vvilld @ vvilld @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

196

Joined

4 mo. ago

By rubber stamping, in this specific instance, I mean Schumer allowing the CR to pass without extracting any concessions. When the most powerful Democrat in the country, and the only one with power to prevent the CR from passing, just lets it happen, it sends the message that this is business as normal and nothing people need to be overly concerned with.

I agree that a shutdown would have also been bad. But it also would have send the message that Democrats aren't going to be collaborationists. It would have said, "this is a shit sandwich, but it's yours and I want no part of it." Instead, Schumer took a big bite out of that shit sandwich and said, "Democrats and Republicans are in this together."

You said it was a lose/lose? Sure, no argument on that. But let them take the political loss rather than giving the fascists cover, FFS.

This is where we are now with the filibuster. Pretty much every single bill that doesn't enjoy broad bipartisan support gets a silent filibuster as a matter of course. This means that basically all legislation coming out of the Senate requires 60 votes to pass. That means that the minority gets to set the agenda since it's easier to come up with 41 votes against something than 60 votes for something. This contributes to and feeds off of the hyper polarization in our politics. A minority party knows that if they can just keep all their members in line, they can easily block pretty much anything the majority wants to do unless it gets enough national attention that blocking it would garner negative press on the minority party. But even that is heavily mitigated by the existence of stuff like Fox News and media echochambers (of which, the Right is WAY better at creating and controlling).

It's also important to recognize that the silent filibuster is a big part of how we got to the point in our politics where Congress is so incredibly dysfunctional that Trump can actually just ignore and bypass Congress as much as he wants. All the shit he's done since taking office this time has been done without Congress. In a previous era, that might have drawn a lot more criticism, even from his own party. But the existence of the silent filibuster and 60 vote threshold to pass legislation has created the conditions where we're all used to Congress not doing anything at all. People want action, and they're used to Congress not being able to do anything, so Trump doing it through Executive Order seems like a relief to them. And the same thing, although to a much less authoritarian degree, happened under Biden, Obama, and W Bush, too. Remember Biden trying to cancel student loans through EO? Remember Obama creating DACA by EO or telling the DEA to not enforce cannabis prohibition in states where cannabis is legal? That's all stuff Congress is supposed to be doing but can't because of the silent filibuster and 60 vote threshold.

Since the late 90s, any speaking filibuster in the Senate, like we're seeing Booker do now, is purely political theater. It's done to attract national attention and news coverage, not to actually block or prevent legislation. Which is fine, so long as we all understand the purpose. Political theater is important to actually getting stuff done sometimes because it can drive mass action or sentiment.

My overall point here, though, is that everything about this history of the filibuster and how it works today was the result of short-term thinking to solve an immediate problem without consideration of the long-term consequences.

A little nitpick on how we got to the modern silent filibuster, because I think the history is important and demonstrates how creating rules that might seem well-intentioned at the time end up having disastrous effects when you don't think about the long-term impacts.

Literally everything about the evolution of the filibuster was the result of unintended consequences. When the Senate was first created, they included a rule which was common among legislatures in Colonial American and England called the "previous question" rule. There were no rules on how long debate could take place, but, at any time (including in the middle of a speaker's turn) anyone could call for the immediate consideration of the previous question. If that got a majority support (50%+1), debate was immediately stopped and the issue was put to an immediate vote. The word 'filibuster' didn't exist at the time, but this was very similar to our modern cloture motion, which is used to end filibusters, except the previous question only required a simple majority of those present, where was cloture requires 3/5 of all members (including those not present). The previous question was a lower bar to clear than cloture is.

However, in the early days of the Senate it was a very collegial institution. All the Senators, even those opposed to each other on policy, were all friendly with each other. As such, after the first 15ish years, they had never had the need to use the previous question rule. Whenever a Senator was taking too long during debate, someone would gently tell them to wrap it up and they would. They relied more on the collegial atmosphere and friendships than the actual rules. In 1805, then-VP Aaron Burr (of murdering Hamilton and trying to steal half of North America to turn himself into a monarch fame) wanted to reform Senate rules. Mostly, he was trying to eliminate unnecessary rules to streamline the Senate. One of the rules he got rid of was the previous question. The intention was just to get rid of a rule that had never been used, but this effectively meant that there was no longer any institutional way to end debate if a Senator decided to just keep talking.

This didn't have much of an impact for about a century. There were occasional filibusters here and there, but they were very limited and extremely rare. The top issue that got filibusters was anything related to slavery and (after the Civil War) civil rights. Senators from slave states (or former slave states), would filibuster any legislation they saw as a threat to slavery and white supremacy. In general, these filibusters ended because the Senators who introduced whatever piece of legislation would withdraw their legislation and offer to water it down in exchange for an end to the filibuster. In this way, over the 19th century the predominate use of the filibuster was to prevent or slow reforms that would weaken white supremacy.

As time went on, the use of the filibuster increased in frequency. The general way it would work was that a bill would be introduced. A group of Senators from the minority opposing it would organize to filibuster. Rather than just 1 person holding the floor, they'd swap out using a rule that allows the speaker to temporarily cede the floor for a question, but they'd get the floor back when the question ended. But their allied Senator who was ostensibly just asking a question would then spend hours asking that question, which gave the filibuster leader time to take a break. When they were ready to continue, the question would end and the floor would go back to the original speaker. In the meantime, the allies of the filibustering Senators would meet with the sponsors of the legislation to get them to water down their bill in whatever way that made it acceptable. Once that agreement was made, they'd end the filibuster and move on. It's important to note that the filibuster at this time was not seen as a tool to kill legislation, but rather to force a concession.

The culminated in 1917 when Woodrow Wilson was trying to get a law passed that would allow the Navy to arm merchant ships during WW1. A group of anti-war Senators filibustered and got this provision removed. This enraged Wilson and he insisted the Senate adopt a cloture rule which would allow 2/3 of the Senators present in the chamber to vote to immediately end debate and bring the issue to a vote (this would later be changed to 3/5 of all members, regardless if they were present in the chamber). The existence of this rule dramatically changed how the filibuster was used. Rather than being a tool to force a concession, it now became something that could actually kill legislation. The supporters now had to arrange to have a 2/3 majority in the chamber when the cloture vote was pulled in order to pass the legislation. This shifted power from the majority to the minority. The minority just had to ensure they controlled 1/3+1 of the chamber at any given time to prevent cloture. Rather than the impetus being on the minority to actually continue the filibuster and negotiate a concession, it was now on the majority to produce a super-majority. The intention was to create a rule that prevented Senate business from being ground to a halt, but the effect was just the opposite. It gave more power to the minority than the majority.

This directly led to an increase in the frequency of use of the filibuster. Over the next half-century the filibuster was primarily used to prevent any Civil Rights Legislation from reforming the Jim Crow South. Since there was now a real possibility that a filibuster could actually kill a bill, there was no longer any reason for the filibustering party to negotiate concessions with the majority. They just sat back and continued their filibusters until the majority either got sick of it and pulled the bill or managed to produce a super-majority (which has always been damn near impossible in the Senate, only 2 cloture votes were ever successful between 1917-1964). This culminated in 1964 with a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which, when it eventually passed, effectively ended Jim Crow). A group of segregationist Senators from the South organized to filibuster for over 2 months. Whenever the Senate was in session over those 2 months, the segregationists held the floor and mostly spewed racists screeds about the evils of integration and other white supremacist nonsense. Eventually the pro-Civil Rights caucus managed to get a few people who were just sick of the unending filibuster and passed a cloture motion. However, this was a huge embarrassment for the Senate and they knew they needed to change the rules.

The problem, as they saw it, was that only a single issue was allowed before the Senate at a time. When a bill or nomination vote, etc was put forth, that issue had to be fully resolved before they could move onto the next thing. Either it had to get a vote up or down, or the sponsor had to pull it (meaning the issue was dead). During this time, no other Senate business can happen. No other issues can be debated or voted upon. Committees can't meet. Nothing else can happen. So when the segregationists filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 2 months, literally NO other Senate business was able to happen. This was an extremely high profile bill (it had originally be proposed, filibustered, and pulled the previous year while JFK was president, then reintroduce in 1964 after LBJ took office and was promoted as JFK's legacy), so it couldn't just be pulled to mollify the filibusterers. And this was an election year where 2/3 of the Senate was going back to their home state to ask for another term and had to justify the fact they sat on their asses doing nothing for 2 months while segregationists were allowed to spew white supremacy on the Senate floor.

So, just like Burr did when he eliminated the previous question rule, and just like Wilson did when he insisted on the cloture rule, Senate leadership created a rule aimed at solving the immediate problem without looking at what the long-term implications were. They created the multi-track legislative process we have today. Under this system, the Senate Majority Leader could take whatever issue was before the Senate now and "temporarily" table it so they could move on to another issue. Whereas previously an issue had to be either pulled or voted upon before the Senate could move on, now they could just leave it in limbo. The issue wasn't pulled, but it also wouldn't get a vote. The Majority Leader could then go back to it whenever they wanted. The idea was that if a filibuster started, they could switch tracks to something else. If/when they went back to that filibustered issue, the filibustering Senator would get the floor back and could continue, but if they couldn't come up with the votes for cloture (which were now expanded to 3/5 of the entire Senate, which made cloture even more difficult than it was before) they could just move on to something else without wasting the Senate's time.

Again, though, this shifted the entire dynamic of how the filibuster was actually used. The new rules went into place in 1972. The use of the filibuster (just like after cloture was first created in 1917) began to increase, and the speed of increase went up over time. At first, through the 80s and early 90s, a Senator would actually have to start their filibuster before the issue would be put on the back burner and the Senate move on to another issue. By the early 2000s, though, all a Senator had to do was tell the Majority leader they intended to filibuster if the issue came to the floor and the Majority leader would just automatically table it, never even allowing for debate.

So your argument is that it's actually the best decision to just rubber stamp everything the fascists do because trying to oppose it might end up worse? And that if we just rubber stamp everything now, they'll be nicer and not try to make an even worse budget/CR in September?

That's some Neville Chamberlain-level appeasement bullshit right there. "pea

Those of us who pay attention know.

However, the media ecosystem is INCREDIBLY conservative and pumps out the rah-rah jingoism whenever it can. Those of who just stick to the mainstream echochambers think the US is a bastion of freedom and peace.

This is a common myth that isn't really backed up by the historical or archeological record. Most pirate crews were not proto-anarchists looking to live a life of absolute liberty. They were more comparable to modern street gangs. The captains tended to be a strongman type leader who imposed their will over the crew through fear and coercion. The pirates themselves tended to be outcasts from society who couldn't turn to authorities to try to escape their situation for a variety of reasons, mostly because they were criminals who knew they'd be imprisoned or killed if they went to authorities.

Probably the only place where anything close to what you describe ever really existed was small communities in Madagascar which became the inspiration for the probably mythical Libertatia. The communities that definitely did exist weren't some ideological project to try to craft a society absent hierarchical power structures. They were just small, impoverished communities of families where the patriarchs (the pirates) spent most of their time away (at sea doing pirating) so the communities largely ran themselves without a power structure. This isn't because they had an ideological opposition to them, but because the authority was the pirate leader who spent 3/4 of their time away (and, therefore, couldn't do the job of being in charge) and when they were home they spent their time partying.

No, the idea of authority is not necessarily contrary to anarchism. You need to first examine the source of that authority's power, the structures which put them into power, and how that power is enforced.

If it's coercive in any way, that is, if you are threatened with violence in some way if you do not comply, then it is indeed counter to anarchism. However, that's not how anarchist brigades in 1930s Spain, the Makhnovshchina, the Korean People's Association in Manchuria, the anarchist brigades during the Russian Civil War, etc worked. First, membership was pretty much always voluntary. If you didn't want to follow an order, you didn't have to and you wouldn't be executed or tried as deserter or whatever like in most traditional armies. If you didn't want to follow an order, it was generally accepted that it was your right to refuse.

Second, there weren't set terms between elections like you might be thinking of within a modern representative democracy. If an elected officer was issuing commands the rest of the soldiers didn't agree with or like, they could be voted out at any moment, including in the middle of battle. This tended to present problems in the Spanish Civil War where the Soviet Union tried to exert complete control over everyone on the anti-fascist side. They'd send in Soviet officers to lead anarchist battalions. As soon as the Soviet gave an order that the rest didn't like, they'd vote him out. When the Soviets refused to give up authority, the entire battalion would disband, steal all their supplies, and reform a few miles away as a "new" battalion and elect their own leader.

They also weren't usually structured like we tend to think of military units with a mass of enlisted and a few detached officers issuing orders. The officers tended to come from the enlisted ranks. The officer position was less of a leader and more of a coordinator. Plans were usually made collaboratively by the whole unit (or those who cared to take part). If the heat of battle when snap decisions needed to be made, the officer tended to be the one who made those decisions, but there was no expectation that anyone who disobeyed would be killed or court-marshalled. People obeyed because they knew the person making the decision, why they were making the decision they made, and that if it was a bad decision they could replace that person.

It was called the Revolutionary Insurgent Army of Ukraine led by Nestor Makhno as part of the Makhnovschina movement.

There was also the anarchist CNT-FAI which had an army of decentralized militias, collectively organized by Buenaventura Durruti during the Spanish Civil war of the 1930s.

During the Russian Revolution and early parts of the Russian Civil War, there were also a lot of anarchist militias and military units, most notably the Kronstadt sailors. The various groups never coalesced as a single army, and, therefore, were easily crushed by the Bolsheviks.

There was also the Korean People's Association in Manchuria, which was an anarchist society of more than 2 million people in the late 20s/early 30s. They never had a whole army, but they did organize militias along anarchist principles.

The Zapatista movement in Chiapas, Mexico, founded in 1994 and still active today, is organized along decentralized principles and is closely associated with anarchism.

More recently, the YPJ and PKK operating in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria and the militias fighting the ongoing revolution in Myanmar are not entirely anarchist, but have strong principles of direct democracy at their core.

In all instances, the overall organization of the militaries were not entirely dissimilar to a traditional military. There were enlisted soldiers led by officers who gave orders that were expected to be followed. There was a higher level command structure which organized the army to distribute resources and coordinate strategy and tactics. The big difference, however, was that the leaders (officers) tended to all be elected democratically by the people they led and could be replaced/voted out democratically whenever the people who they led decided they needed to go..

There's a common myth that anarchists are opposed to organization. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. Anarchists are all about organization. The thing we oppose is hierarchical power structures. Systems that place someone, anyone, above anyone else and say, "you must do what your superior tells you on threat of punishment" are inherently evil. But free associations are not. Rather than thinking of an officer in an anarchist militia/army as a leader whose commands must be followed or you'll face steep punishment, think of them as a central coordinator. Their directives aren't followed because you'll be court marshalled or otherwise punished if you don't obey. They're followed because people at every level are included in the process and allowed to have their voices heard. Everyone has a degree of ownership and influence over the process. People follow directives because they understand where they're coming from and why the decisions were made. Yet, if at any time someone decides they no longer want to take part, they have the option to just leave.

At the Tesla protests, yes. it's mostly standing there with signs and chanting. At the one I attend, the dealership is on a major road with a TON of traffic. People line the street on either side stretching for about 1/2 a mile. The first protest had a bunch of people at the front door of the dealership, but police came and arrested one person. Since then, there has always been a police presence right at the front door. The cops tend to leave us alone if don't go up to the door of the dealership. A couple of times every hour a group will organize to try to block the road. They'll usually hold the space for about 5 minutes before the police come and force everyone back to the sidewalks. The point here is to challenge authority.

On a broader scale (I attend a LOT of protests), it depends on the protest. At those that are planned and coordinated by a larger organization (think the Women's March, March for Science, etc) there's usually a stage with a series of speakers "preaching to the choir" to energize the crowd. There's lost of people chanting in unison various slogans/chants. Usually there's a single rallying point where the speeches happen, then there will often be a march from that point to somewhere else. Along the route the crowd shuts down the streets, chants, carry signs, etc. The point here to make connections with like-minded people and demonstrate that there is popular support for whatever issue/concern there is.

At less coordinated protests without a central organizing committee (think the 2017 airport protests, the 2020 uprising) there's not as much of set "schedule of events". It's more of a way for a community to express their collective anger/fear/outrage/etc. The specific goal will depend more on the specific event. For example, the 2017 airport protests were against the first version of Trump's Muslim Ban. People entering the US from the countries he had tried to ban people from were being held in holding rooms at airports. A large number of activists showed up at airports where those people were being held and the sheer numbers and anger we were expressing got the people working at the airports to let the people go. There were also immigration lawyers who showed up to those protests. When the people in holding were released, they had legal representation right there waiting to support them. The 2020 uprising events were about showing that people weren't afraid of the police and wouldn't be silenced by police violence.

At every protest I've ever been at, there are always people from various organizations walking through the crowd trying to get people to sign up. Sometimes it's just collecting names/emails/phone numbers for a fundraising list. Sometimes it's staffers for politicians raising signatures to get on a ballot, or to get a referendum on a ballot. Sometimes it's activist organizations trying to get people who might be willing to take further actions.

As virtually every protest winds down, there's usually a group of people, almost always not affiliated with the "official event" who organize to continue taking action, typically less sanctioned, and dubiously legal actions.

Most protests don't achieve their immediate goal. That's how it's always been. The way we tend to talk about it, any given movement or event has 3 sets of goals: short-term/immediate goals, mid-terms goals, and long-term goals. We usually fail at the short-term goals (although not always). But we're almost always successful at the medium- and long-term goals. These Tesla protests, for example. The short-term/immediate goal is to shut down the specific dealership we're protesting at. That has only happened where police presence has been light and where protesters are willing to take illegal action and get arrested (which is always a minority of protesters). This goal has largely been unsuccessful. The medium-term goal is to destroy the Tesla brand so much that the stock price plummets. This is already happening. After the election, Tesla stock prices skyrocketed. Since the protests started, the stock price has already dropped back to where it was before the election, wiping out all that value added since the election. Keep this up, and we'll hopefully force it even farther down. If we're lucky, they'll have to start closing dealerships. The long-term goal is to remove Musk and Trump from power. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet, but that's why it's a long-term goal.

If you say yes, your 17 year old son will be fucking his girlfriend in your house with your implied consent.

If you're fine with that, go ahead and say yes.

If it helps mollify you any, I think it's pretty likely they've already fucked.

Because society isn't structured around proscriptive definitions. Just because you can craft a definition of human trafficking which sounds similar to a normal parent/child relationship doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Expecting consistency between beliefs and actions from bigots and fascists is a mistake.

There were well over 1000 people at the protest I was at on Saturday...

Next Saturday (April 5) is supposed to be a huge day of protest across the country, notably with a very large demonstration planned for the National Mall in DC. I plan to be at that one.

Or just say you want the comfy pillow.

It's marketed as being a product for new parents. There's no law that says is must be used that way.

a) No, nobody will judge you

b) If they do, fuck 'em

You can guess what happens next?

He fixed the cable?

My thought is no. I have kids, but mine are much younger (3 & 5). Right now, I'd prefer to wait as long as possible before I get them smartphones. My niece and nephew didn't get one until they were 15, and I feel like that's too young, too.

My big concern is social media. If I could ensure they weren't on social media at all, I wouldn't have as much of a problem. But I don't think it's safe or healthy for kids to be on social media that young. Hell, I'm almost 40 and I don't think it's safe or healthy for me to be on social media (yet here I am....).

Also, dude, Chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.

I'm not talking about the guys who built the fucking railroad here.

Communism is just a red herring!

History is written by the victors

I have a BIG nitpick with this framing. While it is correct in many instances, it's imprecise, and sometimes just flat out wrong.

A better framing is "History is written by the historians". In other words, the historical narrative is set by those who put forth the effort to do so. In many cases, those historians are writing from the perspective of the victors, but not always.

I'll give you a few examples:

The Mongol Empire was one of (if not the) largest contiguous land empires in world history. They conquered everything from China to eastern Europe and Mesopotamia. By any interpretation of the word, the Mongols were the victors in virtually every conflict they had. Yet they also didn't really write histories. There's only 1 real Mongolian historical text we have: The Secret History of the Mongols. It was an account of the life and conquests of Genghis Kahn written shortly after his death. Yet, as the title alludes to, it wasn't a public document. It was written for the ruling dynasty. The earliest copy we know of is a copy from ~200 years after the original was written, and it didn't become widely read until another 300 years after that. For the first half-millennia after the Mongol conquests, the historical narrative was entirely based on the accounts people who were conquered by the Mongols. In other words, the history of the Mongol conquests and their subsequent empire were almost entirely written not by the victors, but by the conquered. This heavily influences our popular conception of the Mongols as barbaric war mongers who committed horrific acts of violence. We don't think much about any other contributions the Mongols had in the realms of culture, economics, political administration, philosophy, diplomacy, etc because the people who wrote about the Mongols (and set the historical narrative) had no interest in portraying them in a positive light. Compare that to someone like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, etc. All of them were similarly successful conquerors and warlords, yet the historical narrative about them is FAR more complex and positive than that of Genghis Kahn. Because the history of Genghis Kahn was not written by the victors.

Another example which is probably more accessible to a lot of people: The American Civil War. For most of the 150 years after the war ended up until just the past couple of decades, the prevailing popular narrative portrayed in pop culture and taught in schools was the Lost Cause narrative. The war was about States' Rights. Slavery was not a part of the war at the beginning and the Union only brought it in later to justify their aggression towards the South. It was called the War of Northern Aggression by many. The South was primarily fighting to preserve a pastoral and romanticized way of life, etc, etc. This is the narrative portrayed in fiction such as Gone With the Wind and The Birth of a Nation. Of course, we know this to be bullshit. It was a war over slavery and the South was fighting to maintain the most brutal and oppressive form of slavery the world has ever seen. Yet for over a century that wasn't the broadly accepted historical narrative because after the war ended people in the South put a lot of effort into creating and disseminating the Lost Cause narrative while the victors (the Union) didn't put any effort into crafting an historical narrative. The North was more concerned with reuniting the nation and rebuilding, so much so that they completely gave up on Reconstruction and let the same people who had led the Confederacy run the South as an apartheid state for the next century.

These are just 2 examples, but they aren't the only ones by a long shot. History is not always written by the victors. It's written by the people who put forth the effort to write it, and the historical narrative ends up reflecting this down to the modern day.