From earlier today . . . within another Reality Distortion Field . . .
And the predictable (ever since the female CNBC anchor blurted ‘it’s a feminine product!’ on air) jokes keep coming.
The Imperial City And The World
From earlier today . . . within another Reality Distortion Field . . .
And the predictable (ever since the female CNBC anchor blurted ‘it’s a feminine product!’ on air) jokes keep coming.
We generally agree with Jack Balkin’s assessment re the causal relationship among the political economy, judicial cadres and resulting jurisprudence. He’s responding to Larry Lessig. As needed in today’s meme-soaked world, Balkin and Sandy Levinson have cloaked their argument with the moniker ‘Partisan Entrenchment’. It fits. What Balkin says is pretty unremarkable except we’re in such debased times an ADD afflicted demos must be reminded.
Law always has been the internal profession, especially common law jurisdictions such as the UK and U.S. The Continent still is largely a code based legal system derived from the common Roman inheritance. Under common law systems dependent on case law, the entire edifice of jurisprudence, stare decises and other meme barriers are designed to seal legal development from external interference (‘Originalists’ being the most famous (to some) fringe movement within the Academy and bench).
Political science always has been external. By that one means the analysis and perspective is macro. Theory and application are on institutions, people, and processes. Political scientists, of course, write about law, separation of powers and constitutional matters. Louis Fisher merely being among the most prominent. Political scientists (and pundits) generally don’t know how to read a case. Almost always they fail to understand the difference between the holding – or binding decision – and dicta surrounding it which is often colorful, immensely quotable but separate and non-binding. (Judicial activists like Scalia, however, are expert at inserting dicata for future mischief). A failing of the legal academy was its inability to handle and deal with the so-called ‘Crits’ (Critical Legal Theory’) back in the 1980s successfully, which began the commingling of external disciplines with legal theory and eventually jurisprudence. People in the Academy running around writing articles about Wittegenstein and the UCC or Kantian aspects of replevin eventually yield a bitter harvest. Except it is now Rightist instead of the ineffectual and droll neo-Marxist stuff back then. (Posner deserves a special place in Night Court hell for his Right Wing imprimatur on it all).
We say all this because ‘Partisan Entrenchment’ and even Lessig’s approach are heirs to the breakdown in barriers between the internal and external (Balkin and Levinson are actually acting more like political scientists here than lawyers). We’re still reading the decision carefully before we offer our legal opinion of Citizens United; in general, the claims of unjustified judicial activism and clear disregard for principles of jurisprudence are clear even on a first read. We’ll have more to say in the days ahead. We’re looking at congressional options in particular.
Can be just that. Or it can signify the rout of an army, unleashing shattering changes. The difference? Often literally what we choose.
So it is now, post-Coakley. Such pointless freneticism.
Who is surprised the Democrats can’t govern? Old news. 2006 and it’s limp aftermath gave us that tattoo you. The remaining variable is Obama. So people ponder can he be or is he worth salvage?
What will he stand for? What demonstrably will he fight for? With mind as well as heart? The Stiftung still doesn’t know. Do you?
We’ve all along suspected the answer is not much. But we didn’t think he’d blow a first year this badly. We have to apologize to a friend of ours at Fox News. He called pretty much this entire state of affairs last April, including the unemployment rate. We lost that bet. (Note to Doris Kearns Goodwin, enough with the bizarre JFK juxtapose at this point, in January 2010).
Whatever happens we hope the netroots collectively continue to identify promising progressive candidates and encourage them to run. Such excellent work allows people like the Stiftung to find out how we can help. Even with just a donation. Disagreement among the ‘Left’ [sic] about specific tactical issues ala confronting Obama or supporting them on this or that meme? All small potatoes. Eyes on the prize. A new ‘Democratic Party’ that can govern awaits.
Here’s a request. For the next seconds here put Coakley, Obama, Palin — everyone else — aside. And let’s ask ourselves the very questions we posed to Obama above: (i) what we stand for; (ii) what we demonstrably will fight for; and (iii) with mind as well as heart? See how clear it is that this moment in time is about us, not the careers or egos of politicians. These public figures recede to their proper place. Agents or employees. In life some work out, some don’t. Some will surprise us and even betray — ala Joementum. This is our story, not theirs. They’re just passing through.
We opened with the Valmy reference to make this point. If it’s our story then we can see a whiff of grapeshot for what it is. And ignore all the frantic babbling. Pick up the pieces and go forward. Some in our story are still in Act 1 (albeit the troupe is not promising). Is it possible Obama will recover and see a new noontide sun? Like Reagan, rekindle his connection with the American people before 2012 should unemployment fall? Perhaps. But then remember, he is simply our agent, our employee to take this country where we want it to go. The Stiftung personally won’t pretend to believe he knows the way.
The goal was always getting our country back from radical Christian Socialist Authoritarianism. If these agents or employees can’t do it, we’ll find some who will. This Coakley debacle is a wake up call. Avoid seductive intoxication with personalities and ‘life stories’. It may be the final price will shock us all. Possibly we are fated to endure yet another Great Restoration with all its ensuing rapacity. Just for the chance to throw the dice again for the right to even try and win back a trebly battered republic.
Still a deal worth doing. If *we* all collectively decide that’s where we and the country ought to be. In the interim, let’s all put the Olbermanns of the world on ‘mute’ (Tweety, beyond ‘mute’) and get back to work, wiser. It’s just a whiff of grapeshot. Forward, shall we?
We always get a chuckle when the WaPo clucks about some bureaucracy allegedly in scandal because said bureaucracy broke the iron clad rule of ‘good paperwork, always’. Here today the WaPo notes the FBI sent out thousands (doubtlessly the real total is much higher) of ‘special’ national security requests to phone companies without the proper paper work (read the now notorious ‘national security letter’). And shock, many of these requests really had nothing to do with national security! Gambling? Here? And shock, the bureau tried to cover its ass by creating false meta ‘terrorism’ investigation grab all files, putting the requests in them and then scrambled to back date the proper paperwork.
Of all the legacies left to us by the Warlord, must we endure the most shameful? Bad paperwork? According to what’s her face in the story, the FBI ‘technically’ was not in compliance. If only they had contractors on site who could manage and oversee compliance . . .
We take this light heartened tone because a) we’re pretty sure the WaPo doesn’t have the whole story; b) the Bureau always was destined to abuse the Patriot Act; c) under the Patriot Act the Bureau had the power to xerox those ‘nsls’ like an office holiday party derrieres anyway (and did); and d) we are supremely confident nothing will really change. Bin Laden really did kill alot of America that day. Obama engorges the competence challenged (but very vindictive) Permanent National Security State. Hey, it’s a bi-partisan, Martha Stewart ‘good thing.’
This week, aside from the horror and hope in Haiti and Conan O’Brien’s defenstration, a little soon to be forgotten group called the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission held ‘hearings’. Eliot Spitzer et al. assure us that a lackluster dog and pony show with Wall Street CEOs smiling like Cheshire Cats is a good thing.
FCIC should use this first public hearing for two quiet purposes. The primary goal should be to develop information. The subsidiary goal is to put the CEOs on record as to what went catastrophically wrong, which will allow the FCIC to judge their candor as the facts are developed. The FCIC, and the nation, need the utmost candor. The CEOs must testify under oath, as is the norm now for witnesses testifying before the House Financial Services Committee. Precisely because it is the norm it does not impute any wrongdoing to any witness.
Spitzer helpfully provided 10 questions. Krugman was unimpressed.
Well, if you were hoping for a Perry Mason moment — a scene in which the witness blurts out: “Yes! I admit it! I did it! And I’m glad!” — the hearing was disappointing. What you got, instead, was witnesses blurting out: “Yes! I admit it! I’m clueless!”
O.K., not in so many words. But the bankers’ testimony showed a stunning failure, even now, to grasp the nature and extent of the current crisis. And that’s important: It tells us that as Congress and the administration try to reform the financial system, they should ignore advice coming from the supposed wise men of Wall Street, who have no wisdom to offer.
Quelle suprise. Do Spitzer and company really expect Wall Street CEOs to be forthcoming beyond a gee whiz, who knew? Everything Krugman rants about — millions of families damaged or destroyed, mass unemployment, lives devastated. And no one really cares. As long as they have a job. They have health insurance. The Dow is back above 10,000. They’re still in their McMansions driving their Land Rover two blocks to the Food Lion or Safeway. And their unemployed friends are let go and become invisible unless they have the bad form to ask for help.
That’s why Barney Frank’s limp financial reform bill is toothless. He’s got no mojo and everyone knows it. The public is still angry. Polls tell us so. But they’re focused on practical things. Sliding to the ranks of the permanent 10% unemployed is something that can be avoided like the H1N1 virus. Naturally the usual forms will be obeyed. The financial lobbysists (many whom the Stiftung dealt with and back in the day crushed once in a gloriously satisfying victory on House suspension) will scream and holler. We predict they will roll back Frank’s lame bill even further in the Senate. But in truth considering the scale of carnage since 2008 Frank doesn’t even slap their wrists. All this talk about Geithner’s head on a stick re AIG is so, er, bush league. How cheaply the masses are appeased.
Who here takes Obama’s stamping of his feet over a ‘tax’ as an actionable threat? Doesn’t he need to find out what Max Baucus and Oympia Snowe think? Given what he’s done to date from Afghanistan to State Secrets to torture to health insurance, do we really want Obama getting involved at all?