Month: March 2021

In an opinion piece for the Washington Post, Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, explains his journey on the filibuster. When he was first elected in 2012, he believed the filibuster should be eliminated, but some of his Democratic colleagues convinced him that it has an important purpose. The best way to sum this up is that the filibuster prevents severe oscillation in the country’s laws. Imagine, for example, a situation where the Affordable Care Act is repealed every time the GOP takes control of the White House and Congress only to be reenacted in some form every time the Democrats retake control.

Of course, that’s not a great example because the Republicans failed to repeal Obamacare when they had the chance during Trump’s first two years in office, but you can imagine laws coming on and off the books much more regularly than they do now. There’s a value in consistency and stability, which affects everything from the ability to do business planning and remain compliant with the law, to maintaining widespread respect for the law. In our current era, where legislation tends to get passed with little or no bipartisan support, it’s more likely that major legislation will be repealed when there’s a change in party control.

As the Democrats look to push through important bills on climate, voting and civil rights, and immigration reform, it’s depressing to think their gains might be wiped out as soon as they lose power. Many New Deal and Great Society programs have survived largely intact through the vagaries of more than a half century of American politics, but it’s hard to picture that kind of stability going forward. If anything, the filibuster’s stabilizing role is more critical than ever.

These are the reasons I’ve generally opposed eliminating the filibuster in the past. Many progressives see it working mainly to foil their ambitions, but I see the Republicans as more of a threat to destroy our past accomplishments than our future ones, and the filibuster acts as a prophylactic that protects Social Security, Medicaid, and much else.

Yet, like Sen. King, I’ve had cause to rethink this position. Here’s how he puts it:

But this argument is sustainable only if the extraordinary power of the 60-vote threshold is used sparingly on major issues or is used in a good-faith effort to leverage concessions rather than to simply obstruct. If, however, the minority hangs together and regularly uses this power to block any and all initiatives of the majority (and their president), supporting the continuation of the rule becomes harder and harder to justify, regardless of the long-term consequences…

…As we enter this new Congress with a new president and a new Senate majority (barely), the question for me is how Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues will play their hand; if they are willing to work to find compromise and consensus on important initiatives (infrastructure, voting rights or immigration reform, for example), the importance of getting rid of the filibuster diminishes. If, on the other hand, they just say no, the necessity — and likelihood — of filibuster reform would only increase. That is to say, in large measure the outcome is in their hands.

In the midst of a pandemic and economic contraction, and with the climate crises so urgent, the Democrats have to be able to act. It’s always risky when Congress is incapable of passing laws and there are always some issues that are of pressing concern. Today, we can put gun violence and border control as two items that are calling for some immediate response. Yet, the climate and the pandemic are in their own category, and no rule or precedent or concern about future backlash can allow the Democrats to remain hamstrung in response. If the filibuster must fall to get things done, then that’s on the Republicans for being irresponsible, and the rest of us will just have to weather the consequences.

For Sen. King, there’s another urgent reason to change the filibuster rule. In this example, it might not be necessary to do away with the rule altogether.

I should mention that I believe voting rights are a special case that we must address in light of the nakedly partisan voter-suppression legislation pending in many states. All-out opposition to reasonable voting rights protections cannot be enabled by the filibuster; if forced to choose between a Senate rule and democracy itself, I know where I will come down. As new Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock (D) noted on the floor recently, “It is a contradiction to say we must protect minority rights in the Senate, while refusing to protect minority rights in the society.”

As you probably know, the filibuster has already been eliminated for presidential appointments and judicial nominees, and only remains for legislation. What King is proposing is that a similar exemption be made for issues related to voting rights and federal elections. I think the Senate Democrats are coalescing around this strategy for passing H.R.1 – For the People Act of 2021, the House’s bill to “expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy…”

With the Senate split 50-50 and Vice-President Kamala Harris breaking ties, the Democrats need unanimity to change the rules, and they don’t have unanimity for completely eliminating the legislative filibuster. They seem to have it, though, for exempting H.R.1 from the filibuster. King’s piece is signaling this and also warning McConnell that they may go further if he blocks them at every turn.

It remains to be seen if conservative Democratic senators like Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia will go along with changing the filibuster rule for voting bills, but it’s looking like that’s the direction they’re headed. It makes sense for them because they’ll find it harder to get reelected if the Republicans’ nationwide efforts to suppress the vote at the state level are allowed to remain on the books.

Like Sen. King, I’ve come around to the idea that the filibuster is a luxury we may not be able to afford. He’s still on the fence about gutting it entirely, but I think he’s seen the writing on the wall.

Hi everyone!

Another midweek, another cafe/lounge.

Got a little something from my favorite Black Flag lineup – Rollins/Ginn/Roessler/Cadena – although this is one where Rollins is elsewhere. What happens when punks spend a lot of time listening to free jazz? Well, you get something like this:

This was released after their Family Man LP, which featured one side of instrumentals, and another side of Henry Rollins doing what amounted to a poetry reading. YouTube used to have a video from a live gig around 1985, where stuff like this was being played. The dudes in the pit did not quite know whether they should mosh, throw beer bottles, or just leave. Personally, I found that era of Black Flag to be refreshing. They’d break up in 1986. Greg Ginn has his own iteration of Black Flag, that’s just him and whoever he can get to play the classics. Ya do what ya gotta do, I guess.

Since I seem to be stuck in 1985, here’s the intro from Sonic Youth’s Bad Moon Rising LP. I’ll follow it up with Brave Men Run (In My Family).

Kim Gordon was and still is in a class all by herself. By this point in Sonic Youth’s career, No Wave was very much in the rear-view mirror, increasingly a distant landmark. Their critical and commercial breakthroughs were just ahead of them. This is the sort of music I’d easily play while driving through the Mojave Desert. In fact I have done just that – the last time as a was heading from the LA metro area to the Midwest in the middle of summer in a car w/no functioning air conditioner. Good times. The tape I made of this album gained a sort of surreal quality through that Mojave leg of that trip. They were a great band while they lasted. I seriously doubt they’ll ever record or tour together again. The circumstances surrounding the Moore/Gordon divorce would make any reunion unspeakably awkward. Kim Gordon has a heck of a solo career going, and that’s a good thing.

The bar is open and the jukebox is still working. Hang in there.

Cheers!

I am flabbergasted, in a good way, that President Biden has nominated Lina Khan to be a commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission. I’ve never met her in person, but she’s been legal counsel at the Open Markets Institute where my brother Phillip is the policy director. I have used her as a source in my writing on antitrust. She’s one of the top antagonists of Big Tech platform monopolies in the country, and an expert in the field. She’s the exact kind of person who supposed to be in a position of authority in this country but never is because of the power of Wall Street and Silicon Valley.

But let me put this another way.

During the Democratic presidential primaries, I narrowed my top two choices down to Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. Biden was what my brain was telling me. I saw him as an almost ideal foil to Trump, and he was. But my heart wanted Warren and I really believed that what made her preferable to Biden was that she’d nominate people like Lina Khan. I wasn’t even sure Warren would be so bold, but I knew Biden wouldn’t never consider such a move. And he just proved me wrong. I am extremely impressed. Here’s the White House bio:

Lina Khan is an associate professor of law at Columbia Law School, where she teaches and writes about antitrust law, infrastructure industries law, and the antimonopoly tradition. Her antitrust scholarship has received several awards and has been published by the Yale Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, Columbia Law Review, and University of Chicago Law Review. Khan previously served as counsel to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law, where she helped lead the Subcommittee’s investigation into digital markets. Khan was also a legal advisor in the office of Commissioner Rohit Chopra at the Federal Trade Commission and legal director at the Open Markets Institute. She is a graduate of Williams College and Yale Law School.

Here’s what Barry Lynn of the Open Markets Institute has to say:

“A generation hence, today will be remembered as one of the most important days in the fight to preserve and rebuild American democracy. President Biden demonstrated a true commitment to restoring the people’s control over the American political economy by nominating Lina Khan to serve on the FTC.

Lina has a unique and far-ranging understanding of the dangers posed by the concentration of private power, and of the tools Americans can use to fix the problem. Lina is also a deeply wise and ethical person able to work collaboratively and constructively with people from across the political spectrum. All of us here at Open Markets are extremely proud of Lina’s work and her dedication to the well-being of all the American people. President Biden has made many excellent decisions in staffing his new administration. His choice of Lina Khan to serve on the FTC is one of his very best.”

People have different definitions of “progressive,” but this is what it means to me. This is the direction I thought only Warren could take us. It’s what I thought I’d have to give up if I opted for Biden instead. I’m beyond thrilled.

This is the best sign I’ve seen yet that Biden has completely transformed himself from the guy who served Delaware’s corporate interests so thoroughly for so long. If the Federal Trade Commission gets serious about monopoly power, the Democrats could have a lock on power not seen since the New Deal, and the country could be headed for a renaissance.

Not to go all Ludwig Wittgenstein on you, but imagine how your perception of the meaning of the following words would change if the author of the (top) Tweet below was Pope Francis instead of Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas:

https://twitter.com/JohnCornyn/status/1373947860622979075

It’s a simple sentence: “President Biden has instead emphasized the humane treatment of immigrants, regardless of their legal status.”

The word “instead” tells us that Biden’s emphasis is a change from what came before, or perhaps from what was promised. Something else might have been expected. But there’s nothing in the sentence to tell us whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Yet, we presume it’s a bad thing because we know the author thinks being humane to people regardless of their legal status is a bad thing. We’d presume the opposite if Pope Francis made the exact same statement.

I use the Pope as an example here just to make a nice, stark contrast, but most people are in favor of humane treatment. I’d argue that you have to be mentally warped or disfigured in some way to advocate inhumane treatment for anyone.

If the subject is guilty of mistreating other human beings and we’re talking about the appropriate punishment, some folks will see the merit in the penalty mirroring the crime. Torture someone and get tortured yourself. Yet, even if you subscribe to eye for an eye justice, seeking illegal entry into the United States doesn’t warrant an inhumane response.

Sometimes the most revealing thing about what people say is that they’re willing to say it at all. Cornyn knows his audience is so hostile to the people crowding our southern border that they do not see them as human or deserving of human decency. He knows they agree that Biden should torture them, perhaps by separating them from their children or keeping them in squalid confinement. So, he just comes right out and criticizes the president of the United States for being humane.

We all know what Cornyn meant by that sentence, but only because we know Cornyn is a terrible person. If he were a good person, we’d assume he was writing to support the president and approve his actions.

When I think about the “owning the libs” phenomenon, I’m reminded of an important, if unfortunate, chapter from my own childhood. I was in eighth grade, the last year before high school in my regional district, and I wasn’t applying myself to my studies. My parents were understandably worried and upset, so they sent me to a psychologist who ran a battery of tests. I looked at the Rorschach ink blotters. I still remember that every single one looked sexual to me but I was embarrassed to admit this so I just made up alternative answers. I took my first IQ test and felt better about myself when I got the results. I answered some extensive survey. And then I sat down with the shrink and my parents to discuss whatever it was that he’d found wrong with me.

I still remember the house where this happened, on Spring Street in my home town of Princeton, New Jersey, right across from the bike shop near the intersection with Vandeventer Avenue. I tried to reassure everyone that middle school grades didn’t appear on the transcript for college admissions and that I’d apply myself in 9th Grade when my marks would actually shape my future. The psychologist said that he didn’t believe me. He said that he thought I would not apply myself and that I’d fail.

Whatever he was trying to do in the moment, in that meeting, it didn’t work. I suppose he was trying to call me on my bullshit, and I was guilty of making excuses for my behavior. But he was supposed to be an expert and he’d just run all these tests on me, and I believed him. I didn’t walk out thinking I needed to make some changes. I came out thinking that I was going to do terribly in high school and it was going to ruin my life. And I thought this was because there was something in my nature that I couldn’t change.

When high school began, I fulfilled his prophesy and, if anything, I applied myself even less to my studies than I had before. But I had some pride. I needed to explain this to myself and to others, so I adopted the affectation that none of it mattered. Getting good grades was not a good thing but a positive fault. A year later, I was at boarding school and I had plenty of cause to reevaluate my decisions.

I don’t know how things would have gone differently if that psychologist had tried to give me confidence and encouragement instead. I’m pretty sure it would have been a better approach though. The bottom line is that I reacted badly and made things worse for myself and the next couple of years of my life were very unhappy for me and for my parents.

That’s how I see the “owning the libs” thing. You tell me that I’m stupid, I’m going to say something stupid. You tell me that I’m a racist, I’m going to saying something racist. You tell my I’m disrespectful to women, I am going to say nasty things about women, or gays or foreigners or people of other religions. I’m going to dismiss the importance of science and higher education because I’m not good at science and haven’t gone to college.

If the point is to “trigger” liberals by deliberately offending their sensibilities and trashing the things they value, it’s also coming from a sense of deep inferiority.  It’s a way of making yourself feel “okay” about things you dislike about yourself.

And, sometimes, this can be healthy. People shouldn’t go around hating themselves because they’re bad at school or sports or whatever else they’re told they should be good at. If you’re a good plumber or electrician who is making a decent living, there is no particular reason why you should care that you couldn’t get into Harvard or play professional sports. But when you secretly do value something you’re bad at, that’s when it becomes a self-deluding game. It can be very destructive. Maybe you start picking on the good students because it somehow makes it okay that you’re getting bad grades. Deep down, the bully wishes he was getting good grades and test scores, too.

This is what the Republican Party has become. It’s an organization built for folks who are angry about their own perceived inadequacies. So, they’re here to tell you that their lack of empathy is a virtue, and their meanness is the proper model of masculinity. All those hifalutin ideas people get in college are a load of crap, and experts and scientists are all scamming the rubes with their unproven theories.

They aren’t doing this in a vacuum. It’s true that people get put on the defensive about where they’re from, how they were raised, and how much education they have. A lot of folks feel disrespected, many of them with good cause. But it’s how they react that matters. Adopting a strategy of “owning the libs” is the wrong one. It’s living up to the low expectations others have for you by making their predictions come true.

Ironically, telling these folks that they’re deplorable only makes them more deplorable, just as telling me I was going to be a bad student only made me a worse student. My excuse, if I have one, is that I was 13 years old and very immature. The Republican Party is now made up of adults who don’t want to grow up.

I shouldn’t be surprised to read that our first black vice-president is at risk:

Washington, DC, police arrested a Texas man outside Vice President Kamala Harris’ official residence, the US Naval Observatory, in the nation’s capital on Wednesday and he’s now facing weapons and ammunition charges.

A spokesperson for Washington’s Metropolitan Police said officers responded “at approximately 12:12 pm, to the 3400 block of Massachusetts Avenue, NW in reference to a suspicious person based on an intelligence bulletin that originated from Texas, who was detained by US Secret Service.” Law enforcement contacted the man after a region-wide intelligence bulletin had been issued for the suspect.

DC police say officers arrested and charged 31-year-old Paul Murray, of San Antonio, and that a rifle and ammunition were recovered from his vehicle.

A police report obtained by CNN shows officers allege Murray was in possession of an “AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, 113 rounds of unregistered ammunition, and five 30 round magazines.”

I’m grateful that someone knew to call this threat in to law enforcement officials and they were able to locate and neutralize him before he became the next Oswald. Things are tense out there, and all our politicians are operating under an unacceptable level of danger. Many of our citizens are suffering too, as President Biden pointed out on Friday when he condemned violence against Asian-Americans. We shouldn’t be living with our heads on a swivel, always looking out for the next incident of senseless violence, but that’s where we are.

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be continuing with the painting of the Connor Hotel in Jerome, Arizona. The photo that I’m using (My own from a recent visit.) is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 9×9 inch canvas panel.

When last seen the painting appeared as it does in the photo seen directly below.

Since that time I have continued to work on the painting.

I have made some progress on the hotel for this week’s cycle. The awning has been repainted, with shadows falling beneath. Above, the second story has been further refined. Note the right side and doorway sections. There’s not too much further to go.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.

I’m not sure how I feel about the effort to expel Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) from Congress. I’m clear that she shouldn’t be serving in the Capitol, but that’s true about a lot of congresspeople, including several Democrats. The resolution was introduced on Friday by Rep. Jimmy Gomez of California:

“I believe some of my Republican colleagues, and one in particular, wish harm upon this legislative body. And I’m not saying this for shock value. It’s the conclusion I drew after a member of Congress advocated violence against our peers, the Speaker and our government,” Gomez said on the House floor.

“I take no joy in introducing this resolution,” Gomez continued. “But any member who incites political violence and threatens our lives must be expelled. And I’ll do everything I can in my power to protect our democracy and keep all my colleagues safe.”

The evidence against Greene is that she ‘liked’ a post on Facebook in 2019 that said “a bullet to the head would be [a] quicker” way to remove Pelosi from office, that she once accused Nancy Pelosi of treason and mentioned that the death penalty is the penalty for treason, and that she once made a comment on Facebook that suggested that “the stage is being set” to hang Pelosi.

That’s inexcusable behavior, for sure, but removing a member is a serious matter and I’m not sure hot-headed social media posts are sufficient cause, especially when they pre-date a member’s candidacy for office. She’s already been stripped of her committee assignments, and there is an investigation ongoing to see what role she (and other Republican lawmakers) may have played in the January 6 insurrection. That move was made in response to her unhinged embrace of conspiracy theories, including 9/11 Trutherism and skepticism about school shootings, as well as racist and anti-Semitic remarks she’s made in the past. I suppose this all part of one big picture, but the expulsion would be a second punishment for these transgressions.

For me, I’d wait for further provocation or at least for evidence that she had direct links to the insurrection. Her constituents elected her knowing much of her record, and while I think they made an irresponsible decision, I won’t advocate lightly removing their representative from office. It’s not really about her, but more about the precedent it sets.

I’m fairly confident that she’ll make the case for her removal stronger if we just wait. I note that Twitter just suspended her account again (allegedly by mistake), and she’s alienating more of her Republican colleagues every day with her shenanigans. She’s a 24/7 shitstorm, so patience is probably a virtue in this case.

I’m enjoying watching Russia have a temper tantrum. Asked by ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos if Vladimir Putin is “a killer,” President Biden responded “Mmm hmm, I do.” Now the sky is falling in the Kremlin.

As if to underscore the anger in Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry said late Wednesday that it had summoned its envoy in Washington, Anatoly I. Antonov, to Moscow “in order to analyze what needs to be done in the context of relations with the United States.” Russia last recalled its ambassador to Washington in 1998, to protest American airstrikes against Iraq.

The Russians’ state-run media also emphasized Biden’s alleged senility, showing continuity with it’s co-production of President Trump’s reelection campaign. Remember, in July, Trump’s own Department of Homeland Security found that Russia was “spreading disinformation regarding former Vice President Joe Biden’s mental health.”  An internal (and suppressed) DHS bulletin obtained by ABC News in September told the story:

“Russia is using both covert proxy websites and overt state media to amplify these allegations, often in conjunction with other election-related malign influence narratives, which is consistent with their tactics in 2016 to undermine a former presidential candidate,” it continues.

The bulletin says the current effort has been ongoing since September 2019.

“Russian covert and covert influence actors posted negative commentary and unsubstantiated allegations about the poor mental health of Biden. For example, proxy websites have claimed that the candidates gaffes are symptoms of dementia, that he is mentally unfit for the presidency, and that he is unlikely to serve his full term due to his age,” the bulletin reads.

Now they’re upset with Biden for stating the obvious? Putin’s murder spree is interesting because it combines the most low-tech and high-tech methods. It’s shocking how often Russian citizens “fall out” of windows. This can happen to a paramedic who complains on social media about having to work when he’s COVID-19 positive, It can happen to a journalist who writes about the troll factory Putin used to influence America’s 2016 presidential election.

But Putin utilizes science in his assassinations, too. Sometimes the victims survive. A Soviet-era nerve agent, Novichok, poisoned opposition figure Alexei Navalny. It was used against ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the United Kingdom. They are all still living. Ex-patriot dissident Alexander Litvinenko was not so fortunate as he died a hideous death after being exposed to polonium-210, a highly radioactive byproduct of early nuclear weapons explosions that can be made synthetically in a nuclear reactor.

The bottom line is that critics of Putin tend to die in violent and suspicious ways both in Russia and abroad. It’s completely accurate to characterize him as “a killer” and Biden would have looked weak and foolish to suggest otherwise.

So, if Russia wants to make a stink about it and recall their ambassador, to me this only raises awareness about what Biden said, and that’s a good thing. Putin has thin skin. You don’t see the United States recalling our ambassador because Russia keeps pushing the line that Biden has dementia.

Under the Trump administration, Russia was coddled and protected. Their behavior just got worse. It’s good to see America change its posture to reflect reality. Russia doesn’t have to be our adversary, but until Putin is replaced, that’s what it is.

Republicans, who are struggling to come up with a way to demonize Biden, assume that they’ve landed on a gold mine in suggesting that the President’s immigration policies have led to a surge of undocumented migrants crossing our southern border. For the most part, major media outlets are playing right along.

But as I’ve been suggesting for a while now, in order to understand what’s happening, we need to start with the facts. So I decided to share a few of those with you.

It is always helpful to pay attention to an organization that has specialized in accurate reporting on this topic: Pew Research. A report from John Gramlich published on Monday included this graph of monthly apprehensions on our southern border.

Apprehensions peaked in May 2019, dropped precipitously by April 2020, and have been on the rise ever since.

One thing to keep in mind about all of this is that there is a seasonal nature to migration. Border apprehensions have typically peaked in the spring – most often in March – before declining during the hot summer months, when migration journeys become more perilous. That pattern changed in 2013, about the same time that new arrivals from the Norther Triangle—predominantly families and unaccompanied children—doubled and migrants from Mexico began to decline.

All of that is important because, according to Pew Research, those patterns are starting to reverse.

• Mexican migrants are accounting for a greater share of apprehensions than in the recent past, while Central Americans represent a smaller proportion.
• The number and share of single adults being apprehended at the border has also increased dramatically.

It isn’t clear yet how those reversals will play out. But it is very possible that the February spike in apprehensions could also be a return to the seasonal nature of migration. Only time will tell.

Republicans would have you believe that the current state of border apprehensions is entirely a result of changes Biden has made, expecting us to completely ignore everything else that might be impacting the situation. So perhaps it would be helpful to outline what, exactly, Biden has changed. On Tuesday, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas released a statement providing the facts about what the Biden administration has done. Here are the highlights:

• The majority of those apprehended at the southwest border are single adults who, pursuant to Title 42, are currently being expelled under the CDC’s authority to manage the public health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Families apprehended at the southwest border are also currently being expelled under the CDC’s Title 42 authority.
• While the Trump administration also expelled unaccompanied children, the are now being brought to a Border Patrol facility and processed for transfer to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) while they await placement with a sponsor. The children go through immigration proceedings where they are able to present a claim for relief under the law.
• DHS and HHS terminated a 2018 agreement that basically used child migrants as bait. It required that information about the sponsor of a child migrant, and anyone living with the sponsor, be shared with ICE, which officials said created a “chilling effect” for families who did not have legal status and feared deportation.

As Gramlich documented, single adults made up 71 percent of those apprehended at the border in February, with families making up about 20 percent and unaccompanied children 10 percent. What that means is that when Republicans and the media throw around scary numbers about a surge of more than  100,000 “illegal crossings” in February, what they’re not telling you is that approximately 90,000 migrants (single adults and families) were apprehended and expelled. The big change is in how the Biden administration is responding to unaccompanied child migrants—which explains why that is the group that is overwhelming the current shelter capacity.

As both Biden and Mayorkas have made clear, all of this is still a work in progress as they attempt to rebuild a humane asylum system that had been completely dismantled by the Trump administration. Anyone who critiques what is happening now should be pressed to identify which change Biden has implemented that caused the problem and explain why it should be reversed. But, of course, they won’t do that. It is much easier to simply claim that Biden is implementing an “open border” policy…which is complete nonsense.