Downton Abbey Open Thread

image of Shirley MacClaine's arrival as Cora's American mother to Downton Abbey

Hello, gorgeous!

So, Downton Abbey finally had its Season 3 premiere in the US last night, after what seemed like an interminable wait! A wait during which it has been impossible to avoid some heinous spoilers when one reads the news for a living HARRUMPH! But a wait that was worth it, as Season 3's two-hour premiere delivered in fine fashion, in every sense of the phrase. Those dropped-waist dresses! Those opera-length chains! Those glorious fascinators! Swoon.

Everything has changed, but everything has stayed the same at Downton. Lord Crawley is still an earnest dunderhead. His title should be changed immediately from the Earl of Grantham to the Earl of Whooooooops. Lady Cora Crowley is still perfect because she takes all the valium. Lady Mary Crowley is still mercurial, in ways that suit writers' whims but not human nature, but we're not supposed to notice because women amirite? Matthew is still Matthew. And Bates is still in jail. The end.

That leaves out fully one million characters, but I invite you to Mad Lib all the rest of the characters as your time allows.

image of a Downton Abbey Mad Lib I created in Photoshop that has the Dowager Countess exclaiming to Lady Sybil that Matthew should get a wiggle on her ladyship with a penny-farthing

Anyway! Here is a thread to talk about all things Downton Abbey, but only through the first episode of Season 3. Please don't share things from later in the season, even with a spoiler warning, because I've got to mod the thread, which requires reading everything. So be kind, if you're elsewhere in the world where the whole season has already aired.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Zelda the Black-and-Tan Mutt sitting at the bottom of the stairs by the front door

Zelda wants to go for a walk.

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Marc Cohn: "Walking In Memphis"

Open Wide...

Another Dude Concern Trolling Rape Activists

[Content Note: Sexual violence; rape apologia; rape culture.]

Here is an ironic feature of rape culture: One of the key ways the rape culture is protected is by media outlets giving space to people (men, usually) who don't even know the most basic facts about sexual violence to wax imperious about rape culture.

It happens every time there is a major rape case in the news. And, every time, misinformation is disseminated about rape and rape culture by pontificators who imagine that everything there is to know about rape and rape culture is so self-evident that experts are unnecessary, irrelevant, nonexistent.

It is one of the great lies that the rape culture tells about itself: There is no nuance that requires a trained eye; there are no hidden details to be teased out, no patterns to be identified by experts who spend their lives immersed in this ugly subject. Instead, anyone who takes a most cursory gander at The Issue of Rape finds everything there is to know.

And those cursory glancers self-appointed experts don't even stop to consider that what they end up knowing is exactly what the rape culture would want its allies to convey.

How else to explain this piece by Doug Saunders in Canada's Globe and Mail, which is positioned as a piece of anti-rape advocacy, but nonetheless:

1. Concern trolls (and implicitly serves to undermine the credibility of) Western feminists who underline the extensive rape problem in India is part of a global rape culture.

2. Suggests that it is irresponsible to identify a global rape culture.

3. Suggests that it is impossible for feminists to both identify a global rape culture and simultaneously identify and address the specifics of how it manifests in India.

4. Suggests that the rape culture manifests universally across India (which is not accurate).

5. States that Western feminists who won't single out India as totally unique—which would be colonialist, Othering, self-defeating, and inaccurate—have "rushed to declare that India's crisis wasn't notably severe," ignoring that saying India's rape culture doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum and saying India's "rape crisis isn't notably severe" are not remotely synonymous.

6. Presents misleading figures to make the (false) case that India's rape culture is totally unique:

In New Delhi last year, there were 635 rape cases brought to court, and only one resulted in a conviction. That's a conviction rate of 0.16 per cent; in comparison, English-speaking countries typically have rape conviction rates of between 40 and 70 per cent. Of course, the situation is actually far worse than that, because very few rapes in India are ever reported.
In the US, factoring in a conservative unreported rape rate, only about 3% of rapists ever serve a day in jail. Conviction rates are not a good measure of how rape-averse any municipality or state is, because they only reflect the number of cases of reported rapes that police thought contained enough evidence for arrest, and prosecutors thought contained enough evidence for prosecution, and juries (or defense attorneys encouraging deals) thought contained enough evidence for conviction. Which is a vanishingly small number of actual incidents of rape.

If you're not actually trying to function as a rape apologist, quoting conviction rates as if that's some kind of definitive proof about the prevalence and cultural intolerance toward rape is A Bad Idea.

7. Says some real stupid shit about how Western cultures regard sexual violence:
Rape is a terrible crime everywhere, and it probably remains underprosecuted and all too commonplace and hidden in many places in the West, so there's plenty of room for activism. But, in part because that activism has succeeded, rape is a grotesque anomaly, universally recognized as a serious crime. That's not true at all in many parts of India.
Rape probably remains underprosecuted. Rape probably remains commonplace and hidden. Rape is "universally recognized" as a "grotesque anomaly" and a "serious crime." If only.

I can't overemphasize how catastrophically unhelpful (to put it politely) it is for journalists writing about rape to casually throw out something like, "Rape is probably underreported." There is a mountain of evidence that rape is definitely underreported. No need to fucking guess.

I also cannot overemphasize how profoundly irresponsible it is for journalists writing about rape to assert that rape is universally regarded as A Terrible Thing. That is not the case, as anyone knows who has ever meaningfully engaged with anti-rape advocacy for more than ten seconds.

Never mind the endless onslaught of rape apologists, tellers of rape jokes, users of rape-appropriative language, and various jack-booted enforcers of the rape culture who seek to subvert attempts to treat rape with the seriousness it deserves. Never mind that calling something that happens (frequently multiple times) to one out of every six women an "anomaly" seems to suggest its user lacks a working knowledge of the definition of "anomaly."

The only evidence one needs to know that rape is not "universally" acknowledged as a "terrible crime" is the fact that there are rapists.

And they do not exclusively engage with the rape culture with acts of rape. They engage as sexual harassers. They engage as bullies. They engage as compulsive and chronic breachers of boundaries. They engage as rape apologists.

Some of them might even write articles for international publication that seek to minimize rape in their own backyards as nothing about which anyone should be too concerned. That is not a suggestion that Saunders is a rapist; it is a factual observation about how foolish it is to believe rapists are self-contained agents without an agenda that do not seek to influence public perception. They are writers; they are legislators; they are judges and police.

No: Not everyone agrees that rape is a terrible crime.

Saunders concludes, incredibly: "Activism can work—but talk of a 'universal rape culture' only helps perpetuate the problem."

So it's those of us who spend our lives immersed in anti-rape advocacy who are the real perpetrators of the rape culture. Well. For someone who purports to regard rape as a heinous crime, Saunders has been very generous to rapists.

[H/T to Shaker stuckincarn. teaspoon icon Contact the Globe and Mail here.]

Open Wide...

Reproductive Rights Updates: National, Virginia, Texas, Arizona, Michigan

A new year and the same horrendous anti-autonomy horseshit with many very familiar names.

So, national news first:

Last Thursday, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) intro'd HR 23: "To provide that human life shall be deemed to begin with fertilization". Also Thursday, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) intro'd HR 61: "To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes".

If you'd like to know what Title X does in your state and the population served by Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher has information for you.

---

In Virginia, Gov. McConnell certified TRAP legislation into being:

These TRAP laws were designed to force existing abortion clinics to meet the same building codes as new hospitals. If enacted, the new regulations would require existing clinics to come into compliance with the regulations within two years or face closure. In September 2012, the Virginia Board of Health voted 13-2 to reverse their previous decision to grandfather in existing clinics, thus exempting them from new, hospital-like restrictions.

The board's reversal on grandfathering in existing clinics came after Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli refused to accept the grandfather provision and asserted the board did not have the authority to amend the regulations by adding the provision. Cuccinelli also released a memo in September 2012 threatening Board of Health members by stating that they would not be able to receive state legal counsel if they disregarded his recommendations.
There is expected to be a 60-day public comment period before a final vote by the Board of Health.

Open Wide...

Today in the War on Agency

[Content Note; Sexual violence.]

Erika Eichelberger at Mother Jones: House Republicans Derail Bill Targeting Rapists. Of course they did. Because apparently the Republican Party—which has sought to redefine the federal definition of rape, and is (Santorum) full of (Akin) contemptible (Walsh) rape (Mourdock) apologists (Koster)—thinks rapists are a cool new constituency or something. Anyway:

[A]s the 112th Congress was hurriedly finishing up its business in the past few days, House Republicans yet again played politics with rape and sabotaged a bipartisan bill that would have made it easier to track down rapists.

The Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry Act, also known as the SAFER Act of 2012, was introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the Senate in May, and by Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) in the House in December. It would have reallocated $117 million to help make a dent in the nationwide backlog of untested "rape kits," which contain forensic evidence collected after sexual assaults that can help identify perpetrators. There are some 400,000 untested kits sitting in labs around the country. As long as this DNA evidence goes unanalyzed, it's easier for rapists to avoid arrest and prosecution.

...The legislation would have required at least 75 percent of federal grants already allocated for rape kit testing to actually be used for that purpose, or to increase law enforcement agencies' capacity to process the kits.
The legislation, introduced by Republicans and garnering biparisan support, was killed when Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) raised privacy concerns, which the Senate immediately worked to address, then Smith's committee amended the bill in a different way —removing language that "would have specifically authorized not just forensic labs, but law enforcement agencies, to receive grant money to help process rape kits"—making the House version different from the Senate version with no time left in session to reconcile the bills.
And so, with his unreconciled version, Smith essentially killed the bipartisan bill.

If the House had passed the Senate version of the bill, the law could have squeaked in under the wire and been signed by President Obama. Smith's office did not respond to a request for comment on why the bill was amended.
Sure. It probably takes time to craft "My concerns about privacy were only a mendacious ruse to stall the bill from passing at all, not because I actually give a fuck about victims' privacy, and so I had to find another way to tank the bill when the Senate effectively and promptly addressed the privacy issue" into something that doesn't sound like Smith is a garbage nightmare.

Ugh, this party. Ugh.

Open Wide...

Open Thread


Hosted by brown sugar.

Open Wide...

Sunday Shuffle

Rock Sugar, Don't Stop the Sandman

I hope this new year brings together everything that you enjoy and love, Shakers!

Rock Sugar, Shook Me Like A Prayer

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of three heads of cauliflower--one orange, one green, and one purple

Hosted by colorful cauliflower.

This week's Open Threads have been hosted by unusually colorful vegetables. (And Rosie.)

Open Wide...

Open Thread

image of maroon carrots

Hosted by maroon carrots.

Open Wide...

The Virtual Pub Is Open

image of a pub photoshopped to be named 'The 2013 Saloon'
[Explanations: lol your fat. pathetic anger bread. hey your gay.]

TFIF, Shakers!

Belly up to the bar,
and name your poison!

Open Wide...

Today in Survivor Culture

[Content Note: Discussion of victims and survivors of various form of violence.]

I have, in the eight years since I started this space, written a lot about people who have been victimized by violent crime, by hate crimes, by sexual assault, by harassment, by bulling. Most of the time, I'm writing about people I don't know. Sometimes, I don't even know their names, depending on whether the nature of the crime, or their age, or their continued peril, compels media to protect their anonymity.

Very occasionally, I have been contacted by the people about whom I've written, or members of their immediate family. It has, so far, always been to thank me for telling their stories, for standing unequivocally in their corners.

Those who resent advocacy for empathy, for boundaries, for inclusion, for respect for agency and consent, for expecting more also contact me, once in a while, to accuse me of exploiting victims in service to an agenda.

I plead guilty to that agenda without reservation. I have a broad and unyielding agenda to use my teaspoon to the dismantling of a culture of abuse that creates the victims about whom I write—myself included among them. My agenda includes telling victims' stories, because visibility of victims is integral to challenging narratives that facilitate abuse.

I have given much consideration to whether that is exploitative. After all, I cannot secure consent from every person about whom I write. I don't even know that I can perfectly define what constitutes exploitation—although I feel, to borrow from Justice Stewart, I know it when I see it. But of course it is always easier to gaze at something from a distance, something outside oneself.

* * *

Deeky calls me Lint Trap, because I remember everything. (Except for all the things I don't.) My memory is legendary among my friends, who celebrate like lotto winners when they remember something I don't, which always makes me laugh, because I have no control over and did not earn my strange ability to recall 20-year-old conversations nearly verbatim.

It is a gift. And it is a curse. And it is the thing that keeps me connected to the people about whom I write.

I remember them. And I think of them often. Over my holiday, I thought about dozens of the women and girls about whose rapes I'd written, about the survivors of clergy abuse who have bravely testified to their experiences long past the statute of limitations would have afforded them justice, about gay and lesbian couples whose homes have been vandalized, about the women who have intervened to stop rapes, about the men, famous men and not-famous men, who have spoken up about surviving abuse… Where I knew their names, I remembered them.

I hoped for the survivors that they were safe, that they had access to resources they need for their recovery, that they did not feel abandoned by their communities. I hoped for justice and for peace.

I want to remember them. And I do.

* * *

They are putting up memorials to remember the Newtown victims. As I watched a news story about it over my holiday, and the terrible debate about whether Nancy Lanza should be included, I thought about how there are no memorials for most of the people about whom I write, because most of them are from populations who "don't matter." And because most of them have survived.

I do write about people who have died. Oscar Grant. Trayvon Martin. Jordan Davis. Savita Halappanavar. Jacintha Saldanha. Tyler Clementi. Angie Zapata. Krissy Bates. Tammy Zywicki. But even more often, I write about people who have survived abuse. Jamie Leigh Jones. Lara Logan. Greg Jeloudov. An 11-year-old gang rape victim in Cleveland, Texas. A 15-year-old gang rape victim in Richmond, California. A 19-year-old gang rape victim in Saudi Arabia. A 16-year-old gang rape victim in Steubenville, Ohio. A 23-year-old gang rape victim in India. Hundreds of women in DR Congo gang-raped by soldiers… There are 475 entries featuring the Today in Rape Culture label, and I only started using labels in 2009. I have written about a lot of survivors.

It isn't any easier or harder to write about the living; it's just different.

We have awkward and imperfect language to talk about death, to share our condolences and convey our sympathies, but we have no such familiar construction to talk about surviving abuse. Which is partly because we are encouraged and cajoled and forced into silence about abuse, in most spaces. There are no "Sorry you were raped" greeting cards—although maybe there should be.

Instead, we expect survivors to "get over it," as swiftly as possible, and preferably in isolation where we don't have to look at the grief and the pain of surviving abuse. Survivors are not encouraged to mourn the loss of their lives as they knew them. Moving suddenly from security to insecurity, or slowly from the reliable horror of sustained abuse to a life strangely disquieted by safety, is difficult. And we expect people to navigate these transitions mostly alone.

Or, at least without a lot of uncomfortable talk about it, outside of the designated support groups that are meant to provide what most families and friends cannot.

Life after abuse can become split in two—the people who understand and support and listen to me, and the people who don't, or can't, or won't. Eventually, surviving safely often necessitates finding a single unified path again, which can mean loss of people who one might have loved and trusted once upon a time.

Life shatters, and then we put it back together, as best we can.

And there are rarely public outpourings of outrage (and half of them are directed at victims), no ribbons, no flown-in comfort animals, no passionate exhortations to never forget. If we're lucky, or unlucky, the media tells our stories—briefly, maybe fairly, and then on to the next one. If we're very lucky, there is justice.

There are no monuments for survivors. Nothing permanent erected in memory of the damage done to individual people, every day.

Surviving can be a lonesome pursuit. It is inglorious, and steeped in institutionally engineered forgetfulness.

I remember the people about whom I've written. I think of them often. If any of them pass this way, and wonder what they and their stories meant to a person who wrote about them, I can say with honesty: Everything. I survive alongside you.

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

51%: The percentage of the national popular vote captured by President Barack Obama in both of his successful presidential campaigns, confirmed by the revised final tally of the November 6, 2012 election, which had been delayed by Superstorm Sandy.

Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races.
Wow.

Open Wide...

RIP Gerda Lerner

Gerda Lerner, who helped found the discipline of women's history in the United States, passed away. She was 92.

In the mid-1960s, armed with a doctorate in history from Columbia University and a dissertation on two abolitionist sisters from South Carolina, Dr. Lerner entered an academic world in which women’s history scarcely existed. The number of historians interested in the subject, she told The New York Times in 1973, “could have fit into a telephone booth.”

“In my courses, the teachers told me about a world in which ostensibly one-half the human race is doing everything significant and the other half doesn’t exist,” Dr. Lerner told The Chicago Tribune in 1993. “I asked myself how this checked against my own life experience. ‘This is garbage; this is not the world in which I have lived,’ I said.”

That picture changed rapidly, in large part because of her efforts while teaching at Sarah Lawrence College in the early 1970s. In creating a graduate program there, Dr. Lerner set about trying to establish women’s history as a respected academic discipline and to raising the status of women in the historical profession. She also began gathering and publishing the primary source material — diaries, letters, speeches and so on — that would allow historians to reconstruct the lives of women.

“She made it happen,” said Alice Kessler-Harris, a history professor at Columbia. “She established women’s history as not just a valid but a central area of scholarship. If you look at any library today, you will see hundreds of books on the subject.”

Lerner's contributions in terms of publishing archival sources like Black Women in White America: A Documentary History (1972) was immense. So too was her willingness, as a white feminist historian, to confront the "sisterhood myth" of historical relations between black women and white women. Upon finding there was "more evidence of tension than of sisterhood"(The Majority Finds Its Past, 1979), she abandoned that myth in search of an intellectual framework that incorporated the diversity of women's history as affected by race, class, ethnicity, and other experiences. While the road towards true inclusiveness and intersectional awareness in women's historiography still has a ways to go, Lerner played an important role in placing it on that path.

Hat tip to Shaker BlueRidge for the NYT obit.

[Note: If there are less flattering things to be said about Lerner, they have been excluded because I am unaware of them, not as the result of any deliberate intent to whitewash her life. Please feel welcome to comment on the entirety of her work and life in this thread.]

Open Wide...

In The News

[Content note: Homophobia, terrorism]

Friday Clown Squirtz:

The Church of England has dropped its ban on gay clergy becoming bishops.

A North Carolina man has been charged with breaking and entering following the theft of 100 meteorites from a science education center. Jerk.

An Illinois Senate committee on Thursday voted 8-5 to advance a measure that would allow same-sex couples to marry in the state.

William Shatner tweets at astronaut, who replies. From space.

Malala Yousufzai has been released from a Birmingham hospital to live with her family.

Software developers have confirmed that a gay romance option will be included in the latest version of Star Wars: The Old Republic.

A team of Spanish researchers say they have developed a therapeutic vaccine that can temporarily brake growth of the HIV virus in infected patients.

Frank Ocean smokes weed.

Here is a new Jean Paul Gaultier ad featuring Madonna, Grace Jones, Boy George, and David Bowie.

Vatican museums and gift shops can no longer accept credit cards because they've not complied with EU safeguards against money laundering.

Open Wide...

Achievement Unlocked: Gameifying My Life

[Content Note: This post includes discussion of New Year's Resolutions, and touches on diet, exercise, and denial/binge cycles.]

As Liss has already asked the community about New Year's Resolutions, I thought a few of my fellow geek Shakers might enjoy my Game of Resolutions. It's about as nerdy a framework for self-improvement you can get this side of journaling your goals as a Firefly fan film.

I picked out five habits that I want to follow each day: drink at least 3 large glasses of water, sleep 8 hours, exercise for 30 minutes, eat at least 5 fruits and veg servings, and write down all my non-water beverages. For each one I achieve in a day, I get a point. I'm tracking everything on a big calendar, or, as I call it, "the game board." Once I have achieved 35 points (7 days of "perfect" habits, 12 days of 60% habits), I get to spend $15 on games, books, or music.

The rewards system not only keep me motivated, it also helps me with another, larger goal: making sure to give myself small treats now and then, as I've a bad habit of not treating myself so long that I inevitably binge and buy ALL THE THINGS when I do finally allow myself that visit to the game shop or used bookstore. I'm letting myself "bank" each set of 35 points until I've achieved the next one, if I want to save for something bigger (i.e., there's an Arkham Horror expansion for $30? Two sets of goals and it's mine!)

But what's a game without leveling, right? Once I've achieved 105 points (35 points x 3), I LEVEL UP! Woot me! This means I'm going to re-set my goals, making 1 or 2 more challenging, but also upping the rewards for achievement. So, I'll probably increase my exercise minutes and set a specific limit on caffeinated/alcoholic beverages next time around, but also up the rewards for achieving my 35 points to $20. That means Lego LOTR in no time! Not to mention, it gives a specific framework for periodically reviewing and adjusting my goals... but "leveling up" just sounds way funner.

Finally, just to keep it fun, I thought I'd throw in achievements, or some one-time rewards for specific accomplishments. Just for keeping the game going for two weeks, I get ACHIEVEMENT: Fortnight of Fixitude (which gives me an extra $5 to spend on my next 35 point reward). And sometime in the next couple weeks, I want to unlock ACHIEVEMENT: Office of Cleanliness. I'm writing these down as I think of them (which is pretty fun, actually), and turning them into stickers I can put on my life-game calendar when I "unlock" them.

Have you ever turned self-improvement or other life goals into a game? Feel free to use the thread to discuss the ways you make achieving your goals more fun, or how you might like to do so.

Commenting note: As goals for self-improvement may vary from person to person, and because "healthy" is not universal, please remember to use "I" language, and take special care to use content notes appropriately.

Open Wide...

Daily Dose of Cute

image of Matilda the Sealpoint Blue-Eyed Fuzzy Cat, sitting on the arm of the couch

Tils.

Open Wide...

Friday Blogaround

This blogaround brought to you by Freejack.


Video Description: Mick Jagger, in the terrible I MEAN AMAZING film Freejack, wearing some ridiculous contraption on his head and saying, "Okay. Let's do it."

Akiba: The Personal Is Political: That's the Challenge: Roe v. Wade and a Black Nationalist Womanist Writer

Jessica: Why Does Eric Cantor Want to Protect Rapists? [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of the failure to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.]

Terry: David Phan's Suicide Sparks Grief, Anger, and Call for Justice [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of self-harm, bullying, racism, and homophobia.]

Tom: A Response to Jon Henley's Article on Paedophilia [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussions of rape apologia, in response to the article to which I also responded yesterday.]

Jorge: Youth Unemployment 11.5 Percent, 22.1 percent for Young Blacks

Michelle: Fresh Starts, Clean Slates, and You [Content Note: The post at this link contains discussion of eating.]

Ragen: I'm Not F-ing Sorry [Content Note: The post at this link includes discussion of fat bias.]

Lauren: Glenn Beck Won't Even Refer to the President by Name; Threatens Staff They Will Be Fired if They Mention Him

Helen: A Few Questions with Miriam Hall, Contributor to Trans-Kin

Matt: The Gentle Carousel Miniature Therapy Horse Group Comfort the Sandy Hook Community

FYP&R: "Did you know that the food you eat becomes energy?"

* * *

[Content Note: Sexual violence; misogynistic violence.] There are several good pieces on the rape-murder of an Indian woman, and related broad critique of rape culture and colonialist rape apologia, that I want to recommend. Please take care in making sure you've got the spoons to process them before clicking through:

Indian Homemaker: Freedom at Midnight Is Reserved for Some?

eeshap: A Theory of Violence: In Honor of Kasandra, CeCe, Victoria, Savita and Anonymous

Sikivu: Rape, American Style

Libby Anne: The Patriarchal Utility of the Threat of Rape

* * *

Leave your links and recommendations in comments...

Open Wide...

Two-Minute Nostalgia Sublime



Twisted Sister: "We're Not Gonna Take It"

Open Wide...

The Third Fourth Term of George Bush Is Going Splendidly

Through the four years of George W. Bush's second term, which were the first four years of this blog, I typed my fingers practically to bloody stumps over Bush's warrantless wiretapping program; his support of torture, rendition, and indefinite detention; and his use of presidential signing statements to do an end-run around the law.

It is particularly galling to me that these are policies our Democratic president continues to support.

Last Sunday, President Obama signed into law a five-year extension of the FISA Amendments Act, also known as the warrantless wiretapping program instituted by the Bush administration.

This followed a truly depressing display in the Democratically-controlled Senate, in which the two Democratic Oregon Senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, tried to add sunshine amendments to the legislation which would at least force the administration to disclose to the public the details of the program and the legislation that underwrites its legality.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), a long-time member of the Intelligence Committee, valiantly fought for a year- and-a-half for basic information about how this surveillance program affects Americans and put a hold on the bill until a debate and amendment process was scheduled. He finally got a vote to force disclosure of whether the National Security Agency is vacuuming up wholly domestic communications or searching through FISA taps for Americans, yet it failed by a vote of 42-52.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) also went to the mattress over the secret FISA court opinions that determine whether we have constitutional rights to privacy in foreign intelligence investigations. He put the Senate to a vote on whether the administration should be forced to release the court opinions, supply unclassified summaries of them, or explain why they should be kept secret. That one went down 37-54. Simply put, if the public were to find out what the government is doing with our information, or how many of us are affected, the program would be "destroyed," according to Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).
This program was illiberal, antidemocratic garbage when George Bush was running it, and it's illiberal, antidemocratic garbage while Barack Obama is running it.

Should one be tempted to justify the program in its current hands on the premise that one trusts the Obama administration not to misuse the information, I will note that the information does not disappear out the door with this administration. When the Oval Office is eventually once again occupied by another rightwing with-us-or-against-us extremist, that president will have access to all the information currently being gathered by this administration, to use as they see fit.

Which is to say nothing of how we don't really know whether we can trust the Obama administration not to misuse the information being gathered, because, thanks to the defeat of the proposed amendments, we don't even know how they are using it.

Their government operating in the dark without oversight or accountability should bother any citizen of a democratic nation.

So. That happened Sunday. Then, late Wednesday night, President Obama, in contravention of his own veto threat, signed a defense bill "that imposes restrictions on transferring detainees out of military prisons in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But he attached a signing statement claiming that he has the constitutional power to override the limits in the law."

Let me state this plainly: President Obama promised to close Gitmo. He did not do that during his first term. Now, before his second term has even begun, he has signed a law that makes it more difficult to close Gitmo—and, further, extends the practice of indefinite detention without charge or trial.

And then he issued a signing statement saying he didn't have to follow that law, despite the fact that the American Bar Association calls the practice "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers," and despite Obama's own criticism of the use of signing statements back when Bush was issuing them left and right.
As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama sharply criticized Mr. Bush's use of the device as an overreach. Once in office, however, he said that he would use it only to invoke mainstream and widely accepted theories of the constitutional power of the president.

In his latest signing statement, Mr. Obama also objected to five provisions in which Congress required consultations and set out criteria over matters involving diplomatic negotiations about such matters as a security agreement with Afghanistan, saying that he would interpret the provisions so as not to inhibit "my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States."
One of the objections critics, myself included, had of Bush's embrace of the unitary executive theory, and the centralizing of power into the executive branch in defiance of the balance of powers and Congressional oversight, was that it would be difficult for any subsequent president to ever give up those powers. We feared Bush was forever changing the dynamic of the presidency and thus the entire federal government.

Now the One Ring is in Obama's hands, and he ain't giving it back.

Open Wide...