could very well lead to 3. Dictatorship.
    I happen to approve of the checks and balances even when they slow things down that I’d rather move quickly.

17. 

    Adora68 said, 4 months ago

    Hey parkerinthehouse, thanks for the best laugh I’ve had all week!!

    “are you kidding motive? rall is a lib-hater. agree that bush is a headlong rusher without clue, but what made you think rall might not sympathize with w - he’s always sympathized with w. rall’s one of the most angry obama-haters we’ve read.”

    Rall sympathized with Bush? That’s a good one! In case you didn’t know (though I thought it was obvious), Rall is the left of the left. He’s a complete ideologue who believes that you namby-pamby “do it slow” liberals are as much a problem as conservatives. If you have to give him a label, it’d most likely be Communist.

    I disagree with him most of the time, but I respect his intellectual consistency and the courage with which he stands by his convictions – 2 things that neither Bush nor Obama have. Neither did the first Bush nor Clinton, for that matter.

18. 

    TrickyPickle said, 4 months ago

    Perhaps I’m being naive about this, but what was the problem with warrantless wiretapping? What was the worry, the fear or the downside? At a casual glance it doesn’t seem so bad to me.

19. 

    fritzoid said, 4 months ago

    Warrantless wiretapping is (or should be) a violation of the right of due process, same as warrantless search-and-seizure. It’s easy to say “Well, if they aren’t doing anything illegal they don’t have anything to fear”, but the same could be said of having police drive down random streets, pick out random homes, and conduct floor-to-ceiling searches. If the homeowner hasn’t committed any crime, he has no reason to be concerned about this, right? What if you found out that every time you sent a personal letter through the USPS, a government investigator was opening the envelope and checking the contents for evidence of criminal activity? If there IS no such evidence, you have no cause to complain, right?

    If the government has reason to be suspicious of an individual, let them get a warrant for a wiretap, just like they would need for a mob figure. If there’s good cause for one, it’ll be issued.

20. 

    Gladius said, 4 months ago

    Tricky,
    I’ve got some problems with Fritz but not on this one. I’m strongly in favor of personal privacy. There is too much damage that can be done to people who have not done anything at all.

21. 

    parkersinthehouse said, 4 months ago

    kick me in the butt if i’m wrong, but isn’t tricky just being facetious?

22. 

    M Kitt said, 4 months ago

    If TP is serious, 4th amendment protections stripped away and complete lack of oversight on those executive actions (Nixon, anyone?)

    Beyond that, the wiretapping of U.S. citizens began well before 9-11, W & Co. were misusing executive branch power and FISA court (Federal) oversight of 4th amendment protection was breached even then, the white house closed off possibe leaks with “containment” procedures, removing what had been public records of executive activities indefinitely. So far the courts have refused to pursue this issue, their position is that enactment of the “Homeland Security” provisions removing FISA oversight are retroactive, imagine that. This also gives a “blanket reprieve” to the Corporate entities that cooperated, money talks, mainstream media remains silent.

23. 

    Gladius said, 4 months ago

    If I remember correctly TP doesn’t live in the U.S. and no I don’t think I misinterpreted the post. I could be wrong, of course.

24. 

    edmondd said, 4 months ago

    Actually, tricky, it’s trickier than you think.

    The solution for avoiding “doing too much damage…to people who have not done anything at all” as Gladius warns, is not less intrusion, but more.

    With the current level of intrusion there are some problems. First, it will make a living hell out of an innocent person, as evidence may be taken out of context on many an occasion due to the limited intrusion of intelligence communities about an individual’s activities. Second, the intelligence is only shared by few persons, resulting in the so called “groupthink” that’s very useful for subjective interpretations and the undertaking of really bad decisions, such as making a living hell out of a suspect who happens to be actually innocent, and probably even building up a case so plagued by inconsistencies, yet so many, that the falsely accused may accept a deal just to get the “get out jail free” card, even to his detriment, and worse, with the avail of his defense lawyers–a common outcome from our adversarial justice system instead of a “fact-finding” one, if you will.

    Second, it’s well known that vociferous individuals, “rabble rousers” from the Establishment’s perspective, will be winnowed out quite subtly, often economically, opening its doors only to those who remain quiet or indifferent to the political theater. I think Noam Chomsky has explained this better, so look it up. At any rate, the current level of intrusion will allow for this to happen as long as other high ranking political leaders and officials are unaware of this–the ones who do not compromise their values and principles for good standing among their peers.

    The actual solution is to have a deeper level of intrusion, shared by high ranking officials and even political leaders who are privy to it and can put a limit to the overbearing, though subtle, control of select insiders within the Establishment, (for there are noble and principled people at all levels. There should. And I can actually think of some, I think).

    If Ted Rall weren’t a public figure, he’d be doomed by now, what with all of his poignant criticisms that strike not the “radical”, but the “traitor” alert in many an unconditional agent for the State’s prerogatives–be these illegal, immoral, or atrocious notwithstanding.

25. 

    TrickyPickle said, 4 months ago

    Parker: Sorry, I was being serious. Gladius is quite correct, I don’t live in the US and wasn’t following the wireless tapping debate at the time. As I said, I only have the face value to work on, and it didn’t sound too bad to me. I have very little information and as such, my opinion is tenuous at best and misinformed at worst. After reading some of your responses, I have a few more questions:

    Fritz: I don’t see how wiretapping and search and seizure are the same. One is undetectable and the other is a major disturbance. Sometimes, to have sufficient evidence in order to get a warrant for a wiretap, you need a wiretap :/

    MKitt: Lack of oversight? If there’s no oversight then I agree, it would be abused in the worst ways. The soulution would be, of course, appropriate oversight.

    Edmondd:

    Your first point: Any evidence can be given out of context. It is the job of the prosecution and defense to prevent this as much as is possible.

    Your second point: Group-think? But isn’t that a consensus of minds? As opposed to an individual making the decision? I’m not sure I understood you here, care to elaborate?

    Your second paragraph: Agreed. If the powers that be can abuse it, they will. It’s a question of oversight, as Mkitt pointed out.

    Gladius: What sort of damage to innocents do you mean? I think this is where I have the problem with well, seeing the problem. I can’t come up with any that don’t sound a little paranoid or extreme. But if so many of you are against it I will go ahead and assume there are some I’ve missed. How about some examples?

26. 

    TrickyPickle said, 4 months ago

    I really need to start checking the length of my posts before I post them. Sorry again!

27. 

    Gladius said, 4 months ago

    Sorry,
    I don’t trust anyone with “deeper” intrusion. Societies dislike non- conformists. If you are quietly non- conformist, currently, society will leave you alone. The likelyhood of any serious invasion of privacy remaining out of the hands of the public is vanishingly small. The government can’t even keep things secret that it wants to. The results are often ugly. Communities are quite capable of applying sanctions against individuals that have no real legal recourse. If any of you have ever lived in a small town you may know what I mean. Leave these people be unless you have probable cause and a warrant.

28. 

    churchillwasright said, 4 months ago

    TRICKY PICKLE: What the posters on here are not telling you is these warrantless wiretaps were calls between the U.S. and known al Qaeda organizations outside the U.S., and therefore weren’t considered domestic surveillance but rather foreign surveillance (of course the ACLU and others did not agree). They also had to have a court order either before or within 72 hours during (not afterward) the wiretap. Although expanded after 9/11, it originated in 1978. BTW Bill Clinton used it, to, though you won’t find anyone here mentioning that.

    That being said, even though I don’t think I would be a subject of the “terrorist surveillance program” (as Bush called it) because I haven’t made any international call to a known terrorist lately, I have been careful about what I way on the phone for years. President Clinton introduced a program called Echelon, which was capable of scrutinizing just about every fax, e-mail, phone call and telex message in the world, looking for specific words. So if you say to your mother that your kids play was a bomb, the gov’t looks at it (I suppose they just did) and then goes back and tries to put the conversation into perspective. No warrant needed, and not only international, but domestic also. But Clinton did it, so it’s OK. If Bush had done it, he should be tried. Go figure.