Knaves or fools revisted

The New Neo Posted on by

Things have certainly been heating up in the health care reform battle. And they’ve also been heating up a bit in the comments section of this blog, in several debates having to do with the question of what President Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress are about, and what they are intending and planning for us all.

Of course it’s all speculation; we don’t read minds and we can’t tell the future. But educated guesses based on our best reading of the evidence before us is an activity that can be both interesting and helpful in planning for the future and changing the course of events—if possible—in a more positive direction.

Perhaps we are spinning our wheels. Perhaps we are powerless before the juggernaut. Or perhaps we are wrong and too alarmist, and all will be well. But those possibilities don’t mean we should stop discussing the past and present, what they might mean, and what we and others might do about it all, now and in the future. That’s part of the function of the study of history and current events, and of political discussion and speculation.

One of the biggest debates here has been about the nature of Obama and his confederates. It can be summarized as the “knaves or fools?” question. I’ve discussed this before (here, for example). It’s an interesting question; at this point, I happen to come down on the side of “quite a bit of both.”

Of course it’s all speculation. But not idle speculation. It’s based on my powers of observation and reasoning—you may, of course, come to a different conclusion on the knaves/fool question, based on your analysis of the same situation.

What’s the point of discussing the knaves/fools question? In a way, there is none: even fools can do a lot of damage if they are lucky enough to succeed. But in a way, there is a point: knaves tend to be even more successful, and certainly more ruthless.

However, as J.L. wrote in this comment:

Lets say were all on a cruise ship, and the captain is about to direct the ship right into an iceberg. We can all argue about the “intent” of the captain. In the end, we really cannot decifer whether he is actually intebnding harm, or whether he is just a total fool. He could be either.

What we do know is that the ship is being directed in a manner that most passengers believe, with good reason, will result in the destruction of the ship at worst (or at best, the sustaining by the ship of substantial damage), and the probable (or at least possible) loss of life.

We do not need to reach a conclusion as to whether this captain actually intends harm. We can accept that he may not mean harm, and that he is only a fool. In either case, the passengers of the ship are in the grave situation of needing to prevent the captain from carrying out his directions. In either case, he must be stopped…

I think, with regard to Obama and his allies in Congress, that I cannot come to the conclusion that they intend harm…But they are definitely creating harm, and I agree that the actions they are pursuing are such that alarm is called for. I believe in using all legal means possible, from protest to, if possible, recall petitions, to prevent them from passing this Obamacare monstrosity that most of the American people do not want.

I think this is a good summation of our current situation. Intent may be less relevant than we think; it is more important to judge whether we are heading for a metaphorical iceberg and try to stop it, whatever the intent of the captain[s].

But intent may be relevant in a different way: if we are able to infer intent from the evidence of a person’s repeated actions (and I happen to believe we can do so, although certainly not perfectly), then it can also imply future intent. For Obama and the Congressional leaders we have had not just one metaphorical lurch towards the iceberg, we have had many. And from this we can conclude that they are either (a) abysmally and repeatedly negligent and foolish but always in the same direction, towards the iceberg of leftism and government power and reduction of personal liberty; or (b) intending to do exactly what they are doing.

Again, let me say that I agree with J.L. that the remedy (or lack thereof) may be the same in either case. However, the difference may be mostly in the strength of the motivation on the part of Obama opponents, and their resolve and energy to organize against the current administration. If Obama and Pelosi are merely incompetent and bumbling fools, then they are less likely to succeed and there’s not quite as much much to worry about nor as much that we need to do or say. If they are fools and knaves—or worse, knaves and not fools—then there’s more work to be done. Is it not much better, though, to be safe than sorry?

But there is no question that as time has gone on, more and more Americans have become motivated to stop the juggernaut of this knavish/foolish government. The passage or non-passage of the current health care reform bill is a watershed, and the outcome will tell us a great deal.

Literal videos

The New Neo Posted on by

I seem to have stumbled on the phenomenon of literal videos relatively late in the game. A bunch of them went viral at You Tube last spring, and somehow I missed them. But if you, like me, weren’t familiar with them before, I’d say it’s about time you made their acquaintance.

Rock videos are often sort of funny to begin with—sometimes unintentionally so. The literal video does something that seems quite simple: it keeps the music and visuals, but rewrites the words (using a singer who attempts to imitate the voice quality of the original) to describe the action taking place. There is no reason to imagine this would be especially humorous. But in the hands of the literal video creator, it can be screamingly funny.

See if you agree. This is the grandaddy of them all, a redo of the already-quite-strange-enough video version of Bonnie Tyler’s 1983 hit “Total Eclipse of the Heart.” Give it time; it doesn’t really hit its stride right away. But I warn you not to imbibe any liquids while viewing; they may end up on the computer screen:

There are many more. I happen to also like this far more subdued one:

If you’re looking for still more, go here.

Is the Slaughter solution for real?

The New Neo Posted on by

I wrote earlier that I didn’t know whether the Slaughter solution would hold up, and I still don’t know. Will it bring reluctant Dems in the House on board? Does Pelosi have the cojones to go through with it? And if so, is there a way to challenge its constitutionality, and would the Supreme Court hear it, and if so what would the SCOTUS ruling be? And if the Court were to rule it unconstitutional, how would that decision be enforced against a Congress and an administration that might just be inclined to go even further rogue?

I don’t know the answers. But I do know that certain lawyer-bloggers such as Paul Mirengoff at Powerline believe that Slaughter’s “creative” rule-bending might be able to pass muster:

It’s a weird scheme and one that pushes constitutional limits. As Kuttner notes, though, the judiciary takes a generous view of Congress’ authority to “determine the rules of its proceedings.” Thus, it’s likely that, if the House Dems prevail on their one vote, we will be stuck with some form of Obamacare.

And here’s the Kuttner article to which Mirengoff refers:

A self-executing rule marries procedure and substance. It is a resolution of the House of Representatives that provides that the passage of the rule has the effect of passing substantive legislation. Unusual? Yes. Subject to being shouted at as an arrogant abuse of power? Yes. An end to cooperation between House Republicans and Democrats this year on any other matter? Likely. But the generous view that the judicial branch has taken in interpreting the authority of Congress to “determine the rules of its proceedings” means a bill thus passed would still be the law of the land.

This last chilling thought is what I meant when I wrote, in a slightly different but highly related context, “the Supreme Court might refuse to hear the case, or be very reluctant to rule against Congress…”

Here’s a post from Ace that references a report that Pelosi plans to use the Slaughter strategy, and soon. And here’s more in that vein:

And after debating House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the chamber floor, Minority Whip Eric Cantor emerged convinced that Democrats are going to use the [Slaughter solution]….“I can infer that we’re going to see a rule that will deem the Senate bill as having passed, and at the same time not even have 72 hours to even look at what they are passing,” Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said in an interview outside his office at the Capitol.

“The outrage to me on the part of the public is going to be focused on the fact that there is not even an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote,” Cantor said…Cantor expressed no doubt that the tactic could be used.

“It’s a self-executing rule. It is akin to passage but hidden in a rule as a side-note, passing the 2,700-page, $1 trillion bill, oh by the way,” he said.

So it seems likely that if Pelosi can get the votes for this, she will go for it. And then we shall see what we shall see.

I’m a blogger, not a tweeter

The New Neo Posted on by

Twitter has never held any appeal for me. 140 characters? C’mon, that’s barely enough to get me started. And have you ever noticed how nearly everyone who tweets ends up sounding like a Valley Girl?

But blogging attracted me right from the start, even though it takes a lot more time and effort. A big part of the fun is what I learn while doing the research and writing the posts, as well as reading the back-and-forth of the many wonderful commenters on this blog.

I was always puzzled when I’d hear that there were over a hundred million blogs. Clearly, many of these were either spam and/or kids fooling around for a couple of days and never coming back again—which turns out to be the case.

According to ex-blogger Dylan Wilbanks, blogging isn’t for everyone, even those who think it might be for them:

Blogs are meant for people for whom being a writer, being a creator, is a passion, or perhaps a requirement of life. They’re meant for people for whom Facebook’s ”˜What’s on your mind?’ question can’t always be answered in 500 characters or less.

That would be me.

In 2007, Michael Banks wrote a book called Blogging Heroes: Interviews With 30 of the World’s Top Bloggers. It doesn’t seem to include any political bloggers, but:

When Mr. Banks published “Blogging Heroes” in 2007, there was still a widely shared belief that one could instantly become rich and famous through blogging. Eventually, Banks says, “people sort of woke up to the fact that blogging required tremendous dedication and effort. The best bloggers are there at the keyboard every day, 12 hours a day sometimes, no matter what.” Good blogging he says, is intensive. “You can’t just blurt anything out. You have to think it through.”

Rich and famous through blogging? Pul-ease. That’s reserved for a precious few.

And I put in a lot of time here, but it’s hardly 12 hours—fortunately for me and what’s left of my life.

The limits of term limits?

The New Neo Posted on by

A great many people are crying out for term limits as a remedy for Congressional corruption and power trips. And there are certainly many advantages to the idea.

But certain recent actions of the Democrats in Congress have made me consider one problem I’ve not seen mentioned in connection with term limits: once a member of Congress is in his/her last permitted term of office (which in the case of a senator would last six long long years), what remaining check would there be on his/her voting behavior? Ideologues cut from the moorings provided by the need to be re-elected would be even less beholden to voters, not more, and therefore essentially unanswerable to them.

Two good pieces on health care reform and the Democrats

The New Neo Posted on by

In Forbes, Shikha Dalmia offers a good summary of the present state of health care reform. It’s worth reading the whole thing, but here’s a short excerpt:

…[B]oth the Democratic Party and President Obama have mutually reinforcing blind spots that have rendered them incapable of seeing what’s crystal clear to every other sentient being in the country: This was the wrong bill at the wrong time…

And here’s another good article, this one distinguished by having been authorized by Pat Cadell and Douglas Schoen and appearing in the WaPo. They both have been Democratic pollsters and still self-identify as Democrats, although Cadell has morphed quite a bit to the right in recent years. An excerpt:

…[T]he battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate’s reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes…

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters’ minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

And while I’m busy doing the link thing, here’s an excellent piece on a different topic, the so-called Al Qaeda Seven.

Comment of the day: power and the rule of law

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter Wolla Dalbo writes:

I think that a lot of commenters here are basing their analysis on a false assumption, and that false assumption is that the Democrats care at all about the rule of law, parliamentary procedure, Democracy, our traditions of government, or the rules of the House or Senate. The far left ideologues in charge of the Congressional Democrats, and most rank and file Democrats in Congress too, from what I see, couldn’t care less about these things, and believe a la Bill Maher, that the American public is a collection of ill-educated, dumb, hicks, hillbillies, religious fanatics and bozos”“virtual sub-humans””bleating, stinking sheep who do not have the ability to comprehend where there best interests lie, and will, thus, have to be, in the immortal words of the French Revolution “forced to be Free,” as the Democrats define freedom.

Nothing must stand in the way of the Democrats “helping” us to be “Free,” and they are determined that nothing, certainly nothing so trivial as rules or law or procedures or Democracy, can be allowed to stop or delay their imperative errand of mercy, during which””not coincidentally”“they will gain tyrannical power, and loot the country to fill their pockets as well.

I would add that it is probably no accident that this has occurred as “progressives” have become more and more instrumental in our system of public education. The decline of teaching and knowledge about the Constitution, checks and balances, the rule of law, and American history among our young people that has gone on for decades have contributed mightily to the ability of our politicians to succeed—or at least come close—in this endeavor.

Here are some companion pieces to Wolla Dalbo’s observations. First, a retread of some quotes from Lenin:

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.

Democracy is indispensable to socialism.

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.

One man with a gun can control 100 without one.

The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.

The goal of socialism is communism.

The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.

There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience.

No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses.

And now in closing, Dostoevsky, from The Brothers Karamazov. Yes, I’ve offered this one several times before, but it always seems to bear repeating; unfortunately, it never quite goes out of fashion. In this excerpt Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor is addressing Christ, who has returned to earth but been arrested and imprisoned again, this time by the Inquisition:

Oh, never, never can [people] feed themselves without us [the Inquisitors and controllers]! No science will give them bread so long as they remain free. In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and say to us, “Make us your slaves, but feed us.” They will understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too, that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worthless, and rebellious. Thou didst promise them the bread of Heaven, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, ever sinful and ignoble race of man?

The Republican 41

The New Neo Posted on by

Anyone think RINOs are good for nothing? This is exactly what they are good for. Every single Republican Senator (and that includes leading Maine RINOs extraordinaire—or are the RINOettes?— Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins has signed on in an attempt to stop reconciliation from applying to anything except strictly budgetary matters. This puts Democrats in the House on notice that passing the Senate bill as is just might mean that the provisions of the Senate bill become law and could be hung like an albatross around the necks of Democrat moderates (sorry for the possible oxymoron there) in the House who might vote for it.

And if any of this actually works to stop this bill from becoming law, Scott Brown’s election will have made it all possible. Without him it would be forty Republicans rather than forty-one, and they would be powerless to do anything.

Let me reiterate: without those RINOs it wouldn’t be possible either. And believe me, Maine would have had two Democratic Senators right now if not for Snowe and Collins.

[NOTE: Unless I’m misunderstanding something here, I think this article by Jay Cost misses the point. From what I’ve read about Congressional rules so far, it seems that the House must pass the Senate bill exactly as currently written and then reconciliation can kick in. Stupak and at least some of his group would only vote yea to such a bill if they knew that it could be amended re abortion funding through reconciliation. If the Republican-41 letter makes those Democrats fear this will not be possible, they might not vote for the Senate bill in the first place and it will be defeated. Jay Cost seems to see it differently.]

Slaughter: hey, I know! Let’s change the rules so that we don’t have to vote at all

The New Neo Posted on by

I must confess I don’t understand how this could possibly get by:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

How would this actually work? And why not just abolish Congress and pass everything by acclamation or silent auction or magic wands? It’s almost as though the Democrats want to warn the American people that they are willing to go quite far along the Chavez/Zeleya route to tyranny.

[ADDENDUM: And if your day wasn’t pleasant enough, Harry Reid announced that as his parting gift to the Americans he’s served so proudly in the Senate, he approves of a plan to abolish the filibuster by a simple majority vote at the beginning of the next session of Congress. Chuck Schumer of NY says they’re going to start talking about it in a couple of weeks

This would refer to the so-called “nuclear option,” a technique by which the need to have a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules (such as the filibuster) could supposedly be overcome at the beginning of a new session of Congress by a simple majority vote. The argument goes this way:

…[O]n the first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and thus can be changed by majority vote. Under this argument, debate could be stopped by majority vote as well.

The strategy became well-known (but was not actually used) when Newt Gingrich threatened to employ it to overcome Democratic filibusters of President Bush’s judicial appointments (and these Democratic filibusters themselves were a break with Senate tradition; routine judicial appointments previously had usually been given the courtesy of an up-down vote). The Democrats, of course, opposed the nuclear option mightily at the time, although now they would be attempting to use it for far larger and more transformative (and more unpopular) matters than mere judicial appointments.

The opposing party can do a number of things after a nuclear option that would threaten to shut down the Senate; I believe that’s one of the reasons it’s called “nuclear.” But the most important point for our purposes today is that this sort of thing makes it even more vital that the election of 2010 not only result in Republican control of the House, but accomplishe the much more difficult task of taking control of the Senate too.

Harry Reid will probably not be a part of that next Senate session, which begins in January of 2011, but Schumer is more likely—although not certain—to be re-elected in 2010 and keep his seat. Because Senators are only up for re-election every six years, only a third of the Senate will run for office in 2010 (unless a few more resign), and only eighteen of these are Democrats (see a list here).

So the Republicans would have to retain every seat they hold and gain ten of the current Democrat seats in order to take control. A couple of months ago I would have thought this completely impossible. But after the Massachusetts election, it seems there’s a chance. But it will be very, very difficult.]