Fill In That Scandal-a-Palooza Wildcard Bracket, People

This scandal bracket was supposed to be a wry joke.  Well, nobody's laughing now as we know that we can definitely fill in that last wild card bracket with the news about the NSA and Verizon.  

People are furious, and they should be.  Don't give us that stupid argument that if we've done nothing wrong, then we've nothing to fear from government agencies snooping around.  Secret blanket surveillance is not OK.  This isn't even targeted.  This isn't about people suspected of wrongdoing.  The NSA's just indiscriminately scooping up everything on everybody.  Anyway, see this and this, which pithily snarks, "from the Verizon: home-to-nearly-100-million-terrorism-suspects! dept."

Oh, by the way, am I the only one starting to get a case of "scandal fatigue"?  Another day, another mess in the news ... Hey, government overreach?  Must be Thursday.

Also, Rand Paul.

UPDATE: But wait, there's more!

Ask Not For Whom the IRS Trolls. It Trolls For Thee.

While everybody in a justified uproar about the IRS scandal (and the hearings this week only made its wretched "leadership" look worse), there's a new response/"defense" making the rounds on social media, and I just have to shake my head.  Some lefty people are actually defending the IRS.  They do this despite the fact that the IRS confessed to purposefully going after particular organizations based specifically on their political (and now apparently even religious) convictions.  And you don't think this sort of behavior is wrong?  Really?  Really?

Apparently these folks are fine with the capricious abuse of power as long as it's their team doing the abusing.  The overarching principle that "abuse of power is bad" seems to go right past them.  Partisan ideology makes people blind, blind, blind.  Guys, the government beast that today bites the neighbor whom you hate can tomorrow just as easily bite you.

I've give you this as the quote of the day:

The IRS targeting citizens for political reasons is not simply another Washington scandal. At issue is something that strikes at the very heart of who we are as a people, what we believe as Americans and what this country has always stood for. 

The First Amendment was written to protect many different types of expression. But the Founding Fathers' primary concern -- and a first principle for every generation of Americans that followed -- was the protection of political speech. Apparently, the IRS was even targeting people who criticized how the country was being run. 

Protecting citizens' right to speak out against their government has always been an integral part of what separates us from tyrannical regimes. What the IRS did is how the KGB used to target dissidents. It is how they deal with troublemakers in China. 

It is not how we treat American citizens. Our Constitution guarantees it. 

... This is not about Republican vs. Democrat or conservative vs. liberal. It is about arrogant and unrestrained government vs. the rule of law. 

Preach!

Perspectives on the Rand Paul Filibuster

I was trying to write an honest-to-goodness analysis of the filibuster (I meant to include links like this, this, this, this, this, and this in my discussion of how even though I don't agree with Rand on a number of things in general, I was overjoyed to see him "hack" politics and bust out of the business-as-usual DC opacity to engage a much wider audience ... When was the last time you watched C-SPAN in delight while social media exploded as a conversation about civil liberties took off?  Be honest.  Never), but in the end, my congenital inability to resist a joke has overpowered me.  You may enjoy a rather more visual explication, gentle reader?

How Twitter, Facebook, and social media responded:

How Rand Paul fans see him and the filibuster:

How John McCain and Lindsey Graham see Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and everybody else who rallied to Rand:

How McCain and Graham see themselves:

How Rand Paul fans see McCain and Graham:

How C-SPAN sees Rand Paul:

How libertarians hope this conversation about civil liberties, limits of executive power, and government overreach turns out:

How Mad Minerva treated the filibuster as it happened:

"Just the Beginning": Rand Paul on His Own Filibuster

The junior senator from Kentucky has a piece in the Washington Post. It's fascinating to see what he has to say as he looks back on that electrifying experience.  I'm working on a post on all that, but for now, do see what Rand Paul has to say for himself.  Goodness know it's more interesting than what John "Wacko Bird" McCain and his minion Lindsey "Senator from McCain" Graham have been (bitterly? even enviously?) squawking.

For our quote of the day, let's take a snippet from the Kentucky senator, shall we?

I hope my efforts help spur a national debate about the limits of executive power and the scope of every American’s natural right to be free. “Due process” is not just a phrase that can be ignored at the whim of the president; it is a right that belongs to every citizen in this great nation. I believe the support I received this past week shows that Americans are looking for someone to really stand up and fight for them. And I’m prepared to do just that.

The Morning After: Arguing About the Filibuster

In the interest of fairness, here is an opposing view of yesterday's/last night's/this morning's Paulian Senate floor fireworks.  There's also this from the Economist.

I, here in the cold light of morning as opposed to the electrifying atmosphere of the filibuster as it was in progress, still think it was a good thing, by the way. According to a recent poll cited by Reason, plenty of people are concerned about drones and the abuse of power.  There's hope yet.

Here, take a look at 3 things we can take away from the filibuster.  In fact, it yields the Quote of the Day:

The filibuster succeeded precisely because it wasn't a cheap partisan ploy but because the substance under discussion - why won't the president of the United States, his attorney general, and his nominee to head the CIA explain their views on limits to their power? - transcends anything so banal or ephemeral as party affiliation or ideological score-settling.

LOL: Jon Stewart on Rand Paul's Filibuster

Take a look.  A bit of it: “I can’t say I agree with Rand Paul about everything, but as issues go, drone oversight is one certainly worth kicking up a fuss for.”

UPDATE: Video embedded. There's an ad first. Sorry.

Dare We Hope

... that somehow out of the filibuster we might get a new GOP that focuses on freedom, liberty, limited government, and American optimism?  that presents a shining vision of America in opposition to the miserable pettiness of the status quo and its power-grubbing mandarins? OHGODPLEASE.  Paul, Rubio, Cruz, et al are making me dare to hope a little.  It's terrifying and exhilarating all at once.  Let it start here with the pushback against the abuse of power.  As Rand Paul just said, this isn't about Republicans or Democrats, but about executive power and the US Constitution.

UPDATE: It's 11:40 PM, and we're all still up and a-filibusterin'.  How much longer can everyone keep going? Honey, grad students don't sleep as a matter of course.  We're in for the long haul (while doing schoolwork, natch).  (Meanwhile, I note that a bunch of other people are finally showing up on the Senate floor to jump on Paul's bandwagon.  Shamed into action, eh?  GOOD.  Do the right thing for the wrong reason, eh?  So long as the right thing gets done in a snakepit like DC.)

Tweet of the Day on Raul Paul's Filibuster Against Drones

The spectacle of Rand Paul's filibuster today (still going as I type, with 10 Senators involved now!) has been eating up the news, so I'm not going to babble much about it here other than to say that it's pretty darn awesome.  It was high time somebody poked the establishment in the eye about this.  I think you all might also appreciate this observation that just appeared via Twitter:

That awkward moment when your Nobel Peace Prize-winning President won't promise not to kill US citizens. #StandwithRand
— Jary (@Jary798) March 7, 2013

Oh, heck with it. Here's the beginning of the whole thing: 

Watch More News Videos at ABC | Technology News | Celebrity News

“I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA. I will speak until I can no longer speak. I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court, that Americans could be killed in a cafe in San Francisco or in a restaurant in Houston or at their home in Bowling Green, Ky., is an abomination. It is something that should not and cannot be tolerated in our country.”

Quote of the Day: Sen. Rand Paul and A New Standard

This is too hilarious not to post even though I should be working:

I will tell you, since I know this record of this debate will be widely read, that I want to make formal objection to the "crazy bastards standard." I don’t really think that if we’re going to have a "crazy bastards standard" that we shouldn’t have a right to trial by jury, because if we’re going to lock up all the crazy bastards, for goodness sakes would you not want if you’re a crazy bastard to have a right to trial by jury?

All right. For using the term "crazy bastard" repeatedly in an actual Congressional debate about terrorism, you get your own blog tag, snarky Rand.

Here's the video: