"I loved my previous life, I loved my previous life. I had so many things going. I actually, this is more work than my previous life. I thought it would be easier... I do miss my old life. This -- I like to work. But this is actually more work." -- President Donald Trump, interview with Reuters
The 100 Days conceit for presidents is an artificial one, but useful nonetheless. It's supposed to mark the end of the honeymoon period, but there's also no hard-and-fast rule about it. Most of Obama's major legislation came after the 100 days mark, for instance. That said, the 100 days marks a transition where things are only going to start getting more difficult as we move closer and closer to the next election cycle in 2018 (major legislation tends to slow down in advance of an election, as no incumbent wants to do anything too risky).
What I've seen from President Trump is one major success (Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch) and a series of issues in which he's discovered things are more difficult than he expected. I feel he hasn't been as bad as my worst fears, but he's certainly made a series of unforced errors. And it appears to me that those errors are largely because of overconfidence in how easy things should be. Let me explain:
Tax reform
I am convinced that no bill on tax reform will pass under Donald Trump. As I write this, they're unveiling their plans, and there's no way it gets passed as they propose it. This is for several reasons, but the primary reasons are a) Congressional and b) popular. The biggest thing is a corporate tax cut from 35 percent to 15 percent. That's a big deal.
There's a logistical hurdle in getting it to pass Congress, and that's in the Senate. In order to pass any tax cut, a plan would either have to get 8 Democrat votes to break a filibuster (Option A) or pass by a procedural trick known as reconciliation, which would be a simple majority. (Option B) Here's the rub: Reconciliation won't work if it increases the national deficit beyond 10 years. Any important tax cut would do that. There's one way to avoid that rule, and that's to make it only applicable for 2-3 years. (Option C) Let's talk about those options: Option A won't happen. Democrats have no incentive to work with Donald Trump, and have every incentive to show how his tax cuts are a bad idea. Option B can't work mathematically without major gives on revenue increases (cutting loopholes or hiking taxes elsewhere), and Option C wouldn't have much of an effect on the U.S. economy because corporations have budgets planned out years in advance — Paul Ryan's tax advisor said as much in that link earlier in this paragraph.
The other hurdle is popularity. Lowering the corporate tax rate will not affect Jill and Joe Taxpayer's pocketbook that much. Instead, it will affect those in the upper tax brackets. The easy sell for Democrats will be that corporations and the rich don't need any more tax cuts, and the people are being ignored. Further, if the tax plan (details are emerging, but show little other than a broad outline) is similar to his campaign promises, then it'll leave the country short on revenue... to the tune of $4-6 trillion over 10 years. I know that when we get above millions of dollars, it gets kind of hazy, but the U.S. only brought in about $3 trillion in taxes last year. A cut of this magnitude would be about 15-20 percent of the federal government's budget over the next 10 years. That would mean cuts — not just cuts, but drastic, across-the-board cuts to many popular programs.
Maybe the details will surprise me. Maybe "simplifying the tax code" will help Jill and Joe Taxpayers and make the corporate tax cut pill easier to swallow. We'll see. But right now I'm skeptical.
Health Care
The Republican Congress has made two efforts to get an Obamacare repeal through the House. Even if a bill were to pass the House, the Senate is likely to be an even more difficult proposition. Health care was supposed to be easy, with a Republican House and Republican Senate. But the devil is always in the details: Anything that is appealing to moderate Republicans is detestable to the far-right Freedom Caucus (ex-Tea Party) members. And vice versa.
Trump has made a solid, strong push for health care reform that has, perhaps, only made the idea of Obamacare even more popular. There's a story that's made its rounds on several news sites about the difference in tactics between Trump's health care push and Obama's. Trump supposedly told GOP lawmakers to vote for the bill, or they'd lose their seats. On the other hand, Obama told skittish Democrats that the health care plan was worth losing their seats.
Health care is not easy — there are countless balances to weigh and trade-offs to make. But Trump has not been honest about which trade-offs he's willing to make, only that he'd like health care to improve. He doesn't seem to understand the depth of the problem. I mean, he's flat-out said that he didn't expect health care to be tricky: "Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated."
Wars
I've written a lot lately about the various military engagements we are involved in, but let's hit briefly on it again because it's so important. Military involvement is the easiest way to get bogged down in an untenable situation (See: Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.).
In Syria, we have bombed the government for chemical weapons use, a direct, apples-to-apples contradiction from what Trump said should be done on Twitter the last time that happened in 2013. So far, it seems that a one-off missile strike on an air strip that opened again six hours later was our only escalation. A broader strategy for Syria has yet to be made clear.
The biggest threat is with North Korea, with whom we continue to rattle our sabers. I understand the need for a new strategy: It's clear that past approaches have not been particularly successful. George Bush made threats, Bill Clinton attempted negotiation, and Barack Obama attempted "strategic patience," which means they kind of ignored North Korea's threats. None stopped the North Korean nuclear program. "We'd love to solve things diplomatically, but it's very difficult," Trump said in aforementioned interview with Reuters. Trump appears to have not known much about the conflict before he spoke with Chinese president Xi Jinping: "After listening for 10 minutes, I realized it's not so easy. I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power [over] North Korea... But it's not what you would think." Trump has taken the George W. Bush threats to a new level, even saying that a "major, major conflict" with North Korea is possible. He seems intent on war, and he may just get it.
Other Issues
Executive orders are one of the "easiest" actions a president can make, but even they can be screwed up. Two different executive orders related to a temporary ban on immigration for those from select Middle Eastern countries have been struck down by courts for being in effect if not in intent a ban on Muslims.... He's also had a federal court block a ban on funding for sanctuary cities... He's backed down on two budget demands: funding for the wall on the Mexican border and defunding Obamacare subsidies... He's also backed off on threats this week to back out of NAFTA after members of his Cabinet and the leaders of Canada and Mexico made personal calls to change his mind...
All in all, I find that Trump is either overconfident on what will be easy or underprepared for the gravity of his position. While I hope, for America's sake, that he figures things out sooner, I worry that the next 3+ years will be just more of the same, but with even more difficulty.
Summary Judgments
This is sickening. These sort of stories really make me mad. While I understand the idea of "no sympathy for criminals," there's a key distinction of "do not kill/mistreat them." Particularly if they've not been convicted yet. • • • That said, I feel the opposite about the loophole that could exonerate Aaron Hernandez — he was convicted, but died before his appeals ran out. By Massachusetts law, that means his conviction is probably going to be overturned. In America, we're innocent until proven guilty, but he was proven guilty. He was not proven innocent. • • • If you read no other links in this blog this week, please read this one about the War in Afghanistan. It's not going well, and I don't know what our endgame is there. I don't know that pulling out is the right option, but I don't think what we're doing now is doing anyone favors. • • • My good friend Emily Smith got profiled for her part in the Pittsburg (Kan.) high school students who took down their principal. I'm so proud of everyone involved in that situation. • • • For those of us, who are Chiefs fans, this was a great in-depth story on Pat Mahomes that was put together by a good Chiefs analyst. He did this before they picked Mahomes, so I was already on board. • • • One quick defense of Trump: The GDP growth this quarter is the worst in three years. But even if he were making drastic changes, there is a delay in things showing up in the economy. Judge him by the next GDP report, not this one. • • • I have a 4-mile run on Sunday. It's looking like rain or storms. My first 4-miler was in the snow. This one could be in the rain. I'm having real bad weather luck for these 4-milers. • • • I don't have a great story, but I have good news: potty training with Evie is going well. This is probably super mundane for anyone else, but it's the most important thing happening in the Nash household right now. She has only been having 0-1 accidents a day, so she's improving pretty quickly. Once she's taken care of, we'll work on Roland, who has a lot farther to go.
Friday, April 28, 2017
Thursday, April 20, 2017
FOX and Its Former Friend
Comic book readers have a saying that no character is actually dead until/unless their body is shown. I don't think the world has seen the last of Bill O'Reilly, and I'm not particularly convinced he's done on cable news, either.
No man who commanded the airwaves as much as he has over the last two decades will go that gently into the good night. Don't forget that his former Fox compatriot Glenn Beck went and started his own network. I wouldn't be surprised to see O'Reilly either land there or follow suit and create an "America News Network" or something.
Granted, it's a particularly hard time to be a conservative pundit, because it seems like any excuse is reason for dismissal. Tomi Lahren, who achieved viral fame for her firebrand monologues (or caustic race-baiting, depending on your point of view), was fired from her show on Beck's network for being openly pro-choice. Breitbart editor/alt-right hero Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his book deal for saying gross things about underage boys. Alex Jones has apologized for Pizzagate, and is under new scrutiny for claiming in court (in a custody battle with his ex-wife) that it's all just an act. On the other hand, the spotlight of fame can work both ways, and perhaps these cases are all just coincidental.
But O'Reilly's also a special case, because as the foremost pundit of all, he had both the brightest spotlight and the most forgiveness from his network. The accusations surrounding O'Reilly were not new. In fact, you'd be forgiven if you asked why this was the tipping point behind O'Reilly's ouster. Yes, the network has paid five women more than $13 million in settlements related to him, but there were enough news and stories out there over the years that it wasn't exactly shocking. I don't even think the recent Maxine Waters comments made a bit of difference. I do think the ouster of Roger Ailes from the network did — as did the departure of three high-profile women from the network in the shadow of Ailes' sexual harassment complaints.
In 2004, a producer on his show sued O'Reilly on sexual harassment grounds, including a kind of accidentally funny line about falafels. That was very public at the time. But it was not enough for O'Reilly to lose his job. In 2015, his daughter testified that she'd seen O'Reilly physically beat and put his hands around the throat of his wife/her mom. That was not enough for O'Reilly to lose his job. Last year, during the Ailes fallout, the network settled two suits (see how this isn't all that new?) and extended O'Reilly's contract. O'Reilly even got to interview the President before the Super Bowl for the second time — a high-profile assignment if there ever was one.
While I'm not sure what it was about this news/situation that prompted Fox News to let go of its biggest attraction (though the rise of Tucker Carlson may have something to do with O'Reilly becoming expendable), O'Reilly is not the only high-profile sexual harasser. The other sits in the Oval Office. But there are three differences between O'Reilly and Trump that explain why one is no longer in power and the other is in the highest position in the land.
1) Bosses
Bill O'Reilly had bosses at Fox News. There were people above him who decided the network came first. Who was Donald Trump's boss? Who was there to say "No, this is shameful?" There's no "Buck Stops Here" with Donald Trump, but there was with Bill O'Reilly.
2) Advertisers
Bill O'Reilly's show was losing its advertisers. Some estimates put it at close to 2/3 or 1/2 of his advertisers were gone in the fallout of the sexual harassment details (there are also rumors that more suits are pending, which made it a story that could have legs). But Trump was the opposite: Without a show, he can be the important guest. An interview with Trump is must-see television, and therefore must-advertise television. Trump had no advertisers to lose — and therefore no accountability.
3) Campaign inertia
This is a big one that I don't think gets enough credit. When the Access Hollywood tapes came out, there was one month left in the campaign. Staffers and the GOP had staked their livelihoods on Donald Trump. They'd spent more than a year working with him and building up the party in his image. With a month left to go in the campaign, it would have meant starting over and admitting (temporary) defeat. If the tapes had come out in the spring or summer, I don't think we're talking about President Trump today.
Potholes Ahead for Missouri Transportation
One of my favorite old newspaper beats was Kansas Department of Transportation. I loved reading about it, I loved talking about progress, and I loved covering it. Now that I'm across the state line, almost all of my knowledge base went right out the window.
However, I've been reading some stories in the Kansas City Star about the transportation situation in Missouri, and it's prompted me to look into it a little. Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) is not in great shape, but I think they've been put behind the proverbial 8 ball by the Legislature. I'll explain why.
Like any state, funding the incredibly high transportation construction costs are always an issue in Missouri. A good rule of thumb I heard is that any major construction is about $10 million per mile. While that sounds like a lot, it is. The biggest projects, like upgrading a four-lane road or building a new bridge/off-ramp/interchange, can make that number rise higher. The more of those other "grade changes" — DOT term for "we have to move a lot of dirt" — the higher the cost.
Missouri also has another problem: the backbone of the state, Interstate 70, is kind of old. I use "kind of" to be nice, because its feelings might get hurt. I-70 from Independence (KC area) to Wentzville (St. Louis) was built between 1956 and 1965. It was designed to carry 12-18,000 cars a day, and the highway averages 28,000 cars a day now. On either end, it's closer to 98,000/day (Independence at I-470 junction) and 75,000/day (Wentzville near I-64). That's really bad. MoDOT's own projections say that by 2030, most of the corridor will be stop-go. "The corridor is beyond its designed capacity and needs to be expanded..." they said in a recent study.
So what's stopping them? Well, there are two legal hurdles that could be solved by the Legislature, but probably won't be any time soon. They're both politically unpopular, but entirely necessary for the success of MoDOT. In effect, the Missouri General Assembly is tying MoDOT's hands behind its back. To say that MoDOT is cash-strapped is... generous, actually. Since 2011, MoDOT has cut its staff by 20 percent, sold more than 750 pieces of equipment, and sold 124 facilities saving $605 million... "But the department cannot cut its way to an improvedtransportation system and a solution to its funding constraints."
Hurdle No. 1) Gas Tax
Missouri is not, despite what people say, the lowest gas tax in the country. That honor goes to Alaska. Nor is Missouri the second-, third-, or even fourth-lowest gas tax in the country. New Jersey, South Carolina and Oklahoma get those honors. But I'd make the argument that they're actually the second-lowest. Alaska, New Jersey and Oklahoma all have oil refineries that bring down the cost of gas. The presence of those refineries also generates other taxes that help bring the overall gas tax down. Missouri and South Carolina have none of those refineries. But Missouri's super-low gas tax, especially in comparison to its neighbors, hurts the state's transportation dollars. At 17.3 cents/gallon, Missouri's gas tax is lower than every neighbor but Oklahoma. Not counting the outlier of Oklahoma, the average of our neighbors gas tax rates is 26.6 cents/gallon. A modest increase of, say, 4 cents/gallon to the Missouri gas tax would keep us lower or as low as every neighboring state but Oklahoma (though in line with Arkansas) and raise MoDOT revenue by about 5 percent. That's helpful! But I imagine every politician who lives in a border district with another state (particularly the Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas borders) will be rabidly against it, as they think this would make the state less competitive for gas dollars. By my count, there are 23 border districts in the state Senate out of 34. If you only count those on the OK-KS-AR border, that's still 10 of 34. The Missouri House is more complicated, but just the border districts count for 26 out of 163 seats. Further, with new Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens being fiercely against tax increases for any reason, this seems off the board.
Hurdle No. 2) No tolls
The most reasonable place for a toll road is on I-70. Between Independence/Blue Springs and Wentzville, a toll road could basically pay for its own improvements, according to a MoDOT study. This wouldn't raise money for improvements in other parts of the state, but for such a vital road, it would take care of itself. In fact, former Gov. Jay Nixon called for a study to see about toll viability. The state got tentative federal approval if they wanted to make a toll road. But state law requires state legislature approval to make a new toll road. All bills for such a plan have failed to even be assigned to committee — they're not happening. Kansas has tolling on I-70. Oklahoma has tolling on several of its interstates. Illinois, too. MoDOT director Patrick McKenna said that "certainly, there is a tremendous amount of opposition in Missouri to tolling."
The best hope for MoDOT is that the proposed Trump infrastructure plan would include prioritization for I-70 and the two international airports in the state, which is a wholly different subject for another time. But that's like hoping to feed yourself with leftovers from someone else's fast food -- it may be too little, it may not happen when needed, and it may not be good in the long run.
Summary Judgments
Rube Goldberg machines are awesome. Rube Goldberg machines that tell a story are [series of heart emoji]. • • • Update from Foxtrot Alpha: Modern aircraft carriers are not sitting ducks to attack, and here's why. I found it fascinating and hung on every word. • • • I don't think Roland has been informed that he has a fever of 104 all week. I've been home with him every one of those days. He doesn't act sick. But he's got a nasty fever. If I had a fever of 104, I'd be flat on my butt in bed. • • • I haven't been able to run like I want to for practice this week, either (see: sick Roland). I'm doing a mud run/obstacle course 5K on Saturday. I've got a 4-miler the following Sunday. Saturday's forecast: rain and 55-ish degrees. The very early forecast for the next Sunday is 60 and showers. So the weather for my first three races of the year could be snow, rain, rain. BLERGH. • • • No good Roland stories lately, because we've been sick.
No man who commanded the airwaves as much as he has over the last two decades will go that gently into the good night. Don't forget that his former Fox compatriot Glenn Beck went and started his own network. I wouldn't be surprised to see O'Reilly either land there or follow suit and create an "America News Network" or something.
Granted, it's a particularly hard time to be a conservative pundit, because it seems like any excuse is reason for dismissal. Tomi Lahren, who achieved viral fame for her firebrand monologues (or caustic race-baiting, depending on your point of view), was fired from her show on Beck's network for being openly pro-choice. Breitbart editor/alt-right hero Milo Yiannopoulos has lost his book deal for saying gross things about underage boys. Alex Jones has apologized for Pizzagate, and is under new scrutiny for claiming in court (in a custody battle with his ex-wife) that it's all just an act. On the other hand, the spotlight of fame can work both ways, and perhaps these cases are all just coincidental.
But O'Reilly's also a special case, because as the foremost pundit of all, he had both the brightest spotlight and the most forgiveness from his network. The accusations surrounding O'Reilly were not new. In fact, you'd be forgiven if you asked why this was the tipping point behind O'Reilly's ouster. Yes, the network has paid five women more than $13 million in settlements related to him, but there were enough news and stories out there over the years that it wasn't exactly shocking. I don't even think the recent Maxine Waters comments made a bit of difference. I do think the ouster of Roger Ailes from the network did — as did the departure of three high-profile women from the network in the shadow of Ailes' sexual harassment complaints.
In 2004, a producer on his show sued O'Reilly on sexual harassment grounds, including a kind of accidentally funny line about falafels. That was very public at the time. But it was not enough for O'Reilly to lose his job. In 2015, his daughter testified that she'd seen O'Reilly physically beat and put his hands around the throat of his wife/her mom. That was not enough for O'Reilly to lose his job. Last year, during the Ailes fallout, the network settled two suits (see how this isn't all that new?) and extended O'Reilly's contract. O'Reilly even got to interview the President before the Super Bowl for the second time — a high-profile assignment if there ever was one.
While I'm not sure what it was about this news/situation that prompted Fox News to let go of its biggest attraction (though the rise of Tucker Carlson may have something to do with O'Reilly becoming expendable), O'Reilly is not the only high-profile sexual harasser. The other sits in the Oval Office. But there are three differences between O'Reilly and Trump that explain why one is no longer in power and the other is in the highest position in the land.
1) Bosses
Bill O'Reilly had bosses at Fox News. There were people above him who decided the network came first. Who was Donald Trump's boss? Who was there to say "No, this is shameful?" There's no "Buck Stops Here" with Donald Trump, but there was with Bill O'Reilly.
2) Advertisers
Bill O'Reilly's show was losing its advertisers. Some estimates put it at close to 2/3 or 1/2 of his advertisers were gone in the fallout of the sexual harassment details (there are also rumors that more suits are pending, which made it a story that could have legs). But Trump was the opposite: Without a show, he can be the important guest. An interview with Trump is must-see television, and therefore must-advertise television. Trump had no advertisers to lose — and therefore no accountability.
3) Campaign inertia
This is a big one that I don't think gets enough credit. When the Access Hollywood tapes came out, there was one month left in the campaign. Staffers and the GOP had staked their livelihoods on Donald Trump. They'd spent more than a year working with him and building up the party in his image. With a month left to go in the campaign, it would have meant starting over and admitting (temporary) defeat. If the tapes had come out in the spring or summer, I don't think we're talking about President Trump today.
Potholes Ahead for Missouri Transportation
One of my favorite old newspaper beats was Kansas Department of Transportation. I loved reading about it, I loved talking about progress, and I loved covering it. Now that I'm across the state line, almost all of my knowledge base went right out the window.
However, I've been reading some stories in the Kansas City Star about the transportation situation in Missouri, and it's prompted me to look into it a little. Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) is not in great shape, but I think they've been put behind the proverbial 8 ball by the Legislature. I'll explain why.
Like any state, funding the incredibly high transportation construction costs are always an issue in Missouri. A good rule of thumb I heard is that any major construction is about $10 million per mile. While that sounds like a lot, it is. The biggest projects, like upgrading a four-lane road or building a new bridge/off-ramp/interchange, can make that number rise higher. The more of those other "grade changes" — DOT term for "we have to move a lot of dirt" — the higher the cost.
Missouri also has another problem: the backbone of the state, Interstate 70, is kind of old. I use "kind of" to be nice, because its feelings might get hurt. I-70 from Independence (KC area) to Wentzville (St. Louis) was built between 1956 and 1965. It was designed to carry 12-18,000 cars a day, and the highway averages 28,000 cars a day now. On either end, it's closer to 98,000/day (Independence at I-470 junction) and 75,000/day (Wentzville near I-64). That's really bad. MoDOT's own projections say that by 2030, most of the corridor will be stop-go. "The corridor is beyond its designed capacity and needs to be expanded..." they said in a recent study.
So what's stopping them? Well, there are two legal hurdles that could be solved by the Legislature, but probably won't be any time soon. They're both politically unpopular, but entirely necessary for the success of MoDOT. In effect, the Missouri General Assembly is tying MoDOT's hands behind its back. To say that MoDOT is cash-strapped is... generous, actually. Since 2011, MoDOT has cut its staff by 20 percent, sold more than 750 pieces of equipment, and sold 124 facilities saving $605 million... "But the department cannot cut its way to an improvedtransportation system and a solution to its funding constraints."
Hurdle No. 1) Gas Tax
Missouri is not, despite what people say, the lowest gas tax in the country. That honor goes to Alaska. Nor is Missouri the second-, third-, or even fourth-lowest gas tax in the country. New Jersey, South Carolina and Oklahoma get those honors. But I'd make the argument that they're actually the second-lowest. Alaska, New Jersey and Oklahoma all have oil refineries that bring down the cost of gas. The presence of those refineries also generates other taxes that help bring the overall gas tax down. Missouri and South Carolina have none of those refineries. But Missouri's super-low gas tax, especially in comparison to its neighbors, hurts the state's transportation dollars. At 17.3 cents/gallon, Missouri's gas tax is lower than every neighbor but Oklahoma. Not counting the outlier of Oklahoma, the average of our neighbors gas tax rates is 26.6 cents/gallon. A modest increase of, say, 4 cents/gallon to the Missouri gas tax would keep us lower or as low as every neighboring state but Oklahoma (though in line with Arkansas) and raise MoDOT revenue by about 5 percent. That's helpful! But I imagine every politician who lives in a border district with another state (particularly the Oklahoma, Kansas and Arkansas borders) will be rabidly against it, as they think this would make the state less competitive for gas dollars. By my count, there are 23 border districts in the state Senate out of 34. If you only count those on the OK-KS-AR border, that's still 10 of 34. The Missouri House is more complicated, but just the border districts count for 26 out of 163 seats. Further, with new Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens being fiercely against tax increases for any reason, this seems off the board.
Hurdle No. 2) No tolls
The most reasonable place for a toll road is on I-70. Between Independence/Blue Springs and Wentzville, a toll road could basically pay for its own improvements, according to a MoDOT study. This wouldn't raise money for improvements in other parts of the state, but for such a vital road, it would take care of itself. In fact, former Gov. Jay Nixon called for a study to see about toll viability. The state got tentative federal approval if they wanted to make a toll road. But state law requires state legislature approval to make a new toll road. All bills for such a plan have failed to even be assigned to committee — they're not happening. Kansas has tolling on I-70. Oklahoma has tolling on several of its interstates. Illinois, too. MoDOT director Patrick McKenna said that "certainly, there is a tremendous amount of opposition in Missouri to tolling."
The best hope for MoDOT is that the proposed Trump infrastructure plan would include prioritization for I-70 and the two international airports in the state, which is a wholly different subject for another time. But that's like hoping to feed yourself with leftovers from someone else's fast food -- it may be too little, it may not happen when needed, and it may not be good in the long run.
Summary Judgments
Rube Goldberg machines are awesome. Rube Goldberg machines that tell a story are [series of heart emoji]. • • • Update from Foxtrot Alpha: Modern aircraft carriers are not sitting ducks to attack, and here's why. I found it fascinating and hung on every word. • • • I don't think Roland has been informed that he has a fever of 104 all week. I've been home with him every one of those days. He doesn't act sick. But he's got a nasty fever. If I had a fever of 104, I'd be flat on my butt in bed. • • • I haven't been able to run like I want to for practice this week, either (see: sick Roland). I'm doing a mud run/obstacle course 5K on Saturday. I've got a 4-miler the following Sunday. Saturday's forecast: rain and 55-ish degrees. The very early forecast for the next Sunday is 60 and showers. So the weather for my first three races of the year could be snow, rain, rain. BLERGH. • • • No good Roland stories lately, because we've been sick.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
What Happened With the Syrian Air Strikes
Foxtrot Alpha underlined some of these same points, but let's do this Q-and-A style:
What was our goal, and did we accomplish it?
Our goal was probably twofold a) to cripple the Syrian government's ability to use chemical weapons against their own people and b) to retaliate for their use of chemical weapons. We certainly accomplished b), but I don't think we did a) very well at all.
But we hit the air strip and did a lot of damage! Why wouldn't you say this will stop chemical weapons use by the Syrian government?
We hit the airstrip that was used in the chemical weapons attack, but we didn't hit the things you'd want to destroy in a precision attack. We destroyed four (4) airplanes but left two unharmed. We hit mostly outbuildings, fuel storage and Syrian radar/air defense systems. A bunch of other airplanes are at other bases, and we didn't hit those. The U.S. believes sarin was stored at the base, but did not hit it with a strike. (Though I could see an argument that there's a fear it could be spread in the air, but I haven't researched whether this is possible with sarin gas.) Perhaps most importantly, we didn't destroy the runways. The air strip was operating just fine the next day.
Why didn't we take out the runways?
Here's where Foxtrot Alpha helped me out: Tomahawk cruise missiles are good at blowing things up. But how do you blow up a flat, paved piece of road? If you hit it with a missile, a bulldozer can fix that up in a few hours. Heck, Trump understands that, tweeting: "The reason you don't generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!" But what he didn't say is that you can destroy runways, but what you need are special types of bombs, and those can only be dropped from aircraft — not missiles. Those force you to get close.
So why didn't we?
The short answer is Russia. Russia's got a much more sophisticated/modern air defense system than the Syrians, and they've also got much better aircraft than the Syrians. Russia is camped out in the area and we'd have to get past them to get to the air strip in question. We only have 20 of the types of B-2 bombers (hi, nearby Whiteman Air Force Base!) that could do the job, and we're not exactly sure they're as stealthy as we pretend they are. So sending an aircraft in would be a provocation of Russia, it would be expensive, and it would risk American lives in the crew of the airplane.
What is our relationship with Russia?
Well, we called them to warn them we were going to strike with the missiles.
Why?
Partly because of an air agreement we made a while ago, partly because of international norms, and partly to tell them to get their troops out of the way. They may have/probably told the Syrians stationed there to get away from likely targets.
Who gets to call this a win?
Just about everyone except Syrian rebels. The U.S. has given the appearance (temporarily, and in the short-term) of strength, as though we won't tolerate chemical weapons attacks. We look like we actually did something, even if that something is "heightened tensions with Russia." That's the easy, lazy first read that most will take away. Russia can spin it their own way: look at how not-in-cahoots with America we are! Also, the America's attacks didn't even hit correctly (see coverage by the government-run network Russia Today), so we're much smarter/better at war then they are! It also gives Russia a pretext for ignoring that air agreement I mentioned in the last paragraph. The Syrian government gets to pretend this is an attack on their sovereignty while continuing with very little disruption to their side of the civil war.
So did we do the right thing or not?
Color me unimpressed, but accepting. I would have felt this way no matter who called for the strike. Surely if we cared at all about what was happening in Syria, we should have had a "response" to the chemical weapon use. I feel that a missile strike was probably our only option of looking authoritative without poking a Russian Bear into something more serious. But I'm also convinced that it's just appearances. I agree with Foxtrot Alpha, who said that this was not a military decision; it was a political one.
Maybe we should have used bigger bombs?
Well, we just used the biggest non-nuclear one we've got on Afghanistan.
Who did we drop it on?
It's a cave system near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that's believed to be controlled by ISIS in Afghanistan (ISIS-K). If the blast didn't kill them, the removal of oxygen probably did. That said, it's not like we have people on the ground telling us how many are dead, nor do we have ISIS-K reporting any number. If they were hit, they're underground and not talking much.
Good, right?
Yeah, but here's a trend I've noticed with the (goodness, we're still in the first 100 days...) Trump administration. Syria is being aggressive, so we react aggressively, but ineffectively. North Korea is being aggressive, so we react by sending an aircraft carrier to the region (aggressively, but ineffectively). ISIS-K exists, so we react aggressively, but its effectiveness has yet to be seen. I don't know what our long-term strategy is in any of these conflicts. Are we going to continue to engage in Syria? Are we going to keep pushing North Korea? Are we ramping up our fight against ISIS or ISIS-K? It hasn't been said. All I know is that any aggression is countered by more aggression on the United States' part, and I wonder what sort of message we're sending. Right now, our military message might best be described as "posturing."
North Korea is feeling the pressure
Speaking of North Korea, it didn't get a lot of attention, but North Korea's aggression has already caused a reaction from their closest ally. China turned away ships full of North Korean coal this week, effectively rejecting all North Korean coal imports for the rest of the year. This is a bigger deal than you might think. Coal makes up 18 percent of all North Korean exports. And China is North Korea's biggest trade partner, too, roughly 42 percent of all North Korean exports. So, if you do some rough math/estimates, China's decision cuts the North Korea exports by about 7.5-8 percent. But another estimate was that coal shipments to China accounted for 40 percent of all exports.
But what's curious is that China's been slowly pulling away from North Korea even before the most recent activity. While China turned away the ships just this week, their announcement about rejecting North Korean coal until 2018 came in February. Further, China closed the account of North Korea's main foreign exchange bank in 2013. They've also ended financial support of North Korea as of last February. While China may be North Korea's only world friend, they're also not really as friendly with Pyongyang as they used to be.
Summary Judgments
What was our goal, and did we accomplish it?
Our goal was probably twofold a) to cripple the Syrian government's ability to use chemical weapons against their own people and b) to retaliate for their use of chemical weapons. We certainly accomplished b), but I don't think we did a) very well at all.
But we hit the air strip and did a lot of damage! Why wouldn't you say this will stop chemical weapons use by the Syrian government?
We hit the airstrip that was used in the chemical weapons attack, but we didn't hit the things you'd want to destroy in a precision attack. We destroyed four (4) airplanes but left two unharmed. We hit mostly outbuildings, fuel storage and Syrian radar/air defense systems. A bunch of other airplanes are at other bases, and we didn't hit those. The U.S. believes sarin was stored at the base, but did not hit it with a strike. (Though I could see an argument that there's a fear it could be spread in the air, but I haven't researched whether this is possible with sarin gas.) Perhaps most importantly, we didn't destroy the runways. The air strip was operating just fine the next day.
Why didn't we take out the runways?
Here's where Foxtrot Alpha helped me out: Tomahawk cruise missiles are good at blowing things up. But how do you blow up a flat, paved piece of road? If you hit it with a missile, a bulldozer can fix that up in a few hours. Heck, Trump understands that, tweeting: "The reason you don't generally hit runways is that they are easy and inexpensive to quickly fix (fill in and top)!" But what he didn't say is that you can destroy runways, but what you need are special types of bombs, and those can only be dropped from aircraft — not missiles. Those force you to get close.
So why didn't we?
The short answer is Russia. Russia's got a much more sophisticated/modern air defense system than the Syrians, and they've also got much better aircraft than the Syrians. Russia is camped out in the area and we'd have to get past them to get to the air strip in question. We only have 20 of the types of B-2 bombers (hi, nearby Whiteman Air Force Base!) that could do the job, and we're not exactly sure they're as stealthy as we pretend they are. So sending an aircraft in would be a provocation of Russia, it would be expensive, and it would risk American lives in the crew of the airplane.
What is our relationship with Russia?
Well, we called them to warn them we were going to strike with the missiles.
Why?
Partly because of an air agreement we made a while ago, partly because of international norms, and partly to tell them to get their troops out of the way. They may have/probably told the Syrians stationed there to get away from likely targets.
Who gets to call this a win?
Just about everyone except Syrian rebels. The U.S. has given the appearance (temporarily, and in the short-term) of strength, as though we won't tolerate chemical weapons attacks. We look like we actually did something, even if that something is "heightened tensions with Russia." That's the easy, lazy first read that most will take away. Russia can spin it their own way: look at how not-in-cahoots with America we are! Also, the America's attacks didn't even hit correctly (see coverage by the government-run network Russia Today), so we're much smarter/better at war then they are! It also gives Russia a pretext for ignoring that air agreement I mentioned in the last paragraph. The Syrian government gets to pretend this is an attack on their sovereignty while continuing with very little disruption to their side of the civil war.
So did we do the right thing or not?
Color me unimpressed, but accepting. I would have felt this way no matter who called for the strike. Surely if we cared at all about what was happening in Syria, we should have had a "response" to the chemical weapon use. I feel that a missile strike was probably our only option of looking authoritative without poking a Russian Bear into something more serious. But I'm also convinced that it's just appearances. I agree with Foxtrot Alpha, who said that this was not a military decision; it was a political one.
Maybe we should have used bigger bombs?
Well, we just used the biggest non-nuclear one we've got on Afghanistan.
Who did we drop it on?
It's a cave system near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that's believed to be controlled by ISIS in Afghanistan (ISIS-K). If the blast didn't kill them, the removal of oxygen probably did. That said, it's not like we have people on the ground telling us how many are dead, nor do we have ISIS-K reporting any number. If they were hit, they're underground and not talking much.
Good, right?
Yeah, but here's a trend I've noticed with the (goodness, we're still in the first 100 days...) Trump administration. Syria is being aggressive, so we react aggressively, but ineffectively. North Korea is being aggressive, so we react by sending an aircraft carrier to the region (aggressively, but ineffectively). ISIS-K exists, so we react aggressively, but its effectiveness has yet to be seen. I don't know what our long-term strategy is in any of these conflicts. Are we going to continue to engage in Syria? Are we going to keep pushing North Korea? Are we ramping up our fight against ISIS or ISIS-K? It hasn't been said. All I know is that any aggression is countered by more aggression on the United States' part, and I wonder what sort of message we're sending. Right now, our military message might best be described as "posturing."
North Korea is feeling the pressure
Speaking of North Korea, it didn't get a lot of attention, but North Korea's aggression has already caused a reaction from their closest ally. China turned away ships full of North Korean coal this week, effectively rejecting all North Korean coal imports for the rest of the year. This is a bigger deal than you might think. Coal makes up 18 percent of all North Korean exports. And China is North Korea's biggest trade partner, too, roughly 42 percent of all North Korean exports. So, if you do some rough math/estimates, China's decision cuts the North Korea exports by about 7.5-8 percent. But another estimate was that coal shipments to China accounted for 40 percent of all exports.
But what's curious is that China's been slowly pulling away from North Korea even before the most recent activity. While China turned away the ships just this week, their announcement about rejecting North Korean coal until 2018 came in February. Further, China closed the account of North Korea's main foreign exchange bank in 2013. They've also ended financial support of North Korea as of last February. While China may be North Korea's only world friend, they're also not really as friendly with Pyongyang as they used to be.
Summary Judgments
I am stretching myself the Sunday after my birthday to run a 10K in the Plaza area of Kansas City. This is the dumbest running thing I'll ever do (I'm scaling back on races the next couple years). It's not the dumbest running thing ANYONE will ever do: That's the Barkley Marathons. It's called the anti-race, and amounts to about 100-130 miles over 60 hours, over rugged terrain, with checkpoints and ridges and creeks and thorns and... just read this story. • • • Incredible story by David Von Drehle here about the little-noted 100th anniversary of the U.S.'s entry into WWI. It's about how overlooked the National WWI Museum is (here in K.C. at Liberty Memorial) and WWI is in general. Also, Von Drehle spoke at William Jewell's Achievement Day last year, and I thought he was fantastic. • • • I am changing my running route so I cross one less major intersection, and it's messing with my time/ability. Sometimes, you get so used to a route that when it's changed, it messes with everything. • • • Roland has been waking up at night with bad dreams lately. I think it's because he's really into this book called "When I'm Feeling Scared." Anyway, when he wakes up, he's pretty loud and half-asleep, which makes it harder to get him back to bed. A couple of nights ago, he woke up two or three times in the night, and twice he was mad because Evie stole his cup. Evie sleeps in a different room. And that's how we knew he was having bad dreams.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Are We Headed For War?
"War, huh. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing." -- Edwin Starr
During the run-up to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton attempted to paint Donald Trump as someone untrustworthy with foreign policy. Can you imagine him with his hands on our nuclear arsenal? she asked. Yet here we are, merely months into Donald Trump's presidency, and in the distance are the drumbeats of war.
For a president who ran so often on an isolationist foreign policy standpoint, there are at least three hotspots that seem to indicate war may not be so far off in the distance. Whether you believe or don't the Twitter feed of Rogue POTUS Staff (I believe them, for now), they indicate the president is leading us down a path of war. Let's review the conflicts, discuss the latest information and talk about possibilities.
North Korea
History: There's no question North Korea has nuclear capabilities. The question is whether they have the capabilities to hit Japan or the U.S. For decades, North Korea has been saber-rattling at the West. They've tested missiles. They've intermittently worked with and against South Korea. After Kim Jong Il died, his son, Kim Jong Un has ramped up missile tests and (presumably) nuclear tests.
Recent news: The Trump administration has been both hardline and seemingly dismissive. Generally, Trump has indicated a hard stance toward the Hermit Kingdom. On the campaign trail, he said he could solve it over a burger meal. He's since suggested that he'd like China's help, but that he would solve the North Korea issue on his own if need be.
Possibilities: It depends on what Chinese President Xi Jinping does. The meeting taking place today could have long-term implications (See more below). I can't see China suddenly giving the U.S. a green light for provoking or attacking North Korea. I also can't see the U.S. sending an assassination force or a missile strike, or even a series of missile strikes targeting nuclear facilities. That could just add more chaos to the mix or instigate matters further. South Korea and portions of Japan would be put in harm's way, as well as U.S. soldiers stationed there. Instead, I see more of the same: Tough talk from the U.S. about North Korea, North Korea continuing to build its missile/nuclear capabilities, and the tension continuing to rise.
Syria
History: Syria's been in a civil war for years, including President Bashar Al-Assad ignoring a "red line" that President Obama drew in the sand and then... did nothing about. As opposition groups stepped up to Al-Assad, the power vacuum allowed ISIS to step in in the eastern/northern portion of the country. Russia stepped in, saying their goal was to stop ISIS, but really helping Assad fight the opposition groups. ISIS is on the retreat, but the citizens of Syria and the opposition groups are all pretty much wiped out.
Recent news: Assad used a chemical attack on his own people. Russia's kind of ignoring it, and pretending it was the rebels, but it wasn't. It's heinous; the sort of red line that he's already crossed, but needs to be addressed. Sec. of Defense "Mad Dog" Mattis (who is beloved by Dems and the GOP) is briefing the President on options today. Trump told reporters today that "something should happen," the sort of completely vague answer that means nothing.
Possibilities: This is the one with likely action, in my opinion. I expect we first do missile strikes against the chemical weapons locations in Syria, then once that's settled, we send in additional troops, maybe 1-2,000. Do I think that'll do much? No, but it would help us finish off ISIS from another angle while pretending like we're actually doing something about Assad. Syria's a mess. I don't know what to do about Syria, either. But I'm not sure getting into a land war in the Middle East is the best option, either.
China
History: We've never been at war with China! They're communist, but not. They're either our biggest trading partner or our second biggest trading partner, depending on you refer to the European Union as a single entity. But that trade balance is one-sided. We import roughly four times as much from China as we do export to them. They make up about half of our global trade imbalance. But as far as exports go, they're not our biggest country to export to. They're third, behind Canada and Mexico.
Recent news: Now that Trump has decided his whole "Maybe NOT One China policy? Oops, never mind" issue, there's also the tricky issue of all those things he said about China on the campaign trail. They're raping us in trade. They're the source of the global warming hoax. They're the boogeyman to him. But more importantly than trade is another issue: Chinese islands. Thirty percent of the world's shipping trade flows through the South China Sea. Just about every country in the region has a claim on the waters as their sovereign territory: China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia (Brunei's claim is limited, since it's so small). The Spratly Islands are a bunch of (up until recently) uninhabited islands in the middle that no country really claimed. But China took some and started building them/expanding them into mini-bases with residents, so Vietnam did the same and the Philippines did a bit too. But China's the dominant military, navy and air force in the region. They've started flexing their muscles. They lost in international court to the Philippines sovereignty claim and kind of just ignored it. It's like when a big kid slowly starts inching toward another little kid on a park bench. Eventually they're practically on top of the little kid, right? That's what China's doing.
Possibilities: Maybe we send an aircraft carrier over there or something? We don't have a lot of power, and we really don't want to get in a war over a bunch of tiny islands that no one really lives on. Saying "knock it off" doesn't do anything without the power to back it up, and China knows we're not about to do anything of real importance. I'm going to say this again: WE DO NOT WANT WAR WITH CHINA.
No Winners in Gorsuch Confirmation
I'm a big Supreme Court fan. I love reading about it. I love learning about who are secretly friends (RBG and Scalia! <3!). I love learning the ins and outs. But... I am so sick of the Gorsuch confirmation. There are no heroes. There are no winners. There are only varying levels of losers, and I want it to be over with.
I've already talked about this path of Garland/Gorsuch/nuclear option back in this post, and it's a pretty interesting read if you've missed it.
The Senate has now passed the nuclear option, and Gorsuch will be confirmed with, say, 52-55 votes. But what have we (preemptively) learned from this battle? I've learned two things: 1) The Democrats have a problem with messaging. Their best bet in this fight was not that Gorsuch was unqualified (he isn't), but that he's out of the mainstream. That's a much better argument to make to the American people. Instead, even the new DNC chair said he was unqualified. Some senators, like my state's own Sen. Claire McCaskill, said that Gorsuch's ideology was too rigid, and that was why she was voting no. Side note: Missouri Republicans leaked a speech she gave on the subject at a fundraiser about her struggles over the vote. I found it to be honest, difficult and well-reasoned rather than some big exposé. 2) A friendly Senate is gone. Republicans abused "the rules" by filibustering 138 (!) judges and appointees while in the Senate minority under Clinton and Obama, and Democrats mostly played by the rules (only 10 such filibusters in the Bush years). But the Democrats got tired of Republican obstructionism — If you're not going to play by the rules, we'll change some of them. When the Democrats lost power in the Senate, that meant they also had to play by the rules that they had changed. Republicans see no use in hanging onto rules that aren't really being used anymore anyway, and are prepared to toss "the rules" entirely. Mourn the moderates of each party, because their allegiance is being tested by the nuclear option.
Summary Judgments
Muppets + Rappers = Thing I didn't know I was going to laugh at. • • • I thought this little history of the deepest hole ever made was kind of fascinating. In particular: at a certain depth, the immensely pressurized/heated rock stops acting rock-like and starts acting like plastic. • • • This week's continuing adventures of the Schrodinger's Truth of Obama wiretapping Trump: There's no truth to the Susan Rice accusation. I could go into more detail, but that's it. Let's move on. • • • I'm so proud of my friend Emily Smith and her kids at Pittsburg High School. They're rightfully gaining national attention after investigating the background of their incoming principal and finding her qualifications... lacking. • • • I'm rarely surprised by much in politics, but the news that Devin Nunes was stepping out of the Trump-Russia investigation surprised me. It's not that I don't think he should have, but that I didn't think he would, given a lack of Republican pressure. Media note: He stepped down on a day the Senate was enacting the "nuclear option" — meaning his move wouldn't be the day's top story. Smart tactic. • • • For those of you not in the KC area, it's been rainy. It rained 13 straight days until today. Because of that, I didn't run earlier this week. That said, I did lose another pound of weight, so yay! • • • The other night, Evie was upset and, in trying to calm her down, mewled like a cat. So now she's decided the best game is to ask me to be a cat. So I mew and cuddle, but ... that's not how she wants me to play cat. I'm still trying to figure it out. So far, I know that "scratching" at her is part of it, but she still doesn't seem happy. Do I need to ignore her like a real cat? Do I need to use a litter box? I have no idea.
During the run-up to the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton attempted to paint Donald Trump as someone untrustworthy with foreign policy. Can you imagine him with his hands on our nuclear arsenal? she asked. Yet here we are, merely months into Donald Trump's presidency, and in the distance are the drumbeats of war.
For a president who ran so often on an isolationist foreign policy standpoint, there are at least three hotspots that seem to indicate war may not be so far off in the distance. Whether you believe or don't the Twitter feed of Rogue POTUS Staff (I believe them, for now), they indicate the president is leading us down a path of war. Let's review the conflicts, discuss the latest information and talk about possibilities.
North Korea
History: There's no question North Korea has nuclear capabilities. The question is whether they have the capabilities to hit Japan or the U.S. For decades, North Korea has been saber-rattling at the West. They've tested missiles. They've intermittently worked with and against South Korea. After Kim Jong Il died, his son, Kim Jong Un has ramped up missile tests and (presumably) nuclear tests.
Recent news: The Trump administration has been both hardline and seemingly dismissive. Generally, Trump has indicated a hard stance toward the Hermit Kingdom. On the campaign trail, he said he could solve it over a burger meal. He's since suggested that he'd like China's help, but that he would solve the North Korea issue on his own if need be.
Possibilities: It depends on what Chinese President Xi Jinping does. The meeting taking place today could have long-term implications (See more below). I can't see China suddenly giving the U.S. a green light for provoking or attacking North Korea. I also can't see the U.S. sending an assassination force or a missile strike, or even a series of missile strikes targeting nuclear facilities. That could just add more chaos to the mix or instigate matters further. South Korea and portions of Japan would be put in harm's way, as well as U.S. soldiers stationed there. Instead, I see more of the same: Tough talk from the U.S. about North Korea, North Korea continuing to build its missile/nuclear capabilities, and the tension continuing to rise.
Syria
History: Syria's been in a civil war for years, including President Bashar Al-Assad ignoring a "red line" that President Obama drew in the sand and then... did nothing about. As opposition groups stepped up to Al-Assad, the power vacuum allowed ISIS to step in in the eastern/northern portion of the country. Russia stepped in, saying their goal was to stop ISIS, but really helping Assad fight the opposition groups. ISIS is on the retreat, but the citizens of Syria and the opposition groups are all pretty much wiped out.
Recent news: Assad used a chemical attack on his own people. Russia's kind of ignoring it, and pretending it was the rebels, but it wasn't. It's heinous; the sort of red line that he's already crossed, but needs to be addressed. Sec. of Defense "Mad Dog" Mattis (who is beloved by Dems and the GOP) is briefing the President on options today. Trump told reporters today that "something should happen," the sort of completely vague answer that means nothing.
Possibilities: This is the one with likely action, in my opinion. I expect we first do missile strikes against the chemical weapons locations in Syria, then once that's settled, we send in additional troops, maybe 1-2,000. Do I think that'll do much? No, but it would help us finish off ISIS from another angle while pretending like we're actually doing something about Assad. Syria's a mess. I don't know what to do about Syria, either. But I'm not sure getting into a land war in the Middle East is the best option, either.
China
History: We've never been at war with China! They're communist, but not. They're either our biggest trading partner or our second biggest trading partner, depending on you refer to the European Union as a single entity. But that trade balance is one-sided. We import roughly four times as much from China as we do export to them. They make up about half of our global trade imbalance. But as far as exports go, they're not our biggest country to export to. They're third, behind Canada and Mexico.
Recent news: Now that Trump has decided his whole "Maybe NOT One China policy? Oops, never mind" issue, there's also the tricky issue of all those things he said about China on the campaign trail. They're raping us in trade. They're the source of the global warming hoax. They're the boogeyman to him. But more importantly than trade is another issue: Chinese islands. Thirty percent of the world's shipping trade flows through the South China Sea. Just about every country in the region has a claim on the waters as their sovereign territory: China, Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia (Brunei's claim is limited, since it's so small). The Spratly Islands are a bunch of (up until recently) uninhabited islands in the middle that no country really claimed. But China took some and started building them/expanding them into mini-bases with residents, so Vietnam did the same and the Philippines did a bit too. But China's the dominant military, navy and air force in the region. They've started flexing their muscles. They lost in international court to the Philippines sovereignty claim and kind of just ignored it. It's like when a big kid slowly starts inching toward another little kid on a park bench. Eventually they're practically on top of the little kid, right? That's what China's doing.
Possibilities: Maybe we send an aircraft carrier over there or something? We don't have a lot of power, and we really don't want to get in a war over a bunch of tiny islands that no one really lives on. Saying "knock it off" doesn't do anything without the power to back it up, and China knows we're not about to do anything of real importance. I'm going to say this again: WE DO NOT WANT WAR WITH CHINA.
No Winners in Gorsuch Confirmation
I'm a big Supreme Court fan. I love reading about it. I love learning about who are secretly friends (RBG and Scalia! <3!). I love learning the ins and outs. But... I am so sick of the Gorsuch confirmation. There are no heroes. There are no winners. There are only varying levels of losers, and I want it to be over with.
I've already talked about this path of Garland/Gorsuch/nuclear option back in this post, and it's a pretty interesting read if you've missed it.
The Senate has now passed the nuclear option, and Gorsuch will be confirmed with, say, 52-55 votes. But what have we (preemptively) learned from this battle? I've learned two things: 1) The Democrats have a problem with messaging. Their best bet in this fight was not that Gorsuch was unqualified (he isn't), but that he's out of the mainstream. That's a much better argument to make to the American people. Instead, even the new DNC chair said he was unqualified. Some senators, like my state's own Sen. Claire McCaskill, said that Gorsuch's ideology was too rigid, and that was why she was voting no. Side note: Missouri Republicans leaked a speech she gave on the subject at a fundraiser about her struggles over the vote. I found it to be honest, difficult and well-reasoned rather than some big exposé. 2) A friendly Senate is gone. Republicans abused "the rules" by filibustering 138 (!) judges and appointees while in the Senate minority under Clinton and Obama, and Democrats mostly played by the rules (only 10 such filibusters in the Bush years). But the Democrats got tired of Republican obstructionism — If you're not going to play by the rules, we'll change some of them. When the Democrats lost power in the Senate, that meant they also had to play by the rules that they had changed. Republicans see no use in hanging onto rules that aren't really being used anymore anyway, and are prepared to toss "the rules" entirely. Mourn the moderates of each party, because their allegiance is being tested by the nuclear option.
Summary Judgments
Muppets + Rappers = Thing I didn't know I was going to laugh at. • • • I thought this little history of the deepest hole ever made was kind of fascinating. In particular: at a certain depth, the immensely pressurized/heated rock stops acting rock-like and starts acting like plastic. • • • This week's continuing adventures of the Schrodinger's Truth of Obama wiretapping Trump: There's no truth to the Susan Rice accusation. I could go into more detail, but that's it. Let's move on. • • • I'm so proud of my friend Emily Smith and her kids at Pittsburg High School. They're rightfully gaining national attention after investigating the background of their incoming principal and finding her qualifications... lacking. • • • I'm rarely surprised by much in politics, but the news that Devin Nunes was stepping out of the Trump-Russia investigation surprised me. It's not that I don't think he should have, but that I didn't think he would, given a lack of Republican pressure. Media note: He stepped down on a day the Senate was enacting the "nuclear option" — meaning his move wouldn't be the day's top story. Smart tactic. • • • For those of you not in the KC area, it's been rainy. It rained 13 straight days until today. Because of that, I didn't run earlier this week. That said, I did lose another pound of weight, so yay! • • • The other night, Evie was upset and, in trying to calm her down, mewled like a cat. So now she's decided the best game is to ask me to be a cat. So I mew and cuddle, but ... that's not how she wants me to play cat. I'm still trying to figure it out. So far, I know that "scratching" at her is part of it, but she still doesn't seem happy. Do I need to ignore her like a real cat? Do I need to use a litter box? I have no idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)