HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » DirkGently » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Orlando
Home country: USA
Current location: Holistically detecting
Member since: Wed Jan 27, 2010, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 12,151

Journal Archives

What they mean is they HATE HIM more than any President

... in history. Like their gibbering invective constitutes fact.

I often do not agree with this administration's policies. But he will be seen as an effective President, and one that -- look out -- enacted some positive "change." The ACA, improvements in gay rights at the federal level, the end of Iraq.

They're outraged because they weren't able to stuff him like they thought. Twice-elected, handily. Significant forward motion on health care reform. A more credible voice in the world community. A rejection of stupidity and belligerence as America's main public attributes. That great wave of "buyer's remorse" never materialized except inside their own minds.

And part of his legacy may also be the implosion of the Republican Party. They were so horrendous in their monolithic opposition, so juvenile in their sly racial dog-whistling. So impotent and destructive in their extortionate rage. They are now flailing about in a small, smelly box of their own construction.

The drone conceit would seem exactly the "permanent war footing"

Obama said he opposed in the SOTU speech. The entire logic is that the U.S. in in a permanent state of worldwide, borderless war with shifting groups of "militants" or "terrorists," determined by unaccountable processes, carried out in secret, and subject to no apparent repercussions.

It's Bush-era conceit, relying on the concept of "war" to enhance the power of the executive. Cheney's baby, rationalized by Woo and others cooperative White House lawyers, to deliberately distort the balance of powers contemplated in the Constitution for the purpose of creating a "unitary executive" or whatever they're calling it now.

This will be the ugliest part of Obama's legacy, eventually condemned here as it is already everywhere else as a crime against humanity and an usupportable assumption of worldwide authority on the part of the U.S. that neither we nor anyone else accept from any other country.

Whether the number of innocents killed so far is in the hundreds or thousands is largely beside the point. We don't have the right to do this. We do not have the authority to rain death down on whomever we see fit, on whatever basis we claim, anytime, and anywhere.

Moreover, it's not going to solve terrorism or protect the country. It doesn't matter whether we've annhilated one civilian village or wedding party or a hundred. Every Hellfire is guaranteed to produce more anti-American sentiment than it can ever hope to snuff out.

Obama is wrong on this. History will blame him, and us, we will spend a long time crawling our way back toward any kind of worldwide credibility as an aribter of humanitarian standards or the rules of war or the wrongness of extra-territorial aggression.

They've got a world-class crew going. Wonder if MSNBC knows it?

Kornacki's not as polished a broadcaster as the other two, and they've got him dumbing down (telling his panel they'll be fined for using big words) and clowning (that ridiculous gameshow disaster they keep putting on at the end). He's the best straight-up journalist of the the three though -- he gets and tracks information expertly. His reporting on the Christy debacle(s) have led the country.

Chris' style has become my favorite -- maybe because he's a long-form, magazine writer by training. He's a big-picture guy who can articulate all sides of an argument, and he's got a powerful, nuanced "take" on issues he can present reasonably but forcefully. He can get excited, but he never comes across as unreasonable. He's great at prying at others to get at what they know and contribute. He sometimes talks over my head on some bit of theory or process -- and I LOVE THAT -- there are so few shows in this news / commentary genre capable of teaching anything. Yet we hear him forced to beg for Facebook followers on a regular basis.

Rachel's the real broadcast star. She's an electric personality, and she's deliciously infuriating to the right wing. She's an advocate and a sly polemicist who coats her razor knives in a wink and chuckle that make them unassailable. Sometimes her intense delivery can be a little tiring, but she's brilliant and relentless. She never let up on "Governor ultrasound," who's now indicted. Her ratings must be the best, because no one seems to be making her screw around with the show chasing bored or ignorant viewers.

These three are building a halo around MSNBC that could elevate the entire enterprise. I keep hearing right-wingers desperately trying to draw a false equivalency to Fox, to dismiss them, but there's just no wild-eyed crazy talk, no race-baiting, no casual disregard for facts, science, or history. They are winning.

I just worry that MSNBC will dump them or mangle their shows for fear Americans can't handle intelligent discourse or the slightest bit of complex detail. Apparently someone at the network thinks Facebook "likes" and jazzy comedic bits are more valuable.

They've got a shot at changing the game here. Hope the network doesn't blow it.
Go to Page: 1