Some of my fellow liberals have often voiced concerns about the “militarization” of the police, lamenting the advanced weapons and vehicles acquired by many police across the country. I think their concerns are legitimate but I disagree with them.

While last week in Boston was definitely an outlier, it also highlighted the need for police to have something more than an average cop on the beat in times of intense crisis.

Thanks in part to the NRA, conservatives, and even some Democrats, we are severely limited in our ability to stop the flow of advanced weaponry to the criminal element. We can fight back against this in two ways: arming a largely unprepared public that more often than not becomes a victim of their own guns, or to properly enable our well-trained first responders.

I choose the latter.

While we have to have safeguards on civil liberties in place, we can’t arbitrarily put caps on the tools available to police in hopes that things will magically get better.

This also means drones. As I’ve said before, a drone is a technological tool and despite the campaign against them we’re going to have them as part of the weapons available to us no matter what (and by the way, criminals will also find uses for them).

Perhaps the police in Boston could have used a drone with thermal imaging to find the bombing suspect, or perhaps the next school shooting could come to a quicker end through the proper application of technology.

We can’t limit ourselves because of an icky feeling. The reality is our police forces are involved in urban combat, not just in the major cities but in the small towns. With an eye towards civil liberties, we can’t disarm them or keep their weapons capabilities below the people who want to do us harm.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

President Obama’s state of the union speech from 2011 had as its theme the idea that America does “big things.” At the time, I was cynical about that idea, and now I’m even more depressed about it.

The background check proposal that was defeated in the Senate by the Republican Party and four terrible Democrats (Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Max Baucus and Heidi Heitkamp) was not nearly as far as the law needs to go. It was a baby step in favor of securing America and stopping terrible crime. And the Senate killed it.

We don’t do small things, we don’t do big things, we barely do anything.

I’m not sure how you do anything about that. At the end of the day, what is supposed to spark politicians into action is getting on the side of an issue with the widest support. This incremental improvement in background checks had the support of anything from 75% to 90% of Americans. You don’t get that kind of agreement on anything.

But the Senate opposed it.

President Obama’s statement after the proposal’s defeat was among the strongest of his entire presidency, and it re-affirms my past support of him and his leadership. He was exactly right when he said, “All in all this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.”

The people who oppose these kinds of laws need to be defeated and replaced by people who support these tiny baby steps forward. America is in stasis thanks to a gang of backward looking politicians – in both parties – who are beholden to extremists over the mass of Americans.

I don’t know if that will fix it, but it’s something we can do.

As President Obama said, “Round one,” indeed.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

I really hate my reaction to the Boston Marathon bombing. I was surprised and saddened to see my fellow Americans killed and hurt, but there wasn’t the shock that I would have probably felt 15 years ago.

Maybe part of this is the loss of American naiveté, the feeling we had for so long that two oceans and the world’s most amazing military was enough to protect us from so much of the chaos we see across the rest of the world.

Really bad things happen now, and we acknowledge how horrible they are and we grieve and mourn and get angry but I don’t think we have the idea in our minds anymore that “this can’t happen in America.” Because it can.

And that really stinks. We’re the same America we have always been, but after 9/11 and years of horrible things happening to us and our friends, it’s not quite the same.

A few days ago I was discussing how weird it felt when nothing was happening. It was too quiet. And then something has happened, and its spectacular and horrible and terrible – and then another thing will happen after that.

And I hate that that is the way we live now.

I’m, at heart, an optimistic person. And the police officers in Boston who ran TOWARDS THE GIANT EXPLOSION were just today’s expression of how resilient the human, American spirit is.

We aren’t the same as we used to be, but we’re still good.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

The Obama administration’s proposal on social security is very dumb. It is unusually dumb in that it simultaneously turns off the President’s base while failing to attract any Republican support.

I also think the administration has, so far, done a rather poor job of defending a proposal – from a Democratic president – to cut social security payments. As best as I can decipher, the administration believes that while the base won’t like this, it is some sort of a carrot to attract Republican support.

But the Republican response – completely cynical and dishonest, as usual – is to complain about Obama cutting social security. 8 years ago the GOP backed privatizing social security, and that was frankly a compromise position on their part. Their ideal is a world without social security, also known as the hellhole of seniors in abject poverty that we experienced under the Great Depression.

Like the Republican campaign last year, they can simultaneously complain about entitlements while also attacking Democrats for cutting social security. It doesn’t make any sense, but you don’t have to help!

It isn’t as if the Republicans in the Senate or House will pass this budget, and they won’t include the administration’s proposals in any real sense. So this budget proposal is stupid, and all the other common sense things in the budget that we should have enacted eons ago don’t make the social security proposal any smarter.

There is a way to reform the system: raise the caps. That takes care of problems in the near future, without shirking our collective responsibility to seniors who paid into the system. Based on his past rhetoric, I don’t doubt that Obama understands this.

So yes, people should criticize the President for this stupid proposal, and it shouldn’t go anywhere legislatively.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

In my interaction with conservatives on Twitter, I inevitably run into a wall with them when I say something that is – less than complimentary of the right.

Its always kind of strange to me when this occurs.

I say what I actually think about the conservative movement in America. I’m not saying what anyone told me to say, and I never would do so. I say what I think.

The problem is, I don’t think much of conservatism. I think its a bad philosophy, with goals that are antithetical to the American ideal.

I don’t think the vast majority of conservative ideas should ever be implemented, and I believe in fighting against those ideas being foisted upon the American people.

At some point, most likely in the 80s and especially the 90s, this idea took hold on the left that we should afford some respect to conservative concepts. I’m not sure why.

As I detailed elsewhere, I grew up in an era of conservative ascendance, and I saw the havoc it wreaked on the country. Why would I respect that? Even worse, the conservative culture embraces racism, sexism, and ignorance. Its bad policy, and morally corrosive.

When it has been allowed to thrive, it’s always bad for the country. Why would I support that? Why would I even pretend it’s something worth discussing or treating seriously?

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

UPDATE: So you have an idea of how the timeline below shakes out, I was born in December of 1977 and I’m currently 35.

The first thing I can remember, politically, is the Iran-Contra hearings. At the time, I didn’t really care about the details, my major concern was that finally somebody named “Oliver” was in the news and he wasn’t a British street urchin. Unfortunately, he was also some kind of criminal. So that stunk.

I didn’t pay attention again until the Clarence Thomas hearings and the first Gulf War. I remember not being impressed with Thomas’ speech about a “high tech lynching” but I’d be lying if I said I had the same visceral dislike of him that I do now.

I certainly was in favor of the first Gulf War. I collected editions of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel with front page stories about the buildup and eventual war. I remember watching a Peter Jennings ABC News special talking to kids about the war. In many ways, the first Gulf War formed my view of how the U.S. can go about armed interventions – a clear mission, an international coalition, overwhelming force – the opposite of our second war there. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

I paid attention to the 1996 election, it was the first in which I would vote and my mom – who I would describe as some sort of far-left person economically who still thinks I’m too conservative on that topic – raised me to be a voter who is informed about the people and parties they vote for. I remember ads about the Dole-Gingrich Congress, and I remember flashes of the debates, etc. and I did proudly vote for Clinton that fall.

But I wouldn’t say I was really into it. It’s hard from my current vantage point to remember it, but while I wasn’t apathetic, I also was not knee-deep into politics like I am now. In other words, I was probably like a normal voter.

Then the Republican Party attempted to remove Bill Clinton from office for having an extramarital affair.

To this day I can remember watching the votes for removal, wondering what the hell was wrong with this party that they could jeopardize our Constitution in order to settle a political score.

The impeachment of Bill Clinton made me into a partisan Democrat. I leaned left, but I might have been open to Republican ideas if they hadn’t made such a spectacular public display of their callous disregard for our founding documents. Even today, the idea of impeaching Clinton – for having an affair – makes me see red.

Little did I know it would get worse. The stolen 2000 election – both the GOP’s coordinated offensive to stop the counting of votes combined with the Democratic Party’s spineless performance – made me into a hardcore Democrat.

From day one of his presidency, I viewed Bush as a sort of usurper. Others in his party had won the White House in my lifetime, but neither Reagan nor his father had oozed into our oval office in that manner.

Then 9/11 happened, and like most good Americans I lost my mind for a little bit. I can remember sitting watching the smoldering ruins of Ground Zero on TV for hours and hours. I remember waking up and just staring at the TV in the middle of the night, wondering when the next shoe would drop and wanting to hear our leader do the right thing. For me, at that moment, I was willing to let bygones be bygones with Bush. Honestly.

And for a little while, he did what I still believe was the right thing – demanding that Afghanistan surrender Bin Laden, then invading when they refused.

Then they started talking about Iraq.

As I wrote on my blog back then – I was more than willing to support some sort of action against Iraq if the Bush administration could have ever credibly made the case of a connection to Al Qaeda.

I read everything, everything I could get my hands on at the time attempting to make the case. I made sure to watch Colin Powell’s UN presentation because I felt that if anything were to convince me, they would have laid it out at that time.

Nothing. I said out loud at the time at the conclusion: “That’s it?”

We were going to war while engaged in global battle against Al Qaeda for horrible reasons. It didn’t make any sense in 2003, and it makes even less sense in 2013.

The Bush administration’s push for war in Iraq, combined with the propaganda they and their allies promoted across multiple platforms and dovetailed with a domestic agenda designed to give the powerful free reign over our society while eradicating the safety net constructed and strengthened by both parties, is what made me into a liberal.

Before the Bush years I was more quick to support military solutions to problems, and while I think they must often remain a viable option, I can’t ever forgive Bush and his allies for the THOUSANDS of Americans who died for no reason, let alone the innocent Iraqis whose lives perished for his failure to lead.

Before the Bush years I supported a lot of the center-right Republican-lite economic policy promoted by Democratic groups like Third Way and the DLC. The Bush years showed me that those ideas, combined with a conservative belief in limited oversight and intervention, was a complete disaster.

The destructive powers of conservatism, on issues foreign and domestic from 2000-2008, ages 22-31 for me personally, are what made me into a liberal.

I’d still argue that I’m definitely not on the “far” left on the real world scale (conservatives insist anyone to their left –including a majority of American voters – is on the “far” left, no matter how moderate they are.)

I consider myself an FDR Democrat (or maybe a Teddy Roosevelt Republican.) I support strong military force when necessary, government oversight of private industry, and a well-funded social safety net to help those in need (which is also cost-effective over the long run for society). I believe in the free market – when it is well policed from the outside. I believe in entrepreneurship and making wealth, but I also believe in people paying their fair share as part of a collective society and giving each of us at the very least the opportunity to succeed.

I believe in the American dream and giving everyone a shot at it and defending it until the last man or woman’s last breath.

You know: Truth, Justice, and the American Way.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

A long time ago in a world far away, tech companies used to announce new products via a document called a press release. They would write up the benefits of their new product/feature and probably attach some demonstration pictures and maybe even a product demo video.

Then Steve Jobs happened.

Jobs elevated a product release into a media event, demonstrating new Apple products with cinematic flair. Jobs’ product demos described “magical” devices that were “easy” and simple for people to understand.

Those demos helped lead to super successes like iPod, iPhone, and the iPad. And as a result, every tech company – Samsung, Facebook, Google, Microsoft – now feels the need to do Apple-style events for products that simply don’t warrant it.

I would even argue that several recent Apple events haven’t warranted this sort of event.

Today Facebook held an event for an Android OS skin. That’s all their announcement was really about. It didn’t advance technology, it didn’t even make Facebook better. It’s a freaking skin.

This is pointless blather that too much of the tech press eats up with a giant ladle (while ignoring other stories that require some legwork to cover).

Kill the tech event – or at the very least reserve it for things that are actually interesting and innovative.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

When Bill Clinton was caught cheating on his wife, Mark Sanford was appalled. He thought the President should resign and found his behavior “reprehensible.” And then he voted to remove him from office.

Fast forward a bit, and Mark Sanford ditched his publicly financed office for a secret dalliance with his mistress.

Just a little bit after that episode, the religious right South Carolina Republicans, yes, the same people who are endlessly lecturing the left, gays, and anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun about “family values” and “traditional marriage” have just nominated Sanford to be their nominee in the runoff election for an open Congressional seat.

As always — and I mean always — the “religious” right has once again exposed itself as a gang of feckless hypocrites, a band of jackals who skip all the parts of the Bible that reference Jesus’ regular admonitions to treat our fellow man with kindness and humility.

These same people — and South Carolina is one of the strongholds of the religious right’s Southern outpost — nominate an admitted adulterer (whose mistress/fiance attended the victory party) while continuing to lament the supposed assault on marriage by same-sex couples.

They make me sick. They consistently elevate themselves to be our moral superiors, but excuse their own from their rules and supposedly Bible-based rules surrounding morality.

When Democrats have committed sexual indiscretions, these are the same people who often lead the charge to hound them out of public life. But then when it’s their own – Mark Sanford, David Vitter, Newt Gingrich … the list goes on and on and on. It’s okay if you’re a Republican.

Because they think the rules don’t apply to them.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

I, and many others more important than me, have been in an ongoing tussle over drones. Specifically on one side are the anti-drone absolutists who have foolishly decided to make their argument about a technology and not about policy.

Specifically, arguing against drones is arguing against a small flying device. It is as useful as arguing against the concept of wiretapping without making an argument about the specific instances when the government can or cannot wiretap you.

There are good, decent policy points to be made about the application of drone technology in law enforcement and anti-terrorism. But a “derp doooy drones” argument is silly.

A couple interesting things I noted today.

In the process of calling me an “authoritarian” (probably the nicest attack I’ve received in a while), anti-droner Glenn Greenwald sent along a link to an ACLU article, ostensibly making the anti-drone case.

In the midst of some honest concerns about using drone technology is this nugget:

Drones should never be used for indiscriminate mass surveillance, and police should never use them unless there are legitimate grounds to believe they will collect evidence related to a specific instance of criminal wrongdoing or in emergencies.

So in the cases of “collect[ing] evidence related to a specific instance of criminal wrongdoing” or “emergencies” – the ACLU (or at least ACLU of Northern California staff attorney Linda Lye) believes that … there IS a use for drones.

Well, knock me over with a feather!

Another thing is, a lot of this drone panic is about normal, everyday radio-controlled airplanes and helicopters (some of them look really cool) being deceptively conflated with the badass very scary Predator drones the U.S. military uses. The other link Greenwald sent makes a similar point about current drone technology:

The drones of the not-too-distant future may be far different from the toy-like vehicles a handful of police departments around the country are currently considering. The public is understandably nervous over drones’ game-changing implications for privacy and generalized surveillance by the government.

(My emphasis)

These are not the same:

But what did that front man for fascism, Attorney General Eric Holder, say in his first letter to Sen. Rand Paul about the domestic use of drones?

As members of this Administration have previously indicated, the U.S. government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so.

Holder continues:

It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances of a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

Were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the President on the scope of his authority.

So in the case of an emergency, both the ACLU and the Obama administration believe that drones could, in fact, be used. Frankly, the Attorney General is more specific about the severity of an emergency – “a catastrophic attack” — that would prompt the use of an offensive drone than the ACLU is!

Oh my.

*FYI: My headline is meant purely in jest. I love the ACLU and what they stand for, even when I have a disagreement of opinion with them.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below:

Back in the deep, dark days of America – the late ‘80s to mid-90s – the “religious” right had a go-to image for their campaigns against gay rights: leather guy. Whenever the right went on one of its crusades against gay rights – things like treating gay people like humans and funding HIV research – they would use b-roll footage of some guy at a gay pride parade dressed in leather and dancing around.

The message of this was essentially: allow gay people to get an inch and they’ll be leather guy dancing all over you in no time.

Then a weird thing happened: gay people got boring. Take Ellen DeGeneres, for instance. There was so much tumult and hand-wringing over her coming out. She was the star of a hit network sitcom and suddenly her sexuality was an “issue.” It’s hard to communicate to people today but it was a big deal. Cover of Time magazine “big.”

And then Ellen came out. And she was… boring. She’s a talented comedian and an appealing personality, but she is not the caricature of an in your face lesbian the right had scared America about for years. In fact, Ellen is pretty inoffensive in the world of comedy. After her sitcom ended, she went on to host a perfectly inoffensive daytime talk show that has cute little kids singing, presidential candidates dancing, and a parade of celebrities doing goofy things for an audience of mostly straight women.

BORING.

Cut to 2008, and Obama has secured the Democratic nomination, and suddenly the right is very concerned with the far-left radical former college professor with supposed shady connections to all sorts of black radicals. Suddenly “black liberation theology” was all the buzz on right wing radio and Fox News and Americans were told they were effectively voting on whether they should have a Black Panther in the White House.

But Barack Obama is boring. Sure, he’s a little more savvy about pop culture, particularly urban pop culture, than your average pol, but I bet his wife and kids would roll their eyes at the idea that he’s some sort of black nationalist.

And America rolled their eyes too. Because this scary Obama (which continues to be the right’s preferred framing) has more in common with the sweater-wearing Bill Cosby than the gun-wielding Black Panthers.

Obama is a boring dad. He probably chides Sasha and Malia if they’re up too late on a school night.

HE’S BORING.

And that’s just it. Gay people and black presidents are no longer outliers in American life. They’re part of it. They’re not scary. They add to our ever-growing, ever changing melting pot, and in being just like us they are boring like us.

And that’s great.

UPDATE: It looks like immigrants are getting boring too.

Subscribe

Oliver Willis's feed

Enter email below: