I've felt a little stuck where this blog is concerned lately. I'm a little bit tired of politics being the only thing that I could think to sit down and write about. I'm more than a little tired hearing myself use that as an excuse (mostly to myself) to not write anything at all when I have something to say about politics. I've been tired of the bullshit-yet-stubbornly-relevant reasons why I haven't felt comfortable writing about what's interesting about my life in this space leaving me with little alternative. But what tires me infinitely more is the cynical refusal to call a spade a spade because it might sound extreme, and the cost we pay as a society and a culture when our discussion of personal liberties is framed by that sensibility.
So we go on, once again, to politics.
It is truly a relief that the press and the public have come down as hard as they have on the recent skirmishes in the Republican Party's war on women's health, but there's one punch that keeps getting pulled out of what I believe to be a misguided sense of restraint.
As I would imagine anyone still reading this blog knows, the Virginia state legislature has taken up a bill that would mandate, as a purported enhancement to laws regarding informed consent (Paging George Orwell!), that they be given a medically unnecessary ultrasound, and that if imaging requires it, that the ultrasound be administered trans-vaginally.
The second part is what this post is about primarily, but before I get to that, let me note that as the result of (a purported) resurgence of small-government conservatism, the Teavangelical power base that capitalized on-- among other things--the under-participation of pro-choice women in 2010 to further their ideological agenda by intruding into the normally sacrosanct relationship between doctor and patient and using the force of law to influence the conditions under which the final decision is made to go through with an abortion or not. It's already pretty unacceptable, but understandably, the focus of the discussion has been on what happens if the abortion is being performed before the point in fetal development at which imaging with an external ultrasound is impossible.
So important is it that the views of hypocritical reactionary zealots be reflected in medical procedure that the Republican Party is seeking to coerce those who go in early enough to preclude an ordinary ultrasound into submitting to a forced intrusion that has been described in what often feels like euphemistic language. Let me be clear: the coercive measure by which a pregnant woman is to be made to endure unwanted vaginal penetration by an ultrasound probe is accurately described as rape. And we should call it that.
Not out of sensationalism. Not out of a vengeful desire to hurt the GOP, though given the past three years both would be entirely justified. We should call it what it is because this legislation, whatever its original intent, threatens to take the false and dangerous narrative that rape is punishment for sexual promiscuity and codify it into law. Here, in the 21st century. And if you think that that's a maximalist interpretation, the minimalist one would be that the Republican Party is so determined to have its influence felt in the doctor's office they aren't especially concerned if it's necessary to rape the patient in order to exert it.
So far, the only person I've seen who has used the word on TV was Anna Sterling of Feministing, who appeared this morning on the debut of Melissa Harris-Perry. I've been told that Keith Olbermann did as well. Others have said things that were certainly intended to , but seemed curiously hesitant to actually use the word, which is unfortunate. You need to say the word to fully appreciate the severity of conservatives in Virginia. You need to spell it out that this is the final lifting of the pro-life veil that reveals once and for all that the raison d'etre of the movement is to stamp out a woman's bodily autonomy.
One Virginia legislator referred to abortion as a "lifestyle convenience." Others have said that by consenting to sex, a woman has consented to either having a child or having the government penetrate her with a medical device.
It's gotten me thinking about my lifestyle. I am someone who also consents to sex. A lot. Not always with the same person. I would never want an ultrasound wand shoved inside me unless there was a medical reason for it, nor do I want to have to deal with carrying a fetus to term or being responsible for it after birth. I don't want to take the hit to my health or my career.
Which leads me to conclude:
All things considered, isn't it an awfully nice lifestyle convenience, to have a penis?
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
10.28.2011
So, that happened
For many of my generation, the War in Iraq was the catastrophe that catapulted us into political awareness. It has cast a shadow over the entirety of American life for the past eight years, though it seems almost trivial to talk about the impact it's had on the people who didn't go there. 4,468 American troops dead. 150,000 or more Iraqis. Many thousands more wounded. A generation of veterans who feel more detached from the rest of us than any other before them. An effort in Afghanistan that was allowed to deteriorate through neglect, at the cost of who knows how many soldiers and civilians.
Even when the last American soldier crosses the border between Iraq and Kuwait at the end of the year (as my badass cousin will be doing, in fact) we won't be done. We still are under great obligation to people of Iraq to ensure that the sacrifices that brave people from both countries have made aren't in vain. We still need to find a responsible way out of Afghanistan. We still need to find work for the thousands of uniquely qualified people who are nonetheless not getting nearly as much respect as they ought to be, despite how bloody impressive they are.
Still, it gave me a profound sense of relief to hear that news the day after Moumarr Ghatafi was probably executed by the Lybian rebels who captured him. In general, I'm with Cooper on the "not really giving a shit about what happened to that guy" front. But it's had me wondering what happens to the legacy of a nation if the messy business of its inception is captured on video.
I believe that future generations will be embarrassed by the way they treated Ghatafi. When the Redcoats massacred our civilians, we put them on trial, and they were defended by a peerless attorney in John Adams, who later said it was the best thing he'd done for his country. It spoke volumes for the ideals upon which we wished to build a nation. The fact that said ideals were inconsistently applied-- to the tune of innumerable dead and tortured innocents whose only offense was the color of their skin-- is not lost on me. But I believe that there is an enormous benefit to the narrative provided by Adams' example. In Libya, that's a story that they don't get to tell. And with the Ghatafi family now considering filing a war crimes complaint, the narrative suffers even more.
I know that the rebels are products of their environment-- an entire generation living under the thumb of a brutal dictator, with no self-determination -- and that they have none of the understanding of rules of war that comes with military training. But still, I think that future generations of Libyans will be embarrassed by this. Even if it was crossfire that killed Ghatafi, by parading him around the way they did while he was wounded, they killed him just as surely as if the earlier reports about someone shooting him in the forehead with his own pistol were true.
Don't get me wrong. What Ghatafi experienced was a very small sliver of what he deserved. But this isn't about him. This is about the Libyan people who have to build a nation from scratch now that the war is over. It's about what they're going to have to tell to their kids when they're old enough to understand this. And by that measure, this was an enormous missed opportunity.
All told, we're seeing an end of a war that cost almost 5,000 Americans their lives and will probably wind up costing taxpayers $1.9 trillion dollars, and the end of a war that claimed no American lives and cost taxpayers about a thousand times less. And oh yeah, they actually like us over there now. Sorry neo-cons, it turns out that it was possible to use American military might as a tool to positively impact the world order after all. You guys just suck at it.
Even when the last American soldier crosses the border between Iraq and Kuwait at the end of the year (as my badass cousin will be doing, in fact) we won't be done. We still are under great obligation to people of Iraq to ensure that the sacrifices that brave people from both countries have made aren't in vain. We still need to find a responsible way out of Afghanistan. We still need to find work for the thousands of uniquely qualified people who are nonetheless not getting nearly as much respect as they ought to be, despite how bloody impressive they are.
Still, it gave me a profound sense of relief to hear that news the day after Moumarr Ghatafi was probably executed by the Lybian rebels who captured him. In general, I'm with Cooper on the "not really giving a shit about what happened to that guy" front. But it's had me wondering what happens to the legacy of a nation if the messy business of its inception is captured on video.
I believe that future generations will be embarrassed by the way they treated Ghatafi. When the Redcoats massacred our civilians, we put them on trial, and they were defended by a peerless attorney in John Adams, who later said it was the best thing he'd done for his country. It spoke volumes for the ideals upon which we wished to build a nation. The fact that said ideals were inconsistently applied-- to the tune of innumerable dead and tortured innocents whose only offense was the color of their skin-- is not lost on me. But I believe that there is an enormous benefit to the narrative provided by Adams' example. In Libya, that's a story that they don't get to tell. And with the Ghatafi family now considering filing a war crimes complaint, the narrative suffers even more.
I know that the rebels are products of their environment-- an entire generation living under the thumb of a brutal dictator, with no self-determination -- and that they have none of the understanding of rules of war that comes with military training. But still, I think that future generations of Libyans will be embarrassed by this. Even if it was crossfire that killed Ghatafi, by parading him around the way they did while he was wounded, they killed him just as surely as if the earlier reports about someone shooting him in the forehead with his own pistol were true.
Don't get me wrong. What Ghatafi experienced was a very small sliver of what he deserved. But this isn't about him. This is about the Libyan people who have to build a nation from scratch now that the war is over. It's about what they're going to have to tell to their kids when they're old enough to understand this. And by that measure, this was an enormous missed opportunity.
All told, we're seeing an end of a war that cost almost 5,000 Americans their lives and will probably wind up costing taxpayers $1.9 trillion dollars, and the end of a war that claimed no American lives and cost taxpayers about a thousand times less. And oh yeah, they actually like us over there now. Sorry neo-cons, it turns out that it was possible to use American military might as a tool to positively impact the world order after all. You guys just suck at it.
10.13.2011
In Response to Mr. Hitchens (better late than never)
Christopher Hitchens argued last Monday that those who are alarmed about the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki are under heavy obligation to say what they would have done instead.
It's pretty much just the sort of thing Christopher Hitchens would say. And I sort of agree. I don't necessarily see it as an obligation, but I absolutely am far less likely to take someone seriously if they haven't at least thought about alternatives.
If it doesn't bother you at all, you can fuck right the hell off.
An American citizen has been killed in our name, with no due process of law. This should be a crisis of conscience for all of us.
This isn't to say that I don't think it's utterly appropriate to target an enemy commander during a time of war, regardless of the circumstances of his birth. But this is about precedent, and that means doing the paperwork. And the rationale given for the hit's legality is flimsy at best.
For the past 10+ years we have been engaged in a global conflict against a transnational enemy whose troops have no uniforms, who don't amass at the border, who regard success in terms of how many, not how few civilian casualties are inflicted, and who reside in places where they are not the state or of the state but are under some level of protection.
The rules of war were not written with this sort of conflict in mind; that much is obvious. The rational response to this realization would be to work with the international community craft new rules that impose limits on the use of military might in accordance with the spirit of existing international law but without the outmoded language.
Our response instead has been to do whatever is easiest, and create a post hoc justification for it based on tenuous interpretations of existing law. It's a disgrace, and as Americans we were taught to expect better than this.
It should absolutely be legal to take out a man who has betrayed his country to a transnational death cult, and with apparent lethal result, who is holed up someplace inaccessible to any agency able to capture him.
But under current law, it doesn't appear to be. We have only our own laziness to blame for this.
What would I have done instead? I'd have worked to establish a judicial process for targeted overseas killings that isn't just a bunch of lawyers putting their heads together to try and find a way to call something legal. I'm going to favor a drone strike over boots on the ground any day, and I'm going to favor a drone strike over an insurgent attack that kills civilians any day. But if people are going to be killed in my name as an American, I want an assurance that they're the right people. This isn't merely a moral concern. Whenever we misfire, whenever we shoot into a crowd, whenever we target the wrong person, we are potentially creating new enemies who see the killing of their loved ones not as collateral damage but as murder. The ethics and the cost-benefit analysis are grey under the best of circumstances. To say that this is distressing is an understatement. But it ought to be distressing, or else we find ourselves as we do today where the ethical implications of covert action are the result of anything but the best of circumstances.
This isn't about whether or not it was right to kill that one man. It's about how the justifications used for the killing can be abused in the future. Even if one trusted the Obama administration fully to discharge this newfound (and as of yet unchallenged) power, it's still unconscionable to let it stand when it could one day fall into the hands of, oh, I don't know... a presidential candidate who has all but called for the lynching of Ben Bernanke
As we watch the American Spring begin to take root, we should keep in mind that Wall Street isn't the only place in the world operating with a massive moral hazard. Unaccountable power is a cancer on our society no matter who wields it.
It's pretty much just the sort of thing Christopher Hitchens would say. And I sort of agree. I don't necessarily see it as an obligation, but I absolutely am far less likely to take someone seriously if they haven't at least thought about alternatives.
If it doesn't bother you at all, you can fuck right the hell off.
An American citizen has been killed in our name, with no due process of law. This should be a crisis of conscience for all of us.
This isn't to say that I don't think it's utterly appropriate to target an enemy commander during a time of war, regardless of the circumstances of his birth. But this is about precedent, and that means doing the paperwork. And the rationale given for the hit's legality is flimsy at best.
For the past 10+ years we have been engaged in a global conflict against a transnational enemy whose troops have no uniforms, who don't amass at the border, who regard success in terms of how many, not how few civilian casualties are inflicted, and who reside in places where they are not the state or of the state but are under some level of protection.
The rules of war were not written with this sort of conflict in mind; that much is obvious. The rational response to this realization would be to work with the international community craft new rules that impose limits on the use of military might in accordance with the spirit of existing international law but without the outmoded language.
Our response instead has been to do whatever is easiest, and create a post hoc justification for it based on tenuous interpretations of existing law. It's a disgrace, and as Americans we were taught to expect better than this.
It should absolutely be legal to take out a man who has betrayed his country to a transnational death cult, and with apparent lethal result, who is holed up someplace inaccessible to any agency able to capture him.
But under current law, it doesn't appear to be. We have only our own laziness to blame for this.
What would I have done instead? I'd have worked to establish a judicial process for targeted overseas killings that isn't just a bunch of lawyers putting their heads together to try and find a way to call something legal. I'm going to favor a drone strike over boots on the ground any day, and I'm going to favor a drone strike over an insurgent attack that kills civilians any day. But if people are going to be killed in my name as an American, I want an assurance that they're the right people. This isn't merely a moral concern. Whenever we misfire, whenever we shoot into a crowd, whenever we target the wrong person, we are potentially creating new enemies who see the killing of their loved ones not as collateral damage but as murder. The ethics and the cost-benefit analysis are grey under the best of circumstances. To say that this is distressing is an understatement. But it ought to be distressing, or else we find ourselves as we do today where the ethical implications of covert action are the result of anything but the best of circumstances.
This isn't about whether or not it was right to kill that one man. It's about how the justifications used for the killing can be abused in the future. Even if one trusted the Obama administration fully to discharge this newfound (and as of yet unchallenged) power, it's still unconscionable to let it stand when it could one day fall into the hands of, oh, I don't know... a presidential candidate who has all but called for the lynching of Ben Bernanke
As we watch the American Spring begin to take root, we should keep in mind that Wall Street isn't the only place in the world operating with a massive moral hazard. Unaccountable power is a cancer on our society no matter who wields it.
8.28.2011
The Mad Dog of the Near-East Falls
I wrote, then deleted, a triumphalist piece about Libya, which now that I think about it I never went on the record about in the first place.
Because, you know, everyone just needs to hear what I, of the chattering underclass, have to say about it.
I'm going to make a confession here. In my heart of hearts, I'm an interventionist.
When people are out of work, I want my tax dollars to put them back to work. When they don't have health insurance, I want to give it to them. And when they're suffering under the yoke of a cruel and repressive dictator, I want to free them, whether they live overseas or in Michigan. Or at least, such is my aspiration. Some undertakings, however noble the intent, can be ignoble in any conceivable attempt at their execution. As such, I was against the war in Iraq, glad the United States didn't intervene in Egypt, and sadly cognizant of the fact that if any moment existed where a nation-building mission in Afghanistan could have worked, it ended when we became occupiers rather than liberators.
In Libya I was for intervention the moment it became clear that Moummar Ghatafi was going to slaughter all who opposed him otherwise. There is, as I see it, a moral imperative to act when one has a good-faith basis for believing that one can favorably influence the outcome. Going in with allies, not Americanizing the conflict, and waiting for a UN mandate for action were all evidence that this action would be the closest thing to a responsible use of military power in recent memory.
Which is why I was more than a little pissed to hear so many people on the left--some of whom I respect a great deal-- declare American participation in this conflict to be proof that Obama is no different from George W.Bush. And moreover, that those supporting action in Libya who opposed it in Iraq were fascinated solelt by the politics of personality. I'm reminded of a Yakov Smirnov joke: "In America, people are free to go to Washington and tell comrade citizens president of the USA is idiot. In Russia, people are free to go to Red Square in Moscow and tell comrade citizens president of USA is also idiot. Russia is just like America!"
I'm used to intellectually dishonest bullshit coming from the likes of Eric Cantor, Michelle Bachmann or Max Baucus. Getting yourself elected to Congress diminishes one's ability to speak frankly. But to see the left-wing narrative that this President is insufficiently progressive (however true it may be in the general case) overwhelm honest reporting of the facts is infuriating. This wasn't another unwinnable war. It wasn't an enormous waste of resources. It wasn't the United States terrorizing the Middle East with its military might.
It was, of course, "hostilities," and while I agree that the Administration did something genuinely dishonest and unfortunate in skirting the War Powers Act without raising any of the very real questions as to its Constitutionality, I have a hard time believing that the people who wanted him to break the law in order to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling are seriously bothered by this. What, from a legal perspective, is the difference between saying that you're not following a law because it isn't Constitutional and saying that it doesn't apply? Anyone looking to challenge the decision would have to go through the same legal channels and the arguments would take the same shape.
I find it enormously regrettable, but it seems to me that Obama's motives are clear. He didn't want to deal with the whims of a Congress whose sole purpose for the past year has been to oppose him at every turn, regardless of the implications . He also didn't want to provoke a Constitutional crisis, which could well have ended in the evaporation of the War Powers Act. As it stands, he's merely weakened it by precedent, and not irreparably. Under his admittedly ludicrous interpretation, a President still wouldn't have the unilateral power to put boots on the ground, or to take military action without the support of the international community. And even that precedent may not hold.
It was, without a doubt, a weak move. It's not something I would have ever done if I was in charge. But I'm not certain that it wasn't for the best.
In any case, reasonable minds can disagree about the War Powers Act and the President's handling of it. As it stands, a dictator has fallen and there are no American flags burning in the streets of Tripoli. Those incapable of seeing the significance of that fact-- and the fact that the only NATO casualty of the struggle was a robotic helicopter-- ought to be looked at with skepticism when they comment on other political and geopolitical matters.
As for the ones spouting that BS from an elected office? I want to know if they've been lobbied by the Ghatafi regime.
I will say that I'm not impressed with a lot of the news coverage on the war. The press is dropping clear hints at the true nature of the rebel soldiers without connecting the dots. The rebels' premature victory celebrations that take place as soon as the loyalists and mercenaries are driven into retreat were described as being reminiscent of Bedouin tribal warfare. That this would suggest a brand of soldier prone do things more atrocious than fire their guns into the air inches away from their comrades' heads does not enter discussion, despite the near-certainty of severe abuses perpetrated by these undisciplined revolutionaries Possibly worse ones than have been reported. It's true that there would likely have been greater and worse under an unchecked Ghatafi reprisal, but if we're going to applaud the result of the conflict, we ought to be aware of the unintended consequences.
The events in Libya may yet have a profound positive impact on the Arab Spring, and how the nascent democracies arising from it view the United States. As such, I have been following them with cautious optimism. One can't help but be happy to see a scene like this:
Because, you know, everyone just needs to hear what I, of the chattering underclass, have to say about it.
I'm going to make a confession here. In my heart of hearts, I'm an interventionist.
When people are out of work, I want my tax dollars to put them back to work. When they don't have health insurance, I want to give it to them. And when they're suffering under the yoke of a cruel and repressive dictator, I want to free them, whether they live overseas or in Michigan. Or at least, such is my aspiration. Some undertakings, however noble the intent, can be ignoble in any conceivable attempt at their execution. As such, I was against the war in Iraq, glad the United States didn't intervene in Egypt, and sadly cognizant of the fact that if any moment existed where a nation-building mission in Afghanistan could have worked, it ended when we became occupiers rather than liberators.
In Libya I was for intervention the moment it became clear that Moummar Ghatafi was going to slaughter all who opposed him otherwise. There is, as I see it, a moral imperative to act when one has a good-faith basis for believing that one can favorably influence the outcome. Going in with allies, not Americanizing the conflict, and waiting for a UN mandate for action were all evidence that this action would be the closest thing to a responsible use of military power in recent memory.
Which is why I was more than a little pissed to hear so many people on the left--some of whom I respect a great deal-- declare American participation in this conflict to be proof that Obama is no different from George W.Bush. And moreover, that those supporting action in Libya who opposed it in Iraq were fascinated solelt by the politics of personality. I'm reminded of a Yakov Smirnov joke: "In America, people are free to go to Washington and tell comrade citizens president of the USA is idiot. In Russia, people are free to go to Red Square in Moscow and tell comrade citizens president of USA is also idiot. Russia is just like America!"
I'm used to intellectually dishonest bullshit coming from the likes of Eric Cantor, Michelle Bachmann or Max Baucus. Getting yourself elected to Congress diminishes one's ability to speak frankly. But to see the left-wing narrative that this President is insufficiently progressive (however true it may be in the general case) overwhelm honest reporting of the facts is infuriating. This wasn't another unwinnable war. It wasn't an enormous waste of resources. It wasn't the United States terrorizing the Middle East with its military might.
It was, of course, "hostilities," and while I agree that the Administration did something genuinely dishonest and unfortunate in skirting the War Powers Act without raising any of the very real questions as to its Constitutionality, I have a hard time believing that the people who wanted him to break the law in order to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling are seriously bothered by this. What, from a legal perspective, is the difference between saying that you're not following a law because it isn't Constitutional and saying that it doesn't apply? Anyone looking to challenge the decision would have to go through the same legal channels and the arguments would take the same shape.
I find it enormously regrettable, but it seems to me that Obama's motives are clear. He didn't want to deal with the whims of a Congress whose sole purpose for the past year has been to oppose him at every turn, regardless of the implications . He also didn't want to provoke a Constitutional crisis, which could well have ended in the evaporation of the War Powers Act. As it stands, he's merely weakened it by precedent, and not irreparably. Under his admittedly ludicrous interpretation, a President still wouldn't have the unilateral power to put boots on the ground, or to take military action without the support of the international community. And even that precedent may not hold.
It was, without a doubt, a weak move. It's not something I would have ever done if I was in charge. But I'm not certain that it wasn't for the best.
In any case, reasonable minds can disagree about the War Powers Act and the President's handling of it. As it stands, a dictator has fallen and there are no American flags burning in the streets of Tripoli. Those incapable of seeing the significance of that fact-- and the fact that the only NATO casualty of the struggle was a robotic helicopter-- ought to be looked at with skepticism when they comment on other political and geopolitical matters.
As for the ones spouting that BS from an elected office? I want to know if they've been lobbied by the Ghatafi regime.
I will say that I'm not impressed with a lot of the news coverage on the war. The press is dropping clear hints at the true nature of the rebel soldiers without connecting the dots. The rebels' premature victory celebrations that take place as soon as the loyalists and mercenaries are driven into retreat were described as being reminiscent of Bedouin tribal warfare. That this would suggest a brand of soldier prone do things more atrocious than fire their guns into the air inches away from their comrades' heads does not enter discussion, despite the near-certainty of severe abuses perpetrated by these undisciplined revolutionaries Possibly worse ones than have been reported. It's true that there would likely have been greater and worse under an unchecked Ghatafi reprisal, but if we're going to applaud the result of the conflict, we ought to be aware of the unintended consequences.
The events in Libya may yet have a profound positive impact on the Arab Spring, and how the nascent democracies arising from it view the United States. As such, I have been following them with cautious optimism. One can't help but be happy to see a scene like this:
Here's hoping that the most is made of this great opportunity.
8.02.2011
I, for one, was rooting for the $4 trillion coin
The Rev. Al Sharpton may have said back in the day that he won't criticize Obama (which ought to disqualify him from his newfound role at MSNBC as much as I love the man), but he was absolutely right about one thing the other night: the blind cowardice in the Democratic caucuses after passing the ACA made this debt ceiling defeat-- or one like it-- inevitable. However you feel about how the President dealt with the first threat of a government shutdown in this Congress, it came because Congressional Democrats were too scared for their seats to pass a budget. In so dodging, they not only forced a showdown over a continuing resolution, but they also lost the ability to use budget reconciliation for FY 2011, which would have made passing wprogressive deficit reduction measures a walk in the park. Raise top rates? Alright! Get rid of corporate tax loopholes? Sure! Stop subsidizing big oil and big corn? Why not? Carbon tax? OK! Plus, any method of economic stimulus that can pass the Byrd test can come along for the ride.
Instead, they went so far as to hand the decision as to whether to take the vote before the 2010 elections to extend only the middle class tax cuts to Senators facing re-election. And when they finally caved and voted to extend them all, nobody (including the President) thought to get a debt ceiling increase along with it. Even though the TPers were telegraphing their punches on pushing that envelope.
As a Spartan might have said, may they live forever.
What I find positively amazing is that while President Obama has taken quite a bit of flak for his capitulations, there is little mention that the untenable positions he's found himself in have been handed to him directly from blue dogs who didn't do their jobs as legislators and the People who voted in candidates eager to use the debt ceiling as a cudgel.
Unfortunately, Beltway media narratives cannot accommodate such truths. Indeed today, the same hacks who chided Austan Goolsbie for decrying the insanity of not raising the debt ceiling (saying that it was irresponsible to speak as if not raising it were something that could plausibly happen) are now saying that Obama didn't properly communicate the risk of default early on. One thing is for certain. The DC press will run ''dog bites man'' on page one before they admit that sometimes its the so-called moderates who fuck it up for everyone.
None of this is to say that Obama has been playing his hand especially well. He should have declared that if he didn't get guaranteed revenues, he'd take one of extraordinary measures afforded him by the powers of the executive branch to raise the debt ceiling himself. But it's not like the reasons his advisors gave him for eschewing those options were invalid. Any action the administration took unilaterally would have spooked the hands holding the levers of our economy. This is especially evident given the markets' response to the evidence of government dysfunction shown in the leadup to this shitty deal. Who knows? Maybe it would have been worse.
What's clear is that as the remnants of the Blue Dog caucus wither away, we're stuck with the consequences of their failures of conscience and intestinal fortitude. I wonder what Evan Bayh would say. Maybe it would be the same as another imposter in the guise of a public servant once said on an episode of the Simpsons:
"The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again."
Instead, they went so far as to hand the decision as to whether to take the vote before the 2010 elections to extend only the middle class tax cuts to Senators facing re-election. And when they finally caved and voted to extend them all, nobody (including the President) thought to get a debt ceiling increase along with it. Even though the TPers were telegraphing their punches on pushing that envelope.
As a Spartan might have said, may they live forever.
What I find positively amazing is that while President Obama has taken quite a bit of flak for his capitulations, there is little mention that the untenable positions he's found himself in have been handed to him directly from blue dogs who didn't do their jobs as legislators and the People who voted in candidates eager to use the debt ceiling as a cudgel.
Unfortunately, Beltway media narratives cannot accommodate such truths. Indeed today, the same hacks who chided Austan Goolsbie for decrying the insanity of not raising the debt ceiling (saying that it was irresponsible to speak as if not raising it were something that could plausibly happen) are now saying that Obama didn't properly communicate the risk of default early on. One thing is for certain. The DC press will run ''dog bites man'' on page one before they admit that sometimes its the so-called moderates who fuck it up for everyone.
None of this is to say that Obama has been playing his hand especially well. He should have declared that if he didn't get guaranteed revenues, he'd take one of extraordinary measures afforded him by the powers of the executive branch to raise the debt ceiling himself. But it's not like the reasons his advisors gave him for eschewing those options were invalid. Any action the administration took unilaterally would have spooked the hands holding the levers of our economy. This is especially evident given the markets' response to the evidence of government dysfunction shown in the leadup to this shitty deal. Who knows? Maybe it would have been worse.
What's clear is that as the remnants of the Blue Dog caucus wither away, we're stuck with the consequences of their failures of conscience and intestinal fortitude. I wonder what Evan Bayh would say. Maybe it would be the same as another imposter in the guise of a public servant once said on an episode of the Simpsons:
"The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again."
7.18.2011
Fuck You, the Economist
The fact that world news from other countries tends to be better than what we get over here may sometimes lead one to expect that when a foreign publication comments on America, that they'd understand us better than we do them.
The Economist has seen fit to remind me that I ought to jettison that expectation just as soon as I can manage.
You can tell right away that the author(s)' concepts of political science are stuck in the UK. Despite clearly stating that the crisis is entirely a political one, they continue on to state that the House GOP was acting reasonably within its electoral mandate from 2010 in being the first American majority caucus in history to refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
What, pray tell, is this mandate? According to The Economist, it's "to hold the government of Barack Obama to account."
Yeah, we get it. They have Parliament where you live and you don't know how a proper democracy works. Here's a hint-- politicians are supposed to be elected to do the will of the People, not to play Thunderdome with other politicians. We don't have a paradigm where there's a coalition whose job is, officially, to oppose the majority. It has to do with the fact that our system of representative government was designed on purpose, not retro-fitted to a constitutional monarchy. And while we've made plenty of our own mistakes, a lot of what we got right are things that we recognized were horribly wrong with the British system, one of which being the fractious nature of the British Parliament.
Nowadays, the phrase "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" gets floated as a justification for the GOP's chauvinistic obstructionism by American pundits who are too piss-scared of being seen as a part of the Liberal Media to speak honestly about the Republican Party. It's bullshit. That's not how the system was built to work; there are far too many mechanisms built in that grind everything to a halt. Operating our government like it's a Parliamentary system has been nothing short of disastrous for the American People, and the Economist's failure to grasp that basic fact ought to disqualify any commentary it offers on American politics.
When we send politicians to Washington, it's to do the job that the prior incumbents aren't doing well enough. And in 2010, that was create jobs. Which the polls confirm. The electorate is concerned overwhelmingly with jobs and the economy.
You'll notice that "just fuck with Obama a lot" isn't on that list.
The Economist is claiming, essentially, that a populace whose top 6 priories were (in descending order) The Economy, Jobs, Terrorism, Social Security, Education, Medicare, issued a mandate to Republicans to betray five of them in the service of their sixth priority, deficit reduction, while leaving tax cuts--which only 42% rated as a top priority-- alone
It's pretty easy math, The Economist. Isn't math supposed to be a feature of your discipline?
The math gets easier when you consider that those medicare cuts were originally part of a budget plan that also slashed taxes, and only would have significantly reduced the deficit if you assume quite a lot of nonsense. The Ryan plan was quite clearly not about the budget. In order to support the thesis that government is bad, evidence to the contrary must disposed of. It's only natural to target the nation's most popular government program.
The thing is, all of this has been available to anyone with a cheapass computer and the ability to find a WiFi hotspot somewhere. Does part of getting an Economics degree necessitate having the part of your brain capable of parsing this shit get cut out? Did Paul Krugman just not show up that day?
Was it a burning need to break out the "pox on both your houses" that persuaded the Economist to chide Obama for not finding a way out of the deficit crisis in the same breath that it had proclaimed said crisis to be a politically manufactured one?
I didn't even have to get into the utter lack of precedent for the debt ceiling vote being tied to ten-year budget outlooks to demonstrate just how clueless these wankers are.
And yeah, plenty of American outlets have been this fucking idiotic or worse in their coverage of the debt ceiling talks too, and none of them have resulted in me taking to the blogs.. But if the Economist is going to look down over the rims of its glasses at America without actually understanding what's going on, they've opened themselves up to ridicule.
The Economist has seen fit to remind me that I ought to jettison that expectation just as soon as I can manage.
You can tell right away that the author(s)' concepts of political science are stuck in the UK. Despite clearly stating that the crisis is entirely a political one, they continue on to state that the House GOP was acting reasonably within its electoral mandate from 2010 in being the first American majority caucus in history to refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
What, pray tell, is this mandate? According to The Economist, it's "to hold the government of Barack Obama to account."
Yeah, we get it. They have Parliament where you live and you don't know how a proper democracy works. Here's a hint-- politicians are supposed to be elected to do the will of the People, not to play Thunderdome with other politicians. We don't have a paradigm where there's a coalition whose job is, officially, to oppose the majority. It has to do with the fact that our system of representative government was designed on purpose, not retro-fitted to a constitutional monarchy. And while we've made plenty of our own mistakes, a lot of what we got right are things that we recognized were horribly wrong with the British system, one of which being the fractious nature of the British Parliament.
Nowadays, the phrase "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" gets floated as a justification for the GOP's chauvinistic obstructionism by American pundits who are too piss-scared of being seen as a part of the Liberal Media to speak honestly about the Republican Party. It's bullshit. That's not how the system was built to work; there are far too many mechanisms built in that grind everything to a halt. Operating our government like it's a Parliamentary system has been nothing short of disastrous for the American People, and the Economist's failure to grasp that basic fact ought to disqualify any commentary it offers on American politics.
When we send politicians to Washington, it's to do the job that the prior incumbents aren't doing well enough. And in 2010, that was create jobs. Which the polls confirm. The electorate is concerned overwhelmingly with jobs and the economy.
You'll notice that "just fuck with Obama a lot" isn't on that list.
The Economist is claiming, essentially, that a populace whose top 6 priories were (in descending order) The Economy, Jobs, Terrorism, Social Security, Education, Medicare, issued a mandate to Republicans to betray five of them in the service of their sixth priority, deficit reduction, while leaving tax cuts--which only 42% rated as a top priority-- alone
It's pretty easy math, The Economist. Isn't math supposed to be a feature of your discipline?
The math gets easier when you consider that those medicare cuts were originally part of a budget plan that also slashed taxes, and only would have significantly reduced the deficit if you assume quite a lot of nonsense. The Ryan plan was quite clearly not about the budget. In order to support the thesis that government is bad, evidence to the contrary must disposed of. It's only natural to target the nation's most popular government program.
The thing is, all of this has been available to anyone with a cheapass computer and the ability to find a WiFi hotspot somewhere. Does part of getting an Economics degree necessitate having the part of your brain capable of parsing this shit get cut out? Did Paul Krugman just not show up that day?
Was it a burning need to break out the "pox on both your houses" that persuaded the Economist to chide Obama for not finding a way out of the deficit crisis in the same breath that it had proclaimed said crisis to be a politically manufactured one?
I didn't even have to get into the utter lack of precedent for the debt ceiling vote being tied to ten-year budget outlooks to demonstrate just how clueless these wankers are.
And yeah, plenty of American outlets have been this fucking idiotic or worse in their coverage of the debt ceiling talks too, and none of them have resulted in me taking to the blogs.. But if the Economist is going to look down over the rims of its glasses at America without actually understanding what's going on, they've opened themselves up to ridicule.
5.26.2011
Is this thing on?
Apologies for my (unfortunately characteristic) absence. This time it's because I got an almost-full-time job for a company that forbids me from identifying myself as their employee online. They're apparently very sensitive about who knows who touches their flowers.
I've been out of my parents' house for about three months now, which has done wonders for my sanity. Not doing wonders for my sanity is the fact that John Ensign may never go to jail.
If you only give a shit about one political sex scandal this year, please make it this one.
Usually what makes these stories relevant to the political discussion is the extent to which the politician in question gained their status by pimping their morals. Hence the entirely justified disgust at the revelation that at the same time that Arnold Schwarzenegger was decrying the scourge of single-parent minority households, he may have already helped to create one.
But seriously, I don't care. The possibility that the Governator's misadventures may suck up what ink may have otherwise been alloted to Ensign's rankles me. Because Ensign is more than your garden-variety Republican hypocrite. He was a made man. Groomed for a future run at the Presidency by a theocratic fundamentalist cult known as The Family that has its hands up more Washington asses than a cross between Vishnu and Jack Abramoff. So in his capacity as a deacon and a gynecologist (or at least, claiming those capacities in order to claim privileged information), Senator Tom Coburn recommended a 1.2 million dollar payout to the Hampton family (wound up being less), and an illegal lobbying gig for the cuckolded husband.
That's what we already knew. What has become clear since the report by the Senate Ethics Committee is that Ensign tricked his parents into committing perjury on his behalf. It has also become clear that at least at first, his advances toward Cindy Hampton were unwanted. Ensign continued them anyway, pressing his leverage over her as her boss and as the man footing the bill for her kids' pricey education.
And this is where it's hard for me to continue, because when I describe this behavior I'm not quite sure whether I should be referring to it as sexual harassment or as rape.
We haven't come to expect a whole lot out of our politicians lately, and frankly we've come to expect far less from those with an R in front of their name. But this shit is beyond the pale. And there's an explanation for it. From Jeff Sharlet's reporting on the support system in place for John Ensign at the Family's C Street house:
It was David Coe who rang Ensign's cell phone at the hotel room where he and Cindy were meeting for what would be the last time and said "I know what you're doing. Put your pants on and go home."
He wasn't calling because Ensign's pursuit of Cindy Hampton was an abuse of his power, both as her boss and as someone upon whom her family depended on for a great deal. He wasn't calling because it was high-octane hypocrisy. He was calling because as the future head of the elite fundamentalist movement and all its sinister clout, he really wanted his John Ensign project to yeild a "god-controlled" presidency.
The Family protects far worse men (and they're all men) than John Ensign on the global stage--indeed the anti-gay legislation written by their Ugandan protege David Bahati may any day now put the death penalty on the books for "aggravated homosexuality"-- but he's the high water mark for this side of the Atlantic, at least since the Nixon era.
Whether or not rape is an accurate descriptor for John Ensign's actions couldn't have mattered for his groomers. Their former pet "new chosen," Siad Barre used it as an interrogation tactic when he ruled Somalia. In all cases, their status as important people; "key men" in the struggle against socialists like Castro or FDR or Obama, exempts them from normal morality.
I've been involved in a lot of arguments on the Internet where the phrase "rape culture" has been invoked and I've at times been critical of the circumstances in which it's applied, but Jesus fucking Christ the fact that neither John Ensign nor his co-conspirator Tom Coburn are currently facing indictment for their actions is prima facie evidence of the persistence of rape culture.
As is the paternal bullshit of the Toronto cop who declared, before a group of law students, that if one wanted to avoid being raped, the best thing to do is not to dress like a slut.
Thus began the Slutwalks. First in Toronto, and in several cities since, including, on May 7, Boston. Thousands turned out dressed, well, however the fuck they felt like dressing.
Many carried signs that said things like "Sluts Say Yes," and "My Thong is Not an Invitation." There were a few unfortunate assholes dressed as pimps who told reporters that were there looking to get numbers, who mistook my glaring at them as wondering if they were hollering at me, and conveyed, crudely, that they were not.
Like they were ever going to get any of this even if they begged.
It was a rowdy, sexy, meaningful good time that ended in Boston Common (or at least the one in Boston did) with speeches. Here's the one that stuck out for me
It's a sickness that crosses ideological lines. Whether or not the facts will show him to be guilty of rape, the angry reaction by many on the Left to the mere suggestion that something might be wrong with Julian Assange was appalling, as was Assange's dismissal of the accusations as being "just about a broken condom." Say even that in a comment on the Huffington Post and you're bound to get smeared. What, pray tell, makes Assange so credible that people will believe that the Swedish government collaborating with the CIA to take him down was a more likely proposition than the accusations leveled against him being true?
Privilege.
Who knows if the Senate holds anyone with a secret quite so felonious as John Ensign's. Being a United States Senator confers upon one a sense of privilege that's hard to properly describe. When you have the power to single-handedly cripple an economy by placing a hold on unemployment extensions over a beef regarding earmarks going to your state, you have the power to get away with a whole lot of shit. The Senate Ethics Committee is a small deterrent, but at least it represents a potential downside to foul play-- Indeed, without their investigation, Ensign would likely have wound up going unpunished, as the deceptions the Committee uncovered had previously fooled both the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission. But if Tom Coburn goes unpunished, and if the new information made public by the Ethics Committee doesn't result in an indictment of John Ensign and possibly Senator Coburn, then there will be that much less to persuade a future John Ensign not to sexually harass his employee. Or to persuade a future Tom Coburn not to help his friend cover it up.
And it's bad enough in the United States Senate as it is.
I've been out of my parents' house for about three months now, which has done wonders for my sanity. Not doing wonders for my sanity is the fact that John Ensign may never go to jail.
If you only give a shit about one political sex scandal this year, please make it this one.
Usually what makes these stories relevant to the political discussion is the extent to which the politician in question gained their status by pimping their morals. Hence the entirely justified disgust at the revelation that at the same time that Arnold Schwarzenegger was decrying the scourge of single-parent minority households, he may have already helped to create one.
But seriously, I don't care. The possibility that the Governator's misadventures may suck up what ink may have otherwise been alloted to Ensign's rankles me. Because Ensign is more than your garden-variety Republican hypocrite. He was a made man. Groomed for a future run at the Presidency by a theocratic fundamentalist cult known as The Family that has its hands up more Washington asses than a cross between Vishnu and Jack Abramoff. So in his capacity as a deacon and a gynecologist (or at least, claiming those capacities in order to claim privileged information), Senator Tom Coburn recommended a 1.2 million dollar payout to the Hampton family (wound up being less), and an illegal lobbying gig for the cuckolded husband.
That's what we already knew. What has become clear since the report by the Senate Ethics Committee is that Ensign tricked his parents into committing perjury on his behalf. It has also become clear that at least at first, his advances toward Cindy Hampton were unwanted. Ensign continued them anyway, pressing his leverage over her as her boss and as the man footing the bill for her kids' pricey education.
And this is where it's hard for me to continue, because when I describe this behavior I'm not quite sure whether I should be referring to it as sexual harassment or as rape.
We haven't come to expect a whole lot out of our politicians lately, and frankly we've come to expect far less from those with an R in front of their name. But this shit is beyond the pale. And there's an explanation for it. From Jeff Sharlet's reporting on the support system in place for John Ensign at the Family's C Street house:
David Coe, Doug Coe's son and heir apparent, calls himself simply a friend to men such as John Ensign, whom he guided through the coverup of his affair. I met the younger Coe when I lived for several weeks as a member of the Family. He's a surprising source of counsel, spiritual or otherwise. Attempting to explain what it means to be chosen for leadership like King David was -- or Mark Sanford, according to his own estimate -- he asked a young man who'd put himself, body and soul, under the Family's authority, "Let's say I hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?" The man guessed that Coe would probably think that he was a monster. "No," answered Coe, "I wouldn't." Why? Because, as a member of the Family, he's among what Family leaders refer to as the "new chosen." If you're chosen, the normal rules don't apply.
It was David Coe who rang Ensign's cell phone at the hotel room where he and Cindy were meeting for what would be the last time and said "I know what you're doing. Put your pants on and go home."
He wasn't calling because Ensign's pursuit of Cindy Hampton was an abuse of his power, both as her boss and as someone upon whom her family depended on for a great deal. He wasn't calling because it was high-octane hypocrisy. He was calling because as the future head of the elite fundamentalist movement and all its sinister clout, he really wanted his John Ensign project to yeild a "god-controlled" presidency.
The Family protects far worse men (and they're all men) than John Ensign on the global stage--indeed the anti-gay legislation written by their Ugandan protege David Bahati may any day now put the death penalty on the books for "aggravated homosexuality"-- but he's the high water mark for this side of the Atlantic, at least since the Nixon era.
Whether or not rape is an accurate descriptor for John Ensign's actions couldn't have mattered for his groomers. Their former pet "new chosen," Siad Barre used it as an interrogation tactic when he ruled Somalia. In all cases, their status as important people; "key men" in the struggle against socialists like Castro or FDR or Obama, exempts them from normal morality.
I've been involved in a lot of arguments on the Internet where the phrase "rape culture" has been invoked and I've at times been critical of the circumstances in which it's applied, but Jesus fucking Christ the fact that neither John Ensign nor his co-conspirator Tom Coburn are currently facing indictment for their actions is prima facie evidence of the persistence of rape culture.
As is the paternal bullshit of the Toronto cop who declared, before a group of law students, that if one wanted to avoid being raped, the best thing to do is not to dress like a slut.
Thus began the Slutwalks. First in Toronto, and in several cities since, including, on May 7, Boston. Thousands turned out dressed, well, however the fuck they felt like dressing.
Many carried signs that said things like "Sluts Say Yes," and "My Thong is Not an Invitation." There were a few unfortunate assholes dressed as pimps who told reporters that were there looking to get numbers, who mistook my glaring at them as wondering if they were hollering at me, and conveyed, crudely, that they were not.
Like they were ever going to get any of this even if they begged.
 |
| Taken after the event, but this is totally what I looked like at the time. |
There’s a word for all of this. And that word is bullshit. But there’s also a phrase for it: social license to operate. What that means is this: we know that a huge majority of rapes are perpetrated by a small minority of guys who do it again and again. You know why they’re able to rape an average of 6 times each? Because they have social license to operate. In other words: because we let them. Because as a society, we say “oh well, what did she expect would happen if she went back to his room? What did she expect would happen walking around by herself in that neighborhood? What did she expect would happen dressed like a slut?”
Jaclyn Friedman. Full transcript here
There's the key phrase. Social license to operate. John Ensign is not in jail. Tom Coburn is still in the Senate, and may have been granted immunity from prosecution. Because their cabal and our society has given them social license to operate.This is the defining feature of rape culture.
It's a sickness that crosses ideological lines. Whether or not the facts will show him to be guilty of rape, the angry reaction by many on the Left to the mere suggestion that something might be wrong with Julian Assange was appalling, as was Assange's dismissal of the accusations as being "just about a broken condom." Say even that in a comment on the Huffington Post and you're bound to get smeared. What, pray tell, makes Assange so credible that people will believe that the Swedish government collaborating with the CIA to take him down was a more likely proposition than the accusations leveled against him being true?
Privilege.
Who knows if the Senate holds anyone with a secret quite so felonious as John Ensign's. Being a United States Senator confers upon one a sense of privilege that's hard to properly describe. When you have the power to single-handedly cripple an economy by placing a hold on unemployment extensions over a beef regarding earmarks going to your state, you have the power to get away with a whole lot of shit. The Senate Ethics Committee is a small deterrent, but at least it represents a potential downside to foul play-- Indeed, without their investigation, Ensign would likely have wound up going unpunished, as the deceptions the Committee uncovered had previously fooled both the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission. But if Tom Coburn goes unpunished, and if the new information made public by the Ethics Committee doesn't result in an indictment of John Ensign and possibly Senator Coburn, then there will be that much less to persuade a future John Ensign not to sexually harass his employee. Or to persuade a future Tom Coburn not to help his friend cover it up.
And it's bad enough in the United States Senate as it is.
1.28.2011
Practical Magic
Found a pretty neat blog called Paleofuture. It's a fairly extensive log of past predictions of the future. Including what the Thomas Edison Park thought the world would look like in 2011. My favorite prediction is that we'd be able to carry entire libraries in our pockets-- printed on wafer-thin leafs of nickel. As is true of his entire professional life, these predictions are brilliant forward thinking with some key flaws. The man who failed to predict that the phonograph would be used to listen to music (and despite the contemporaneous popularity of the player piano) was, in fact, mortal. And yet, what he created (or took credit for creating) was so new and wonderous that nonetheless he was dubbed the Wizard of Menlo Park; a Merlin of his own time.
I've been reading through Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, and it's had me thinking about what the word "magic" means in the real world. In the series, economics is referred to as "the reflected sound of underground spirits," and much of practical witchcraft relies on herbalism and what is known as "Headology," or the practical effects that a known practitioner of magic can acheive without uttering a spell when amongst non-magic users. Witches and wizards do, in fact, posess "real" magic, but that's because the Discworld is a world where magic is a real, physical force. But the word "magic" is still idiomatically used to describe, well, the sort of things that involve the same kind of deception as a conjurer's act, or the same kind of dexterity and creativity that Harry Houdini became famous for. It differs from superstition only in that it actually works.
Arther C Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and I think it extends further than that. In earlier times the shaman would take you in to their yoda-style living spaces and serve you a strange tea that would send you into a different state of consciousness and it was magic. Today the active chemicals are crystalized and used for the same effect and it's called pharmacology.
The difference? Science is an open process. Magic is cloaked in mystery, whether by coercion or lack of deeper understanding. It consists of disguised invention as well as manipulation of forces that one cannot adequately explain. The economically measurable impact of an extension of unemployment benefits is science. The known predictive nature of an original NFL team winning the Super Bowl is magic. The known impact of antibiotics on a bacterial infection is science. The known impact of antibiotics on a viral infection is magic (As is the similar effect of a sugar pill, but in the case of antibiotics, the consequences of antibiotic overuse make it dark magic).
The fields of economics, diplomacy, medicine, psychology, political science, artwork, music, drama, comedy and sex, among others, are mixed practices.
Home field advantage was magic until it was discovered that while its measurable impact didn't vary based on era or distance of travel or method of travel, it did vary based on the distance of the crowd from the officials. Another clue dropped when the Seattle Seahawks-- whose fans were outnumbered to the tune of an away game in Super Bowl XL-- got fucked over by the refs. As it turns out, while the impact of the crowd on the players may anecdotally be a psychological boost for the home team, it's far more evident that the officials are more likely to swallow their whistles when the home team is doing its thing. They don't want to be seen as deciding the outcome, and by their inaction, they influence the outcome.
It's also important to note the significance of the word "witchcraft," as the meaning of the word has a similar twang. When you examine the context of its usage in history, from the Dark Ages to Salem to Pat Robertson declaring feminism to be "a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians," to the signs featuring President Obama as a witch doctor. the meaning that emerges is "women with ideas above their station." Merlin was the picture of wisdom in the Arthurian legends, but a woman who practiced the same arts as he (and indeed, as those of that era who were styled as "wizards" historically) did was assumed to be up to no good. Come the age of Christianity, it all was verboten by an authority that wanted a monopoly on spiritual healing.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit in the past couple of days, because despite the fact we're at 9.4% unemployment that a solid State of the Union address does not statistically increase the political capital of the President delivering it, and despite the fact that the party that has any ideas that can statistically increase the number of jobs in this country has less power than it did two years ago, the 91% of respondents who agreed with the President's policy proposals have me feeling bullish about the coming year.
Because among many other things, that dude is magic.
I've been reading through Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, and it's had me thinking about what the word "magic" means in the real world. In the series, economics is referred to as "the reflected sound of underground spirits," and much of practical witchcraft relies on herbalism and what is known as "Headology," or the practical effects that a known practitioner of magic can acheive without uttering a spell when amongst non-magic users. Witches and wizards do, in fact, posess "real" magic, but that's because the Discworld is a world where magic is a real, physical force. But the word "magic" is still idiomatically used to describe, well, the sort of things that involve the same kind of deception as a conjurer's act, or the same kind of dexterity and creativity that Harry Houdini became famous for. It differs from superstition only in that it actually works.
Arther C Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and I think it extends further than that. In earlier times the shaman would take you in to their yoda-style living spaces and serve you a strange tea that would send you into a different state of consciousness and it was magic. Today the active chemicals are crystalized and used for the same effect and it's called pharmacology.
The difference? Science is an open process. Magic is cloaked in mystery, whether by coercion or lack of deeper understanding. It consists of disguised invention as well as manipulation of forces that one cannot adequately explain. The economically measurable impact of an extension of unemployment benefits is science. The known predictive nature of an original NFL team winning the Super Bowl is magic. The known impact of antibiotics on a bacterial infection is science. The known impact of antibiotics on a viral infection is magic (As is the similar effect of a sugar pill, but in the case of antibiotics, the consequences of antibiotic overuse make it dark magic).
The fields of economics, diplomacy, medicine, psychology, political science, artwork, music, drama, comedy and sex, among others, are mixed practices.
Home field advantage was magic until it was discovered that while its measurable impact didn't vary based on era or distance of travel or method of travel, it did vary based on the distance of the crowd from the officials. Another clue dropped when the Seattle Seahawks-- whose fans were outnumbered to the tune of an away game in Super Bowl XL-- got fucked over by the refs. As it turns out, while the impact of the crowd on the players may anecdotally be a psychological boost for the home team, it's far more evident that the officials are more likely to swallow their whistles when the home team is doing its thing. They don't want to be seen as deciding the outcome, and by their inaction, they influence the outcome.
It's also important to note the significance of the word "witchcraft," as the meaning of the word has a similar twang. When you examine the context of its usage in history, from the Dark Ages to Salem to Pat Robertson declaring feminism to be "a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians," to the signs featuring President Obama as a witch doctor. the meaning that emerges is "women with ideas above their station." Merlin was the picture of wisdom in the Arthurian legends, but a woman who practiced the same arts as he (and indeed, as those of that era who were styled as "wizards" historically) did was assumed to be up to no good. Come the age of Christianity, it all was verboten by an authority that wanted a monopoly on spiritual healing.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit in the past couple of days, because despite the fact we're at 9.4% unemployment that a solid State of the Union address does not statistically increase the political capital of the President delivering it, and despite the fact that the party that has any ideas that can statistically increase the number of jobs in this country has less power than it did two years ago, the 91% of respondents who agreed with the President's policy proposals have me feeling bullish about the coming year.
Because among many other things, that dude is magic.
1.22.2011
Good Night and Good Luck
About midway through the evening last night I realized that it was a Fuck You Friday. This morning I thought differently about it. It was still a Fuck You Friday, but one differently intoned.
Midway into his show on Friday, Keith Olbermann was informed that that edition of Countdown would be his last. The agreement to end the show had been more or less finalized late in the week, but for when his last show would be. Clearly, MSNBC didn't want to give him time to prepare a last show. He even had to carve out Fridays with Thurber in order to say goodbye.
I know not everyone who reads this is a fan, but I'm still smarting a little bit. Keith's been on the air for eight years, which is as long as I've had this blog. I've been watching him for 5, and he helped me cope with some dark times, both in our history and for me personally. He also introduced me to Rachel Maddow, who has been a similar influence to me.
Jonathan Turley, a Georgetown professor of Constitutional Law, and himself a big thinker, had this to say:
I see Keith as sort of a Bob Dylan of anchormen. Between his reading of Thurber and his opening music is style is firmly rooted in the forties and the golden age of television. It has the familiar feeling of Edward R. Murrow and Peter Jennings, but less dry. What he does with it is unique; the first of its kind.. The Bush era created a need, and he filled it. When he threw off the veneer of objectivity with his first special comment about Rumsfield and the Bush administration's response to critics of the Iraq War it was like Dylan going to Newport with Al Kooper, the Butterfield Blues Band and a Stratocaster. Many thought it was a betrayal, but it was more honest. More appropriate for the time.
Like Dylan, he's brilliant, but occasionally goes off in a direction that doesn't quite make sense. Despite that, he kept a good number of people sane during a dark time.
In this metaphor, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O Donnell, Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Ezra Klein are sort of like The Band. Each of them was already talented, and in ways that go beyond Keith's strengths, and he gave them all a stage that raised their profile and made them shine.
MSNBC says that his departure has nothing to do with the merger with Comcast, and I think that they're being honest, but they're wrong. The corporate culture that led the people in charge to even think for a moment that it was acceptable to sell a news network to Comcast is the same one that causes friction with Keith.
There has been a lot of wild speculation on Twitter about where he should go next. What follows is an open letter to Keith Olbermann.
Keith, you've got millions, and you likely have been barred from TV for two years. Want to deliver a final Fuck You to the sell-outs at 30 Rock? It's time to break another old rule and put your money in the show.
Get some investors together (maybe team up with Howard Dean) and buy The Nation, and with Chris Hayes still acting as political director, expand it into web video. It would be stupidly inexpensive to put Countdown on the net. Three Cannon 7Ds, some lights, some servers, Cisco Telepresence, and a desk would just about do it.. That shit I described? Under forty grand plus $25 per month per Telepresence unit. In cable, you need the access to infrastructure to support 61.6 million viewers in order to service a million viewers. On the Internet, you only need the servers to be able to support a million (but you'd have enough to support 2 million).
I've been thinking about those logistics for some time and I'm utterly surprised that it hasn't happened yet. With Google TV just around the corner, the time for the Internet to take over the visiual media has come. Now is the time to push your chips to the center.
Offer contracts to Sam Seder, David Shuster, Dave Weigel, Ezra Klein, Chris Cilliza, David Wolffe and Ana Marie Cox (me too plz) and establish a fund for investigative journalism with Seymour Hirsch at the head. Maybe try and poach Rachel and Lawrence, but they'd probably stay where they are (as would, doubtlessly, a number of the people I just mentioned). Be a mogul.
If there's one thing you and Rachel have shown me, it's that it's time to get into the game. Whether or not the Comcast takeover had anything to do with you splitting with MSNBC, it serves as a reminder that the future of journalism is walking on a razor's edge. Many said that you were partly responsible, but they were wrong and it's time for you to prove it. You have the opportunity to make it a tightrope walk.
And just as an added bonus, MSNBC would have to pay your company in order to get your people on its shows. And if you made the move, the cable networks would put your face on the air, embargo or no embargo, end there'd be nothing MSNBC could do about it.
Not for nothing though, if Obama offers you the press secretary job, just forget everything I said and take it.
Midway into his show on Friday, Keith Olbermann was informed that that edition of Countdown would be his last. The agreement to end the show had been more or less finalized late in the week, but for when his last show would be. Clearly, MSNBC didn't want to give him time to prepare a last show. He even had to carve out Fridays with Thurber in order to say goodbye.
I know not everyone who reads this is a fan, but I'm still smarting a little bit. Keith's been on the air for eight years, which is as long as I've had this blog. I've been watching him for 5, and he helped me cope with some dark times, both in our history and for me personally. He also introduced me to Rachel Maddow, who has been a similar influence to me.
Jonathan Turley, a Georgetown professor of Constitutional Law, and himself a big thinker, had this to say:
I have known and worked with Keith since the 1990s and his first news show, The Big Show with Keith Olbermann. He has held a number of positions on different networks — all with equal success. The public has always connected with Keith’s wit and sometimes wacky style. He is one of the smartest individuals I have ever known. He also genuinely cared about the issues addressed on his show.
...
Those characteristics that are so central to his success with viewers often led to conflicts with his respective networks. He is the ultimate lone wolf in an industry known for its pack mentality.
There are certain classics in American culture. They include the 67 Mustang, Wrigley Field, and every John Wayne film. For many news junkies, they also include Keith Olbermann. Intense, irreverent and insightful, Keith is unique. For that reason, his fans and friends will not allow him to be gone from the airways for long.
I see Keith as sort of a Bob Dylan of anchormen. Between his reading of Thurber and his opening music is style is firmly rooted in the forties and the golden age of television. It has the familiar feeling of Edward R. Murrow and Peter Jennings, but less dry. What he does with it is unique; the first of its kind.. The Bush era created a need, and he filled it. When he threw off the veneer of objectivity with his first special comment about Rumsfield and the Bush administration's response to critics of the Iraq War it was like Dylan going to Newport with Al Kooper, the Butterfield Blues Band and a Stratocaster. Many thought it was a betrayal, but it was more honest. More appropriate for the time.
Like Dylan, he's brilliant, but occasionally goes off in a direction that doesn't quite make sense. Despite that, he kept a good number of people sane during a dark time.
In this metaphor, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O Donnell, Chris Hayes, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Ezra Klein are sort of like The Band. Each of them was already talented, and in ways that go beyond Keith's strengths, and he gave them all a stage that raised their profile and made them shine.
MSNBC says that his departure has nothing to do with the merger with Comcast, and I think that they're being honest, but they're wrong. The corporate culture that led the people in charge to even think for a moment that it was acceptable to sell a news network to Comcast is the same one that causes friction with Keith.
There has been a lot of wild speculation on Twitter about where he should go next. What follows is an open letter to Keith Olbermann.
Keith, you've got millions, and you likely have been barred from TV for two years. Want to deliver a final Fuck You to the sell-outs at 30 Rock? It's time to break another old rule and put your money in the show.
Get some investors together (maybe team up with Howard Dean) and buy The Nation, and with Chris Hayes still acting as political director, expand it into web video. It would be stupidly inexpensive to put Countdown on the net. Three Cannon 7Ds, some lights, some servers, Cisco Telepresence, and a desk would just about do it.. That shit I described? Under forty grand plus $25 per month per Telepresence unit. In cable, you need the access to infrastructure to support 61.6 million viewers in order to service a million viewers. On the Internet, you only need the servers to be able to support a million (but you'd have enough to support 2 million).
I've been thinking about those logistics for some time and I'm utterly surprised that it hasn't happened yet. With Google TV just around the corner, the time for the Internet to take over the visiual media has come. Now is the time to push your chips to the center.
Offer contracts to Sam Seder, David Shuster, Dave Weigel, Ezra Klein, Chris Cilliza, David Wolffe and Ana Marie Cox (me too plz) and establish a fund for investigative journalism with Seymour Hirsch at the head. Maybe try and poach Rachel and Lawrence, but they'd probably stay where they are (as would, doubtlessly, a number of the people I just mentioned). Be a mogul.
If there's one thing you and Rachel have shown me, it's that it's time to get into the game. Whether or not the Comcast takeover had anything to do with you splitting with MSNBC, it serves as a reminder that the future of journalism is walking on a razor's edge. Many said that you were partly responsible, but they were wrong and it's time for you to prove it. You have the opportunity to make it a tightrope walk.
And just as an added bonus, MSNBC would have to pay your company in order to get your people on its shows. And if you made the move, the cable networks would put your face on the air, embargo or no embargo, end there'd be nothing MSNBC could do about it.
Not for nothing though, if Obama offers you the press secretary job, just forget everything I said and take it.
1.21.2011
Blogging for Choice: 38 Years Later
It wasn't the end of the fight. It was the beginning. Thirty eight years later, we're somewhere in the middle.
Despite that crucial guarantee of a right to sovereignty over one's own body, notification laws, limited access, a lack of facilities, and the failure to enforce laws designed to protect the practitioners of abortion from threats and intimidation have deigned to pull those rights out from under those to whom they were guaranteed.
In many ways, the entirety of the struggle can be illustrated by the life of one doctor. George Tiller didn't set out to become an abortion provider. He graduated from Kansas School of Medicine in 1967. He went on to hold a medical internship with the US Navy, serving his country as a flight surgeon. Upon leaving the Navy, he had intended to become a dermatologist. That same year, tragedy struck his family. His sister died in a plane crash, along with his parents and his brother-in-law. He found himself responsible for both his sister's child and his father's family medical practice, which local women sometimes relied upon for abortions. He changed his mind about closing the facility when he learned of a woman who died of complications resulting from an illegal abortion.
From then on, George Tiller found himself in the cross-hairs of a dedicated, relentless, hateful movement deadset on stopping abortions by any means necessary. For those who believe that violent political rhetoric doesn't lead to violence, I need only say the name Operation Rescue. The rabid picketers, the wanted posters with his picture, the speech by Congressman Robert K Dorman on the floor of the House where he was referred to as "Tiller the Baby Killer"... I defy anyone to say with a straight face that they had nothing to do with the fact that in 1986 his clinic was firebombed. That in 1993 he was shot five times while sitting in his car. Or that last year he was shot through the eye while serving as an usher at his church.
That is the epitome what it means to stand up for a woman's right to choose. To persevere knowing that people want you dead. To contend alike with misguided protesters and those who fall directly within the realm and sphere of domestic terrorism, and never knowing for sure which are which. After the firebombing, Tiller posted a sign outside his clinic that read "hell no, we won't go." as it was being rebuilt. After he was shot the first time, he went right back to work as soon as he could. He was well aware what he was doing. He was laying his life before women in need because nobody else would do the work. In the midst of all manner of heated rhetoric surrounding the abortion debate, his message was simple.
Today, even after progressives were forced to make a sadistic choice between a woman's right to choose and a step towards universal healthcare, and managed to find a third way around it, the House of Representatives has decided to go after abortion rights.
It never ends.
It never. fucking. ends.
And so we can't stop either. Not until there isn't a single woman in America who needs to carry a pregnancy to term if she doesn't want to. Not until there isn't a single pharmacy that refuses to dispense contraception-- to anyone. Not until there isn't a single hospital that will turn away a rape victim seeking EC.
Roe v Wade, as strange as it may seem, wasn't just about women's rights. The abortion debate as a whole isn't just about women's rights, though obviously that's what's most important. Roe v Wade was the first blow struck for an idea whose time still hasn't fully come. The notion that every one of us has the right to sovereignty over our own bodies, no matter what that means. There is a bright line that can be drawn between Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas. Who knows? Maybe one day that same principle will put this senseless, regressive, destructive War on Drugs to an end once and for all. One day soon it will grant us the right to marry whomever we wish.
The moral arc of the Universe is long, and it bends towards Justice.
But we have to bend it.
1.20.2011
Assange, Liberals and the Reality-Based Community
I had this post in the can when Tuscon happened, and decided not to put it up at the time. If I'd written all of it today, the focus would be less on Julian Assange, but here we are.
Julian Assange is not a terrorist.
Let's just get that out of the way. While we're at it, he's also not somebody who we should be trying to lock up in prison as a spy, because he would love nothing better. He's not a journalist either.
Most importantly, he's not a hero.
Incidentally, nobody should be surprised by this. There may be real heroes in the world, but they are vanishingly few. And we progressives are used to being led by false ones.
There is no math that will tell you that a 2000 Presidential election without Ralph Nader would have produced a President Bush. Not only did he campaign aggressively in pivotal states, he spread the obscene lie that there was no significant difference between Bush and Gore. Four years later he has the chutzpah to claim that the significant amount of donor cash he was collecting from Republicans had nothing to do with this. Lately he's been a guttersnipe, who has unrepentantly referred to Obama as an Uncle Tom. which puts into perspective his 1996 refusal to come out against the referendum in California on ending affirmative action
This is the same man who founded PIRG, which in addition to its invaluable advocacy work employed yours truly for... part... of a summer in '04. If it weren't for Ralph Nader, I would never have been invited into the home of a mostly-dressed middle aged beatnik couple from Wilmington, MA-- who had clearly been fucking when the doorbell rang-- to discuss energy efficiency standards. It was one of the few days I exceeded my donation quota.
I'm sorry, I got lost there for a moment.
The impact of Ralph Nader's life's work is unquestionable. Imagine, for a moment, how different your life would be today if cars weren't required to have seatbelts. It's hard to even contemplate. But as was said by Harvey Dent in that crowning political work of our time, Batman, the Dark Knight: You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Some of our country's worst moments are--and mind you not without accomplices-- causally linked to the fact that so many progressives mistook 2000 Ralph Nader for a hero. We ought to know better by now.
Of course, you probably don't actually support Julian Assange's politics, because he's an anarchist. He believes that government secrecy in and of itself bespeaks an authoritarian conspiracy. Apparently this includes not wanting Russian diplomats to know that our diplomats see Vladimir Putin and Dimitri Medvedev as a kleptocratic Batman and Robin.
Assange isn't doing what he's doing so that you know what your government is up to and are informed as a voter. He's doing what he's doing so that people who work in governments no longer trust each other, and become ineffectual to the point of international diplomacy crumbling and governments falling under their own weight. He sees the world as a series of nails, and himself as the wielder of a hammer that would make John Boehner blush, if bronzefolk are capable of blushing.
Julian Assange is also, apparently, a Rorschach test. Conservatives have been waiting for some time for an intellectual they could pound their fists about and call a terrorist. Speaking of which, I'd like to take this time to thank Joe Liebermann for his invaluable support in getting DADT repeal over the goal line, and declare "good riddance" re: the entire rest of his career. He and others have pounded their fists on the table and called for, among other things, Assange's assassination. Because what we really need are more people gathering under Assange's banner.
In any case, the response from conservatives is easily predictable. The last two years in conservative commentary and politics have consisted of lies, damned lies, and a total lack of statistics. But what of the so-called "reality-based community" that we Progressives participate in? Why are so many on the left demanding that Julian Assange be thought of as something that he's not? They say he's for transparency, and if that were true, there wouldn't be an entire Wikileaks splinter group that split off precisely because he isn't. They say that the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden are trumped up, but if that were true, wouldn't he have something more to say about it than "this is all just about a broken condom," which couldn't be true, as that would imply that he was only being accused by one woman.
The extent to which Assange's defenders in the United States have dismissively parroted the phrase "sex by surprise" and the distortion about the condom without once considering that maybe-- just maybe-- his accusers are telling the truth is appalling. Instead of taking a step back when the police report was leaked, many criticized the Guardian for running it.
This break with reality doesn't stop there. Many prominent progressives lost their shit when Obama administration officials touted the bill that extended the Bush tax cuts as a second stimulus. They said that Obama had swallowed the trickle-down economics Kool-Aid, despite the fact that the compromises exacted from Republicans in the Senate have proven stimulative effects. The mantra that tax cuts don't create jobs was more important than the truth. Similarly, Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington recently decried the Obama administration's announcement of a year-long study of government regulations with an eye towards simplifying some and cutting others. They said he'd swallowed the Tea Party Kool-Aid that regulation kills jobs, and in so doing, at least Arianna seemed to imply that regulation could never kill jobs.
I was put off by it at the time, despite being a huge fan of Keith's. (Arianna Huffington has never impressed me, and I think it's telling that her first foray into politics was to call for Bill Clinton to resign over the Lewinsky scandal), but the next day, the CBS Evening News ran with this:
(Available also in HTML flavor)
Redundancy is great for computer systems, networks, and point defense, but it's rubbish for rulewriting.
Does this suggest that there's something to it every time a Republican goes to the House or Senate floor and decries the newest Democratic bill as being 'just more burdensome, job-killing regulation'? Of course not. For some time now, Republican politicians have come to town claiming to want to overhaul regulation, and then wind up only focusing on the good ones. Are we really going to get outraged because Obama might suggest that frozen cheese pizzas and frozen pepperoni pizzas be regulated by the same fucking agency? Did he not thoroughly demonstrate, in the fights for both Healthcare and Wall Street reform, that he believes that regulation done right is a good thing? Are we so pissed off that he didn't tilt at windmills over the Public Option that we take every chance to say that he's just the same as the other guys?
We have said that it's time for our political discourse to change. This is undeniable. But we'd be fools to only focus on the intensity of partisan rhetoric. I call on anyone of any political inclination about to write a column or a blog post, or appear on cable news to do their research first. If you can support your argument, declaim it with passion but with restraint. If you can't, say something else. It's time for us all to stop being salesmen and start being teachers.
Julian Assange is not a terrorist.
Let's just get that out of the way. While we're at it, he's also not somebody who we should be trying to lock up in prison as a spy, because he would love nothing better. He's not a journalist either.
Most importantly, he's not a hero.
Incidentally, nobody should be surprised by this. There may be real heroes in the world, but they are vanishingly few. And we progressives are used to being led by false ones.
There is no math that will tell you that a 2000 Presidential election without Ralph Nader would have produced a President Bush. Not only did he campaign aggressively in pivotal states, he spread the obscene lie that there was no significant difference between Bush and Gore. Four years later he has the chutzpah to claim that the significant amount of donor cash he was collecting from Republicans had nothing to do with this. Lately he's been a guttersnipe, who has unrepentantly referred to Obama as an Uncle Tom. which puts into perspective his 1996 refusal to come out against the referendum in California on ending affirmative action
This is the same man who founded PIRG, which in addition to its invaluable advocacy work employed yours truly for... part... of a summer in '04. If it weren't for Ralph Nader, I would never have been invited into the home of a mostly-dressed middle aged beatnik couple from Wilmington, MA-- who had clearly been fucking when the doorbell rang-- to discuss energy efficiency standards. It was one of the few days I exceeded my donation quota.
I'm sorry, I got lost there for a moment.
The impact of Ralph Nader's life's work is unquestionable. Imagine, for a moment, how different your life would be today if cars weren't required to have seatbelts. It's hard to even contemplate. But as was said by Harvey Dent in that crowning political work of our time, Batman, the Dark Knight: You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Of course, you probably don't actually support Julian Assange's politics, because he's an anarchist. He believes that government secrecy in and of itself bespeaks an authoritarian conspiracy. Apparently this includes not wanting Russian diplomats to know that our diplomats see Vladimir Putin and Dimitri Medvedev as a kleptocratic Batman and Robin.
Assange isn't doing what he's doing so that you know what your government is up to and are informed as a voter. He's doing what he's doing so that people who work in governments no longer trust each other, and become ineffectual to the point of international diplomacy crumbling and governments falling under their own weight. He sees the world as a series of nails, and himself as the wielder of a hammer that would make John Boehner blush, if bronzefolk are capable of blushing.
Julian Assange is also, apparently, a Rorschach test. Conservatives have been waiting for some time for an intellectual they could pound their fists about and call a terrorist. Speaking of which, I'd like to take this time to thank Joe Liebermann for his invaluable support in getting DADT repeal over the goal line, and declare "good riddance" re: the entire rest of his career. He and others have pounded their fists on the table and called for, among other things, Assange's assassination. Because what we really need are more people gathering under Assange's banner.
In any case, the response from conservatives is easily predictable. The last two years in conservative commentary and politics have consisted of lies, damned lies, and a total lack of statistics. But what of the so-called "reality-based community" that we Progressives participate in? Why are so many on the left demanding that Julian Assange be thought of as something that he's not? They say he's for transparency, and if that were true, there wouldn't be an entire Wikileaks splinter group that split off precisely because he isn't. They say that the accusations of sexual assault in Sweden are trumped up, but if that were true, wouldn't he have something more to say about it than "this is all just about a broken condom," which couldn't be true, as that would imply that he was only being accused by one woman.
The extent to which Assange's defenders in the United States have dismissively parroted the phrase "sex by surprise" and the distortion about the condom without once considering that maybe-- just maybe-- his accusers are telling the truth is appalling. Instead of taking a step back when the police report was leaked, many criticized the Guardian for running it.
This break with reality doesn't stop there. Many prominent progressives lost their shit when Obama administration officials touted the bill that extended the Bush tax cuts as a second stimulus. They said that Obama had swallowed the trickle-down economics Kool-Aid, despite the fact that the compromises exacted from Republicans in the Senate have proven stimulative effects. The mantra that tax cuts don't create jobs was more important than the truth. Similarly, Keith Olbermann and Arianna Huffington recently decried the Obama administration's announcement of a year-long study of government regulations with an eye towards simplifying some and cutting others. They said he'd swallowed the Tea Party Kool-Aid that regulation kills jobs, and in so doing, at least Arianna seemed to imply that regulation could never kill jobs.
I was put off by it at the time, despite being a huge fan of Keith's. (Arianna Huffington has never impressed me, and I think it's telling that her first foray into politics was to call for Bill Clinton to resign over the Lewinsky scandal), but the next day, the CBS Evening News ran with this:
(Available also in HTML flavor)
Redundancy is great for computer systems, networks, and point defense, but it's rubbish for rulewriting.
Does this suggest that there's something to it every time a Republican goes to the House or Senate floor and decries the newest Democratic bill as being 'just more burdensome, job-killing regulation'? Of course not. For some time now, Republican politicians have come to town claiming to want to overhaul regulation, and then wind up only focusing on the good ones. Are we really going to get outraged because Obama might suggest that frozen cheese pizzas and frozen pepperoni pizzas be regulated by the same fucking agency? Did he not thoroughly demonstrate, in the fights for both Healthcare and Wall Street reform, that he believes that regulation done right is a good thing? Are we so pissed off that he didn't tilt at windmills over the Public Option that we take every chance to say that he's just the same as the other guys?
We have said that it's time for our political discourse to change. This is undeniable. But we'd be fools to only focus on the intensity of partisan rhetoric. I call on anyone of any political inclination about to write a column or a blog post, or appear on cable news to do their research first. If you can support your argument, declaim it with passion but with restraint. If you can't, say something else. It's time for us all to stop being salesmen and start being teachers.
1.16.2011
A brief, terrifying thought
So, for this past week I've been trying to think past what could have stopped the Tuscon shooting, because we don't get another shot at that one. There's something that bothers me quite a bit.
In 2009, Senator John Thune sponsored an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would have made it legal for any person permitted to carry a concealed weapon in any state to carry one in every state. In states with less permissive gun laws, residents would have had fewer rights than out-of-state visitors from states with more permissive gun laws. And from everything I can tell, under that legislation, Jared Loughner would have been permitted to carry concealed in New York City. It failed by two votes.
Yeah, it's really kind of remarkable where the states rights conservatives stand where the chips are down.
We may be able to ban thirty-round extended magazines (not likely), but this shit isn't going away. Republicans control the House, and they picked up more than two votes in the Senate. And while you and I may be shocked by the sheer gall of the gun lobby here, what they're looking to replace is only more sensible by a hair. Massachusetts, for instance, more or less reserves CCW for people who need handguns to do their jobs and people who are receiving death threats. If CCW reciprocity between the states were based on compatibility of standards, a permit holder from Massachusetts would be able to carry a concealed weapon in most states. But because recognition is based on reciprocity agreements, in many cases, the less restrictive state's left with a choice between, for instance, Massachusetts citizens having fewer rights in Massachusetts than those visiting from other states, and Massachusetts citizens having fewer rights in other states. It's usually a no-brainer. But if someone's life is being threatened in Massachusetts, and there's an actual threat of danger, It's naive to think that the threat would disappear when they go to another state.
Here's an interactive infographic-map that explains how CCW reciprocity works. It may not be not be a particular priority of yours or mine, but whatever you think about gun control, it's against the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, which means that even the most moderate gun rights advocates aren't going to stop wanting to do something about it.
This isn't to be taken as an endorsement of expanding concealed carry... There's a fully fleshed-out policy piece that I'm working on, because I ain't got shit else to do, which will no doubt wind up here or on Blogcritics after every place I submit it ignores me. What I'm suggesting is that unless we change the law in a way we can deal with-- it may one day wind up the other way.
In 2009, Senator John Thune sponsored an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would have made it legal for any person permitted to carry a concealed weapon in any state to carry one in every state. In states with less permissive gun laws, residents would have had fewer rights than out-of-state visitors from states with more permissive gun laws. And from everything I can tell, under that legislation, Jared Loughner would have been permitted to carry concealed in New York City. It failed by two votes.
Yeah, it's really kind of remarkable where the states rights conservatives stand where the chips are down.
We may be able to ban thirty-round extended magazines (not likely), but this shit isn't going away. Republicans control the House, and they picked up more than two votes in the Senate. And while you and I may be shocked by the sheer gall of the gun lobby here, what they're looking to replace is only more sensible by a hair. Massachusetts, for instance, more or less reserves CCW for people who need handguns to do their jobs and people who are receiving death threats. If CCW reciprocity between the states were based on compatibility of standards, a permit holder from Massachusetts would be able to carry a concealed weapon in most states. But because recognition is based on reciprocity agreements, in many cases, the less restrictive state's left with a choice between, for instance, Massachusetts citizens having fewer rights in Massachusetts than those visiting from other states, and Massachusetts citizens having fewer rights in other states. It's usually a no-brainer. But if someone's life is being threatened in Massachusetts, and there's an actual threat of danger, It's naive to think that the threat would disappear when they go to another state.
Here's an interactive infographic-map that explains how CCW reciprocity works. It may not be not be a particular priority of yours or mine, but whatever you think about gun control, it's against the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, which means that even the most moderate gun rights advocates aren't going to stop wanting to do something about it.
This isn't to be taken as an endorsement of expanding concealed carry... There's a fully fleshed-out policy piece that I'm working on, because I ain't got shit else to do, which will no doubt wind up here or on Blogcritics after every place I submit it ignores me. What I'm suggesting is that unless we change the law in a way we can deal with-- it may one day wind up the other way.
12.26.2010
Because I can't seem to fit it in the narrative of the post, I hope everyone had, is having and/or will continue to have a merry and fruitful holiday season
There is a hierarchy of gifts.
The best gifts make one blush at the sheer heft of the expense(of time or money)/consideration/effort/personal significance (usually multiple items from said menu) involved. Some highlight the extent to which the giver knows you. Either they've crafted something that vibrates at a similar pitch to your soul, or they've managed to find something that you'd never thought about owning but find no end of use or enjoyment. Or maybe they've given you something that speaks to the bond shared by the two of you. In any case, even if you've taken to e-mail or the phone for your thank-yous these days, these ones will have you digging for the stationary and a nice pen.
On a slightly lower level are gifts that are evidence that the other person cares enough about you to pay attention. At some point since the last customary occasion for gift-giving, you mentioned something you needed or lusted after, and they held onto this bit of knowledge until it was time to use it. Bonus points if they went to special effort to keep tabs on whether or not you'd managed to aquire it on your own while simultaneously deflecting any anticipation you may have of what it is.
Then there are those humble tokens that are, at their best, merely neat. You didn't need them or particularly want them, but all the same it's pretty cool that you have them now.
Each of those tiers has its Platonic ideal, imperfect efforts to achieve that ideal, and backfires("You spent HOW MUCH money so that you could be one of those fuckwads who buys a luxury sedan with a bow on the top as a Christmas gift with no prior consultation with the person who's supposed to be your PARTNER?"), but generally speaking, if you've given a gift that falls into one of those three categories, you've acquitted yourself.
You might say that that's an odd turn of phrase to use to describe giving a gift, but for some people, gift-giving is a part of their job description, as is gift receiving. Witness Hillary Clinton as she sits for an interview with a couple of Australian knuckleheads.
An aside: You see that part at the very end? Where the host marvels at the fact that our Secretary of State-- our representative on a world stage littered with the bastard children of the Cold War-- even freaking exists?
That right there was a quick hit of American Exceptionalism, for those of you who may have been jonesing.
A born diplomat can, for the purposes of a discussion, stitch their corner of the world with yours without paying mind to the seam, earnestly dissuading other parties from even noticing that it's there. We should cherish this talent wherever we find it, even if it's possessed by someone about whom we've said and thought fairly mean things in the past (whether or not we would take them back if given the choice). That here the world she's entered is one where a gorilla suit is more likely than a three-piece suit is immaterial. Even when confronted with fairly odd questions, and there are some more, she responded honestly and in a way that offers unexpected insights.
Personally, I'd like to know how Secretary Clinton would receive a Lamborghini ballcap that doesn't fit and was most likely obtained freely from the sort of confab one goes to if they're the sort of person who might ever buy a Lamborghini-- and, for the purposes of this hypothetical, she isn't, and wouldn't be even if she could afford it-- which was clearly given as a means of keeping up appearances, by someone from whom you expected nothing and whose prior behavior lends one tho believe that they think that this minuscule window into the world of ostentatious motorfuckery, offered to someone who can't afford a used 4-banger, is of value in and of itself.
You know, hypothetically.
It's often been said that it's the thought that counts. It is far less often noted that this too can be damning.
The best gifts make one blush at the sheer heft of the expense(of time or money)/consideration/effort/personal significance (usually multiple items from said menu) involved. Some highlight the extent to which the giver knows you. Either they've crafted something that vibrates at a similar pitch to your soul, or they've managed to find something that you'd never thought about owning but find no end of use or enjoyment. Or maybe they've given you something that speaks to the bond shared by the two of you. In any case, even if you've taken to e-mail or the phone for your thank-yous these days, these ones will have you digging for the stationary and a nice pen.
On a slightly lower level are gifts that are evidence that the other person cares enough about you to pay attention. At some point since the last customary occasion for gift-giving, you mentioned something you needed or lusted after, and they held onto this bit of knowledge until it was time to use it. Bonus points if they went to special effort to keep tabs on whether or not you'd managed to aquire it on your own while simultaneously deflecting any anticipation you may have of what it is.
Then there are those humble tokens that are, at their best, merely neat. You didn't need them or particularly want them, but all the same it's pretty cool that you have them now.
Each of those tiers has its Platonic ideal, imperfect efforts to achieve that ideal, and backfires("You spent HOW MUCH money so that you could be one of those fuckwads who buys a luxury sedan with a bow on the top as a Christmas gift with no prior consultation with the person who's supposed to be your PARTNER?"), but generally speaking, if you've given a gift that falls into one of those three categories, you've acquitted yourself.
You might say that that's an odd turn of phrase to use to describe giving a gift, but for some people, gift-giving is a part of their job description, as is gift receiving. Witness Hillary Clinton as she sits for an interview with a couple of Australian knuckleheads.
An aside: You see that part at the very end? Where the host marvels at the fact that our Secretary of State-- our representative on a world stage littered with the bastard children of the Cold War-- even freaking exists?
That right there was a quick hit of American Exceptionalism, for those of you who may have been jonesing.
A born diplomat can, for the purposes of a discussion, stitch their corner of the world with yours without paying mind to the seam, earnestly dissuading other parties from even noticing that it's there. We should cherish this talent wherever we find it, even if it's possessed by someone about whom we've said and thought fairly mean things in the past (whether or not we would take them back if given the choice). That here the world she's entered is one where a gorilla suit is more likely than a three-piece suit is immaterial. Even when confronted with fairly odd questions, and there are some more, she responded honestly and in a way that offers unexpected insights.
Personally, I'd like to know how Secretary Clinton would receive a Lamborghini ballcap that doesn't fit and was most likely obtained freely from the sort of confab one goes to if they're the sort of person who might ever buy a Lamborghini-- and, for the purposes of this hypothetical, she isn't, and wouldn't be even if she could afford it-- which was clearly given as a means of keeping up appearances, by someone from whom you expected nothing and whose prior behavior lends one tho believe that they think that this minuscule window into the world of ostentatious motorfuckery, offered to someone who can't afford a used 4-banger, is of value in and of itself.
You know, hypothetically.
It's often been said that it's the thought that counts. It is far less often noted that this too can be damning.
12.10.2010
Not even Shakespeare could do my love for Bernie Sanders justice
Of course, many of his sonnets were written with a similar premise, but I digress.
As of this writing, Bernie Sanders, with an assist from Sherrod Brown and Mary Landrieu, has kept a filibuster-- a real one, not the I-Can't-Believe-They're-Not-Speaking silent filibusters we've been used to from the GOP-- for just over four hours. When Americans talk about the filibuster as a safeguard for minority rights, I think that they're still glossing over the fact that it killed every civil rights bill the Congress tried to take up until 1964, but if they all had to be done like this, I could live with it. I still think it needs to be changed so that it can't last forever, but with no further introduction, I give you Senator Bernie Sanders, the proud Socialist from Vermont.
UPDATE: It's just past 7 hours, and Bernie Sanders has yet to read from any text not relevant to the matter at hand. How he's able to do this is quite simple: You could take a year talking about better ways to spend 858 billion dollars. The question is, how many of those can we make happen.
There has been plenty of hypocrisy surrounding Democratic outrage at President Obama for this tax cut deal. Democrats traded away reconcilliation as a tool when they let Blue Dogs wuss out of voting on another Obama budget. They drained their political capital by letting Max Baucus spend an entire summer giving away the store on Healthcare Reform. They traded away favorable field position when they gave the decision about whether to stage a vote on the matter before the elections to those Senators who were up for re-election. Senator Mary Landrieu, the queen of off-shore drilling--to borrow a phrase from the brilliant, beautiful Melissa Harris-Perry-- has spoken of the moral outrage of the tax cuts. She's not wrong. Not right now, at least.
But she voted for them in the beginning, and as much as she pretends, there was never any real math that concluded that the tax cuts wouldn't lead to deficits.
Chuck Schumer's bill, which would have extended tax cuts to millionaires but not billionaires for five years-- at far greater cost to the deficit than the $858 billion tax cut framework-- didn't get to 60. And that bill contained NONE of the Obama tax cuts, and thus would have constituted a tax increase to working families. Having failed to come up with legislation that would actually pass the Senate, he is now fuming at President Obama for coming up with one that might pass.
But Bernie Sanders has earned his sense of moral outrage, speaking forcefully as an independent member of the Democratic Caucus against each capitulation by Congressional Democrats that led up to this deal on tax cuts. He is one of very few authorized to throw stones.
And he's not wasting it at all.
Thank you, Senator Sanders.
As of this writing, Bernie Sanders, with an assist from Sherrod Brown and Mary Landrieu, has kept a filibuster-- a real one, not the I-Can't-Believe-They're-Not-Speaking silent filibusters we've been used to from the GOP-- for just over four hours. When Americans talk about the filibuster as a safeguard for minority rights, I think that they're still glossing over the fact that it killed every civil rights bill the Congress tried to take up until 1964, but if they all had to be done like this, I could live with it. I still think it needs to be changed so that it can't last forever, but with no further introduction, I give you Senator Bernie Sanders, the proud Socialist from Vermont.
UPDATE: It's just past 7 hours, and Bernie Sanders has yet to read from any text not relevant to the matter at hand. How he's able to do this is quite simple: You could take a year talking about better ways to spend 858 billion dollars. The question is, how many of those can we make happen.
There has been plenty of hypocrisy surrounding Democratic outrage at President Obama for this tax cut deal. Democrats traded away reconcilliation as a tool when they let Blue Dogs wuss out of voting on another Obama budget. They drained their political capital by letting Max Baucus spend an entire summer giving away the store on Healthcare Reform. They traded away favorable field position when they gave the decision about whether to stage a vote on the matter before the elections to those Senators who were up for re-election. Senator Mary Landrieu, the queen of off-shore drilling--to borrow a phrase from the brilliant, beautiful Melissa Harris-Perry-- has spoken of the moral outrage of the tax cuts. She's not wrong. Not right now, at least.
But she voted for them in the beginning, and as much as she pretends, there was never any real math that concluded that the tax cuts wouldn't lead to deficits.
Chuck Schumer's bill, which would have extended tax cuts to millionaires but not billionaires for five years-- at far greater cost to the deficit than the $858 billion tax cut framework-- didn't get to 60. And that bill contained NONE of the Obama tax cuts, and thus would have constituted a tax increase to working families. Having failed to come up with legislation that would actually pass the Senate, he is now fuming at President Obama for coming up with one that might pass.
But Bernie Sanders has earned his sense of moral outrage, speaking forcefully as an independent member of the Democratic Caucus against each capitulation by Congressional Democrats that led up to this deal on tax cuts. He is one of very few authorized to throw stones.
And he's not wasting it at all.
Thank you, Senator Sanders.
11.09.2010
The Aftermath
Editor's note: This post has been altered to reflect the fact that maybe not everyone can watch the clip (hi, Google Buzz!)
I wasn't going to say a word about the "Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear" here because anything I'd say about it was likely to have been said by somebody else already. For instance, somebody has already said this
For the record, I wouldn't even bother saying any of this if I weren't a huge fan of Jon Stewart.
The boxing gag is brilliant. But as for the rest?
I'm sure anyone who's watched as much Boston Legal as I have knows this:
IF IT'S TRUE, IT ISN'T SLANDER.
I know that he doesn't literally mean slander, the crime, but given the context of the argument being made against him-- that he's equating actual slanderers to people who say mean, true, things-- the words were poorly chosen to say the least.
Right before that quote, Stewart passive-aggressively exclaimed, "Well, I guess the rally was a massive failure." Which is funny, because the only person in those clips who thought that the rally was a massive failure was Bill Maher.
If you were going to say that there was a left-wing equivalent of Bill O' Reilly, you'd be wrong, but if you squinted a little and turned your head, you could be forgiven for mistaking Bill Maher for that fictional entity.
So Bill Maher said that your rally wasn't about anything. He also said that there's no reason to get a flu shot.
The person who I quoted up above there? It was Rachel Maddow, who didn't even say a word about the rally on the air outside of that quote, and yet a segment in which she voiced her support of her colleague Keith Olbermann appeared on The Daily Show, for reasons passing understanding. She was talking about how Keith's suspension on the grounds of private donations he made to three Democratic candidates reflects on the narrative prevalent in the media--some of which is driven by Jon Stewart, but most of which isn't-- that there's no real difference between Fox News and MSNBC. The full transcript can be found here. That song, as Stewart once told Jim Cramer under similar circumstances, wasn't about him.
As for Keith? Jon took clips from a segment the Monday after the rally in which Keith made the case that Stewart, in putting clips of Countdown alongside those of Glenn Beck in his blame-the-media mashup, was equating sticking up for the powerless with sticking up for the powerful. That one of those clips was him using the phrase "un-American Bastard" to refer to a man who'd said "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims," and who'd utterly refused to admit that he was wrong in doing so (though all that was shown was "un-American Bastard) is I think instructive. In any case, here's what Keith had to say in the segment preceding that one on Countdown that night:
But I suppose showing that-- or Rachel's statement in support of Stewart-- would ruin the bit. Which one could say is fair, for a comedian But in his inveighing against the problems concerning cable news, he seems to be vigorously co-opting at least one of them: The tendency to pull quotes out of their original context and arrange them in whatever way most fits your own narrative. Which he doesn't need to do to make his point, and he doesn't need to do to be funny.
Ok, so I saw that clip from The Daily Show this morning, and wrote most of this post on notebook paper while I was riding the subway into Boston to try and get enrolled in Massachusetts' public option. The last sentence was going to be: "Instead of what I embedded here, Stewart should have had one of the three people in the video on his show to discuss what bothered them. Surely, that would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the rally."
And then, I got home, logged in to twitter, and saw this:
Well, there we go. Everything else I've said still stands though. And I'd very much doubt that Rachel's appearance in that segment didn't come up in the back-and-forth before the interview was confirmed.
I wasn't going to say a word about the "Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear" here because anything I'd say about it was likely to have been said by somebody else already. For instance, somebody has already said this
I have two things to say about Jon Stewart's speech. One: bravo. And two: bravo.And there have also been some who have criticized the rally's "pox on both of their houses" message as constituting an oversimplification at best, and false equivalence at worst, clips of which are seen here on yesterday's Daily Show:
I know this wasn't a political event, but I am a liberal -- a capital-L liberal and a small-L liberal -- and that 'you go, I go, you go, I go' principle, I believe it, and I'm really happy that in my country, over 200,000 people turned out to cheer that.
The boxing gag is brilliant. But as for the rest?
My intention was not to make no moral judgment between competing arguments... It was to suggest that we be perhaps more judicious with our blanket slander
I'm sure anyone who's watched as much Boston Legal as I have knows this:
IF IT'S TRUE, IT ISN'T SLANDER.
I know that he doesn't literally mean slander, the crime, but given the context of the argument being made against him-- that he's equating actual slanderers to people who say mean, true, things-- the words were poorly chosen to say the least.
Right before that quote, Stewart passive-aggressively exclaimed, "Well, I guess the rally was a massive failure." Which is funny, because the only person in those clips who thought that the rally was a massive failure was Bill Maher.
If you were going to say that there was a left-wing equivalent of Bill O' Reilly, you'd be wrong, but if you squinted a little and turned your head, you could be forgiven for mistaking Bill Maher for that fictional entity.
So Bill Maher said that your rally wasn't about anything. He also said that there's no reason to get a flu shot.
The person who I quoted up above there? It was Rachel Maddow, who didn't even say a word about the rally on the air outside of that quote, and yet a segment in which she voiced her support of her colleague Keith Olbermann appeared on The Daily Show, for reasons passing understanding. She was talking about how Keith's suspension on the grounds of private donations he made to three Democratic candidates reflects on the narrative prevalent in the media--some of which is driven by Jon Stewart, but most of which isn't-- that there's no real difference between Fox News and MSNBC. The full transcript can be found here. That song, as Stewart once told Jim Cramer under similar circumstances, wasn't about him.
As for Keith? Jon took clips from a segment the Monday after the rally in which Keith made the case that Stewart, in putting clips of Countdown alongside those of Glenn Beck in his blame-the-media mashup, was equating sticking up for the powerless with sticking up for the powerful. That one of those clips was him using the phrase "un-American Bastard" to refer to a man who'd said "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims," and who'd utterly refused to admit that he was wrong in doing so (though all that was shown was "un-American Bastard) is I think instructive. In any case, here's what Keith had to say in the segment preceding that one on Countdown that night:
The overall message that the tone needs to change, that the volume needs to change, was not lost on any of us. The anger in this news hour was not an original part of it, nor was it an artifice that we added to it. It was a response to a threat to this democracy posed by Mr. Bush, and now by his lineal descendants. The anger happened, it will still happen. It is not for ratings and it is not "get angry first and find a reason later."
But there is an institutionalization of it that may no longer be valid. That is "The Worst Persons in the World" segment, which started as a way -- of all things -- of defending Tucker Carlson. It's satire and whimsy have gradually gotten lost in some anger, so in the spirit of the thing, as of right now, I am unilaterally suspending that segment with an eye towards discontinuing it. We don't know how that works long-term. We might bring it back. We might bring back something similar to it. We might kill it outright. And next week, we'll solicit your input.
But I suppose showing that-- or Rachel's statement in support of Stewart-- would ruin the bit. Which one could say is fair, for a comedian But in his inveighing against the problems concerning cable news, he seems to be vigorously co-opting at least one of them: The tendency to pull quotes out of their original context and arrange them in whatever way most fits your own narrative. Which he doesn't need to do to make his point, and he doesn't need to do to be funny.
Ok, so I saw that clip from The Daily Show this morning, and wrote most of this post on notebook paper while I was riding the subway into Boston to try and get enrolled in Massachusetts' public option. The last sentence was going to be: "Instead of what I embedded here, Stewart should have had one of the three people in the video on his show to discuss what bothered them. Surely, that would have been more in keeping with the spirit of the rally."
And then, I got home, logged in to twitter, and saw this:
11.08.2010
Monday Anthem-- Dedicated to Nancy Pelosi.
One of the greatest Speakers to hold the title-- and Forbes be damned, the most powerful woman in the history of this country-- is getting up off the mat.
Fuck yes, Madam Speaker. This song is for you.
Available in two flavors: Original
And Crunchy.
Give 'em hell, Congresswoman.
11.05.2010
The Shape of Things to Come
I'd like to plug my friend David Harewood, who has written today's featured article over at InformedPlanet.com. Check him out.
So as it turns out, I was right when I predicted a 53-47 split in the Senate (not in any way that was recorded, so I guess you'll have to trust me. Or not. Whatever.) I didn't make a prediction for the House, but if I had, it would have been wrong. Not that I was particularly surprised. History dictates big wins for the opposition the first midterm election following a new President's inauguration, as well as during hard economic times.
But consider this:
In the past two years, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, House Democrats passed a truly astounding amount of legislation-- including major reforms such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Credit CARD Act, and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Not to mention the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which just today I discovered was being put to use to repair a stretch Cambridge Street in Somerville, MA that had fallen into such disrepair that its potholes have cost me a bike tire, a wheel and a brake cable.
But I guess John Boehner doesn't want me to have a bike.
In any case, Nancy Pelosi has been regarded by historians as one of the best Speakers of the House in the past hundred years. In addition to those specific bills I mentioned, she passed 430 bills through the House, all of which had majority support in the Senate, and yet none of which passed. Because Senate Democrats were too scared to make Republicans own up to their obstructionism and actually read from the phone books to stop them from passing bills covering, among other things, infant nutrition.
The Public Option, which 50% of Republicans supported, died in the Senate. As did a significant portion of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which it is now abundantly clear wasn't enough. Unemployment benefit extensions, small business tax credits, a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and additional infrastructure programs all languished due to the Democrats' unwillingness to challenge the notion that requiring 60% of the Senate to pass anything was normal.
And yet? It's Speaker Pelosi who loses her job title in January, whilst Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps his gavel.
Whiskey.
Tango.
Foxtrot.
So what now?
We have divided government yet again, but unlike in 1994, the Senate remains in Democratic hands. With the House controlled by the opposition and the Senate still incapable of action, Democrats aren't going to be able to have any kind of a legislative agenda unless the filibuster gets changed. As luck would have it, the rule's two greatest defenders (Chris Dodd of CT and the late Robert Byrd of WV) are no longer in the Senate. Evan Bayh, who was the first Senator to ever threaten to filibuster his own party's bill, and indeed was the first to do so before the bill made it to the floor for debate, is also gone, though he seems to have had a deathbed conversion vis a vis autocratic obstructionism.
So where does that leave us?
It takes 50+1 to change Senate rules upon the convening of a new Congress. And of those in the current Senate, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Pryor, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Akaka, Carl Levin, and Jon Tester are going to need convincing. Four of them need to vote yes in order for a change to be made.
It's going to be an interesting first session, I tells you.
After that, my advice to Democrats is to pass jobs bill after jobs bill in the Senate. Simple pieces of legislation whose impact on employment can be easily quantified. And keep a running tally of the number of jobs that would be added to the economy had it not been for Republicans refusal to move on legislation simply because it was passed by Democrats. Run three-second TV spots featuring the number and a URL with the details and phone numbers for local Senators and Representatives. Either something will give, or the American People will know why it didn't.
So as it turns out, I was right when I predicted a 53-47 split in the Senate (not in any way that was recorded, so I guess you'll have to trust me. Or not. Whatever.) I didn't make a prediction for the House, but if I had, it would have been wrong. Not that I was particularly surprised. History dictates big wins for the opposition the first midterm election following a new President's inauguration, as well as during hard economic times.
But consider this:
In the past two years, under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, House Democrats passed a truly astounding amount of legislation-- including major reforms such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Credit CARD Act, and the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Not to mention the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which just today I discovered was being put to use to repair a stretch Cambridge Street in Somerville, MA that had fallen into such disrepair that its potholes have cost me a bike tire, a wheel and a brake cable.
But I guess John Boehner doesn't want me to have a bike.
In any case, Nancy Pelosi has been regarded by historians as one of the best Speakers of the House in the past hundred years. In addition to those specific bills I mentioned, she passed 430 bills through the House, all of which had majority support in the Senate, and yet none of which passed. Because Senate Democrats were too scared to make Republicans own up to their obstructionism and actually read from the phone books to stop them from passing bills covering, among other things, infant nutrition.
The Public Option, which 50% of Republicans supported, died in the Senate. As did a significant portion of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which it is now abundantly clear wasn't enough. Unemployment benefit extensions, small business tax credits, a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and additional infrastructure programs all languished due to the Democrats' unwillingness to challenge the notion that requiring 60% of the Senate to pass anything was normal.
And yet? It's Speaker Pelosi who loses her job title in January, whilst Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeps his gavel.
Whiskey.
Tango.
Foxtrot.
So what now?
We have divided government yet again, but unlike in 1994, the Senate remains in Democratic hands. With the House controlled by the opposition and the Senate still incapable of action, Democrats aren't going to be able to have any kind of a legislative agenda unless the filibuster gets changed. As luck would have it, the rule's two greatest defenders (Chris Dodd of CT and the late Robert Byrd of WV) are no longer in the Senate. Evan Bayh, who was the first Senator to ever threaten to filibuster his own party's bill, and indeed was the first to do so before the bill made it to the floor for debate, is also gone, though he seems to have had a deathbed conversion vis a vis autocratic obstructionism.
So where does that leave us?
It takes 50+1 to change Senate rules upon the convening of a new Congress. And of those in the current Senate, Joe Lieberman, Mary Landrieu, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Pryor, Dianne Feinstein, Daniel Akaka, Carl Levin, and Jon Tester are going to need convincing. Four of them need to vote yes in order for a change to be made.
It's going to be an interesting first session, I tells you.
After that, my advice to Democrats is to pass jobs bill after jobs bill in the Senate. Simple pieces of legislation whose impact on employment can be easily quantified. And keep a running tally of the number of jobs that would be added to the economy had it not been for Republicans refusal to move on legislation simply because it was passed by Democrats. Run three-second TV spots featuring the number and a URL with the details and phone numbers for local Senators and Representatives. Either something will give, or the American People will know why it didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)