Briefly, on FISA

Oh, in other news, the FISA fight continues; the cloture vote the GOP tried to push forward early - which Senate Majority Leader Reid took as a personal insult - failed, primarily because of the insult to the Senator. That was enough to prevent cloture, so the fight will continue probably next week. To quote Glenn again:

In essence, the reason Senate Democrats were able to successfully filibuster today is not because they oppose the Cheney/Rockefeller Senate Intelligence Committee bill. It's not because they stood firm against telecom immunity or warrantless eavesdropping. Quite the contrary, more than enough Senate Democrats were and still are prepared to vote for that bill in order to ensure passage (as they demonstrated on Thursday when 12 of them, in essence, voted for that bill).

The only reason Democrats were able to hold their caucus together today to filibuster is because The Senators were offended that their inalienable Senatorial Right to vote on amendments was deprived by the GOP's premature Cloture Motion. The one (and only) "principle" that can really inspire many of these Senators to take a stand is the protection of their Senatorial prerogatives. Many of them don't actually have any beliefs other than that.

Reward lawbreaking with immunity? Fine. Give the President new warrantless eavesdropping powers? No problem. Abolish habeas corpus and legalize torture? Sure. Deprive a Senator of the Right to vote on an amendment before cloture? Unacceptable!

I've written things like that before (as many of you know) and I could probably whip something up again, but you've heard it already, and it's easier at this point to quote someone else, when they're right.

Still, I really have to wonder whether it matters. The chief executive, Mr. Bush, has declared himself above the law time and time again, and has gotten away with it every time. Except for immunity for the telcos, I don't see this being hugely different; the domestic warrantless spying will go on anyway, I think. Still, if immunity can be kept off the books, at least it might have a chance of being documented.

Not so briefly, on Soviet, fascist, and current American political theory

I've been trying to walk away, but I saw this, and, well, here I am again. Hey, what's one more drink?

One of the few constraints that the chief executive Mr. Bush and his supporters have acknowledged over the last several years - even as they claimed the right to arrest and indefinitely hold citizens without charge or court review, authorised torture, and so on - has been the right of Congress to control the budget, and, as such, spending. Indeed, they have all but dared Congress to cut funding for the Iraq war, something Congress has been too cowardly to pursue.

However, this control of spending is apparently no longer being recognised by the Bush administration, as per this recent signing statement. Specifically, Mr. Bush asserts the ability to spend money not just not authorised, but specifically forbidden by law - specifically, in the building of permanent military installations in Iraq, or exerting control over Iraqi oil resources. Mr. Bush is now claiming the right to spend money without Congressional approval, and in direct violation of Federal law, on his decision alone.

As Glenn Greenwald notes here, the most likely action of Congress will be to say "okay" and either ignore it, or pass some form of retroactive law so they can feel good about themselves. This is what they've done to date, and what they've continued to do in the face of open contempt for even the idea of an informed legislature. (See also those still unenforced subpoenas that the Bush administration ignored, now remaining unenforced courtesy the Democratic leadership.) As these acts continue to go unpunished - or, even, significantly opposed - by the powers that should be opposing them, they become normalised, precedent, and durable. The opportunity to reclaim a presidency under the law, rather than above and immune to it, disappears.

What we're seeing formed here is fundamentally worse than Soviet legal theory, and quite akin to actual, real fascist political theory as practiced. (And remember, by actively discussing Nazi actions and politics favourably, the GOP has ended the right to invoke Godwin's Law - as they have, really, waved the right to appeal to any law whatsoever.) The Soviet system involved a legislature that would delegate power to a smaller legislature that would delegate its power to the cabinet and Premier, who was typically also the General Secretary of the Communist Party. They would take whatever actions they saw fit, and then the legislative bodies could override them as they felt appropriate. This override ability was, theoretically, unlimited. Needless to say, this failed in practice, of course - but even here, the political theory allowed for greater legislative power over the executive than the Bush administration accepts.

Fascist political theory dismissed the idea of a legislature - but the absolute leader would face re-election upon occasion, or at very least referendum, to insure that he always followed the racial will of the populace. (One might call these "accountability moments.") I'm not that certain we have something all that different right now. And in actual practice, even in Nazi Germany, there was still a parliament - advisory, and mostly a propaganda platform, but with theoretical powers to act. Officially, Mr. Hitler was operating under the auspices of this legislature; under the Enabling Act of 1933, the legislature retained the ability to create new law, and could not (again, in theory) be affected by the laws decreed by Mr. Hitler. The Act even included an expiration, and was indeed renewed twice, on schedule, in 1937, and again in 1941. The act could, still in theory, be revoked by the legislature, allowing their resumption of these powers.

Even this is more of a theoretical check than Mr. Bush's administration admits to Congress today.

On the theory side of things, there is genuinely no place left to go. (On the practical side, there is obviously quite a bit further to fall. But this is a discussion of political theory.) In terms of the idea of rights as rights, of checks and balances, of limited and lawful government, of a president constrained by the law, there is no place left to go. There is no Constitution, there is no President, there is no law, and none of us are citizens. Instead, there are show trials, there is a surveillance society, there is a torture regime, there is an executive untouchable by law. There is also some shred of democracy, but with a Congressional incumbency re-election rate running around 95% despite terribly low approval ratings year in and year out, you have to question how much this shred matters. Alternatively, you decide it matters quite a lot - but then you have to accept the idea that most Americans are just fine with things this way, bitching to pollsters left aside, and want a Decider, not a President; they want torture and arbitrary arrest, not 900-plus years of Anglo-Saxon legal tradition; they want rule by person and personality, rather than rule by law.

And I just don't see how you back away from here. Not with the cast currently on stage. Honestly, I really don't - which, I suppose, is why I keep trying to walk away.

oh why not

I got this from grian_ruadh, so hey, why not?

---

If you are on my friendslist, I would like to know thirty-six things about you. Whether we've known each other for years or never met in person is irrelevant. Copy the questions from here and reply here. When you're done, repost the unanswered list of questions so you can learn more about me and everyone else on your friendslist. :)

1) Are you currently in a serious relationship?

2) What was your dream growing up?

3) What talent do you wish you had?

4) If I bought you a drink what would it be?

5) Favorite vegetable?

6) What was the last book you read?

7) What zodiac sign are you?

8) Any Tattoos and/or Piercings? Explain where.

9) Worst Habit?

10) If you saw me walking down the street would you offer me a ride?

11) What is your favorite sport?

12) Do you have a Negative or Optimistic attitude?

13) What would you do if you were stuck in an elevator with me?

14) Worst thing to ever happen to you?

15) Tell me one weird fact about you.

16) Do you have any pets?

17) What if I showed up at your house unexpectedly?

18) What was your first impression of me? (hmmm...careful!)

19) Do you think clowns are cute or scary?

20) If you could change one thing about how you look, what would it be?

21) Would you be my crime partner or my conscience?

22) What color eyes do you have?

23) Ever been arrested?

24) Bottle or can soda?

25) If you won $10,000 today, what would you do with it?

27) What's your favorite place to hang at?

28) Do you believe in ghosts?

29) Favorite thing to do in your spare time?

30) Do you swear a lot?

31) Biggest pet peeve?

32) In one word, how would you describe yourself?

33) Do you believe/appreciate romance?

35) Do you believe in any god[s]?

36) Will you repost this so I can fill it out and do the same for you?

the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent

Credit implosion hits tens of thousands of people directly as Countrywide and many others pull back sharply on lines of credit. "'We didn't deserve this,' [said] Thaleia Georgiades," a Countrywide customer. Sorry, but as Clint said, "Deserve ain't got nothin' t'do with it."

And as a followup to those posts I've been making about banking reserves, the Fed has announced another US$60B in auctions aimed at keeping the banks propped up, and is also making other changes to try to get more props under the system. Comptroller of the Currency, John Durgan, told an audience in Florida that "We’re entering a stage of the commercial real-estate credit cycle where problems have started to surface and losses have started to increase," and that we'll see bank failures coming out of this in the near future. That ties well with the system reserves failure I've mentioned previously.