I agree in principle with the idea of open government, but I'm not sure that keeping the citizenry informed requires us to see everything in living color. Has anyone reading this seen a picture of Nicole Simpson's corpse? I haven't, but I fairly sure that seeing such a picture would do little to change my understanding of the case. In the same way, I'm not sure that the public needs to see the atrocities to be informed about them. Perhaps a written description of each picture would suffice.

I think this is a mistake for an open democracy. Everything those in power do to hide or mitigate the horrors perpetrated in the people's name is another blow to the people's ability to evaluate and react to those horrors, that is, to do their duties as citizens.

What this has lead to is the continuing myth of American innocence and the stupefied ability of people to believe such claims as "they hate us for our freedoms." The citizenry of this country could use a shock to their complacent systems.

I think you are right about the message not getting out. Here's a personal anecdote about that. When Bush was in power, I was a grad assistant in a university IT group, and there was a small group of us who talked politics all the time, with increasing outrage as the years passed. But since Obama has been in office, the political talk has died down, and is usually confined to people like Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin. Most don't even seem aware of Obama's Bushlike behaviors. If I bring anything like that up, they seem to think that he must be doing it for good reason. Frustrating as hell.

Obama as Odo the Changeling? Brilliant!

But considering the bailout as a sign of extreme free-market worship, I have to go with this. Picture at sig.

Ferengi-R-Us, bubba.

At sig.

I KNOW people who, to this day, deny the evidence I have laid before their eyes that we not only detain, but abuse, children. They deny it because it comes from "liberal rags". They wouldn't be able to deny their own eyes though. At least, not all of them.

I know people like that, too. Some people have to be dragged kicking and screaming away from their comfortable notions about what Americans are capable of.

That comfort is made easier when we have the Other of the decapitating, murderous Muslim on whom we can project all of our fears.

Please excuse me. I would respond to you but I have to go pull my hair out in frustration and disbelief.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Obama does not make willy-nilly decisions. While the Administration’s decision to release the photos is certainly a great disappointment, I still think it may be a long play. That is, it’s a no-lose situation for him right now. He strengthens his position with the CIA and military at a time when he needs their full backing; he quells the media narrative that he won’t take on the Left of the Democratic Party

This is just so maddening to me. Aside from the Obama-worshipping premise, of course, the whole thing about Obama not taking on the "left" of the Democratic Party is preposterous. I can hardly think of any time that he wasn't either completely disregarding people like me or was outright hostile to our interests. Dammit, it was the goddamn democratic wing of the democratic party that got that snake-oil salesman elected.

As Turley said last night--this has been the greatest bait-and-switch in history.

I have no charitable feelings about your five steps. :)

* sigh *

I'd pull my hair out, but it's all gone after Spectacular's and Sapient's comments last night.

If only presidential candidates were subject to truth in advertising laws.

You know what we would have heard in an Obama commercial? Something like a pharmaceutical ad.

"Candidate Obama promises to restore the rule of law and guarantees a transparent government. In the case that this turns out to be bullshit, side effects will include headaches, stomachaches, toothaches, weight gain, weight loss, balding, severe oily bowel discharge, and, in some cases, you will pee fires of rage."

From his blog:

The result is that we close the Gitmo facility to recreate it on U.S. soil. The proposal reflects the concern that, if forced to comply with federal law, we could not justify the continued detention of these individuals. If Obama is worried that some added pictures of detainee abuses will be used to recruit new volunteers for Al Qaeda, what does he think his replication of Gitmo will do for recruiters?

As I mentioned last night on Rachel Maddow, the Obama Administration has become the greatest bait and switch in history. No torture prosecution. No abuse photos. No citizen lawsuit on privacy. Absolute executive privilege claims. It is not surprising that civil libertarians feel that we have succeeded in merely upgrading to Bush 1.2 (with the added ability to pronounce multisyllabic terms).

It really gets overwhelming when you think of the range and ferocity of the assaults on law and civil liberties.

We have been hearing from optimistic people that Cheney is out there foolishly giving a prosecutor more and more information for an indictment.

But his boldness is really just a cocksure and revolting affirmation that the rule of law no longer applies to the oligarchy.