Archive for March 17th, 2008

The Magic Is Over

No kidding:

Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France and a longtime humanitarian, diplomatic and political activist, said this week that whoever succeeds President Bush might restore something of the United States’ battered image and standing overseas but that “the magic is over.”

(…)

Asked whether the United States could repair the damage it had suffered to its reputation during the Bush presidency and especially since the 2003 American-led invasion of Iraq, Mr. Kouchner replied, “It will never be as it was before.”

I believe that the 2004 election was the turning point. In 2000, most Americans had no idea what kind of malignant, dangerous psychopaths Bush and Cheney were (are), but by 2004 they had revealed their true colors for all to see… and we still re-elected them. I think that was the moment in which we became willing accessories to all of their crimes, and there’s really no way to take that back.

(h/t All-Seeing Eye Of Froomkin)

March 17th, 2008 at 10:31pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Iraq,Terrorism,Torture,War

Democracy, Who Needs It?

The always-delightful Stanley Fish explains all about how democracy is bad because people are stupid, and that’s why it’s perfectly okay if the Democratic superdelegates decide to vote however they damn well please:

In my last column I said in an aside that there are no ethical issues in the controversy about the superdelegates to the Democratic convention. This is the not the view of media pundits who keep asking the question, “What is the right thing for the superdelegates to do?” — and then, more often than not, answering it by saying (as Time magazine editor Richard Stengel did in the Feb. 25th issue) that the superdelegates should follow the will of the majorities in their districts and their states, because to do otherwise would be undemocratic.

This is nonsense….

(…)

[T]he founding fathers… were more fearful of democracy in 1787 than the Democratic elders are today.  James Madison complained in Federalist 10 that “measures are too often decided . . . by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Democracies, he continued, have ever been “spectacles of turbulence and contention.”

Alexander Hamilton was even harsher in his judgment. Replying to the assertion that “pure democracy” would be “the most perfect government,” he declared, “no position is politics is more false” because “the ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government.” Indeed, he concluded, “their very character is tyranny.”

In saying such things, Madison and Hamilton continue a long tradition in which fear of the demos (often called “the mob”) informed a preference either for monarchy or for representative government, that is, government by a class of professional politicians who were presumed to be cooler and wiser heads, less swayed than the people by the passions of the moment.

In such a form of government, the more prestigious the office, the less the office holder is responsible or responsive to the mass of citizens. House members must face the voters every two years, and as a result they campaign perpetually and always have at least one eye on public opinion. Senators serve terms of six years and are relatively insulated from the pressure to react immediately to their constituents’ demands. In fact, until 1913 and the ratification of the 17th amendment, senators did not have to worry that much about their constituents at all, because they were elected by state legislatures. Only a few years ago, retiring Senator Zell Miller said that popular election of senators was a bad idea and that the 17th amendment should be repealed.

Oh, well, if Zell Miller thinks so, then it must be so…

Anti-democratic elements are everywhere in our political system. The presidential veto is undemocratic. The rules governing filibusters and the closing off of debate are undemocratic. The procedural devices by means of which floor leaders or committee chairmen can prevent issues from coming to a vote are undemocratic. The fact that Rhode Island and California have two senators each is undemocratic. The appointment of senators by governors in the wake of a death or a resignation is undemocratic. The presidential line of succession is undemocratic. The fact that a vice president who has not been elected to the senate presides over it and can cast a deciding vote is undemocratic. Judicial review – the practice by which the Supreme Court invalidates laws passed by the people’s representatives – is undemocratic….

So whatever your view of the superdelegates may be – whether you regard them as counterweights to popular frenzy or as a paternalistic imposition by a bunch of old guys (and gals) – it can’t be said that their very existence is an affront to the workings of democracy, for large parts of this democracy work in just the way the superdelegates were intended to.

What does this tell us about what the superdelegtaes should do in the present situation? Not much. In fact there is no “should” – no sense of moral obligation – in the equation. By definition, they can do what they like. One could say that they should exercise political judgment but, given that they are political and not moral agents, that would be tautological. In this case, political judgment can go in any number of directions. A superdelegate might ask himself or herself, “Who do I think would make the best president?” or “Who do I think will be the best general election candidate?” or “Whose policy views are closest to mine?” or “With whom do I have a history of cordial and profitable interactions?” or “With whom am I more likely to have more influence?” or “Who is more likely to be friendly to my state or region?”

Any of these questions is an appropriate political question, and depending on the answer (or perhaps combination of answers) the nod might go either to Clinton or Obama. It would also be appropriate, but not morally obligatory, to ask, “What would be the effects if we superdelegates were to tip the balance in favor of the candidate who got fewer votes and/or won fewer delegates?” And if it were judged (again an empirical not a philosophical judgment) that the effects would be harmful – a victory in the general election might be imperiled – a vote for Obama would probably be in order (although that might change depending on what, if anything, happens in Michigan and Florida). As an analyst, rather than as a voter, I could live with any of these outcomes, as long as it was a genuinely political outcome, and not one based on principle.

So there you have it.  Backscratching and political self-interest are more important than, y’know, the actual preferences of Democratic voters.  The possibility of tearing the party apart and undermining the nominee’s legitimacy is barely worthy of consideration.

Maybe I’m goofy, but my understanding of representative government has always been that we elect our leaders to govern for us, and if we don’t like the job they’re doing, we replace them in the next election.  But we still ultimately decide who represents us.  The mob may not rule directly, but it decides who does.

Also, it sure was news to me that the Democratic Party is part of the government and therefore subject to the same undemocracy that Fish sees there.  I had always thought that the Democratic Party was supposed to go along with the will of the Democratic voters, not thwart it.

(Yes, I know that the Electoral College can deny victory to the popular vote winner, but the outcome still boils down to individual voters, with no at-large bloc of supervoters who can reverse the outcome.  Unless you count the Supreme Court.)

1 comment March 17th, 2008 at 09:35pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Elections,Media,Politics,Wankers

More Like This, Please.

Consequences!

In a shocking deal reached on Sunday to save Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase agreed to pay a mere $2 a share to buy all of Bear — less than one-tenth the firm’s market price on Friday.

(…)

Reflecting Bear’s dire straits, JPMorgan agreed to pay only about $270 million in stock for the firm, which had run up big losses on investments linked to mortgages.

JPMorgan is buying Bear, which has 14,000 employees, for a third the price at which the smaller firm went public in 1985. Only a year ago, Bear’s shares sold for $170. The sale price includes Bear Stearns’s soaring Madison Avenue headquarters.

(…)

James E. Cayne, Bear Stearns’s former chief executive and one of its largest individual shareholders, will most likely walk away with a little more than $13.4 million, the value of his Bear stock holdings, according to James F. Redda & Associates. Those would have been worth $1.2 billion in January 2007, when Bear’s stock was trading at a $171.51….

Awesome. His company was reckless and stupid, and he actually paid a huge financial price for it. Of course, he’s probably still richer than God, but losing $1.2 billion in a little over a year is a pretty huge kick in the nuts. I wish all incompetent CEOs had to take this kind of hit.

(h/t Stoller)

2 comments March 17th, 2008 at 08:37pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Economy,Wankers

Eli’s Obsession With The Google

I’m on the first page of search results for pediatric autoimmune long island pandas.

Wow. Talk about specific.

March 17th, 2008 at 07:38pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Eli's Obsession With The Google

More Mostly Demolition Photoblogging

A few more photos from the demolition site:

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *
Everything around the church is being demolished, but not the church itself, which I think is a Historical Landmark. I’m pretty sure every building in Pittsburgh over 60 years old is a Historical Landmark.

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *
A better view of the demolishee’s innards.

* WPG2 Plugin Not Validated *
Mmm… construction equipment… This one looks rather alien and sinister.

March 17th, 2008 at 11:46am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Photoblogging,Pittsburgh

Monday Media Blogging

Hey, did you ever wonder what it would look like if the guy who did the opening title sequences for It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World and Anatomy Of A Murder did the credits for Star Wars too? I mean, who hasn’t?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=z25t-PQDn5A

Awesome. And if that’s not cool enough, there’s even a Special Digitally Remastered Version!

It’s Hutt-tastic!

(h/t Dan Vera)

March 17th, 2008 at 07:39am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Monday Media Blogging


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

March 2008
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *