Monday, March 11, 2013

Three Democratic myths used to demean the Paul filibuster

You may not know this, but I am merely weeks from completing the coursework for an MA, and as such I am drowning in work and have little time to write.

Have no fear, though, because Glenn Greenwald has written an excellent piece for you to read on the backlash by progressives and Democrats against Rand Paul's nearly thirteen hour long filibuster last week. He claims there are three main reasons progressives are failing to hold Obama to account for the massive expansion of executive power at the cost of American civil liberties and the lives of thousands of people abroad:
  1. An "empathy gap" by largely white, middle-class American voters for those who are least likely to be impacted by these policies at this time,
  2. A focus on the nonexistent claim that the reason to be worried is that an attack is imminent, and
  3. A false belief that the letter from Attorney General Eric Holder has put to bed the notion that assassination orders could be used on American citizens in a troubling way.
Read the whole thing here

1 comment:

Blake McCabe said...

This is no surprise to me that people are not opposing the loss of civil liberties in the U.S. In Canada, Prime Minister Stephan Harper has said on the record that radical Islam is the number one threat to Canada’s security. Yet Canada allows huge immigration from Islamic nations that either openly support terrorism or make no open objection against it. These Islamic nations, even if peaceful, often have no formal program of civil liberties like we have in Canada. So in essence, we have an immigration program that allows massive amounts of people to come here from a declared enemy country where the people have absolutely no concept of a civil liberty whatsoever; unless it’s Koran based. Yes of course Islam is the religion of peace, but even the peaceful people from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Mali, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and many other nations have no idea of what real freedom is. The only freedom they know is what their religion allows them to have. Now we have them here in Canada as a major part of the voting demographic, and if they have some or all of their civil liberties taken away, they have lost nothing.

The other school of thought is the far right winged conservative element that is pro-police and pro-military. This is fine to the extent that they support our military and law enforcement efforts, but this group often endorse a concept of brute force, even torture, all under the guise of preventing crime, terrorism and public disorder. They will often use catch phrases such as, “if you have nothing to hide you should have nothing to fear”, in rebuttal to the diminishing right to privacy and undue search and seizure. They will also suggest that killing terror or criminal suspects is fine as long as it’s no one who is innocent; and they will use 9/11 victims as an example of innocent people. They may also advocate the unnecessary use of force by law enforcement, even deadly force, as long as it’s against the bad guy as it will prevent crime and set a level of deterrence they believe. Now of course if you oppose this concept you are branded a “bleeding heart” just as you will be branded a “racist” or “Islamaphobe” if you oppose immigration from Islamic countries.

Bernier's bad bet

Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press Maxime Bernier is taking a gamble. He believes that there is a large, disenfranchised voting bloc in Canada...