#240 Okay Antonin "Tony Guns" Scalia and You Too Frankie "Dutch" Lautenberg--Let's Talk ... About THE Gun Law of 1791 [UPDATED]

Here is Justice "Tony Guns"  in his youthful gangbanger days sporting a  longer coif, and wearing a single, distinctive and quite becoming earring in the LEFT ear, which I'm told is the secret double-reverse signum of underworld connections (see last post), perhaps even unto the depths of Hell. Or not.

But he sure does love himself them fararms ... and that good ol'-timey Second Amendment of the US Constitution, by which he "justifies" his love. Sweet. Known only to intimates: the mobster-benchman has it tattooed where his tramp-stamp would go. A rite of passage in the organization. And which, lucky for us Patriots, he believes gives us the right to "bear arms" in a delightfully unfettered way.

Now as a "Strict Constructionist" (aka "entomologist") in interpreting the Constitution, he had to eliminate from his decision-making the possibility that the "Framers," or whoever, were NOT thinking of "bear arms" as a noun-noun double morpheme compound substantive as in "bear arms"--that is, weapons to kill bruin-kind (family Ursidae), such ursidicide being a common pastime in Colonial America, especially in Philadelphia, where these quaint gunslingers were meeting. But bears of several species (not including the Koala, which hadn't been discovered yet) can be dangerous for colonial campsites, and pose a threat to New-Nationhood. Proper weaponry guaranteeing Ursine lethality.would have been required of all.  Big long guns. Most antebellum colonists had them anyway. Did the 2ndA restrict firearms to bear-musketry only?

Here's the Original (spelling and all), consisting of one syntactically awkward sentence that "originalist" Justice Mafiabagman had to deal with--tattooed, as I said, slightly north of his hindquarters and tail, making it prima facie difficult for ready reference:

A well regulated Militia, being neceffary to the fecurity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear armf, shall not be infringed.

Even the fpelling is difficult, as you can see, the Framers being inodinately fond of the alternate orthographic form of "s" (technically, the fistula) at the time. It's an effete rightward slanting "f"-like grapheme (as in parfum, not to be confused with parsum, which is not a word anyway), whose type key the Blogman had installed in the keyboard device for just such an occasion. A curious but meaningless  fact: an unusually high number of Founding Fathers had a lisp, or developed one soon after the Convention ... as would we all.

These minutiae are important to an "originalist" interpreter of our Founding Document and its first ten amendments, because there may be even more. The "textualists" represent the other related approach in the (coinage alert) "Constrictcunnalinctionist" family of two. This branch also sanctifies the words-as-written epistome, but unlike the "originalists" these seditious folk allow for some semantic evolution to be taken into account. Patriotic "originalists" (aka Tea-Baggers) will have none of that. They want to "figure out" what the "Framers" were "actually" THINKING at the "time" they were "actually" WRITING the "words."

Thus the Devil was appropriately in the details for Mr. Justice Uuderworld because he had to come up with the RIGHT (haha) Opinion as he consulted the oft-disputed 2ndA, as nobody affectionately calls it yet. He was deciding a case involving a law prohibiting home hand-gun possession in Wash DC, Difficult. But Antonin came through. This Associated Press headline and lead say it all:
Gun-Crazy*** Justice Scalia Writes Demented Majority Opinion That Strikes Down DC Anti-Hand-Gun Law Based On Delusional Constitutional Right To Bear Armf  Joining Scalia in the 5-4 Decision Banning the Banning of the Ownership of Handguns in the Home Were the Other Barely Humanoid Members of SCOTUS [?]: Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and What's-His-Name (AP 6/22/12)

It would be hard to make these things up. Anyway, Justice Scalia's "originalist" interpretation began by eliminating something SO elementary that it was beyond even my ken, and barbie's too. Bear armf? thought Scalia, trying to think the thoughts of the great Thinkers-up of the thing. Could the Framers have been thinking of the severed fore-limbs of the Ursine-kind? As weapons? To CLUB a Redcoat into submission perhaps, after a soldier's ammunition ran out or gun jammed? Broken bayonet? Might work, till spoilage set in. Heavy enough. Lots of bears around then. The claws would surely be effective. But noooo, too messy for fussbudget aristocrats like Adams, Hamilton, and esp Dolly Madison, who I've heard wrote most of the Constitution. Problem is: never happened. And the OED cites no instance of  "armf" used for bear parts. 

Then the revelation. He had been painstakingly parsing the ideation of each word separately, but now he remembered the "and" preceding "bear armf" and ...  Epiphany. "Tony Guns" knew right then that he was on to something.

[NEXT: How "Tony Guns" justifies thousands upon thousands of needless homicides.]

 *** Saw Gun Crazy, the movie, at the old Avalon theater (q.v. in several archival posts) in 1950 on a "double-bill" (yes, Virginia, TWO movies for a quarter) and tried unsuccessfully to reach and relate it to Annie Oakley and Hoot Gibson . Re-saw it recently on TCM. Wonderfully trashy/campy noir with moral that gunf make good people into killers. Tsk, tsk, a truth for the ages.
************

#239 Hey Justice Scalia, "Ba Fungule"--Are You Talkin' To ME? About Gun Laws?

Three things about this picture of  6-yr-old Veronica Moser-Sullivan, resident of Aurora, Colorado:

1) She's missing a front tooth (I sympathize);

2) She loves ice cream;

3) She's dead;

4) She was killed by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Now, three questions directed to this so-called A.Scalia, by all accounts with a full set of teeth and breathing in and out. 

1) You are quite fond of the 2nd Amendment, as are we all, because it was after all a pretty good law for its time, and you like the "for-its-time" thing don't you, being what they call a Constitutional "originalist" or something. True?

2) Qualifying as an audible life-form, you were appointed to the SCOTUS Corporation, owned by Ronald Reagan at the time, based on your fondness also for the Tridentine Latin Mass (sponsored by a famous chewing-gum company) and GUNS. Right?

3) As one of the known mobsters on the Court, you are sympathetic to the proliferous gun-lobbies and to organized crime, who reject any kind of Federal regulation of guns and ammunition of any kind. Including assault rifles. Yes?

4) Your ties to the Mafia are not only indicated by #3, but also by your last name, your religion--clandestine rites in a dead language--and the Soprano-perfect sign you are wont to use when annoyed by reporters asking about these biased decisions:

This photo captures the secret gesture midway between first cupping your hand under the chin and full-out FLICK of hand and fingers, does it not? The visual mummery represents the underlying code in Italian "Ba(va) Fungule(fan culo)"--meaning literally in English "Go find an ass (your own, to fuck, implied). Abstracted meaning, of course:  "Fuck you." And Mr. Scalia, you would be up on your Latin/Italian roots, based on your old-timey Roman church experience, would you not? ***   

 5) You are responsible for the murder of this young lady, Veronica Moser-Sullivan, who while doubtless finishing her dental-friendly ice cream and waiting for The Dark Knight Rises to appear on the screen of  her local Cinema ... he did. Movie cancelled for Veronica. New front tooth mooted.

This innocent was slaughtered by an angry white man in a black suit carrying an AK-47 assault rifle--a Weapon of War. Unless this was a SOLDIER run amuck, suffering from PTSD, i. e. Particularly Terrible Something or other, thinking in a crazed state he was firing at terrorists in Saskatchewan--you might be off the hook. Right? But no ... he WAS a civilian! Because of your gaseous gun decisions, and in particular your fatal deconstuction of the 2nd Amendment, the shooter possessed a weapon of war, "legally." You put it in his hands. The AK-47 was the ONLY way that the shall-be-nameless boy could have killed and wounded the incredible amount of people he did. Is this not all true Justice Scalia?

[more]

***Look for my Mafia connections soon in Mosteller Musings.
************

#237/#212 The Victory Choo-Choo Train--"All Aboard!--for Deja Vu 2010 All Over Again "

 Take a look and a double-take at the following post****** down the page, written March 2010 just after Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, which somehow was replaced with the puzzling term "Obamacare." Here's what you'll shortly discover: it could have been written today! I swear, it's la plus ca change with a vengeance, almost literally. It's as if you and me and the world haven't MOVED that much in the last couple of years. Like woo-woo suspended animation. I expect an alien to burst from my belly any minute.  Geraldo Rivera maybe/ Ouch.

So I'm recycling the "All Aboard" post #212 of 3/25/10, unchanged, to make the point above, ...and another point or two about THIS election year--namely, that the Democrats' strategy should remain unchanged as well (that is, what little there was OF it back in 2010).. SCOTUS, whatever that is, has made the President a WINNER again, and it's still all about the Kids.  With Health Care reform now firmly in place, parent's and grandparents, and aren't we all, are going to vote for The Man who did it--who assured their progeny of  health coverage no matter pre-existing conditions; of coverage to age 26 under the family's insurance; of coverage for themselves for life (no "caps") to see it all happen.. All this is among other good stuff like preventive care and more--the devil has NEVER been in the details. i.e. the specific ACA  provisions, for the clear majority (60-80%) of the Electorate--they're for the good stuff that Team Obama can now put on sale with all-to-hell impunity.  Republicans, or, technically, oxygen users, ain't got nothin' ... 

******Here's "back-to-the-future" 2010 post, updated by bold in brackets--

Or ... sort of continuing from last post, "Go for it"--said President Obama to Republicans (and Blue Dog Dems sub rosa) who would fashion this year's off-year election campaigns [now Presidential and down-ballot] on REPEAL of the new Health Care Act. His version of Clint Eastwood's "Make my day." Further along in his Iowa City presser today [3/25/10] (still here) it was the even more genteel challenge, "Be my guest."

Mr. Obama can afford to be smugly magnanimous in victory [now again this new one] because he knows he's a winner, not only in this recent battle. but most likely now in several wars to come. Why?--because in this and future legislative struggles over social justice the lately extreme-right-wing G.O.P. along with the forever-reactionary, small-state southern Democrats will be RUNNING AGAINST LITTLE KIDS. No win. Battle lost. [Here I was sadly mistaken. Republicans cleaned clock around the country in the 2010 elections.]

First of all, the forces for progressive change will be aided by--to our shame, really--the "band-wagon" effect. A check of the polls reveals that curious fact about human nature: immediately after the HCR bill had passed, more people were for it. The only difference?--it was now a winner [like the SCOTUS victory] What had been disfavored by a slight majority of the American people only a few days earlier was now favored by a slight majority. [SAME DAMN THING ... last week.  Polls already show a "bump."] Evidently, several millions of those originally opposed had set aside the time to read all 3000 pages of the bill ... and were convinced otherwise. Yeah, that's it. But whatever the case, I'm sure these numbers will grow.

For, more importantly, it all comes down to the children--their protection and well-being. The winning side. As for the new health-care program, Republicans on the campaign trail are wildly deluded that "Repeal it and start over"--John Boner's mantra--is going to have any resonance whatsoever with American voters. Correct me, but I believe parents and grandparents make up a sizable voting block. This formidable bunch of ballot-casters (including me) in November are going to vote FOR allowing insurance companies to again deny coverage to kids with pre-existing conditions? Fuhgeddaboudit. Or vote AGAINST children being covered under their parent's policy till age 26? No way. There's even a further incentive for parent-minded citizens in the same bill-now-law re-passed yesterday: it was revised to include a major expansion of the college-loan program. [Again, the down-ballot Electorate didn't buy it in 2010, but it was never really sold aggressively. Still, the People loved the ACA in detail, but somehow not in general. Brainwashed by the Teabaggers, somebody said.]

Other challenges to the status quo ante? Other changes "you can believe in" as the Obama campaign put it? Well, "Yes we can." The re-invigorated Obama administration along with the newly-victorious progressive forces in Congress [Whew, boy] will again have the kids on their side. (more)
************

#236 SCOTUS Upholds Obamacare [update 6/30]

The Blogman got misty. But Frogman  the Gremlinesque appeared PLUNK and began  borboryglating about no Public Option ...  Big Med/Pharma  still in control ... millions UNcovered till 2014 ... Medicaid sorely wounded ... ending gravellyly with:"Still ain't no Universal froggin' HealthCare!"

Another PLUNK of his TWANGER  and it was good riddance to Froggy on this joyous day--Caloo! Calay! to beamish people everywhere today! The Jabberwock is dead. Who didst wield the Vorpal Sword of Justice? ... 'T'was Sir John of Roberts at the Court of Supreme.
************

Though spectacularly ignored by Republicans time and time again, let's all be aware of an obvious Truth--

Progress => Future => History and conservative/reactionary creatures are always on the wrong side of history. Sentient human being Chief Justice John Roberts was aware, despite his public persona, and that's  why he swooshed the Court into the future ... and made history for himself.

Fuggedabout  the casuistry of his "majority" opinion--he's got his ass covered there--John Roberts was thinking history. And of the legacy of a Court forever named after him.
************

#214 Victory Choo-Choo III--"Foreign" KIds

And that includes our own.

But first, kudos to President Obama for signing yet another installment of the Nuclear Arms treaty with the Russkies--it's been twenty years--which reduces by 50% the 95% of all nuclear weaponry on earth "controlled" by us and them. Let's see ... that adds up to only 100% M.A.D. left to go. Not to mention the other 5% (un)controlled by mutually-assured, destructive madmen.

However, let's by all means keep up those symbolic gestures toward global peace, wheel-spinning though they are in real terms. Hey, our children won't be vaporized in a future nuclear war after all; they'll just keep dying in the good-old-fashioned, untidy way. More on that in a minute.

But talk about symbolic value! The US/Russia accord, signed after a year or so of intense negotiation (we're told) lends further credence, however belated, to Obama as Doer. Say what you might, and I have, Could our "new" President ever be accused, even by the wildest-eyed wing-nut, of NOT workin' his ass off at the job?! Consider this: two "master strokes" of the pen, involving THE two major areas of concern for any President--domestic policy with Health Care, and foreign relations with the Nuke Treaty. And it was all done with rather a flourish, both signings coming within days of each other.

The President IS on on roll, no doubt about it. Polls are up already this week. Can all this can be of much-needed help for foreign kids here at home, and those abroad?

YES for Immigration Reform. There were rallies all over the state of North Carolina last week (in conjunction with a general "march" on D.C.) protesting the need for more humane laws for "illegals"--especially in alleviating the plight of their children, who had absolutely no choice in ending up here, and their access to main-stream health care, educational opportunities, and gainful employment. Being an undocumented alien himself--well, Obama has certainly been singed by the flames of bigotry and xenophobia in that regard--he and the Congress should now be able to get something done.

Especially poignant at the Raleigh rally were testimonies from two young men of Hispanic heritage (yes, this is really what it's all about) just ready to graduate at the top of their high-school class. Outlook for college: bleak or non-existent. Our otherwise outstanding Community College system, for example, recently restored their right to matriculate (a long story, fraught with the usual prejudices), but these guys will still have to pay out-of-state tuition (that was the "compromise") at about three times the rate of in-state, even though they've been here virtually all their lives. Not fair. And they were well-spoken (perfect English naturally), intelligent young men whom I couldn't help compare with some of the inarticulate free-riders on NC State's and Duke U's basketball teams, interviewed at about the same time on the same local channel. "March" madness all around.

NO for IrAfPak. Because Obama's on the wrong side here, simply. Bite my tongue, but this fatal flaw will end up making him an LBJ--grudgingly remembered for his history-making domestic programs (Civil Rights, Medicare, etc.), but cursed forever for his foreign policy disasters. Lest we forget, President Johnson was responsible for the death, disfigurement, and dislocation of millions of people. Including innocent children, of course. Sound familiar? Look at it this way: for last-President Bush, Iraq is already on record as HIS Vietnam. No win. A bloody fraud of a war, and still going on. Moreover, to understate, he had less than zero domestic accomplishments to counterbalance it. Thanks to his inept and self-serving helmsman-ship we're still "underwater" in more ways than one. Obama will fix that I think, the way things are going, but When will he come to realize that the whole Middle East theater is now his very own Vietnam? And, so far, he's Bush.

It's so very, very lucky that Obama got some sort of health-care reform passed. And I'm sure there will be more social-justice measures on the books before too long. But JUST A WEEK AGO he was in real danger of becoming another G.W. Bush--rightfully ranked as the worst President ever-- failing not only on the foreign, but on the domestic front as well. Now if Obama would only stop killing kids overseas.
************

#213 Victory Choo-Choo II---More Kids

"Suffer the little children to come unto ..." Obama and the newly motile Congress, for suffering enough hath come unto them, yea and verily-wise. Much still needs to be done--NEWS FLASH: as of this verily moment the Prez is trying to keep a roof over the heads of millions of them--but before we get into that and bank-fraud and unemployment and immigration and other things that need fixing if only for the sake of our kids, let me say one more word about the HCR Act ... and the kids.

Surprised to learn after a little more research--'tis an Act of Many Pages--that, besides the crucial OUTLAWING of the pre-existing-condition thing and EXTENDING coverage to age 26 (which would presumably get the most indolent of offspring through college and a little beyond), the new law provides for a comprehensive WELLNESS program for children in conjunction with pediatricians and appropriate health providers. Is this not RELIEF abounding for parents?! Or parents to be? The particulars are a bit complicated, so I'll refer you to an approving summary by Dr. Judith Palfrey, President, American Academy of Pediatrics, here.

She's just one, by the bye, of the the vast majority of medical people and health organizations ("A.M.A." says it all) who've been behind Obamacare--even when it had Public Option so named--since the beginning. Once again: if Republicans and Blue Dogs want to run their 2010 campaigns AGAINST all of this, my advice would be on the order of "suicide is painless," as the old M*A*S*H theme-song would have it.

Point is ... President Obama's on a roll and knows it. So immediately after passage of the HCR Act, he was hard at work bringing aid and comfort to millions of home-owning families hoodwinked by bank-fraud or crippled by the unemployment epidemic that Wall Street and the Big Banks are responsible for in the first place. Some sort of "mortgage relief" will be put in place to avoid the horrors of FORECLOSURE for parents who face the prospect of homelessness for themselves and their children. (NYT here)

And speaking of the Great Recession, efforts to get us out of it and avoid it happening again should gain momentum on the coattails of the HCR victory. Maybe the Congressional Democrats will start doing what the American people put in them in the majority to do. Really, since 2006. And if you please, forget the phantom of bipartisanship. Doesn't exist for the "Hell no!" party, as recently dubbed by Sarah Palin. The so-far dystesticular Dems have now got a proven hero in Obama, and my goodness can it be so hard to give him back essentially the same REGULATIONS for the economic sector that the Reagan era took away?--which was the root-cause of our recent financial almost-apocalypse. And millions of kids on the street, or sold for medical research.

Finish regulating Wall Street and the "Too-big-to-fail" Banks; put the new Consumer Protection Agency in place; meanwhile above all get JOBS for the parents of these kids. That's the Obama/Congress agenda, post-HCR. The unemployment crisis is most distressing right now for most Americans, say the polls. Specifically, we need about 11 million new jobs just to get back on track and stay about even. The Obama team and Congress are working on so-called "jobs bills" right now, according to reports. Good ... though from what I've read, the solutions under discussion--like tax-breaks for hiring the jobless--fall ridiculously short of the figure just quoted. Like in the 200.000 range.

The Real Jobs Solution, which an emboldened Obama and his Congress must enact now, is the wherewithal to put the unemployed Dads and Moms directly to work for the Federal Government. Everybody knows our INFRASTRUCTURE lies a-crumblin' while there are, ironically, millions out-of-work who could be a-fixin' it? Bridges, roads, sewers, schools, parks. C'mon, it worked for FDR and the blighted economy of his day. And let's be be honest: about a third of the people in this country are paid for their work with their very own tax-money, as it is. It's also called Corporate Welfare.

Listen, we've already loaned about a 100 billion to the Banks and Carmakers; can't we loosen up a "loan" of a paltry 4 or 5 billion or so (from what I understand) to get people directly into those "shovel-ready" jobs we've heard tell about? Wouldn't be nice for the peasants to get a "bailout" for a change? Moreover, it would be a loan, of sorts: lent against the returns of a recovering economy. After all, the newly employed are going to sink those wages in the local Kroger for the family groceries, and to buy gas and oil from Fred's Texaco to take their kids for a Sunday drive. Now that they've got the money, and the joy of a job. It all comes back. (more)
************

#211 HCR--Public Option Passes!!! (sort of)

Just as the Blogman predicted many posts ago. Okay ... it dare not speak its name, but the Public Option is a part of the Bill passed yesterday, at least in embryo. As long as we're into health-speak, let's call it "sub-public" or "pre-public"--analogous to the medicalese of "sub-clinical" or "sub-symptomatic" or "pre-something-or-other" (like cancer)-- all euphemisms that physicians are wont to use as ass-coverage for conditions that are not quite there, but not-enough-not for the medicos to bet their malpractice insurance on it. In this case the condition is benign, and in a healthy state of viability.

For just barely visible in the full-body scan of the Health Care Act of 2010 is the germ of government-run health care. The GLOBAL ideal, ultimately. The sub-pre-public-option symptomology is right here:

The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based EXCHANGES with SUBSIDIES available to individuals and families with income up to 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL = $22,050 for family of four).

FUNDING available to states to establish exchanges ...

Individuals and families who make between 100 percent and 400 of the poverty level and want to purchase their own health insurance on an EXCHANGE are eligible for SUBSIDIES ... Eligible buyers receive PREMIUM CREDITS and there is a CAP on how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale. (CBS.com summary)

What you've just read is a LEVER that can lift the world--or, as the "losing" side, the Republicans and Blue Dog Dems, will soon characterize it, a CANCER that will grow into full-blown "socialized medicine." (Let's hope so.) They will do this, mark my words, when they discover that their "government-takeover" propaganda just isn't going to work, because the new bill is so overwhelmingly PRIVATIZED, at least on the surface. The losing side has actually "won" a great victory--the insurance companies have been SAVED--at least in the short term. Our NC Blue Cross CEO, for example, is quoted as being quite fond of the outcome, as will the American people, soon enough.

I'll get back to those key provisions in a minute, but the fact is that the new bill IS a bipartisan one--the Republican nay-saying ironically brought that about--a bill no different in essentials, for example, from one that Nixon (yes) was trying to work out with a Democratic Congress years ago (Watergate intervened), or, most notably of late, the Ted Kennedy-Mitt Romney program (despite the latter's denialism) of near-universal health care instituted for Massachusetts, a state with a powerful insurance-company presence, by the way. And that's the point. Except for Veterans and Medicarians, it will be much the same old market-place, buy-and-sell, private health insurance business as usual, under the new bill. Big-Health-Insurance got a windfall, in fact: 30 million new customers! They're still nominally in charge, for awhile.

However, the "reform" bill (by no means an "overhaul") has just enough reform in it to TAME the private insurance monopoly, and over time, I believe, to kick it to the curb. Setting aside the long-overdue prohibitions on pre-existing-condition exclusions, lifetime-coverage caps, and important others, the key words in the quote above are EXCHANGES, FUNDING, and SUBSIDIES. It doesn't take a Fred Hayek or anyone from the Chicago School to recognize "The Road to Serfdom" (DM #94-95)--call me a happy serf, then, when it comes to health care. For, in fact, Who's really in charge? You guessed it: the gub'ment--whether State, or ultimately Federal. They will have enormous LEVERAGE to control what's going on in those "free-market" Exchanges.

Of course there will be healthy competition among the various companies in this "food-court" (it's been called) approach to buying insurance, but the Feds are going to be paying close attention to Who gets What-and-How-much funding, and Where the buyer-subsidies will be spent. Even to the point of setting up their own stall if the private companies don't cooperate, price-wise. It's conceivable, and the precedent for going to such extremes is in the bill. Here it is: up until 2014 health insurers don't have to cover ADULTS with pre-existing conditions, so the government will. A special "temporary" entity, administered and funded by some federal agency or another, will be set up to insure "high-risk" folk who will not be eligible for coverage by private companies until that time. What can we call this little wrinkle?--unadulterated Public Option.

The KIDS get it six months from now. That's why the little darlin' pictured above is making faces at the insurance companies and their bed-fellows in Congress. (Let's pretend.) She's got a pre-existing condition. And there's nothin' they can do about it. No separate federal program though: Big-Health-Insurance must expiate its cardinal sin of denying coverage to high-risk children virtually NOW.

I'd like to see the Republicans and Blue Dog Dems run their campaigns this year on a platform of repealing THAT. Make my day.
************

#209 Vox Populi--Rep. Dennis Kucinich?

Love this little guy, with the giant babelicious wife. St. Dennis of Cleveland was martyred again last week in the House of Representatives, just like his avatar, St. Denis (> Dionysius, right) of Paris, some 1750 years ago by Druid priests for preaching the gospel to the Gauls. Kucinich was beheaded too, by a negative overkill-vote of 365 to 65. For what? For simply preaching the gospel of turning the other cheek, a bedrock Xianism that the pagans in the Lower House just didn't want to listen to, vis a' vis Afghanistan.

Of course, what kind of "cheek" is in question. You guessed it. The other, other one. Let's turn around and get our ASS the hell out of Afghanistan, before we get 'em both shot off. The Congressman's defeated Resolution would have mandated the withdrawal of all troops within 30 days of passage. The consensus press is arbitrarily labeling it out-of-hand a "symbolic resolution" (e.g. WashPost here), and as usual for Kucinich's quixotic efforts he gets a big round of ha-ha from most everybody. But NOT from Reps. Ron Paul and Patrick Kennedy who voted in favor--nor from the "silent majority" that I'll speak for in a minute.

Mid-Note: Paul and Kennedy?! Talk about strange bedfellows. Well, they're both talkin' true Libertarianianism--not the greedy, solipsistic Ayn-Randianism of the Tea Baggers--rather that all-the-way-round-the-circle meeting point of right and left political wings ... at least when it comes to WAR. Defensive ones only, etc., etc. We've blogged and blogged enough about that. Worth watching the Kennedy rant (here). Apoplectic. But he's right on target in condemning the mainstream media for saturating their time with gossip about Rep. Eric Massa's "groping" escapades rather than paying attention to the ongoing bloodshed in the Middle East--as occasioned by the Kucinich Resolution.

Anyway, it's about that totally futile sacrifice of a thousand American lives so far, and the unconscionable martyrdom of untold thousands of civilian "collaterals" (another horrendous case headlined last week)--that the Voice of the People can still be heard. And the "Kucinich Sixty-Five" speaks for them, granted only symbolically, perhaps. But according to the polls, over 50% of Americans STILL oppose the 100.000-troop "surge" that President Obama is STILL proceeding with, and will no doubt continue to get funding for. Of course I wish there were a higher number of us in the majority opposed to IrAfPak altogether--but what's with the lopsided majority in the House of Representatives opposed to the Voice of the People?!--as can be seen in the "symbolic" beheading of Kucinich et al. and their good intentions. In this case, and in their continued funding of a wasteful war, the members of the House are just not "representative" at all.

A final note. The "little big man" from Ohio is also eligible for sainthood by dint of his opposition to the health-care reform bill in Congress. What? Yes, I want it to pass, despite it's flaws. Obama needs it; and by association the country needs it if we're EVER going get ANYWHERE toward real Reform of our blighted system. Non-passage, I fear, will delay our joining the rest of the civilized world for years to come. However, Kucinich hasn't cast his vote yet (the Prez is lobbying fiercely), but if it's a "Nay" we'll know his martyrdom is based on principle. Inevitably, this country's health-care will be a public, tax-payer-driven, single-payer program modeled on Medicare. You heard it here. Problem is ... St. Dennis wants it NOW. Let the beheading begin.
************

#208 Vox Populi--Still Audible over the Static

Health-care-reform-wise. Oyez and yea verily, the Voice of the People has been muzzled and muddled of late by those who perpetrate myths about deficits and death-panels, along with whatever obscurantist and obstructionist tactics they can muster--okay, Congressional Republicans, Blue Dog Dems, Fox News, Teabaggers, and others in cahoots who have been known to strangle grannies in their wheelchairs and rape toddlers in their beds, just to make a point. With all due respect.

All of this SEEMS to have resulted in the loss of support by the American People for Health Care Reform. NOT SO, as you'll see below. But first the facts, opinion-poll-wise. Once upon a time that all "meta-analyses" of the various polls showed that the electorate favored Reform by a "landslide" majority for a long period of time before and after the election of President Obama. The figures the Blogman was quoting during that time, up until late fall of this last year, ranged from 60-75%--say roundly two-out-of-three adult-folk populating this country.

However, once Reform was haltered and led down to the swamp-pits of Congress, it's true that public support seemed to founder in the face of that Slough of Despond. Republicans and Blue Dogs are fond of quoting opinion-surveys that show that more people now oppose Congressional proposals, Democratic OR Republican, than favor them; and that 55% of Americans now want lawmakers to suspend work on legislation, while 39% want them to pass it (e.g. Gallup). Yes, BUT ... these responses, please note, are based on what CONGRESS has managed to DO with Health Care Reform--basically muck it up--rather than on outright disapproval of the idea of HCR itself. And remember, overwhelming public disapproval of Congress qua Congress (forever topping 80%) has to be automatically and sadly front-loaded into any such results.

Notwithstanding, here's the irony: the Populi really DO support the health care bills currently being wrestled with in Congress ... but are being so misled as to know it not. This month's AARP Bulletin that arrived in the mail last week (can't find an internet-version link) makes this clear. When the common, not-in-dispute elements of the House and Senate bills are distilled out, the Vox is overwhelmingly FAVORABLE. In fact, we're back to the approval numbers of old. The Bulletin summarizes a January survey done by the non-profit Kaiser Family Foundation, whose health-care profit-arm, Kaiser Permanente, by the bye, would obviously have nothing to gain by the following revelations (very slightly paraphrased for clarity). Here are the percentages of people who said they now support health-care reform legislation after being informed as to what was already there:

73%--Tax credits to small businesses to cover employees [Republicans must have pushed this to the top, but okay];

67%--Health insurance exchanges , with or without Public Option, to help people get coverage [very gratifying--Big-Med's weakening influence, hopefully];

66%--Existing coverage unchanged/optional for most people;

63%--No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions [why this percentage isn't way over the top ... is puzzling];

62%--Expansion of Medicaid to cover more low-income people [should be higher, but reflects, I guess, a "compassionate conservative" weighting];

60%--Coverage of children under parent's insurance until age 26;

60%--Closing the "dough-nut hole" in Medicare (prescription-drug) Part D.

This is what the unanimous voice of the Republican opposition (and their profit-arm Faux News) lately calls "cramming health care reform down the Peoples' throats"--???!!! Well, yea verily listen and take heed, ye willful and partisan obstructionists: their throats seem to be voicing approval pretty clearly here.
************

#206 "Let's Amend the Constitution"

Speaking of money and politics, the Supreme Court's over-ruling, the Dodd amendment, Common Cause, and cabbages and kings (q.v. last post)--the title above is actually a FaceBook group-page set up by a hot-headed lawyer in South Carolina, of all places. He also happens to be a son of mine. Consider him "team-member" for the day.

His is a grass-roots effort to let the People clean up the hen house. After all, Why leave it to a fox like Sen. Christopher Dodd--who ultra-ironically has his own sullied past vis a vis moneyed interests in the Capitol lobby (AIG-gate)--or any other member of a corrupted Congress that has thus far failed to police itself? The People can do it, constitutionally as all hell, through successful petition of two-thirds of their state legislatures. To quote my son (and How often does this happen on Planet Earth?)--

My concept was to form as broad a group as possible, not to pander to any particular ideology, and maybe, with the power of numbers, leverage some change in the way Washington D.C. does business. I think that Independents, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Greens can all agree that money wields too great an influence on our Congress and I tried to make this group about changing that.

It's really, though, the THREAT that counts. Like me, he believes that an actual Constitutional Convention would be a precarious thing in perilous times. In addition to opening the floor to all species of radical agenda here at home, there's the external danger to worry about. As he reminds us in a private email:

I agree, a Constitutional convention at this time in our history could have unpleasant effects, especially if Al Qaeda strikes in the midst of such a convention ... but if I get enough folks that are voters , it is possible that the pressure and publicity of such a group [and others, I would add] could get some changes done in Washington.

If any BlogManFans out there would like to have more information, to comment, to sign-up, etc., click on the site here. But let me directly quote one clause of the proposed amendment to give you the flavor of the thing:

No lobbyist, corporation, non-profit entity, association, or person acting on behalf of such may provide to a member of congress, or other Federal employee any gift exceeding the cost of a cup of coffee in a single day.

Now, if the cost of the Starbucks Grande keeps escalating, or the cup of coffee has its provenance in the digestive tract of an Indonesian palm-civet--that protocol might itself have to be amended.
************

#205 Bad Boys in Congress?--Cut Off Their Allowance

As you might a naughty child. After all, they just haven't been keeping up with their chores. Look at the sad state of the Capitol--front steps haven't been shoveled. GARBAGE needs to be taken out. Been collecting for months. And for all the money we pay 'em every week. Tsk.

Sen. Chris Dodd is on the tube lately suggesting a semi-solution: a Constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the surreal Supreme Court ruling recently which overturned laws against Corporate whore-mongering in state and federal elections. It's more than okay now. Corporations is People, just like you and me, and it/him/her/they have as much right to buy advertising--money = speech--for a high-priced Congressional prostitute as anyperson else, on top of stuffing money directly into the candidate's G-string. All this thanks to another sacrilege committed by those same five altar-boys on the Court--appointments by Reagan/Bush/Bush/Cheney which will demon-haunt the American people for generations to come, alas.

Many years ago, and for two or three, we were charter members (for a small donation) of John W. Gardner's Common Cause, which the liberal Republican (an extinct breed) started up in 1970. The estimable Mr. Gardner was even for a while a working member (Secretary-HEW) of the socially-activist LBJ administration, and was popularly known for his influential and oft-quoted book (a good short read then and now) on improving leadership in American society called Excellence: Can We Be Equal and Excellent Too (1961), still in wide circulation. The sacred purpose of his populist organization?--to throw the money-changers out of the temple of American Republican Democracy. Mission statement:

Common Cause is a non-partisan, grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring the core values of American democracy, re-inventing an open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest [shades of George Washington's SOTU], and empowering people to make their voices heard in the political process.

And to make the word flesh: pass laws that keep private money out of public politics, put simply. In effect, let the democratic, progressive income-tax do the speaking for the American people.

Common Cause was surprisingly successful early on, but primarily on the Presidential level. The new "people's lobby" in Congress was instrumental in passing FECA, the Federal Election Campaign Reform Act of 1974, which still obtains today, most recently in McCain v. Obama, each dealing with public-funding protocols in their separate ways. CC also helped bring down a President. It sued Nixon in 1972 over secret, and thus illegal, donations to his campaign organization, the infamous CREEP ... won ... and Tricky Dick was gone two years later. Ironically, Common Cause is one legacy Nixon could have been proud of.

Now, the Roberts-Court ruling goes against just about everything the late (2002) John Gardner's organization stands for. I can already hear the wheels grinding here in North Carolina, which has fairly enlightened laws on the books about corporate campaigning. Basically: noway, nohow. But now at my back I'll hear hurrying near the campaign chariots of Big-Med and Big-MIC (Military-Industrial-Complex)--corporate entities so top-heavy in our state, and, well, the country too. All too obvious as represented in the ice-bound photo above.

But maybe Common Cause to the rescue. I hadn't noticed it in the news for years till up popped Bob Phillips, Director of the North Carolina chapter, on the local news channels. He brought it home. Every single NC law against corporate interference in the public election process is now invalidated by the Supreme Court opinion. Unlimited funds from corporation treasuries can go to pliable candidates from city council to senatorial race. Anonymously. Of course they'll need to identify themselves with something like "Paid for by Americans in Favor of Apple Pie"--but really, will the average voter discern the "sham-corp," as Phillips calls them? There's little hope for transparency here, considering the source, but he's going to his best in the state legislature.

There's little hope in reversing the Court anytime soon, either, short of imprecatory prayer. Or the Dodd amendment. But the latter has it's own built-in liability. A Constitutional Convention. Where all bets are off, and anything goes. Every wing-nutty idea from anywhere over the political spectrum (fill in the blanks) would be in play. Everybody in the know knows that even the THREAT of amending the U.S. Constitution is a dire and dangerous one. And exactly why it might just thaw the freeze-dried hearts and minds under the Capitol dome.
************

#203 Two Presidents ... SOTU IV

Now there should be no question but in the smallest of minds that the current Congress has NOT been looking after, in our First President's phraseology, "the welfare of the country" in "a free, efficient, and equal" manner." They've done next to nothing on their own, really--TARP was a leftover--while everything needed to be done about Health Care and Afghanistan. (Obama can't, of course, blame Congress for the latter, because he had his way with them on that. But I can. Congressional Grafters pimp their wares wherever the money is. Big-Med, Big-MilitaryIndustrialComplex ... matters little.)

One of the jokes on SNL's "Weekend Update" segment the other night was at the expense of Congress--apropos of Fred Armiston's rendition of Obama's SOTU, which opened the show. It was set up ironically: "Anchor" Seth Meyers introduced a graphic of the House chamber, over which was to scroll a list of legislative accomplishments over the last year. Cut to clip ... two seconds of scroll, with 3 items on it ... cut back to Seth caught fiddling off-camera ... startled look to camera ... "unprepared" that the list was so short. Ha-ha ensues. The three were bailout renewal, Cash for Clunkers, and a cap on credit-card interest rates. Pretty much on-target satire. And I'm sure it got laughs across the country, because THE PEOPLE know. Typical big-laugh on the late-night circuit: "Severe cold, ice and snow have brought Washington to a virtual stand-still ... but how can you tell?" The people know.

So why didn't President Obama drag them out to the woodshed Wednesday-week, and give them all a good thrashing? Let George do it. (Our super-star General and first President was responsible for that popular expression, as a matter of fact.) Well, he certainly would have, you can have no doubt. But Obama just can't seem to get himself angry, not-to-mention communicate the THREAT of anger (and a hint of danger), which is by far the better.

There's little to complain about in the word-to-word content of Obama's State of the Union; it was reasoned, factual, as usual. But rhetorically and "histrionically" it was not good enough. Remember, unlike Washington's audience, strictly Congress, Obama's included the whole country. I dare say his approval ratings would have returned to their honeymoon levels had he given these bad boys the whippin' they deserved. The people have no love affair with Congress, to grossly understate. Now, couldn't he have done better than the following, in addressing the self-aggrandizing do-nothingness of Congress as a (w)hole?--

So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the AMERICAN PEOPLE hope--what they DESERVE--is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while THE PEOPLE who sent us here ...

You hear some of the old General's words, but without any righteous ANGER that they have pretty much FAILED at the job the people sent them there to do. It's time for much stronger words. Obama needed to bring the blame-game right down on top of their collective heads. Furthermore, Is this enough verbal drubbing for the pestiferous Republican vermin from Dante's 8th circle of Hell?--

If the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town--a supermajority--then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to solve problems, not serve our ambitions.

Answer: he comes closer to tanning their hides, here. But wouldn't have been nice if he had ended the last sentence thus: "... not serve our ambitions, or line our pockets." Alas. And the President was waaay too easy on on the despicably wimpish Democrats, home to those venal Blue Dogs, greedy as Republicans. This is a mere slap on the wrist:

Democrats, I remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and THE PEOPLE expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.

As disappointing was Obama's failure to dump an appropriate load of sh-- er, opprobrium, on the proper culprits behind most of those "difficult challenges" he mentions: the Bush/Cheney administration. His vast audience beyond the walls of the House chamber has not forgotten, but Obama didn't do enough to pound it home, and, in so doing, let himself a lot off the hook. I think he wanted to do some justifiable Bush-bashing, but it didn't make it to the make-nice script, finally. Here's how I know. The following is a quote from the speech-text--all but his un-telepromtered ad lib (in brackets) interjected the night of the actual address:

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. [AND ALL THIS BEFORE I GOT IN THE DOOR!] Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face ...

If you heard it, you would have noticed how very plaintive it was: "... beFORE I got IN the DOOooor ..." He's just too much of a nice guy, I guess, to wake the sleeping dogs ... to flog the dead horses. Or too cool.
************

#202 Two Presidents ... First SOTU III

Unfortunately for President Obama, he could invoke Washington's "peace and plenty" phrase NOT at one single point in his State of the Union speech last week. He put a good face on it, though; he is nothing if not cool--too much so!. Love cool, but you gotta have a kind of Stonewall-Jackson-like "skeer" to go along with it. Not to be confused with the vague and overused "charisma"--this is the don't-mess-with-me look and bearing that says, "I can be dangerous." And that was George Washington all over, with sword and bulging biceps by his side--matched with a bulging intellect, and a hot temper when necessary. Obama's got all of that, surely, but lacks the sinister flash of fire from around the eye-sockets that tells you so. Well, sort of exactly like this cartoonist's rendition of what-might-have-been that I happened upon in the New Yorker this week.

Congressionally effective past Presidents like Washington had it, and you know what?--the best of them in the modern era always seem to get popularly initialized: TR, FDR, JFK, LBJ. But could these guys make Congress jump through the hoops, no matter its partisan make-up? Or else? You bet your Nellie Duff. Even the popular but non-initialized Ronald Reagan had it, despite his deceptively laid-back persona--he could flash that imperious "I'm-a-bad-ass-movie-star-and-you're-not" look when he had to. Not that I'm plumping for an Imperial President, but, my goodness, there's just no question that Obama coulda/shoulda done one hell of a lot more with last year's Congress than he did. Especially considering the Democrat's super-majority.

But Congress is a co-equal branch of our Constitutional government, and there's only so much a President can do, given the inherent and strict separation of powers. But Congress has proved powerless, and Obama's virtually "live" audience of the American people across the country already knew that before he even gave his speech. Ratings for Congress are about as low as serial rapists. WWGWD? Well, the very last words of Washington's first State of the Union gives the final nod to the PEOPLE, absent though they were from the President's immediate audience:

The WELFARE OF OUR COUNTRY is the great object to which our cares and efforts ought to be directed, and I shall derive great satisfaction from a COOPERATION with you in the pleasing but arduous work of insuring TO OUR FELLOW CITIZENS the blessings which they have a RIGHT to expect from a free, EFFICIENT, and equal government.

Each and every Congressman of that assembled company would have sighed in relief at those closing phrases, because they knew that if they had NOT been "efficient"--NOT taken "measures of the last session,"cited earlier in the his speech, that "have been satisfactory to [their] constituents"--they might have expected the flat of the General's sabre. The famously non-partisan Washington would have given a good verbal-or-worse thrashing to both sides of the aisle (had they been in existence) if the welfare of the people had not been looked after, efficiently. But he didn't have to. The threat would have been enough. (more)

#201 Two Presidents ... First SOTU II

When Barack Obama stepped to the lectern last week and addressed his "State of the Union" to the "... Members of Congress, distinguished guests, and FELLOW AMERICANS"--the President could be confident that he was speaking directly to the latter audience. Though not in the House Chamber, THE PEOPLE were actually PRESENT, moment to moment, via the electronic media, to hear the speech--no intermediary required. Not so for George Washington's "fellow Americans" on Jan. 8, 1790. Understandably, they were left out of his opening greetings, but in a quaint and curious way: "Fellow Citizens OF the Senate and House of Representatives," he began. He was , after all, under no Constitutional obligation to "from time to time give ... information" to anybody else. It was enough that the other citizens' REPRESENTATIVES were in attendance, even so be it that for everyone else the speech became immediately and necessarily second-hand news. To get the Word out to the people was left willy-nilly to the PRESS.

Pictured above is an example, "hot off the presses," two weeks after the fact. At least city-dwelling citizens, like those of Worcester, were able to get "late" news-reports in the early days of the Republick. But notice the masthead: Maffachufsetts SPY (love it)--as if undercover reporters, tabloid-wise, had to ferret out government goings-on, like any other juicy bit of news. It's no wonder that Freedom of the Press is in the very first Article of the Bill of Rights. For the people it was the only information game in town. This is ferociously understood and defiantly reflected in the SPY's epigraph: "The Liberty of the Prefs is effential to the Security of Freedom." (Enlarged view here.) To pound the point home, the motto is successively redacted in (count 'em) THREE "republican" languages: FRENCH, because the Revolution had happened only last July for these guys; GREEK (untransliterated--betraying the educational level, real or pretended, of the rag's readership), in deference to those pioneering Athenians; and LATIN, in remembrance of the glory-days of the Roman Republic, to whose historical example the American experiment was most indebted.

Not that our First President wasn't a man of the people. On the contrary--and speaking of the LIBERTIES afforded the people under this grand experiment, validated by the Constitution and the soon-to-be-passed Bill of Rights--Washington was concerned in his SOTU that the people be well-informed about the workings of their government. This leads me to the content of his speech--which proportionally, believe it or not, is most devoted to EDUCATION. What a precedent-setter, indeed, was this man! He was truly our first "Education President"--which almost without exception every one of his successors have tried or claimed to be. More fully about this below. (Full text w/o the funny 18C spelling here.)

Not surprisingly, the speech verily runneth over with optimism about the "peace and plenty" with which the new nation is blessed. No Afghanistan or Great Recession to get around. One small problem though, by implication only--here the President takes his Constitutional charge literally, first-off in the second sentence--that the State of the Union wasn't. Not quite yet, anyway, but soon to get there. My adopted state, North Carolina, had finally "acceded" to the new Constitution, Washington notes with satisfaction, it being the 12th and next-to-last state to do so. Why so late? Well, I'm proud of 'em--the NC delegates had held out for a sacred promise that a Bill of Rights was an absolute shoo-in to be amended to the Constitution. And it was, the next year. (Interesting sidebar: Rhode Island, the 13th and yet to come, was SO "independent"--it was the first to "declare" in 1776--that it took the threat of exorbitant taxation on its profitable exports--get this: as a "foreign" country--for it to become the very last to officially join the Union in 1792!)

Otherwise, things are going well, says the President, thanks in no small part to the good works that Congress accomplished in its last session. (Washington could wield a butter-knife as well as he could a sword.) But as long as Congress is kind of here, anyway, "among the many interesting objects which will engage your attention," he would like a little more money for the what's left of the standing army--some "tribes" could be threatening the frontiers, if pacification efforts fail. Additionally, our foreign ambassadors could be better paid, and some funds should be invested in agricultural technology--a subject close to George's Mt. Vernon heart. Oh, and weights and measures might well be standardized.

It's a relatively short speech so far, almost perfunctory--in a "from time to time" sort of way--but he saves the best and most for last: EDUCATION--

Nor am I less persuaded that you will agree with me in opinion that there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of SCIENCE and LITERATURE. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.

My hero. In the next long passage, which I'll quote, he explains--in the unfortunately dense, Ciceronion rhetoric of his time--WHY grass-roots learning is so important for this new experiment in Democracy to work:

To the security of a free constitution it contributes in various ways--by convincing those intrusted with the public administration that every valuable end of government is best answered by the ENLIGHTENED confidence of the PEOPLE, and by TEACHING THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES to KNOW and to VALUE their own RIGHTS; to discern and provide against INVASION of them; to distinguish between OPPRESSION and the necessary exercise of LAWFUL AUTHORITY; between burthens proceeding from a disregard to their convenience and those resulting from the inevitable exigencies of society; to discriminate the spirit of LIBERTY from that of LICENTIOUSNESS--cherishing the first, avoiding the last--and uniting a speedy but temperate VIGILANCE against ENCROACHMENTS, with an inviolable RESPECT to the LAWS.

Science and Literature can do this, by George. Put over-simply, only a knowledgeable and enlightened public will understand the inviolable ends, as well as the lawful limits, of Liberty. And so will fare well the Fate of the Union. Therefore, he concludes,

Whether this desirable object will be best promoted by affording AIDS to seminaries of learning already established, by the institution of a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, or by any other expedients will be well worthy of a place in the deliberations of the legislature.

Way back in Washington's first State of the Union was thus the kernel-idea behind government-sponsored higher education--coming to fruition later in tax-free institutions, land-grant universities, G.I. Bills, Pell Grants, etc. What a guy. (more)
************

#200 Two Presidents and Their First "State of the Union"

Nobody messed with George W. (no, not that one). A giant of a man for his day at 6' 2" and around 200 pounds , our first President stood more than half-a-foot above the average everybody else. Add to that Washington's legendary strength and agility, whether on horseback or the ballroom floor, and you've got the 18C equivalent of our Hunky Celeb, worthy of a Cosmo centerfold.

And on the field of battle? Fugedaboudit. He was well-nigh superhuman ... and absolutely front-line, horses-shot-from-under-him fearless. It helped that he could actually dodge bullets. But here's my favorite anecdote in regard to his instinctive courage, matched with amazing physical strength: It so happened on one occasion during the difficult days at Valley Forge that the General lost his (usually controlled but always to-be-wary-of) temper with two disgruntled and scuffling soldiers of about his size. He reportedly rushed into the fray, grabbed them separately in each of his reputedly oversize hands, levitated them both, and crashed their bodies together. Peace restored. Later, to make his point, he'd just have would-be mutineers shot.

Nobody messed with the Man from Mt. Vernon. You can imagine the figure he "cut" before Congress, especially if he chose to wear--and I like to think he did--his ceremonial sabre, pictured above at the ready. Do you think that one of the assembled Congressional company would have had the temerity to interject a "You lie!" into the proceedings?

Now, the official portrait guy, Gilbert Stuart, didn't capture his patron in paint while he was actually making THE very first "Presidential Address to Congress," as the "State of the Union" thing was called then--probably because it was so inconvenient for everybody. The "District of Columbia" just wasn't ready yet. The two houses of Congress were meeting temporarily in New York City, and the new President was anywhere and everywhere he needed to be. (His druthers: Mt. Vernon, of course.) But he must have felt it was important to fulfill in person THIS particular Constitutional mandate vis a' vis the Legislative branch and the new country's first CEO:

He shall from time to time give to Congress information of the state of the union and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. (Article II, Section 3)

And he did, on Jan. 8, 1790. For the very first time. Washington the great Precedent-Setter (e.g. two-terms and out with the exception of FDR) set for all time the WHEN--near the first of the year--and the HOW OFTEN--"from time to time" will mean annually--but NOT precisely the MANNER in which this "information" should be "given" to Congress. He and Adams presented it orally, but Jefferson was the Spoiler. He thought such a practice smacked of King-like ostentation--too much like those other Georges in full regalia addressing the opening of the British Parliament. So during our 3rd President's tenure the annual SOTU was delivered to Congress in written form only, and read into the record by a clerk. In so doing, he set a precedent of his own. Succeeding Presidents for over a century followed Jefferson's example, right up to Wilson and Harding, who revived oral presentation fitfully during their reigns.

But no surprise: the Great Populist FDR would be the one to re-set forever the Washingtonian example of getting in front of CONGRESS, and virtually the PEOPLE too, via radio, at least once-a-year. Now, since Truman and Television, the President is literally "live and in color" for the whole of America. Taken for granted.

However, it's all a rather radical departure from the old Constitutional imperative, which, when you look at it again, doesn't seem so imperative at all. The "from time to time" business. I think that's a notional by-product of the Framers' bed-rock bias of near-absolute Separation of Powers. For example, there's no mandate whatsoever for the Supreme Court justices to be in attendance, which is now seemingly de rigeur. Unlike Obama, President Washington wouldn't have had to put up with a snarky little Sam Alito shaking his head and lip-syncing, "Not true," during his speech. Good thing, too. There would have been an "appointment" involving Mr. Alito and the General in the Capitol cloak-room, afterwards. With or without his sabre. (more)
************

#199 Bring On the Filibuster II

During the Bush/Cheney hey-days, the freebooters menaced from the other side of the Senate aisle. Whenever the minority Democrats would threaten to hi-jack a bill or a Presidential appointment with the scarifying filibuster, the Republicans would threaten right back with what they dubbed the "nuclear option." It's surely a well-known secret across both aisles that the Cloture Rule can be changed or chucked-out altogether--not by 67 votes, nor, for that matter, 60, but by 51 ... a simple majority of the U.S. Senate. Constitutionally.

Now, the Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, were no great fans of Athenian democracy, or of the popular vote per se, for that matter. It couldn't elect President Gore ten years ago, for instance, thanks to the Electoral College and those wily Framers of the U.S. Constitution in Philadelphia long ago. Moreover, no vote in Congress is cast directly by the People. Of course not, say you: we're a representative democracy. However ... Yes, today both houses are popularly elected, and presumably represent the Will of their constituents, but for most of it's history, the Senate was immune to the popular vote. The Framers really did, bless their 18C hearts, have the British House of Lords in mind--and way back in their minds the life-tenured Roman Senatus of literally "old men" (senex)--when they "constituted" our bicameral legislature's "upper" chamber. As, frankly, another check-within-a-check-and-balance to the not-even-quite-direct voice of the people in the House of Representatives. Senators would be APPOINTED ... by higher powers-that-be in the several states. Most often this was accomplished by state legislatures, up until as late as 1913, when the 17th Amendment mandated popular election for all Senators.

But ... once the vox populi made its sometimes tortuously indirect way to the floors of Congress, the Framers expected it to be acted upon expeditiously, in a timely, and that means majoritarian, manner, as for any other deliberative body. Getting the people's franchise there was tough enough. According to Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: all that's required to to do business is a quorum, 50%+1. Then, a voting majority rules. The only exception in Clause 2--thus "proving" the rule--is the business of expelling a member of either house, which requires two-thirds of those present. QED: the Senate was Constitutionally OKAY in passing by a simple majority its Cloture Rule requiring 60 votes to stop a filibuster, but NOT OKAY in making a rule requiring 67 votes to change the rules. And, speaking of checks and balances, this point of Constitutional law was brought to a test many years ago and affirmed by the Supreme Court:

The constitution provides that "a MAJORITY of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business." In other words, when a MAJORITY are present the house is in a position to do business. Its capacity to transact business is then established, created by the mere presence of a MAJORITY, and does not depend upon the disposition or assent or action of any SINGLE member or FRACTION of the MAJORITY present. (U.S. v. Ballin 1892)

So there it is. The majority Democrats in the Senate can exercise their own "nuclear option" at any time, and throw out the Cloture Rule. Pass whatever @#$ *&%@ Health-Care Reform bill they want, without fear of Captain Filibuster. Will they do it? Doubtful. News reports have it that they're already wimping-out. No, not about the constitutional tactic above--they're way too gutless for that--but rather now they are scheming to somehow get around the filibuster procedurally ... or give up altogether and start over. Bruxism time.

Okay. I say just bring on the filibuster and be done with it. Let the new Republican Senator from Massachusetts gloat on his vote. That would be the magical Vote #41 against closing off debate. Here's how it could play out. Act one: Obama summons the fortitude to stop the House-Senate negotiations on their separate health-care bills. Act two: House submits intact its less-than-perfect-but-with-Public-Option bill to the Senate. Act three: Majority Leader Harry Reid introduces House bill for floor-debate, and then does what he seems to do best: nothing. Act four: hilarity ensues. Good fun is had by all as Republicans and and one or two Blue Dog henchmen extend debate indefinitely, fighting off Cloture votes one-after-the-other, flogging their long-dead hobby-horses unmercifully, exposing themselves as the mottled fools they are in front of the C-Span cameras hour-after-hour. Act five: patience finally exhausted, an angry mob in pirate garb storms the Senate chamber with sword and pistol drawn. Much loss of life ensues.
************

#198 Bring On the Filibuster

Tuesday's election of Republican Playgirl-centerfold Scott Something-or-other to the late and sorely lamented Edward Kennedy's Senate seat subtracts by one vote the so-called "super majority" that the Democrats have held in the American House of Lords. So what?! Did it help them at all when they had it for well-nigh a whole %$@ $#@% legislative YEAR? No ... not to mention that they still have the largest majorities in Congress since Jimmy Carter. And along with moderate Republicans, these majorities--reflecting about 75% of the Electorate--want to do the right thing and pass laws insuring that EVERY American has access to adequate health care. Which is the number one Domestic Issue of our time, and one so embarrassingly far behind the times when compared with what other civilized peoples of the Earth have done.

So what has happened? For one thing, Democrats are WIMPS. Or must be, since they can't translate their superior numbers in Congress into laws of the land. That's their JOB, after all. Constitutionally. And they're not doing it. I think this is what the voters in Massachusetts had in mind when they angrily cut-off their normally progressive nose--they have a form of universal health-care--and spited their face with a wing-nut Republican. Who, ironically, promised in his campaign to vote against Reform--thus invoking that ever-menacing monster by the dreaded name of Filibuster.

Second, Obama is a WIMP. Or must be, since the President can't translate the will of the people who elected him and his future-tense Platform of Hope--by a more-than-convincing majority--into some sort of Congressional action. Surely, Obama meant more by "Change You Can Believe In" than the sheets in the Lincoln bedroom. He made a monstrous mistake in effectively handing over primary leadership on health-care reform to the Grafters and Grifters on key Congressional committees. Shouldn't he have known, for instance, that Sen. Max Baucus was a "made" man, by Big-Med?

Third, the U.S. Senate is a WIMPERAGE, to coin a word. Or must be, since it seems powerless to pass laws, or even to advise and consent effectively. I'll leave it in the personified collective singular because as a legislative entity its wimpery is systemic. Built into its current Rules of Order are procedures guaranteed to preserve the the status quo ante, to discourage changing laws and to obstruct making new ones. MAJORITY doesn't quite rule in our Upper House. Funny part is ... it can and should, according to ancient Constitutional principles, backed up by a Supreme Court dictum over a hundred years old.

The elephant in the room is the current Cloture Rule. This allows a Senator to extend deliberation on a bill indefinitely, to presumably "filibuster it to death" unless debate is stopped by a vote of SIXTY of his/her fellows. (A colorful and apt borrowing is "filibuster," first popularized by southern Senators of the the early 19C and meaning essentially "pirate"--descended from Dutch vrijbuiter = "freebooter" and passed through Spanish and French as filibustero and filibustier, respectively, and finally to the folk-etymologized form we have in English today--accidentally appropriate for its "bill-BUSTing" connotations--though I'm sure the original "booty-for-all" implications are not lost on the smarter Grafters in the Senate, who would cut a bill's throat for money. You know the ones, by now). However, just to illustrate just how congenitally LAZY is that Body in every way, the Lords don't even have to bother debating debate. If a poll shows that FORTY-ONE Senators would vote against closing debate, the bill is busted. Hi-jacked, as if by some Somali pirate. Republican Sen. What's-his-name supposedly represents that forty-first vote.

Well, in reality, these aren't magic numbers at all. It's a pernicious meme indeed, bruited even by those politicos who should know better, that the Cloture Rule is somehow sacrosanct. It's not. True, currently it takes SIXTY Senators to close debate, and that's coupled with a seemingly impossible SIXTY-SEVEN to change the rule for closing debate. The latter number is, however, fundamentally unconstitutional, and the minority Republicans in the Senate know it deep down and dirty. For when they were in the majority during the last administration's tenure, and when they were threatened upon occasion with a Democratic filibuster over certain abominations otherwise known as Bush/Cheney appointments, these Republicans in turn threatened to go "nuclear" and revoke the Cloture Rule by simple majority vote--thus making any business before the body subject to simple majority vote, including closing debate. How soon they forget, when the situation is reversed. Oops ... I forgot. They're politicians. (more)
************