by wj
An Open Thread for the New Year
Today, for the first time since 1923 (that’s right, a whole century) the US House of Representatives failed to elect a new Speaker on the first ballot. (Or the second or the third.) McCarthy could afford to lose no more than 4 votes. He lost 19 — and 20 by the third ballot.
Not surprisingly, the Democrats were kicking back and enjoying the show. The iconic image was Representative Ted Lieu posing with a bag of popcorn.
I was amused by the exasperated comments of several of the Republicans who are not part of the holdouts. The recurring theme: McCarthy’s opponents are “not negotiating in good faith.”
Well duh! First, they don’t believe in good faith. Second, they don’t believe in negotiation. And third, the only thing the House needs a Speaker for is if they want to , you know, govern. Or even just hold hearings/witch hunts, etc. These guys mainly want attention, and they are getting that. Who knows how long it will take them to get tired of the game. (McCarthy’s strongest ally is their short attention spans.)
I’ve seen a variety of speculations about who the Republicans might settle on, if McCarthy continues to fail. Just to add to the mix, I could see a handful of the less conservative Republicans, those who actually have an interest in the quaint concept of doing the job, deciding that the easiest way to the necessary majority is to bite the bullet and vote for . . . Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Sure, they would be vilified for it. But at least something would start moving. Granted, it’s a wildly improbable outcome. Then again, has anybody got a more likely one?
Happy New Year!
Tangentially related to the mess in the House, a few non-fiction books I read this year:
Jane Mayer: Dark Money – The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right
(how the Koch brothers got us into this mess…)
Orlando Figes: The Story of Russia
(why Russia is an autocratic, expansionist empire…)
Catherine Belton: Putin’s People – How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West
(scary, also how greedy and stupid ‘the West’ is…)
Depressing, but hey, with Trump, Putin, Xi etc. reaching their limits, things might get better eventually.
Happy New Year!
Tangentially related to the mess in the House, a few non-fiction books I read this year:
Jane Mayer: Dark Money – The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right
(how the Koch brothers got us into this mess…)
Orlando Figes: The Story of Russia
(why Russia is an autocratic, expansionist empire…)
Catherine Belton: Putin’s People – How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West
(scary, also how greedy and stupid ‘the West’ is…)
Depressing, but hey, with Trump, Putin, Xi etc. reaching their limits, things might get better eventually.
Israel, unfortunately, seems to be going the other way. Iran is anyone’s guess…
Israel, unfortunately, seems to be going the other way. Iran is anyone’s guess…
The Speaker doesn’t have to be a member of Congress. They could elect a non-member like, for example, Justin Amash
The Speaker doesn’t have to be a member of Congress. They could elect a non-member like, for example, Justin Amash
No one seems to seriously talking right now about making Jabbabonk the Orange Speaker as was done not that long ago. At least in Washington his Orangeness’ powers seem to have faded a bit.
Btw, is there a law that it has to be a livig human being?
OK, forget that. Since the Speaker is in the line of presidential succession, he or she has to ba a living US citizen and an AI will not suffice.
No one seems to seriously talking right now about making Jabbabonk the Orange Speaker as was done not that long ago. At least in Washington his Orangeness’ powers seem to have faded a bit.
Btw, is there a law that it has to be a livig human being?
OK, forget that. Since the Speaker is in the line of presidential succession, he or she has to ba a living US citizen and an AI will not suffice.
I’m undecided whether Jeffries should go anywhere near that poisoned chalice, even if it’s offered to him.
He’d be Speaker in a House where the actual numerical majority Party is full of anarchist feces-flingers, insurrectionists, and traitors.
It would be they who hold the power to prevent anything being done, from setting rules that might allow him to sidestep them, to debt ceiling votes.
And I wouldn’t accept any promises the GOP issue, not a single one, because they’re also psychopaths incapable of keeping their word.
OK< I'm not undecided. The answer should be "No!"
I’m undecided whether Jeffries should go anywhere near that poisoned chalice, even if it’s offered to him.
He’d be Speaker in a House where the actual numerical majority Party is full of anarchist feces-flingers, insurrectionists, and traitors.
It would be they who hold the power to prevent anything being done, from setting rules that might allow him to sidestep them, to debt ceiling votes.
And I wouldn’t accept any promises the GOP issue, not a single one, because they’re also psychopaths incapable of keeping their word.
OK< I'm not undecided. The answer should be "No!"
Since the Speaker is in the line of presidential succession, he or she has to ba a living US citizen…
Succession beyond the VP is controlled by statute. The current law states that people after the VP in the line who do not meet the Constitutional requirements for Presidents are simply skipped over.
Since the Speaker is in the line of presidential succession, he or she has to ba a living US citizen…
Succession beyond the VP is controlled by statute. The current law states that people after the VP in the line who do not meet the Constitutional requirements for Presidents are simply skipped over.
First, they don’t believe in good faith. Second, they don’t believe in negotiation.
They don’t even know the meaning of the expression “good faith”.
As for “negotiation”, Trump called what he did with Putin, Kim et al “negotiation”. The rest of the world had other words for it.
First, they don’t believe in good faith. Second, they don’t believe in negotiation.
They don’t even know the meaning of the expression “good faith”.
As for “negotiation”, Trump called what he did with Putin, Kim et al “negotiation”. The rest of the world had other words for it.
It’s open to twenty (say) relatively sane Republican members of the house to declare collectively that on the nth vote for speaker, n of them, to be chosen by lot, will vote for Jeffries. That number to be reduced by one for each one of the twenty Jordan voters who goes over to McCarthy.
Then let’s see who blinks first.
Meanwhile, perhaps someone with their finger on the pulse of nutjobbery could tell me what’s the RWNJs’ objection to McCarthy. Thank you.
It’s open to twenty (say) relatively sane Republican members of the house to declare collectively that on the nth vote for speaker, n of them, to be chosen by lot, will vote for Jeffries. That number to be reduced by one for each one of the twenty Jordan voters who goes over to McCarthy.
Then let’s see who blinks first.
Meanwhile, perhaps someone with their finger on the pulse of nutjobbery could tell me what’s the RWNJs’ objection to McCarthy. Thank you.
My impression is that McCarthy is an empty suit that almost no one likes.
My impression is that McCarthy is an empty suit that almost no one likes.
what’s the RWNJs’ objection to McCarthy
he’s insufficiently insane.
these people are irresponsible children.
I’m hard pressed to understand what it is they actually want, other than airtime.
what’s the RWNJs’ objection to McCarthy
he’s insufficiently insane.
these people are irresponsible children.
I’m hard pressed to understand what it is they actually want, other than airtime.
I’m hard pressed to understand what it is they actually want, other than airtime.
And chaos.
They don’t actually want the government to function. (That is, to the extent that any of them want anything coherent, which is in doubt.) So this is perfect!
That’s one reason why I agree with CaseyL that there’s no way Jeffries should take the gavel, even in the (I think) wildly unlikely event that a few Rs offer to vote for that to happen.
If a few of them actually would change parties, that would be different. Ha ha ha for the chances of that happening.
I’m hard pressed to understand what it is they actually want, other than airtime.
And chaos.
They don’t actually want the government to function. (That is, to the extent that any of them want anything coherent, which is in doubt.) So this is perfect!
That’s one reason why I agree with CaseyL that there’s no way Jeffries should take the gavel, even in the (I think) wildly unlikely event that a few Rs offer to vote for that to happen.
If a few of them actually would change parties, that would be different. Ha ha ha for the chances of that happening.
My impression is that McCarthy is an empty suit that almost no one likes.
My impression is that McCarthy is a suit filled with nothing beyond an overwhelmingly desire for the title Speaker of the House. Whether he has given any thought to actually doing the job depends, I suppose, on whether he has even considered what the Speaker does.
However, it appears that the reason he got as far as he has is that most of his conference do like him. Or, at least, don’t dislike him. That’s the upside of being an empty suit type politician: you can be anything your audience wants to project onto you.
The difficulty is, to become Speaker he has to actually commit to doing specific things. And whichever commitments he makes, he’s going to piss off some people whose votes he needs. If there’s a way to square that circle, it isn’t obvious. Exhausting the radicals so they just go away (dropping his needed vote total to something achievable) could work if he only needed a majority of those voting, and that majority would still remain if the dissenters went away.
But there are so many of them that before that point Jeffries’ vote count will pass his. And, since they have the bit between their teeth, the radicals won’t cave. It’s “my way or the highway” for them — the highway being Jeffries. Indeed, at least one of them said explicitly: “I’d vote for Jeffries before I’d vote for McCarthy.”
My impression is that McCarthy is an empty suit that almost no one likes.
My impression is that McCarthy is a suit filled with nothing beyond an overwhelmingly desire for the title Speaker of the House. Whether he has given any thought to actually doing the job depends, I suppose, on whether he has even considered what the Speaker does.
However, it appears that the reason he got as far as he has is that most of his conference do like him. Or, at least, don’t dislike him. That’s the upside of being an empty suit type politician: you can be anything your audience wants to project onto you.
The difficulty is, to become Speaker he has to actually commit to doing specific things. And whichever commitments he makes, he’s going to piss off some people whose votes he needs. If there’s a way to square that circle, it isn’t obvious. Exhausting the radicals so they just go away (dropping his needed vote total to something achievable) could work if he only needed a majority of those voting, and that majority would still remain if the dissenters went away.
But there are so many of them that before that point Jeffries’ vote count will pass his. And, since they have the bit between their teeth, the radicals won’t cave. It’s “my way or the highway” for them — the highway being Jeffries. Indeed, at least one of them said explicitly: “I’d vote for Jeffries before I’d vote for McCarthy.”
Well, this is good news at any rate:
The privatisation of Channel 4 has been ruled out by the culture secretary who said the sale of the broadcaster would be disruptive to the country’s television production industry.
Michelle Donelan said in a letter to the prime minister that there were “better ways to secure” the channel’s sustainability, adding that she wanted to give the publicly-owned channel greater “commercial flexibility” and allow it to produce more of its own content.
Donelan’s predecessor, Nadine Dorries, with the support of former prime minister Boris Johnson had made clear her desire for the channel — which has a public service broadcasting remit but is entirely dependent upon commercial income rather than public subsidy — to be privatised.
BoJo and his inadequate henchpeople hated C4 News in particular with a passion, and for months even refused to field ministers for interview on matters in the news. Their plans for C4 always looked vengeful, petty and ignorant, as when the ObWi favourite moron Nadine Dorries appeared in front of a select committee on the subject and was revealed under questioning to have no idea of how Channel 4 was actually funded. There is not much good news around today, but we can at least rejoice in this.
Well, this is good news at any rate:
The privatisation of Channel 4 has been ruled out by the culture secretary who said the sale of the broadcaster would be disruptive to the country’s television production industry.
Michelle Donelan said in a letter to the prime minister that there were “better ways to secure” the channel’s sustainability, adding that she wanted to give the publicly-owned channel greater “commercial flexibility” and allow it to produce more of its own content.
Donelan’s predecessor, Nadine Dorries, with the support of former prime minister Boris Johnson had made clear her desire for the channel — which has a public service broadcasting remit but is entirely dependent upon commercial income rather than public subsidy — to be privatised.
BoJo and his inadequate henchpeople hated C4 News in particular with a passion, and for months even refused to field ministers for interview on matters in the news. Their plans for C4 always looked vengeful, petty and ignorant, as when the ObWi favourite moron Nadine Dorries appeared in front of a select committee on the subject and was revealed under questioning to have no idea of how Channel 4 was actually funded. There is not much good news around today, but we can at least rejoice in this.
That’s the upside of being an empty suit type politician: you can be anything your audience wants to project onto you.
No need to be content with projection. If one knows that the other guy has only empty ambition and no principles, one can easily get concessions since the other guy simply does not care about aything but the title. Imo McCarthy is not much different on that from the Orange One: The title is far more important than the actual job. And McCarthy may not even have the ambition to keep it longer than necessary, if he can get something lucrative elsewhere. But he wants “Speaker of the House” (and be it: former) in his CV.
That’s the upside of being an empty suit type politician: you can be anything your audience wants to project onto you.
No need to be content with projection. If one knows that the other guy has only empty ambition and no principles, one can easily get concessions since the other guy simply does not care about aything but the title. Imo McCarthy is not much different on that from the Orange One: The title is far more important than the actual job. And McCarthy may not even have the ambition to keep it longer than necessary, if he can get something lucrative elsewhere. But he wants “Speaker of the House” (and be it: former) in his CV.
Meanwhile, perhaps someone with their finger on the pulse of nutjobbery could tell me what’s the RWNJs’ objection to McCarthy. Thank you.
Could it be because, after January 6th, he said some disobliging things about Trump (“Trump bears some responsibility for what happened on January 6th” and other such comments), before coming to his senses and crawling down to Mar a Lago to kiss the ring? To the RWNJs, such (even temporary) treachery is not to be tolerated.
Meanwhile, perhaps someone with their finger on the pulse of nutjobbery could tell me what’s the RWNJs’ objection to McCarthy. Thank you.
Could it be because, after January 6th, he said some disobliging things about Trump (“Trump bears some responsibility for what happened on January 6th” and other such comments), before coming to his senses and crawling down to Mar a Lago to kiss the ring? To the RWNJs, such (even temporary) treachery is not to be tolerated.
perhaps someone with their finger on the pulse of nutjobbery could tell me what’s the RWNJs’ objection to McCarth.
I think it’s basically that they object to anyone who can be tarred as “part of the establishment”. Which McCarthy, having been part of the party’s House leadership for years, clearly is.
Of course, the same objection would apply to anyone with a clue about how the House actually governs. Because they are not so much indifferent to governing as opposed to the whole concept. They want to perform and get attention. Period, end of discussion.
perhaps someone with their finger on the pulse of nutjobbery could tell me what’s the RWNJs’ objection to McCarth.
I think it’s basically that they object to anyone who can be tarred as “part of the establishment”. Which McCarthy, having been part of the party’s House leadership for years, clearly is.
Of course, the same objection would apply to anyone with a clue about how the House actually governs. Because they are not so much indifferent to governing as opposed to the whole concept. They want to perform and get attention. Period, end of discussion.
I think it’s basically that they object to anyone who can be tarred as “part of the establishment”.
And to support this theory, Matt Gaetz was quoted as saying (on C4 News) “If you want to drain the swamp, you don’t elect the biggest alligator there.” Of course, since “the swamp” is supposed to be about corruption, among other things, and Matt Gaetz is hardly in a position to comment on that subject, one has to read between the lines (it’s a bit like being an old-school Kremlinologist) to interpret what this could mean, said by this person, to this audience. None of it makes sense on the face of it, if you insist it be explained by people who are within even touching distance of reality.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
I think it’s basically that they object to anyone who can be tarred as “part of the establishment”.
And to support this theory, Matt Gaetz was quoted as saying (on C4 News) “If you want to drain the swamp, you don’t elect the biggest alligator there.” Of course, since “the swamp” is supposed to be about corruption, among other things, and Matt Gaetz is hardly in a position to comment on that subject, one has to read between the lines (it’s a bit like being an old-school Kremlinologist) to interpret what this could mean, said by this person, to this audience. None of it makes sense on the face of it, if you insist it be explained by people who are within even touching distance of reality.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things. ‘ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Quoted to me from someone who quoted it from TPM:
Quoted to me from someone who quoted it from TPM:
A succinct analysis of the House GOP from a Never Trump Republican:
https://twitter.com/SykesCharlie/status/1610645613552476162?s=20&t=PZo3PzpCDx8WzNTjaasBSw
Quite
A succinct analysis of the House GOP from a Never Trump Republican:
https://twitter.com/SykesCharlie/status/1610645613552476162?s=20&t=PZo3PzpCDx8WzNTjaasBSw
Quite
Another take on what ails the GOP: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/01/why-house-republicans-coup-kevin-mccarthy-conservative-moderate-congress.html
The concluding sentence: “The House Republican caucus will be a cauldron of rage, because the party, at its core, does not believe it should be forced to share power.”
’nuff said.
Another take on what ails the GOP: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/01/why-house-republicans-coup-kevin-mccarthy-conservative-moderate-congress.html
The concluding sentence: “The House Republican caucus will be a cauldron of rage, because the party, at its core, does not believe it should be forced to share power.”
’nuff said.
bobbyp, I think Chait got it wrong. Or, at minimum, incomplete.
It isn’t, or isn’t merely, that the party does not believe it should be forced to share power. It will be a cauldron of rage because none of the factions within it** believe that they should have to share power, even with the rest of the party.
** It is admittedly debatable whether the nihilists believe in anything but destruction. And whether that qualifies.
bobbyp, I think Chait got it wrong. Or, at minimum, incomplete.
It isn’t, or isn’t merely, that the party does not believe it should be forced to share power. It will be a cauldron of rage because none of the factions within it** believe that they should have to share power, even with the rest of the party.
** It is admittedly debatable whether the nihilists believe in anything but destruction. And whether that qualifies.
An interesting thought I saw suggested somewhere this morning is that McCarthy can only promise the Freedom Caucus so many conditions and so many prized committee seats and subcommittee chairs before he pisses off other Republicans who have been waiting in line for years for those positions.
The simple statement “Republicans aren’t interested in governing” may be true. That doesn’t mean individual Republicans in the House don’t want the better office, bigger staff, and other perks that come with being a subcommittee chair. And are going to be angry about putting in 20 years only to be passed over for Lauren Boebert.
An interesting thought I saw suggested somewhere this morning is that McCarthy can only promise the Freedom Caucus so many conditions and so many prized committee seats and subcommittee chairs before he pisses off other Republicans who have been waiting in line for years for those positions.
The simple statement “Republicans aren’t interested in governing” may be true. That doesn’t mean individual Republicans in the House don’t want the better office, bigger staff, and other perks that come with being a subcommittee chair. And are going to be angry about putting in 20 years only to be passed over for Lauren Boebert.
A late report (obviously from an alternate universe): McCarthy is, apparently, now making concessions to various PACs. In the hopes that they, in turn, will influence the radicals to support him. With statements like this???
“Kevin McCarthy has effectively led House Republicans from the Minority to the Majority and we want to see him continue to lead the party so we can pick up seats for the third cycle in a row,” Conservative Leadership Fund President Dan Conston said in a statement.
Riiiight. Such incredible success they saw in November. Great leadership there.
A late report (obviously from an alternate universe): McCarthy is, apparently, now making concessions to various PACs. In the hopes that they, in turn, will influence the radicals to support him. With statements like this???
“Kevin McCarthy has effectively led House Republicans from the Minority to the Majority and we want to see him continue to lead the party so we can pick up seats for the third cycle in a row,” Conservative Leadership Fund President Dan Conston said in a statement.
Riiiight. Such incredible success they saw in November. Great leadership there.
McCarthy is, apparently, now making concessions to various PACs.
I heard those PACs supposedly overcame the objections to McCarthy, via contributions of cold hard cash.
I’ve also heard that bought off 15 votes, but 5 Never Kevin votes remain.
The first vote has begun. Let’s see if the PACs investment has an impact…
McCarthy is, apparently, now making concessions to various PACs.
I heard those PACs supposedly overcame the objections to McCarthy, via contributions of cold hard cash.
I’ve also heard that bought off 15 votes, but 5 Never Kevin votes remain.
The first vote has begun. Let’s see if the PACs investment has an impact…
What concessions can he make to a PAC? He can’t unilaterally change any of the rules.
What concessions can he make to a PAC? He can’t unilaterally change any of the rules.
Gaets just voted for Trump.
McCarthy’s already lost this vote, provided all the Democrats stick around and vote for Jeffries.
Gaets just voted for Trump.
McCarthy’s already lost this vote, provided all the Democrats stick around and vote for Jeffries.
The notion of Clickbait as Speaker has been mentioned, in and out of jokes, for a long time. Every time I hear it, I keep trying to imagine his ponderous, self-indulgent bulk leaving his dwelling — never mind that, leaving Florida! — to go to work on an almost daily basis. I mean, doesn’t the Speaker have to be there?
If we think there’s chaos now, and will continue to be chaos even if the Rs manage to pick a Speaker sometime this millenium, imagine having someone in the role who has never met a rule he isn’t willing to break, and who probably isn’t competent enough (out of laziness and disinterest if nothing else) to turn on the stove and heat some water. The notion that that guy could preside over an institution that can’t run without a mountain range of procedural rules is beyond my ability to conjure up. It would be like expecting a fruit fly to do brain surgery.
Of course, the point, if they did it, would probably be to get him moved up in the line of succession as quickly as possible, so none of that would really matter.
I don’t see it, though. I think his star has fallen far enough so that there are too many other people willing to walk over him to get what *they* want. (Or ignore him, as the case may be.)
The notion of Clickbait as Speaker has been mentioned, in and out of jokes, for a long time. Every time I hear it, I keep trying to imagine his ponderous, self-indulgent bulk leaving his dwelling — never mind that, leaving Florida! — to go to work on an almost daily basis. I mean, doesn’t the Speaker have to be there?
If we think there’s chaos now, and will continue to be chaos even if the Rs manage to pick a Speaker sometime this millenium, imagine having someone in the role who has never met a rule he isn’t willing to break, and who probably isn’t competent enough (out of laziness and disinterest if nothing else) to turn on the stove and heat some water. The notion that that guy could preside over an institution that can’t run without a mountain range of procedural rules is beyond my ability to conjure up. It would be like expecting a fruit fly to do brain surgery.
Of course, the point, if they did it, would probably be to get him moved up in the line of succession as quickly as possible, so none of that would really matter.
I don’t see it, though. I think his star has fallen far enough so that there are too many other people willing to walk over him to get what *they* want. (Or ignore him, as the case may be.)
What concessions can he make to a PAC? He can’t unilaterally change any of the rules.
No clue. But apparently he talked to several of them, and they moved from opposing him to supporting him. So he must have had something to offer. Given the contortions he has been going thru, what that was is anybody’s guess.
What concessions can he make to a PAC? He can’t unilaterally change any of the rules.
No clue. But apparently he talked to several of them, and they moved from opposing him to supporting him. So he must have had something to offer. Given the contortions he has been going thru, what that was is anybody’s guess.
The notion that that guy could preside over an institution that can’t run without a mountain range of procedural rules is beyond my ability to conjure up.
Consider this. Once they have elected a Speaker, the new members can be sworn in, committee assignments made, hearings can start, etc. After which, someone else can do the actual work — the Speaker doesn’t have to show up or do anything personally. Day to day, an acting Speaker can preside over the House floor, do the behind the scenes work, and things generally can get going. In fact, the radicals might prefer an absentee Speaker — one less person to distract attention from them.
The notion that that guy could preside over an institution that can’t run without a mountain range of procedural rules is beyond my ability to conjure up.
Consider this. Once they have elected a Speaker, the new members can be sworn in, committee assignments made, hearings can start, etc. After which, someone else can do the actual work — the Speaker doesn’t have to show up or do anything personally. Day to day, an acting Speaker can preside over the House floor, do the behind the scenes work, and things generally can get going. In fact, the radicals might prefer an absentee Speaker — one less person to distract attention from them.
What concessions can he make to a PAC? He can’t unilaterally change any of the rules.
If I understand correctly, the agreement is the CLF PAC (endorsed by McCarthy and his allies) would not put their thumb on the scales to oppose, Club For Growth funded insurgencies against GOP “moderates” (oxymoron) in open primaries in otherwise safe GOP seats.
You may notice this concession has nothing to do with Rules of the House or public policy.
What concessions can he make to a PAC? He can’t unilaterally change any of the rules.
If I understand correctly, the agreement is the CLF PAC (endorsed by McCarthy and his allies) would not put their thumb on the scales to oppose, Club For Growth funded insurgencies against GOP “moderates” (oxymoron) in open primaries in otherwise safe GOP seats.
You may notice this concession has nothing to do with Rules of the House or public policy.
Up to ten ballots now and not getting any closer.
Cos tonight we’re gonna party like it’s 1859.
Up to ten ballots now and not getting any closer.
Cos tonight we’re gonna party like it’s 1859.
Not only no progress, but no sign of motion. Beyond the radicals shifting here and there on which not-McCarthy they are voting for.
At some point, you’d think someone among the McCarthy supporters would figure out that doing the same thing over and over, and getting the same (non)result, means that it’s time to do something different. I’d hope that at least some of the ongoing “negotiations” are actually discussions about who else might be a better choice. But that might be unduly optimistic.
Not only no progress, but no sign of motion. Beyond the radicals shifting here and there on which not-McCarthy they are voting for.
At some point, you’d think someone among the McCarthy supporters would figure out that doing the same thing over and over, and getting the same (non)result, means that it’s time to do something different. I’d hope that at least some of the ongoing “negotiations” are actually discussions about who else might be a better choice. But that might be unduly optimistic.
If the Ds really wanted to troll these figpuckers hard, they could cast 212 votes for Liz Cheney in the next round.
If the Ds really wanted to troll these figpuckers hard, they could cast 212 votes for Liz Cheney in the next round.
If the Ds really wanted to troll these figpuckers hard, they could cast 212 votes for Liz Cheney in the next round.
Might be risky….All it would take is 6 GOP (pending) members to join in once they see what’s going on and voila! you have a slightly better version of conservative lunacy as Speaker.
If they really wanted to troll, they would all vote for Geena Rocero.
If the Ds really wanted to troll these figpuckers hard, they could cast 212 votes for Liz Cheney in the next round.
Might be risky….All it would take is 6 GOP (pending) members to join in once they see what’s going on and voila! you have a slightly better version of conservative lunacy as Speaker.
If they really wanted to troll, they would all vote for Geena Rocero.
What bobbyp said. Other than her opposition to TFG’s claims of electoral fraud and 1/6 shenanigans, Cheney’s an absolutely solid movement conservative. She could move across the border to Greeley, CO next year and probably beat Ken Buck in the 2024 primaries.
What bobbyp said. Other than her opposition to TFG’s claims of electoral fraud and 1/6 shenanigans, Cheney’s an absolutely solid movement conservative. She could move across the border to Greeley, CO next year and probably beat Ken Buck in the 2024 primaries.
Does anyone want power enough to live in Greeley?
Also, for the troll to work you’d need to make sure that it was a roll-call vote, and that you could get just enough Ds to melt away to leave it just shy of a majority, but closer than KM has gotten.
Does anyone want power enough to live in Greeley?
Also, for the troll to work you’d need to make sure that it was a roll-call vote, and that you could get just enough Ds to melt away to leave it just shy of a majority, but closer than KM has gotten.
This is new to me.
It doesn’t excuse, but does a lot to explain, why Republicans since Gingrich have consistently behaved like utter assholes.
The ‘Stolen’ Election That Poisoned American Politics. It Happened in 1984.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/06/indiana-8th-1984-election-recount-00073924
This is new to me.
It doesn’t excuse, but does a lot to explain, why Republicans since Gingrich have consistently behaved like utter assholes.
The ‘Stolen’ Election That Poisoned American Politics. It Happened in 1984.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/06/indiana-8th-1984-election-recount-00073924
I blame the election of 1876.
I blame the election of 1876.
Does anyone want power enough to live in Greeley?
That’s a fair question. Ken Buck currently lives in the piece of neighboring Windsor that the redistricting commission carved out and tacked onto CO-4 so Buck wouldn’t have to move.
There’s a reasonable chance that before 2030 all eight of Colorado’s Representatives will live along the Front Range, no matter what part of the state they represent. Even now Boebert’s the only exception.
Does anyone want power enough to live in Greeley?
That’s a fair question. Ken Buck currently lives in the piece of neighboring Windsor that the redistricting commission carved out and tacked onto CO-4 so Buck wouldn’t have to move.
There’s a reasonable chance that before 2030 all eight of Colorado’s Representatives will live along the Front Range, no matter what part of the state they represent. Even now Boebert’s the only exception.
Does anyone want power enough to live in Greeley?
You might want to consider that
a) If one lives in Wyoming, Greeley might not be that huge a cultural shift. Just saying, our perceptions of “living in Greeley” might not be universal.
b) If one is a member of Congress, one mostly lives in DC, not in one’s district. OK, some folks who are terrified of the (generic) city might leave their families elsewhere and commute home on the weekends. But it’s hardly universal.
Does anyone want power enough to live in Greeley?
You might want to consider that
a) If one lives in Wyoming, Greeley might not be that huge a cultural shift. Just saying, our perceptions of “living in Greeley” might not be universal.
b) If one is a member of Congress, one mostly lives in DC, not in one’s district. OK, some folks who are terrified of the (generic) city might leave their families elsewhere and commute home on the weekends. But it’s hardly universal.
Liz Cheney lives in McLean, VA with her husband and any of their children still young enough to be there. Like many other wealthy people, they own an expensive residence outside Jackson Hole, WY. She’d be much more at home in Castle Rock, south of Denver, another piece of the Front Range carved off to stick on CO-3 in order to make the numbers work out.
Liz Cheney lives in McLean, VA with her husband and any of their children still young enough to be there. Like many other wealthy people, they own an expensive residence outside Jackson Hole, WY. She’d be much more at home in Castle Rock, south of Denver, another piece of the Front Range carved off to stick on CO-3 in order to make the numbers work out.
Liz Cheney lives in McLean, VA with her husband and any of their children still young enough to be there.
And so, owning a second (third?) home in Greeley wouldn’t be a big deal.
Liz Cheney lives in McLean, VA with her husband and any of their children still young enough to be there.
And so, owning a second (third?) home in Greeley wouldn’t be a big deal.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest (or swamp), Ginni Thomas comes out against McCarthy and praises the 20 courageous members of Congress whose “courageous efforts to find a Speaker of the House who will represent the interests of conservatives”, while her husband continues to give no sign that he might recuse himself when ruling on matters which involve her.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest (or swamp), Ginni Thomas comes out against McCarthy and praises the 20 courageous members of Congress whose “courageous efforts to find a Speaker of the House who will represent the interests of conservatives”, while her husband continues to give no sign that he might recuse himself when ruling on matters which involve her.
Twenty is a big enough group that motivations probably vary. I reckon “It can all burn down as long as I get attention” is an accurate enough summary of the Gaetz faction though.
Still, I did see a brief clip of AOC being extremely charitable about them, and pointing out that at least some of this boils down to the insurgents simply wanting more actual small-d democracy in the house, like rules that make the Speaker somewhat less of an absolute dictator.
I’m sure that what these guys would do with that democracy wouldn’t be that great. (Hello, sovereign default.) But in principle, that seems like a reasonable demand. If this had been a group of insurgent progressives trying to oust Pelosi, my sympathies might be quite on the other side.
Twenty is a big enough group that motivations probably vary. I reckon “It can all burn down as long as I get attention” is an accurate enough summary of the Gaetz faction though.
Still, I did see a brief clip of AOC being extremely charitable about them, and pointing out that at least some of this boils down to the insurgents simply wanting more actual small-d democracy in the house, like rules that make the Speaker somewhat less of an absolute dictator.
I’m sure that what these guys would do with that democracy wouldn’t be that great. (Hello, sovereign default.) But in principle, that seems like a reasonable demand. If this had been a group of insurgent progressives trying to oust Pelosi, my sympathies might be quite on the other side.
12th ballot is McCarthy 214, Jeffries 211, Hern 3, and Jordan 4.
12th ballot is McCarthy 214, Jeffries 211, Hern 3, and Jordan 4.
maybe McCarthy should do like Boehner did and just hand out some checks.
old school, but it has been known to work.
maybe McCarthy should do like Boehner did and just hand out some checks.
old school, but it has been known to work.
maybe McCarthy should do like Boehner did and just hand out some checks.
old school, but it has been known to work.
The thing is, they would have to be really, really big checks. Because performative “politics” can bring in big bucks to the radicals. Both from immediate donations and from side gigs on various media platforms.
maybe McCarthy should do like Boehner did and just hand out some checks.
old school, but it has been known to work.
The thing is, they would have to be really, really big checks. Because performative “politics” can bring in big bucks to the radicals. Both from immediate donations and from side gigs on various media platforms.
This is quite the enticement for Democrats, no?
https://www.businessinsider.com/matt-gaetz-says-resign-if-democrats-elect-moderate-republican-2023-1
This is quite the enticement for Democrats, no?
https://www.businessinsider.com/matt-gaetz-says-resign-if-democrats-elect-moderate-republican-2023-1
Not that I think he’d follow through in that unlikely event, but still.
Not that I think he’d follow through in that unlikely event, but still.
Per hsh’s link: this is such utter BS. It’s not up to the Ds to solve the problem of R insanity. And who would trust Gaetz to keep his word anyhow? Not that he even expressed it as a promise, or a tit for tat. He only said it as a showboaty way to try to make his point that it’s the Ds who are being recalcitrant and are somehow at fault because the Rs are batshit crazy.
I can’t even.
Per hsh’s link: this is such utter BS. It’s not up to the Ds to solve the problem of R insanity. And who would trust Gaetz to keep his word anyhow? Not that he even expressed it as a promise, or a tit for tat. He only said it as a showboaty way to try to make his point that it’s the Ds who are being recalcitrant and are somehow at fault because the Rs are batshit crazy.
I can’t even.
I have to say (and I bow to no-one in my contempt for Matt Gaetz) that I don’t think that’s what he was saying (i.e. that the Ds are being recalcitrant). He made the (rather valid) point that “He [Hakeem Jeffries] is a historic candidate for them. They are not going to cleave off under any circumstance. I assure you of that….If Democrats join up to elect a moderate Republican, I will resign from the House of Representatives. That is how certain I am. I can assure your viewers: That won’t happen”.
He is a sleaze and a creep, and certainly one of the batshit crazy, and I’m sure you’re right that he wouldn’t keep his word, but in this particular instance (and for once) I don’t think he is really saying the Ds are at fault. It’s people on the outside (including here, with the Cheney thought-experiment) wondering what would happen and what would the advantages be if the Ds were to do such a thing. And thought experiments are always an interesting exercise.
I have to say (and I bow to no-one in my contempt for Matt Gaetz) that I don’t think that’s what he was saying (i.e. that the Ds are being recalcitrant). He made the (rather valid) point that “He [Hakeem Jeffries] is a historic candidate for them. They are not going to cleave off under any circumstance. I assure you of that….If Democrats join up to elect a moderate Republican, I will resign from the House of Representatives. That is how certain I am. I can assure your viewers: That won’t happen”.
He is a sleaze and a creep, and certainly one of the batshit crazy, and I’m sure you’re right that he wouldn’t keep his word, but in this particular instance (and for once) I don’t think he is really saying the Ds are at fault. It’s people on the outside (including here, with the Cheney thought-experiment) wondering what would happen and what would the advantages be if the Ds were to do such a thing. And thought experiments are always an interesting exercise.
Here’s a thought experiment for you.
Suppose, eventually, the Republicans manage to elect a Speaker. We’re looking at lots of “investigative” theater, and little or nothing resembling legislation — at least legislation that could get past the Senate.
But eventually something will come along that really needs to get done. (Raising the debt ceiling leaps to mind, but there are other possibilities.) Naturally, the radicals will refuse to let it happen, even if it has substantial Republican support. So what happens?
Per the rules changes that the radicals have insisted upon, a Democrat could make a “motion to vacate the chair.” While there is little chance right now of a bipartisan election for Speaker, a sufficiently serious issue could separate even the extreme conservatives from the nihilists. And, after all, it would only take 4 patriotic Republicans to elect a Democrat as Speaker. At which point, all the concessions McCarthy has made go out the window.
Could it actually happen? No idea. But these days, I’m reluctant to claim that anything is impossible.
Here’s a thought experiment for you.
Suppose, eventually, the Republicans manage to elect a Speaker. We’re looking at lots of “investigative” theater, and little or nothing resembling legislation — at least legislation that could get past the Senate.
But eventually something will come along that really needs to get done. (Raising the debt ceiling leaps to mind, but there are other possibilities.) Naturally, the radicals will refuse to let it happen, even if it has substantial Republican support. So what happens?
Per the rules changes that the radicals have insisted upon, a Democrat could make a “motion to vacate the chair.” While there is little chance right now of a bipartisan election for Speaker, a sufficiently serious issue could separate even the extreme conservatives from the nihilists. And, after all, it would only take 4 patriotic Republicans to elect a Democrat as Speaker. At which point, all the concessions McCarthy has made go out the window.
Could it actually happen? No idea. But these days, I’m reluctant to claim that anything is impossible.
wj – The extreme conservatives forming the thin outer rind of the GOP may not be nihilists, but they aren’t about to stop the nihilists from taking the country down if they can (via, say, debt default).
For one thing, their own nests are feathered well enough they believe they’d be able to ride it out and come out richer than before.
For another thing, they’re scared of the nihilists because, well, nihilists don’t care what or who they burn. They’ve been jonesing for a Second American Revolution (or Third, if you count the Civil War) and a little thing like their own fellow Party members isn’t going to stop them once they’re in a position to make those fantasies real.
wj – The extreme conservatives forming the thin outer rind of the GOP may not be nihilists, but they aren’t about to stop the nihilists from taking the country down if they can (via, say, debt default).
For one thing, their own nests are feathered well enough they believe they’d be able to ride it out and come out richer than before.
For another thing, they’re scared of the nihilists because, well, nihilists don’t care what or who they burn. They’ve been jonesing for a Second American Revolution (or Third, if you count the Civil War) and a little thing like their own fellow Party members isn’t going to stop them once they’re in a position to make those fantasies real.
Sometimes, we overlook the obvious.
Absent a Speaker, the Clerk of the House, Cheryl Johnson, has been presiding. She’s making it up as she goes along, there being no rules yet in place. And doing so well enough that she has twice tecieved standing ovations from all of the members present!
So, since the Speaker doesn’t have to be a member, why not just make her Speaker and get on with it? She seems to be the only one in the room that everybody could support.
Sometimes, we overlook the obvious.
Absent a Speaker, the Clerk of the House, Cheryl Johnson, has been presiding. She’s making it up as she goes along, there being no rules yet in place. And doing so well enough that she has twice tecieved standing ovations from all of the members present!
So, since the Speaker doesn’t have to be a member, why not just make her Speaker and get on with it? She seems to be the only one in the room that everybody could support.
Well. The NYT is already calling MCCarthy’s election after 15 rounds a “vibrant display of the strengths and weaknesses of democracy.”
So the MSM narrative will be that the GOP shitshow is democracy in action.
FFS.
Well. The NYT is already calling MCCarthy’s election after 15 rounds a “vibrant display of the strengths and weaknesses of democracy.”
So the MSM narrative will be that the GOP shitshow is democracy in action.
FFS.
Throwing out questions about this whole process, recognizing there’s some combination of statutes and precedent that I am ignorant of.
How is it that a body whose members have not yet been sworn into office have the authority to elect an officer?
The constitution grants the power for the House and Senate to be the sole judge of the election and qualification of its’ members. For the House, how can there be a body to rule on the qualifications of members if there are no members sworn in?
As an extreme example, what happens when 870 people descend on Washington, each claiming that they were properly elected, and their opponents’ claims of election are fraudulent?
In 1876 an extra-constitutional ad hoc process was adopted for determining the results from the disputed electors. Under the current circumstances I can’t see something like that being agreed upon by the two parties. War it is.
Throwing out questions about this whole process, recognizing there’s some combination of statutes and precedent that I am ignorant of.
How is it that a body whose members have not yet been sworn into office have the authority to elect an officer?
The constitution grants the power for the House and Senate to be the sole judge of the election and qualification of its’ members. For the House, how can there be a body to rule on the qualifications of members if there are no members sworn in?
As an extreme example, what happens when 870 people descend on Washington, each claiming that they were properly elected, and their opponents’ claims of election are fraudulent?
In 1876 an extra-constitutional ad hoc process was adopted for determining the results from the disputed electors. Under the current circumstances I can’t see something like that being agreed upon by the two parties. War it is.
As an extreme example, what happens when 870 people descend on Washington, each claiming that they were properly elected, and their opponents’ claims of election are fraudulent?
Congress has delegated much of the grunt work to the states. IIRC, current federal law requires each state to certify its election results for federal offices and communicate same to the Clerk of the House and some similar office in the Senate. If those 870 show up, the Clerk (who by rule is in charge until the Speaker is elected) says, much like a bouncer, “You’re not on the list.”
As an extreme example, what happens when 870 people descend on Washington, each claiming that they were properly elected, and their opponents’ claims of election are fraudulent?
Congress has delegated much of the grunt work to the states. IIRC, current federal law requires each state to certify its election results for federal offices and communicate same to the Clerk of the House and some similar office in the Senate. If those 870 show up, the Clerk (who by rule is in charge until the Speaker is elected) says, much like a bouncer, “You’re not on the list.”
But eventually something will come along that really needs to get done. (Raising the debt ceiling leaps to mind, but there are other possibilities.) Naturally, the radicals will refuse to let it happen, even if it has substantial Republican support. So what happens?
Per the rules changes that the radicals have insisted upon, a Democrat could make a “motion to vacate the chair.” While there is little chance right now of a bipartisan election for Speaker, a sufficiently serious issue could separate even the extreme conservatives from the nihilists. And, after all, it would only take 4 patriotic Republicans to elect a Democrat as Speaker. At which point, all the concessions McCarthy has made go out the window.
Well, wj, the necessary first part of this scenario has been achieved. It will be interesting to see if there are any Rs sane enough to cooperate with the Dems to scotch the worst of the RWNJ agenda, and operate over various different issues in a bipartisan manner. I don’t imagine so, although I imagine it would be popular with a substantial part of the population, and it would certainly be very interesting to watch how it might develop….
But eventually something will come along that really needs to get done. (Raising the debt ceiling leaps to mind, but there are other possibilities.) Naturally, the radicals will refuse to let it happen, even if it has substantial Republican support. So what happens?
Per the rules changes that the radicals have insisted upon, a Democrat could make a “motion to vacate the chair.” While there is little chance right now of a bipartisan election for Speaker, a sufficiently serious issue could separate even the extreme conservatives from the nihilists. And, after all, it would only take 4 patriotic Republicans to elect a Democrat as Speaker. At which point, all the concessions McCarthy has made go out the window.
Well, wj, the necessary first part of this scenario has been achieved. It will be interesting to see if there are any Rs sane enough to cooperate with the Dems to scotch the worst of the RWNJ agenda, and operate over various different issues in a bipartisan manner. I don’t imagine so, although I imagine it would be popular with a substantial part of the population, and it would certainly be very interesting to watch how it might develop….
it would certainly be very interesting to watch how it might develop
The fascination of watching an impending train wreck is much reduced when one is standing on the tracks between the two trains.
it would certainly be very interesting to watch how it might develop
The fascination of watching an impending train wreck is much reduced when one is standing on the tracks between the two trains.
As an extreme example, what happens when 870 people descend on Washington, each claiming that they were properly elected, and their opponents’ claims of election are fraudulent?
Welcome to 2024
As an extreme example, what happens when 870 people descend on Washington, each claiming that they were properly elected, and their opponents’ claims of election are fraudulent?
Welcome to 2024
On current trends, maybe 3/4 that number (probably less!) will show up. And the only ones claiming fraud will be the Republican losers. Not all the Republicans who lost the election, mind. Just the losers.
On current trends, maybe 3/4 that number (probably less!) will show up. And the only ones claiming fraud will be the Republican losers. Not all the Republicans who lost the election, mind. Just the losers.
Just the losers.
Even this I would not take for granted. Cf. Jabbabonk the Orange who could not stop complaining about his (technical) victory against Hillary Clinton and how e.g. more illegals voted for her than the country has actual inhabitants. He has many disciples in that.
Just the losers.
Even this I would not take for granted. Cf. Jabbabonk the Orange who could not stop complaining about his (technical) victory against Hillary Clinton and how e.g. more illegals voted for her than the country has actual inhabitants. He has many disciples in that.
Will Hutton in today’s Observer:
It is a commonplace that today’s Conservative party has become an ungovernable rabble – a group of factional sects unfit to govern, with too many in the party and among its media supporters careless of effective government as a matter of principle. What else can be said of a party that has delivered three prime ministers and home secretaries, four chancellors and health secretaries and five education secretaries in one calendar year? What is less explored is the deeper ideological source of this phenomenon.
An important clue came last week with the spectacle of newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives taking 15 votes over five days to elect candidate Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, the second most important role in the US constitution after the president. No speaker and the House cannot function – no swearing in of members, committee chairs or passing of laws. Business was frozen as McCarthy made an incredible series of concessions on House procedures and his power as speaker to the “Freedom Caucus” of ultra rightwingers to win their votes. He is now their cipher: US government is in the pocket of a minority faction who do not believe in the very principle of government.
These are not just the political shenanigans that are now customary in Washington; instead, they reveal the ideological madness that has also descended on the right in the UK. Thus, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s radical libertarianism, which informed the disastrous tax-cutting mini-budget was borrowed directly from the US libertarian right and now reinforces the Truss camp’s crazed belief they have a legacy to protect. Same story for climate change denial, fighting culture wars as a proxy battle against the liberal left and stretching anti-immigrant legislation beyond the limits of legality. The actions of the Freedom Caucus, or “the Taliban 20”, have the same roots, ideological and organisational, as those of the Brexit “spartan” MPs who forced the hardest of hard EU exits on Britain by brooking no deal except on their scorched earth terms.
“Losers’ consent”, the doctrine under which, if you lose a free election, you accept the verdict of the voters, is rightly said to be a precondition for democracy. So is a broader willingness to accept other basic principles; democracy is not a process to give an ideological minority a clean sweep of everything through sheer bullying. There has to be compromise and acceptance that democratic politics is a constant argument; opponents are citizens, too, with valid interests and arguments. They have to be out-argued rather than treated as disposable scum.
The American Republican Taliban don’t care. Members of the Freedom Caucus may talk and look like other politicians, but the self-belief that they are absolutely correct – helped by the US’s industrial-scale rightwing media – has made them deranged. Government is a “swamp”; welfare undermines self-reliance, however acute individual need; tax is an infringement of personal liberty; might is right in interpersonal as in international affairs (so be suspicious of Zelenskiy and lean into Putin); global warming is a socialist conspiracy; abortion and gay marriage offend the Bible.
Etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/08/americas-taliban-20-republicans-have-the-same-roots-as-our-brexit-spartans
Will Hutton in today’s Observer:
It is a commonplace that today’s Conservative party has become an ungovernable rabble – a group of factional sects unfit to govern, with too many in the party and among its media supporters careless of effective government as a matter of principle. What else can be said of a party that has delivered three prime ministers and home secretaries, four chancellors and health secretaries and five education secretaries in one calendar year? What is less explored is the deeper ideological source of this phenomenon.
An important clue came last week with the spectacle of newly elected Republicans in the House of Representatives taking 15 votes over five days to elect candidate Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, the second most important role in the US constitution after the president. No speaker and the House cannot function – no swearing in of members, committee chairs or passing of laws. Business was frozen as McCarthy made an incredible series of concessions on House procedures and his power as speaker to the “Freedom Caucus” of ultra rightwingers to win their votes. He is now their cipher: US government is in the pocket of a minority faction who do not believe in the very principle of government.
These are not just the political shenanigans that are now customary in Washington; instead, they reveal the ideological madness that has also descended on the right in the UK. Thus, Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng’s radical libertarianism, which informed the disastrous tax-cutting mini-budget was borrowed directly from the US libertarian right and now reinforces the Truss camp’s crazed belief they have a legacy to protect. Same story for climate change denial, fighting culture wars as a proxy battle against the liberal left and stretching anti-immigrant legislation beyond the limits of legality. The actions of the Freedom Caucus, or “the Taliban 20”, have the same roots, ideological and organisational, as those of the Brexit “spartan” MPs who forced the hardest of hard EU exits on Britain by brooking no deal except on their scorched earth terms.
“Losers’ consent”, the doctrine under which, if you lose a free election, you accept the verdict of the voters, is rightly said to be a precondition for democracy. So is a broader willingness to accept other basic principles; democracy is not a process to give an ideological minority a clean sweep of everything through sheer bullying. There has to be compromise and acceptance that democratic politics is a constant argument; opponents are citizens, too, with valid interests and arguments. They have to be out-argued rather than treated as disposable scum.
The American Republican Taliban don’t care. Members of the Freedom Caucus may talk and look like other politicians, but the self-belief that they are absolutely correct – helped by the US’s industrial-scale rightwing media – has made them deranged. Government is a “swamp”; welfare undermines self-reliance, however acute individual need; tax is an infringement of personal liberty; might is right in interpersonal as in international affairs (so be suspicious of Zelenskiy and lean into Putin); global warming is a socialist conspiracy; abortion and gay marriage offend the Bible.
Etc.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/08/americas-taliban-20-republicans-have-the-same-roots-as-our-brexit-spartans
To see what we narrowly missed two years ago, you can look at Brazil today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/08/bolsonaro-invade-congress-lula/
The followers of the losing candidate, Bolsonaro, have stormed the congress, the presidential palace, and destroyed the Supreme Court. Bolosonaro, be it noted, is currently residing at Mar-a-Lago. And his Secretary for Security of the Federal District spent the past couple of months in Florida consulting with guess-who about how to deal with having lost the election.
As digby notes: “Who says America isn’t still an inspiration to the world?”
To see what we narrowly missed two years ago, you can look at Brazil today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/01/08/bolsonaro-invade-congress-lula/
The followers of the losing candidate, Bolsonaro, have stormed the congress, the presidential palace, and destroyed the Supreme Court. Bolosonaro, be it noted, is currently residing at Mar-a-Lago. And his Secretary for Security of the Federal District spent the past couple of months in Florida consulting with guess-who about how to deal with having lost the election.
As digby notes: “Who says America isn’t still an inspiration to the world?”
Gftnc,
It will be interesting to see if there are any Rs sane enough to cooperate with the Dems to scotch the worst of the RWNJ agenda, and operate over various different issues in a bipartisan manner. I don’t imagine so,
I don’t imagine so either.
I’m tired of hearing about these imaginary “moderate” Republicans. I’ll believe they exist when they do something remotely sensible.
Gftnc,
It will be interesting to see if there are any Rs sane enough to cooperate with the Dems to scotch the worst of the RWNJ agenda, and operate over various different issues in a bipartisan manner. I don’t imagine so,
I don’t imagine so either.
I’m tired of hearing about these imaginary “moderate” Republicans. I’ll believe they exist when they do something remotely sensible.
And McCarthy decides what comes to the floor to start with. So, if the radikalinskis don’t like something, they can simply threaten him not to allow a vote or else. So even if some so-called moderates would be willing, they could not do anything except making the same threat but with less cerdibility since the alternative would be to vote a Dem in as Speaker. The extremists can in case of doubt do without a Speaker, since their main agenda is to block not to legislate.
And McCarthy decides what comes to the floor to start with. So, if the radikalinskis don’t like something, they can simply threaten him not to allow a vote or else. So even if some so-called moderates would be willing, they could not do anything except making the same threat but with less cerdibility since the alternative would be to vote a Dem in as Speaker. The extremists can in case of doubt do without a Speaker, since their main agenda is to block not to legislate.
McCarthy decides what comes to the floor to start with. So, if the radikalinskis don’t like something, they can simply threaten him not to allow a vote or else. So even if some so-called moderates would be willing, they could not do anything except making the same threat but with less c[re]dibility
Actually, not quite. There is something we are likely to become much more familiar with: the “discharge petition.” Basically, it’s a parliamentary maneuver which allows the House members to force a floor vote on a bill, whether the Speaker (or a majority of the Rules Committee) likes it or not.
I expect it to get talked about a lot more the next two years. Probably not used all that much, since there would be downsides to Republican members joining one. But for something like raising the debt ceiling, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was used.
McCarthy decides what comes to the floor to start with. So, if the radikalinskis don’t like something, they can simply threaten him not to allow a vote or else. So even if some so-called moderates would be willing, they could not do anything except making the same threat but with less c[re]dibility
Actually, not quite. There is something we are likely to become much more familiar with: the “discharge petition.” Basically, it’s a parliamentary maneuver which allows the House members to force a floor vote on a bill, whether the Speaker (or a majority of the Rules Committee) likes it or not.
I expect it to get talked about a lot more the next two years. Probably not used all that much, since there would be downsides to Republican members joining one. But for something like raising the debt ceiling, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was used.
Rules package passed. So far as I can tell, only one Republican complained that the promise that House members would see things in writing 72 hours before they had to vote was broken.
Rules package passed. So far as I can tell, only one Republican complained that the promise that House members would see things in writing 72 hours before they had to vote was broken.
So far as I can tell, only one Republican complained that the promise that House members would see things in writing 72 hours before they had to vote was broken.
Is that the quickest broken political promise ever?
I’ve read there are 3 “secret pages” of rules no one but McC and the HFC have even seen.
They approved rules they haven’t even read.
Cool, cool, cool.
So far as I can tell, only one Republican complained that the promise that House members would see things in writing 72 hours before they had to vote was broken.
Is that the quickest broken political promise ever?
I’ve read there are 3 “secret pages” of rules no one but McC and the HFC have even seen.
They approved rules they haven’t even read.
Cool, cool, cool.
It occurs to me to wonder. The new members are now sworn in (and have office budgets, which probably matters more to some), committee assignments are done, etc. So at this point, how much impact on things would there really be if we had a motion to “vacate the chair,” and multiple elections for a new Speaker?
It occurs to me to wonder. The new members are now sworn in (and have office budgets, which probably matters more to some), committee assignments are done, etc. So at this point, how much impact on things would there really be if we had a motion to “vacate the chair,” and multiple elections for a new Speaker?
So at this point, how much impact on things would there really be if we had a motion to “vacate the chair,” and multiple elections for a new Speaker?
One of the long-standing rules is that a Speaker is supposed to, at earliest reasonable opportunity, provide the Clerk with a list of people who will assume the responsibilities of the Speaker — less the succession parts — in the event of a vacancy or extended incapacity. The names are not revealed unless actually needed. I’ve always assumed that most Speakers just list the leadership of their own party in some order.
So, not much impact.
So at this point, how much impact on things would there really be if we had a motion to “vacate the chair,” and multiple elections for a new Speaker?
One of the long-standing rules is that a Speaker is supposed to, at earliest reasonable opportunity, provide the Clerk with a list of people who will assume the responsibilities of the Speaker — less the succession parts — in the event of a vacancy or extended incapacity. The names are not revealed unless actually needed. I’ve always assumed that most Speakers just list the leadership of their own party in some order.
So, not much impact.
Unless, of course, one of McCarthy’s (unannounced) concessions was to put one of the crazies next in line. Considering that they were, as Gaetz put it, “running out of things to ask for” …
Unless, of course, one of McCarthy’s (unannounced) concessions was to put one of the crazies next in line. Considering that they were, as Gaetz put it, “running out of things to ask for” …
There was some blog-comment (so, grain of salt the size of the Titanic) that there are several “secret” pages in the House Rules that were voted in.
It would be inappropriate not to speculate. Cawthorn’s drug orgy clubs? Having Gaetz run the House page program? Loyalty oaths to Putin?
Maybe Nickolas Cage should break in and get those secret Rules. It would make a great movie.
There was some blog-comment (so, grain of salt the size of the Titanic) that there are several “secret” pages in the House Rules that were voted in.
It would be inappropriate not to speculate. Cawthorn’s drug orgy clubs? Having Gaetz run the House page program? Loyalty oaths to Putin?
Maybe Nickolas Cage should break in and get those secret Rules. It would make a great movie.
Came across an interesting thought on the debt ceiling. There’s Section 4 of the 14 Amendment (which Amendment is mostly discussed with regard to Section 1 — Equal Protection):
The discussion is to the effect that the debt limit conflicts with this. Consider failing to pay the debt when it comes due — which is what refusing to raise the limit would do. That pretty well trashes “shall not be questioned”. So, the suggestion goes, President Biden could simply put out a statement to that effect: the debt which the United States has taken on as a result of spending which the Congress has mandated will be paid. Period.
If the crazies want to take the President to court for that, good luck. Even the current Supreme Court would be hard pressed to support a challenge which required that the US government default.
Came across an interesting thought on the debt ceiling. There’s Section 4 of the 14 Amendment (which Amendment is mostly discussed with regard to Section 1 — Equal Protection):
The discussion is to the effect that the debt limit conflicts with this. Consider failing to pay the debt when it comes due — which is what refusing to raise the limit would do. That pretty well trashes “shall not be questioned”. So, the suggestion goes, President Biden could simply put out a statement to that effect: the debt which the United States has taken on as a result of spending which the Congress has mandated will be paid. Period.
If the crazies want to take the President to court for that, good luck. Even the current Supreme Court would be hard pressed to support a challenge which required that the US government default.
IANACL, so . . .
I have seen the 14th Amendment bandied about as an out for avoiding default, but I would think the opposing argument would be tied to the work the phrase “authorized by law” is doing. That is, that debt limit laws are what is doing the authorizing, so debt issued beyond the limit would not be authorized by law and therefore open to being questioned.
The argument that proponents of using this are putting forward is that Congress, through how spending and revenue are balanced in legislation, is implicitly “authorizing” debt when it appropriates funds in excess of revenue.
Actual historical practice would need to be laid out in detail to determine which, if either, of those interpretations matches what people believed to be controlling government actions regarding issuing debt.
IANACL, so . . .
I have seen the 14th Amendment bandied about as an out for avoiding default, but I would think the opposing argument would be tied to the work the phrase “authorized by law” is doing. That is, that debt limit laws are what is doing the authorizing, so debt issued beyond the limit would not be authorized by law and therefore open to being questioned.
The argument that proponents of using this are putting forward is that Congress, through how spending and revenue are balanced in legislation, is implicitly “authorizing” debt when it appropriates funds in excess of revenue.
Actual historical practice would need to be laid out in detail to determine which, if either, of those interpretations matches what people believed to be controlling government actions regarding issuing debt.
The platinum coin seems on sounder legal ground to me, though it would likely provoke a lot more backlash than making a Constitutional argument.
The platinum coin seems on sounder legal ground to me, though it would likely provoke a lot more backlash than making a Constitutional argument.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…
For the sake of argument…
When this was added to the Constitution, the interpretation of “authorized by law” was the Treasury would come to Congress and say they needed to borrow $100M for such-and-such, and Congress would pass a law authorizing them to sell bonds (or perhaps not). When everyone got tired of doing that too often, Congress — ever lazy — said they would pass a debt ceiling law, and the Treasury could borrow up to that limit but not over it. The argument that appropriating moneys itself authorizes debt in excess of the stated limit is relatively new.
No President has yet been willing to take the step of actually arguing that in court. And it will wind up in court if the Treasury chooses to ignore the ceiling. Given the current SCOTUS, I’d bet that they hold “authorized by law” can’t be done implicitly, it has to be done explicitly. The Court will further hold that the bondholders are the only spending mandated in the Constitution, so must be paid first and other spending cut.
Note that California’s constitution does this explicitly. IIRC, the first obligation on California revenue is K-12 education, the second is bondholders, and the rest follow (K-12 and bondholders may be in the other order, but they’re definitely at the head of the line). During one of the financial crises this got put into practice: the controller disbursed the K-12 money and paid the bondholders. Schwarzenegger then instructed him where to not spend money when the revenue ran short. IIRC, California dropped out of TANF for a year, and cut way back on UC recruitment efforts, among other things.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…
For the sake of argument…
When this was added to the Constitution, the interpretation of “authorized by law” was the Treasury would come to Congress and say they needed to borrow $100M for such-and-such, and Congress would pass a law authorizing them to sell bonds (or perhaps not). When everyone got tired of doing that too often, Congress — ever lazy — said they would pass a debt ceiling law, and the Treasury could borrow up to that limit but not over it. The argument that appropriating moneys itself authorizes debt in excess of the stated limit is relatively new.
No President has yet been willing to take the step of actually arguing that in court. And it will wind up in court if the Treasury chooses to ignore the ceiling. Given the current SCOTUS, I’d bet that they hold “authorized by law” can’t be done implicitly, it has to be done explicitly. The Court will further hold that the bondholders are the only spending mandated in the Constitution, so must be paid first and other spending cut.
Note that California’s constitution does this explicitly. IIRC, the first obligation on California revenue is K-12 education, the second is bondholders, and the rest follow (K-12 and bondholders may be in the other order, but they’re definitely at the head of the line). During one of the financial crises this got put into practice: the controller disbursed the K-12 money and paid the bondholders. Schwarzenegger then instructed him where to not spend money when the revenue ran short. IIRC, California dropped out of TANF for a year, and cut way back on UC recruitment efforts, among other things.
If the Congress passes a spending bill, that’s “authorize by law”. Indeed, mandated by law. If they don’t want money borrowed, then either they raise taxes or cut spending. Which is what traditionally happens in California, thanks to our balanced budget mandate.
But for the Federal government, what we have is a) a tax code which (if enforced!) brings in some amount of money, b) annual spending bills, which require spending some amount of money, and c) a debt limit which constrains how much the latter can exceed the former. If you don’t raise the debt limit, pick any two.
Because, as we are aware, you can’t have all three if the crazies have their way. Somebody will have to pick which one gets ignored. If you don’t want the President to just raise tax rates arbitrarily (duh!), then what? I know, I know. What the crazies want is to be able to blame the Democrats for hugely unpopular spending cuts — maybe even getting the Medicare and Social Security cuts they talk about but know, on some level, would never pass. But if the Democrats refuse to play ball…?
As for the Supreme Court, if a violation of the debt limit came before them. A cogent question would be: OK your honors, which of the three mutually exclusive legal requirements do you direct us to violate?
If the Congress passes a spending bill, that’s “authorize by law”. Indeed, mandated by law. If they don’t want money borrowed, then either they raise taxes or cut spending. Which is what traditionally happens in California, thanks to our balanced budget mandate.
But for the Federal government, what we have is a) a tax code which (if enforced!) brings in some amount of money, b) annual spending bills, which require spending some amount of money, and c) a debt limit which constrains how much the latter can exceed the former. If you don’t raise the debt limit, pick any two.
Because, as we are aware, you can’t have all three if the crazies have their way. Somebody will have to pick which one gets ignored. If you don’t want the President to just raise tax rates arbitrarily (duh!), then what? I know, I know. What the crazies want is to be able to blame the Democrats for hugely unpopular spending cuts — maybe even getting the Medicare and Social Security cuts they talk about but know, on some level, would never pass. But if the Democrats refuse to play ball…?
As for the Supreme Court, if a violation of the debt limit came before them. A cogent question would be: OK your honors, which of the three mutually exclusive legal requirements do you direct us to violate?
One other thought.
If there’s a conflict, the Constitution trumps laws. No argument there. (Although I suppose the Court, devout originalists and textualists that they are, could decide that, after all, there’s nothing explicit in the text of the Constitution to support Marbury v Madison…. But since that would neuter their own power, probably not.)
One other thought.
If there’s a conflict, the Constitution trumps laws. No argument there. (Although I suppose the Court, devout originalists and textualists that they are, could decide that, after all, there’s nothing explicit in the text of the Constitution to support Marbury v Madison…. But since that would neuter their own power, probably not.)
The new House has ordered to remove the metal detectors from the entrance to the chamber.
So, can MTG now practice her second amendment rigths in peace(?) again?
Other priorities: undermining the House ethics comittee and passing a bill to protect tax cheats.
That the latter IS the purpose can be deduced from words spoken on the floor by GOP members in last congress explicitly expressing fear that, if the IRS got properly funded, it could actually enforce existing tax law.
The new House has ordered to remove the metal detectors from the entrance to the chamber.
So, can MTG now practice her second amendment rigths in peace(?) again?
Other priorities: undermining the House ethics comittee and passing a bill to protect tax cheats.
That the latter IS the purpose can be deduced from words spoken on the floor by GOP members in last congress explicitly expressing fear that, if the IRS got properly funded, it could actually enforce existing tax law.
I keep trying to think of something thoughtful or helpful to say about the state of things, but all I keep coming up with is this:
folks, it’s gonna be a sh*t-show for the foreseeable future.
sm damn h
I keep trying to think of something thoughtful or helpful to say about the state of things, but all I keep coming up with is this:
folks, it’s gonna be a sh*t-show for the foreseeable future.
sm damn h
You mean like elected officials tweeting “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!”?
Oy vey…
You mean like elected officials tweeting “I’ll NEVER give up my gas stove. If the maniacs in the White House come for my stove, they can pry it from my cold dead hands. COME AND TAKE IT!!”?
Oy vey…
“Your proposal is acceptable.” Men in Black
“Your proposal is acceptable.” Men in Black
Yglesias has described what might be a workable idea:
Issue bonds with a nominal face value, say $1000, as usual, but put a very high interest rate on them. Then auction them off. The Treasury would collect way more than $1000, but the actual debt would only be the face value.
There are issues, but it’s a clever idea.
Yglesias has described what might be a workable idea:
Issue bonds with a nominal face value, say $1000, as usual, but put a very high interest rate on them. Then auction them off. The Treasury would collect way more than $1000, but the actual debt would only be the face value.
There are issues, but it’s a clever idea.
‘A “basis point” is just a percentage point.’
He’s wrong by a factor of a hundred. I think I’d go to someone else for advice about bond issuance.
‘A “basis point” is just a percentage point.’
He’s wrong by a factor of a hundred. I think I’d go to someone else for advice about bond issuance.
‘A “basis point” is just a percentage point.’
He’s wrong by a factor of a hundred. I think I’d go to someone else for advice about bond issuance.
‘A “basis point” is just a percentage point.’
He’s wrong by a factor of a hundred. I think I’d go to someone else for advice about bond issuance.
RIP Jeff Beck.
Good gods, what a talent. Such an inimitable feel and sense of phrasing on the guitar. And he seemed like a very gracious person to work with as a band leader.
He’s one whose passing I knew I would feel when it came.
RIP Jeff Beck.
Good gods, what a talent. Such an inimitable feel and sense of phrasing on the guitar. And he seemed like a very gracious person to work with as a band leader.
He’s one whose passing I knew I would feel when it came.
IMO Beck was the most eloquent and expressive guitarist that rock ever produced. Full stop. A unique and brilliant player.
RIP
IMO Beck was the most eloquent and expressive guitarist that rock ever produced. Full stop. A unique and brilliant player.
RIP
“If there’s a conflict, the Constitution trumps laws.”
Shelby County, where John “Lawless” Roberts cancelled the part of the 15th Amendment that conflicted with his Confederacy-inspired priors.
You can’t trust those fnckers.
“If there’s a conflict, the Constitution trumps laws.”
Shelby County, where John “Lawless” Roberts cancelled the part of the 15th Amendment that conflicted with his Confederacy-inspired priors.
You can’t trust those fnckers.
In the Santos soap opera, now the Nassau County Republican Committee is calling for him to resign. As are a couple of Republican Congressmen from New York.
Needless to say, McCarthy is saying nothing.
In the Santos soap opera, now the Nassau County Republican Committee is calling for him to resign. As are a couple of Republican Congressmen from New York.
Needless to say, McCarthy is saying nothing.
Another thing to note on the debt ceiling: as far as I can tell, we’re the only country in the industrialized world other than Poland* that subjects ourselves to this particular piece of nonsense.
* – Poland’s is actually in their constitution and is fixed at 60% percentage of GDP. Maybe worse in some respects, but at least it doesn’t have the attendant brinkmanship.
Another thing to note on the debt ceiling: as far as I can tell, we’re the only country in the industrialized world other than Poland* that subjects ourselves to this particular piece of nonsense.
* – Poland’s is actually in their constitution and is fixed at 60% percentage of GDP. Maybe worse in some respects, but at least it doesn’t have the attendant brinkmanship.
He’s one whose passing I knew I would feel when it came.
Yes. 🙁
He’s one whose passing I knew I would feel when it came.
Yes. 🙁
My wife casually told me while looking at her phone. It felt like she slapped me across the face.
My wife casually told me while looking at her phone. It felt like she slapped me across the face.
pro bono,
Yeah. Very dumb mistake.
And I’m not relying him for bond investment advice. I just think it;s one way to deal with the problem.
pro bono,
Yeah. Very dumb mistake.
And I’m not relying him for bond investment advice. I just think it;s one way to deal with the problem.
IMO Beck was the most eloquent and expressive guitarist that rock ever produced. Full stop. A unique and brilliant player.
Yep. Doubters should give “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWkgUopbru4
I love watching his hands and how many little things he does together at one time to make his phrasing work.
IMO Beck was the most eloquent and expressive guitarist that rock ever produced. Full stop. A unique and brilliant player.
Yep. Doubters should give “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWkgUopbru4
I love watching his hands and how many little things he does together at one time to make his phrasing work.
A live version of the “big hit”.
I love how he gives Tal Wilkenfeld (bass player) the first solo and just gets the hell out of her way. Like, walks to the other side of the stage, so she can have the spotlight all to herself.
And then marshals, not just technique, but a remarkable range of techniques, in his own solo. But without turning it into a “look what I can do!” chops fest.
He just plays music.
An intelligent, adventurous, lyrical player. I’ll always be interested in hearing anything he’s on. I’m sorry he’s gone.
A live version of the “big hit”.
I love how he gives Tal Wilkenfeld (bass player) the first solo and just gets the hell out of her way. Like, walks to the other side of the stage, so she can have the spotlight all to herself.
And then marshals, not just technique, but a remarkable range of techniques, in his own solo. But without turning it into a “look what I can do!” chops fest.
He just plays music.
An intelligent, adventurous, lyrical player. I’ll always be interested in hearing anything he’s on. I’m sorry he’s gone.
Are there any doubters? They’d have to be nuts.
I almost posted RIP yesterday, when I first heard, but I thought (and I think I was right) that people here with far more knowledge and connoisseurship and feel for music than I had a right to their reactions first.
As I have observed before in other contexts, when giants fall, the earth shakes.
Are there any doubters? They’d have to be nuts.
I almost posted RIP yesterday, when I first heard, but I thought (and I think I was right) that people here with far more knowledge and connoisseurship and feel for music than I had a right to their reactions first.
As I have observed before in other contexts, when giants fall, the earth shakes.
New dress codes from
Tehranthe Missouri legislature.https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/missouri-republicans-have-found-their-post-roe-enemy-cardigans-39259210
Because, what else could be more important?
New dress codes from
Tehranthe Missouri legislature.https://www.riverfronttimes.com/news/missouri-republicans-have-found-their-post-roe-enemy-cardigans-39259210
Because, what else could be more important?
New dress codes from Tehran the Missouri legislature.
What’s the California State Legislature’s floor dress code? I’ll bet that cardigans don’t cut it on the floor in California.
Speaking from my experience on the permanent staff for the Colorado General Assembly, time spent on the floor is as much performance for the media and public as it is functional. As in all things performative, costuming helps set the audience’s expectations. The Academy hands out awards for costuming for a reason.
New dress codes from Tehran the Missouri legislature.
What’s the California State Legislature’s floor dress code? I’ll bet that cardigans don’t cut it on the floor in California.
Speaking from my experience on the permanent staff for the Colorado General Assembly, time spent on the floor is as much performance for the media and public as it is functional. As in all things performative, costuming helps set the audience’s expectations. The Academy hands out awards for costuming for a reason.
I hate dress codes. I’m with Thoreau when he says (perhaps a paraphrase): “Beware of any enterprise that requires new clothes.”
I can think and speak just as well in bluejeans as I could in a dress or a skirt. (Of which I own none.) I realize I’m an outlier among humans on this point, which I why I’m also a hermit.
But I would have less of a problem with a dress code for legislators if I was sure that the standards were similar for everyone. If women have to wear jackets (or sweaters or whatever) but men can be in their shirtsleeves, I’ve got a big problem with that. The linked article doesn’t enlighten us on that point.
*****
Pause to check … the WaPo says that “The men’s dress code in the House states that ‘proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.'”
I also don’t own any footwear other than sneakers. Oh well, I never wanted to be a legislator anyhow. Especially in Missouri.
*****
Another pause, out of curiosity. The Maine Senate’s rules of decorum say this about clothing: “Senators should be appropriately attired on session days. Men are expected to wear a suit jacket and tie. Women are expected to wear a jacket when wearing slacks.”
The suit jacket with slacks bit is interesting….
I couldn’t find anything similar for the Maine House.
I hate dress codes. I’m with Thoreau when he says (perhaps a paraphrase): “Beware of any enterprise that requires new clothes.”
I can think and speak just as well in bluejeans as I could in a dress or a skirt. (Of which I own none.) I realize I’m an outlier among humans on this point, which I why I’m also a hermit.
But I would have less of a problem with a dress code for legislators if I was sure that the standards were similar for everyone. If women have to wear jackets (or sweaters or whatever) but men can be in their shirtsleeves, I’ve got a big problem with that. The linked article doesn’t enlighten us on that point.
*****
Pause to check … the WaPo says that “The men’s dress code in the House states that ‘proper attire for gentlemen shall be business attire, including coat, tie, dress trousers, and dress shoes or boots.'”
I also don’t own any footwear other than sneakers. Oh well, I never wanted to be a legislator anyhow. Especially in Missouri.
*****
Another pause, out of curiosity. The Maine Senate’s rules of decorum say this about clothing: “Senators should be appropriately attired on session days. Men are expected to wear a suit jacket and tie. Women are expected to wear a jacket when wearing slacks.”
The suit jacket with slacks bit is interesting….
I couldn’t find anything similar for the Maine House.
I love how he gives Tal Wilkenfeld (bass player) the first solo and just gets the hell out of her way.
Wow. I’m glad you mentioned that, because it’s one of the first things that came to mind as to a relatively recent tour he did (it’s been years, but I’m old). I honestly don’t know where the credit goes – Beck, who doesn’t suffer musical fools well – getting Tal on board, or her exceptional feel for knowing where to be. Anyway. I’m gonna enjoy it again, with a tear in my eye, but joy in wherever the musical heart lives.
I love how he gives Tal Wilkenfeld (bass player) the first solo and just gets the hell out of her way.
Wow. I’m glad you mentioned that, because it’s one of the first things that came to mind as to a relatively recent tour he did (it’s been years, but I’m old). I honestly don’t know where the credit goes – Beck, who doesn’t suffer musical fools well – getting Tal on board, or her exceptional feel for knowing where to be. Anyway. I’m gonna enjoy it again, with a tear in my eye, but joy in wherever the musical heart lives.
If women have to wear jackets (or sweaters or whatever) but men can be in their shirtsleeves, I’ve got a big problem with that.
Just to be contrary (who, me?), allow me to suggest that it is also unfair to force men to wear a vistigal Croatian neck scarf when women are allowed to wear an open-necked blouse. Given air conditioning, I can deal with being required to wear a jacket — I don’t like it, but I can deal. Ties, however, are an abomination.
If women have to wear jackets (or sweaters or whatever) but men can be in their shirtsleeves, I’ve got a big problem with that.
Just to be contrary (who, me?), allow me to suggest that it is also unfair to force men to wear a vistigal Croatian neck scarf when women are allowed to wear an open-necked blouse. Given air conditioning, I can deal with being required to wear a jacket — I don’t like it, but I can deal. Ties, however, are an abomination.
Equal rights for legislators of either sex! Actually, I agree. I’m also perfectly happy with men wearing skirts or dresses if they like, although I suspect not many of the people making the rules would be….
Equal rights for legislators of either sex! Actually, I agree. I’m also perfectly happy with men wearing skirts or dresses if they like, although I suspect not many of the people making the rules would be….
I always felt like putting on a tie was some kinda resigned capitulation to a social norm that requires me to fit myself with a noose of my own design. I’m no bon vivant. AFAIC, be clean and relatively neat. That oughta be enough.
I always felt like putting on a tie was some kinda resigned capitulation to a social norm that requires me to fit myself with a noose of my own design. I’m no bon vivant. AFAIC, be clean and relatively neat. That oughta be enough.
As a Westerner, wj, you could wear a bolo tie.
As a Westerner, wj, you could wear a bolo tie.
Now I’m contemplating Dress-Like-A-Viking Fridays. Or should it be pirates? I’ll figure it out on my way to the suggestion box.
Now I’m contemplating Dress-Like-A-Viking Fridays. Or should it be pirates? I’ll figure it out on my way to the suggestion box.
Ties, however, are an abomination.
Totally agree.
Ties, however, are an abomination.
Totally agree.
I honestly don’t know where the credit goes
it’s about the love and mutual respect between people who share a devotion to a demanding craft. the recognition of a fellow spirit.
“ah, we speak the same language!”
my favorite thing about Beck was his lack of interest in being a Rock God. he was interested in exploring and playing music, and if you were there to make music, you were his friend and peer.
I suspect not many of the people making the rules would be….
They don’t have the legs for it.
😉
I honestly don’t know where the credit goes
it’s about the love and mutual respect between people who share a devotion to a demanding craft. the recognition of a fellow spirit.
“ah, we speak the same language!”
my favorite thing about Beck was his lack of interest in being a Rock God. he was interested in exploring and playing music, and if you were there to make music, you were his friend and peer.
I suspect not many of the people making the rules would be….
They don’t have the legs for it.
😉
I’m also perfectly happy with men wearing skirts or dresses if they like, although I suspect not many of the people making the rules would be…
I suspect that number is greater than one might think. But they do it behind closed doors while conjuring new and creative legislation to keep “the gays” in check.
And let’s be honest: Whatever their preferences, I don’t wanna see the likes of Paul Gosar’s gams. Ain’t nobody wants that. Maybe Ted Cruz. Excuse me – I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
hsh,
Pirates. Viking pirates are an acceptable subset.
I’m also perfectly happy with men wearing skirts or dresses if they like, although I suspect not many of the people making the rules would be…
I suspect that number is greater than one might think. But they do it behind closed doors while conjuring new and creative legislation to keep “the gays” in check.
And let’s be honest: Whatever their preferences, I don’t wanna see the likes of Paul Gosar’s gams. Ain’t nobody wants that. Maybe Ted Cruz. Excuse me – I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
hsh,
Pirates. Viking pirates are an acceptable subset.
The vikings did not – to my knowledge – wear underwear. As rumor has it neither do the traditional Scots under their kilts. Not sure about the Welsh outside the Khyber region.
I’d say (male) senators should be forced to wear a toga while conducting their elected function. Representatives should wear what a majority of their voters demand.
The vikings did not – to my knowledge – wear underwear. As rumor has it neither do the traditional Scots under their kilts. Not sure about the Welsh outside the Khyber region.
I’d say (male) senators should be forced to wear a toga while conducting their elected function. Representatives should wear what a majority of their voters demand.
I’d say
(male)senators should be forced to wear a toga while conducting their elected function.Representatives should wear what a majority of their voters demand.
How about some kinda state-signature thing? Like, Texans can wear a 10-gallon hat and Hawaiians can wear grass skirts. I could get on board with that. C-SPAN could use some color.
I’d say
(male)senators should be forced to wear a toga while conducting their elected function.Representatives should wear what a majority of their voters demand.
How about some kinda state-signature thing? Like, Texans can wear a 10-gallon hat and Hawaiians can wear grass skirts. I could get on board with that. C-SPAN could use some color.
I’m also perfectly happy with men wearing skirts or dresses if they like, although I suspect not many of the people making the rules would be….
If it was a kilt, might not get that much pushback.
Realistically, even most offices have dropped the “coat and tie” requirement. (I think I last wore a tie at work in the late 1970s. But admittedly I was working in IT at the time.) An open neck shirt and slacks seem like as far as anybody goes for work wear these days.** If the politicians had ever held an honest job, they would know that.
** I suppose lawyers may be more restricted for court attire. It’s been a while since I was last on a jury.
I’m also perfectly happy with men wearing skirts or dresses if they like, although I suspect not many of the people making the rules would be….
If it was a kilt, might not get that much pushback.
Realistically, even most offices have dropped the “coat and tie” requirement. (I think I last wore a tie at work in the late 1970s. But admittedly I was working in IT at the time.) An open neck shirt and slacks seem like as far as anybody goes for work wear these days.** If the politicians had ever held an honest job, they would know that.
** I suppose lawyers may be more restricted for court attire. It’s been a while since I was last on a jury.
As rumor has it neither do the traditional Scots under their kilts.
The version of that rumor that I’ve heard is that the low land Scots do wear underwear, but the highlanders traditionally do not. Leading to the question (never answered), to someone in a kilt: “Are you going highland?”
As rumor has it neither do the traditional Scots under their kilts.
The version of that rumor that I’ve heard is that the low land Scots do wear underwear, but the highlanders traditionally do not. Leading to the question (never answered), to someone in a kilt: “Are you going highland?”
Pete, adult* females wearing togas carries certain implications for the classically educated. When togas were still the mandatoty fashion for Roman citizens (and banned for anyone else), it was the state ordered dress for prostitutes. There was a separate dress code for proper ladies.
*unwed girls (whose parents could afford it) wore the toga praetexta like freeborn boys. So lady senators wearing togas would imply that they are either whores or underage (not that this would make a difference to the likes of Matt Gaetz).
Pete, adult* females wearing togas carries certain implications for the classically educated. When togas were still the mandatoty fashion for Roman citizens (and banned for anyone else), it was the state ordered dress for prostitutes. There was a separate dress code for proper ladies.
*unwed girls (whose parents could afford it) wore the toga praetexta like freeborn boys. So lady senators wearing togas would imply that they are either whores or underage (not that this would make a difference to the likes of Matt Gaetz).
Prostitutes sounds about right. Of whatever gender.
I can’t be the only one who would be amused by Feinstein or Grassley fumbling their way to the podium in that get-up.
Somehow, I feel like Sanders would look like a natural. 🙂
Prostitutes sounds about right. Of whatever gender.
I can’t be the only one who would be amused by Feinstein or Grassley fumbling their way to the podium in that get-up.
Somehow, I feel like Sanders would look like a natural. 🙂
I can’t be the only one who would be amused by Feinstein or Grassley fumbling their way to the podium in that get-up.
MTG and Boebert. Those are the two who would amuse me.
I can’t be the only one who would be amused by Feinstein or Grassley fumbling their way to the podium in that get-up.
MTG and Boebert. Those are the two who would amuse me.
“Why do scots wear kilts?
Because sheep can hear a zipper a mile away!”
“Why do scots wear kilts?
Because sheep can hear a zipper a mile away!”
ETA: about “bolo ties”.
If you were born west of the Mississippi river, or have ever ridden in a rodeo, then you are entitled to wear a cowboy hat, bolo tie, and cowboy boots.
Otherwise not.
It is known.
ETA: about “bolo ties”.
If you were born west of the Mississippi river, or have ever ridden in a rodeo, then you are entitled to wear a cowboy hat, bolo tie, and cowboy boots.
Otherwise not.
It is known.
you are entitled to wear a cowboy hat, bolo tie, and cowboy boots.
Cowboy hat: reasonably pracctical
Bolo tie: neutral. (Better than a regular tie, let alone a bow tie, but still not wonderful.)
Cowboy boots: good if you are actually riding a horse. Otherwise? Total insanity. Makes wearing mere high heels (ask any woman about that!) seem a minor inconvenience.
you are entitled to wear a cowboy hat, bolo tie, and cowboy boots.
Cowboy hat: reasonably pracctical
Bolo tie: neutral. (Better than a regular tie, let alone a bow tie, but still not wonderful.)
Cowboy boots: good if you are actually riding a horse. Otherwise? Total insanity. Makes wearing mere high heels (ask any woman about that!) seem a minor inconvenience.
There are down-at-the-heel “cowboy boots” available.
There are down-at-the-heel “cowboy boots” available.
If you were born west of the Mississippi river, or have ever ridden in a rodeo, then you are entitled to wear a cowboy hat, bolo tie, and cowboy boots.
At the guest ranch where my family took a few vacations, the wranglers often said, “Once you’ve been thrown seven times, you’re a cowboy.” One year my horse freaked out, did a rodeo spin, and tossed me down the steep slope adjacent to the trail. After I climbed back up and was having words with the horse, the wrangler who had just arrived at the scene grinned and said, “That’s one.”
Other riders in the group who saw it said that it was quite impressive. After hearing a description, my wife was very happy that she was well ahead of me in the line so that she didn’t see it.
If you were born west of the Mississippi river, or have ever ridden in a rodeo, then you are entitled to wear a cowboy hat, bolo tie, and cowboy boots.
At the guest ranch where my family took a few vacations, the wranglers often said, “Once you’ve been thrown seven times, you’re a cowboy.” One year my horse freaked out, did a rodeo spin, and tossed me down the steep slope adjacent to the trail. After I climbed back up and was having words with the horse, the wrangler who had just arrived at the scene grinned and said, “That’s one.”
Other riders in the group who saw it said that it was quite impressive. After hearing a description, my wife was very happy that she was well ahead of me in the line so that she didn’t see it.
By the way, and apropos of nothing, I have a theory which is entirely mine and I have not seen anywhere else, although I wouldn’t be surprised if others have already posited it.
I think George Santos is a performance artist. I think he is creating a work of art which continues from and satirises the current state of American politics as hitherto exemplified by Trump. He’s taking it as far as he can, and so far that’s quite far and getting farther.
If there is an alternative explanation which more accurately fits the facts, I’d like to hear it.
By the way, and apropos of nothing, I have a theory which is entirely mine and I have not seen anywhere else, although I wouldn’t be surprised if others have already posited it.
I think George Santos is a performance artist. I think he is creating a work of art which continues from and satirises the current state of American politics as hitherto exemplified by Trump. He’s taking it as far as he can, and so far that’s quite far and getting farther.
If there is an alternative explanation which more accurately fits the facts, I’d like to hear it.
Ha! I wrote that after reading the first one and a half paragraphs of this, in the Guardian. When I went back to it, I read this:
At times like this, it’s hard to take Santos’s dishonesty seriously. It seems less like an affront to the dignity of the democratic process and more like some kind of durational satire, a piece of performance art.
So I can no longer claim originality. But I do think it makes sense in a way little else does.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/14/george-santos-politician-americans-deserve
Ha! I wrote that after reading the first one and a half paragraphs of this, in the Guardian. When I went back to it, I read this:
At times like this, it’s hard to take Santos’s dishonesty seriously. It seems less like an affront to the dignity of the democratic process and more like some kind of durational satire, a piece of performance art.
So I can no longer claim originality. But I do think it makes sense in a way little else does.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/14/george-santos-politician-americans-deserve
The latest on George Santos. (TPM)
Credit card fraud committed against contributors.
The latest on George Santos. (TPM)
Credit card fraud committed against contributors.
If there is an alternative explanation which more accurately fits the facts, I’d like to hear it.
He’s a crook? And/or a pathological liar? And/or he was laundering money and, possibly like Clickbait, didn’t actually expect to win his election? (Not a theory original with me.)
Can you explain why Santos’s long con is so different from Clickbait’s that it requires a different explanation?
I worked with a woman once who told stories. Her most outlandish one was that she was, at that particular time, an alternate for the US Olympic x-country ski team. She was small, and as doughy and un-athletic as a person could be. Not to dis small, doughy, unathletic people — but they do not land on the Olympic ski team.
She did this kind of thing all the time in relation to less obvious things — she was intelligent but basically unwell, and was eventually let go from her job.
If there is an alternative explanation which more accurately fits the facts, I’d like to hear it.
He’s a crook? And/or a pathological liar? And/or he was laundering money and, possibly like Clickbait, didn’t actually expect to win his election? (Not a theory original with me.)
Can you explain why Santos’s long con is so different from Clickbait’s that it requires a different explanation?
I worked with a woman once who told stories. Her most outlandish one was that she was, at that particular time, an alternate for the US Olympic x-country ski team. She was small, and as doughy and un-athletic as a person could be. Not to dis small, doughy, unathletic people — but they do not land on the Olympic ski team.
She did this kind of thing all the time in relation to less obvious things — she was intelligent but basically unwell, and was eventually let go from her job.
Per ral’s comment — that’s another thing. How much jail time would you risk (look for articles about some restaurant story about how he skated on the edge of campaign finance rules) for the sake of a performance? Or maybe he’s so cocky that he was sure he wouldn’t get caught. But even there it feels like he’s skating at the edge of not being entirely in one piece mentally.
Then again again, we had a president…..
Per ral’s comment — that’s another thing. How much jail time would you risk (look for articles about some restaurant story about how he skated on the edge of campaign finance rules) for the sake of a performance? Or maybe he’s so cocky that he was sure he wouldn’t get caught. But even there it feels like he’s skating at the edge of not being entirely in one piece mentally.
Then again again, we had a president…..
From ral’s linked article:
From ral’s linked article:
Politicians have the propensity to make shit up. Including Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden and a lot of people in between.
Politicians have the propensity to make shit up. Including Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden and a lot of people in between.
I think most people have made at least a few things up in their lives for whatever reasons. Whether that makes them worthy of mention in comparison to Santos is another matter.
I think most people have made at least a few things up in their lives for whatever reasons. Whether that makes them worthy of mention in comparison to Santos is another matter.
Perhaps it’s time to admit that my theory was not entirely serious. But kind of. What I meant was, none of it really makes sense.
After all, Trump did have decades of a supposedly successful and rich life behind him, although those with eyes to see stuff (e.g. his bankruptcies) always doubted the truth of the extent of it.
I can believe that Santos never expected to win, maybe. I can believe that he is a mentally unfit fabulist. I can believe that perhaps the local media did not go all in on the lies in time for the election (actually I have no idea whether they did or not – if they did it makes my following point even stronger), but the thing that takes this to a really extraordinary level is that people voted for him. This was why I found performance art satirising the Trump phenomenon a complete and persuasive explanation. But, in all fairness, I was not being entirely serious. Is there another tag (like wj’s /sarcasm) to denote a certain kind of English gallows humour and cynicism?
Perhaps it’s time to admit that my theory was not entirely serious. But kind of. What I meant was, none of it really makes sense.
After all, Trump did have decades of a supposedly successful and rich life behind him, although those with eyes to see stuff (e.g. his bankruptcies) always doubted the truth of the extent of it.
I can believe that Santos never expected to win, maybe. I can believe that he is a mentally unfit fabulist. I can believe that perhaps the local media did not go all in on the lies in time for the election (actually I have no idea whether they did or not – if they did it makes my following point even stronger), but the thing that takes this to a really extraordinary level is that people voted for him. This was why I found performance art satirising the Trump phenomenon a complete and persuasive explanation. But, in all fairness, I was not being entirely serious. Is there another tag (like wj’s /sarcasm) to denote a certain kind of English gallows humour and cynicism?
the thing that takes this to a really extraordinary level is that people voted for him.
This is our real problem right here. With Clickbait as well, of course, and the list could go on.
the thing that takes this to a really extraordinary level is that people voted for him.
This is our real problem right here. With Clickbait as well, of course, and the list could go on.
When does a difference in degree become a difference in kind? Of course politicians tell people what they want to hear. George Santos, though, goes well beyond that.
Human relationships are based at some deep level on trust. In contract law this is even codified as “the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” It’s also widely recognized that trust takes a long time to build and can be destroyed in an instant.
Here we have George Santos who has been shown so vividly to be untrustworthy. To me he is a test case of whether the political system, and the GOP in particular, can cope with the problem. How can they work with this guy? Even if he seems to be on their side how can they be sure?
Donald Trump is an example of just how far one can go on pure bluster, but even he works hard to cast doubt on reports of his misdeeds. Does anyone still really trust Donald Trump? Certainly not anyone who has had business dealings with him.
Fool me once…
When does a difference in degree become a difference in kind? Of course politicians tell people what they want to hear. George Santos, though, goes well beyond that.
Human relationships are based at some deep level on trust. In contract law this is even codified as “the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” It’s also widely recognized that trust takes a long time to build and can be destroyed in an instant.
Here we have George Santos who has been shown so vividly to be untrustworthy. To me he is a test case of whether the political system, and the GOP in particular, can cope with the problem. How can they work with this guy? Even if he seems to be on their side how can they be sure?
Donald Trump is an example of just how far one can go on pure bluster, but even he works hard to cast doubt on reports of his misdeeds. Does anyone still really trust Donald Trump? Certainly not anyone who has had business dealings with him.
Fool me once…
Here we have George Santos who has been shown so vividly to be untrustworthy. To me he is a test case of whether the political system, and the GOP in particular, can cope with the problem. How can they work with this guy?
I suspect they work with him on the basis of (explicit, but non-public) threats: “Vote for McCarthy for Speaker, and we minimize what you did. Or don’t, and we boot you out and demand criminal prosecution.”
After Trump, you’d think they’d know better. But McCarthy was desperate. Couldn’t really afford to lose even one vote, even with those “Present” votes.
Here we have George Santos who has been shown so vividly to be untrustworthy. To me he is a test case of whether the political system, and the GOP in particular, can cope with the problem. How can they work with this guy?
I suspect they work with him on the basis of (explicit, but non-public) threats: “Vote for McCarthy for Speaker, and we minimize what you did. Or don’t, and we boot you out and demand criminal prosecution.”
After Trump, you’d think they’d know better. But McCarthy was desperate. Couldn’t really afford to lose even one vote, even with those “Present” votes.
I don’t *think* Sasha Baron Cohen could disguise himself as George Santos, but perhaps I’m misunderestimating the capabilities of makeup artists.
I don’t *think* Sasha Baron Cohen could disguise himself as George Santos, but perhaps I’m misunderestimating the capabilities of makeup artists.
I’m reminded of Jeffrey Archer, a best-selling novelist, who enjoyed a chequered career as a conservative politician during which he lied about everything. Eventually he was imprisoned for perjury, since when he hasn’t been politically active, though he remains a life peer.
The thing about Archer is that no one trusted him, but almost everyone liked him.
I’m reminded of Jeffrey Archer, a best-selling novelist, who enjoyed a chequered career as a conservative politician during which he lied about everything. Eventually he was imprisoned for perjury, since when he hasn’t been politically active, though he remains a life peer.
The thing about Archer is that no one trusted him, but almost everyone liked him.
Maybe he’s Andy Kaufman, back from the grave.
Maybe he’s Andy Kaufman, back from the grave.
On the other hand, unlike performance art, this piece from today’s WaPo makes me think of nothing so much as the old standby of Superman comics from my youth, when they had to explain why something seemingly impossible was happening: Earth Two.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/house-republicans-govern-lie-weaponization-committeee/
Ryan Zinke stepped up to the microphone and into the Twilight Zone.
“Despite the ‘deep state’s’ repeated attempts to stop me, I stand before you as a duly elected member of the United States Congress and tell you that a deep state exists and is perhaps the strongest covert weapon the left has against the American people,” he told the House. The Montana Republican, who has returned to Congress after a scandal-plagued stint in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, informed his colleagues that “the deep state runs secret messaging campaigns” and is trying “to wipe out the American cowboy.”
***
On Monday, their first day of legislative business, they voted to repeal funding for a fictitious “87,000 IRS agents” who don’t exist and never will. On Wednesday, they approved legislation purporting to outlaw infanticide, which is already illegal and always has been. In between, they set up the deep state committee.
***
What will be the priorities of this new House majority? Well, let us take them at their word.
Fox News host Sean Hannity visited the Rayburn Room off the House floor this week where, under the watchful eye of a George Washington oil portrait, he broadcast interviews with McCarthy and his leadership team.
Total mentions of inflation: 1.
Total mentions of jobs: 1.
Total mentions of the economy: 2.
Total mentions of investigations: 20.
“Thank you, brother,” McCarthy said to Hannity before they got down to probing all of the planned probes: investigating the FBI, DOJ, China, the “weaponized” feds, the Afghanistan pullout, covid-19’s origins, Anthony Fauci, the “Biden family syndicate,” Hunter Biden’s laptop and more.
And now: President Biden’s handling of classified documents. Intelligence Committee Chairman Michael R. Turner (Ohio), who dismissed Trump’s hoarding of classified documents as a “bookkeeping issue,” now demands “a full and thorough review” of Biden’s conduct. Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (Ky.), who said probing the Trump documents would “not be a priority,” said of Biden’s documents: “We’re probing it.”
***
On the floor, the committee’s proponents didn’t hide their conspiracy beliefs. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) meandered into remarks about the FBI spying on Frank Sinatra before proclaiming: “Mr. Speaker, today we are putting the deep state on notice. We are coming for you.”
House Republicans gave themselves another tool of vengeance by reviving the Holman Rule, which allows lawmakers to cut the salaries of individual federal employees. They’re also planning to kick Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) off the Intelligence Committee, explicitly as punishment for handling Trump’s first impeachment.
By contrast, McCarthy has promised committee assignments to George Santos (R-N.Y.), who won election on a fabricated life story and résumé. Santos faces multiple investigations, and New York Republicans (including members of Congress) have called him a “fraud” and a “joke” and demanded he resign.
But McCarthy is having none of it. “He is seated,” said the man who chose to seat Santos. “If there is a concern, he will go through Ethics,” said the man who just disemboweled the Office of Congressional Ethics.
And really, plenty more. All you Americans on ObWi probably know what’s going on, but this article really is absolutely astounding and should be widely known, so that in 2024 the electorate really knows what the R politicians they vote for are doing with those votes.
On the other hand, unlike performance art, this piece from today’s WaPo makes me think of nothing so much as the old standby of Superman comics from my youth, when they had to explain why something seemingly impossible was happening: Earth Two.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/house-republicans-govern-lie-weaponization-committeee/
Ryan Zinke stepped up to the microphone and into the Twilight Zone.
“Despite the ‘deep state’s’ repeated attempts to stop me, I stand before you as a duly elected member of the United States Congress and tell you that a deep state exists and is perhaps the strongest covert weapon the left has against the American people,” he told the House. The Montana Republican, who has returned to Congress after a scandal-plagued stint in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, informed his colleagues that “the deep state runs secret messaging campaigns” and is trying “to wipe out the American cowboy.”
***
On Monday, their first day of legislative business, they voted to repeal funding for a fictitious “87,000 IRS agents” who don’t exist and never will. On Wednesday, they approved legislation purporting to outlaw infanticide, which is already illegal and always has been. In between, they set up the deep state committee.
***
What will be the priorities of this new House majority? Well, let us take them at their word.
Fox News host Sean Hannity visited the Rayburn Room off the House floor this week where, under the watchful eye of a George Washington oil portrait, he broadcast interviews with McCarthy and his leadership team.
Total mentions of inflation: 1.
Total mentions of jobs: 1.
Total mentions of the economy: 2.
Total mentions of investigations: 20.
“Thank you, brother,” McCarthy said to Hannity before they got down to probing all of the planned probes: investigating the FBI, DOJ, China, the “weaponized” feds, the Afghanistan pullout, covid-19’s origins, Anthony Fauci, the “Biden family syndicate,” Hunter Biden’s laptop and more.
And now: President Biden’s handling of classified documents. Intelligence Committee Chairman Michael R. Turner (Ohio), who dismissed Trump’s hoarding of classified documents as a “bookkeeping issue,” now demands “a full and thorough review” of Biden’s conduct. Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (Ky.), who said probing the Trump documents would “not be a priority,” said of Biden’s documents: “We’re probing it.”
***
On the floor, the committee’s proponents didn’t hide their conspiracy beliefs. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) meandered into remarks about the FBI spying on Frank Sinatra before proclaiming: “Mr. Speaker, today we are putting the deep state on notice. We are coming for you.”
House Republicans gave themselves another tool of vengeance by reviving the Holman Rule, which allows lawmakers to cut the salaries of individual federal employees. They’re also planning to kick Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) off the Intelligence Committee, explicitly as punishment for handling Trump’s first impeachment.
By contrast, McCarthy has promised committee assignments to George Santos (R-N.Y.), who won election on a fabricated life story and résumé. Santos faces multiple investigations, and New York Republicans (including members of Congress) have called him a “fraud” and a “joke” and demanded he resign.
But McCarthy is having none of it. “He is seated,” said the man who chose to seat Santos. “If there is a concern, he will go through Ethics,” said the man who just disemboweled the Office of Congressional Ethics.
And really, plenty more. All you Americans on ObWi probably know what’s going on, but this article really is absolutely astounding and should be widely known, so that in 2024 the electorate really knows what the R politicians they vote for are doing with those votes.
On the other hand, unlike performance art, this piece from today’s WaPo makes me think of nothing so much as the old standby of Superman comics from my youth, when they had to explain why something seemingly impossible was happening: Earth Two.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/house-republicans-govern-lie-weaponization-committeee/
Ryan Zinke stepped up to the microphone and into the Twilight Zone.
“Despite the ‘deep state’s’ repeated attempts to stop me, I stand before you as a duly elected member of the United States Congress and tell you that a deep state exists and is perhaps the strongest covert weapon the left has against the American people,” he told the House. The Montana Republican, who has returned to Congress after a scandal-plagued stint in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, informed his colleagues that “the deep state runs secret messaging campaigns” and is trying “to wipe out the American cowboy.”
***
On Monday, their first day of legislative business, they voted to repeal funding for a fictitious “87,000 IRS agents” who don’t exist and never will. On Wednesday, they approved legislation purporting to outlaw infanticide, which is already illegal and always has been. In between, they set up the deep state committee.
***
What will be the priorities of this new House majority? Well, let us take them at their word.
Fox News host Sean Hannity visited the Rayburn Room off the House floor this week where, under the watchful eye of a George Washington oil portrait, he broadcast interviews with McCarthy and his leadership team.
Total mentions of inflation: 1.
Total mentions of jobs: 1.
Total mentions of the economy: 2.
Total mentions of investigations: 20.
“Thank you, brother,” McCarthy said to Hannity before they got down to probing all of the planned probes: investigating the FBI, DOJ, China, the “weaponized” feds, the Afghanistan pullout, covid-19’s origins, Anthony Fauci, the “Biden family syndicate,” Hunter Biden’s laptop and more.
And now: President Biden’s handling of classified documents. Intelligence Committee Chairman Michael R. Turner (Ohio), who dismissed Trump’s hoarding of classified documents as a “bookkeeping issue,” now demands “a full and thorough review” of Biden’s conduct. Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (Ky.), who said probing the Trump documents would “not be a priority,” said of Biden’s documents: “We’re probing it.”
***
On the floor, the committee’s proponents didn’t hide their conspiracy beliefs. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) meandered into remarks about the FBI spying on Frank Sinatra before proclaiming: “Mr. Speaker, today we are putting the deep state on notice. We are coming for you.”
House Republicans gave themselves another tool of vengeance by reviving the Holman Rule, which allows lawmakers to cut the salaries of individual federal employees. They’re also planning to kick Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) off the Intelligence Committee, explicitly as punishment for handling Trump’s first impeachment.
By contrast, McCarthy has promised committee assignments to George Santos (R-N.Y.), who won election on a fabricated life story and résumé. Santos faces multiple investigations, and New York Republicans (including members of Congress) have called him a “fraud” and a “joke” and demanded he resign.
But McCarthy is having none of it. “He is seated,” said the man who chose to seat Santos. “If there is a concern, he will go through Ethics,” said the man who just disemboweled the Office of Congressional Ethics.
And really, plenty more. All you Americans on ObWi probably know what’s going on, but this article really is absolutely astounding and should be widely publicised and known, so that in 2024 the electorate really knows what the R politicians they vote for are doing with those votes.
On the other hand, unlike performance art, this piece from today’s WaPo makes me think of nothing so much as the old standby of Superman comics from my youth, when they had to explain why something seemingly impossible was happening: Earth Two.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/13/house-republicans-govern-lie-weaponization-committeee/
Ryan Zinke stepped up to the microphone and into the Twilight Zone.
“Despite the ‘deep state’s’ repeated attempts to stop me, I stand before you as a duly elected member of the United States Congress and tell you that a deep state exists and is perhaps the strongest covert weapon the left has against the American people,” he told the House. The Montana Republican, who has returned to Congress after a scandal-plagued stint in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet, informed his colleagues that “the deep state runs secret messaging campaigns” and is trying “to wipe out the American cowboy.”
***
On Monday, their first day of legislative business, they voted to repeal funding for a fictitious “87,000 IRS agents” who don’t exist and never will. On Wednesday, they approved legislation purporting to outlaw infanticide, which is already illegal and always has been. In between, they set up the deep state committee.
***
What will be the priorities of this new House majority? Well, let us take them at their word.
Fox News host Sean Hannity visited the Rayburn Room off the House floor this week where, under the watchful eye of a George Washington oil portrait, he broadcast interviews with McCarthy and his leadership team.
Total mentions of inflation: 1.
Total mentions of jobs: 1.
Total mentions of the economy: 2.
Total mentions of investigations: 20.
“Thank you, brother,” McCarthy said to Hannity before they got down to probing all of the planned probes: investigating the FBI, DOJ, China, the “weaponized” feds, the Afghanistan pullout, covid-19’s origins, Anthony Fauci, the “Biden family syndicate,” Hunter Biden’s laptop and more.
And now: President Biden’s handling of classified documents. Intelligence Committee Chairman Michael R. Turner (Ohio), who dismissed Trump’s hoarding of classified documents as a “bookkeeping issue,” now demands “a full and thorough review” of Biden’s conduct. Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (Ky.), who said probing the Trump documents would “not be a priority,” said of Biden’s documents: “We’re probing it.”
***
On the floor, the committee’s proponents didn’t hide their conspiracy beliefs. Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) meandered into remarks about the FBI spying on Frank Sinatra before proclaiming: “Mr. Speaker, today we are putting the deep state on notice. We are coming for you.”
House Republicans gave themselves another tool of vengeance by reviving the Holman Rule, which allows lawmakers to cut the salaries of individual federal employees. They’re also planning to kick Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) off the Intelligence Committee, explicitly as punishment for handling Trump’s first impeachment.
By contrast, McCarthy has promised committee assignments to George Santos (R-N.Y.), who won election on a fabricated life story and résumé. Santos faces multiple investigations, and New York Republicans (including members of Congress) have called him a “fraud” and a “joke” and demanded he resign.
But McCarthy is having none of it. “He is seated,” said the man who chose to seat Santos. “If there is a concern, he will go through Ethics,” said the man who just disemboweled the Office of Congressional Ethics.
And really, plenty more. All you Americans on ObWi probably know what’s going on, but this article really is absolutely astounding and should be widely publicised and known, so that in 2024 the electorate really knows what the R politicians they vote for are doing with those votes.
so that in 2024 the electorate really knows what the R politicians they vote for are doing with those votes.
Going all in on circuses, so as to avoid the horror of spending any money on bread.
so that in 2024 the electorate really knows what the R politicians they vote for are doing with those votes.
Going all in on circuses, so as to avoid the horror of spending any money on bread.
From Georgia, I can tell you that the primary- unstated- issue for the majority of Republicans here is that Democrats are the party of knee-grows. Everything else is secondary.
From Georgia, I can tell you that the primary- unstated- issue for the majority of Republicans here is that Democrats are the party of knee-grows. Everything else is secondary.
As far as I can tell, the R politicians are doing exactly what the people who voted for them want them to do.
I’m not sure anybody’s being fooled, here. A lot of the people who seem to be “voting against their own interests” do so knowingly and with enthusiasm.
It’s what they want, and if it bites them on their own @ss, they mostly don’t care.
As far as I can tell, the R politicians are doing exactly what the people who voted for them want them to do.
I’m not sure anybody’s being fooled, here. A lot of the people who seem to be “voting against their own interests” do so knowingly and with enthusiasm.
It’s what they want, and if it bites them on their own @ss, they mostly don’t care.
Also, there’s the subset of pre-retirement conservatives who buy in to the “bankrupt government” idea and already presume Social Security will not be around for them. So the “Republicans are coming for your Social Security” is a useless angle of debate.
Also, there’s the subset of pre-retirement conservatives who buy in to the “bankrupt government” idea and already presume Social Security will not be around for them. So the “Republicans are coming for your Social Security” is a useless angle of debate.
My sense is that it’s not that they don’t care. It’s more a willful suspension of disbelief. They want the fantasy to be true. That the reality is exactly the opposite of what they were promised is just too painful to admit.
It takes “living the dream” to a whole different place.
My sense is that it’s not that they don’t care. It’s more a willful suspension of disbelief. They want the fantasy to be true. That the reality is exactly the opposite of what they were promised is just too painful to admit.
It takes “living the dream” to a whole different place.
If they have taken the fence around Congress down, they need to put it up again. Not to keep the nutcases out. But to keep them in.
If they have taken the fence around Congress down, they need to put it up again. Not to keep the nutcases out. But to keep them in.
there’s the subset of pre-retirement conservatives who buy in to the “bankrupt government” idea and already presume Social Security will not be around for them.
I came to a very similar conclusion back when I was in my late 20s. But I didn’t focus on “bankrupt government.” Instead, my ire was directed at AARP.
As I saw it, they were using the Baby Boom spike in workers, and thus as input to Social Security, as an excuse to push for unsustainable increases in Social Security benefits. With no regard for the time when the bill would come do. It definitely looked like “Grab everything I can, and devil take the hindmost.”
there’s the subset of pre-retirement conservatives who buy in to the “bankrupt government” idea and already presume Social Security will not be around for them.
I came to a very similar conclusion back when I was in my late 20s. But I didn’t focus on “bankrupt government.” Instead, my ire was directed at AARP.
As I saw it, they were using the Baby Boom spike in workers, and thus as input to Social Security, as an excuse to push for unsustainable increases in Social Security benefits. With no regard for the time when the bill would come do. It definitely looked like “Grab everything I can, and devil take the hindmost.”
As I always do, I’ll point out that in 1983/4 the Greenspan Commission had to recommend the formula for how the SS income cap would increase. They chose to use the median earned income increase, stating that it would reflect inflation plus productivity gains. It hasn’t — productivity gains have gone disproportionately to incomes above the cap. If they had chosen the alternative that was considered — adjusting the cap so that 90% of earned income was subject to the tax — we would not be having this conversation. Social Security would look solvent forever, and the discussion would be about whether the tax rate ought to be adjusted down just a bit.
We know what the problem is, we know how to fix it over a few years. We almost certainly won’t until it becomes a crisis, in some part because everyone in Congress would see an increase in their taxes.
As I always do, I’ll point out that in 1983/4 the Greenspan Commission had to recommend the formula for how the SS income cap would increase. They chose to use the median earned income increase, stating that it would reflect inflation plus productivity gains. It hasn’t — productivity gains have gone disproportionately to incomes above the cap. If they had chosen the alternative that was considered — adjusting the cap so that 90% of earned income was subject to the tax — we would not be having this conversation. Social Security would look solvent forever, and the discussion would be about whether the tax rate ought to be adjusted down just a bit.
We know what the problem is, we know how to fix it over a few years. We almost certainly won’t until it becomes a crisis, in some part because everyone in Congress would see an increase in their taxes.
But since the original surplus got lent to the general budget and the GOP has made clear that it will never get repaid, the solvency would not be guaranteed even in that case (and for the GOP that is the feature not the bug since they use that very argument of their own delinquency to call for simply writing it off and funnneling the bankruptcy assets to private individuals of good
standingfunding.)But since the original surplus got lent to the general budget and the GOP has made clear that it will never get repaid, the solvency would not be guaranteed even in that case (and for the GOP that is the feature not the bug since they use that very argument of their own delinquency to call for simply writing it off and funnneling the bankruptcy assets to private individuals of good
standingfunding.)As far as I can tell, the R politicians are doing exactly what the people who voted for them want them to do.
***
It’s what they want, and if it bites them on their own @ss, they mostly don’t care.
You may be right, russell, but I (perhaps foolishly) believe that stupidity and/or ignorance are more likely than active malevolence. There’s plenty of the latter around, of course, but I find it hard to believe that so many millions of people are actively voting for ridiculous, meaningless actions, as opposed to being ill-informed and easily manipulated into incoherent hatred and suspicion of opponents.
As far as I can tell, the R politicians are doing exactly what the people who voted for them want them to do.
***
It’s what they want, and if it bites them on their own @ss, they mostly don’t care.
You may be right, russell, but I (perhaps foolishly) believe that stupidity and/or ignorance are more likely than active malevolence. There’s plenty of the latter around, of course, but I find it hard to believe that so many millions of people are actively voting for ridiculous, meaningless actions, as opposed to being ill-informed and easily manipulated into incoherent hatred and suspicion of opponents.
Testimony given to the Jan. 6 committee makes it clear that some people were gulled into participating. I don’t think it’s foolish to conclude that at least some people have had their eyes opened in its aftermath. I cannot quantify this segment of the population. I can only hope it’s sufficient to prevent disaster.
Testimony given to the Jan. 6 committee makes it clear that some people were gulled into participating. I don’t think it’s foolish to conclude that at least some people have had their eyes opened in its aftermath. I cannot quantify this segment of the population. I can only hope it’s sufficient to prevent disaster.
As far as I can tell, the R politicians are doing exactly what the people who voted for them want them to do.
I thought we were getting better but nope. Racism & bigotry are alive and well and 45 gave permission to be loud & proud about it.
I wanna feel optimistic about the generations coming up. And I am, mostly. But Turning Point is a thing.
As far as I can tell, the R politicians are doing exactly what the people who voted for them want them to do.
I thought we were getting better but nope. Racism & bigotry are alive and well and 45 gave permission to be loud & proud about it.
I wanna feel optimistic about the generations coming up. And I am, mostly. But Turning Point is a thing.
“Also, there’s the subset of pre-retirement conservatives who buy in to the “bankrupt government” idea and already presume Social Security will not be around for them. So the “Republicans are coming for your Social Security” is a useless angle of debate.”
I think there are many Democrats who believe SS won’t be around for them. They are coming for your SS is an inadequate threat. Who’s SS? By age? Who is it going to not cover? I don’t think many people over 60 today believe they won’t get it. To forty year olds it’s still a cost not a benefit.
“Also, there’s the subset of pre-retirement conservatives who buy in to the “bankrupt government” idea and already presume Social Security will not be around for them. So the “Republicans are coming for your Social Security” is a useless angle of debate.”
I think there are many Democrats who believe SS won’t be around for them. They are coming for your SS is an inadequate threat. Who’s SS? By age? Who is it going to not cover? I don’t think many people over 60 today believe they won’t get it. To forty year olds it’s still a cost not a benefit.
To forty year olds it’s still a cost not a benefit.
Over 8 million people get SSI assistance, and not all of them are north of 40.
It’s a great program.
But yes, for the most part, practically nobody ferverently believes Social Security will “not be there for them”.* Mostly the topic gives conservatives an opportunity to condemn “big government” and throw a lot of meaningless, but very large, numbers about in an effort to convice you they might actually know something about it.
*I know of no Democrats who believe this.
To forty year olds it’s still a cost not a benefit.
Over 8 million people get SSI assistance, and not all of them are north of 40.
It’s a great program.
But yes, for the most part, practically nobody ferverently believes Social Security will “not be there for them”.* Mostly the topic gives conservatives an opportunity to condemn “big government” and throw a lot of meaningless, but very large, numbers about in an effort to convice you they might actually know something about it.
*I know of no Democrats who believe this.
It’s quiz time! Check out this quote:
Your mission, should you choose to accept it**, is to guess whether this description purports to be about the MAGA types, or the woke left.
Hint: both sides make identical critiques of the other.
** If you’ve read this, you don’t get to play.
It’s quiz time! Check out this quote:
Your mission, should you choose to accept it**, is to guess whether this description purports to be about the MAGA types, or the woke left.
Hint: both sides make identical critiques of the other.
** If you’ve read this, you don’t get to play.
practically nobody ferverently believes Social Security will “not be there for them”
If you deleted the “fervently” you might get more believers. I certainly believed it, to the level of figuring the probability was well over 50%. But believe it fervently? No. Not as i understand the word.
practically nobody ferverently believes Social Security will “not be there for them”
If you deleted the “fervently” you might get more believers. I certainly believed it, to the level of figuring the probability was well over 50%. But believe it fervently? No. Not as i understand the word.
If you deleted the “fervently” you might get more believers.
OK, let’s do that. If a lot of people believed as you apparently did, then you would expect them to do something about it, correct?
This graph would seem to indicate they did not.
If you deleted the “fervently” you might get more believers.
OK, let’s do that. If a lot of people believed as you apparently did, then you would expect them to do something about it, correct?
This graph would seem to indicate they did not.
wj, the description would also fit certain religious groups and the more radical environmentalists (neither of which need to be MAGA or woke). And of course some judges and justices (Alito comes directly to mind).
And all of these actually fit the bill. Used as an (usually baseless) attack it is applied to far more people. The press (sometimes with justification, more often not) also draws such accusations to itself.
wj, the description would also fit certain religious groups and the more radical environmentalists (neither of which need to be MAGA or woke). And of course some judges and justices (Alito comes directly to mind).
And all of these actually fit the bill. Used as an (usually baseless) attack it is applied to far more people. The press (sometimes with justification, more often not) also draws such accusations to itself.
If a lot of people believed as you apparently did, then you would expect them to do something about it, correct?
I can only say that *I* did, indeed, do something about it. I kept my savings rate up to where, even if I was getting nothing from Social Security, I have enough to retire with some basic level of comfort.
Now it is true that not everyone has the luxury (if that is the right word) of a job which will let them do that. But I wonder if the graph would look somewhat different if you split it out by level of income. That is, did those who could afford to do so run their personal savings at a rate which would let them retire without Social Security? Those, after all, may well be those who are trying, today, to slash it….
If a lot of people believed as you apparently did, then you would expect them to do something about it, correct?
I can only say that *I* did, indeed, do something about it. I kept my savings rate up to where, even if I was getting nothing from Social Security, I have enough to retire with some basic level of comfort.
Now it is true that not everyone has the luxury (if that is the right word) of a job which will let them do that. But I wonder if the graph would look somewhat different if you split it out by level of income. That is, did those who could afford to do so run their personal savings at a rate which would let them retire without Social Security? Those, after all, may well be those who are trying, today, to slash it….
Luxury may not be the right word. Good fortune, maybe?
And most folks are not that fortunate.
We have all been paying into social security at a rate greater than expenditures. For 40 years. The deal was that those funds would flow back to SS when the boomer retirement surge kicked in.
In a nutshell, (R)’s don’t want to pay it back.
Luxury may not be the right word. Good fortune, maybe?
And most folks are not that fortunate.
We have all been paying into social security at a rate greater than expenditures. For 40 years. The deal was that those funds would flow back to SS when the boomer retirement surge kicked in.
In a nutshell, (R)’s don’t want to pay it back.
But I wonder if the graph would look somewhat different if you split it out by level of income.
It might, but you would have to take into acount the effects of the marginal propensity to save and the remoreseless (and generally successful) political effort over the last 50 years to shift income upward.
But I wonder if the graph would look somewhat different if you split it out by level of income.
It might, but you would have to take into acount the effects of the marginal propensity to save and the remoreseless (and generally successful) political effort over the last 50 years to shift income upward.
More on George Santos (WaPo gift article)
He was for sale, so they bought him.
More on George Santos (WaPo gift article)
He was for sale, so they bought him.
Meanwhile, on another subject (but this is not an invitation to CharlesWT to post more ChatGPT!):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cleverest-chatbot-flunks-french-philosophy-exam-vr5kvtmnm
Teachers may be alarmed over cheating with computer-generated answers but the latest robot is no match for the Baccalauréat philosophy examination.
ChatGPT, released in late November by OpenAI in San Francisco, was instructed to produce a dissertation in answer to a question from last year’s “Bac Philo”, the rigorous test that is compulsory for most candidates for the French equivalent of A-levels. Students had four hours to discuss “Is it up to the state to decide what is fair?”
Le Figaro handed the robot’s essay to Olivier Dhilly, a senior sixth form teacher and lecturer at Paris University, who said that it lacked the reasoned argument that is expected of sixth formers. Dhilly said: “What it [ChatGPT] came up with was . . . based on really questionable points.”
The chatbot, which answers in prose in several languages, cited the precepts of Thomas Hobbes, Plato and Arisotle to lay out an apparent argument. “They were general . . . and they led to a mini-recitation of theories that were not connected to the precise question,” Dhilly said. The robot’s essay had “all the faults that we try to fight when we explain to students what a dissertation is”.
Teachers in the United States and Europe are in near-panic over AIgenerated answers to logic and maths problems. State schools in New York City have blocked ChatGPT access because of the “impact on student learning and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content”.
Meanwhile, on another subject (but this is not an invitation to CharlesWT to post more ChatGPT!):
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cleverest-chatbot-flunks-french-philosophy-exam-vr5kvtmnm
Teachers may be alarmed over cheating with computer-generated answers but the latest robot is no match for the Baccalauréat philosophy examination.
ChatGPT, released in late November by OpenAI in San Francisco, was instructed to produce a dissertation in answer to a question from last year’s “Bac Philo”, the rigorous test that is compulsory for most candidates for the French equivalent of A-levels. Students had four hours to discuss “Is it up to the state to decide what is fair?”
Le Figaro handed the robot’s essay to Olivier Dhilly, a senior sixth form teacher and lecturer at Paris University, who said that it lacked the reasoned argument that is expected of sixth formers. Dhilly said: “What it [ChatGPT] came up with was . . . based on really questionable points.”
The chatbot, which answers in prose in several languages, cited the precepts of Thomas Hobbes, Plato and Arisotle to lay out an apparent argument. “They were general . . . and they led to a mini-recitation of theories that were not connected to the precise question,” Dhilly said. The robot’s essay had “all the faults that we try to fight when we explain to students what a dissertation is”.
Teachers in the United States and Europe are in near-panic over AIgenerated answers to logic and maths problems. State schools in New York City have blocked ChatGPT access because of the “impact on student learning and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content”.
Meanwhile, on another subject (and this is not an invitation to CharlesWT to post more ChatGPT generated stuff!)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cleverest-chatbot-flunks-french-philosophy-exam-vr5kvtmnm
Teachers may be alarmed over cheating with computer-generated answers but the latest robot is no match for the Baccalauréat philosophy examination.
ChatGPT, released in late November by OpenAI in San Francisco, was instructed to produce a dissertation in answer to a question from last year’s “Bac Philo”, the rigorous test that is compulsory for most candidates for the French equivalent of A-levels. Students had four hours to discuss “Is it up to the state to decide what is fair?”
Le Figaro handed the robot’s essay to Olivier Dhilly, a senior sixth form teacher and lecturer at Paris University, who said that it lacked the reasoned argument that is expected of sixth formers. Dhilly said: “What it [ChatGPT] came up with was . . . based on really questionable points.”
The chatbot, which answers in prose in several languages, cited the precepts of Thomas Hobbes, Plato and Arisotle to lay out an apparent argument. “They were general . . . and they led to a mini-recitation of theories that were not connected to the precise question,” Dhilly said. The robot’s essay had “all the faults that we try to fight when we explain to students what a dissertation is”.
Teachers in the United States and Europe are in near-panic over AIgenerated answers to logic and maths problems. State schools in New York City have blocked ChatGPT access because of the “impact on student learning and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content”.
Meanwhile, on another subject (and this is not an invitation to CharlesWT to post more ChatGPT generated stuff!)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cleverest-chatbot-flunks-french-philosophy-exam-vr5kvtmnm
Teachers may be alarmed over cheating with computer-generated answers but the latest robot is no match for the Baccalauréat philosophy examination.
ChatGPT, released in late November by OpenAI in San Francisco, was instructed to produce a dissertation in answer to a question from last year’s “Bac Philo”, the rigorous test that is compulsory for most candidates for the French equivalent of A-levels. Students had four hours to discuss “Is it up to the state to decide what is fair?”
Le Figaro handed the robot’s essay to Olivier Dhilly, a senior sixth form teacher and lecturer at Paris University, who said that it lacked the reasoned argument that is expected of sixth formers. Dhilly said: “What it [ChatGPT] came up with was . . . based on really questionable points.”
The chatbot, which answers in prose in several languages, cited the precepts of Thomas Hobbes, Plato and Arisotle to lay out an apparent argument. “They were general . . . and they led to a mini-recitation of theories that were not connected to the precise question,” Dhilly said. The robot’s essay had “all the faults that we try to fight when we explain to students what a dissertation is”.
Teachers in the United States and Europe are in near-panic over AIgenerated answers to logic and maths problems. State schools in New York City have blocked ChatGPT access because of the “impact on student learning and concerns regarding the safety and accuracy of content”.
We have all been paying into social security at a rate greater than expenditures. For 40 years. The deal was that those funds would flow back to SS when the boomer retirement surge kicked in.
Happily, that was the deal we got. But it was also one that the AARP spent the 1980s fighting tooth and nail against — because, after all, the trust fund had such a big (temporary, although they carefully avoided mentioning that) surplus. And at the time, IIRC, it looked like they might well win.
We have all been paying into social security at a rate greater than expenditures. For 40 years. The deal was that those funds would flow back to SS when the boomer retirement surge kicked in.
Happily, that was the deal we got. But it was also one that the AARP spent the 1980s fighting tooth and nail against — because, after all, the trust fund had such a big (temporary, although they carefully avoided mentioning that) surplus. And at the time, IIRC, it looked like they might well win.
So, George Santos. It seems he’s not just untrustworthy, he may be an out-and-out criminal. Does he still think running for Congress was a good idea? Call me crazy, but I thought successful criminals mostly try to stay under the radar, not stand in front of a camera as if to say “come and get me.” Donald Trump may [I emphasize] be able to get away with stuff like that but George Santos?
The GOP crazy caucus may have no qualms about Santos, but what about the rest of the now majority? They managed to dump Madison Cawthorn but that was before the election. Now they are stuck with George Anthony Devolder Santos. This will be interesting to observe.
So, George Santos. It seems he’s not just untrustworthy, he may be an out-and-out criminal. Does he still think running for Congress was a good idea? Call me crazy, but I thought successful criminals mostly try to stay under the radar, not stand in front of a camera as if to say “come and get me.” Donald Trump may [I emphasize] be able to get away with stuff like that but George Santos?
The GOP crazy caucus may have no qualms about Santos, but what about the rest of the now majority? They managed to dump Madison Cawthorn but that was before the election. Now they are stuck with George Anthony Devolder Santos. This will be interesting to observe.
George Santos. It seems he’s not just untrustworthy, he may be an out-and-out criminal. Does he still think running for Congress was a good idea?
Is it really surprising that a Trump fanboy would think the way to be a successful criminal, like his idol, would be to run for office, and so become invulnerable? Too dumb to pick up on the nuances, like obscuring what he is doing/has done, and picking a high enough office with executive authority over prosecutors. But still, if you don’t look too closely, it kinda sorta looks like the same playbook.
George Santos. It seems he’s not just untrustworthy, he may be an out-and-out criminal. Does he still think running for Congress was a good idea?
Is it really surprising that a Trump fanboy would think the way to be a successful criminal, like his idol, would be to run for office, and so become invulnerable? Too dumb to pick up on the nuances, like obscuring what he is doing/has done, and picking a high enough office with executive authority over prosecutors. But still, if you don’t look too closely, it kinda sorta looks like the same playbook.
But it was also one that the AARP spent the 1980s fighting tooth and nail against.
I noodled around, but could not find information on this assertion. So I am not clear on what it was that the AARP was so dead set “against”. As a purely fiscal matter, there was no need to “prefund” the Trust Fund. The politics of it might have argued otherwise….with no thanks to ideological hacks like Alan Greenspan.
But it was also one that the AARP spent the 1980s fighting tooth and nail against.
I noodled around, but could not find information on this assertion. So I am not clear on what it was that the AARP was so dead set “against”. As a purely fiscal matter, there was no need to “prefund” the Trust Fund. The politics of it might have argued otherwise….with no thanks to ideological hacks like Alan Greenspan.
George Santos: the hits keep coming.
George Santos: the hits keep coming.
Somehow, it is no surprise at all that the ponzi scheme that Santos worked for (Harbor City) called him “a perfect fit”.
Somehow, it is no surprise at all that the ponzi scheme that Santos worked for (Harbor City) called him “a perfect fit”.
seriously, maybe he *is* Andy Kaufman, come back from the grave.
seriously, maybe he *is* Andy Kaufman, come back from the grave.
At least, Santos can’t be Speaker because of the Presidential succession rule. However, he might be the subject of more stuff to make him be native born.
At least, Santos can’t be Speaker because of the Presidential succession rule. However, he might be the subject of more stuff to make him be native born.
Santos can’t be Speaker because of the Presidential succession rule.
Actually, he could be. If the Presidential succession reached that far, he would be ineligible, of course. But the succession would just pass on down to the next individual in line — i.e. the Senate President Pro Tem (currently Patty Murray of Washington).
Santos can’t be Speaker because of the Presidential succession rule.
Actually, he could be. If the Presidential succession reached that far, he would be ineligible, of course. But the succession would just pass on down to the next individual in line — i.e. the Senate President Pro Tem (currently Patty Murray of Washington).
If the Presidential succession reached that far, he would be ineligible, of course. But the succession would just pass on down to the next individual in line…
Yes. The Constitution says the VP becomes President, and that Congress may make laws for further succession. The statute that puts the Speaker and the rest in line says clearly that individuals that don’t meet the Constitutional requirements for President are simply skipped over.
Prior to the 25th Amendment, there was some debate over whether the VP became President or only acting President. The 25th says explicitly the VP becomes President. The rest of the Constitution is clear that the line beyond that (currently Speaker, President Pro Tempore, etc) are acting Presidents.
I suppose it makes a difference to the people who deal with formal protocol.
If the Presidential succession reached that far, he would be ineligible, of course. But the succession would just pass on down to the next individual in line…
Yes. The Constitution says the VP becomes President, and that Congress may make laws for further succession. The statute that puts the Speaker and the rest in line says clearly that individuals that don’t meet the Constitutional requirements for President are simply skipped over.
Prior to the 25th Amendment, there was some debate over whether the VP became President or only acting President. The 25th says explicitly the VP becomes President. The rest of the Constitution is clear that the line beyond that (currently Speaker, President Pro Tempore, etc) are acting Presidents.
I suppose it makes a difference to the people who deal with formal protocol.
There is, IIRC, a distinction between when cases where the President is temporarily disabled (e.g. under anesthetic during surgery) vs when the President has died or been removed from office. In the latter case, the Vice President becomes President — which has happened various times over the years, most recently with Nixon’s resignation. In the former cases, the Vice President only becomes acting President. That, too, has happened various times — most recently in 2021, when Kamale Harris was acting President for an hour and a half while President Biden was under anesthesia for a routine colonoscopy.
There is, IIRC, a distinction between when cases where the President is temporarily disabled (e.g. under anesthetic during surgery) vs when the President has died or been removed from office. In the latter case, the Vice President becomes President — which has happened various times over the years, most recently with Nixon’s resignation. In the former cases, the Vice President only becomes acting President. That, too, has happened various times — most recently in 2021, when Kamale Harris was acting President for an hour and a half while President Biden was under anesthesia for a routine colonoscopy.