Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

Just a few minutes ago, the House of Representatives debated H. Res. 1446, a resolution praising the community of Tracy, California, for existing as a city for 100 years. Forty minutes of debate was ordered at 12:17, but debate ended at 12:22, 90 percent of the time for debate left unfilled.

Who in Congress could fail to have an opinion on such very, extremely important legislation? Why, if that resolution isn’t passed, just think of what that will mean for the city of Tracy! It’s not like one of those superficial issues, like the war in Afghanistan, climate change, or the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, after all.

Priorities!

In a hearing of the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Energy and Environment yesterday, Chairman Brian Baird declared that, “Whether the moratorium on drilling activities in the Gulf is lifted in 30 days or 30 years, we must accept that the hydrocarbon reserves in these fields will be produced someday.”

Why? Why must we accept that offshore drilling for oil in the riskiest deepwater environments is going to take place?

Don’t we have the freedom to choose another course? Is our government that much in the thrall of the oil industry that our leaders will accept no possibility of an end to deepwater offshore drilling?

Yesterday, on the floor of the House of Representatives, Congressman Ted Poe said, “The Federal Government needs to get out of the way and let us continue safely to drill offshore and provide the energy needs of this country.”

Continue to drill offshore safely? How can something be continued if it hasn’t started yet?

Doesn’t Ted Poe get it? Offshore drilling has been proven to be deadly dangerous. It’s killed people. It’s killed one of America’s natural treasures. It’s killing the American economy.

Sorry, Representative Poe, but no, the government does not need to get out of the way of offshore drilling. The government needs to end offshore drilling.

Today, Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert blurted out the following statement about health care reform: “If you make 133 percent of the poverty level or less, under that wonderful bill, you’ll get forced into Medicaid, like it or not, even if you’ve got an employer who is willing to provide you health care. Oh, by the way, if you’re above 133 percent of the poverty level and you can’t afford the great health insurance policy that is dictated by this Zeus of a Congress and President, then bad news.”

A Zeus of a Congress? What is a Zeus of a Congress?

Is a Sergeant-At-Arms armed with a lightning bolt?

Mo Brooks, who just defeated right wing Congressman Parker Griffith in Alabama’s primary election with promises that he’ll serve even further to the right, warns that the United States is engaged in “a mad rush away from free enterprise and towards Socialism”.

A mad rush? Really? To Socialism?

Look around you. Right now, I mean. Look around you and tell me – where is this mad rush to Socialism?

Did it pass through my neighborhood in the middle of the night? I haven’t seen it yet…

…oh, hold on. Here it comes – right across my front lawn!

There’s a powerful bill in the U.S. House of Representatives right now that deals with the Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling crisis in a clear, direct way. H.R. 5248, the No New Drilling Act, looks at the damage caused by the gigantic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and proposes a restoration of the moratorium on the expansion of offshore drilling.

U.S. Representative Danny Davis has not signed on as as a cosponsor to the No New Drilling Act. Why? He’s been busy.

Busy doing what? Busy supporting another piece of legislation: H. Res. 1297.

What would H. Res. 1297 do? It would recognize the importance of American Craft Beer Week.

The resolution, supported by Congressman Davis, notes the serious contributions of American craft beers, observing that, “American craft brewers increase awareness of the differences in the flavor, aroma, color, alcohol content, body, and other complex variables of beer.”

Come on, Representative Davis. If you have time to sit in your office, noting the differences in the complex variables of beer, you have time to sign your name to H.R. 5248, and take on the serious offshore drilling crisis. Please – cosponsor the No New Drilling Act.

On Friday, Barry C. Black, the official government-paid Chaplain of the Senate, stood up on Capitol Hill to give a speech in which he called for a religious revolution in the Senate, targeting U.S. senators, with a mission to “purge their thoughts and speech”.

American fatwa?

On July 16, 2008, Colorado’s Congressman Doug Lamborn declared that the United States had to allow more offshore drilling for oil. “We must lift the moratorium imposed by Congress on offshore drilling,” he said.

Last time I checked, Colorado didn’t have any offshore anything. I guess Representative Lamborn figured he didn’t have anything to lose, proposing that other states put their coasts in danger with the risky operation of offshore drilling for oil.

Now, for three weeks, the Gulf of Mexico has seen an oil spill raging after the oil rig Deepwater Horizon exploded, killing eleven workers. So, what does Doug Lamborn have to say about offshore drilling now?

Funny thing – all of a sudden, Congressman Lamborn doesn’t have anything to say about offshore drilling any more. He’s gone completely quiet on the subject since the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon.

Postscript: Doug Lamborn is a Republican. So, what do the Colorado Democrats have to say in response to Lamborn’s craven silence?

Nothing. The Colorado Democrats aren’t even running a candidate against Lamborn this year. Thanks to their inaction, voters in Colorado’s 5th congressional district have the choice to vote for Doug Lamborn, or vote for nobody at all.

Reshma Saujani, Democratic challenger in New York’s 14th congressional district, released the results of a survey of her supporters yesterday. Among the findings: 45 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “special interests are the main reason for the partisanship in Washington”, while 33 percent agreed “that Democrats and Republicans simply have completely different worldviews”.

An effort to understand this item in Saujani’s survey requires a good deal of interpretation. In order for the survey question to make sense, there must be a meaningful distinction between “special interests” and organizations that are sincerely motivated by particular worldviews. The survey question implies that such a distinction exists, that there are organizations that have ideological foundations on the one hand, and special interest organizations that are motivated by self-interest without regard for ideology on the other hand.

Few would contest that ideological groups exist. However, many point out that organizations that claim to be ideological in nature also promote the interests of particular members of society. Worldviews often happen to be rather economically convenient.

The existence of powerful groups of people motivated purely by the desire for practical benefit should also be a matter of serious doubt. Are ambitious and selfish people truly without a coherent worldview? One might argue that lobbying firms, as an example, are motivated solely to promote the interests of their clients, but even if that were the pure motivation of those firms, lobbyists’ clients themselves can still be motivated by ideology. In some cases, such beliefs are easy to identify. In other cases, the beliefs may lie beneath the surface, but still present an active influence.

Even in the case of a corproation that hires lobbyists to explicitly bribe members of Congress to support certain legislation, ideological beliefs would still be in action. The corporation would be interested in advancing the belief that the government should serve the interests of private industry, and that financial representation is more important than the electoral influence of the voter.

There is a worldview inherent in even the most corrupt legislative activity. it may be a worldview that most Americans disagree with, but then, that’s the point. Even in extreme cases, the distinction between self-interest and worldview is incoherent. “Special interests” turn out merely to be interests with which we personally disagree because our worldviews will not admit their worth.

To identify this problem in Reshma Saujani’s survey may seem like pointless quibbling. However, attention to detail and the ability to focus with logical precision are characteristics that a legislator should not be without. It’s also important that members of Congress have the integrity to seek out the opinions of their constituents through accurate and respectful means, rather than through slanted mechanisms designed to communicate ideas favorable to their own agendas.

It’s my opinion that the phrase “special interests” isn’t meaningful enough to be included in any political survey. Your worldview may prompt you to come to a different conclusion.

Indiana Congressman Mike Pence has a way of exciting people’s emotions. He supports extreme policies from the right wing fringe and has shamelessly built up a range of unethical relationships with corporate lobbyists. It’s easy to get angry with Pence. I get it.

That said, Pence opponent George Holland seems to have allowed his reaction to Mike Pence’s regressive radicalism to go over the line. On his campaign site, Holland writes a list of reasons not to re-elect Pence, and his keyboard starts smoking when it comes to Pence’s support for recent wars:

“America’$ Imperiali$tic War$ & Occupation$
Would you die for a lie? Why should others?
1. The Iraq-Iranian War$ and Occupation$

2. The NATO Turkmeni$tan -Tran$ – Afghani$tan Paki$tani -
India Pipeline War$ & Occupation$”

Get the picture? There’s something about these wars that has to do with a bit of cash.

When political discontent works its way into expressive spelling, it may be time to stand aside for a moment and take slow, deep breaths.

But then, Holland seems to have let go of his fear of hyperventilation a long time ago, attacking Barack Obama for his alleged “Zionist” ways as well:

“Barack Obomber; A Psychopathic Liar, The
Reneger, A Thief, A Warmonger and
America’s Newest, Zionist President!
NATO & The New World Order!”

Sigh. Could former Democratic candidate Barry Welsh please re-enter the race?