Month: September 2022

Sometimes I think I can be unreasonably impatient with idealists. There’s a role for explaining how things ought to be even if it’s completely unrealistic. A climate scientist might argue that we should stop putting carbon in the air starting tomorrow, and they probably can make a strong case to back up their position. They just shouldn’t expect politicians to take much time today trying to accomplish this, since it’s an impossible ask.

That’s kind of how I feel about the more than 200 political scientists who “have put forward a sweeping proposal to change the way the United States has conducted its federal elections for nearly 250 years.” Their idea is that we should do away with winner-take-all elections and adopt proportional representation. They make a great case for why this would be beneficial to the country, but it feels like wasted energy.

The obstacles should be obvious, beginning with the basic problem that you’re asking legislatures, which are by definition made up of people who have won under the current rules, to change things up so radically that their own positions and degree of power could be imperiled or diminished. That makes them unlikely to change state and/or federal laws, or to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Pragmatism isn’t necessarily antagonistic to idealism, but it deals in the realm of the possible. I’m reminded of this subset of health advocates who would rather not have people insured under the Obamacare reforms because the best solution would be a single-payer system. A lot of people suffered and died while nothing was getting done. Pragmatists stepped in and found a way forward.

Still, there was value in people advocating for single-payer and explaining the reasons. They helped the pragmatists make their case that something must be done.

It’s just hard to listen to people make unrealistic demands and harshly criticize people who won’t pursue their hardline dreams.

We can make progress on how our elections are financed and conducted, taking into account where we are as a country and how difficult it is to create fundamental change. I’d much rather see a plan for that than this open letter from political scientists.

My first thought upon learning that Florida governor Ron DeSantis was taking credit for flying 50 Venezuelan migrants from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts is that he had committed a crime. At that point, I didn’t know many details and I’m still not conversant in all the possible legal issues involved. But if these people were in the country illegally, then moving them across state lines would seem to be a federal crime.

Obviously, there are circumstances where movement is authorized, but I assume that it must be done in coordination with the responsible federal agencies. In this case, the migrants were enticed onto planes with fraudulent promises of housing and work, which means it wasn’t simply an effort to find them shelter in some other state. Massachusetts wasn’t even notified that they were coming. DeSantis was effectively acting like a coyote–someone paid to assist migrants across the border and into the interior of the United States, where they’ll then be forced to fend for themselves. Also, these migrants were in Texas, so why is the Florida governor involved at all?

As people have started to look further into this, they’re identifying specific state and federal statutes that may have been violated.

Was this legal under federal law? A variety of Democrats and legal experts yesterday questioned whether the DeSantis administration committed human trafficking. In an especially odd moment yesterday, one of the governor’s own spokespersons published a tweet comparing the DeSantis administration with criminal cartels. Federal law in this area, however, is quite complex and will need additional scrutiny.

Was this legal under state law? According to Florida’s relevant budget language, DeSantis’ administration is only allowed to “transport unauthorized aliens“ from Florida, not other states. If the migrants were in Texas, as appears to be the case, this would appear to be a meaningful problem for the Republican.

I suppose the point is to demonstrate that there’s pain and inconvenience involved in having to handle a large influx of uninvited guests. Let Massachusetts feel what it’s like to be a southern border state and maybe they’ll take “the crisis” there more seriously. Additionally, DeSantis is looking to boost his profile and conservative credentials in anticipation of a run for president in 2023 and 2024. In the latter sense, it’s correctly being called “a sadistic stunt,” since actually human beings in need were cruelly treated as props in the service of a politician’s ambition.

If this stunt were repeated enough it might actually get its point across. The people of Martha’s Vineyard were easily capable of graciously handling a one-time influx of 50 people, but how would they react to 50 people a day in perpetuity?

But that’s not an option here as, in addition to being a potentially illegal stunt, it was a very expensive one.

Records show that the [Florida] state DOT paid $615,000 to Vertol Systems Company, Inc., an aviation company based in Oregon and operating in Destin, Florida, on Sept. 8 for the state’s “relocation program of unauthorized aliens.” The payment was made nearly a week before the planes arrived at Martha’s Vineyard.

As noted above, the relocation program authorizes removal of people from Florida. It says nothing about spending taxpayer dollars to remove people from Texas. In total, $12 million is allocated for this program in the state budget, which means DeSantis might be able to repeat this stunt 10 more times before he’s out of money. Since he can’t replicate the sustained pressure of constant migrants at the border, he’s not going to be able to turn Martha’s Vineyard into a migrant-intolerant community.

Instead, the enthusiastic and organized welcome the migrants received in Massachusetts is being used to make DeSantis look like a fool. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas understands the problem.

Cruz: Tomorrow, Martha's vineyard needs a 100. The next day they need 200. The next day they need a thousand. DC says it's a crisis to get 6k? They need 10k, they need a 100k, they need 500k.. pic.twitter.com/MhESMeGQSQ

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 17, 2022

But for cost considerations alone, none of that is actually going to happen.

Still, it seems to me that the Biden administration should treat this as a crime if for no other reason than to protect other people from becoming innocent victims of Republican fraud.

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be starting a new painting. It is Bodiam Castle in the UK. The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 5×7 inch canvas panel.

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

I have now added some preliminary paint to the painting. Next week I will start the castle.

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.

As of Friday, the U.S. Senate has confirmed 82 of President Biden’s judicial nominees, which is an impressive number in itself. Biden has continued Barack Obama’s emphasis on adding diversity to the federal courts. For example, at the circuit courts of appeal level, one step below the Supreme Court, 15 out of 22 confirmed Biden justices have been women and 16 have been people of color.

But I’ve been fascinated by a special project Biden has taken on to place public defenders on the federal bench. This week, Biden added two more when Lara Montecalvo, the head of Rhode Island’s Public Defender’s Office, was added to the 1st Circuit and Sarah Merriam, a former Assistant Federal Defender in the District of Connecticut, was added to the 2nd Circuit. A third judge, Salvador Mendoza Jr. of California, who was confirmed to the 9th Circuit, has similar experience, having worked for the Legal Aid Society which focuses on providing assistance to low income individuals. A fourth judge, Arianna Freeman of Pennsylvania, saw her first confirmation fail this week due to unified Republicans opposition and the absence of a couple of Democratic senators. She should be confirmed soon to the 3rd Circuit. Freeman has served since 2009 as a lawyer at the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Biden has now placed more public defenders on the federal appeals courts in two years than Obama did in eight. Montecalvo and Merriam are the 34th and 35th federal judges (at all levels) with public defender experience that Biden has seen confirmed. Freeman will be the thirty-sixth. Obviously, the most notable former public defender on the list is Ketanji Brown Jackson who is now serving on the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, while Biden has an impressive record of adding women and people of color to the federal bench, 35 of his 82 confirmations (and soon to be 36 of 83) have had public defender experience. Some others, like Mendoza Jr., have related experience. That demonstrates a real dedication and focus to this mission to change the collective outlook of the courts so that they’re more understanding of how the justice system grinds on the poor and indigent.

It’s unrealistic to think our federal courts are going to be perfect reflections of our society since getting a law degree from a (usually) prestigious university is still a basic prerequisite. It definitely helps to have gender, race and religious percentages that approximate our country as a whole. But it also helps to have some class equity. Most people can’t afford fancy lawyers and most trials involve both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Historically, far more prosecutors have become federal judges than defense attorneys, and public defenders have been a real rarity. If you want a judge to know how the law actually works for most Americans, it helps to have direct experience with what happens to people with incompetent or inadequate representation. Biden has make remarkable progress in a very short time in adding this needed perspective to the federal courts, and I think he really deserves a ton of credit.

The White House issued a statement on Thursday announcing a tentative agreement between freight rail companies and freight rail unions. Most importantly, the unions (whose members must still approve any agreement) have made a commitment not to go on strike on Friday. It looks like tragedy has been narrowly averted.

I say “tragedy” because a strike threatened to cause immense economic damage, including shortages of goods and resulting price inflation just in time for the midterm elections. That would have been a disaster for the Democrats and a boon for anti-democratic fascist forces.

The implications of a rail strike could have been monumental, snarling the movement of goods and potentially leading to massive layoffs. Large parts of the nation’s economy move through the rail system. And the disruption on commuter trains also would have been felt across the country…

…The political consequences of a rail strike less than two months before the midterm elections also could have been enormous for Democrats, who could have been blamed for not securing a deal.

Instead, the Biden administration, led by Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, hammered out a compromise that looks like it will stick.

The tentative agreement reached tonight is an important win for our economy and the American people. It is a win for tens of thousands of rail workers who worked tirelessly through the pandemic to ensure that America’s families and communities got deliveries of what have kept us going during these difficult years. These rail workers will get better pay, improved working conditions, and peace of mind around their health care costs: all hard-earned. The agreement is also a victory for railway companies who will be able to retain and recruit more workers for an industry that will continue to be part of the backbone of the American economy for decades to come.

There’s also the advantage that Biden was able to secure a deal beneficial to workers, thereby keeping a campaign promise. He can use a happy and grateful labor movement as the left gears up to mobilize its voters to the polls. Giving people a reason to support you is always a good idea, especially when it’s not just that you’re better than the alternative.

Hi! We’re at the middle of another week where every day ends in y. I hope you are all doing well. I think I’ve posted videos of a band named Battles before, but I don’t think I’ve posted this particular video. They started as a quartet, and are now a duo (drummer, and a dude who plays practically everything else). They get classified as math rock, but from my perspective, it’s just the latest iteration of progressive rock. Their video concepts are always interesting, and this one was a lot of fun to view. Enjoy:

Cheers!

For me, there has really only been three things that could make a major dent in Donald Trump’s support, but to understand this you have to understand that Trump has several flavors of supporters.

The first is the folks who were initially skeptical or even hostile to his campaign but got on the bandwagon either when he won the nomination (team-players) or after he brought a shocking victory over Hillary Clinton (“I was wrong about him”). These are situational supporters, but some of them eventually fell in love and became members of the cult.

The second are mostly traditional Republicans who were always wishing for someone who would be more aggressive against the Democrats and other groups that they hate. Trump was the fulfillment of their political dreams. They love him not so much because he beat Hillary but because he broke all the norms to do it. They enjoyed the show so much that they’re forever loyal. They feel like Trump is the only one who will truly stick up for them. This group also includes people on the far-right (e.g. white nationalists and some evangelicals) who previously supported third party candidates or simply didn’t vote.

The third group is made up of untraditional Republicans and can be further subdivided because it includes people from the left (disaffected white labor) and the non-ideological middle (apathetic low-propensity voters). They bought into the image of Trump as a successful businessman and non-aligned politician who would go to Washington DC and blow things up for both parties. For whatever reasons, they simply can’t detect Trump’s transparently fraudulent persona.

People from the first group are the most likely to leave the cult of Trump for the simple reason that their relationship was transactional from the start. They didn’t love him, at least at first, and only came around when he delivered a huge victory. If they think he’s incapable of bringing more victories or, worse, is an actual hindrance, they’ll consider dropping their support.

People from the second group are unlikely to ever abandon Trump and will support him until he’s no longer a possible candidate in 2024. Were he to be imprisoned or otherwise ruled ineligible, they’d be forced to find a new champion.

People from the third group are similarly loyal, but their support is built on a mirage. Anything that exposes that mirage has the potential to eat into that support. For example, if Trump’s financial records (soon to be in the hands of Congressional Democrats) reveal that he’s nowhere near a billionaire, or if it becomes indisputable that he’s been ripping them off and treating them as dupes. Remember, these folks didn’t start out as Republicans. In fact, many of them hated the Republicans or saw no difference between them and the Democrats.  Sucked in by his charisma and braggadocios personality, they’re attraction is to Trump,

The new investigation of Trump’s fundraising mechanism, Save America PAC could impact this third group. That’s particularly true if it can be demonstrated that Trump stirred up the controversy over the election results in a cynical ploy to raise money.

I was amazed to learn from former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman, that Steve Bannon managed to convinced hundreds of thousands of Americans to donate to his fund for building a border wall.

Of course, Bannon and his confederates built very little wall and kept much of the money for themselves. Trump pardoned him for this but he’s just been arrested in New York on the same basic charges.

Trump’s scheme with the Save America PAC is functionally the same. Money was raised to fight the election results and then spent on many other things. However, as explained by Greg Sargent, the scam was ten times larger than what Bannon attempted.

As the Jan. 6 House select committee documented, Trump and his allies raised as much as $250 million with countless texts and emails that were full of lies about the 2020 election. Some missives, which were sent out in the run-up to Jan. 6, 2021, called for donations to an “Official Election Defense Fund.”

But that fund didn’t exist, the committee demonstrated. Much of the money flowed to the newly created Save America PAC, not “election-related litigation.” That PAC donated millions to groups connected to top Trump advisers, the committee claimed, such as former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

I know it is sometimes difficult to convince the victim of a scam that they’ve been snookered, but few things make a person angrier than getting taken for a ride. The more Trump’s fortune is exposed as a house of cards, the fewer people will see him as a grand success story. If people come to believe that Trump never really believed the election was stolen but used the idea as an excuse to separate them from their money, that will erode some of his support. That he attempted to effect a coup despite knowing he lost can get lost in this narrative, but it hardly helps matters.

So, the three things that can drain Trump’s support are losing his transactional value, no longer having a viable political future, and being exposed as a fraud. All of these things can easily be combined if the right set of charges are brought against him. And, based on the New York Times’ reporting, it looks like that effort has progressed to a very advanced degree.

Justice Department officials have seized the phones of two top advisers to former President Donald J. Trump and blanketed his aides with about 40 subpoenas in a substantial escalation of the investigation into his efforts to subvert the 2020 election, people familiar with the inquiry said on Monday.

Additionally, the House January 6 committee is gearing up for more hearings at the end of September. Their final report will be delivered after the midterms, in December, and it will help puncture the fake Trump persona even more.

Trump’s support can seem immovable but it will not last forever.

 

I know that the approval ratings of presidents used to be higher but I can really only remember one  time when the sitting president wasn’t a drag on his own party during midterm elections. That was in 2002, when the country, still traumatized by the September 11, 2001 attacks, gave George W. Bush a 63 percent positive grade in early November.

Four years later at election time, Bush got the thumb’s up from only 38 percent. As a result,  the Democrats netted six governorships and took control of Congress after netting five U.S. Senate seats, and 31 U.S. House districts. One reason the Republicans did so poorly in 2006 is that they stubbornly refused to create much distance between themselves and Bush.

By 2006, there really was no way to put a positive spin on Bush’s job performance, especially considering the disaster he’d created in the Middle East. But it’s not always the right bet to run away from your own president. If possible, it’s better to help them improve their approval numbers.

I can see President Biden out touring the country with Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh. By promoting his legislative accomplishments, he’s trying to become less of a burden on the Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. There are signs that it’s working. A just-released IBD/TIPP poll has Biden getting a 6.6 percent bump since August. He now has a positive grade from 49 percent.

The Associated Press reports that Biden is no longer on the defensive about inflation. His message is confident and aggressive. Now, there are undoubtedly some states and districts where Biden is still a big drag and candidates need to create some distance, but the better play is generally to join Biden in his self-confident campaigning posture. It’s doubtful that Biden will help boost otherwise flagging campaigns, but if he does no harm that will be a far better than average performance for a president in a midterm cycle.

It’s strange to think that someone born on 9/11 is now old enough to buy alcohol. Coincidentally, it was eight years ago, on September 11, 2014, that I had my last drink. If you’re thinking you need to get sober, believe me, it’s something you can do. You’ll be a lot healthier, have money to spend on other things, and you’ll definitely be more dependable to your loved ones.

I don’t like to talk about alcohol or 9/11. But I definitely enjoy watching Vladimir Putin get his ass kicked. I am beginning to wonder if he can survive on Russia’s “throne.”

A day after routing Russian forces in a lightning advance that seized hundreds of square miles and a strategic town in the northeast, Ukraine claimed additional territory on Sunday in an offensive that has swiftly reshaped the battlefield in the nearly 200-day-old war and left Moscow reeling.

Ukraine’s rapid gains in the Kharkiv region have significantly weakened Russia’s hold on eastern Ukraine, which it has used as a stronghold to wage its war since February. Ukrainian officials said on Saturday that their troops had retaken the city of Izium, a strategically important railway hub southeast of Kharkiv that Russian forces seized in the spring after a bloody, weekslong battle.

Putin is going to lose this war if he doesn’t initiate a draft and fully mobilize Russia. But a draft would probably be massively resisted since no one understands his plan for Ukraine or wants to serve under incompetent leadership. It seems like he has no good options, and there must be people plotting his ouster at this point, probably from both the left and the right.

I don’t think anything can be resolved until Putin is gone, and I suspect this view is widely shared on both sides of the conflict. The way things are going for Russia’s armed forces, Putin could be removed at any moment. But what would follow?

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be starting a new painting. It is Bodiam Castle in the UK. The photo that I’m using is seen directly below.

I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 5×7 inch canvas panel.

I started my sketch using my usual grind, duplicating the grid I made over a copy of the photo itself. Over this I added some preliminary paint.

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.