Comments Off on

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

What new devilry is this? #snow #october4 #wut #lovestapleton

      Comments Off on

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

Tropical Storm Karen has formed in the Gulf of Mexico, and is expected to hit somewhere along the northern Gulf coast this weekend. Hurricane Watches are up from Louisiana to Florida. The computer models are split on Karen’s likely landfall location, as you can see above: those are the Canadian model (left), the European model (center) and the American GFS model (right), via @RyanMaue. The models agree, however, that Karen won’t get stronger than a Category 1 hurricane, and many models doubt she’ll ever graduate from tropical storm status. So this isn’t looking like a HELLSTORM OF DEATH worth hyping (not that that’ll stop Drudge & the cable newsies), but it certainly bears watching, and should be taken seriously by folks in the potentially affected areas. The storm is only ~2 days away, so the time to begin prudent preparations is now.

In order to avoid the massive time sink and brain damage of the ongoing government-shutdown #DERPNADO, and for other personal reasons, I’m on Twitter #hiatus at the moment, posting only the occasional Instagram and Tumblr link (totaling 2.5 tweets per day, vs. my normal pace of 100+ tweets per day). However, my #hiatus rules said, “If there’s a hurricane threat to the U.S., I’ll return temporarily to Twitter for my Pajamas Media blog’s sake.” I will do that later tonight, and will remain on Twitter through the weekend to track Karen – though I will attempt to adhere to the Jakes Compromise, which has also been endorsed, crucially, by the Official Wife of the Weather Nerd, @MileHighBecky.

In the mean time, here’s a reading list of weather-bloggers and tweeters who you should consider checking out.

P.S. A portion of this update will be cross-posted on Weather Nerd.

GOP lunacy is mortgaging the party’s future (which might have been me)

      Comments Off on GOP lunacy is mortgaging the party’s future (which might have been me)

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

I have, for a long time, flirted with the idea of switching my major-party affiliation (and have been repeatedly told by conservative friends that, based on my opinions about various issues, I should switch, or even that I inevitably will switch someday). Truth is, I have a significant streak of common-sense libertarianism, which fits better in the GOP than in the more statist-leaning Democratic Party. Hence, I often disagree with the Dems about important issues. (Not all, certainly! But more than a token handful.) I rarely agree completely with the GOP, but I often feel uncomfortably closer to their position than the Dems’. And with the anti-gay vitriol, which is a deal-breaker for me, receding in the mainstream GOP as the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice on that issue, there’s increasingly been a case to be made that I belong in the GOP at least as much as in the Dem camp.

Not anymore, though. This shutdown/debt ceiling lunacy, and the self-evidently risible “arguments” being trotted out in defense of it, will, I suspect, poison me on the GOP for a long, long time, if not forever. I could have perhaps written off the 2011 debt-ceiling debacle as a one-time aberration, but this is now clearly who and what Republicans are. Unless and until the party makes a clean break from this absurd, shameful, indefensible, illogical, antidemocratic, antirepublican madness – by which I mean that it must, eventually, clearly and unequivocally dissociate from this aspect of its past – I couldn’t possibly associate myself with such a party, regardless of the Dems’ many flaws.

      Comments Off on

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

Yay, a debate between an indefensible position and a defensible one! #journalism #balance #CNNfail

Amendment XXVIII

      Comments Off on Amendment XXVIII

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

I propose the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

In the event of a government shutdown due to a lapse in funding, all members of Congress immediately and automatically lose their jobs. They may remain in office on an interim basis, at the federal minimum wage, until such time as special elections are held in the several states, which must occur within 90 days. The now-interim incumbents are ineligible to run in such special elections.

We’ll never have another government shutdown again.

UPDATE: Via a Twitter conversation between John Infante and Craig Smith (yes, even though I’m on #hiatus, I sometimes cheat and search for tweets containing my name, so I can sorta-kinda see my @mentions…heh), an excellent idea emerges. Although the drastic remedy proposed above is only triggered by a lapsed-funding shutdown, there should be some lesser penalty for using Continuing Resolutions instead of standard full-year budgets. Reducing congressional salaries to minimum wage anytime the government is operating under a CR should do the trick.

P.S. Is this proposed solution “unfair” to those members of Congress who are actually doing their jobs, and want to fund the government? Yes, of course it is. A “fairer” solution, in the current mess, would be to fire only the House Republicans (and maybe Ted Cruz, heh). But you can’t make a law or constitutional amendment that says “fire the ones who are to blame,” because who gets to decide that? So yeah, firing everybody would be “unfair,” but it’s unavoidable. And anyway, the unfairness doesn’t matter, because the fire-the-entire-Congress contingency would never actually happen, since no congressional majority, of any party or ideology, is going to sign its own termination papers. The whole point of this amendment is to prevent future shutdowns – and it would work. If there’s one thing that unites Republicans and Democrats, it’s naked self-interest! That said, even if a shutdown did somehow come to pass under this amendment, the “unfairness” would be worth it to send a clear message that a Congress which can’t do its most basic functions, whatever the reason and whoever’s to blame, is no Congress at all, period, full stop. You shut down the government, you’re fired.

Anyway, let’s make this a little more formal-sounding, shall we? And let’s add the debt ceiling to it… and some important exceptions and caveats…

(Maybe some of these details should handled by enabling legislation, instead of being written into the amendment, but whatever. Here’s the concept…)

AMENDMENT XXVIII

Section 1. Except as provided below, all members of Congress shall immediately and automatically cease to be members of Congress, and shall be stripped of all privileges and benefits associated therewith, if either of the following events occur:

A) Any lapse in funding for legally authorized government operations, i.e., a “government shutdown” of any length or magnitude, due to Congress’s failure to pass funding legislation; or

B) Any event of default, technical default, or other inability on the part of the United States government to legally satisfy its lawfully incurred obligations, such obligations having been previously authorized by Congress and signed into law by the President, including but not limited to debts, payments, and funding of government operations, where such default, technical default or event occurs due to Congress’s failure to either raise adequate revenue or authorize adequate borrowing to fund those government obligations and operations which Congress has previously authorized and/or mandated.

If either of these events (hereinafter “Termination Event”) occurs, the Secretary of the Treasury or the President of the United States shall so certify, and shall deliver such certification to the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate.

Section 2. Upon the occurrence of a Termination Event, each of the several states shall promptly schedule a special election for each of its seats in the United States House of Representatives and both of its seats in the United States Senate, such election to take place within no more than 90 days, unless a regularly scheduled election for any such seat is set to occur within 120 days, in which case no special election is required, and the next regularly scheduled election shall be subject to the requirements of this Amendment.

Section 3. The incumbent member of Congress who was in office at the time of the Termination Event shall be ineligible to run in the election described in Section 2 (hereinafter “Post-Termination Election”). The member may run in subsequent elections, but if elected, will not be entitled to the continuation or resumption of any seniority privileges associated with the term in office that ended with the occurrence of a Termination Event.

Section 4. During the interim period between the Termination Event and the inauguration of the winner of the Post-Termination Election, members of Congress whose term ended with the occurrence of the Termination Event shall retain the title of “interim member of Congress” and shall retain the ability to exercise all duties of a member of Congress, but shall be paid the minimum wage permitted by federal law. If an interim member of Congress resigns his or her position, the governor of his or her state shall appoint a temporary replacement within 72 hours, unless the resignation occurs less than one week prior to the Post-Termination Election. The appointed replacement member of Congress shall have the same rights and duties that the resigning interim member would have had, and shall be ineligible to run in the Post-Termination Election.

Section 5. If either of the events described in Section 1 occurs due to a local emergency that makes it impossible or unfeasible for Congress to meet and vote prior to the pertinent deadlines, this Amendment will not apply unless the event described in Section 1 remains resolved for more than one week after Congress is able to re-convene after the emergency, in which case a Termination Event shall exist as of midnight on the eighth calendar day after the conclusion of the emergency. A state of local emergency implicating this section may be declared to exist by either the Mayor or the District of Columbia or the President of the United States.

Section 6. In the event of a dispute over whether or not a Termination Event has occurred, the United States Supreme Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the question, which shall be deemed justiciable and not a political question, and is hereby directed to hear argument on an expedited schedule and issue a decision within 21 days of when suit is filed regarding the alleged or disputed Terminated Event.

Section 7. If one Termination Event occurs, a second or subsequent Termination Event may not be deemed to have occurred until 180 days after the first Termination Event, or 60 days after all members of Congress elected in Post-Termination Elections have been sworn in, whichever occurs first. If, at that point, the state of budget lapse, default, technical default or other condition described in Section 1 still exists, a new Termination Event shall be deemed to have occurred, and the provisions of this Amendment will apply to such event.

Section 8. Sections 1 through 7 of this Amendment shall not apply if both houses of Congress pass legislation necessary to avoid a Termination Event, but such legislation is vetoed by the President. If, however, legislation is passed which would avoid a Termination Event but is vetoed by the President, and if the state of budget lapse, default, technical default or other condition described in Section 1 still exists on the 31st day after such a veto, then Sections 1 through 7 of this Amendment shall apply, and in addition, the President of the United States shall be automatically removed from office, to be replaced pursuant to the usual process of presidential succession.

Section 9. Funding for legally authorized government operations is to be provided via budget legislation spanning at least one calendar year. If, instead, government operations are funded by a “continuing resolution” or other measure spanning less than one calendar year, members of Congress shall have their pay reduced to the minimum wage permitted by federal law for the duration of the period in which government operations are funded in such a manner. If both houses of Congress pass budget legislation spanning at least one calendar year but such legislation is vetoed by the President, then this Section 9 shall still apply, but in addition, the President of the United States shall have his or her pay reduced to the minimum wage permitted by federal law for the duration of the period in which government operations are funded pursuant to non-annual funding legislation.

      Comments Off on

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

I’ve been trying really hard not to argue with People Who Are Wrong On The Internet about this shutdown nonsense – that’s part of the reason for my indefinite Twitter hiatus* – but I just need to get this out of my system.

(And since I rarely get into arguments on Tumblr, this seems a relatively safer venue – as opposed to, say, Facebook – to express my frustration, hopefully without inviting a #DERPNADO.)

I object on principle to the use of phrases like “fiscal impasse” (NYT front page) to describe this indefensible idiocy. If the GOP was demanding budget cuts, and Obama was refusing, that would be a “fiscal impasse.” In that scenario, the two parties would have different fiscal agendas, and would be unable to reconcile them; hence, “fiscal impasse.” But that’s not what’s happening here, because the GOP isn’t demanding budget cuts. This “impasse” isn’t “fiscal” at all. Rather, the GOP is demanding non-budgetary, non-fiscal policy concessions as its ransom – yes, that word is completely accurate and appropriate (let’s say away from “terrorism,” though, liberals) – for allowing the government to keep running. This, despite having lost the last presidential election and failing to win a Senate majority, and consequently lacking the political power to enact its policy agenda via the normal constitutional process for doing so.

(By the way, you’re right, conservatives, that’s it’s not verboten to criticize “the law of the land,” nor to try and repeal it. That’s perfectly fine. What’s unprecedented and absurd, though, is to say we won’t fund the government unless this duly enacted, non-fiscal law is changed.)

Admittedly, I struggle to think of what this should be called, instead of “fiscal impasse.” I was going to say “ideological impasse,” but that’s not really right either, because it’s perfectly possible to agree ideologically with conservatives that Obamacare is awful, and yet still recognize (as everyone necessarily should, because there is no other remotely defensible stance) that pursuing that legitimate ideological belief via this illegitimate legislative tactic cannot be defended. For instance, imagine if the Democrats in Congress in 2007 had refused to fund the government unless President Bush had agreed to a one-year holiday from certain Patriot Act provisions, or a one-year liberalization of his policy on stem-cell research, or a one-year break from Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, or whatever. I might have agreed with those ideological goals, but I certainly would not have agreed with the absurd, undemocratic, indefensible method of perusing them.

(Speaking of which, otherwise-intelligent conservatives who have been hoodwinked by your tribe’s propaganda into supporting this farce: please re-read what I just wrote about hypothetical equivalent Democratic actions, and ponder the precedent that’s being set in your name, with your support. I realize you think Obamacare is really bad. Really, really bad. The death of freedom and the end of America as we know it, etc. I respect the earnestness of your opinion on that, even if I happen to think it’s a wee bit nonsensical to describe a recycled Bob Dole policy in such terms. But regardless, are you so blind as to think you’re the only ones who earnestly believe certain issues are so fundamentally important that extreme measures are justified? LOL. Fools. What happens if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and says the constitution is silent on abortion, so it’s ripe for legislative action, and there’s a Republican president but a Democratic House? “Hey, President Cruz, remember that thing you did with the continuing resolution and Obamacare? Well, guess what, we won’t fund the government unless the Republican Senate and Republican President agree to this CR amendment that legislatively legalizes abortion nationwide.” That’s the future you’re creating. Congratulations. #DOOM)

One does not simply walk into a government shutdown in a quixotic bid to enact one’s policy agenda despite only controlling one-half of one-third of the three branches of government. Not with ten thousand House seats could you do this. It is folly.

I’ve long said that the budget/continuing resolution deadline is the relatively more defensible moment (as opposed to the debt ceiling deadline) to draw “lines in the sand” on the budget, and I stand by that. But that isn’t what’s happening here, folks. What’s happening here is, pardon my French, fucking bullshit. This is a budget fight that has nothing to do with the budget, because again, the GOP isn’t even making “budgetary” or “fiscal” demands! It’s a legislative hostage-staking – there truly is no other way to describe it – driven by blind ideology, partisan propaganda, and a frightening ends-justify-the-means mentality, logic and reason and precedent be damned. And everyone who supports it, including (especially) the many otherwise-intelligent conservatives and libertarians whose opinions I usually respect, should be ashamed of themselves. Also, relatedly, I take back everything nice I ever said about Senator Mike Lee.

There, now I feel better. *exhale*

P.S. You see why I’m on #hiatus? If I were on Twitter right now, every other thing I’d be tweeting about the shutdown would have this same insufferably condescending tone, and I’d be repeatedly pissing off tons of libertarian and conservative followers. I understand that it’s annoying to read things like “there is no other remotely defensible stance.” What else am I supposed to say, though? You guys are just wrong about this. It’s not a debatable issue. You’re 100% wrong. All of the “arguments” being trotted out in defense of the House’s stance are self-evidently risible nonsense. Your position cannot rationally be defended. It’s objectively incorrect. The end.

P.P.S. No, Obamacare didn’t become law via budget reconciliation, thereby making it “budgetary” or “fiscal.” Check your damn history. Obamacare became law by the House passing the Senate bill unamended after Scott Brown was elected. Then, certain budget-related “fixes” were passed via reconciliation. But the law itself, as a whole, isn’t “budgetary.” It has budgetary implications, certainly. So does virtually everything. But in no way, shape or form is “defund Obamacare for a year” or “delay the individual mandate for a year and force Congress into the exchanges” a budgetary or fiscal demand, like demanding X or Y budget cut. It’s a policy demand. There’s a difference.

(If you can’t get past this issue, well, you’re wrong, but fine, change my analogy to the 2007 congressional Democrats demanding that President Bush agree to the repeal of the Bush tax cuts as a condition of funding the government. Marginally less absurd than this, in my view…but still absurd, still something you would have objected to vociferously, still not a precedent we should want to set.)

P.P.P.S. *Yes, the #hiatus is still ongoing. Neither this post nor the Instagram picture violates it. Read the rules! 🙂

P.P.P.P.S. One more thing: James Fallows is right:

[A]ny story that presents the disagreements as a “standoff,” a “showdown,” a “failure of leadership,” a sign of “partisan gridlock,” or any of the other usual terms for political disagreement, represents a failure of journalism and an inability to see or describe what is going on. …

This isn’t “gridlock.” It is a ferocious struggle within one party, between its traditionalists and its radical factions, with results that unfortunately can harm all the rest of us.

Also:

The debt-ceiling vote, of course, is not about future spending decisions. It is about whether to cover expenditures the Congress has already authorized. There is no sane reason for subjecting this to a repeated vote. And there is no precedent for serious threats not to honor federal debt – as opposed to symbolic anti-Administration protest votes, which both parties have cast over the years. Nor for demanding the reversal of major legislation as a condition for routine government operations. 

In case the point is not clear yet: there is no post-Civil War precedent for what the House GOP is doing now. It is radical, and dangerous for the economy and our process of government, and its departure from past political disagreements can’t be buffed away or ignored.

Sovereignty, sir. Ours!

      Comments Off on Sovereignty, sir. Ours!

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

This morning, upon seeing David Cameron’s huffy tweet in response to Vladimir Putin’s “small island” insult, I was reminded – as I often am, whenever British people get adorably piqued about something – of my favorite line from a terrible 1990s made-for-TV movie: “Sovereignty, sir. Ours!”

The line is from Pandora’s Clock, the critically panned, now largely forgotten adaptation of the John Nance novel that NBC aired during November sweeps in 1996, a.k.a. my sophomore year in high school. The film is so obscure, and the line I’m quoting even moreso (obscurity within obscurity), that if you Google “sovereignty sir ours,” the first 4 (out of 5 total) results that pop up are posts from my old blog in which I, or my dad, quoted that line.

The context, as I explained in a 2007 blog post referencing the line in discussing Iran’s capture of 15 British sailors, is as follows:

The English have a stiff upper lip, but they also have a stiff upper-cut when forced to fight. I keep thinking of that line from some awful TV movie back in the late 90’s, where the British officer closes a runway so an American plane suspected of carrying a deadly virus can’t land on British soil, and when an American officer asks him “What was that about?” he responds defiantly: “Sovereignty, sir… ours.” The British are proud people. If you push them hard enough, the Empire will strike back.

Because the movie aired almost 17 years ago (good lord, I’m getting old…#PANIC), and because it was terrible and pedestrian and basically no one remembers it except Joe and Brendan Loy, I didn’t think I would ever be able to find a video clip of that scene. Indeed, I’m pretty sure I’d failed in such efforts in previous years. But, on a whim, I looked again this morning…and guess what???

Amazing. Utterly amazing.

The scene in question begins at 2:45 of the video clip, but for the sake of understanding the context, you may want to watch those preceding 2 minutes and 45 seconds, too – if you can stand the campiness and poor production values. (Heh.) Anyway, the pivotal line is delivered at 3:39 of the clip, though it’s immediately preceded by a bunch of other good – er, “good” – ones, like:

  • “What the bloody hell do you think you’re doing, General?”
  • “People are being rearranged at the hospital.”
  • “Having a soirée, are we, General Knight?!”
  • (In a delightfully arch menacing tone) “This is British territory…”
  • “The cheek of you people!!”

God bless the Internet. And God. Bless. England.

By the way, the actor who played the sovereignty-defending Brit (Wing Commander David Crandon) is one Bill TerKuile, who you may also remember from his role as a hotel desk clerk in the 1992 CBS made-for-TV movie The Danger of Love: The Carolyn Warmus Story, and…um…well, that’s it, according to his IMDb page. His filmography is only one item longer than mine. So basically, “Sovereignty, sir. Ours!” – which, if I remember correctly, was his primary (if not his only) speaking scene in Pandora’s Clock – was the highlight of his screen acting career. It seems Mr. TerKuile now works in the green-energy industry as a “Property Rehabilitation & Weatherization Specialist” at the Seattle Office of Housing / HomeWise. He also evidently does poetry. (Google-stalking FTW.)

Well, Mr. TerKuile, if you’re reading this, please ignore my jokes at the expense of the movie, which are directed at the screenwriting and directing, not at you. Know this, in all seriousness and genuineness: I salute you for an absolutely delightful performance in that scene, which my Dad and I still haven’t stopped referencing 17 years later. 🙂

      Comments Off on

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

Hilarious conversation among the Loy ladies, sitting around the dining-room table this morning:

Loyacita, 4: Mom! Look at my map. It’s the sun, Mars, Jupiter and Earth. But there’s an asteroid coming! Oh no!
Loyette, 5: Quick! Hop on the magical boat!
Becky: The magical boat?
Loyette: Like the magic school bus, but a boat.
Becky: Okay. Where are we going?
Loyette: Kilauea. Hang on! We’re going on a river of lava!
Loyabelle, 2: Oh no! A bear!
All three girls: Ahhhhhhhh!!!

      Comments Off on

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) tweeted this image earlier today, with a one-word caption: “Unacceptable.”

I may not be a Cruz supporter, but hey, when he’s right, he’s right. Unacceptable, and unconstitutional.

As I wrote on Facebook last night:

I said this under Clinton, I said it under Bush, and I’ll say it again now: We didn’t win independence from the Crown to have an executive who could start wars of choice without legislative approval. The very notion is absurd.

After 70+ years of blatantly and unconstitutionally ignoring Congress’s nondelegable role in warmaking – namely DECLARING WAR, which hasn’t happened since WWII – and with the unconstitutionalism now escalating to the point where Congress apparently isn’t even allowed to have ANY sort of formal input, I’m thinking we might as well rejoin England. I wonder if they’re accepting applications?

No response yet from my inquiry to the Queen. I’ll keep you posted. 🙂

But seriously…

Quoting myself again from Facebook:

I’m looking at you, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. Are you all the legislative branch of the United States Government, or are you not? IF YOU ARE, ACT LIKE IT!!

      Comments Off on

[This post was originally published on The Living Room Tumblr.]

Loyacita, age 4: [during an evening thunderstorm] “Daddy, where does rain comes from?”
Me: “Well, you see…”
Loyette, age 5½: [interrupting] “It comes from clouds, [Loyacita]. Clouds are made of tiny water droplets, and when the water droplets get close to each other, they come together—sort of like magnets—and turn into bigger droplets. And when they get heavy enough, they fall as raindrops. When the raindrops are small, that’s called drizzle. When they’re bigger, that’s rain.”
Me: [mouth agape]