Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
Every so often, I am so impressed by a comment to one of my columns that I offer to just turn my column over to the author, and let them have my soapbox. This doesn't happen often, usually around once per year.
I've written a few columns so far about the Occupy Wall Street protest, [...]
Like many Americans, I watched the events unfold in Oakland this week with some trepidation. Occupy Oakland tried two new tactics in protesting, and both were very successful at achieving a key goal -- that of getting your message across. Both the general strike and the temporary port shutdown were successful, in this regard. Later in the night, however, a group of jerks came close to ruining all this, by their criminal behavior.
We'd like to begin today with an issue that we regularly get incensed about here, mostly because it flies under the radar of just about everyone -- including the entire media universe. Because for once, Democrats are making the attempt to use the issue to make some political hay (even though, in this regard, they're admittedly almost as bad as the Republicans).
The issue of what, exactly, "three co-equal branches" means in American government -- and, more importantly, what happens when two of them disagree -- goes back a long way. Further than Franklin Roosevelt, further even than Abraham Lincoln. The first president to truly tangle with the Supreme Court was actually Andrew Jackson, who fought the court on two separate issues: Jackson's policy of "Indian removal," and the Second Bank of the United States. The first one is where Jackson responded (according to legend -- he may not have actually said this) to a court ruling against him: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" By doing so, Jackson was stating his open defiance of a Supreme Court decision, and pointing out that the Executive Branch actually controlled the levers of federal power, and not the Judicial Branch.
Because Mormonism is in the news again, due to a Rick Perry supporter calling it a "cult," I thought it was high time to re-run the following column.
"Populism" is a word that gets thrown around with abandon by folks masquerading as journalists on television these days. Sarah Palin had the word used to describe her, and later, the entire Tea Party movement was labeled "populist" by the chattering classes. Today, President Obama unveiled a truly populist agenda, by proposing to tax millionaires at the same tax rate that middle-class Americans pay. By doing so, Obama will (hopefully) redefine the term "populism" in the political conversation. Or, to be technical, he will re-redefine the word back to what it originally meant.
Even with all those caveats, however, Obama deserves a victory lap at this point. At the heart of Obama's war plan for Libya was an enormous gamble that could have failed in any number of ways. It didn't. America successfully cleared the skies of Libya, and then "within days, not weeks" we bowed out of the lead role in the fight. The French, the British, and the rest of N.A.T.O. stepped up to the plate and performed admirably well. The American military continued in a support role -- exactly as Obama told us would happen -- and the outcome, at this point in time, has to be judged a clear success.
This is unacceptable. This is beyond dysfunctional. This is, in fact, an outrage. So I'm giving Congress a grace period of precisely two days, to get their butts back to Washington to fix this problem immediately. If I don't have a bill on my desk by the end of this Friday, I will instruct my Attorney General to immediately put every member of Congress on the "no-fly" list. To be blunt, if they can't find the time to fund the F.A.A. and prefer to take weeks off on vacation instead, then they will not be allowed to use the F.A.A.'s services in the meantime. Period.
If I were a Hobbit, right about now I would be wondering just how the heck I wound up at the center of this Washington intraparty political fight, personally. What (I would ponder in my metaphorical Hobbit hole) had I done to any of these folks to deserve being dragged into this fracas?
As I write this, the House of Representatives has still not voted on Speaker John Boehner's plan to raise the debt ceiling. But no matter how the vote goes, the real question behind this week's action in the Republican caucus in the House may be whether Boehner will still be Speaker when the shouting's over and done. The simmering Tea Party factionalism may be about to explode into public view, in other words.