|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 12, 2023 17:32:40 GMT
Well, it was just a matter of time: Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy announced he was opening impeachment investigations into President Biden. I said when Trump's first impeachment began that from that point forward, it seemed pretty likely that we'd be seeing impeachment every time the House and the presidency were held by different parties. The Democrats, at least, waited until after the Mueller investigation was completed to begin their first impeachment inquiry. Republicans aren't bothering with that, and instead are using the impeachment investigation to try to find evidence on which to impeach. (So far, the "evidence" is more like allegations. Not the same thing.) Assuming it proceeds from investigation to impeachment (which I do, since that was obviously coming all along), it's another waste of time as long as it goes to the Democratic-held Senate. Oh, I know there will be talk of "going on the record," "making people take tough votes," just as there was last time around. And the real result was, a few people defected from their party lines, and the vast majority of those are out of office, having retired or been primaried. In other words, this will just add to extreme partisanship. But barring some dramatic revelations, it won't result in conviction in the impeachment with a Democratic Senate. I'm still not saying President Biden isn't guilty of something. I am (again) saying that allegations and guilt are two different things, and I don't think you go so quickly to impeachment investigation when you can continue with your legislative investigation--which has so far not borne fruit. Especially when "a congressional committee engaged in a legislative investigation could arguably obtain much of the same information as it would during an impeachment inquiry, as both legislative and impeachment investigations constitute an exercise of significant constitutional authority." ( Here is the 2019 report from the Congressional Research Service from which that quote comes. The report was about impeachment investigations, but the introduction discusses some differences between the two types of investigation. CRS is a nonpartisan research service operating for members of Congress within the Library of Congress.) The mentality in America can't be "well, I KNOW there's something in there, so if I haven't found it yet, I guess I need more tools to find it!" But it has been trending that way for decades, and this is yet another escalation.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 15, 2023 12:03:29 GMT
The NYT published a 14-question " Executive Power Survey" asked of each of the major parties' presidential candidates. All three Democrats (Biden, Williamson, Kennedy) responded; only four of 11 Republicans did, and mostly minor ones (Hutchinson, Pence, Ramaswamy with partial responses, and Suarez, who has since suspended his campaign). NYT notes that most, but not all, candidates of both parties historically responded to this survey. I think it's awful that candidates wouldn't respond to this, or at least to something similar to it. Executive power is possibly THE issue for how I'd choose a president. Most questions, most issues about which presidents are asked, are beyond their control. Presidents can't write laws, after all. Executive power shows us how far presidents are willing to go to do what they want. Do they believe they can start wars? What is their vision of emergency power? Do they believe they are above the law, able to pardon themselves? That is what matters most of all. So shame on Trump, on DeSantis, on Haley, on Christie, on Scott, on Burgum, and on Hurd, for choosing not to show their hand to the American public. For preserving their options with scope creep. But I've got some damnation saved for the NYT, too: where are Dr. Cornel West's responses? With no mention of him whatsoever, one has to assume that NYT has not asked him. NYT and other right- and left-leaning major publications are complicit in our atrocious 2-party duopoly, constantly reinforcing the myth that only the two parties matter, and unfortunately by doing so, making it so.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 7, 2023 12:30:44 GMT
Horrible news out of Israel: a full war with Hamas in the Gaza Strip. As if that weren't bad enough, I really worry about it spreading, considering relationships and tensions around the region and world right now.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 21, 2023 14:00:44 GMT
No major missive here, nothing even especially partisan, just a quick comment. I am beyond frustrated with our Congress, and especially the House. (Have I ever been happy with them? No, which complicates the idea a little bit. It's just a constant downward spiral, not a roller coaster of ups and downs.) It's bad enough in "normal" times, but to be unable even to be able to put a Speaker in place to go about the regular business of government? Especially when we're up against a tight timeline to pass government funding or to debate and decide how to proceed on international aid when there are two wars going on? Beyond pathetic. That so many elected officials focus on their tweets (Xeets? Whatever.) and partisan TV segments and "owning the [other party, or increasingly, the so-called insufficiently loyal members of their own party]" rather than shutting the hell up and actually working is infuriating. That compromise isn't even an empty promise anymore, but an insult, is revealing. That We The People continue to reward their childishness and petulance is even worse. That is all. Thanks for listening.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 27, 2023 11:52:27 GMT
It's official: Dean Phillips, a moderate, third-term Democratic representative from the inner western suburbs of Minneapolis, will be running for the Democratic presidential nomination against Joe Biden. Phillips has been arguing for months that while he likes Biden, polls overwhelmingly show Americans don't want to see him (or Donald Trump) as the candidates for president, and that it's time for a new generation to take over. He has tried to get a higher-profile Democrat to run a primary challenge, but with none taking him up on it, he is joining himself. Phillips has already missed the filing deadline to run in Nevada, but is doing so in New Hampshire in conjunction with his announcement. He is a very, very, very, very long shot. If the Republican candidates are seemingly all deferring to Trump (except Christie, who has zero chance to win their nomination), at least there are Republican candidates: Democrats are seemingly ceding the race to Biden, with only Marianne Williamson challenging him. I believe the party is not even planning any debates or town halls: it's Biden's nomination. Edit - I just learned (from the above-linked story) that progressive talk-show host Cenk Uygur ("The Young Turks") is also seeking the nomination. That's funny, because while I consider myself moderately well informed, I had no idea he was running. So the knowledge doesn't change the calculus...
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Nov 8, 2023 13:40:05 GMT
Yesterday was Election Day. There was only one race on my ballot, for city council.
Minneapolis's city council has been in the national news over the past half-decade, first for its "2040" program (a jumble of city objectives related to everything from climate change to zoning), and then more negatively for its bungled reaction to the George Floyd murder. It is a very left-leaning group, not only lacking any Republicans but even any Republican candidates: the political battles are basically conventional Democrats against progressives, including several Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) members.
There were three candidates in my ward, with the relative moderate choosing not to run again. Surprisingly and unfortunately, the DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor, the official arm of the Democratic Party in Minnesota) endorsed the farthest-left candidate, a 26-year-old DSA member who had previously supported the Defund the Police movement and strict rent controls, among other impractical causes. (She also scrubbed her social media at her campaign announcement, hoping these things wouldn't be public. They were anyway.)
After a few good developments in Minneapolis--rejecting Defund the Police and endorsing a change to a strong-mayor system of government, for example--as well as our major paper, the Star Tribune, endorsing another candidate, I was hopeful.
I was wrong. The 26-year-old DSA member won. A few races are still up for grabs, but it looks like city council will be shifting even further radical.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jan 8, 2024 23:10:46 GMT
I've really been trying to distance myself from politics lately, for the most part, especially knowing how awful this year's presidential race inevitably will be for our population. But I saw something this afternoon that drove me crazy, so forgive a quick venting.
The new Minneapolis city council held its first meeting since being sworn in. Their first order of business? Debating whether to pass a resolution about the Israel-Gaza war (co-sponsored by the council member from my ward, as described above...making me feel justified in not voting for her). They decided to keep discussing it, and hope to vote on it in a few weeks.
This is a tremendous waste of time, not to mention the $106k+ a year we taxpayers give them in salary. Regardless of their statement, the key point is it is a symbolic statement about a foreign war! Minneapolis has a serious homelessness problem. Minneapolis has a deteriorating infrastructure. Minneapolis has a mass transit system in need of improved security. Minneapolis still doesn't have a 3rd Precinct building for its police force. Minneapolis has a few neighborhoods struggling, in need of revitalization. Minneapolis has a struggling public school system. And their first order of business is a symbolic statement on a foreign war that will make zero difference no matter what it says?
What's more, it is (as you might guess) going beyond something I think the population as a whole could get behind. It isn't just saying something about a cease-fire, or wanting a quick conclusion. No, the preliminary draft talks about a "56-year illegal military and settler occupation of Gaza and the West Bank" and reportedly had previously included a statement that "the ongoing bombing in the Gaza Strip is a genocidal escalation of violence."
This is a very troublesome issue--not just the current war, but the entire history of modern Israel and Palestine--and there are no easy solutions. No simple catch phrases or statements to solve anything. But most importantly to me, if you're the Minneapolis city council, that issue is WAY, WAY out of your purview. If you want to be an activist on the issue, do that on your own time. While acting as a Minneapolis city councilperson, focus on solving Minneapolis's problems.
They used to say "all politics are local." These days it seems all politics are national, or even international.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 5, 2024 12:41:35 GMT
It's Super Tuesday, and Minnesota is one of the 15 or so states having their presidential primaries.
I could not be less excited: in fact, I'm dreading the inevitable reality that the country will be selecting from between Pres. Biden and former Pres. Trump again. Early on, I'd kept my eyes open on the Republican primary contestants, and been hugely disappointed in all of them. I'd kept waiting for Biden to announce he was not running or for a serious challenger, and been hugely disappointed. I'd kept an eye on third-party candidates, and been hugely disappointed.
My intention is to cast my vote in the Democratic primary for Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota. It's a wasted vote other than one tiny protest, I suppose. Obviously he has no chance (not to mention, he has no future in the Democratic party after challenging the incumbent after being told not to).
To see people of both left- and right-leaning persuasions say how much they don't want this rematch, but then in the same breath say they'll vote for the parties' chosen ones, drives me crazy. We, as a country, are just letting those two self-interested, corrupt parties tell us what to do. "If you don't, it's the end of democracy, it's an invasion, it's a fascist state, it's a communist state," or whatever. Fear is the parties' biggest weapon. If half the people who said they don't want the rematch voted as such, we wouldn't have the rematch.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 24, 2024 15:13:51 GMT
This is the first I've heard of this issue, which is an apparent push by some groups in several conservative states to put chaplains into public schools. Apparently Texas has passed a law already that allows school districts to hire chaplains and use them as they see fit; and now 14 states have introduced similar bills. I am horrified by this idea. And not because I'm an atheist, or because of any animosity toward religion or religious people: I have no such animosity. My late brother, an extremely conservative Lutheran pastor, used to reasonably argue that the biggest benefit of separation of church and state went to the church(es), not the state. His point was, the last thing a religious group wants is some kind of interference by the state. If the state is to support and incorporate religion ... which one? Somebody might say, "well, that's obvious. This is America: Christianity!" OK, great ... but which Christianity? Liberal mainline Protestantism? Conservative Evangelical Protestantism? Roman Catholicism? Eastern Orthodoxy? Even if conservative Protestants (who are presumably behind most of this) get their wish ... which conservative Protestantism? They're very, very different. Does any of those groups really want the government co-opting their groups, or supporting others' groups in an official capacity? (Of course, this is to say nothing of the less likely possibility of other religions being promoted: some form(s) of Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Baha'ism, Islam, Mandaeanism, any of the innumerable animisms...) Religious groups and religious people can and do do a lot of good for a lot of people. I'm not arguing that. But putting religious officials into public schools is a terrible idea that would curb the freedoms guaranteed by our founding principles, including (obviously) the First Amendment.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 25, 2024 15:09:28 GMT
While I work (and ok, also post...), I am listening to the oral arguments in the case before the Supreme Court about whether presidents have full immunity over actions taken while president if they were not impeached and convicted for those actions first.
It's actually really interesting. You can say what you like about the justices, but they're ALL tremendously intelligent. Their lines of questioning are fascinating.
Something I like is how the hearing and arguments distill how the legal system actually works, rather than the way we the public (and the media) often seem to prefer to portray it. The way we often portray it is as the best argument of "what should be," should win. But of course, that's not the way it works! The way it works is, how does the question fit into existing laws and the constitution, what are the precedents, etc. Those are not the same thing.
In this case, you might say "of course a president should be able to be charged for crimes" (or shouldn't be)! But it doesn't matter what "should be." It matters what the laws, constitution, and precedents say about the issue. The specificity would probably be shocking to many people, but I actually think it's key to the country's greatness.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Apr 25, 2024 15:37:16 GMT
I’m going to take that as a positive sign, but I’ve become very concerned with/about the Supreme Court precisely for not living up to what you posted above.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 25, 2024 16:04:23 GMT
I’m going to take that as a positive sign, but I’ve become very concerned with/about the Supreme Court precisely for not living up to what you posted above. While the majority of justices have more conservative outlooks than I do, I'm actually not as concerned about them as many in the center-to-left are. The major decisions they've had that disappointed the left, I actually think their reasoning was pretty strong. Since it was initially decided, many on the left agreed that Roe v Wade had the outcome they wanted but by weak reasoning. (The late Justice Ginsberg said as much more than once.) And I think the affirmative action decision was similar: people were willing to accept any reasoning to promote the goals they saw in the project as opposed to finding actual justification for that outcome. Don't get me wrong, I STRONGLY disapproved of how this court came to be constituted as it is. I thought GOP hypocrisy was on full display, first in keeping Obama's nomination of Garland from going through, and then from doing an about-face to push through Coney-Barrett. And I will be keeping an eye on SCOTUS overall for signs of what I see as excessive partisanship or corruption. But so far, they haven't been "yes men" to former Pres Trump, or generally pushed through absurd decisions. At least not that I have noticed. And even the idea that it's a "Republican supermajority" court is a little misleading. I'm looking at a Harvard Law Review article about the court's voting statistic. If I understand it properly, in 2022, the court decided 57 cases. Of those, 21 were unanimous decisions. Of those 36 nonunanimous decisions, no single justice agreed with the majority opinion/decision less than 61.1% of the time--and the two justices with that agreement rate were Thomas and Alito, both (very) conservative. Based on the popular rhetoric, one would think justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would be in a 6-3 minority almost all the time, and thus would have far lower rates of being in the majority. But Sotomayor and Jackson are tied for fourth-most agreement (69.4%), thus the exact center of the spectrum, and Kagan is tied for sixth at 66.7%.
|
|