Progressive Idiocy: Forgetting How We Got Here

Caption: The Constitution. Safely hidden from prying eyes in the Library of Congress.

Image credit: National Archives

The progressive "blogosphere" is all a-twitter (and a-blogspotter, one supposes) about the latest Republican congressional travesty:

Republicans in the U.S. Senate today blocked the nomination of Richard Cordray as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The vote, on a motion to end debate, was 53-45, with 60 votes required to move the nomination ahead.

U.S. Senate Republicans Block Cordray for Consumer Bureau

Certainly, the Republicans deserve blame for this. No one made them vote to filibuster this nomination. The sad fact is, though, that the Democrats had an opportunity to change this at the start of the Senate session last January, and they demurred:

Senate Democrats had an opportunity to get together and make the Senate a working, majority-rule-based chamber. They could have recently used the “Constitutional Option” at the start of this new Congress to rewrite the Senate rules to either eliminate the filibuster outright or at least make staging a filibuster more difficult. Yet, due to a combination of a greedy refusal to give up any individual power, and a pitiful cowardice about a potential future in which the voters reject them, Senate Democrats collectively chose to throw away this opportunity. By doing nothing, they effectively voted to give Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell total veto power over everything.

After Failing to Change Senate Rules, Democrats Lose Right to Blame Mitch McConnell

[link from original article]

The "Constitutional Option" he's referring to is that the Constitution says in Article I, Section 5 that Congress can decide what rules it will work by. Generally, each new congress agrees to use the same rules as the previous one did, but there's no reason that can't change.

Why did they refuse to do this? Two possible reasons come to mind:

First, they are politicians, and politicians never give up power willingly. You might find that a cynical statement, but it is not. Politicians need power to do their jobs effectively. Whether they define "doing their jobs" as building a better society or plundering it, they need power to do it. In my opinion, this is the most fundamental rule of politics. To not understand it is to discuss politics at the level of a babbling idiot. In fact, babbling idiots would probably find such a discussion boring, too.

Second, and this is me being cynical, it seems like a great excuse for Democrats to not do the things that their supporters want them to do, but their benefactors do not. The financial, defense, and energy industries, to name three of the more blatant ones, have their own agendas and very deep pockets. Those agendas are not progressives', generally speaking.

Progressives and others have begged the Senate to make this change in the past, and they have not. Unless the power to pass legislation and get other things done is more important than having the power to stop it, then I don't think that's going to change without, as I like to say, someone making a demand.

What's more, as anyone who wants to think back as far as the last presidential administration would recall, when the Democrats could have blocked radical conservative appointments to the Supreme Court and elsewhere, they declined. They also declined to block the bill that made Bush's illegal surveillance of Americans legal, among other things. They didn't use the power of filibuster to their supporters' advantage when they held it.

So, while blaming the Republicans for exploiting this predicament is no doubt emotionally satisfying to some, it is only part of the story. The other part is that the Democrats really have no one to blame but themselves.

Saturday Entertainment: Me Talk Pretty (Special Thursday Edition)

One of the few e-mail lists I haven't unsubscribed myself from is for one of the local entertainment ticket agencies. Every once in a while, there's a band on one of their announcements that sounds interesting, if for no other reason than they have a clever name.

Such is the case with this band, Me Talk Pretty:



They sound like a band with potential. Julia Preotu, the young woman who fronts the band, has one of those versatile voices that works well in rock and roll, and the band behind her sounds pretty tight. You can listen to their album at less-than-hi-fi at Soundcloud. Of course, saying they have potential sounds like a really backhanded compliment, now that I see they've been around since at least 2006:

Me Talk Pretty can call New York City its home, but its members aren’t all from around here: recent Romanian emigre Julia Preotu fronted the band, her small, thin form belying a strong voice, with barely a trace of accent; on guitar Spanish-born Leon Lyazidi provided solid backing with a strong grunge influence, along with the rhythm section of James Kluz on drums and Joseph Smith on bass. Me Talk Pretty’s set built well, climaxing with “Ana,” which is the title of their new CD.

MedusaFest 2006

Judging from the lack of any other album information on their website, I'd say they have recently gotten a big contract, but who knows? I count one EP and at least one other CD that they've produced, in what is apparently the new style: on their own.

They're coming to the Pacific Northwest this weekend. If it weren't for my twin aversions to crowded, dark places with lots of beer on the floor, and to being the oldest person in the room by a healthy margin, I'd probably go see them. (Plus, sadly, I already have other plans.)

Progressive Idiocy: Repeat After Me - "Power Concedes Nothing..."

Caption: King John of England signs the Magna Carta, handing over power to nobles and granting rights to English citizens. He didn't do it because he wanted to. If it had been up to today's progressives, he never would have.

Image credit:
Cassell's History of England - Century Edition (via Wikipedia)




On days like today, I think that I need to start a campaign to have this quote stamped on the foreheads of progressive activists in reverse, so they can read it each morning when they look in the mirror:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

Frederick Douglass

It's certainly not a concept they're familiar with.

Twittering Of The Day

Retweeted by several folks, this one captures a lot about Occupy Wall Street, the banks, and the sometimes daft priorities of our society in fewer than 140 characters:

#OWS should take a bath right after the banks get their haircut. #newtsbeautysalon

Twitter Message by @Casual_Obs

I see nothing to add.

Sunday Photo(s)

I saw this little guy at Lava Butte, in the Deschutes National Forest, Oregon, back in August:

Image credit: All photos by Cujo359

What Killed Cain's Campaign

Humor, particularly political humor, can often put things in perspective in a way that serious analysis can't. An example of this phenomenon is provided by The Onion,referring to the presumed end of Herman Cain's presidential bid:

Rumors Of Extramarital Affair End Campaign Of Presidential Candidate Who Didn't Know China Has Nuclear Weapons

The Onion

If he had flubbed a question like "does Israel have nuclear weapons?", or "does Pakistan have nukes?", I might have been able to overlook his not knowing. But China? They've had nukes since Cain was a teenager.

And yet, it appears that it will be an affair that finally dooms him. There's a case to be made that in Cain's case, this is just another in a long string of examples of the man's mendacity, but to me, lack of knowledge of basic facts about our national defense trumps character flaws. If character was the overriding issue, I don't think I would have voted for anyone in a general Presidential election since I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and before then pretty much every election since I turned 18.

UPDATE/Afterword: As Stephanie Zvan points out, even if one just looks at the various accusations of womanizing by Cain that have surfaced recently, there are still far worse things than a long term consensual extra-marital affair to worry about:

He was fine when four women said he sexually harassed them and assaulted at least one of them. Those four women could be dismissed on the campaign website as “money hungry,” “vile liars,” conducting a “liberal lynching” for “5 minutes of fame.” Their character and even their sanity could be called into question while Cain brought in more donations than ever. But then…

Then one woman showed up who said her interactions with Cain were consensual and long-lasting and that he helped to support her. And this is when everyone decided Cain’s campaign was over.

Where We Draw The Line

For what it's worth, I thought Cain's campaign was essentially over two or three debates ago. Still, it's interesting that this is what finally did him in. It may just have been the last straw, after numerous allegations that had at least a little substance, but it does seem a strange thing to end this campaign on.

It's certainly among the least of his alleged sins, and it doesn't hold a candle to his clear ignorance of just about any subject related to being President.

Brutality Or Stupidity

For me, it's hard to tell which in this video. It's of last night's Occupy Philadelphia protests, with police horses injuring a reporter who is in the crowd. Kevin Gosztola referred to it in a Twitter message as being a deliberate attack, but if you watch the video carefully, it doesn't look that way:



I don't see the police officers who are on foot making offensive moves. The most assertive they get is when one of them urges the protesters to get back on the sidewalk. The horses, particularly the dark one with the white streak on his face that appears to be the one that hit reporter Vanessa Maria, seem to be very nervous, thanks to all the noise, the large number of people who are shouting and looking cross, and perhaps confusion on the part of their riders. Whatever the reason, they all look to be nervous and twitchy.

Democracy's Last Gasp?

Caption: The Constitution. You'd never know that members of Congress and Presidents swear to protect and defend it.

Image credit: National Archives

I wonder if, years from now, we will look back on December, 2011 as being the month when democracy had its last gasp in America:

U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida, top national security lawyers in the Obama administration said Thursday.
...
[Pentagon counsel Jeh] Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, is equipped to make military battlefield targeting decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

Obama lawyers: Citizens targeted if at war with US

There it is, in black and white. The President says that he can have anyone killed who he deems to have "taken up arms" against the United States. Considering that Anwar al-Awlaki, the first object of this particular raping of the Constitution, has not been proved to be anything more than a mouthpiece for Al Qaeda, it's hard to imagine that actually using weapons against the U.S. will be required next time, either. Since the Obama Administration has so far successfully resisted all efforts for an independent review of the evidence against al-Awlaki, any other involvement will probably remain unproved, and unreviewed. What al-Awlaki said about Americans is about what many right-wing pundits say about liberals, yet Obama hasn't seen a need to take them out.

You won't see this mentioned much on television news, but there's a portion of the U.S. Constitution, the document that all members of Congress and Presidents swear to defend, that has something to say about this:

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4

I can't wait to hear the career progressives' rationale for this one. No doubt the nasty Republicans made him do it. You know, it's because of all those Bush holdovers whom President Obama refused to fire when he took office. Um, wait - nevermind. No, I really can wait to hear all that, but I probably will anyway.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate, which is still controlled by the Democrats, did this a couple of weeks ago:

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted Tuesday to approve a new version of the defense authorization bill that changes detainee-related provisions in the measure and could clear the way for the legislation to reach the floor as soon as this week.

However, the changes did not assuage the concerns of the chief critics of the legislation in the Senate, at the White House or the Pentagon, making the bill's ultimate prospects unclear. At the Democratic caucus lunch Tuesday, Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) all expressed strong opposition to the modified detainee language, sources said.

Senate panel alters detainee language in defense bill

The amendment (PDF) does not contain any language that limits who can be detained, beyond what our armed forces think is necessary. The language is so broad that it could easily be construed to include U.S. citizens, even those still in the United States.

As Marcy Wheeler observed yesterday:

[W]hile I’d be happy to see the provisions in question fail (because the provisions represent a further militarization of our country), effectively the argument being made is between those (the Republicans, enabled by Levin) who support further militarization of law and those (DiFi and, especially, the Administration) who want the Executive Branch to continue fighting terrorism (and whatever else) with an intelligence-driven approach bound by few legal checks.

Detainee Debate Heats Up: The Rule of Martial Law Vs. the Unitary Spookery

From following twitter messages by Marcy Wheeler today, who has been following the Senate proceedings, it appears that amendments that would have limited these abuses to foreign soil, or anywhere, have been voted down.

That provision, part of the Defense Authorization Act (DAA), will now go to the President for signature. In light of the announcement today that he can kill anyone he wants as long as he can convince himself that that person has "taken up arms" against the United States, I think the odds of him vetoing this bill are about the same as mine winning the Powerball lottery this week.

No, I did not buy a lottery ticket.

The vote on the full DAA will be coming up soon, maybe today, probably before the end of the month.

Nor do I think, as Wheeler suggests he could, that Obama will simply draw up guidelines that allow all detainees to be tried in civilian court, or released for lack of evidence. Rule of law doesn't seem to be big on the President's list of priorities, at least not when that law applies to him.

I'd love to be proved wrong on either of those predictions, but I don't see it happening. I'm generally only wrong when I'm being optimistic these days.

So, cue the professional progressives who will explain how all this is vitally necessary to defend the United States, and how we'd better not let the Republicans get away with this by winning the White House, or some equally ass-backwards logic. Does anyone think that if Rachel Maddow or Ed Shultz discuss this bill that they will mention that Democrats control the Senate, and if they wanted to, the leadership could have prevented this amendment from coming to a vote? Would they mention that Republican Party discipline is such that no one dares to break ranks on bills like this in the Senate? Probably not.

Just another reason I believed Cenk Uygur when he said that MSNBC sees its job as being a propaganda outlet for the Democrats.

UPDATE: In case you think that overreach by the government in the name of security is only a concern of poofy liberals, here's a part of an editorial by Reid Smith at The American Spectator:

While I'm certain Greenwald isn't the most popular policy mandarin among The Spectacle's [Smith's column] readership, he has isolated an authentic threat. Likewise, I'm not always on board with Rep. Paul, but I was distressed by his remarks that this potential suspension of due process and civilian trial would be the first of its sort since the American Civil War. We've had a decade to process the lessons of 9/11. I always thought that the wars being fought overseas would eventually draw to a close. I wouldn't have guessed that they'd simply embed themselves right here at home. Perhaps we've become addicted to our fear. Perhaps it gives us some small comfort to assume that we're being well protected.

But consider the context. We're not talking about the hassle of dealing with that "crack squad of savvy, motivated personnel" manning hand-wands and sporting royal blue TSA frocks. I suppose we can live with in a world where our liquids, gels and aerosols must be tucked ever-so-less-ominously into 3.4 oz. containers. "Enhanced pat-downs" still seem ridiculous...but I digress.

This bill represents a shocking, yet formal codification of what we've come to understand as right and proper in a post-9/11 world.

National Security Nonsense

[links from original - the Greenwald link was placed earlier in the column]

So, with conservatives, libertarians, and progressives all seemingly against this sort of thing for one reason or another, why do we keep getting our collective asses handed to us? Nothing has stopped this march toward a national security state in the last decade or so. Even some of the votes against it by some Democrats seem insincere, since they never make parliamentary moves like filibustering to stop these things. On this question, there were 45 Senators opposed, and yet the thing has passed.

UPDATE 2/Afterword: Marcy Wheeler, AKA emptywheel, gets the last word on this one:

You think the fact that Senate just said Americans should be indefinitely detained has anything to do with 91% of country who hates them?

Twitter message by emptywheel

It's just one of many reasons, I'm afraid. Still, many of those reasons come down to betraying the oath they took, when they're not purely about selling the rest of us out to the rich and powerful.

Cenk Uygur Criticizes MSNBC's Support Of Democratic Party

Caption: A German printing press from the early 19th Century.

Image credit: MatthiasKabel/Wikimedia

At Raw Story, Cenk Uygur explains why he left his position at MSNBC:

“I know what the institutional, sometimes unspoken rules at MSNBC are,” Uygur said in an exclusive interview. “So, relatively speaking, you know what you’re going to get with MSNBC shows. I would be surprised if they changed that recently. But MSNBC, I think, mistakes their mandate as being pro-Democratic, as opposed to pro-progressive. I think that’s a really important distinction.
...
“I didn’t want to work at a place that didn’t want me to do my kind of show, that wasn’t interested in my kind of show, didn’t want to challenge power,” he explained at the time. Uygur later told Olbermann that he felt like MSNBC sacrifices truth for access to elected officials, and he wanted no part in it.

Cenk Uygur: MSNBC ‘mistakes their mandate,’ does ‘great disservice’ to viewers

While Uygur's statement might be considered office gossip or self-serving nonsense, there are a couple of things that lead me to believe it's not. One is that both he and Keith Olbermann left at about the same time. The other is that it was obvious that MSNBC was doing exactly this, whether there was an edict or not. Since two of their principal reporters have left, I suspect there is something to that. While Dylan Ratigan is allowed an occasional rant, his show doesn't appear in prime time. I really see no one else left there who has the ability to criticize the Democrats in prime time when they abandon progressive principles.

Frankly, if I were a conservative, but somehow retained all my other instincts and knowledge, I'd be as appalled at Fox as I am at MSNBC. Their clear objective is to be a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party. As I've written plenty often, being tied to one party inevitably means that you are not going to be true to your principles. I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to find such complaints among conservatives.

This is why I don't bother watching the cable news shows. None try to offer anything like real reporting, which means letting the chips fall where they may. Fox shamelessly supports Republicans, MSNBC shamelessly plugs Democrats, and CNN shamelessly avoids having an opinion. None puts informing the viewer among its top priorities.

I'll stick with online news, thank you very much. In a few years, there will be a Raw Story-like site that will rival the cable news channels for viewers. That's how things are going, and given the utter lack of journalism at the three main news channels, I don't see why anyone wouldn't make that switch.

UPDATE (June 7, 2012): For reasons I don't understand, a lot of traffic has been headed to this page recently. Many seem to be from academic domains of one sort or another. I just noticed and corrected a sentence that used to say:

I really see no one else left there who has the ability to criticize the Democrats when they abandon progressive principles in prime time.

It is now less confusing. If that sentence was the reason people were visiting "cite an example of a misplaced modifier", then the original is still here to chuckle over.

Find Me An Image For "Pedant"

Read this tweet by nedwards, and you'll never forget the definition of "pedant":

A pedant walks into a bar. Well, it's a restaurant with a bar. Technically it's a brewpub since it has an onsite microbrewery.

Twitter message by nedwards

Sometimes, a picture is better than a definition...