Alabama Senator - Stupid, or the Stupidest?

Jeff Sessions writes in today's Washington Post that Americans want Supreme Court justices that will adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution rather than, you know, considering actual circumstances and issues that may be completely outside of any worldview even conceivable by the original framers. But notwithstanding any baseless statements in the argument (who are these Americans? Why do we forget the fifty percent that don't agree with you at all? Oh yeah, that's just part of the narrative. Anyhoozle.), let's see what evidence he has:

"Look at President Obama's response to the 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United. The court found that Congress had violated Americans' constitutional rights by prohibiting all manner of companies, including small businesses and advocacy groups, from engaging in political speech near an election. Far from activism, the decision was grounded firmly in the plain words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

Nonetheless, President Obama assailed the court for ruling against this government overreach and said that "powerful interests must not be allowed to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens." But what interest is more powerful than the federal government? And what protection is more vital for ordinary citizens than the protections guaranteed by the Constitution?"

Citizens United. He uses the Citizens United case to prove that Americans want strict constructionist judges. The same Citizens United case that 80% of the country opposes, with 65% "strongly" opposed. How do you go from the most unpopular Supreme Court decision in anyone's memory to "Americans want this type of judge on the Court"? No, really, how do you link those two positions? There are essentially only two options, one being that Sessions really has no evidence for any position taken in the article, and thus decided to throw together various things and hope that no one ever really paid any attention. This is the "let's create our own world without any concept of an outside reality" possibility. But I think the answer lies elsewhere.

I think the answer actually is that Jeff Sessions is possibly mentally challenged. There is no requisite IQ test for senators, nor is there any medical test that demonstrates brain activity. Perhaps he really is just plain stupid. This would explain why for him, "Americans" means "me" and why "80% opposed" means "chocolate pudding". Chocolate pudding is Jeff Sessions. Sessions is pudding. Go forth, Senator Sessions, and spread the news of the pudding revolution. It would certainly make more sense than what you're trying to spread now.

Mirandize this

Charles Krauthammer, always managing to be a smarmy jackass, has a column today in the Washington Post about "updating" Miranda rights to confront the "jihadist war" that colors his entire worldview. Fisking the entire thing would be an exercise in raising my blood pressure, so instead I'll take the basis of his argument and work from there.

Essentially he believes that the act of Mirandizing a terror suspect will allow him to stop talking, preventing authorities from gaining valuable information on other operations, allies, etc. Krauthammer seems to believe that it is the act of saying the Miranda warning that confers the rights, rather than being a mere manifestation of something that is already in place. The final paragraph, in its entirety:

"My view is that we should treat enemy combatants as enemy combatants, whether they are U.S. citizens (Shahzad) or not (the underwear bomber). If, however, they are to be treated as ordinary criminals, then at least agree on this: no Miranda rights until we know everything that public safety demands we need to know."

Miranda rights are not a speech act (see J.L. Austin); they are the rights that a suspect has, and their being recited is a formality to ensure that the suspect is aware of their rights. But it is highly suspect to believe that anyone plotting an action against the U.S. and her citizens is unaware of the ability to not answer questions if caught; frankly it's absurd.

What's more, it forgets a crucial aspect of what Krauthammer would term "jihadist" psychology, that is to say that those low-level functionaries who attempt to carry out these attacks are generally more than willing to talk about why they do it, how they do it, etc. A mission from God ensures that no matter what is revealed, the final result will be positive, there is no need for secrecy. They would be well-served to keep their mouths shut, but I doubt that many have that ability. Like all those who feel that they are going up against an entire society, obstinate silence will oftentimes be followed by a torrent of words and information, brought out by the feeling that finally, for once, someone is listening and wants to hear what one has to say (even if that person listening happens to be a federal law enforcement agent or military personnel).

Miranda is a symbol, not an actual act; it allows us to preserve our national essence. By not issuing a Miranda warning, you are not removing the suspect's ability to be silent, you are merely demonstrating the ability of law to rule over people's actions. It is certainly symbolic, but symbols can still be important. There is more to be gained by applying the rule of law to all than there is in moving toward a society that divides justice into "us" and "them". Unfortunately, this black-and-white division is exactly what Krauthammer and those who think like him are after. Opposing this outlook by pointing out the flaws in the reasoning is only one form of resistance, but hopefully it can be a useful one.

La morte del Vecchio

Wu Ming 1 (pdf) in his own "postilla" to the New Italian Epic, writes about the presence (or absence) of "Il Vecchio" in NIE writings. This is connected to a sense that all of those who created society are now fading away, and are either irreplaceable or are merely not being replaced. But the greatness that is oftentimes appropriated to "Il Vecchio", virtually anywhere in the world, doesn't necessarily take account of the situation.

These lions of the world, and one could throw out many names here, were certainly pioneers. Pioneers in America have the good reputation of putting it all on the line, it being their lives in all senses of the word, and they are praised for being able to succeed despite myriad obstacles. But in reality, what faced them was much simpler than what faces us today, and if we lack our own heroes, it may only be because the situation that we find ourselves in is, thanks to those Vecchi, infinitely more complicated.

The beauty of fighting nature, nothingness, even Indians, was that the enemy was known and generally static. The environment that faced pioneers heading west didn't change as their tactics changed; they were able to learn and react, and ultimately overcome. It certainly wasn't easy; but nor was it a continuously changing situation.

Instead today we find ourselves within a system, going up against an environment, that is never static; where every move that is made to advance a position is met with a counter-move, eventually spiraling into the abyss of a seemingly futile game. These games are not, of course, futile; but they do require different methods than those that were available to the Vecchi. It is much harder to change a system than it is to begin one. The people who are able to do so should be lauded. If only we can find them.

Moments of Truth

Today's congressional hearings were mostly an exercise in futility. The questions and answers, like much of political theater (which isn't terribly different than any other type of theater, be it found on Broadway, on a stage set up at the local middle school's gym, or on the streets of Madrid) were already known to participants and onlookers alike. What was instead being sought after was that moment of truth, where the irony allows us a glimpse inside of its iron curtain.

The irony that I am referring to should be briefly clarified. Because the questions and answers were not referring to anything outside of the hearing room, they must be seen as existing only in relation to themselves. The room formed a closed system, in which the various words and phrases only referred back to other words and phrases uttered in that room, on this day. This is irony, not in its popularized, Alanis Morissette-branded unlucky sense, but in its true sense of a self-referential universe that continually turns back on itself without ever encouraging any wider comprehension.

But there was one instant that let the light, as it were, shine through: and, it provides us with the winners and losers of the day. David Viniar, Goldman's CFO, let slip a single phrase that showed exactly what the financial collapse, and these hearings, are; if we had any sense moving forward (and I always use "we" when referring to the government, because it is not outside of us, it is not out of our control, and those who take on an "us v them" attitude with it have already given up all hope), we should take this one sentence and make the reforms based upon it only; it is exactly what the financial industry thinks.

Referring to Goldman emails in which securities that were being sold by the company were said to be "shitty", the NYT relates the exchange thusly:

He asks Mr. Viniar what he felt when he heard about the things Goldman employees had written about these deals, again using vulgar words.

Mr. Vin[i]ar replies, “I think that’s very unfortunate to have on e-mail.”

And there you have it: the one moment of clarity from the entire day, from the entire year, and from the entire past two decades of the financial world. The rest is mere irony, yet that sentence is the truth. It is a sad one, sure, but no one ever sad that the situation wasn't sad, and not merely because some people, this time, lost money, lost jobs, lost lives (literally and figuratively).

In the end, it is far better to teach ourselves and our children to recognize those moments for what they are, the only ones that actually matter, rather than asking them to understand the vicissitudes of the markets or the concepts behind bundled derivatives. Language used skillfully can do wonderful and terrible things; it can dissimulate problems to the point of explosion and it can create fantasy worlds that point us to a way out of our current state of affairs. But it can also betray us, as it did with Mr. Viniar here, or deliver us, as his slip was our gain. And if we fail to act on that truth gained through language, it is our fault, for not recognizing it or, perhaps, for not wanting any part of it.