Four Things

Pivot to Remote

Colleges are starting their classes and just as quickly shutting down their campuses.  First was UNC - Chapel Hill.  Today there was news from Notre Dame and Michigan State.  Carnegie Mellon emailed today to tell us that instead of starting on campus on August 31st we will be starting 100% online.  That start will only last one week though and as of today our students will be back in their classrooms the following Tuesday.  I guess it is possible that the schools that have had outbreaks are the exception and not the rule, but every day that goes by it seems less likely that in person residential college is possible under these circumstances.  Two weeks ago I shifted my classes from hybrid to remote.  I am still trying to decide if either of the Technical Direction classes will have shop based projects.  There's a perceptible desire from the students to get in and get their hands dirty, but I can't decide whether I want to be the one that puts them in that position.  Lately it seems like taking a breath makes some of these decisions for us.  I'll see what the next week brings.

Different Interests

I don't understand why we're not getting more action out of the Senate.  There's this established concept that people in government don't understand what the people they represent go through; that leaders don't know the price of milk.  The median net worth of a US household is $93k.  The median net worth in Congress is $500k and the Senate is probably significantly higher than that (a quick search failed to find the specific number).  There's just no way the average Congressperson can really relate to the average person.  It'll never happen, but it seems like there ought to be some wealth caps on Congress (and the President & Vice President).  Maybe something along the lines of if you are worth more than 10 times the median worth of your constituency you are ineligible to run.  That would mean that someone with a net worth of a million dollars could not be President.  That would certainly disqualify a lot of people, but the ones that were available would likely have a better connection to the people they represent.  (I also think you should only be paid the median annual income of your constituency too, but that's another story.)

Tales From the Loop

I finished watching Tales From the Loop on Amazon.  It wasn't what I was expecting.  The promos they run seem to cast it in the mold of the SyFy show Eureka.  They show lots of scientists and a robot that looks like a scout walker and high tech gear and families and you get the vibe that it is a fun science fiction show like we've seen before.  It really isn't.  In some ways I thought it was a lot more like The Twilight Zone.  It has a series of loosely connected, very small stories with fantastical elements, but it is anything but zany like Eureka.  It is slow and deliberate and... sad.  The soundtrack is often just a single cello and that absolutely meets the mood, expresses the tone of the storytelling.  I didn't notice until the end that the composer is Philip Glass.  Toward the end there's a scene where one of the schoolteachers asks one of the kids about a book she'd given him and he says he thought it was "sad, but beautiful."  The writers were almost certainly talking about their work as much as the book in the story.  Is it worth watching, sure.  Is it what you're expecting, no.  If you do watch it, reach out and tell me.  I'd love to talk about it, but I don't want to give anything away.

To Do List

The first day of class - remote or not - is coming up quickly.  This year has been sneakier than in the past as there is still a part of me that is sitting, waiting in March of this year.  I know we ended the Spring semester and then moved on to an abbreviated Summer program and that the Fall is bearing down on us right soon.  I know that, but I don't really feel it.  We had an opening faculty/staff meeting this week.  Usually the year kicks off with a cocktail of some sort that would normally still be a week and a half off.  This year is obviously different.  So the clock is ticking and I need to make my list.  I've got schedules to do for three classes and then a mountain of PowerPoint decks to compose.  I did 8 or 9 as part of the summer but I could be looking at more like 40 for the fall (that's the first time I did that math - that is a big number).  I'm behind because all the work time I have had so far has gotten applied to COVID and RJ and BONUS CURRICULUM tasks.  All the extra stuff has made it hard to dig down to the regular stuff.  Time to get to that part of the list (I need a project checklist I guess).

Facebook Discourse

A Friend From High School (Who is quite bright)

Erasing history will lead to temporary satisfaction and a fruitless future.

Those of us who have been through this recommend that you hide your history books. When you are forced to believe their false narrative, your children will still have the opportunity to learn from the past.

19 Comments

Comments

David Boevers

I don't understand "erasing history" I don't think anyone is saying we should forget. They are saying we shouldn't celebrate oppression.

A Friend From High School (Who is quite bright)

how is a statue celebrating oppression? Are the Coliseum or the pyramids or any number of statues of past kings and queens celebrating oppression? Is erasing any and all “offensive” pop culture obliterating oppression?

You know how people today are astonished at how the Holocaust came about? Pulitzer Prize winning novels were written about it in the recent past. It was the fettish of literature for the last decade.

This is exactly how the Holocaust came about. One group of people decided what race and way of thinking was acceptable and decided to wipe out everyone and anyone who did not agree with that way of thinking. The cancel culture existed back then. If you didn’t agree, you were cancelled. And guess what? The silent majority who did in fact not agree stood silently by. With the exception of a few who could not stand in silence and acted.

Slavery did not start in 1619. Slavery started in ancient times. That is what people did. My people were slaves of the Ottoman Empire for a century. Your people were slaves before then. Do we see everyone turning the universe upside down? No. Love the way the people of the youngest country on Earth feel so entitled and self righteous. As if the world revolved around the good young USA. Eccentric and absurd.

David Boevers

ok, you've convinced me, it is exactly the same

A Friend From High School (Who is quite bright)

I will convince you of nothing. Sadly, that is how it always is. It’s like trying to warn your children about something and then they go and do it anyhow. And after they go through that painful experience, they say “I wish I had listened to you.” Nobody is listening because everyone is smarter. That’s fine. Sad part is, it is not our generation who will suffer. It will be the generations that come who will not experience freedom as you did.

A Friend From High School (Who is quite bright)

and one more thing. One day, and it will be much sooner than later, someone will decide that what you think is not acceptable. It always happens.

David Boevers

I suppose that the Coliseum and the pyramids are celebrating oppression. To the best of my knowledge those oppressed by those symbols aren't clamoring for their removal. Maybe they are. International news in the US isn't great. I'm uncertain the arguments here are symmetrical. The exterminations in WW2 Europe didn't follow a dismantling of the history of the Jewish oppression Germans - it was more a complete fabrication of the concept that Jews were currently oppressing the majority. That's more parallel to the calls in the US now of the oppressive tactics of reverse racism. I get there's a slippery slope here. That takes cultural dexterity, and no action should be assumed and undertaken without consideration and debate. That is why I make a distinction between celebration and memory. If we are going to remove statues and rename schools then the curriculum in those schools needs to contain the history and the context to make sure the knowledge is not buried or worse intentionally falsified. Taking down a statue of Lee at a state capital doesn't remove Lee from history books, or at least it shouldn't so as to be a bulwark against exactly the kind of new oppression you are warning of.

David Boevers

I also think that there is something about the age of the wound in play here. Many of the people expressing their rage are people that are right now today still victims of the oppression they are speaking out against. To them it is not about history, it is current events. I don't know what European Jews did in the 1950s to keep Nazis from being celebrated. The population was so decimated that they had other things on their mind I would imagine. Also, the rest of the world helped with that lift. The Germans themselves outlawed the kind of celebration that the US failed to intercede with in celebration of the Confederacy. I imagine that had there been a significant movement to paint Hitler more gently that Jews would have opposed it.

A Friend From High School (Who is quite bright)

Why are we judging history by today’s standards? If that were the case across the world, we would not have ANY ancient buildings or artifacts standing. Do you think what the popes did to artists like Michaelangelo was not oppressive? Yet do we take down the Sistine Chapel? I doubt 99% of people taking issue with Lee have ANY idea about who Lee was or what Lee did. And this is why statues of people who actually devoted their lives to overthrowing slavery were also toppled. Ignorance. Complete and utter ignorance of history.

David Boevers

AND... FWIW, and I am not an authority here, but I have been trying to learn something about this recently, apparently many of the monuments were in fact not celebrations of the confederacy and were not put in place until the 1950s and 60s in the US as a direct thumb in the eye to the civil rights movement. So not even the people that erected the monuments were concerned with preserving a historical narrative. They wanted only to hurt people they thought weren't people, within the footprint of my lifetime - historically like... yesterday.

David Boevers

But yes. We need to be mindful of the repercussions of the actions. The actions should not be undertaken without discussion and debate and with an eye toward the preservation of the full historical narrative. And the process must be monitored with vigilance.

David Boevers

There is a difficult dimension to this around art. I don't know how to solve that. We see a lot of discussion about this aspect in my field around #metoo. Does having someone exposed as a monster invalidate all of the art they have created over the length of their lifetime? I don't know what to do with that. Sometimes I get the feeling that Jews have somehow taken the construction of the pyramids as an achievement (even though it is a product of oppression). That seems like a fairly significant emotional contortion - making lemonade from unfortunate lemons.

A Friend From High School (Who is quite bright)

but this is my point. There is no discussion. Only extremism. There is complete and utter obliteration of any point of view except that which is felt to be “acceptable.”

Where did the adults go?

David Boevers

^^^^^ discussion.

 

PDB TV

Early in this administration there were stories about how difficult it was to deliver a briefing.  The tale was that exhaustive written briefings wouldn't be read.  Advisors were told that they would be more effective if they delivered materials heavy on charts rather than text and that it couldn't hurt to mention the President frequently.  Getting your information across turned out to be a previously unanticipated challenge.

At the same time we were also told, frequently that the folks that were able to get their message across were the hosts at Fox News.  We heard that the time before the start of the day in the office and the time late in the day and into the night were often spent watching political shows on television.  Early on mostly this was about Fox.  Later on it was often also OAN or sometimes even smaller outlets.  This interest would often even include calling in and contributing to various programs.

Put those two things together and it seems like more than one White House Chief of Staff might have missed an opportunity.  It is their job to put the information together in a way that it will be best received.  Why didn't they form an in house television news network?

Is it such a strange idea that in the twenty first century information could possibly be delivered in this mode?  It isn't like they had to put together 24 hours of programming.  My guess is that they would have needed 6, maybe 8 hours of content.  There is the chance that some, maybe most of the content wouldn't register (just running as background noise), but in the environment they were working in that doesn't sound much worse than we'd been told they were already doing.

They could have gone right out and hired hosts away from the various network outlets.  They could have built a couple of sets and staffed up a couple of shows.  They'd need a two hour morning show, maybe 2-3 newscasts and maybe a magazine show.  The guests on the shows would have been the people that would have been generating or delivering briefings and then a team of civilians that the producers would know would have a voice that would be heard.  Shows would run live once a day and be stored on a DVR where they could be accessed anytime.  The supervising producer would be available on the phone at any time to receive specific instructions about desired content from the audience of one.

Probably the thing should run commercial free.  Maybe station breaks could be like they are on NPR, teasing upcoming content and promoting other shows on the network.

We heard over and over how what they were doing wasn't working.  We're still hearing it now.  Someone dropped the ball here.  It was their job to figure out how to make it work not just mope indefinitely about how it wasn't working.

If the Dems Can't Win With That...

This morning on Morning Joe there was discussion about how the Republicans are giving the Democrats a great narrative by not really exercising any meaningful over-site of the administration in the wake of the President's inexpiable deference to Putin.  Their conclusion was that if Democrats couldn't win with that arrow in their quiver that they were really in trouble.  This neglects one very important detail.

The Dems did win.

Two of the last three times Republicans won the White House Democrats got more votes.  Talking about how inept the Democratic candidates are assumes that it is a fair fight.  It isn't.

The Electoral College makes votes for President in normally Republican states much more effective than in reliably Democratic states.  On top of that, voter suppression laws in many states tilt the floor under voters' feet undeniably in favor of Republicans.  There doesn't seem to be much likelihood of resolving the former issue, and the latter becomes more and more entrenched as Republicans add voices to the courts.  There are even calls to make the electoral issue more problematic by apportioning the votes by district - a proposal which seems to come up primarily where it will help Republicans.

Speaking of districts, somehow Republicans have the majority of Representatives even though the majority of votes in many states go to Democrats.  A decades long program of gerrymandering has helped to put a (seemingly) permanent slant to the House.  There seemed to be some momentum building to help allay this in the courts, but the current administration appears to have little motivation to pursue that kind of case.  Fixing the districts without the courts means winning the state houses and that is in the grip of the gerrymander too - and the voter suppression.

The only place it might be kind of a fair fight (if you don't think too much about voter suppression) is the US Senate.  Those races are straight up popular votes, no electoral college and no districts.  As it turns out this one is even more depressing.  Since the number of Senators is independent of population, and due to anticipated population trends these votes almost don't matter.  An overwhelming number of Senators will soon be elected by a marked minority of Americans.  Within the near future the majority of the people will live in 8 states, represented by 16 Senators. The remaining minority of the people will be represented by the remaining 84 Senators.  Care to guess which parties dominate which states?  I know the founders were smart, but that can't be what they had in mind.

I really, really hope Joe is right and that the narrative Democrats will have going into the 2018 election is a compelling one, but if they lose we need to remember that it wasn't exactly an even playing field to begin with.

Supreme Freak Out

They're going to get their judge.  I'm not sure I understand the immediacy of the freak out.  It was predictable that Justice Kennedy would retire under a Republican administration.  I guess it wasn't necessarily that it would have been at the end of this term, but depending on polling I would imagine it would have been a virtual certainty it would happen in this Presidential term.  (I read something on Facebook today that suggested his motivation is less obvious and tied to the special counsel investigation and his son.  I guess we'll have to see if that is the case - but even if it is I stand by the idea that the retirement would come under a Republican administration).

The President's record on judicial appointments is really the least characteristic of anything he does.  It seems like he's pretty substantively delegated the task and that the choices are in the sweet spot of conservative interest groups.  From my perspective that's unfortunate, but through the lens of how crazy things are this is actually some of the least crazy there is.  Also, for what it is worth, if you haven't noticed that the administration has had a record setting pace in placing judges below the Supreme Court rank too.

I get that Roe energizes people and that revisiting Roe would be awful, but it seems to me that there's a whole lot more to be concerned about: ACA, LGBTQ rights, organized labor, gerrymandering, Citizens United...  Roe is just the tip of a terrible iceberg.  And that's without thinking of any eventual litigation of the special council investigation that might come before the court.

The Left has been able to rely on courts to be a check on legislatures for my entire lifetime.  When we lost the White House and the Senate that pretty much came to an end.  That we're having a collective freak out now is somewhat misplaced.  We've been in this position since the election, it just hasn't been at the top of the news until now.

The talk about strategies to keep the court in it's current balance is all well and good, but I think we have to assume any of that will fail.  The Senators identified as swings have been in this position before and they've danced with the one that brought them.  Any idea that the Senate leadership will apply the standard they established under the last administration is wishful thinking.  The notion that cooler heads will prevail and constrain a sitting President currently under investigation is fantasy.  There will be a name in short order and that jurist will be confirmed with alacrity.

The road back from this point is a long one.  The Left is going to have to win the way the Right did - win elections and win them at all levels.  There won't be a need to have the courts block terrible legislation if there isn't terrible legislation.  The other day I saw something online that says if "didn't vote" had been a candidate in the 2016 election it would have won a landslide of states.  Decisions are made by the ones who show up.  If you are freaking out now, make sure you vote in November - and make sure everyone else does too.

546 Smart People

President, Vice President,100 Senators, 435 Representatives, & 9 Supreme Court Justices.  546 people.  The population of the United States is roughly 314 million people.  Just one percent of that total is still 3 million people.

Watching the news this week I have been hearing a lot about civic issues, predominantly about the next "cliff" which is raising the dept ceiling.  As part of that coverage is the obligatory explanation that raising the debt ceiling isn't about increasing the amount of money we can spend but rather just permission to borrow enough money to pay bills we've already run up.  Congress actually has ample time to make sure we don't spend more money, after all they control the budget, they control what is "on budget" and what is "off budget," they control what money goes where, and they control how much we pay in taxes.  If Congress wanted to not borrow more money they could simply agree not to spend more money.  But they can't, so they don't, and then some percentage of members decide that the only solution is to say "we won't pay" regardless of what that means to world financial systems.

Those Congressmen are often subject to analysis on TV news shows and the other day I was watching one of those shows when the commentator singled out a group of legislators and called them stupid.  They weren't being called out for having fringy views or for being uncooperative or uncivil, they were being singled out for being dumb, for not having the mental acumen to be able to understand the issues they were voting on.

I have to say that watching the news for the last couple of election cycles has had me wondering about the aggregate intelligence of our leaders.  People held back very little from criticizing the mental horsepower of Sarah Palin, but in doing so almost never remembered that she was a previously elected Governor of Alaska.  The last couple governors of Illinois have wound up in jail.  There are members of the House Science and Technology committee that not only don't believe in Evolution but also not about embryology and The Big Bang.

Whenever I see this sort of thing I am struck by one thought: how is it we can't get together 546 smart people to run the country?  I guess it is really more than that, right?  It'd be nice if there were at least two qualified candidates for each job, so then we're talking about something like 1100 people.  And that doesn't really count mayors and judges and Cabinet officers and department heads, and generals and ambassadors.  So figure maybe 100 times 1100 - On the order of 1 million smart people.

Figure the type of folks I am talking about represent the top 10% of their high school classes.  I would say college, but lets aim low.  If there are 300 million people in the US and lets say that 35% of that number are of electable age, that's a pool of 105 million people.  Taking the top 10 percent of that we get a pool of like 10 million.

Why can't we seem to elect 1 million out of that 10 million?  That still leaves 9 million people to be academics and captains of industry.

I'm sure the math there is wrong, and I know political elections are not decided on demonstrated brainpower.  but maybe we ought to try to do something so that the people that are running our country are dependably smart people.

A Wonderful Example

I just wanted to take time out to say what a wonderful example our congress is setting for all of us.  Since whenever just about ANYTHING comes up someone says "but what about the children?" I just thought we should be sure to highlight what we're showing our kids.

Somehow I turned out to be a professional teacher by trade, or at least that's a significant piece of my portfolio.  Although I am teaching project management, drafting, scenic construction, and rigging a significant part of what I actually teach is time management, respect for deadlines, and productive collaboration.  How do you think the grades would be for our congressional representatives would be for those three very basic skills.

They had something on the order of 500 days to prepare for this fiscal cliff thing and yet here we are, deadline plus 2 days before we came to a solution.  Congrats congress; if you were a theatre company you would have lost two performances.  If you were a scene shop that would have been two full days with trailers sitting empty on your dock.  Good luck getting payment on that final invoice.  500 days to come to some kind of resolution without any real action and then a flurry of activity at the end.

Is anyone surprised they missed the deadline?  None of my students would be.

It's pretty clear that the poor time management lead to a complete failure to meet their deadline - a deadline they set mind you.  The unthinkable entertainment analogs above are all about failing to meet deadlines.  In my world people depend on me to meet deadlines.  Aren't there people depending on congressmen to meet deadlines?  Of course there are.  There are/were huge implications to the legislation coming late.  Why aren't our elected representatives more sensitive to the impacts of missing our deadlines?

Maybe they ought to go to do a summer of stock.

I don't even know where to begin to discuss the total lack of collaboration on display.  The "my way or the highway" attitudes of pretty much everyone involved is really sad.  Full grown adults with their heels dug firmly in insisting they get their way in spite of terrible consequences.  I just don't know.  Didn't they see Willy Wonka?  Don't they remember Verruca Salt?  "I want what I want when I want it..."

They had to send her to the juicer, right?

As long as folks are thinking about congressional reforms, working over the filibuster and whatever, why not take a little time to restructure things to better encourage healthy collaboration, respect for deadlines, and time management.  At least then we could be sure our congressional representatives would have a reasonable chance of success as college sophomores.

For the Explaining

My Debate Would Have Been Better

I spent the day trying to come up with questions I would have liked to hear answered.  They didn't get to many of them.  Maybe in a subsequent debate.

1. Mr President, once you said many people cling to guns or religion to explain their frustration. Why should those people vote for you? #DDQS
2. Gov. Romney, you've said 47% of Americans won't vote for you. There is no mandate without them. Why should they change their minds? #DDQS
3. President Obama, arguably one of your biggest challenges has been working with Congress. Why will that be better in a 2nd term? #DDQS
4. Gov Romney, With each administration working w/ Congress has become more difficult, why would this be different in a Romney admin? #DDQS
5. For both of you, you've previously mentioned "the rich", "working poor", and "middle class". What income levels do those represent? #DDQS
6. Again for both. Many entry level jobs require a college degree. Should high school students be better prepared for the workplace? #DDQS
7. Mr. President, Why have we still not closed our detention camp at Guantanamo Bay? #DDQS
8. Governor Romney, why isn't the electorate entitled to see your complete tax history? #DDQS
9. Make the other guy's case: Mr. President, why should everyone get a tax cut? Mr. Romney, why limit the cut to earners under $250K #DDQS
10. Governor Romney, what did the federal government do wrong in response to hurricane Katrina? How can we do better in the future? #DDQS
11. Mr. President, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act seems to be flawed. Did the government cause the banking crisis and how can it be fixed? #DDQS
12. Question for both, what role if any should the federal government play in a national scientific research agenda? Where would you lead? #DDQS
13. Question for both: What is Congress' role in today's much faster - more undeclared, less geographically fixed - military actions? #DDQS
14. President Obama, is the President responsible for statements and actions of government agencies? What should be done when they fail? #DDQS
15. Question for both: Which TV or movie President would you hope your Presidency most resembles and why? #DDQS (fluffy but substantive)
16. Mr. President is there racial intolerance in this country and if so what is government's role in combatting it? #DDQS
17. Governor, is there religious intolerance in this country and what, if any, is government's role in combatting it? #DDQS
18. Governor, there's been little discourse, let alone prosecutions, in the aftermath of the bank bailout. Should there have been arrests? #DDQS
19. Mr. President, we've had little talk, let alone prosecutions after 9/11 era civil liberty violations. Should there have been arrests? #DDQS
20. Question for both: What sport most closely portrays the American Dream, and why? #DDQS
21. Governor, the platform cuts programs many Americans need to get through rough times in their life. What happens to them? #DDQS
22. Mr. President, regulations cause many businesses to suffer as compared to foreign competition. How will you help these job creators? #DDQS

For the record I forgot to ask: US military spending is nearly 5 times the spending of the next highest nation (China).  Is there a scenario where we can be secure as a country spending only 3 times as much as the next nation?

My debate would have been better.

Yes We Can

The other day Mrs. TANBI and I got to attend an Obama campaign event.  They did the thing on the CFA lawn on campus and faculty and alumni could get tickets.  It seemed like it was going to be difficult to get in, but in the end I think there was plenty of space.

The tickets said noon, but the email from the school said 11:30 and we didn't want to be too far back.  We left for campus on foot at 10:50.  At that moment the President was live on CNN in Poland Ohio.  We should have taken the hint.

When we got to campus we lined up for security by the back door to Skibo and then went through a line all the way across the face of the UC and across to Purnell.  They had magnetometers and hand search for everyone before you could get in.  Really this part didn't take too long at all and we were probably standing in place waiting on the event by 12:10.

I'd originally thought the event was at noon.  I was wrong.  We got there in plenty of time, but then we waited through the heat of the day until around 2:15 for the speech.  For the first part of the wait we amused ourselves spotting the spotters.

Truth be told I think those folks were there for us to see (ok, maybe not that last guy).  I kept wondering where the agents I couldn't see were.

After a while they filled some.  There was an opening prayer, and then a song from a CMU student.  We heard a short speech from the Obama/Biden campaign coordinator for the region.  After that we got to see Franco Harris.

He probably could have talked a lot longer than he did.  Around this point Mrs. TANBI started to see tweets saying the President was in the area - actually that he had stopped for cookies.

Eventually we started to see young men with severe haircuts and ear pieces in the crowd and then in a moment Senator Casey was doing an intro and then there he was.

It turned out the speech was mostly the say as I'd heard on the TV that morning when he was in Ohio.  I guess on West Wing they would have called it "modified stump."  There was a lot of common material punctuated with the occasional "like they're doing right here at Carnegie Mellon."  He did start out with some talk about baseball, what with the Pirates and the White Sox both leading their divisions.

It was a decent speech after a very long wait on a very, very hot, sunny day.  The organizers did a good job.  They had bottle after bottle of water and people with sprayers watering down the crowd.  Even with all that we did see many people overcome by the heat (or maybe the anticipation).

I'm glad we went.  I even got a somewhat ephemeral souvenir.

Grover Who?

I have to admit to being struck today by a political story.  Usually I notice things like this before I see them in the press, but I missed this wrinkle.

With the Bush tax cuts set to expire not so long ago Righties were all over the media saying how they couldn't let it happen because letting the cuts expire was a tax increase.  They all have this pledge that they've signed with Righty Operator Grover Norquist which basically says that if they ever raise taxes ever they will find themselves without support (read a loss of PAC money and a likely primary challenge).

Now that's just total horse hockey to begin with but that's a different post.

This post is about how now the same Righties are all over the media saying they can't not let the current payroll tax rollbacks expire.  Caught up in the goofiness of the regular news coverage I failed to notice that by their own rules this would mean they are supporting a tax increase on the American people.

Where oh where is Grover Norquist?  Why aren't these congresscritters afeared of losing their funding or of the impending primary challenges?  After all they were so clear that letting a tax cut sunset was in fact a vote for a tax increase.

So clearly it really has nothing to do with an absolute ban on tax increases, just lefty tax increases.  Righties can go ahead and tax the 99% all they want.  The threat clearly only applies to lefty taxes aimed at the 1%.

Sometimes this country makes my head hurt.

New Rules

A certainly incomplete list of new rules for Congress.

1. No "Pledges" - a candidate or sitting member of Congress may make no pledge beyond "to evaluate each piece of legislation on its own merits and make my decisions reflecting to the best of my ability the intent of my constituents and my personal judgement.
2. "Pocket Confirmation" - any and all appointments made during a Congressional term not receiving an up or down, clean confirmation vote by the end of the following session are deemed to have been approved by the Congress.
3. "Shutdown Charge" - should a federal budget and all the associated allocation bills for the next fiscal year not be complete by 3/4 of the way through the current fiscal year each and every member of that congress shall have their term expire with the end of the current Congress (provided the delay is not the result of Presidential action).
4. "Shutdown Penalty" - should a continuing resolution be required to prevent the federal government from shutdown, or should the Federal government be forced to shut down due to the lack of a budget or associated allocations each and every member of that congress shall have their term end at the end of that Congress and those members shall be prohibited from running again for a period of not less than 12 years.
5. "Answer the Damn Question" - candidates and sitting Congress members are required to answer the actual questions presented by media and constituents. They are allowed to say "I choose not to answer that question at this time" but simply pivoting to talking points is not allowed. A bi-partisan panel shall referee complaints as filed by the actual person that asked the question. For each adjudicated transgression the candidate must make a $5000 donation to the other party's congressional campaign committee (candidates may elect to prepay).
6. "Factual Error Penalty" - for each and every "pants on fire" rating a Congress member receives from Politifact they are docked 10% of their salary for that calendar year (re-figuring after each offense). For every 10 infractions within a year (including repeating the same item) the member is docked one year of standing for their retirement benefits (candidates may accrue negative calendar standing). Personally held beliefs do not trump the independent audit.

Bonus item:

• All candidates and sitting members of Congress must listen to "This American Life" and may never be more than 2 weeks behind.
  

Stop With the Gotchas

It's one of those things that news reporters these days love to write stories about and really I don't think it helps anyone. You see headlines like:

After Voting Against Stimulous Funding Governor Celebrates Program That Would Not Have Happened Without It

or:

2011 Senator: "Don't Fund UN," 2004 Senator: "Fully Fund UN"

There's just no there there. It's noise and it makes the candidate look foolish, but it doesn't really tell us anything about them.

Not taking advantage of programs you opposed would be stupid. I can see very clearly how a governor might have an ideological objection to a piece of legislation, publicly come out against it, and then still utilize the funding that came through over their objection. You have to live in the world we're in. That world includes that money and probably there are a lot of other things arranged around that money that need it for them to function properly.

I feel like its a much bigger story when someone opposes something, loses and then doesn't make use of the funds anyway. We're seeing that a lot around the health reform legislation. Where governors of states with dire financial situation are refusing federal funds on principle. That to me is a story. That someone thought there shouldn't be extended unemployment and then allowed the spending to go through after they lost, that's not a story that's pragmatism. We need more pragmatism.

That one is only slightly less ridiculous than trying to catch someone in a waffle with years between their statements. Just because someone was on one side of an issue years ago doesn't mean they have to be on the same side of the issue now, and that they aren't doesn't necessarily say something nefarious about their financial backers.

Believe it or not, the world changes as time goes by. Not having your positions evolve as the world changes would be foolish. So someone used to be in favor of something they now aren't. The economy isn't the same as it was, the world map isn't the same as it was, the makeup of the government isn't the same as it was. There are plenty of reasons for someone to change their position.

I think one of the biggest reasons peoples' positions change has to do with their own personal status. Someone without wealth acquires wealth, now all of a sudden they have opinions where they might not have. Informed opinions? Maybe, maybe not. Biased opinions? Maybe, maybe not. But it is perfectly reasonable for their position to change. Someone changes their job and their positions change. Someone has kids and their positions change. Someone buys a house and their positions change.

We all don't know everything all the time. If our positions didn't change with our experience that would be suspect. That they do change. That's pragmatism. We need more pragmatism.

Instead of calling out people for having their positions change maybe we could spend more time evaluating the voracity of their positions as is. How committed are they to the idea? How reputable is the idea to begin with? Is this a good idea? Who cares if they haven't always felt that way, what matters is how they will govern now.

We Suck

The deal shaping up in Congress is really shattering in its political expediency over governance. Seems like pretty much everyone in Congress except the 1st Year Republican House members knows the Debt Ceiling needs to be raised and that it isn't really something to play chicken with. However, the leadership in the house seems unable to educate those representatives and provide enough information for those reps and their constituents enough to get them to vote to do it.

Instead it sounds like they are going to vote to authorize the President to raise the debt ceiling on his own - that there's a difference to this and voting to raise it themselves is something that is only political and not at all procedural. So they'll vote to cede the authority, knowing full well what the result will be - and then they'll vote to admonish the President for doing it.

We know we have to do it...
We can't bring ourselves to do what we know we have to do...
We'll make it so you can do what we can't bring ourselves to do that we know we have to do...
Then we'll scold you for doing what we made it possible for you to do that we were unable to bring ourselves to do that we knew we had to do.

We suck.

The saddest part is that they will then all run on how they opposed raising the debt ceiling. Red meat to chum the waters in Tea Party districts.

Here's a novel idea: if you really think we shouldn't raise the debt ceiling, don't vote for it. Don't vote for any circumstance that allows it. Stand by your damn convictions. Don't look one way and make the thing possible and then turn the other way and say you didn't want it to happen. That's not governing, that's advertising.

I lied. The saddest part won't be that they'll run on it. The saddest part is that many, many voters won't notice that particular campaign stance as being totally and completely empty.

Voting to give the President extraordinary authority to do something you don't want done that you know for a fact he will do is exactly the same as voting for it yourself. Geez! You're a US Congressman, grow a pair.

The Debt Ceiling

I think when I was growing up, under the congressional administration of Tip O'Neil there was a legislative precedent that held far more weight than it does today. It was the notion that "what goes around comes around." I just figure they had all been there so long they understood that if you play games with the process when you are in one position that the other side will do the same thing or worse when the positions are reversed. I think this stood us in good stead for a long time keeping either side from straying too far from the middle or doing anything too crazy.

Lately this seems to be falling apart some. There seems to be far more filibustering in the Senate. Getting any Presidential appointments confirmed has become harder with each administration. And now we have the latest bout over using the national debt ceiling as a bludgeon to get through legislative ideas that wouldn't see the light of day otherwise.

I guess some of the ideas if crafted properly and without the threat of imminent danger might not be too bad. I can see how a reasonably constructed balanced budget initiative might have legs. But what I can't understand is how nobody seems to have the perspective to see how someday the tables might be reversed and instead of righties digging in and wanting their brand of fiscal responsibility instituted it could just as easily be lefties slinging some of their favorite ideas. Some of which have been occurring to me today.

How's this for some lefty leverage (when the tables are turned):

• A cap on military expenditures of 150% of the next highest spending country. A quick Google search shows the US at $740 Billion and the next being China at $380 Billion. this idea would cap us then to $570 Billion or a cut in spending of $270 Billion. I'm sure I could find something to do with that (maybe put it in a rainy day fund for the next Righty war).
• Or maybe fixing the budget of the NEA at 0.1% of the budget for defense. That'd be $700 Million. Last year's NEA budget was $170 Millionish. Spend as much as you like on the military, but for every $1000 you allocate you are allocating $1 for the arts.
• What about National Single Payer Healthcare? OR ELSE!
• Maybe a dollar for dollar tax on fossil fuels to be spent on renewable energy research. Or a dollar for dollar tax credit for anyone that installs wind or solar energy in their home or business.
• How about a constitutional amendment forever guaranteeing a Woman's Right to Choose.

I bet if I put my mind to it I could think of many more. Why is it none of the players now can see that this kind of brinksmanship goes both ways? I understand that they're on the bottom now and that this gives them real leverage, but can't they forsee a time when they could be on the top?

I guess not.

PS: I don't know if any of those things are any better ideas than what we're getting now - I just know that they wouldn't be well received.

And So It Turns Out He Did It

Can I tell you what most disappoints me in finding out the guy did send a picture of his package to that woman? That when it came out he didn't tell us he sent a picture of his package to that woman.

Would it have been so bad?

"Occasionally I have sent what I believe to be humorous photos to online acquaintances. It's always done out of a sense of play. Sometimes my interactions can be a little risque. Historically those involved have found those particular instances to be the most funny. On this occasion I unfortunately and inadvertently made something that was supposed to be a private message public. I am extremely embarrassed by this error and apologize to anyone else who may have been embarrassed or offended. I will do everything in my power to use better judgement and pay better attention to my actions in the future."

It isn't 140 characters, so he wouldn't have been able to tweet it, but I think if that had been the very first thing he said, rather than "I was hacked" it might be over now and we could continue musing about Paul Revere. But he didn't, a little bit he panicked I guess - that's what I heard he said. It's too bad.

The reason I think he could have squelched it is that I believe this is a more common behavior than is perceived, especially among younger people. I read just today that some jurisdiction is working on a "sexting" law that will protect the parties involved from being exposed (ha) to child pornography laws. Like it or not the whole country is a little freaky with their technology. Couldn't hurt us to recognize that within the public discourse.

Also a little bit I just can't stand to listen to people in Washington talk to me about moral behavior. Year after year we hear about scandal after scandal. They could do all of themselves and us a break to just cut everyone a little slack. I don't need to hear from someone on their third spouse about the dangers of emailing a picture of my underwear. There's a line here about people in glass houses, yes? And another about casting the first stone?

Where's Larry Flynt when you need him?

One of my friends asked "what is with these people?" and I think maybe it isn't just about Congressmen. I think what we're seeing play out here is about the intimacy of communication, the speed of that communication, humor, and young people. You know, you have this thing that is theoretically direct and private, and it all happens in an instant without much time for reflection - and there's really no "unsend" button to push. Plus its funny or feels good to be flirty, and often the people on the other end, they just don't have the same consequences to deal with so they're more than willing to go there even when an older person maybe should be having a second thought.

I've felt this in my own experience, especially on chat. When you become friends with someone and you are having these private exchanges you can sometimes see that line there and whiz right by it anyway. And then you are thinking, "wow, maybe I shouldn't have said that" but it's too late. You did, and it's logged and cached and out there forever. I never sent anyone a picture of my package (I did once *tell* someone I was sending her a picture of my tool. Then I sent a picture of my tool belt - not the same).

Mostly this makes me wonder what is fair game now. Are we going to start asking candidates for their internet history? How about asking people if they've run a search on Adult Friend Finder? Are hackers going to crack candidates computers and show us what websites they've been on or who they've been skyping with? Could a candidate in this climate recover from someone disclosing they'd recovered part of "2 Girls 1 Cup" from their hard drive?

You know, I'm not sure that would even be a bad thing. These are the people regulating our media. Maybe scandals like this are good for the government. At least it will educate them a little bit to what's out there (as if they didn't know - freaky little congresscritters).