Just a quick thought on filibusters

Repugs these days are spending half their time saying "No," and the other half saying, "Look at these useless Democrats, they can't get anything done" - and somehow, the population seems unable to connect these facts.

Way back when, if you wanted to filibuster, you actually had to do it. Happened during the 60s, in the battle for a Civil Rights bill. Thurmond had to actually take the floor for 24+ hours and actually talk all that time.

I'd like to see that be a requirement again. Call me a crazy anarchist, but I'd like to see them actually have to work for their obstruction, because right now I'm seeing no more effort requirements than that of a group of kids playing "Duck, Duck Goose."

These days, all you have to do is say 'filibuster' (unless the majority leader says you actually have to do it), and it's 'Oh, well, he said 'filibuster,' guess we'll just let them roll over us.'

Kind of like if gunslingers in the Wild West could win a gunfight just by saying "Bang! You're dead!" before the other guy did, just like when we were kids, pointing our fingers and watching the other kid go down because of the overwhelming power of our spoken fast draw. Nice deal if you can get it.

Maybe in the future, they won't even have to be there. Just do it from a laptop, like bidding wars on eBay. After all, if actually talking, actually working to carry your filibuster is just too inconvenient, actually being in the building must be a burden, too.

Who knows, maybe 50 years from now, Congressmen will be able to just vote down anything they don't want from their iPads and Blackberries while waiting for the next guy to tee off on the golf course. The software will have two buttons - "Filibuster" and "Cave" - or maybe "Filibuster" and "Wuss out," in the interests of honesty.

"Leak"? I don't think so....

Why do they keep calling this bit in the Gulf a "leak"? It's not a leak.

Water dripping from a pipe is a leak. Grease coming out from the bottom of the hibachi through a crack in the base is a leak. When I use the bathroom, I'm usually taking a leak.

The Gulf? The oil has been gushing out of that thing. That's why they call these things "gushers" on land. The fact that it's uncontrolled (or barely/slightly controlled) doesn't change that. So don't minimize this colossal fuck-up by calling it a "leak." You're insulting my intelligence.

Filibuster? Bring it.

Okay, I just surfed to this TPM article:

The Rise Of Cloture: How GOP Filibuster Threats Have Changed The Senate

Old news, but it really shows how the party of No and of No Ideas handles things when in the minority these days.

With nothing significant to contribute to the debate, and no desire to spend time and energy offering genuine alternatives beyond the ritual invoking of the magical, cure-all of tax cuts, the GOP's only 'contribution' is stalling and avoiding votes they'll lose by threatening with filibusters.

I've said it before, but really, the Democrats are partially to blame, too. They need to just call them on the threat, let some fool babble on and on about anything and everything, from chili recipes to a reading of a dog-eared copy of Machiavelli's "The Prince." Maybe a reading of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, just to familiarize the current GOP crop with them.

Then, when the little prick collapses and an ambulance comes to haul him away, just say "Okay, that was interesting, I didn't even know that bit about raising Chihuahuas. Now, let's get back to actual work and vote. What, the Repugs are a man short? What a shame. Tough noogies, kids."

Seriously - just call them on it. Let them talk and talk, let them show the country how much they want to continue their brilliant strategy of, you know, doing nothing, then when they're done, have the goddamned vote anyway and get things done.

Simple fact - you let someone threaten you often enough, and they'll do it any time they want, because threats are easy. Following through - that's hard. Make them put up until they shut up.

The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022

I recently picked up this book again and read through it after spotting it on Amazon.

I got this book in the mid-90s, maybe a year or so after it came out. It is an attempt to derive, from the words of leaders in the far-right at the time, a picture of where they might have taken the country based on their views and intentions as they themselves described them. While history has obviously taken a different course than what is described, for which we can be very grateful, the book's primary value is the same as that of Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here," Jack London's "The Iron Heel" or Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale," namely to make people aware of the prevailing views and desires of political/religious extremists and hardliners on the right, and how they might have reshaped the nation to reflect their own ideologies.

It is essentially a warning, and a reminder that if the majority of the country doesn't remain active and informed on politics, they leave the door open for a fringe minority to take the reins.

The book's title refers to the percentage of organized voters one segment of the religious right has said would be needed to swing an election in their favor, given the apathy and disinterest to be found among the general population. "The 15% Solution" describes how an organized and motivated voting bloc, comprising a mere 15% of the population, could take control of the country from the other 85%.

Although we're long past the publishing date, and history taken a fairly different course than what was described, most of the major political players whose words are quoted in the book are still very much actively in the game, wielding influence and control over the GOP, and still working to remake the country in their image.

As a result, one look at the daily cast of usual suspects on Fox news and talk radio, among others, demonstrates its validity and relevance. It's still worth buying a copy and giving it a read. While some of the fictional portions suffer from some weak writing, the factual portions more than make up for it.

First day on the Blog

Okay, so it's another blog. Whoopde-do, right?

Well, not necessarily.

So, what'll we talk about?

How about Vendetta?

I haven't seen it yet, but I have read the book. For those who've been living in Sadaam's vacated hole in the ground, it's a little controversial. It's from the 80s, and it's about a future England, post-nuclear war. They managed to avoid being a target themselves because the Labour party was voted in in the early 80s and had all American nukes removed from their soil.

So, they didn't end up a charred cinder, but they're not too happy.

The story (book) takes place in 1997-98, when England is a totalitarian state. Think Nazis with Benny Hill voices.

Like any little dystopia, it's not exactly a happy place. Secret police, gays and minorities pretty much done away with years ago, lots of white supremecist stuff used as prime-time entertainment.

People aren't doing too well financially. Some of the scummiest people make it into positions of authority and power, including the head of the Church of England (has a thing for young girls. I'm not talking what-a-hottie young, I'm talking omigod-you-sick-bastard young).

And into this little dystopia comes our man V. Wearing a Guy Fawkes mask (tred to blow up Parliament, just check the story on the wikipedia, they have everything), he starts his career by blowing up a few government buildings. So yeah, he's a terrorist.

And here we get into the meat of the controversy. This is why there are plenty of people who instantly find themselves opposed and disgusted by the very idea. This is why people hear a vague description, and think it's some "liberal movie out to bash the troops and hurt America."

Yes, he's a terrorist - but we're not talking some white supremecist so bananas he thinks the government stuck a microchip up his butt because they're so interested in him. Nor is he some fanatical Muslim (or Christian - yes, boys and girls, there are such things, and while not as extreme as their Muslim cousins, some would like to be).

This is a terrorist who's fighting a totalitarian regime. Kind of like the underground during WWII. Yes, he blows up government buildings. Yes, he kills members of the government. Yes, he's trying to bring down the government. Yes, he's a terrorist.

But he's a terrorist fighting _for_ freedom, not against it. He kills those responsible for the regime's power, not civilians.

So - is he a villian or a hero?

Here's my take on it.

While this story takes place in a future England (much as 1984 did), it is more just the story of how bad things can get in any country whose people let those in power strip away their liberties in the name of fear and protection. England just happens to be the location of the story.

Those who take offense at the idea of a film in which a terrorist is a hero seem to forget something:

He's a terrorist if he's fighting against you. He's a hero if he's fighting for you.

Forget current events for a moment. These days, it's easy to hear "terrorist" and think of some snarling Arab with a scraggly beard and a big towel on his head (hey, let's face it, that's the mental image. Usually bears a striking resemblance to Bin Laden. Or a Klingon. Or Bin Laden as a Klingon. Hmmm. We may have the plot for the next Star Trek movie), and therefore be immediately repulsed, given the losses the US, Britain and others have had at the hands of such people.

Forget all that and put yourself in the story. You are living in a totalitarian state, at least as bad as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or 1984's Oceania. You have no freedom, no rights. You can be made to disappear with a phone call. You have nothing to look forward to except a stark, mediocre existence and the possibility that your children, brainwashed by the state, will one day turn you in for some comment you made in the privacy of your own home

You have secret police, corruption everywhere, people of wealth and power who hold onto it by supporting this regime. And you’re old enough to recall when it was different, and you absolutely despise what’s become of the country you love, and the people who made or allowed it to happen.

If someone starts blowing up the buildings (yes, even with people in them) of this corrupt and criminal government, will you complain? If someone starts killing off the people in power who support the regime, will you complain? If someone offers the hope that one day the tyrants will be dead and gone, and you will live in a free country again, will you complain? And if he offers you a gun, or a bomb, will you turn it down?

You might want to think about that, the next time you claim this is "anti-American," or the next time you complain about the terrorist while ignoring the tyrant. This story is anti-tyranny. And it is also a warning:

A warning to the citizens, not to give away too much.

And a warning to those in power or who wish to someday be in power, to watch your step. Because the rest of us are watching your steps, too.