Why has the lame duck session “produced” so much?

The New Neo Posted on by

Ezra Klein and I are asking essentially the same question, although we’re phrasing it a bit differently. He wonders why the lame duck session been so “productive;” I’m not so sure I’d use that particular word.

However, we’re in agreement on the point that there’s been a flurry of bills passed lately, and that most of the “compromise” has been on the part of RINOs who let these bills go forward instead of waiting till late January, when the new Congress will be in session and Republicans could get a much sweeter deal.

The reason? Klein’s guess is that the RINOs aren’t pleased with the more conservative makeup of the new Congress and want to pass what Klein calls “sensible” legislation. They disagree with their new Republican colleagues on principle.

I’d add that the RINOs are distressed that the extraordinary power they now hold by being the swing votes will be diminished in the upcoming more Republican Congress. For politicians, it’s often about personal power, I’m afraid. In addition, since these RINOs are mostly from fairly liberal states and would prefer to be re-elected, they don’t want their constituents to take it out on them; after all, bills such as the repeal of DADT are very popular with the American public in general and certainly with the voters of Maine and Massachusetts.

Another reason I think this may be happening now is that the Pelosi/Reid Congress purposely tried to get its most leftist and controversial bills passed in the early days of the session, when liberal strength was strongest. What’s left now are those bills that are more amendable to compromise, bills that had some sort of bipartisan (RINO, in particular) support, or bills with some time urgency (the so-called “Bush tax cuts”).

It also might be that the Republican leadership just isn’t very tough. You’d think they’d have the power right now to threaten RINOs with loss of privileges in the next session if the line isn’t toed, but that doesn’t seem to be happening. Or, if it has been happening, it’s been ineffective.

It may also be that Republican leaders don’t want to validate their own reputation for being the party of “no.” Some of these bills (such as the aforementioned DADT repeal) have broad popular appeal with the public, and drawing a line in the sand on them seems both mean-spirited and counterproductive, especially when it’s unclear that the bill’s passage will have a negative effect on the military (the only argument I can see that could justify blocking it).

Many Republican—and especially conservative—voters have had tons of experience with disappointment with Republicans in Congress. My guess is that in the next session, even with the Republicans more in control, there’ll be plenty more of that to come.

Haley Barbour and racism

The New Neo Posted on by

The opposition’s been trying to paint Haley Barbour with the racism brush for quite some time, and now he’s given them some good ammunition in a new Weekly Standard piece.

What constitutes “good ammunition” is different than it used to be, of course. Overtly racist statements are few and far between, so these days the racism accusation almost always relies on candidates making racially-related statements that contain inaccuracies, innuendos, and/or insensitivites, or are badly phrased, or some combination of these things.

Barbour’s seems to have encompassed the last two categories, at least evinced by the correction/clarification he issued today, which attempts to explain that he was not insinuating that the Citizens Councils of the South in his youth were non-racist, just that they were against violence:

When asked why my hometown in Mississippi did not suffer the same racial violence when I was a young man that accompanied other towns’ integration efforts, I accurately said the community leadership wouldn’t tolerate it and helped prevent violence there. My point was my town rejected the Ku Klux Klan, but nobody should construe that to mean I think the town leadership were saints, either. Their vehicle, called the ‘Citizens Council,’ is totally indefensible, as is segregation. It was a difficult and painful era for Mississippi, the rest of the country, and especially African Americans who were persecuted in that time.

Makes sense, but will Barbour get a second chance? I doubt it. He’s already had his previous “macaca” moment:

Both Geraghty and Rubin hammer Barbour for that widely-discussed 1982 episode in the New York Times, in which Barbour allegedly warned that if the aide persisted in racist remarks, he would be reincarnated as a watermelon and placed at the mercy of blacks. Geraghty says this episode will “come to define him.”

Chris Cillizza analyzes whether it is the case that remarks such as the ones in the Weekly Standard interview for which Barbour’s been called racist (untrue) and insensitive (perhaps true) will wind up defining him and harming his chances in 2012. Will it? I have no idea; it’s a long way to 2012, but my guess is that Barbour is not going to do well.

[NOTE: Here’s a really astounding criticism of a seemingly innocuous remark Barbour made during the WS interview, which shows how broadly racism has now come to be defined:

“I remember Martin Luther King came to town in ’62. He spoke out at the old fairground and it was full of people, black and white,” Barbour said.

When asked to describe the event, the governor replied, “I don’t really remember. The truth is, we couldn’t hear very well. We were sort of out there on the periphery. We just sat on our cars, watching the girls, talking, doing what boys do. We paid more attention to the girls than to King.”

Derrick Johnson, president of the Mississippi NAACP called Barbour’s comments
“beyond disturbing.”

Let’s set the scene: depending on the month King came to town, Barbour was either fourteen or fifteen years old at the time. And yet he actually attended the King speech, certainly not an indication of racism. He mentions a racially mixed crowd, but when questioned for details, instead of making up some other facts or stating general platitudes about an event that occurred forty-eight years ago, he tells the truth, which is that he doesn’t recall much more because he was a young teen, interested in girls, and sitting far away on the outskirts of the crowd.

Derrick Johnson of the NAACP finds this “beyond disturbing.” I find Johnson’s comments “beyond disturbing.”

No doubt Barbour the 14/15-year-old should have foreseen his future in politics, made sure he got a great seat up front, and taken copious notes.]

Global warming: the theory of everything

The New Neo Posted on by

George Monbiot explains how it is that the unusually cold winters in Europe lately are actually consistent with, and probably caused by, global warming. Warm, cold, wet, dry, it’s all fodder for the global warming mill.

As John at Powerline has noted, a scientific theory is judged by, among other things, its predictive power, and in this sense global warming is both fabulous and terrible. A theory that predicts everything predicts nothing. It can neither be proven nor refuted. It is, as many have long said, more in line with a faith than a science.

But global warming is one thing. Whether it’s happening or not tells us nothing about the far more important question of whether whatever global warming that is occuring is anthropogenic, or human-caused. The science that purports to prove that is even iffier, but the faith is strong.

[NOTE: When it came time to choose a category for this post, I didn’t know whether to select “science” or “religion.” So I split the difference and chose both.]

The memorious

The New Neo Posted on by

“Funes the Memorious” has long been one of my favorite short stories by Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges. In it, Borges describes a fictional character who has an accident and becomes unable to forget anything:

Funes…reveals that, since his fall from the horse, he perceives everything in full detail and remembers it all. He remembers, for example, the shape of clouds at all given moments, as well as the associated perceptions (muscular, thermal, etc.) of each moment. Funes has an immediate intuition of the mane of a horse or the form of a constantly changing flame that is comparable to our (normal people’s) intuition of a simple geometric shape such as a triangle or square.

In order to pass the time, Funes has engaged in projects such as reconstructing a full day’s worth of past memories (an effort which, he finds, takes him another full day), and constructing a “system of enumeration” that gives each number a different, arbitrary name. Borges correctly points out to him that this is precisely the opposite of a system of enumeration, but Funes is incapable of such understanding.

Funes is an extreme example of memory run amok to the point of being dysfunctional. But there are real people who are only a bit less memorious than Funes, although they seem to keep their abilities compartmentalized so that they don’t take over their lives. “60 Minutes” had a fascinating piece on them that aired last night, featuring five people who have Rainman-like capabilities but are not autistic (one is a well-known actress).

Here’s a bit about them and the genesis of the show [NOTE: That video seems to have disappeared, so I’m linking to one of the show itself]:

A personal note: I exhibit a small area of strangely enhanced memory myself, although nothing remotely as impressive as theirs. I often remember what I wore, especially if it was during emotional or important situations. I sometimes remember what others around me wore, too.

This ability goes back to early childhood. It is mostly a visual thing, although I also recall parts of the conversation pretty clearly, especially if it was upsetting (the “60 Minutes” piece said that adrenalin enhances memory, and I believe it). For me the memory of the event often includes the setting in which it took place, where I was standing, where the other person was standing, what I was wearing, and sometimes what they were wearing.

For example, I have a memory of an argument with my mother when I was about two. I was objecting to something she wanted me to do, much in the way of the typical two-year-old. We were standing on the porch in the summertime, and I had on a yellow skirt decorated with red rickrack.

There is no photo of the scene to jog my memory, nor even a photo of the skirt, but I remember it well. Plus, there’s no one around who can correct me or tell me I’m wrong. My mother was the only witness, and she’s almost 97. What’s more, she hardly remembered it in the first place—it just wasn’t significant to her, and she doesn’t have that sort of visual memory.

I also remember—or believe I remember—every article of clothing I ever owned. One would think that I place extraordinary emphasis on clothes and am exceptionally interested in them. But no, not in the least; I’m about average in the respect.

[NOTE: Here’s a Wiki article on the type of memory exhibited by the people in the “60 Minutes” piece. It’s considered exceedingly rare.]

Assange objects to leaks to press–when they’re about him

The New Neo Posted on by

Julian Assange objects to the leak of police files related to the rape allegations against him, published in—of all places (et tu, Brute?)—the leftist Guardian.

Actually, it’s his lawyers who object. I’m sure Assange himself would fully support the Guardian’s move, in the interests of transparency and truth and all that:

In a move that surprised many of Mr Assange’s closest supporters on Saturday, The Guardian newspaper published previously unseen police documents that accused Mr Assange in graphic detail of sexually assaulting two Swedish women. One witness is said to have stated: “Not only had it been the world’s worst screw, it had also been violent.”

Bjorn Hurtig, Mr Assange’s Swedish lawyer, said he would lodge a formal complaint to the authorities and ask them to investigate how such sensitive police material leaked into the public domain. “It is with great concern that I hear about this because it puts Julian and his defence in a bad position,” he told a colleague.

I do not like the idea that Julian may be forced into a trial in the media. And I feel especially concerned that he will be presented with the evidence in his own language for the first time when reading the newspaper. I do not know who has given these documents to the media, but the purpose can only be one thing – trying to make Julian look bad.”

However, it shouldn’t have happened—even the execrable Assange should have his legal rights protected—and I suppose it might even backfire if it is considered sufficiently prejudicial to his impending trial.

But there are many kinds of justice. And on a certain level—that of poetic justice—this can hardly be improved upon.

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m sure there’s an important message here somewhere, if only we could discern it:

Oh how I dear the music punishment from the, everything seemed to be way statesman yeasty than today penalization.

The lame duck that wouldn’t die

The New Neo Posted on by

The WaPo offers this fascinating glimpse into why the lame duck sessions of Congress have continued despite the obvious need to stop them. It turns out that the 20th Amendment (passed in 1933) was intended to do just that when it moved the transition date from March to January. At the time, this effectively thwarted lame duck sessions because, “…it was inconceivable that lawmakers would journey back to Washington to meet for a few weeks after Thanksgiving.”

Ah, those short-sighted legislators! Enter airplane travel. Although the amendment did work as intended for many decades, by the 80s it had become obsolete. And now we have the worst—most “ambitious,” that is—lame duck session since the amendment was passed, according to John Copeland Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and “one of the obscure amendment’s few scholars.”

And I love this quote:

“We wouldn’t need to be doing all this in the lame duck if the Republicans had not obstructed and delayed everything that we had been trying to do,” said Regan LaChapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid. “I don’t see anything wrong with working for the American people to get things done.”

Yes, the Republicans made them do it. The Democrats tried and tried to get those “Bush tax cuts” [sic] extended while the Republicans stood in their way and pushed for HCR and cap and trade. And of course, it’s the “American people” clamoring for the enactment of the rest of the Democratic Party agenda. That’s why the Democrats won such a resounding victory last November.

The Dream Act dies–for now

The New Neo Posted on by

It was only a Dream.

Depending on the source, articles describing the defeat of the Dream Act refer to the young people involved as either illegal immigrants (correct) or undocumented immigrants (annoying euphemism).

The measure, which would have granted citizenship to those who “came to the United States as children, completed two years of college or military service and met other requirements including passing a criminal background check,” was defeated by 41 Senate votes although it had majority support.

This effectively means the Dream is dead until at least 2014; be assured it won’t be given up permanently by the Democrats, who among other things are eager to swell the voter rolls with those they consider their constituents, and to encourage more illegals to come here with their children in order to receive similar benefits.

Legal immigrants are already eligible to serve in the military and be fast-tracked to citizenship. Illegals aren’t. And this “undocumented” business really, really gets my goat. It suggests that those who came here illegally are guilty only of a mere paperwork glitch.

Even the NY Times, which at least doesn’t use the “undocumented” gambit in its article, plays the sad violin:

…[The Dream Act] would have helped grant legal status to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant students and recent graduates whose lives are severely restricted because they are illegal residents, though many have lived in the United States for nearly their entire lives.

And Senator Durbin of Illinois, in a plea for support of the Act, had this to say of the young illegals:

They stand in the classrooms and pledge allegiance to our flag. They sing our star-spangled banner as our national anthem. They believe in their heart of hearts this is home. This is the only country they have every [sic] known.

It’s a fascinating argument. The believe in their hearts that this is home. They feel it, don’t you see? And who are we to frustrate those feelings? It is incumbent on us to remedy the lack of a few piddling papers, and to make reality conform to belief, as it should.

Use Amazon at neo-neocon for those last-minute gifts

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s getting late, but not too late. There’s still time to use the handy Amazon widgets on my right sidebar to click-though to Amazon and order gifts for all the loved ones, friends, relatives, and business acquaintances on your list. Hey, you can even get something for yourself! All of it will benefit neo-neocon without costing you an extra cent. Sounds like a deal to me.

Obama: Comeback Kid II?

The New Neo Posted on by

Bill Clinton did it—at a low political ebb after a Congressional defeat, he returned to the center and won re-election. Charles Krauthammer believes that President Obama has just received concessions via the tax bill that will allow him to do the same in short order. It’s worth reading the whole thing to get a flavor of what Krauthammer is saying.

Is he correct? Dunno. But if he is, it would mark a new low in stupidity and amnesia on the part of the American people. It’s been obvious to anyone paying a moment of attention to the last two years that Obama had no interest in compromise or moving to the middle until he was dragged there, kicking and screaming, by an angry electorate. Even now, he can’t resist bad-mouthing the other side even as he reluctantly concedes to them. Does anyone believe that, once re-elected in 2012, he would not move as far to the left as Congress would let him?

Besides, unemployment is still down and may remain so, the economy is still stalled and may remain so, our foreign affairs are still chaotic and our reputation for strength in the gutter, Obamacare is still unpopular, and the deficit was still sky-high when last I looked. What’s more, despite what Krauthammer writes about liberals being angry at Obama but having no place else to go in 2012, they really don’t have to go anywhere to desert him; they can just stay home.

Bill Clinton was a different sort of politician with a different sort of history. Like him or not, he came across as personally warm, and he moved people to believe he understood (and felt!) their pain. Obama is quite the opposite. Clinton also had a history as governor of Arkansas of operating from the center and then campaigning from the center. His move to the left was more the aberration, and so his move back to the center, although strategic, was also seen as believable and even sincere. Obama is quite the opposite.

The American people just might decide to say to Obama, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me…” Obama has betrayed their trust, and trust once lost is hard to recapture and must be slowly rebuilt with demonstration after demonstration of lessons learned. Nothing Obama has done has constituted even the first step in that process; he’s merely being pragmatic for the moment—and I like to think that enough voters have been paying attention that they’re aware of it.

Perhaps not, though. Perhaps Krauthammer is correct to operate as though the old saying “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people” is correct. If so, too many of us are fools.