It Was a Good Week

A sign that you may be slipping. You can’t find where you wrote about our need for more fist fights in the humble blog’s archive.

Everyone’s lamenting the decline of the (dis)United States this week all because one Congressman allegedly elbowed another in the kidney and one Senator proposed fighting the Teamsters President during a formal hearing after the Teamsters President called the Senator a “clown” and “fraud” on social media before adding, “You know where to find me. Anyplace, anytime cowboy.”

That is good stuff. But it got even better.

The Senator replied, “Sir, this is a time. This is a place. You want to run your mouth? We can be two consenting adults — we can finish it here.”

I like the emphasis on both parties consenting. There has to be some sort of code. Fisticuffs should never be forced.

“OK, that’s fine. Perfect,” the Teamster President responded.

“Well, stand your butt up then,” Senator taunted, with Teamster President telling Senator to do the same.

Then, it was all RUINED by a Vermont Socialist who went all schoolmarm on his colleague.

Here’s what Senator Byrnes would’ve said if he was chairing the hearing.

“Thank you for not shooting at each other and risking not just your lives, but innocent bystanders lives. We should all take pride in the fact that no one died here today. Thank you to the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from the International Brotherhood for illustrating that some forms of violence are better than others. Similarly, we should all show some gratitude to the Former Speaker for opting to elbow his colleague in the kidney instead of shooting him. Clearly, we are evolving, maybe not as fast as some would like, but evolving all the same.”

On Congress

Glass empty. The faux representative of many names is providing endless comedic fodder, but his presence in the House is damaging its already declining reputation. Every rep’s credibility will be questioned a little or a lot more. Everyday he “serves”, people’s trust in the legislative process will erode further. Fairly or not, when it comes to our worst colleagues, we are often guilty by association.

Glass full. Keep an eye on MGP, a different kind of Demo.

“I don’t think that your traditional pedigreed Democrats are the solution to Trump extremism. I think that a lot of these traditional Democrats, the m.o. is to go into a community and start explaining shit. Nobody likes that. I’ve heard that so often: I’ll go to an urban community, and people will be like, ‘“’Oh, like this candidate was amazing. They are so smart.’ And then I’ll go to a rural community and talk to them about the same candidate. And they’ll say: ‘Yeah, they’re pedantic and they don’t understand. They didn’t listen to us.'”

Marie Gluesenkamp perez

Do We Have Three Parties Already?

I think so. At least that’s my conclusion after reading Slate’s “Progressives May Be Making a Huge Error in Trying to Save Their Agenda”. Republicans, moderate Demos, and progressive Demos.

The conclusion:

“The GOP is full of loons and nihilists these days, and planning a legislative strategy partly around the hope that they’ll come to a responsible bargain in a few years’ time seems a little Pollyannaish.

In the end, I’m guessing Democrats will settle on a combination of . . . approaches. They may make a paid leave program permanent, but only temporarily extend Biden’s child tax credit, as is currently the plan, anyway. But personally, as a somewhat risk-averse human being, my impulse is to do fewer programs and pay for them to be permanent, so Americans can actually begin planning around them with at least a tiny bit of confidence. LBJ didn’t set Medicare on an egg timer, after all. Imagine how much frailer our safety net might be if he had.”  

90 Year Old Legislators

A story, compliments of The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer:

“In a hearing on November 17th, Dianne Feinstein, the senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who, at eighty-seven, is the oldest member of the Senate, grilled a witness. Reading from a sheaf of prepared papers, she asked Jack Dorsey, the C.E.O. of Twitter, whether his company was doing enough to stem the spread of disinformation. Elaborating, she read in full a tweet that President Trump had disseminated on November 7th, falsely claiming to have won the Presidential election. She then asked Dorsey if Twitter’s labelling of the tweet as disputed had adequately alerted readers that it was a bald lie.

It was a good question. Feinstein seemed sharp and focussed. For decades, she has been the epitome of a female trailblazer in Washington, always hyper-prepared. But this time, after Dorsey responded, Feinstein asked him the same question again, reading it word for word, along with the Trump tweet. Her inflection was eerily identical. Feinstein looked and sounded just as authoritative, seemingly registering no awareness that she was repeating herself verbatim. Dorsey graciously answered the question all over again.”

If that’s not concerning enough, how ’bout this:

“Schumer had several serious and painful talks with Feinstein, according to well-informed sources. Overtures were also made to enlist the help of Feinstein’s husband, Richard Blum. Feinstein, meanwhile, was surprised and upset by Schumer’s message. He had wanted her to step aside on her own terms, with her dignity intact, but “she wasn’t really all that aware of the extent to which she’d been compromised,” one well-informed Senate source told me. “It was hurtful and distressing to have it pointed out.” Compounding the problem, Feinstein seemed to forget about the conversations soon after they talked, so Schumer had to confront her again. “It was like Groundhog Day, but with the pain fresh each time.”

What the hell is going on? Why did Californians elect an 87-year old for a six year term? Was it because there wasn’t anyone a little younger and of sounder mind? And as Mayer makes clear, it’s not just California. Other citizens in other states are doing the same thing.

The Beginning Of The End For The (dis)United States

As one part of my history major, I studied Central and Latin American history in college. And there was one thing I could never figure out. Until this weekend.

I didn’t understand why, whenever a populist, land-reform promising political party gained control of political power, they never managed to follow through on their promises to upset the status quo, distribute power more fairly, and improve ordinary people’s lives.

Forty years later*, I realize it’s because the idealists’ hatred for their predecessors became so all encompassing it distracted them from the day-to-day work of building a brighter future.

The common good took a backseat to getting even with the bastards in the other party for the sometimes decades-long laundry list of political grievances including massive corruption, and in some cases, government sponsored death squads.

The political class in the (dis)United States thinks the (dis)United States is superior to any country to the south, so my reference is irrelevant. But it’s dead wrong, human nature doesn’t respect political boundaries. We are prone to the exact same desire to get revenge. I know that because I feel it in a more visceral way this weekend than ever before. Others do too, no doubt.

Consequently, we are on the precipice of a very similar downward spiral that’s seemingly inevitable when every political party assumes the worst of the other.

Listening to the Senate Majority Leader, the President, and other Republicans unprecedented, unapologetic politicizing of the Supreme Court convinces me that they care way more about their party’s interests than the country’s.

The Democrat’s refrain this week will be, “Never forget.” Democrats risk being overwhelmed by anger at the Republican’s historic hypocrisy. When they gain power, which they inevitably will sooner or later, they are likely to seek revenge. And when the Republicans regain it, which they inevitably will sooner or later, they will do the exact same.

Just like that, if it hasn’t already, the organizing principle of our politics will become revenge. Instead of looking to the future, we’ll be mired in the past. And our national debt will grow large; our natural environment will grow more inhospitable; our infrastructure will erode further; racial justice will remain more illusive; and more people will struggle to meet their basic needs for food, shelter, and clothing.

And I will take zero joy in being right.

*better late than never

Saturday Assorted Links

1. Alison Byrnes’s dream vacation. Maybe yours too?

2. Kate Wynja, high school golfer of the year.

“. . . it broke my heart for the team.”

3. Restaurants of the future. Count me as pro simplification.

4A. Female members of congress by party affiliation.

4B. The future of the Democratic Party. Maybe.

5. Republicans’ latest tax con.

6. The future of cycling.

2118 Thinking

Easter service at Good Shepherd Lutheran brought a surfeit of babies. One particularly endearing one craned her neck to look up at the ceiling lights one minute and head butted her grandpa the next. The red-headed one, sadly, didn’t get quite as much attention as the blonde head butter.

Those babies may live until 2118, which prompted me to think how differently a President might govern, a Congress might legislate, and a Judiciary might rule if they focused their attention on the later years of Good Shepherd’s littlest Easter service congregants.

What if our news cycles were ten years long and all of us adopted 2118 thinking?

We’d reign in our federal debt, we’d conserve natural resources, and we’d focus on reducing global poverty. In contrast, the Associated Press reports, “The Trump administration is expected to announce that it will roll back automobile gas mileage and pollution standards that were a pillar in the Obama administration’s plans to combat climate change.”

Is that what he means by “Make America Great Again”?