The best thing that could have happened to our
nation is the whistleblowing and leaking of information about the VAST
warrantless spying operations of the NSA. It's really great to see Barack
Obama, America's leading crypto-fascist, backpedalling and in full CYA mode.
Maybe there is justice in this universe.
Unsurprisingly, Obama's responses to the situation
have been the typical paternalistic authoritarian claptrap. Trust us. This is
only a moderate incursion. It's the price of security. We know what's good for
you. If I had the celebrity standing to address open letters to our president,
here's what I'd say in response:
"Sorry, Barack, we had enough of that with the Iraq war.
And with your own lying campaign promises. And with your own unaccountable
drone strikes and surveillance of the Occupy movement--even before the NSA stuff.
If you're not simply a Bush II corporate fascist in blackface, it's time to put
up or shut up. The democracy lovers among us, who believe in informed consent
of the governed, do NOT trust you for a heartbeat. You've never given us reason
to.
"Now, there's a really simple way you could show you
care about transparency--and the planet's future. See, a lot of good citizens--many
of them highly credentialed scientists--are serious opponents of your energy
policies. Leading climate-change blogger Joe Romm, for example, gave your "all
of the above" energy program an F grade. Top climatologist James Hansen is
willing to commit civil disobedience to impede the Keystone XL pipeline, which
all the "smart money" says you're about to approve. And many good citizens,
deeply suspicious of the fossil fuel lobbyists you seem to be trusting (and
rightly suspicious of corporate lobbyists generally: Didn't lobbyist-heavy Wall
Street nearly tank the global economy?), find it far more rational to place
their faith in independent scientists.
"So if reason and the common good ARE on your side,
let's see what you've got. If your policies really serve the public interest,
what harm would it do to have some nationally televised debate? Mano a mano. The people you're listening
to against the people leading environmentalists are listening to. The best
folks on our side against the best folks on yours.
"Surely you can't fear--with the bully pulpits of
government and the rich-as-Croesus fossil fuel industry on your side--that the
enviros will have an unfair propaganda advantage? And consider: assuming your advisers are right, this is the
best way imaginable to discredit the enviros and shut them up. Far better than
spying on conscientious citizens who are only following their consciences--mistaken
consciences from your standpoint--on gravely important questions. Why not try to
duly inform those consciences with the same expert opinion that convinced you,
rather than treating these morally heroic, concerned citizens as if they were
al-Qaeda terrorists? I believe any political image consultant would tell you
how much using your bully pulpit to sponsor the fracking and tar sands debates
I'm proposing would do to wipe away the large chunks of dodo egg currently
disfiguring your face.
"Unless you really are a bought-off tool of the corporate
and military-industrial complexes who must really minimize public information
and threaten dissenters to shove policies that serve only the 1% and destroy
democracy--and the planet in the process--down the public's throats. Sadly, this
is what I believe about you, and I work hard to spread my ill opinion daily. At
this point, only your public sponsorship of the nationally televised debates I
mention could even begin to change it."
If you agree getting Obama to endorse such debates
would be a great way for him to put up or shut up, you'll probably LOVE the True
Blue Democrats' grassroots progressive revolt. Check us out at www.facebook.com/TrueBlueDemocratsAProgressiveRevolt.
