This article from Jacobin speaks for itself.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/12/senate-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-relief-checks-covid-19
This article from Jacobin speaks for itself.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/12/senate-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-relief-checks-covid-19
If one of Al Qaeda's intentions on Sept. 11, 2001, was to change America for the worse, they were definitely successful, albeit maybe not in the way they intended. Nothing is more illustrative of that than the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
When it was created, it was clear to some (or at least a few) that it was only a matter of time that its power would be abused. This doesn't mean that most of the functions within DHS aren't important and necessary. Keep in mind that there really were not a lot of new powers inherent in its creation. Pretty much everything it did was already being done elsewhere, in other governmental departments and agencies. These various things were rounded up and put under a new Department.
The abuse of its powers, of course, culminated under the Trump Administration, but the kernel was there from the start. If all those functions are now under an umbrella of "homeland security" then it is inevitable that threats will be seen everywhere. (The old cliche "when your a hammer, everything looks like a nail" was made for DHS.) And when you see threats everywhere, it really means that people of color and ethnic and racial minorities are in for a hard time.
The country would be better off without DHS, but it'll probably never happen. Even when things are unpopular or counterproductive, it's hard to undo them in the US. (Sex offender registries, cash bail, war on drugs, etc., also fall into this category.) But it's still worth debating.
My anecdotal experience is that conservatives who did not do military service--especially those who avoided service during the Vietnam War--overcompensate for this lack of service in a variety of ways. It may come out as uber-militarism (think of Dick Cheney). In others it might be a general military worship (finding "heroes" everywhere). In the case of Donald Trump's draft-dodging, his overcompensation seems to be pardoning war criminals. Why doesn't that surprise me?
Only in America, can elected representatives threaten to shutdown government regularly, but the public never calls for #GeneralStrike.
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) December 18, 2020
It’s almost the opposite around the the world.
Here is Megan McArdle trying to spread the blame around for the mistakes made in the Covid pandemic. (I try not to bother reading her op-eds but now and then I get sucked in.)
This is simply another attempt at Trump apologia. Here's the thing. Of all the people and groups and institutions mentioned, the only one who is President of the United States is Donald Trump. No one forced him into this job. He wanted it. And he is the one who acted in bad faith at almost every step of the way, which resulted in tens of thousands of avoidable deaths. Most other actors in this play may have made mistakes, but most of them were acting in good faith and were actually trying to do the right thing. Many of the presidents in my lifetime were people I vehemently disagreed with, but I am confident that none if them would have intentionally endangered the lives of so many Americans as Donald Trump did. So please...no more of these "there's-lots of-blame-to-go-around" op-eds. We only have one president at a time, and he was an utter and tragic disaster.
I came across this quote on a Twitter feed by a guy named Randall Munroe. He created an election map that tries to show where different voters actually live rather than just showing entire states in red or blue. The quote is really something to ponder:
"There are more Trump voters in California than Texas, more Biden voters in Texas than NY, more Trump voters in NY than Ohio, more Biden voters in Ohio than Massachusetts, more Trump voters in Massachusetts than Mississippi, and more Biden voters in Mississippi than Vermont."
One of the brighter spots of the incoming Biden administration is that Betsy DeVos will be gone. What an utterly awful person. Good riddance.
What a legacy for the Prince family to have begotten Erik Prince and Betsy DeVos. I can only imagine that the Princes made a Faustian bargain with the Devil: I will make you very rich, but in exchange your progeny will include pond-scum-war-profiteer Erik Prince and anti-education-student-loan-profiteer Betsy DeVos.
Their family must be so proud.
Here is another tweet that is spot on.Here's how I see it: plenty of people are telling you who they are right now. Go ahead and take them at their word.
— Chris Krebs (@C_C_Krebs) December 12, 2020
Nothing could be less relevant in the case of politicians and their staff than their private feelings. These people are public actors- they should be judged for their public actions. https://t.co/0KqKq5jnfk
— Sam Seder (@SamSeder) December 11, 2020
As a follow-up to my "What Bubble" post, here is a quote from a New York Times today.
Ms. Claveria said she was worried about what would happen during a Biden presidency. Mr. Biden, she said, “is basically planning to get rid of personal property and all of our freedoms.”
Mr. Trump is trying to stop that, she added, but every institution has obstructed him.
“I think it’s a big coup against our country,” she said. “The F.B.I.’s involved. So is the C.I.A. It’s crazy — even the judges!
This is the kind of batshit craziness expressed by millions of Trump supporters every day (and not just since the election). It has become the rule rather that the exception among Republicans. Unlike what is described in this article, I know a lot of them personally. But I am a coastal elitist in a bubble because I don't express understanding and sympathy for these "real Americans". If that makes me an elitist then I proudly say "guilty as charged".
Since 2016 (and maybe before), we have been deluged with articles lecturing us about how those of us on the left are in some kind of bubble, and that we refuse to try to understand and sympathize with all those wonderful Americans in flyover country. Well, all those flyover states are pretty much the same ones that joined Pardon-Me-Please Paxton's goofball SCOTUS case (which even the fringiest Justices didn't buy). Tell me please: just what am I not "understanding" about these people?
If I leave my condo and walk around the block, I am likely to encounter folks who are white, Black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, South Asian, other Asian, gay, straight, homeless, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, and many others. That doesn't make me anything special. But it does allow me to ask who is actually living in a bubble.
I was watching Jacobin's YouTube channel yesterday (for the first time) and found out something I hadn't heard before. Sara Gideon, the Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, ended her losing campaign with $14 million in the bank. I was astonished. (I think some other losing candidates also ended up with sizable bank accounts.) We had been giving modest donations to Senate candidates around the country. Once you do that, you get daily emails from these candidates asking for more. Some days I would get two or three emails from the same candidate.
That is all well and good. I understand that the most efficient way to get money is to go to those who have already given to you. But to give money to a candidate and then find out it wasn't spent is a little odd. And then to have the centrists in the party blame their loss on people like me adds insult to injury.
This is intended not so much to be a grievance as it is just a statement of reality. It causes me to wonder if giving to candidates in partisan elections is the most efficient way to spend our money. If candidates collect all that money and then run bad campaigns and lose the election, not very much has been accomplished. I think it's reasonable to ask if, say, a $100 contribution to Sara Gideon or Amy McGrath would have been more effective if given instead to William Barber's Poor People's Campaign or the local Black Lives Matter or Democratic Socialists of America or the local food bank.
As always, there is also a cynical side to this, namely that the party infrastructure is designed for the benefit of the donor and consulting classes, not for the voters.
Sara Gideon, Amy McGrath, Cal Cunningham, et al, all lost their Senate races. But the important thing is that they lost without moving the needle. Lots of people--including many or most Democrats--don't care much for AOC and other progressive politicians, but the party can only deny that she moves the needle at its own peril. The fact that she gets so much negative press is testimony to that. When you cover someone--even in a negative way--you are also letting that same person set the terms of the debate in some way. For another example, the conventional wisdom is that Occupy Wall Street was a failure, but here we are today with income inequality being talked about as an important issue. Occupy Wall Street moved the needle much more than all these failed Senate candidates. BLM and abolish ICE have also moved the needle (admittedly not in the way that's comforting to the party establishment).
Our money will be going to those groups that fight for the things we believe and also move the needle.
I’m increasingly convinced the secret to progressive change in America is for Democrats to run on a centrist platform, implement very left policy, and then lie relentlessly about it without shame, like Republicans do
— Armand Domalewski (@ArmandDoma) November 15, 2020
I consider the SCOTUS ruling favoring the Catholic Church in New York to be (in Max Boot's words) "pure right-wing judicial activism". And as Linda Greenhouse said in The Times, SCOTUS may now be controlled by a cohort of "grievance conservatives". Grievance conservatives find animus to religion around every corner. They even give speeches at the Federalist Society about it. They see the War on Christmas run amok. In this mindframe, they have created groups of people who no longer want equal treatment; instead they demand special treatment, and this SCOTUS is more than willing to grant it.
A similar thing is happening in their commercial rulings. They have created a special personhood for corporations. Under this philosophy, corporations retain their "personal" immunity that corporateness is granted, but also are given free-speech rights that were never intended for them. So, corporations end up with the best of both worlds and, oddly, now have more rights than individuals. The same is now true for religious groups--at least ones favorable to Alito, Thomas, et al--who now have more rights than their secular counterparts.