As we say goodbye to filibuster reform, let us take a moment to get really clear on where the blames lays for turning the filibuster into a weapon of mass destruction. More and more when I talk to conservatives, the best they can say about how badly their party acts is the centrists’ lament: both sides do it! But that is quantitatively wrong.

About a year and a half ago, one of Kevin Drum’s readers created the following graph. It shows how the use of the filibuster has grown. The red data points indicate when the Republicans were in the minority and the blue points indicate when the Democrats were. The most obvious thing to notice is that all the increases in the use of the filibuster are due to the Republicans. A more subtle point is that the Democrats have actually reduced the use of the filibuster.

This gets to the core of the problem with the “both sides do it” meme. When the Democrats brought down the use of the filibuster in the 90s and 00s, they were given no credit for it. In addition, it didn’t change the behavior of the Republicans that followed them. Every time the the Republicans have been in the minority, they have pushed the use of the filibuster all the more.

This behavior is shameful and the Republicans should be publicly shamed. But instead, all their bad behavior is glossed over with, “Why can’t the two parties just get along?!” As this graph shows, the Democratic Party tries to get along. And the reaction of the mainstream media is still, “Why can’t the two parties just get along?!” The answer is staring right at them from the teleprompter.

Tired of hating on Harry Reid? Then click away, because I have something all new to bitch about. Today, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came down with a sweeping interpretation of the Constitution that will basically end recess appointments. These are temporary appointments that the President makes when the Senate is in recess. Now, I’m no great fan of these, except right now when the Republicans are so committed to obstruction that they wouldn’t approve the nomination for dog catcher.

When I first started thinking about the filibuster, I thought, “Why kill it now? After all, the House is still in Republican hands. There isn’t much that is going to get done anyway!” I thought that for about a nanosecond. Then I realized: presidential nominations! Obama has hardly been radical in his appointments. Consider, for example, Mary Jo White to head SEC. About the most outrageous choice was Elizabeth Warren. But she wasn’t even chosen. That was just too controversial a nomination, so now that “radical” Warren is a lowly United States Senator.

Yet the Republicans have blocked all kinds of minor and uncontrovertial nominations. Why? For the same reason a dog licks its balls. And this is why we needed real filibuster reform. The fact that Obama will likely not be able to make any more recess appointments makes Harry Reid’s newest “handshake agreement” all that much worse.

But like I keep telling everyone: don’t worry! In two years, the Republicans will probably control the Senate. And then we can finally get some filibuster reform! Just in time for President Marco Rubio!

Update (25 January 2013 5:47 pm)

Jonathan Bernstein says more or less the same thing that I did:

But he is less hopeless. He uses this fact to encourage Reid to hold on to filibuster reform to keep the Republicans in order. He also links to an article he wrote back in December that explains the various ways that the filibuster can be reformed at any time.

Yesdayday, Martha Jackovics of Beach Peanuts wrote, It’s Time To Stop Pretending John McCain Is A “Hero.” She is talking about his political career and how he once was a hero, but he isn’t anymore. It’s a good article. I have one minor complaint, however: I’m not so sure that John McCain was even a hero before he went into politics. Okay, let me explain.

John McCain did win a couple of medals during his service in Vietnam. He won the Bronze Star and the much less prestigious Navy Commendation Medal. But you have to put these things in context. His father was a Navy Admiral and even Commander of the United States Pacific Command. So somehow, I just don’t think medals came out of nowhere.

Now, we can call John McCain a hero because he was in the military at all. A lot of famous future Republicans managed to stay out of the war: George Bush Jr and Dick “I had other priorities” Cheney. But it is hard to take any Republican’s claim of being a hero, after the party allowed a clear war hero, John Kerry, to be dishonored publicly during the 2004 election. There was not a peep of complaint. And do you know why? Because Republicans care about political power more than care about anything else—certainly more than they care about honor.

So I don’t think much of John McCain. He was a privileged young man and he is a privileged old man now. He doesn’t stand for anything. And he never has. He’s a hero in the sense that every person who was ever in the military is a hero. But otherwise, not so much. Or at all.

While preparing my earlier article about Ayn Rand, I came upon the following quote about a talk by uber-Randian Leonard Peikoff. (Actually Peikoff is far more reasonable than Rand.) The article noted that he said Obama was not a socialist but rather an egalitarian nihilist. It then describes this as “the form of Kantianism that gave us non-objective art, quantum mechanics, and progressive education.” So society is going to hell because of “liberal” science like quantum mechanics. See why I call Objectivism a religion? In this case, the writer doesn’t even seem to be an Objectivist—just a conservative. And this drives me crazy: if the loyal opposition is going to dismiss the last 80 years of physics because they have ontological problems with it, we are doomed.

Make no mistake: I am despairing today. And when I despair, I reach out for something I can grab onto—something that I have some control over. So I picked up Jim Holt’s new book, Why Does the World Exist?. It promises to provide me with insight into the only question that really matters, “Why does anything exist rather than nothing?” Actually, although I’d be happy with an answer to that question, I have a more fundamental question: do I exist. This is not as silly a question as you may think, and I’m sure that I will address it in various forms for as long as I “exist.”

Holt starts his book with a cheeky prologue, “A quick proof that there must be something rather than nothing, for modern people who lead busy lives”:

I will explain why this proof is invalid by way of explaining what I think about this question. I figure I should get my basic thoughts down before reading the book. That way, I can see how my thinking has changed. So stay tuned!

I have problems with the God debate. Postulating God as the reason for everything simply pushes the problem back one step. It naturally raises the question, “How God?” And this puts believers in the same place as the non-believers: God is self-created or some variation thereof. This is the argument that Lawrence Krauss makes in A Universe From Nothing. But the believers and non-believers alike seem not to understand that they have not answered the question.

If God or the universe[1] just sprang into being, that “nothing” from which it sprang must have had properties (or laws) that allowed it. And that begs the question: how was a nothingness that allowed something created?

In fairness, serious thinkers on both sides understand this problem.[2] But neither have any good answers. They are all basically definitional. On the theological side they define God as some kind of mechanism that allows existence. On the scientific side they define the problem away. (Really, Krauss seems to think that “nothingness is unstable” is something other than an evasion.)

In the end, I think, we are left with a paradox. And so what?! I have no problem with that. We exist and yet we shouldn’t. I think this says a whole lot about how the brain works and a whole nothing about how the universe works. We know via Godel that even some deductive systems can be shown to be incomplete or inconsistent. Is it such a leap to suggest that the universe is the same way? That we are trapped by our perceptions to see problems where none exist?

And that brings us back to Holt’s cheeky proof: it is self-consistent. But everything we know about existence indicates that the universe does not feel obliged to follow Aristotle’s teachings. What’s more, at bottom, the proof is no more helpful than, “I exist therefore something much exist!” Although that is more or less what I believe.

Afterword

I think that humans want to make sense of all things. But a lot of things just don’t make sense. And I think that’s a good thing. The universe would be a sad place if it were explicable. In conclusion: wow!

[1] I don’t mean to confine this discuss to our universe. Think of this as shorthand. I don’t see any reason why a single universe is any more likely than literally an infinity of universes. I say this because our universe seems to be around 14 billion years old. But that can’t be true of existence itself. (Or nonexistence, if you prefer.)

[2] Unfortunately, just about every believer and non-believer you’ve heard of does not fall into this category. I know the non-believers better, so let me name a few: Krauss, Dawkins, Hitchens.

Last night on The Last Word, Lawrence O’Donnell presented a rewrite where he attacked conservatives—Bill O’Reilly in particular—about the one thing that makes them conservatives. The clip is below and it is worth watching. He says that conservatives always think that however things are, that is how they should be. So when there was slavery, well, that is how it should be. How could anyone have improved on the life of America in 1860? And similarly today, it is right and fitting for fifty million Americans to go without healthcare and for most of the rest to be one illness away from medical bankruptcy.

This is what I call “the end of history.” It is the belief that all of history was leading up to the present. We aren’t going somewhere, we have arrived. And for those in power, I guess the case can be made. But for the rest of us? I don’t think we only need tinkering around the edges. In particular, I’m thinking more and more that all markets are turning into winner-take-all. These are markets where those at the top make ridiculous amounts of money, while all the rest barely get by. Think: violin players. We effectively have the same sort of thing going on with other areas that should not be winner-take-all markets. For example, high tech has become a place where big companies use government policy to stifle small companies.

This is why we must not allow conservatives to claim that they are for free markets. They are for anything but. The only time they are for “free markets” is when it helps powerful installed interests. Take for example, “free trade” agreements. These are agreements to allow free trade in, say, tomatoes. But they don’t allow free trade in medicine, law, teaching, or anything else that would hurt American elites but help American poor. So it is critical to see conservatism for what it is and not for what it claims to be.

It is very easy to see how shortsighted conservatism is. Just look at conservatives of the past. Whenever conservatives hearken back to great minds, they always go to Edmund Burke. It is too dangerous to use any more recent conservatives. This is because it is all too clear that the basis of their thinking was racism, sexism, homophobia, and elitism. Whenever a conservative talks about William F. Buckley, they are careful to whitewash his extremely troubling early writings that are explicitly white supremacist. (Buckley spent much of his later career trying to backtrack on this.) Here’s a prediction for you: in 20 years, all conservatives will accept Obamacare as God given, but they will denounce any idea of a single payer system.

I can’t say for sure whether conservatives really believe that we’ve reached the end of history. It may just be rhetoric that they’ve created to justify the far less compelling argument that those who are down should be kept down and those who are up should be kept up. But given that American conservatism has always embraced the idea of opportunity, it probably is that they believe this end of history nonsense. And that makes them the kings of cognitive dissonance. They must know that their thinking of not long ago is now repugnant. And they must know (or have actively avoided finding out) that America does not provide “equality of opportunity.”

Regardless, we must push ever forward the truth about what conservatives believe. They are the party of the American aristocracy. Forget free markets. Forget religious liberty. Remember: the end of history.

I am not a great follower of history, but Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of the few names that comes to mind when I think of people who gave of themselves to make this a better society.

Being white, I am naturally ignorant of the true struggles of any other race. I know my world; I hear rumors of others. And yet, here I am, at the request of a friend, blogging about a man, an historical figure, about whom I actually know very little. What I do know is that, because of men like Martin Luther King, Jr., our world ― as far from ideal as it is ― is better and more unified. His strength and bravery, his choice to become a voice for his people, cleared a path toward self-respect and hope. His people being anyone oppressed, abused, tortured, or murdered because of the ignorance, greed, and brutality of other human beings.

See also King on Poverty.

The Daily Show annoyed me again last night with the most shameful deception I have ever seen on the show. Andrea tells me I’m just angry at Jon Stewart over his treatment of the platinum coin idea. This is not true. I am often bothered by how The Daily Show deals with issues and bends over backwards to seem “balanced” when it is anything but. Last night, the show took on Hurricane Sandy relief. I figured they would do a good job of this, but they blew it completely.

They started by noting Republican obstruction in the House. Then they showed a clip that made Chris Christie look good. That’s fine, when it comes to this issue, Christie has been okay (although not nearly as good as his press would indicate). Then they showed Representative Mick Mulvaney complaining about pork in the bill. In particular, there is money to help the fishery industry in Alaska and the Gulf Coast. Stewart followed up with a typical, “Can’t we all just get along?”

There are two problems here. First, putting pork in a bill is part of getting along. In fact, a lot of the Congressional dysfunction these last few years comes from the fact that Congress has made it much harder to do this kind of horse trading. Second, Congressmen always have some very good reason for not voting for any particular bill. Oh yes, Mulvaney would love to vote for the bill, if only it weren’t for this one thing! Stewart is showing himself to be extremely naive about the way politics works.

Then, when the House removes some of this pork and passes the bill, Stewart is thrilled. They got along! See how easy it is guys?! But note: after it was taken out, Mulvaney still voted against it. As did 178 other Republicans. So this wasn’t even the House agreeing to “all get along”!

But it gets worse. Because the bill has to go back to the Senate. Why? Because the House delayed so long on the vote that there is a new Congress. Stewart makes no mention of this. But it gets even worse. He shows video of Kerry saying that the bill will not pass without the fisheries money. Kerry looks really bad.

The reason Kerry looks really bad is because The Daily Show was as deceptive as I have ever seen. Kerry was talking about “desperately-needed aid for the Northeast fisheries disaster.” You know, in places like Gloucester and New Bedford—places effected by Hurricane Sandy!

Watch for yourself the most shameful moment I have ever seen on The Daily Show:

Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future. You are interested in the unknown—the mysterious. The unexplainable. That is why you are here. And now, for the first time, we are bringing to you, the full story of what will happen on that fateful day. We are bringing you all the evidence, based only on the secret testimony, of the miserable souls, who have studied this terrifying ordeal. The incidents, the places—my friends, we cannot keep this a secret any longer! Let us punish the guilty! Let us reward the innocent! My friends, can your heart stand the shocking facts of Plan 9 from Republican House?!

If so, Matt Yglesias has a story to tell you. Yes, I was being silly above, with the help of the great Ed Wood. But the truth is that if the Congress does not raise the Debt Ceiling, it is going to be bad. Really, if your heart can stand the truth, click on over to Yglesias’ article. But let me give you the most basic information. If we hit the Debt Ceiling, we will see a 7% hit in the GDP of this country. This represents about ten million currently employed people losing their jobs. This represents as big a hit as the worst of the Great Depression.

But there’s more! That’s just the primary problem. As with everything in the economy, there are lots and lots of feedbacks:

I know a lot of people think I am too worried about this. Actually, I’m tending to think now that we aren’t that likely to hit the Debt Ceiling. But this is so bad that we shouldn’t even be seriously talking about it. Right now, I think there is maybe a 10% chance. And that is terrifying.

This image comes via Matt Yglesias. Apparently, The Wall Street Journal is highlighting the plight of those poor souls with six-figure incomes. Because of the Fiscal Cliff deal, they are paying more in taxes. Here is their infographic:

Note here that the single woman and the single mother are paying 1.3% extra in federal taxes. But people making $35,000 are paying 1.4% extra in federal taxes. But you have to put this information in The Wall Street Journal context: those with six-figure incomes matter.

Pity the rich, for in this world they have no voice. Except, you know, every fucking politician and media figure in America.

I don’t care as much about gun legislation as a lot of liberals. The reason is simple: guns kill about 25,000 people each year in the United States. Income inequality and the recession kill a lot more than that. For example, a Harvard Medical School study found that lack of health insurance caused as many as 44,789 deaths per year in the United States. I tend to think that studies like this under-estimate the problem. But you get the idea.

Having said this, I still think we should do something. In particular, I am a big advocate for nationwide gun purchase waiting periods. But there are lots of other things that might be helpful that I think we should do. One would be a ban on assault weapon imports to this country. This is something that President Obama could do by executive action. And it looks like he is planning to do this.

These are minor things. This is not going to door to door and confiscating guns. But that doesn’t mean that the freaks are not going crazy at the very thought that there might be fewer assault weapons imported into the country. Case in point: James Yeager. He is the CEO of Tactical Response, and he said, “I am not fucking putting up with this; I am not letting my country be ruled by a dictator; I’m not letting anybody take my guns. If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.” Here’s The Young Turks on it with the original clip and follow up (which wasn’t the last—see below):

One inch further? It isn’t surprising that Yeager got a little push back on this. But what I find interesting is how a guy that yells at his wife can end up in jail for a “terrorist threat,” but someone like Yeager only gets his gun permit suspended. Why does nothing happen to Ted Nugent when he threatens the President of the United States? I think it is because our leaders only have backbone when it comes to going after the powerless. Ted Nugent and James Yeager are not powerless, so: boys will be boys!

Make no mistake: people like Yeager are effective. They have managed to allow us to have some of the most ridiculous gun laws in the western world. But I’m curious to see what Obama presents tomorrow. Because as we’ve seen, loudmouth assholes like James Yeager are nothing but paper tigers. Threaten to take away their gun permits and they purr like kittens. And that is very clear in Yeager’s third video: