isn't the gist of that Presidential Policy Guidance May 22 2013 document, that he alone was effectively judge/jury/executioner + would sign off on death from the skies, without any further scrutiny of data on targets?
― calzino, 29. december 2017 10:47 (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
Not really, no
― Frederik B, Friday, 29 December 2017 12:04 (six years ago) link
The guidance just codifies what was standard practice prior to 2013 iirc - but the problem isn’t the internal regulations, it’s the illegality of the whole system, the normalisation of endlessly bombing countries with no international remit, constantly lying about the scale of civilian casualties, etc, etc. The 2013 guidance winds people up because it adds a procedural sheen of ‘doing things the right and proper way’ to a programme that routinely kills 40-odd people for every one it is supposed to be targeting.
― Wag1 Shree Rajneesh (ShariVari), Friday, 29 December 2017 12:18 (six years ago) link
From what I just read of its specious waffle is that it was drawn up to make the "signature strikes" look more considered than the random murder of civilians they often were.
― calzino, Friday, 29 December 2017 12:36 (six years ago) link
It supposedly does take drone strikes away from the CIA, which at least in theory is good. But yeah, the problem is with the whole system, which is why it's faulty to lay the blame at Obama's feet, and especially at the 2013 PPG.
― Frederik B, Friday, 29 December 2017 12:53 (six years ago) link
obama was in charge of the system iirc
― k3vin k., Friday, 29 December 2017 18:33 (six years ago) link
that is also what I recall. Obama essentially defined the system.
― Karl Malone, Friday, 29 December 2017 18:37 (six years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqeQ_PfKMAo
― Never Learn To Mike Love (C. Grisso/McCain), Friday, 29 December 2017 18:41 (six years ago) link
Obama inherited the system. and once he did an effort to define it, in 2013, the system seems to have become less deadly.
― Frederik B, Friday, 29 December 2017 19:00 (six years ago) link
has anyone actually engaged with the PPP paper or nah
― Simon H., Friday, 29 December 2017 19:02 (six years ago) link
PPG. I've read it, yeah, and skimmed it again these last few days. It's here: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/presidential_policy_guidance_0.pdf?redirect=TDM/PPG
― Frederik B, Friday, 29 December 2017 19:17 (six years ago) link
I don't understand a lot of it :) But it's also a fairly weird document, as it's a change to rules that weren't public before, so it's tough to tell if it's good or bad.
― Frederik B, Friday, 29 December 2017 19:18 (six years ago) link
I was referring to the People's Policy Project paper Morbs linked, actually
― Simon H., Friday, 29 December 2017 20:01 (six years ago) link
la la la they can't read it
i mean duh, Obama HAD to prop up Wall Street and HAD to let the torturers walk, be an ADULT!
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Friday, 29 December 2017 20:05 (six years ago) link
Oh, right. No, it kinda put me off that they seemed to think Obama became president in 2007?
― Frederik B, Friday, 29 December 2017 20:25 (six years ago) link
the relevant dept only releases its data every 3 yrs so the dataset started with '07 to observe the trend
― Simon H., Friday, 29 December 2017 20:27 (six years ago) link
Obama HAD to prop up Wall Street and HAD to let the torturers walk
These are highly legitimate beefs against Obama and high among the worst policy decisions he made, imo. They stink to high heaven.
Then again, in the presidential shitfest sweepstakes, FDR interred (according to Wikipedia) "between 110,000 and 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, most of whom lived on the Pacific coast. 62 percent of the internees were United States citizens." Those internees also did forced labor.
Nobody comes out the presidency smelling like a rose. There are always intense political pressures to do shitty things and unsurprisingly, politics, not ethics, rule the job.
― A is for (Aimless), Friday, 29 December 2017 20:42 (six years ago) link
FDR had a bit of a weakness for Mussolini as well iirc, but lots of big names had a dabble with fascism back then, before it was finally defeated forever. *ba-dum-bum-CHING*
― calzino, Friday, 29 December 2017 22:00 (six years ago) link
I would love to read a serious analysis of the failures of Obama housing policy, but that PPP isn't it. A lot of the analysis is based not on research but on left-wing blogs, and the really awful thing Obama apparently did, he did in 2008 where, again, he wasn't president.
― Frederik B, Saturday, 30 December 2017 13:52 (six years ago) link
Average monthly job growth in 2017 was 171,000 jobs per month — down significantly from the 187,000 jobs per month that were added in 2016.
thanks obama
― reggie (qualmsley), Friday, 5 January 2018 23:17 (six years ago) link
Obama’s supporters remain as defensive about their president as Trump’s fans are about theirs, even though Obama, kite-surfing with Richard Branson in the wake of Trump’s victory, and reassuring Wall Street with handsomely remunerated speeches, has affirmed his dedication to the one percent. But we should not be surprised and dismayed that Obama’s audacity of hope dwindled into some humdrum self-cherishing, or that Macron is now derided as “president of the rich.” The actual record of personality cults reveals the mendacity of hope. Real change always comes through the sustained struggles of countless people who often wish to remain unsung.
The meaning of consistent striving, modest self-image, and quiet solidarity in politics is mostly lost today, partly because the last great mass movements for change in the West—the Civil Rights, anti-war, and feminist movements—occurred decades ago, in the 1960s and 1970s. During their long absence, decreed by the ideological conceit coined by Margaret Thatcher that “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism, the scope for collection action shrank. Glamorous individuals are increasingly tasked with working miracles. But in societies bitterly polarized by social and economic inequality, the appeal of such figureheads—whether expressed as “Yes, we can,” “Make American great again,” or “En Marche!”—is inevitably limited to specific constituencies. In this demoralizingly fragmented political landscape, many people end up bestowing their hopes upon celebrities with whom they can gratifyingly identify.
It was this politics of narcissistic identification, of fanciful private bonding with the famous, that set us up for, first, the disappointment with Obama, and then, the appalling shock of Trump.
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/12/01/this-poisonous-cult-of-personality/
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2018 17:04 (six years ago) link
glosses over obama coming to office while the economy shed a million jobs a month and foreclosures and evictions were an epidemic. comparing where obama and trump started and their accomplishments a year into trump's administration is dicey on lots of levels
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 9 January 2018 17:22 (six years ago) link
The meaning of consistent striving, modest self-image, and quiet solidarity in politics is mostly lost today, partly because the last great mass movements for change in the West—the Civil Rights, anti-war, and feminist movements—occurred decades ago, in the 1960s and 1970s. During their long absence, decreed by the ideological conceit coined by Margaret Thatcher that “there is no alternative” to neoliberalism, the scope for collection action shrank.
This glosses over the environmental movement, the anti-nuclear movement, the alterglobalization movement, and the early aughts anti-war movement, all of which were mass protest movements. To imagine the sense of solidarity lost among the public today presumes it was there to begin with, when studies of these golden era movements suggest they were decentralized activations of people who felt a sense of commonality with their immediate communities knit together into national narratives by canny strategists & the media. The skill in organizing social movements is in looking at what is and having the vision to imagine what can be done. To look at the landscape today and see it as smaller is a failure of imagination, not a triumph of No Alternative.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 17:41 (six years ago) link
fair enough, HOOS, but i guess i'm results-oriented enough to downgrade the early-aughts antiwar movement bcz they didn't stop any wars.
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2018 17:52 (six years ago) link
Neither did the antiwar movement in the seventies, though?
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 17:56 (six years ago) link
name any antiwar movement that has
that column is very dumb
Barack Obama was the first “celebrity president” of the twenty-first century
he was also the second president of the twenty-first century
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 17:58 (six years ago) link
Yet, as with Trump and his loyal and captive audience today, support for Obama remained steadfast among African Americans and white liberals.
thinking emoji
― El Tomboto, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:02 (six years ago) link
you know, after O's duty to the financiers destroyed black homeowning (see above)
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:06 (six years ago) link
and round and round we go
I think there was something else to the housing crisis other than Obama's policies, though?
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:11 (six years ago) link
but the topic at hand is stfu fred
― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:12 (six years ago) link
I would love to read a serious analysis of the failures of Obama housing policy, but that PPP isn't it. A lot of the analysis is based not on research but on left-wing blogs,
I'm scanning through the sources and while there are a few left-wing sources, there's also a fair amount of stuff from court transcripts, government reports, and mainstream media (specifically WaPo/NYT/WSJ/Reuters).
and the really awful thing Obama apparently did, he did in 2008 where, again, he wasn't president.
Nope.
The recession was addressed in first months of the Obama administration, with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, an economic stimulus of $831 billion.19 For homeowners, the largest source of potential relief offered early in the Obama administration was a piece of the bank bailout called the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (hamp). In the rush to pass the bailout in the last months of the Bush administration, a bloc of Democrats refused to vote unless it contained some provision for homeowner relief in addition to bank money. Still, these struggling homeowners did not get the hundreds of billions in cash and trillions in credit that the banks got. Instead, they got an unspecified appropriation to “prevent avoidable foreclosures,” specificallymentioning the possibility of lowering interest rates or principal amounts for homeowners, but leaving the execution entirely up to the president. The Obama administration responded to this provision by allocating$75 billion to mortgage relief. In a memo to lawmakers, the White House promised to "reduce the number of preventable foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for economically stressed but responsible homeowners, while also reforming our bankruptcy laws and strengthening existing housing initiatives.22 Unfortunately, the program would neither be funded nor managed well enough to protect families, especially black families, as the financial crisis unfolded.
Still, these struggling homeowners did not get the hundreds of billions in cash and trillions in credit that the banks got. Instead, they got an unspecified appropriation to “prevent avoidable foreclosures,” specificallymentioning the possibility of lowering interest rates or principal amounts for homeowners, but leaving the execution entirely up to the president. The Obama administration responded to this provision by allocating$75 billion to mortgage relief. In a memo to lawmakers, the White House promised to "reduce the number of preventable foreclosures by helping to reduce mortgage payments for economically stressed but responsible homeowners, while also reforming our bankruptcy laws and strengthening existing housing initiatives.22 Unfortunately, the program would neither be funded nor managed well enough to protect families, especially black families, as the financial crisis unfolded.
― Simon H., Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:14 (six years ago) link
"In 2008, Obama pressured lawmakers to take such a provision out of the bank bailout and the Recovery Act, promising he would push for it later,64 with Larry Summers promising bankruptcy reform in writing.22 Then, under the influence of Tim Geithner and Summers, he reneged."
The footnote 64 is to 'Shadowproof'.
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:35 (six years ago) link
That's the thing that he definitely, absolutely, completely - if you believe the sketchy sources - did on his own. The other way the crisis could have 'easily' been averted was if he'd revived a famously racist program from the 30's, removed the racism from it, and passed it through congress. That's not solely on him, though.
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:41 (six years ago) link
how can anything a president does be *solely* his fault, though? that seems like a dodge
― Simon H., Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:46 (six years ago) link
also isn't all contemporary US policy basically just old policy with the (overt) racism taken out lol
― Simon H., Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:49 (six years ago) link
No. Because if you take out the racism, you can't pass it.
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 18:56 (six years ago) link
― Frederik B, Tuesday, January 9, 2018 6:35 PM (twenty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
... a post that's a transcript of a joint obama/donna edwards statement where obama certainly appears to "promise he'd push for it later" https://shadowproof.com/2008/10/03/donna-edwards-explains-her-yes-vote-on-bailout/
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 19:00 (six years ago) link
I *think* Fred was just stating what the number signified
― Simon H., Tuesday, 9 January 2018 19:03 (six years ago) link
ya but am i wrong in thinking, fred, that you named its location at shadowproof to reiterate insufficient rigor in the report?
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 19:05 (six years ago) link
Yeah, it's an example of bad footnoting. I've been trying to find several other links which seems counterintuitive as well. And that transcript doesn't really say what the report says - that Obama himself got the money taken out.
― Frederik B, Tuesday, 9 January 2018 19:08 (six years ago) link
https://media.pitchfork.com/photos/5a81c47c000dc822199a690b/master/pass/PA_NPG_18_55%20Obama%20R.jpg
https://media.pitchfork.com/photos/5a81c4873190b30b3b77b312/master/pass/PA_NPG_18_57%20M%20Obama%20R.jpg
best official portrait
― Karl Malone, Monday, 12 February 2018 17:09 (six years ago) link
Yeah, watched the unveiling. Those are both excellent.
― Josh in Chicago, Monday, 12 February 2018 17:10 (six years ago) link
they really are except that i see a little bit of fred armisen in barack's
― marcos, Monday, 12 February 2018 17:11 (six years ago) link
his eyes are too light or something
it's missing a cigarette
― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 12 February 2018 17:13 (six years ago) link
The Michelle one does not look much like her imo. The body does but not the face.
― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 12 February 2018 17:31 (six years ago) link
the wiley one is p cool, and I like the way michelle's body/dress is painted but honestly I think the face sucks and she should have done it over
― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive), Monday, 12 February 2018 17:32 (six years ago) link
Barack's is Kehinde Wiley on autopilot. Michelle's is the fat better one, IMO. True that there's something off about her face at first glance. But she's definitely there. Also, there is a beautiful sadness in her expression.
― daavid, Monday, 12 February 2018 17:42 (six years ago) link
And that dress!
― daavid, Monday, 12 February 2018 17:45 (six years ago) link
Barack's is Kehinde Wiley on autopilot.
that may be true, but i'm sure that's exactly what everyone involved in the commission wanted, and the result is still the best presidential portrait ever (except for maybe casselli's reagan, which is creepy af, appropriately).
― Karl Malone, Monday, 12 February 2018 17:49 (six years ago) link