ABC reporter arrested in Denver
August 28, 2008 4:08 PM Subscribe
ABC reporter arrested in Denver on a sidewalk after filming senators and VIP's at a private meeting with big-money donors. Video here. Asa Eslocker, the reporter in question, is now remaining mum, though he has been working on stories about the influence of lobbyists who throw some pretty lavish parties, including a private performance by Kanye West.
I am outraged, OUTRAGED at this perversion of the government system by Democrats! For the last eight years, we've worked to reduce or eliminate the influence of lobbyists in Washington!
posted by scrump at 4:15 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by scrump at 4:15 PM on August 28, 2008
Put another way, I find it academically interesting that this is coming out as scandalous after nary a whisper of condemnation of the systematic plunder lobbyists and corporations have engaged in for the last eight YEARS. I mean, where the hell do we start? With Blackwater? Halliburton? AT&T? Roche?
Give me a break: the media's going to get up in arms about a company lobbying the next party that's going to be in control of the government from the top down for the foreseeable future, and they're going to do it now? After eight years of complicit silence?
What a fucking coincidence.
posted by scrump at 4:18 PM on August 28, 2008
Give me a break: the media's going to get up in arms about a company lobbying the next party that's going to be in control of the government from the top down for the foreseeable future, and they're going to do it now? After eight years of complicit silence?
What a fucking coincidence.
posted by scrump at 4:18 PM on August 28, 2008
systematic plunder lobbyists and corporations have engaged in for the last eight YEARS.
Try decades, not years. You think the Clinton administration was somehow immune from lobbyist influence? Half of Obama's supporters voted for him in the primary because they thought the Clintons were on the take...suddenly when comparing to Bush Administration, what the Clintons did was okay because they didn't benefit as much. Politics is a corrupt, dirty game, and anyone who makes it to the national stage, and I mean ANYONE, did it by bending a few rules. It takes money and influence to make it there. Don't kid yourself into thinking that anyone is clean.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:24 PM on August 28, 2008 [6 favorites]
Try decades, not years. You think the Clinton administration was somehow immune from lobbyist influence? Half of Obama's supporters voted for him in the primary because they thought the Clintons were on the take...suddenly when comparing to Bush Administration, what the Clintons did was okay because they didn't benefit as much. Politics is a corrupt, dirty game, and anyone who makes it to the national stage, and I mean ANYONE, did it by bending a few rules. It takes money and influence to make it there. Don't kid yourself into thinking that anyone is clean.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:24 PM on August 28, 2008 [6 favorites]
AT&T thanks the Blue Dog Democrats with a lavish party
posted by homunculus at 4:26 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by homunculus at 4:26 PM on August 28, 2008
BTW, you want to stop the machine? Stop spending. This country's current generation of politicians will starve to death if people put their wallets back in their pockets. Recession in the short term; realigned interests in the long term.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:27 PM on August 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:27 PM on August 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
Similar, but no arrests.
From Glenn Greenwald:
Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc.
On preview...homunculus with the gold.
posted by jaronson at 4:27 PM on August 28, 2008
From Glenn Greenwald:
Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc.
On preview...homunculus with the gold.
posted by jaronson at 4:27 PM on August 28, 2008
Don't kid yourself into thinking that anyone is clean.And don't patronize me, or anyone else who's had it up to our fucking eyeballs with bullshit like "what the Clintons did was just as bad".
The only incident in our nation's history that remotely compares to the transfer of governmental funds to private individuals under George W. Bush is World War II, which lasted five years, involved a massive, global war on two fronts, and, you know, toppled both the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich.
By contrast, for the roughly $3 trillion that's been poured into Iraq, most of it in the form of contracts to private companies, we've accomplished...well, hey, let's see...not very much.
There is no comparison, none, between what has gone before and the last eight years in terms of systematic corruption, and it's risibly simplistic to claim that there is. Yeah, okay, our government may have had its problems, but it sure as shit wasn't this bad in 2000.
posted by scrump at 4:31 PM on August 28, 2008 [36 favorites]
And, before this goes tearing off into the weeds, my main point is that it sure as hell would have been nice to see the media taking such a penetrating interest in these kinds of parties when they were being thrown routinely for Republicans. You know, for the last eight years. Again. And again. And again.
But, hey, I must just be some tinfoil-hat-wearing crank for thinking that there's some sort of correspondence between the sudden civic-mindedness of the press and the imminent downfall of the neoconservative movement that's had its hands on the levers of power, and has owned the media, for at least eight years, probably more like a couple of decades.
Because, surely, there's no relationship.
posted by scrump at 4:35 PM on August 28, 2008 [4 favorites]
But, hey, I must just be some tinfoil-hat-wearing crank for thinking that there's some sort of correspondence between the sudden civic-mindedness of the press and the imminent downfall of the neoconservative movement that's had its hands on the levers of power, and has owned the media, for at least eight years, probably more like a couple of decades.
Because, surely, there's no relationship.
posted by scrump at 4:35 PM on August 28, 2008 [4 favorites]
I know it's really not the most important thing but I can't help but thinking "Is there any audience that Kanye West doesn't want attention from? Lobbyists? Really?!"
posted by inoculatedcities at 4:35 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by inoculatedcities at 4:35 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wow, this thread is turning into a shit-flinging contest far quicker than I ever imagined it would when I started reading it.
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:36 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:36 PM on August 28, 2008
On preview...homunculus with the gold.
OOK! OOK! OOK!
posted by homunculus at 4:39 PM on August 28, 2008
OOK! OOK! OOK!
posted by homunculus at 4:39 PM on August 28, 2008
Yeah, keep yammering on about the relatively more corrupt Bush administration. Meanwhile, what exactly was Clinton's legacy? Leaving a madman like Greenspan at the switch? Arcane policies like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
Or was it Hillary's vote for the war? Or Kerry's? Or the fact that the Democrats were entirely, ENTIRELY complicit in this administration's completely overblown spending for the past eight years? They had THREE years to stop Bush (2006-2008). Their congressional record? Didn't they approve Federal wiretapping?
Yeah, but it's all Bush's fault. Right.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:40 PM on August 28, 2008 [8 favorites]
Or was it Hillary's vote for the war? Or Kerry's? Or the fact that the Democrats were entirely, ENTIRELY complicit in this administration's completely overblown spending for the past eight years? They had THREE years to stop Bush (2006-2008). Their congressional record? Didn't they approve Federal wiretapping?
Yeah, but it's all Bush's fault. Right.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:40 PM on August 28, 2008 [8 favorites]
The cops certainly acted like pricks. But when it comes to the lobbying question, I'm more concerned about who the lobbyists are rather than what sort of appetizers are being served, personally, and the Geraldoesque language of the ABC pieces don't help. "The Money Trail." Where was all this bulldog investigation eight years ago to present?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:41 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:41 PM on August 28, 2008
Biden has come out before for public financing of campaigns, which is at least a somewhat encouraging sign.
posted by waraw at 4:41 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by waraw at 4:41 PM on August 28, 2008
And though yes, I agree that it would've been nice not to have a lapdog press for the previous two terms, and I agree with Marisa Stole the Precious Thing regarding the somewhat YOURKIDSAREALONEONTHEINTERNETWHATAREYOUGONNADOABOUTIT type language from ABC, I'm glad someone from a big three network is examining this story.
posted by waraw at 4:44 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by waraw at 4:44 PM on August 28, 2008
that scrump kid's got moxie.
posted by boo_radley at 4:44 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by boo_radley at 4:44 PM on August 28, 2008
Face it, everyone. As long as there is power to be sold, there will be money to buy it. The only way to break the cycle is to take power and money away from politicians, not give them ever-increasing quantities of it.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:46 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:46 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
Wow, this thread is turning into a shit-flinging contest far quicker than I ever imagined it would when I started reading it.
Is it too early for me to invoke bookhouse's law?
High fuel prices are affecting everyone these days. Even ninjas.
posted by PsychoKick at 4:49 PM on August 28, 2008
Is it too early for me to invoke bookhouse's law?
High fuel prices are affecting everyone these days. Even ninjas.
posted by PsychoKick at 4:49 PM on August 28, 2008
Well, clearly, in this case, the police were right to ...
No, no ... Wait. Wait ...
Nope, can't defend this one.
Fuck. I was so close.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:50 PM on August 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
No, no ... Wait. Wait ...
Nope, can't defend this one.
Fuck. I was so close.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:50 PM on August 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
Lobbyists suck, yeah there's no story there. If they are trying to hide what they are doing, they sure aren't doing a good job.
What the reporter was reporting on is over shadowed by the actions of the Denver Police officers.
The guy who shoved him in the street, that right there? You loose you badge, and your pension and any other benefits you had. You are restricted from any other civil service job.
Also any cop who ever tells you to turn off a camera, I don't care how nice they are about it. Should receive a warning the first time and maybe the second time it happens. After that a week without pay. Not unpaid time off, I mean you are at work but not getting paid.
Also fines, why isn't this used more by IA? If it's good enough for the public it's certainly good enough for their servants.
posted by MrBobaFett at 4:54 PM on August 28, 2008 [3 favorites]
What the reporter was reporting on is over shadowed by the actions of the Denver Police officers.
The guy who shoved him in the street, that right there? You loose you badge, and your pension and any other benefits you had. You are restricted from any other civil service job.
Also any cop who ever tells you to turn off a camera, I don't care how nice they are about it. Should receive a warning the first time and maybe the second time it happens. After that a week without pay. Not unpaid time off, I mean you are at work but not getting paid.
Also fines, why isn't this used more by IA? If it's good enough for the public it's certainly good enough for their servants.
posted by MrBobaFett at 4:54 PM on August 28, 2008 [3 favorites]
Lobbyists suck, yeah there's no story there. If they are trying to hide what they are doing, they sure aren't doing a good job.
If Shrubya has imparted any wisdom during his tenure, it's this: There is no need to hide. Do everything in the open and dare anyone to do anything about it. If any one does have the temerity to call you on it, sic the character assassination dogs on 'em.
Go big or go home, pussies.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:08 PM on August 28, 2008 [3 favorites]
If Shrubya has imparted any wisdom during his tenure, it's this: There is no need to hide. Do everything in the open and dare anyone to do anything about it. If any one does have the temerity to call you on it, sic the character assassination dogs on 'em.
Go big or go home, pussies.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:08 PM on August 28, 2008 [3 favorites]
Bah. Where are you going to break the cycle? Media is privately owned, and more importantly, beholden to its advertisers, aka big business. We can complain all we want for media equality but when one party is the $$ party and the other is not, what, exactly can we do about it? Media watchdogs are great (I love em) but even they start to wear on the populace after awhile. You begin to look like the party of whining if not sooner then eventually.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:09 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:09 PM on August 28, 2008
That of course isn't to say that this incident doesn't suck completely.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:09 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 5:09 PM on August 28, 2008
barack obama and the democratic party: proving that the military-industrial complex is colourblind.
posted by klanawa at 5:34 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by klanawa at 5:34 PM on August 28, 2008
Power-tripping cops always make my blood boil. But I wonder if this latest example of wanton disregard of constitutional/human rights by corporate/government power will convince any of the self-styled "progressive" Mefites of these truths: Small government is better inasmuch as it has less power to destroy you; and the right to own and use guns is essential to a free society inasmuch as it preserves the option of insurrection against state power.
Why am I stirring up a 2nd Amendment beesnest? Let's just say I don't believe a sternly worded letter to the editor is going to have much of an effect on anything these days. Ditto for blogged outrage.
posted by oncogenesis at 5:34 PM on August 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
Why am I stirring up a 2nd Amendment beesnest? Let's just say I don't believe a sternly worded letter to the editor is going to have much of an effect on anything these days. Ditto for blogged outrage.
posted by oncogenesis at 5:34 PM on August 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
While I shouldn't opine on 2nd amendment rights, let me just say that if they were restricted to the right to bear laser guns (er, arms), I would be in favour. Pew pew! Take that!
posted by ~ at 5:47 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by ~ at 5:47 PM on August 28, 2008
Cops arrest journalists watching democrats and this turns into a two-minute hate on....dubya?
You guys are totally the spiritual siblings of the early-90s Clinton haters.
posted by codswallop at 5:51 PM on August 28, 2008 [4 favorites]
You guys are totally the spiritual siblings of the early-90s Clinton haters.
posted by codswallop at 5:51 PM on August 28, 2008 [4 favorites]
Distinguish, please, between special interest groups (lobbyists) and political corruption. Lobby stuff in legal, with certain restraints, and those restraints are fluid enough that they can be got around. And are. and by members of both parties. Is it by chance that when one leave congress he or she gets work as lobbyists, with access to the halls of power?
In fact as far back as the founding daddies, Madison saw the potential problem with special interest groups but felt the risk was worth taking rather than imposing many restrictions upon the govt, something the revolution was trying to do away with.
ps: Joe Lieberman's wife is big lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies.
posted by Postroad at 5:52 PM on August 28, 2008
In fact as far back as the founding daddies, Madison saw the potential problem with special interest groups but felt the risk was worth taking rather than imposing many restrictions upon the govt, something the revolution was trying to do away with.
ps: Joe Lieberman's wife is big lobbyist for pharmaceutical companies.
posted by Postroad at 5:52 PM on August 28, 2008
Small government has every bit as much power to nuke your sorry ass, oncogenesis, and your fantasies about guns being the answer are delusional. The only chance of an armed upsrising succeeding is for the military to mutiny. As long as the military accepts command from the President, you are not going to overthrow your government.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:04 PM on August 28, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by five fresh fish at 6:04 PM on August 28, 2008 [3 favorites]
the right to own and use guns is essential to a free society inasmuch as it preserves the option of insurrection against state power.
Just like in other countries where everyone owns an AK-47, an armed society is a polite society. Ain't that right, Somalia?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:16 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just like in other countries where everyone owns an AK-47, an armed society is a polite society. Ain't that right, Somalia?
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:16 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
Cops arrest journalists watching democrats and this turns into a two-minute hate on....dubya?
Also, I see no one in this thread defending the cops or lobbyists, just bewilderment over why a sudden sense of vigilance against the lobbying of politicians should come from a major network now, as opposed to say, over the past 8 years.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:19 PM on August 28, 2008
Also, I see no one in this thread defending the cops or lobbyists, just bewilderment over why a sudden sense of vigilance against the lobbying of politicians should come from a major network now, as opposed to say, over the past 8 years.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:19 PM on August 28, 2008
I love it how the sorry bunch of Ken Starr stenographers in the media who savaged Clinton from day 1 with the bullshit Whitewater and eventually lynched him for good over a cum stain that had ended on a perfectly willing woman of legal age, after that they all suddendly went to sleep -- to deep, blissful, sleep -- for almost eight years while at least one election was stolen (two, if you also count -- ah the irony -- hacked voting machines in Ohio) the Treasury was plundered using no-bid contracts as a battering ram, four jets hijacked while the unarmed Air Force jerked off and the President had himself flown to outer space he was so scared, a country was illegally invaded on the basis of clumsily faked evidence, and a city full of black people was merrily abandoned to drown, and torture of nonwhite noncitizens became official US policy, etc, etc.
All while the US media slept.
Now, when a Democrat seems to have something approaching a realistic chance to be elected -- now, they suddendly wake the fuck up. Which is a good thing, mind you.
Easiest bet ever: McCain wins, they go back to sleep. Obama somehow makes it, he's going to get stoned on a daily basis -- the Bill Clinton treatment all over again, now-defunct Office of the Independent Counsel or not, they'll find a way.
posted by matteo at 6:22 PM on August 28, 2008 [10 favorites]
All while the US media slept.
Now, when a Democrat seems to have something approaching a realistic chance to be elected -- now, they suddendly wake the fuck up. Which is a good thing, mind you.
Easiest bet ever: McCain wins, they go back to sleep. Obama somehow makes it, he's going to get stoned on a daily basis -- the Bill Clinton treatment all over again, now-defunct Office of the Independent Counsel or not, they'll find a way.
posted by matteo at 6:22 PM on August 28, 2008 [10 favorites]
Why no news article about all my friends, the anarchists, protesting at the DNC? Does the press only care about the press? Does the press only care about...
...nevermind. I'm wasting everyone's time with rhetorical questions. I watched some DNC coverage last night I'm not suprised by this lobbyist business. Change? Change? Where? Who?
posted by fuq at 6:33 PM on August 28, 2008
...nevermind. I'm wasting everyone's time with rhetorical questions. I watched some DNC coverage last night I'm not suprised by this lobbyist business. Change? Change? Where? Who?
posted by fuq at 6:33 PM on August 28, 2008
Where the hell is the Democratic mayor of Denver while his cops are out of control?
posted by etaoin at 6:35 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by etaoin at 6:35 PM on August 28, 2008
The precedent has been set for the past 40 years. During a convention, police have carte blanc so long as nobody gets killed.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:44 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:44 PM on August 28, 2008
Oh, for those who don't listen to NPR this week: zero fatalities has been cited over and over as proof that the '68 "event" in Chicago was not a police riot. Were a bunch of police sacked in NYC last time? As long as there's not a wrongful death or provable rape, it's hard to get past the blue wall.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:48 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:48 PM on August 28, 2008
Pardon my ignorance, but in other industrialized nations (Europe, East Asia), are lobbyists that much of a powerful influence on government? It seems that the loose regulations of the American corporation give rise to this kind of corruption, whereas in, say, Sweden or Denmark, corporations don't have nearly the legal power as in the U.S.
posted by zardoz at 7:38 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by zardoz at 7:38 PM on August 28, 2008
As long as there's not a wrongful death or provable rape, it's hard to get past the blue wall.
A wrongful death won't break the wall either, though it would probably at least make the news.. Case in point, there was a wrongful death at a native protest in Ontario -- ya, Canada, were these things are supposed to be a little better -- and while there was an official inquiry, it was still a total whitewash:
posted by Chuckles at 8:01 PM on August 28, 2008
A wrongful death won't break the wall either, though it would probably at least make the news.. Case in point, there was a wrongful death at a native protest in Ontario -- ya, Canada, were these things are supposed to be a little better -- and while there was an official inquiry, it was still a total whitewash:
former Ontario Provincial Attorney General Charles Harnick testified that Harris used profanity (shouting, "I want the fucking Indians out of the park.")[12], although later witnesses denied Harnick's evidence.Emphasis mine..
posted by Chuckles at 8:01 PM on August 28, 2008
This is one of those gol-durned Rorschach threads, isn't it?
posted by fleetmouse at 8:34 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by fleetmouse at 8:34 PM on August 28, 2008
Anybody who ever saw the Denver Police after a win at a football game knows they are itching to break out the riot gear and batons. I've never seen a police force more in need of an insurrection.
I swear one year they emerged in a jackbooted line from a cloud of tear gas so clearly you could hear the Imperial March playing in your head.
So this, not so surprising.
posted by abulafa at 8:51 PM on August 28, 2008
I swear one year they emerged in a jackbooted line from a cloud of tear gas so clearly you could hear the Imperial March playing in your head.
So this, not so surprising.
posted by abulafa at 8:51 PM on August 28, 2008
Capitalist "Democracy": Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie
The history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries demonstrated, even before the war, what this celebrated “pure democracy” really is under capitalism. Marxists have always maintained that the more developed, the “purer” democracy is, the more naked, acute and merciless the class struggle becomes, and the “purer” the capitalist oppression and bourgeois dictatorship. The Dreyfus case in republican France, the massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the capitalists in the free and democratic American republic—these and thousands of similar facts illustrate the truth which the bourgeoisie are vainly seeking to conceal, namely, that actually terror and bourgeois dictatorship prevail in the most democratic of republics and are openly displayed every time the exploiters think the power of capital is being shaken.…
posted by jason's_planet at 8:54 PM on August 28, 2008
The history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries demonstrated, even before the war, what this celebrated “pure democracy” really is under capitalism. Marxists have always maintained that the more developed, the “purer” democracy is, the more naked, acute and merciless the class struggle becomes, and the “purer” the capitalist oppression and bourgeois dictatorship. The Dreyfus case in republican France, the massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the capitalists in the free and democratic American republic—these and thousands of similar facts illustrate the truth which the bourgeoisie are vainly seeking to conceal, namely, that actually terror and bourgeois dictatorship prevail in the most democratic of republics and are openly displayed every time the exploiters think the power of capital is being shaken.…
posted by jason's_planet at 8:54 PM on August 28, 2008
and the right to own and use guns is essential to a free society inasmuch as it preserves the option of insurrection against state power.
Yeah.. because you and your buddies with your handguns can really stand against tanks and rocket launchers.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:56 PM on August 28, 2008
Yeah.. because you and your buddies with your handguns can really stand against tanks and rocket launchers.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:56 PM on August 28, 2008
Exactly! Because you've got to know if this guy had had one of these, this guy would be the democratically elected President of China right now.
posted by Chuckles at 9:17 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by Chuckles at 9:17 PM on August 28, 2008
Where the hell is the Democratic mayor of Denver while his cops are out of control?
The whole incident was probably a false-flag smear campaign. The shit about the "private party with lobbyists discussing nefarious secrets with senators" angle reeks of hyperbole. It was probably just another one of the hundreds of lobbyist-sponsored parties around the convention center. I don't like them either, but pick your favorite president or party from the past, and they probably had them, too. Hell, when the Democratic party was in its golden age, most of its business was literally carried out secretly in smoky back rooms (not that the Democrats were alone in that respect; the Republicans had their smoky back rooms, too.)
The cops were probably either republican sympathizers playing along, or the ABC reporter wanted to get a juicy scandal over on the Dems so much he provoked them. ABC's political allegiances have been so glaringly obvious lately it's getting really offensive.
The convention, and the lobbyist parties in the neighborhoods surrounding it, were organized before Obama claimed the nomination, under the Democratic party's old guard DLC leadership. There's been a fairly substantial internal shake-up within the Democratic party. Obama represents the new guard that just now, with his nomination secured, successfully wrested power away from the old guard.
Obama's campaign doesn't take lobbyist contributions. Obama himself has stated on the record that if he's the candidate again in 4 years, he'll get the lobbyists out of the conventions, too. Give him the chance to fail on that promise before you try to drag him into this.
And please, stop being such knee-jerk cynics and get some realistic expectations. It's not up to Obama, nor is it within his power alone, to change everything to meet your puritanical standards before he even holds office. And it's not going to be an overnight process. If we want real change, we're going to have to think more than 5 minutes ahead about how to achieve it. Obama may have seemingly faltered on a couple of issues recently (FISA, being the most serious example), but there might have been other tactical or strategic purposes served by some of those compromises. (Say, a deal gets hammered out in a subcommittee that pushes an emergency bill to fund flood victim relief to the floor for consideration in return for support on a compromise bill that looks like a capitulation, but that actually contains a subtle loophole that leaves open the possibility of effectively negating it at some future point. This is a hypothetical example, but the legislative process is fundamentally about this kind of complex, crazy-quilt deal-making; as ugly as it might sound, it isn't a corruption of the process, it is the process. It's by design. )
And we all have to stop laying America's collective responsibility for the status quo at the feet of any single party or leader. The best we can hope for is to occasionally find real leaders courageous and principled enough that they're willing to risk their own lives to dive headfirst into the decaying mass of the body politic and dig around in all that muck and slime until they find a major artery to choke down on long enough that the monster itself becomes vulnerable to outside attack in its weakened state. In other words, the best any honestly-motivated political leader could hope to accomplish, given the deeply institutionalized nature of the problems in American politics, is to offer the rest of us a brief, fighting chance to bring about the changes we want to see in the process ourselves.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:26 PM on August 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
The whole incident was probably a false-flag smear campaign. The shit about the "private party with lobbyists discussing nefarious secrets with senators" angle reeks of hyperbole. It was probably just another one of the hundreds of lobbyist-sponsored parties around the convention center. I don't like them either, but pick your favorite president or party from the past, and they probably had them, too. Hell, when the Democratic party was in its golden age, most of its business was literally carried out secretly in smoky back rooms (not that the Democrats were alone in that respect; the Republicans had their smoky back rooms, too.)
The cops were probably either republican sympathizers playing along, or the ABC reporter wanted to get a juicy scandal over on the Dems so much he provoked them. ABC's political allegiances have been so glaringly obvious lately it's getting really offensive.
The convention, and the lobbyist parties in the neighborhoods surrounding it, were organized before Obama claimed the nomination, under the Democratic party's old guard DLC leadership. There's been a fairly substantial internal shake-up within the Democratic party. Obama represents the new guard that just now, with his nomination secured, successfully wrested power away from the old guard.
Obama's campaign doesn't take lobbyist contributions. Obama himself has stated on the record that if he's the candidate again in 4 years, he'll get the lobbyists out of the conventions, too. Give him the chance to fail on that promise before you try to drag him into this.
And please, stop being such knee-jerk cynics and get some realistic expectations. It's not up to Obama, nor is it within his power alone, to change everything to meet your puritanical standards before he even holds office. And it's not going to be an overnight process. If we want real change, we're going to have to think more than 5 minutes ahead about how to achieve it. Obama may have seemingly faltered on a couple of issues recently (FISA, being the most serious example), but there might have been other tactical or strategic purposes served by some of those compromises. (Say, a deal gets hammered out in a subcommittee that pushes an emergency bill to fund flood victim relief to the floor for consideration in return for support on a compromise bill that looks like a capitulation, but that actually contains a subtle loophole that leaves open the possibility of effectively negating it at some future point. This is a hypothetical example, but the legislative process is fundamentally about this kind of complex, crazy-quilt deal-making; as ugly as it might sound, it isn't a corruption of the process, it is the process. It's by design. )
And we all have to stop laying America's collective responsibility for the status quo at the feet of any single party or leader. The best we can hope for is to occasionally find real leaders courageous and principled enough that they're willing to risk their own lives to dive headfirst into the decaying mass of the body politic and dig around in all that muck and slime until they find a major artery to choke down on long enough that the monster itself becomes vulnerable to outside attack in its weakened state. In other words, the best any honestly-motivated political leader could hope to accomplish, given the deeply institutionalized nature of the problems in American politics, is to offer the rest of us a brief, fighting chance to bring about the changes we want to see in the process ourselves.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:26 PM on August 28, 2008 [2 favorites]
dirtynumbangelboy: Yeah.. because you and your buddies with your handguns can really stand against tanks and rocket launchers.
Tell that to the Iraqi insurgents.
posted by spaltavian at 9:45 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
Tell that to the Iraqi insurgents.
posted by spaltavian at 9:45 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
Small government has every bit as much power to nuke your sorry ass, oncogenesis, and your fantasies about guns being the answer are delusional. The only chance of an armed upsrising succeeding is for the military to mutiny. As long as the military accepts command from the President, you are not going to overthrow your government.
I realize that you may have missed the word "option", there, but are you actually suggesting that overthrowing the government would be easier without the option of "insurrection against state power"? It seems to me that it's probably better to have the option than not, even if it is never used in favor of other options. For one thing, a credible threat of violence tends to lend the non-violent alternative greater weight (for example: MLK vs Malcolm X, or Gandhi vs Quit India fighters).
At any rate, I agree that direct overthrow of the government is unlikely, but it's also not really what the Second Amendment movement is about, either -- think defensive, not offensive, and partisan rather than military. Against which circumstance are US military personnel more likely to mutiny: a peaceful roll-over, or a messy, long-term Vietnam/Iraq/Soviet-1943 style resistance movement? Personally, I think having the option of the latter makes a great deal of sense; certainly more than giving up ahead of time because "we can't win against the military".
Yeah.. because you and your buddies with your handguns can really stand against tanks and rocket launchers.
If warfare were as simple as "u and ur handgun vs tanks and rocket launchers = no chance roflol", the guys with the greatest number of tanks and rocket launchers would always win. Sorry, but that argument is unhistorical crap. Let's not forget that things like tanks and rocket launchers are manned (and more importantly, resupplied) by frail human beings, not immortals... and, once again, do you really think "you and your buddieswith your handguns can really stand against tanks and rocket launchers" is a better scenario? Come on.
posted by vorfeed at 10:04 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
I realize that you may have missed the word "option", there, but are you actually suggesting that overthrowing the government would be easier without the option of "insurrection against state power"? It seems to me that it's probably better to have the option than not, even if it is never used in favor of other options. For one thing, a credible threat of violence tends to lend the non-violent alternative greater weight (for example: MLK vs Malcolm X, or Gandhi vs Quit India fighters).
At any rate, I agree that direct overthrow of the government is unlikely, but it's also not really what the Second Amendment movement is about, either -- think defensive, not offensive, and partisan rather than military. Against which circumstance are US military personnel more likely to mutiny: a peaceful roll-over, or a messy, long-term Vietnam/Iraq/Soviet-1943 style resistance movement? Personally, I think having the option of the latter makes a great deal of sense; certainly more than giving up ahead of time because "we can't win against the military".
Yeah.. because you and your buddies with your handguns can really stand against tanks and rocket launchers.
If warfare were as simple as "u and ur handgun vs tanks and rocket launchers = no chance roflol", the guys with the greatest number of tanks and rocket launchers would always win. Sorry, but that argument is unhistorical crap. Let's not forget that things like tanks and rocket launchers are manned (and more importantly, resupplied) by frail human beings, not immortals... and, once again, do you really think "you and your buddies
posted by vorfeed at 10:04 PM on August 28, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that's a slightly different situation, and you know it.
But like whoever said above, an armed society is a polite society, right? Yeah! Yay Iraq and Somalia and Zimbabwe and and and and..
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:04 PM on August 28, 2008
But like whoever said above, an armed society is a polite society, right? Yeah! Yay Iraq and Somalia and Zimbabwe and and and and..
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:04 PM on August 28, 2008
The US is an armed society. Are we polite enough for you?
posted by oncogenesis at 10:32 PM on August 28, 2008
posted by oncogenesis at 10:32 PM on August 28, 2008
Tell that to the Iraqi insurgents.
Sure, if you want what's happening in Iraq to happen to your country, go ahead and have a revolution.
posted by Chuckles at 10:33 PM on August 28, 2008
Sure, if you want what's happening in Iraq to happen to your country, go ahead and have a revolution.
posted by Chuckles at 10:33 PM on August 28, 2008
the massacre of strikers by hired bands armed by the capitalists in the free and democratic American republic—these and thousands of similar facts illustrate the truth which the bourgeoisie are vainly seeking to conceal, namely, that actually terror and bourgeois dictatorship prevail in the most democratic of republics
That seems to be how it played out on BC's Vancouver Island with the local mining magnate. When the Irish and Chinese started to unionize, The Company wasn't above right-out murder to prevent it.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:45 PM on August 28, 2008
That seems to be how it played out on BC's Vancouver Island with the local mining magnate. When the Irish and Chinese started to unionize, The Company wasn't above right-out murder to prevent it.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:45 PM on August 28, 2008
There's been a fairly substantial internal shake-up within the Democratic party. Obama represents the new guard that just now, with his nomination secured, successfully wrested power away from the old guard.
Blah blah blah. It really is quite startling that this is some sort of special, riveting news. I thought it's how democracy is supposed to work: the people decide what they want. What they want is some freakin' change. This "substantial shake-up" is the natural outcome of a party that has failed its citizens, as will be the shake-up the Republican party must go through (post failing this election.)
Your representatives have plainly fucked it up beyond reason. That there is a sea change shouldn't be startling: it should be expected.
Don't buy into the sensationalist hype. Make democracy work.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:51 PM on August 28, 2008
Blah blah blah. It really is quite startling that this is some sort of special, riveting news. I thought it's how democracy is supposed to work: the people decide what they want. What they want is some freakin' change. This "substantial shake-up" is the natural outcome of a party that has failed its citizens, as will be the shake-up the Republican party must go through (post failing this election.)
Your representatives have plainly fucked it up beyond reason. That there is a sea change shouldn't be startling: it should be expected.
Don't buy into the sensationalist hype. Make democracy work.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:51 PM on August 28, 2008
Yeah, that's a slightly different situation, and you know it.
I am not sure exactly what you're referring to, here. If you mean partisan activity, I disagree. I think this falls quite neatly into what oncogenesis was talking about. "The option of insurrection against state power" clearly encompasses partisan activities and other forms of decentralized armed revolt. Hell, that's exactly what most insurrections are. It's funny you should mention Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Somalia, for example... especially as you argue that armed citizens can't stand against tanks and rockets!
If you mean standing up to tanks and rocket launchers with no weapons vs. standing up to them with handguns, well, that's my reply to the idea that wanting to have the option of armed insurrection is "delusional". IMHO, it's the alternative that's the delusion. Anyone who gives up an option had better be sure that their position will be improved by doing so, and in this case, it seems that it isn't.
But like whoever said above, an armed society is a polite society, right? Yeah! Yay Iraq and Somalia and Zimbabwe and and and and..
In other words, if one bullshit slogan won't do, just reach for another, right? Yeah! Yay snark and simplistic catchphrases and strawmen and and and and...
First of all, the "polite society" thing seems to have been thrown in here as little more than a point of empty sarcasm. Being a "polite society" has very little to do with the ability to revolt against state power, which is the subject at hand. Nor does the political and cultural context of armed "politeness" in Africa have much to do with that of armed "politeness" in America, for that matter. And while we're bringing up random data points, there are many other armed societies which are very polite indeed... even if you discount ours, which seems rather strange to me.
In short: I don't see how your argument, such as it is, even begins to refute oncogenesis' point. Let's see it one more time: the right to own and use guns is essential to a free society inasmuch as it preserves the option of insurrection against state power. Nothing there about politeness, I'm afraid.
posted by vorfeed at 12:36 AM on August 29, 2008 [2 favorites]
I am not sure exactly what you're referring to, here. If you mean partisan activity, I disagree. I think this falls quite neatly into what oncogenesis was talking about. "The option of insurrection against state power" clearly encompasses partisan activities and other forms of decentralized armed revolt. Hell, that's exactly what most insurrections are. It's funny you should mention Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Somalia, for example... especially as you argue that armed citizens can't stand against tanks and rockets!
If you mean standing up to tanks and rocket launchers with no weapons vs. standing up to them with handguns, well, that's my reply to the idea that wanting to have the option of armed insurrection is "delusional". IMHO, it's the alternative that's the delusion. Anyone who gives up an option had better be sure that their position will be improved by doing so, and in this case, it seems that it isn't.
But like whoever said above, an armed society is a polite society, right? Yeah! Yay Iraq and Somalia and Zimbabwe and and and and..
In other words, if one bullshit slogan won't do, just reach for another, right? Yeah! Yay snark and simplistic catchphrases and strawmen and and and and...
First of all, the "polite society" thing seems to have been thrown in here as little more than a point of empty sarcasm. Being a "polite society" has very little to do with the ability to revolt against state power, which is the subject at hand. Nor does the political and cultural context of armed "politeness" in Africa have much to do with that of armed "politeness" in America, for that matter. And while we're bringing up random data points, there are many other armed societies which are very polite indeed... even if you discount ours, which seems rather strange to me.
In short: I don't see how your argument, such as it is, even begins to refute oncogenesis' point. Let's see it one more time: the right to own and use guns is essential to a free society inasmuch as it preserves the option of insurrection against state power. Nothing there about politeness, I'm afraid.
posted by vorfeed at 12:36 AM on August 29, 2008 [2 favorites]
It's funny you should mention Iraq, Zimbabwe, and Somalia, for example... especially as you argue that armed citizens can't stand against tanks and rockets!
Somalia and Iraq haven't gone so well for American occupying forces but are you seriously arguing that the citizens of those countries somehow won something?
posted by srboisvert at 2:05 AM on August 29, 2008
Somalia and Iraq haven't gone so well for American occupying forces but are you seriously arguing that the citizens of those countries somehow won something?
posted by srboisvert at 2:05 AM on August 29, 2008
Somalia and Iraq haven't gone so well for American occupying forces but are you seriously arguing that the citizens of those countries somehow won something?
This is not necessarily about "winning", as if there's some magic scoreboard somewhere (other than the judgment of history, and that jury is still out on Somalia and Iraq), but I'll humor you. What Somalians and Iraqis have "won" is the ability to continue to fight effectively against state power, an option that they'd have been much less likely to keep for so long if it weren't for the widespread existence of privately-owned firearms. Despite all attempts to disarm and destroy them, they're still standing against one of the largest armies in the world. That gives them the opportunity to use various means to achieve their goals... like, for instance, dragging everything out until the war becomes massively unpopular in the invaders' home country.
Again, this issue is not solely about military victory over the enemy -- it's about making yourself and your country damned difficult to hold, even in defeat. If somebody much bigger than you is determined to make you suffer, there can be great worth in making them bleed for it in return.
posted by vorfeed at 7:31 AM on August 29, 2008
This is not necessarily about "winning", as if there's some magic scoreboard somewhere (other than the judgment of history, and that jury is still out on Somalia and Iraq), but I'll humor you. What Somalians and Iraqis have "won" is the ability to continue to fight effectively against state power, an option that they'd have been much less likely to keep for so long if it weren't for the widespread existence of privately-owned firearms. Despite all attempts to disarm and destroy them, they're still standing against one of the largest armies in the world. That gives them the opportunity to use various means to achieve their goals... like, for instance, dragging everything out until the war becomes massively unpopular in the invaders' home country.
Again, this issue is not solely about military victory over the enemy -- it's about making yourself and your country damned difficult to hold, even in defeat. If somebody much bigger than you is determined to make you suffer, there can be great worth in making them bleed for it in return.
posted by vorfeed at 7:31 AM on August 29, 2008
How did this post about an msm journalist in Denver getting arrested turn into a debate on Iraq and Somalia???
What these blogs and the youtube video of the arrest clearly show is that journalists are a threat to democracy.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:18 AM on August 29, 2008
What these blogs and the youtube video of the arrest clearly show is that journalists are a threat to democracy.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:18 AM on August 29, 2008
Can we can the 2nd amendment derail? I'm actually interested in the DNC's attempt to reform lobbying structures in the US.
posted by butterstick at 8:19 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by butterstick at 8:19 AM on August 29, 2008
the right to own and use guns is essential to a free society inasmuch as it preserves the option of insurrection against state power
Yes, and carrying a stick gives me roughly the same option if I'm attacked by a bear. Way to miss the point.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:35 AM on August 29, 2008
Yes, and carrying a stick gives me roughly the same option if I'm attacked by a bear. Way to miss the point.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:35 AM on August 29, 2008
Yes, and carrying a stick gives me roughly the same option if I'm attacked by a bear. Way to miss the point.
Well, if a bear attacks you, would you rather have the stick, or not? Considering that black bears will sometimes back down if their victims fight back, I'll take the stick. Besides, there's a big difference between the stick/bear equation and the gun/tank equation: namely, that the gun really is a lethal weapon with regards to the guys who are driving and/or resupplying the tank.
Can we can the 2nd amendment derail? I'm actually interested in the DNC's attempt to reform lobbying structures in the US.
Then why not actually post a comment about that? Nobody here is stopping you; it's not like this "derail" wrecked the mefi tracks or something. If you want to talk about something, go ahead and talk about it. As far as I'm concerned, you can consider the 2nd Amendment discussion "canned", regardless... it seems that I was right when I suggested that dnab is not interested in posting anything more than snarky one-liners. Too bad, I'm actually interested in discussing this.
posted by vorfeed at 10:22 AM on August 29, 2008
Well, if a bear attacks you, would you rather have the stick, or not? Considering that black bears will sometimes back down if their victims fight back, I'll take the stick. Besides, there's a big difference between the stick/bear equation and the gun/tank equation: namely, that the gun really is a lethal weapon with regards to the guys who are driving and/or resupplying the tank.
Can we can the 2nd amendment derail? I'm actually interested in the DNC's attempt to reform lobbying structures in the US.
Then why not actually post a comment about that? Nobody here is stopping you; it's not like this "derail" wrecked the mefi tracks or something. If you want to talk about something, go ahead and talk about it. As far as I'm concerned, you can consider the 2nd Amendment discussion "canned", regardless... it seems that I was right when I suggested that dnab is not interested in posting anything more than snarky one-liners. Too bad, I'm actually interested in discussing this.
posted by vorfeed at 10:22 AM on August 29, 2008
It takes at least $10 million dollars to run a campaign for the senate, typically more. This means that every senator needs to raise at least $32,000 a week if they want to be re-elected. If they don't do that, they'll be replaced by someone who will.
Every politician has to suck up to lobbyists and take corporate money - by definition. Those that don't won't be elected. We've made the ability to raise vast sums of cash the primary requirement for serving in government.
It really pisses me off when people talk about corruption in Washington. Politicians taking money for direct personal gain is rare, though admittedly more common in the past decade with Abramoff, the K street project, etc. But that's just a natural outgrowth of the fact that we, the american people, require our representatives to raise at least $10 million dollars every 6 years.
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, or mandatory free tv time for campaigns, this problem will only get worse.
posted by heathkit at 11:02 AM on August 29, 2008
Every politician has to suck up to lobbyists and take corporate money - by definition. Those that don't won't be elected. We've made the ability to raise vast sums of cash the primary requirement for serving in government.
It really pisses me off when people talk about corruption in Washington. Politicians taking money for direct personal gain is rare, though admittedly more common in the past decade with Abramoff, the K street project, etc. But that's just a natural outgrowth of the fact that we, the american people, require our representatives to raise at least $10 million dollars every 6 years.
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, or mandatory free tv time for campaigns, this problem will only get worse.
posted by heathkit at 11:02 AM on August 29, 2008
Too bad, I'm actually interested in discussing this.
As one of those guilty of posting a snarky one-liner, I think it's commendable that you'd want a sincere discussion on this issue. So here are some of my thoughts on the 2nd ammendment.
I don't find the 2nd ammendment to be outdated, but I do support gun control. The Supreme Court has proven, time and again, that it is perfectly constitutional for us to outline what kinds of "arms" may be owned, and by whom. I haven't seen you personally argue against any form of gun control, so forgive me if what I'm saying is something you're already in agreement with, but what I find most puzzling about the gun lobby in the US is the level of hysterical hair-tearing and fear mongering that they generate over the most basic and reasonable of regulations, including (but not limited to) a five-day waiting period and the lack of a felonious record. Their counter, that these regulations keep law-abiding people from ownings guns is erroneous - if you look at regulations state by state, it is remarkably easy to purchases weapons in this country. Furthermore, the notion that criminals are able to acquire guns despite their being legislation that forbids them from doing so does not mean at all that these regulations need to be scrapped, no more than the existence of reckless drivers means we need to do away with speed limits. We establish rules and guidelines in our society as a framework for how we're supposed to conduct ourselves. I'm personally very glad that there is legislation in place that can take weapons out of the hands of convicted felons before they have a chance to use them.
Now as far as the "right to defend against tyrrany" argument goes - this one I find particularly bizarre. And not because of the logistical aspects of Weapon A versus Weapon B, which is a fruitless discussion, but rather, because there seems to be this very romanticized idea in America of the vigilant citizenry defending themselves against their government, that this is somehow necessary to maintain a free and democratic society. In Europe, where there are people who actually have lived under tyrrany, some of them within their own lifetimes, you don't find much of a clamour for weaponry. In fact, there's some very strict gun control in most of these countries (I recognize that Swizterland is a unique case, but I think their position has more to do with an armed militia being necessary to maintain their neutral position and defend against other governments, rather than their own). And yet democracy seems to be flourishing in these free societies.
So I guess in a nutshell, I guess my position on the 2nd ammendment is, sure, buy yourself some guns - go hunting, defend your home, shoot cans off a fence for all I care. Just don't get hysterical that you're expected to have a bare minimum of qualifications to operate the machine, and try to hold back on the Minuteman routine when you talk about how guns = freedom.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:16 AM on August 29, 2008 [2 favorites]
As one of those guilty of posting a snarky one-liner, I think it's commendable that you'd want a sincere discussion on this issue. So here are some of my thoughts on the 2nd ammendment.
I don't find the 2nd ammendment to be outdated, but I do support gun control. The Supreme Court has proven, time and again, that it is perfectly constitutional for us to outline what kinds of "arms" may be owned, and by whom. I haven't seen you personally argue against any form of gun control, so forgive me if what I'm saying is something you're already in agreement with, but what I find most puzzling about the gun lobby in the US is the level of hysterical hair-tearing and fear mongering that they generate over the most basic and reasonable of regulations, including (but not limited to) a five-day waiting period and the lack of a felonious record. Their counter, that these regulations keep law-abiding people from ownings guns is erroneous - if you look at regulations state by state, it is remarkably easy to purchases weapons in this country. Furthermore, the notion that criminals are able to acquire guns despite their being legislation that forbids them from doing so does not mean at all that these regulations need to be scrapped, no more than the existence of reckless drivers means we need to do away with speed limits. We establish rules and guidelines in our society as a framework for how we're supposed to conduct ourselves. I'm personally very glad that there is legislation in place that can take weapons out of the hands of convicted felons before they have a chance to use them.
Now as far as the "right to defend against tyrrany" argument goes - this one I find particularly bizarre. And not because of the logistical aspects of Weapon A versus Weapon B, which is a fruitless discussion, but rather, because there seems to be this very romanticized idea in America of the vigilant citizenry defending themselves against their government, that this is somehow necessary to maintain a free and democratic society. In Europe, where there are people who actually have lived under tyrrany, some of them within their own lifetimes, you don't find much of a clamour for weaponry. In fact, there's some very strict gun control in most of these countries (I recognize that Swizterland is a unique case, but I think their position has more to do with an armed militia being necessary to maintain their neutral position and defend against other governments, rather than their own). And yet democracy seems to be flourishing in these free societies.
So I guess in a nutshell, I guess my position on the 2nd ammendment is, sure, buy yourself some guns - go hunting, defend your home, shoot cans off a fence for all I care. Just don't get hysterical that you're expected to have a bare minimum of qualifications to operate the machine, and try to hold back on the Minuteman routine when you talk about how guns = freedom.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:16 AM on August 29, 2008 [2 favorites]
We now return to the lobbying discussion, already in progress. Thanks for indulging me.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:18 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:18 AM on August 29, 2008
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, or mandatory free tv time for campaigns, this problem will only get worse.
I don't even think the latter would be enough -- even if TV is free, the guy who can also afford to pay for tons of cold calls, mailings, and town hall meetings will still win. What we need is a hard cap on campaign spending, one which includes closing the usual loopholes for "Friends Of Candidate X" groups, and provides serious punishment (serious as in, "you don't get to run for office again") for violators.
That is, if America is actually interested in getting corporate money out of government... at this point, I think it's pretty questionable. As a nation, we seem to just love having big-money's hands all over our prison system, military, health care system, and courts, so why not just get it over with and go straight to the source?
posted by vorfeed at 11:18 AM on August 29, 2008
I don't even think the latter would be enough -- even if TV is free, the guy who can also afford to pay for tons of cold calls, mailings, and town hall meetings will still win. What we need is a hard cap on campaign spending, one which includes closing the usual loopholes for "Friends Of Candidate X" groups, and provides serious punishment (serious as in, "you don't get to run for office again") for violators.
That is, if America is actually interested in getting corporate money out of government... at this point, I think it's pretty questionable. As a nation, we seem to just love having big-money's hands all over our prison system, military, health care system, and courts, so why not just get it over with and go straight to the source?
posted by vorfeed at 11:18 AM on August 29, 2008
What we need is a hard cap on campaign spending, one which includes closing the usual loopholes for "Friends Of Candidate X" groups, and provides serious punishment (serious as in, "you don't get to run for office again") for violators.
Yes, yes and yes. Similarly, I've heard suggested legislating campaign season to say, one month - spend as much as you like, do what you please, but only within this one month. Not so sure I'm wild about that idea as opposed to campaign finance reform (perhaps in conjuction with it?) but it does have a certain appeal - especially this time of year.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:29 AM on August 29, 2008
Yes, yes and yes. Similarly, I've heard suggested legislating campaign season to say, one month - spend as much as you like, do what you please, but only within this one month. Not so sure I'm wild about that idea as opposed to campaign finance reform (perhaps in conjuction with it?) but it does have a certain appeal - especially this time of year.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 11:29 AM on August 29, 2008
So, did anybody watch the video?
posted by bz at 1:02 PM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by bz at 1:02 PM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
I haven't seen you personally argue against any form of gun control, so forgive me if what I'm saying is something you're already in agreement with, but what I find most puzzling about the gun lobby in the US is the level of hysterical hair-tearing and fear mongering that they generate over the most basic and reasonable of regulations, including (but not limited to) a five-day waiting period and the lack of a felonious record.
I am fine with vigorously enforcing most existing gun laws, including waiting periods and felony bans, where currently existent. I think the latter restriction can be harmful, as I don't think it is just or fair to disenfranchise felons for life, especially as the definition of "felon" seems to include more non-violent offenses every day, but I'm willing to put up with it if I have to. I follow the gun laws scrupulously, as do the vast majority of gun owners, precisely because they are fair and reasonable -- it's important to remember that unfair gun laws tend to lead to gun running, not gun control.
What causes the "hysterical hair-tearing and fear mongering" over these issues is the (IMHO, rather accurate) perception that these laws will creep -- that the Feds will either attempt to undermine state jurisdiction in these matters, or use reasonable laws as a precedent to pass unreasonable ones.
For instance, New Mexico has no waiting period for firearms, and California does -- should state decision-making be allowed on these kinds of issues, or should states be pushed to accept ever-harsher restrictions? The rules on private transfer, concealed carry, gun licensing & registration, age limits, and the vast majority of other gun laws are set by state and local governments, not the Federal government, and IMHO this is the only system which makes sense; setting these things on a Federal level ignores the vast differences between different areas, especially between urban and rural areas, and is bound to end up causing upset and disenfranchisement. It has also been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The Federal dealer-licensing and background check system we have now is fine as it is, as are the current restrictions on the types of weapons that may be owned, but I'm not a fan of further Federal encroachment into this issue. To my mind, the Constitution makes it very clear where this power should belong. I definitely support reasonable state gun laws, though -- the concealed carry permit here in NM is a great example of a fair and equitable law which also requires serious background checks and safety education courses.
As I mentioned above, there's also a very real fear of unreasonable gun laws. Obama threw a reference to his support of the reinstatement of the (completely specious) Assault Gun ban into his speech yesterday, for instance. I think it is not at all unreasonable for law-abiding gun owners to be wary of increased gun control, as long as it continues to be used as an excuse to grab citizens' "scary" guns.
When you have a bill in Congress which would re-ban the AR-15 -- one of the most popular and widely owned rifles in the country, the overwhelming majority of which were used for nothing more than hunting and target shooting during the four year period since the ban quietly expired -- along with many other common sporting rifles, there's not much point in trusting Congress to do the right thing on this issue. The predicted "assault weapon" bloodbath never materialized, to say the least, so why reinstate the ban? Why is this still an issue, when Americans have proved that they can responsibly own detachable-magazine semi-auto rifles? If it walks like a gun grab and quacks like a gun grab...
This is one example of how mainstream Democratic politicians tend to be really ignorant and knee-jerky about guns, to the extent where their suggestions are not reasonable. I was pleased to see a few (Gravel and Richardson) who knew better this year, but that's not enough to get me behind further restrictions, most of which turn out to be supported by the usual frothing anti-gun suspects.
In short: enforce the existing laws vigorously. Come up with reasonable new laws, if you must. But DO NOT try to take my guns, or to do anything which might reasonably lead to that. I think this is a pretty common perspective amongst gun owners.
but rather, because there seems to be this very romanticized idea in America of the vigilant citizenry defending themselves against their government, that this is somehow necessary to maintain a free and democratic society. In Europe, where there are people who actually have lived under tyrrany, some of them within their own lifetimes, you don't find much of a clamour for weaponry.
Europe does not have the same culture we do, to put it simply. The European solution to the problem of tyranny seems to tend toward the top-down; ours was designed to be bottom-up. In general, we tend to fundamentally disagree on what a free society is -- see free speech and freedom of religion, for other examples. As an American, I would rather have the option of personal as well as state action. I'm not one of those who insists that other countries should do it our way... merely that we should be allowed to do it ours, just as they are. And as I said before, Europe is by no means a monolith on this issue -- many of the Scandinavian nations are more "American" than they are "European", at least in terms of gun ownership.
Also, much of the modern-day "Minuteman routine" in America actually stems from concepts like "defending your home" -- if Europeans were living in a country where the cops routinely knock down doors at night and kill the people inside, perhaps they would be less eager to give the government a sole dispensation for the application of force.
Thanks for discussing this with me, you rock!
posted by vorfeed at 1:14 PM on August 29, 2008 [2 favorites]
I am fine with vigorously enforcing most existing gun laws, including waiting periods and felony bans, where currently existent. I think the latter restriction can be harmful, as I don't think it is just or fair to disenfranchise felons for life, especially as the definition of "felon" seems to include more non-violent offenses every day, but I'm willing to put up with it if I have to. I follow the gun laws scrupulously, as do the vast majority of gun owners, precisely because they are fair and reasonable -- it's important to remember that unfair gun laws tend to lead to gun running, not gun control.
What causes the "hysterical hair-tearing and fear mongering" over these issues is the (IMHO, rather accurate) perception that these laws will creep -- that the Feds will either attempt to undermine state jurisdiction in these matters, or use reasonable laws as a precedent to pass unreasonable ones.
For instance, New Mexico has no waiting period for firearms, and California does -- should state decision-making be allowed on these kinds of issues, or should states be pushed to accept ever-harsher restrictions? The rules on private transfer, concealed carry, gun licensing & registration, age limits, and the vast majority of other gun laws are set by state and local governments, not the Federal government, and IMHO this is the only system which makes sense; setting these things on a Federal level ignores the vast differences between different areas, especially between urban and rural areas, and is bound to end up causing upset and disenfranchisement. It has also been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The Federal dealer-licensing and background check system we have now is fine as it is, as are the current restrictions on the types of weapons that may be owned, but I'm not a fan of further Federal encroachment into this issue. To my mind, the Constitution makes it very clear where this power should belong. I definitely support reasonable state gun laws, though -- the concealed carry permit here in NM is a great example of a fair and equitable law which also requires serious background checks and safety education courses.
As I mentioned above, there's also a very real fear of unreasonable gun laws. Obama threw a reference to his support of the reinstatement of the (completely specious) Assault Gun ban into his speech yesterday, for instance. I think it is not at all unreasonable for law-abiding gun owners to be wary of increased gun control, as long as it continues to be used as an excuse to grab citizens' "scary" guns.
When you have a bill in Congress which would re-ban the AR-15 -- one of the most popular and widely owned rifles in the country, the overwhelming majority of which were used for nothing more than hunting and target shooting during the four year period since the ban quietly expired -- along with many other common sporting rifles, there's not much point in trusting Congress to do the right thing on this issue. The predicted "assault weapon" bloodbath never materialized, to say the least, so why reinstate the ban? Why is this still an issue, when Americans have proved that they can responsibly own detachable-magazine semi-auto rifles? If it walks like a gun grab and quacks like a gun grab...
This is one example of how mainstream Democratic politicians tend to be really ignorant and knee-jerky about guns, to the extent where their suggestions are not reasonable. I was pleased to see a few (Gravel and Richardson) who knew better this year, but that's not enough to get me behind further restrictions, most of which turn out to be supported by the usual frothing anti-gun suspects.
In short: enforce the existing laws vigorously. Come up with reasonable new laws, if you must. But DO NOT try to take my guns, or to do anything which might reasonably lead to that. I think this is a pretty common perspective amongst gun owners.
but rather, because there seems to be this very romanticized idea in America of the vigilant citizenry defending themselves against their government, that this is somehow necessary to maintain a free and democratic society. In Europe, where there are people who actually have lived under tyrrany, some of them within their own lifetimes, you don't find much of a clamour for weaponry.
Europe does not have the same culture we do, to put it simply. The European solution to the problem of tyranny seems to tend toward the top-down; ours was designed to be bottom-up. In general, we tend to fundamentally disagree on what a free society is -- see free speech and freedom of religion, for other examples. As an American, I would rather have the option of personal as well as state action. I'm not one of those who insists that other countries should do it our way... merely that we should be allowed to do it ours, just as they are. And as I said before, Europe is by no means a monolith on this issue -- many of the Scandinavian nations are more "American" than they are "European", at least in terms of gun ownership.
Also, much of the modern-day "Minuteman routine" in America actually stems from concepts like "defending your home" -- if Europeans were living in a country where the cops routinely knock down doors at night and kill the people inside, perhaps they would be less eager to give the government a sole dispensation for the application of force.
Thanks for discussing this with me, you rock!
posted by vorfeed at 1:14 PM on August 29, 2008 [2 favorites]
This is one example of how mainstream Democratic politicians tend to be really ignorant and knee-jerky about guns
I should add many Republicans to the list, also, to be fair -- the new incarnation of the Assault Weapon ban was introduced by a Republican. Personally, I'm a Democrat, so I tend to be harder on us, especially since this issue loses us tons of votes every year.
posted by vorfeed at 1:20 PM on August 29, 2008
I should add many Republicans to the list, also, to be fair -- the new incarnation of the Assault Weapon ban was introduced by a Republican. Personally, I'm a Democrat, so I tend to be harder on us, especially since this issue loses us tons of votes every year.
posted by vorfeed at 1:20 PM on August 29, 2008
As near as I can tell, none of those police were Denver PD -- Denver uniforms don't have a patch on the shoulder. There were departments brought in from all over the state for the convention. Boulder PD maybe.
posted by gruchall at 7:13 PM on August 29, 2008
posted by gruchall at 7:13 PM on August 29, 2008
Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis
WTF?
posted by homunculus at 12:59 PM on August 30, 2008
WTF?
posted by homunculus at 12:59 PM on August 30, 2008
« Older She's laying in pieces on the hangar floor. | Ready for take-off, Tiddles? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
*protracted, pained exhalation*
That's the only reaction I can even muster any more for this class of shit.
I'm reading Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse at the moment, so that's probably not helping my outlook much either.
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:14 PM on August 28, 2008