"Upstarts" - Johnny Marr
Happy Memorial Day weekend to you all. In DC it is starting off by reminding me of Memorial Days past in Massachusetts -- cold and dreary. But I think we will see 70s this weekend as opposed to 50s today, so not too bad.
Spent the last few days up in the City of Brotherly Love, including about six straight hours on Wednesday of doing nothing but flipping through checks, bank statements, and receipts for a client who is being audited by the Department of Labor. (Yes, folks -- non-tea party groups, yea, even groups that enthusiastically supported the President are nonetheless subject to fairly invasive government scrutiny.) I was noting to the clients that lawyer shows on TV simply never show the kind of tedious work that is a staple of law practice. I propose a kind of Warholian verite, a half an hour of just watching a lawyer sit at a conference table reading bank statements. Multiply by sixteen and you have a realistic day in the life. It will drop law school enrollment faster than Paul Campos could ever hope to. Incidentally, as I noted in comments below, I have also had extensive dealings with the Cincinnati IRS office regarding the continued confirmation of tax exempt status for pension plans. I found the office to be fine to deal with but rather slow. Most applications took about two years to process. Again, these were constituencies allegedly favored by the Administration. The slowness seemed to stem from chronic understaffing, something that is usually viewed as a virtue by the tea party types.
- i have generally considered Michael Kinsley to be one of the brighter lights in "this town" over the last couple of decades. Oh sure, he's got the annoying contrarian thing going and he was knee deep in neo-liberalism, but he has quite often shown a great deal of skill in cutting to the heart of things and he has an admirable writing style. As a result, I was surprised -- his old Slate gig notwithstanding -- to see him peddle absolute idiocy with respect to the issue of austerity and then, when brutally called on it, to double down on his position with the weakest of arguments -- roughly, I'm a good liberal and a smart person, so when I say this sort of thing it deserves respect. Although humilitating for Kinsley -- at least it should be -- the two pieces did have the virtue of revealing the kind of thinking -- or non-thinking really -- that prevails around a journalistic set of people who are simply not very deep or analytical thinkers. Deficit spending to stimulate the economy violates Kinsley's sensibilities for reasons that amount to a feeling -- that it is somehow just not right, a sin of sorts for which there needs to be atonement. Kinsley doesn't really explain so many things, but chief among them is why those who have sinned -- Wall Street, the banks, and their enablers -- don't have to do the atoning.
- I have not read all of President Obama's speech from the other day on the various aspects of the "war on terror" that need to be addressed from GITMO to drone strikes to winding down involvement in Afghanistan. What I have seen struck me as thoughtful and frank in a way that such speeches by presidents seldom are. It seems to me that Obama has come to the conclusion that he has fully established all of the "toughness" bona fides that he needs and that it is time to try and walk back so much of what became normalized in the post-9-11 environment. I know that progress on this front has been entirely too slow for the tastes of many on the left and to a degree I sympathize. But I think that Obama's sense of timing is pretty good. If he can by the end of his secod term end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, close Guantanamo, curb the militarization of anti-terrorism efforts in favor of law enforcement, and establish a generally anti-interventionist enviroment, while still being able to boast of having taken out bin Laden and crippled al Qaeda, I think he will have accomplished much. If he can do this and also get the American people to accept that random acts of terrorism, especially of the Jihadi variety, may continue but will not succeed in turning the world upside down in the U.S., then he will have rendered a great service to the country and the world.
- Why is TPM reporting Ed Markey's tax deductions like they were a scandal? It looks like he basically had large deductions for mortgage interest payments and property taxes. Is there something wrong with this? Oh, he also got $11,600 in Social Security benefits -- well, he's 66 for Christ's sake. Is he supposed to forego the benefits that he has earned? Really stupid stuff and very disappointing given the source.
What's up with all of you?
What I want to know is, does the post-9/11 AUMF just continue indefinitely, or can Obama at some point say "the war on terror is over, the AUMF is inoperative and without effect now and forevermore" in a way that a potential Republican successor couldn't choose to ignore?
Or can only Congress close the books on an AUMF?
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 25, 2013 at 06:17 AM
Never mind - I found the answer. It's in Obama's speech, and I'm surprised none of the blog discussions of it I read even mention this. He says, "I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's mandate."
I've got problems with this in any number of ways. First, it seems to me to be of dubious constitutionality for Congress to be able to hand over a chunk of its war-making powers to the Executive effectively in perpetuity.
Second, what happened when we won WWII? Did Congress have to pass a resolution saying that due to the surrender of the Axis powers, its declaration of war no longer had effect? Or could a future President still drop bombs on an Axis country someday if it got troublesome, using the WWII declaration of war as its authority for doing so?
Third, similarly the 2002 Iraq AUMF: I doubt that Congress ever passed any resolution that said in effect, "it's over, the Iraq AUMF is no longer in effect." Could a future President decide to intervene in Iraq's (apparently growing) internal troubles based on that AUMF?
Fourth, if a President can unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from a treaty (as Bush did with the ABM treaty in 2002), especially given that entering into a treaty requires the concurrence of 2/3 of the Senate, I don't see how he can't unilaterally declare a war to be over.
If Obama needs Congress' action to declare this conflict over, then the pieces just don't seem to fit together.
I hate to say it, but sometimes Obama defers just a little bit too much to a Congress that's largely in the control of crazies.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 25, 2013 at 06:47 AM
Good questions, l-tc. The Germans surrendered May 7-8-9, 1945,in Riems, but I can't find anything that confirms we promised not drop bombs on their heads afterward. According to a book (Savage Continent) I read recently, it took almost 10 years for the war to fully end in Europe.
BTW, it's 43 and drizzly here, w/frost tomorrow and snow in higher elevations. Welcome summer!
Posted by: paula | May 25, 2013 at 12:36 PM
undoubtedly while Suits (show on USA Network) still focses on the "glamour" aspect of the law profession, i think it does a better job than most (ya, not really saying a whole lot there) of covering some of the drudgery and tedium of law.
Posted by: Greg | May 25, 2013 at 01:19 PM
Why is TPM reporting Ed Markey's tax deductions like they were a scandal?
And accordingly the comment thread is not kind to TPM.
Posted by: oddjob | May 25, 2013 at 01:51 PM
Second, what happened when we won WWII?
Were peace treaties ever signed?
Posted by: oddjob | May 25, 2013 at 01:54 PM
The peace treaty regarding Germany became effective in 1991.
Posted by: oddjob | May 25, 2013 at 02:01 PM
Other peace treaties with the European Axis Allies were signed in 1947.
Posted by: oddjob | May 25, 2013 at 02:03 PM
The Treaty of San Francisco (the peace treaty with Japan) was signed in 1951 and ratified in 1952.
Posted by: oddjob | May 25, 2013 at 02:12 PM
Republican governor of Arizona is pressuring the state's Republican legislature to expand Medicaid (making room in Arizona for Obamacare).
Posted by: oddjob | May 25, 2013 at 02:15 PM
oddjob - thanks for the links about the post-WWII peace treaties. Given the dates of the peace treaties, I suspect that one of the hindrances in signing a peace treaty with Germany was that East Germany was on the opposite side of the Cold War, and that once there was a reunited Germany, that piece of unfinished business could be taken care of.
But now that you've brought up peace treaties (which I'd overlooked, to be honest), that seems to be a real problem with an AUMF: if one country declares war on another, the war is formally ended with a peace treaty. But what's the AUMF equivalent? IS there an AUMF equivalent?
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | May 26, 2013 at 08:25 AM
That's precisely what happened regarding Germany.
It makes as much sense to declare a war on terror as it does to declare a war on poverty or a war on drugs.
Posted by: oddjob | May 26, 2013 at 01:06 PM
Digby on Sen. Warren's "stunt"/proposed bill for college student loans.
Hat tip, The Plum Line.
Posted by: oddjob | May 26, 2013 at 01:34 PM
Testing.
I was told comments aren't working.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 27, 2013 at 10:43 PM
Sasquatch Music Festival at the Columbia Gorge wraps it up tonight -- haven't gotten any SOS messages from the *youngsters* there. Son's gang consists of probably a dozen. They got to see and hear Father John Misty and Elvis Costello among others in a great four day (+campsite set-up afternoon and straggle out tomorrow morning) line-up, reminding me of how old I am. Four days! No a-way. :)
Posted by: nancy | May 27, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Just Typepad being capricious.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 27, 2013 at 10:46 PM
Sir C -- Capricious. Holiday weekend you know. Kick back time.
Adding to previous comment: I just found that those Sasquatching kidz also got to see the XX and Sigur Ros. Sheesh. While we're here doing yardwork and puttering.
Such is life.
Posted by: nancy | May 27, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Father John Misty is going to be at a small club here (which is much more my style -- it's a 15 minute cab ride and only 900 people to tolerate) next week as are the Mountain Goats and the Dandy Warhols. I think my wife will be mystified if I decide that multiple concert dates are in my future.
That's a nice line up. I've seen Elvis five or six times over the years, starting first in Boston in 1979. (That one is really hard to top -- what an insanely intense show.)
It may all be moot, as I think I have to head out of town for a couple of days.
Posted by: Sir Charles | May 28, 2013 at 09:34 AM
I think my wife will be mystified if I decide that multiple concert dates are in my future.
Probably only should you decide to dress hipster and go solo. :)
Posted by: nancy | May 28, 2013 at 07:39 PM
:)
Posted by: oddjob | May 28, 2013 at 08:53 PM
test
Posted by: paula | May 30, 2013 at 11:19 AM
This one's for you oddjob -- the creator of the pink flamingo. A love story.
Posted by: nancy | May 30, 2013 at 05:31 PM
ok, that is a cute story, but seriously weird. or maybe i just have ptsd from the matching outfits mom made me and the sibs wear...
Posted by: kathy a. | May 30, 2013 at 06:49 PM
another test, since this thing seems to be out whenever i try to post.
Posted by: paula | May 31, 2013 at 10:39 AM