The S&P coup

*

I want to add a little to my previous post on S&P's implicit threat to blackmail the federal government into adopting a specific piece of legislation (i.e., $4 trillion spending reduction over the next 10 years).

Paul Krugman seems a little skeptical that an S&P downgrade of US debt would be huge deal because, basically, bond traders already know that ratings agencies don't know what they're doing:

The point is that when S&P or Moody’s speaks, that’s not the voice of “the market”. It’s just some guys with an agenda, and a very poor track record. And we have no idea how much effect their actions will have.

I don't doubt that. But to me the important point is not so much what financial traders do with an S&P intervention of this nature, but what the media and politicians will do with it. A ratings agency downgrade of US debt will be presented as something like scientific evidence that we need to finish drowning the federal government in the bathtub now! now! now! It's hard for me to see how our disinformation economy could get any worse---how it could further accelerate America's decline. But my intuition tells me we haven't reached terminal velocity yet. We'll be even closer when the press, the Congress, and the President anoint Wall Street as the new fourth branch of government.

The Cheesehead Revolution

*

From completely off my radar I'm now reading about a state governor who has ordered the state police to round up members of the Wisconsin legislature. TPM reports:

...the state's Democratic senators have left the state entirely, putting them out of the reach of the state police who have been ordered to round them up so that Republicans have a quorum and can take up Gov. Walker's union-busting budget bill.

There's a whole separate discussion we might have about the state's power to legislatively "bust" labor unions. But the thing to think about is this: since when in the United States can the executive branch of any state "round up" members of the legislature and make them participate in a session? That is how a junta works, not a democracy.

Can the governor also order the state police to round up members of the opposition party for any other reason? What is the legal theory that justifies an apparent violation of the separation of powers in any state of this union? Does the 10th Amendment permit states to establish forms of governance that are forbidden by the U.S. Constitution? What specific law are the Wisconsin legislators violating here?

An interesting aspect of this executive coup against workers' rights in Wisconsin, again according to TPM, is that

...Scott Fitzgerald, who is ordering the state police to track down the wayward Democratic senators is the son of the head of the state police, Steve Fitzgerald, who in turn was appointed to the top spot by Walker. Steve Fitzgerald is also the father of the state's speaker of the House, Jeff Fitzgerald.

The denial of a quorum by a minority group of members is a legitimate parliamentary maneuver. It's no more obstructionist than what happens in the U.S. Senate when the minority party filibusters bills that clearly have support of the majority. It's no more obstructionist than Ronald Reagan's famous "veto pen," which he smugly wagged into the Kliegl lights the many times he shot down laws passed by both chambers of Congress in the 1980s. So the issue shouldn't be whether obstructionist tactics are legal, because they are, and Republicans are much more adept at using them than Democrats.

The issue is this: is an obstructionist parliamentary maneuver by members of a state legislature illegal in the State of Wisconsin? How about in other states?

This is going to be really interesting. Wisconsin was an incubator of American progressive politics in the first half of the 20th century, and the tradition persists. Nobody knows how this will play out in terms of union busting, but it should give a significant stimulus to the concept of union solidarity in the Cheesehead state.

And in my opinion there is not a single working man or woman in this nation who has any smidgen of "enlightened self interest" in rooting for "Governor Scott Fitzgerald." "Governor Scott Walker" (duh).

Due process: a fading memory to "Constitution buffs"

*

For the umpty-ninth time, tonight on NPR this time, I heard some belligerent-sounding asshole at a Nevada state Republican party convention bluster about how sick he is of government not following the Constitution. Predictably, he was speaking in the context of right-wing outrage about the "government takeover" of healthcare. The reporter, of course, failed to ask old Chamber-Of-Commerce Dick if he was aware that the legislation was passed and signed by a duly elected Congress and President, respectively, and has not been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Well, OK, the guy is entitled to an ignorant opinion. Sound bytes like I described above wouldn't souse me with hate, though, if these same people were also blathering on the news shows about things like this --- Soviet-style security policies that vomit on due process (a Constitution thing, you know) when a licensed commercial pilot declines to submit to a "backscatter" full body scan after clearing an airport metal detector. These scans are capable of clearly imaging a subject's genetalia and other mammalian protuberances, and in the absence of reasonable suspicion related to smuggling nonmetallic weapons or ingested cocaine-stuffed condoms, are useless except for titillating bored TSA workers. So... why chorus of silence, wingnuts?

It's almost as if Republicans, libertarians, and Tea Partiers are angry only about things they're told to be angry about.

"Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution" [updated]

*
As seen on Atrios: I assume that "Newsmax" is some kind of influential far-right nuthouse organ. But in these times, the drool of self-marginalized lunatics bubbles in chunks from underneath the toilet seat cover and into our public commons too fucking often for my taste. To paraphrase one of the commenters in the linked piece on Media Matters: Judas Fucking Priest --- these people lost one single election, not even a year ago, and they're already halfway down the path toward advocating violent revolution. Wingnuts just need to get a grip on things, because they still control the Senate with the help of Democrat Copperheads, and the media are choked with projectile vomit from the neckholes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest. Meanwhile, genteel corporate media celebrity pundits are afraid to acknowledge the existence of this puke fountain, let alone suggest that it's an odious and disturbing nuisance.

Anyway, someone needs to let this John Perry guy know that coups actually are not permitted by the U.S. Constitution, whether by "patriotic general and flag officers" or racist asshole bloggers. But, then, maybe the Congress will decide to repeal all federal laws that prohibit insurrections (Article 8), and John Perry can then enjoy his "bloodless coup." John Perry claims that "[d]escribing what may be afoot is not to advocate it." Well, yes it is actually, John Perry. And if you have foreknowledge that a treasonous conspiracy by patriotic military men "may be afoot," I hope that some Secret Service agent won't have to beat it out of you too hard... especially not the 7 foot bald one with a gold grille and prison tats.

Update: I'm sure we all can look forward to indignant editorials festooning the op/ed pages across the land, plus salvos of sharply worded criticism by national TV news treasures like George S. and Chris Matthews, in response to the astonishing revelation that Newsmax is sponsored by the Republican National Committee. It Can't Happen Here Dunt Duhduh Dunnnnn! Yawn....

NPR Fuct Check: the U.S. Constitution

*
All Things Considered reporter Tom Gjelten extruded a Grand Old Piece of crap this afternoon in his puff piece about an outstanding new idea by aged establishment hacks James Baker (R) and Warren Christopher (D). These former U.S. Secretaries of State (who served, respectively, under Bush I and Reagan II --- I mean Clinton) think we need to replace the unconstitutional yet ineffectual War Powers Act of 1973. I say "unconstitutional" because the Act enables a President to attack a sovereign nation without seeking a Declaration of War from Congress. I say "ineffectual" because the so-called safeguards built into the Act have never been complied with. Nevertheless, this democracy-eroding law has facilitated a sense of normalcy in the American psyche regarding "fine little wars" that the President says are beneficial to us, and that is bad. Given that the War Powers Act has facilitated the transformation of this nation from a republic to an empire, it's hard for me to understand why people corporate imperialists like Baker and Christopher can't just be happy with the way things are.

But judging from the tone of his dutiful reporting, Tom Gjelten sounds sold on the idea that what America needs now (instead of that musty, outdated Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) is "a special joint congressional committee made up of House and Senate leaders, as well as the chairmen and ranking members of key committees" that the President "would have to consult with that group before sending troops into any 'significant armed conflict.' "

Former Secretary Christopher tells us that this new War Powers Consultation Act is necessary "[s]o that when the president decides he wants to go to war he has to take into account the independent views of the members of Congress, and not just any members of Congress, but this selective group of the leaders of both parties of Congress and of both House and Senate." "Selective." That's a good one.

Achtung, assholes! Consult this: "The Congress shall have Power... To declare War...." There is no "question of how a U.S. president and Congress should approach war decisions," as Gjelten asserts on the basis of having found a presidential historian to tell us that Thomas Jefferson himself desired to circumvent Congress when waging war. The only people who question the plain language of the Constitution regarding the separation of war powers are imperialist Presidents, their co-conspirators, and their media apologists. This separation is not an "ambiguity," Tom Gjelten: it is an intentional limitation on both branches of government.

This kind of reporting infuriates me. It contributes to the mass-culture idea that the President is the supreme source of authority in the United States. If Tom Gjelten is confused about the plain language of the U.S. Constitution, maybe it's time to reassign him to a less challenging beat such as spitting into the burritos at Taco Bell. What a d-bag.

Some advice for white folks

If you're a white person some of whose best friends are black, I will use the news hook of African American History Month to offer some advice. Starting now, try to actually get to know at least one of your black friends. I mean really, personally. Find an opportunity to have a candid discussion about something important to him or her. By "discussion," I mean that, mostly, you need to listen and let your friend talk. Avoid the temptation to blurt out what you think, and certainly avoid the stupidity of telling your black friend what he or she "should" think. Or what they "really have to understand" about white people.

This is not a short-term task, or anything along the lines of gallantly celebrating Take A Negro To Lunch Day. For one thing, your friend may not want to let you in. Or you may feel punked as soon as you hear something that you'd prefer not to think about. This endeavor is not one in which you call the shots. But I strongly suggest that you try it anyway. Shut up, listen, and learn.

Why? Not simply to be noble or to become a better person. But because you need to, Caucasoid. It is of the utmost importance to your future. You have a lot to learn. Because of this. Click on the link. Read the article. Then read it again. And again. Until you really understand it. Then click through the links in the post and read those, too.

Here's the issue: if the Congress doesn't start jailing Executive Branch criminals for Contempt of Congress soon, and start impeachment proceedings against any senior Justice Department appointee who refuses to impartially enforce the laws of this land, then you and I no longer live in a democracy. The U.S. Constitution no longer means anything insofar as your civil liberties (i.e., Civil Rights) are concerned. You have none, if that's what the Justice Department, or its private-sector designee, decrees. Of course, this has pretty much always been Standard Operating Procedure for the application of laws to African Americans, so they have "institutional expertise" that the rest of us don't have a clue about.

White people do not understand this, though. We deny it. Very few white people, psychologically, can afford to even contemplate the oppression of blacks too deeply. Directly and indirectly, white people in America always have been beneficiaries of that oppression. But now, whether you believe it or not, your lily white complexion guarantees you no protection against arbitrary execution of the law. No white person will ever know what it is like to be a "nigger," but every one of us could benefit from earnestly trying to understand what it must be like. Because that is exactly what we all are now in the eyes of the Executive Branch. And your African American friend may see fit to share some insights on the subject with you, if you're lucky. And if she does, you'd better listen.

Another letter to Barack Obama....

...in which I implore the Senator to get off the #!©k!n& campaign trail for a day or two and motivate back to Washington to block the heinous telecom immunity provisions of FISA renewal legislation. The excerpt below reprints my recommended political tactic, which I provided pro bono for Mr. Obama to use in the event that blocking the bad bill were to require a filibuster (as promised by Senator Dodd):

"I urge you to join your colleagues who are opposed to telecom immunity, including any filibuster of FISA legislation that includes retroactive immunity. Perhaps this would not even require an interruption in your campaigning for the presidency: you could take your turn at the rostrum to support the filibuster by continuously reading from transcripts of your best campaign speeches until adversaries of the Constitution get tired of hearing about you and relent. Your speeches would undoubtedly be broadcast on C-SPAN, at no cost to the Obama campaign."

Now, isn't that a piece of cunning advice? Yes, I agree with your concurrence: it is indeed.

I've already written several letters on telecom immunity to Obama and to Dick Durbin, my U.S. Senators. This stuff really matters if we want to continue living in a nation where jack-booted thugs aren't authorized to kick in our doors or our throats because they don't like something they overheard us say on our cell phones. Or write on our awesome blogs. What --- you don't have an awesome blog?!? Then write your senators and tell them you agree with StuporMundi.

Dodd delays rotten FISA bill

I wrote about this yesterday, but the headline of my post wasn't to the point. My letter, to Barack Obama and Dick Durbin (my state's so-called progressive U.S. Senators), was really about Chris Dodd's vow to filibuster a rotten revision of the FISA bill. The law would grant unconditional retroactive immunity to telecom execs and employees who may have helped rogue elements of the executive branch illegally and unconstitutionally spy on U.S. citizens. I demanded that both of my senators get Dodd's back and help make the filibuster work on behalf of the U.S. Constitution. (Obama replied with a longwinded, mealy-mouthed form letter by return robo-ping.)

Evidently, tonight Dodd succeeded in convincing the backstabbing Harry Reid to pull FISA from consideration until after the holiday Senate recess. I don't know or care about the details at this point, but hooray for Dodd! And a turd in the punchbowl for every other Democratic presidential candidate currently in the Senate who did not drop everything and haul back to DC to help Dodd line up a majority-proof filibuster. I am not interested in the purported leadership qualities of Obama or Hillary Clinton if they are not interested in showing some actual leadership on this critical issue here and now. I do not know what is the matter with these people --- more interested in being something than doing something, as the old saying goes. Trouble is, what they're being is opportunistic, irresponsible assholes.

A letter to Barack Obama

The following is the text of an email I sent to Barack Obama this evening about the Senate's impending grant of immunity to corporate executives and employees who may have cooperated in helping the current administration establish an illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying operation using U.S. telecommunications infrastructure:

Senator Obama,

I expect that tomorrow you will do everything in your power to support Senator Dodd's filibuster of the telecom immunity bill.

Nobody should be granted blanket, retroactive immunity for breaking the law or assisting others to do it. If telecom employees and executives want immunity from prosecution for breaking the laws of this land, then they need to provide their full cooperation in the prosecution of any and all government officials involved in violating the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens.

You want me, as a voter, to support your bid for President on the basis of your capacity for leadership. Fine: I want you to demonstrate your capacity for leadership by throwing your full and public support to Senator Dodd and his defense of what is left of our U.S. Constitution.

Sincerely,

[StuporMundi]

I wrote one to Dick Durbin, too, and it was even a bit snottier. Consider writing your own email along these same lines if you don't want politicians and corporations consummating their police state fantasies at the expense of our fundamental liberties.

Unintended consequences

The overthrow of democratic constitutional governments is, unfortunately, a mature line of business in this world. The most effective method for subverting an established democracy would seem to involve the synergy of lawyers, guns, and money. That style of coup, according to my everyday sense of things, works fastest and best in nations with only a short history of popular sovereignty or a weak tradition of same.

Lots of citizens are gloomy about the prospects of U.S. constitutional democracy, especially about America's apparent down-slope race toward something that smells like fascism (complete with state-controlled media). But even if you start from the debatable premise that most Americans live for consumerism and obsess on phony political issues that prey on their psychological insecurities, the U.S. is nevertheless far different from China or the Wiemar Republic or pre-Rat-Pack Cuba. No one has ever tried such a grand experiment in totalitarianism in a laboratory with 210 years of practice in constitutional democracy. It's fun to wonder what some of the unintended consequences of that experiment might be.

Update: I just remembered that, during Thanksgiving dinner, Nana opined that she hoped certain public figures got the "Mussolini treatment." Now wouldn't that be an unintended consequence? Blondy thought it was just hilarious.