463 Comments

I hope it is now clear to the Democrats that there is simply no working with the current Republican party. They have withdrawn from the compact to share governance. They are mutinous. It's time for Democrats to seize the day and get on with saving our democracy. The Republicans are a clear and present danger.

Expand full comment

It's time to treat them as the treasonous scum they are and not let them off as easy as their traitor ancestors were let off.

Expand full comment

Biden needs to sit down with Manchin and Sinema, see what they will support then use the budget reconciliation method to get the job done. Nothing else will work. Nothing.

Expand full comment

Infrastructure can be done under the budget reconciliation process according to the Senate parliamentarian. Voting rights is a different matter altogether.

Expand full comment

Agree Harry as a first step. Including revising the filibuster if Biden is determined to want it in place.

Expand full comment

100%! Republicans have withdrawn from reality

Expand full comment

And the worst abuse of the filibuster. If this anti democratic political tool is not trashed or at the very least majorly transformed we’re in for an ugly era

Expand full comment

Well said!

Expand full comment

100% agree with your your assessment John! How many times does one need to be hit over the head before stepping away and charting a new path forward???

IMHO, the devolution of the Republican party has been a long time coming...High time for Caron to carry the "trumpista psycophants" across the river Styx...

Expand full comment

As proof of mutinous intent, in addition to the utterly atrocious voting restrictions, There are now R's who want to be able to shape who gets chosen as electors by running for the individual States' SOS's. If a Trumplican becomes SOS, how likely are they to IGNORE the popular vote, which is how Electors are supposed to be chosen? It's potentially a real thing: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republicans-who-embraced-trumps-big-lie-run-to-become-election-officials/ar-AAKwSaK?li=BBnb7Kz&fbclid=IwAR0SThS8WlMY_wm4EdnLruVPgMsJFfUUgbH3yIR22jEWTFMAt-jlsD5pQ6g

Expand full comment

Mystified Canadian here.

Why are Matt Gaetz's comments not considered incitement to insurrection? Surely if Trump told a bunch of people to be patriots and march on the Capitol was incitement, telling a bunch of people that they have the constitutional right to take arms up against their government should be on an equal or worse footing. That rhetoric seems so incredibly dangerous. It's basically saying that voting is no longer a relevant remedy in the era of the Big Lie, so the only logical next step is armed revolt. Am I missing something? Granted we're a bit naive here north of the border, but holy cow!

Expand full comment

Bingo! Thank you Canada for designating the Proud Boys as a terrorist organization. Could you please designate Gaetz and Green the same?

Expand full comment

You're interpreting it correctly. I think he's hoping to generate a crowd of supporters to intimidate Lady Justice. He's following Tя☭mp's playbook.

Expand full comment

How dumb is Gaetz? Following the playbook “ orange”.., straight to prison.

Expand full comment

Yep. Maybe they'll be cell mates .... along with those convicted for Jan 6 crimes.

Expand full comment

I hate to think what big Donnie might do to little Mattie...

Expand full comment

Gaetz and those in Congress like him are not dumb. The people who elect them are.

Expand full comment

No, it’s not naive to see that Gaetz and many others in that neck of the woods are truly dangerous to everyone! My heart aches.

Expand full comment

Although his motivation for delivering the remark on the Second Amendment referred to in Professor Richardson’s Letter today is to inflame - if not incite - rather than inform, Rep. Gaetz is expounding a legal position that has some weight behind it when he speaks to the constitutionally protected right of the people to take up arms against the government should it threaten their rights as citizens.

Clark Neily, senior vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, and one of those responsible for bringing the Heller case to the Supreme Court, (554 U.S. 570 (2008)), has recently voiced such a position and he is not considered an outlier in that interpretation.

The following Note appeared in the Spring 2020 issue of the Southern Illinois University Law Journal.

TYRANNY PREVENTION: A “CORE” PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT by Skylar Petitt

Mr. Petitt’s Conclusion includes a dissenting opinion from a Ninth Circuit decision. What follows is an excerpt from that dissent.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten. Despite the panel's mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 568-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (Kozinski, J., dissenting) (emphasis original, citations omitted).

It is worth noting that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another Second Amendment case.

Heller decided that citizens have a constitutionally protected right to have a gun in their home. The new case accepted by the court centers on the right of individuals to carry guns outside the home.

That case is: NY Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett.

The question before the court in NY Rifle & Pistol is whether New York’s carry permit policy, which requires special need justification before allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, is constitutional.

With Amy Coney Barrett now on the court, it is possible the court will strike down NY’s rule or, send the case back to the lower court with new guidelines on the standard of review needed to limit a person’s right to carry a weapon. NY’s rule uses a rather arbitrary standard that authorizes local authorities, such as a Sherriff, to deny or grant permit requests without stating their justification. (Donald Trump has a carry permit in NY – a sobering thought.)

Matt Gaetz and many of his Republican colleagues may smell blood, but just to be safe they are throwing buckets of chum into the water to stir their followers. Gaetz’s statement about the Second Amendment may have some technical validity – but the context of the statement, both with respect to his full remarks and, more importantly, the fact that his party is refusing to address the January 6th Insurrection and some members likely participation in it, along with their continued mouthing of the Big Lie, lead me to interpret his remarks as a clear threat.

The Trump majority on Supreme Court appears poised to turn back the clock on Gun laws and Abortion Laws and, one can reasonably expect they will strike at Biden’s progressive agenda if given the chance.

I’d say the battle lines have been drawn in the fight for the soul of the Republican Party. Thing is, the party never had much soul to begin with, and they are dragging the entire country down with them as they compete to see who can sink the lowest.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/educational-video/scholar-exchange-the-second-amendment-featuring-clark-neily

https://law.siu.edu/_common/documents/law-journal/articles%20-%202020/spring-2020/6---Petitt-Final.pdf

Expand full comment

It is incredible to me that the phrase in the Second Amendment, "a well regulated Militia" has not received the attention it deserves. A primary requirement would seem to be an interpretation of the role such a militia plays in the possession and use of firearms. The obvious implication (to me, as an English speaking person) is that such firearms are needed in order to support a militia. Yet such a consideration never seems to surface in discussions about gun ownership. Even the discussion here, which argues for the possible need of militia to protect against tyranny, doesn't address the question of what sort of militia is envisioned by the Amendment. Surely our founders did not have in mind the Proud Boys or Boogaloo.

Expand full comment

Me, too. And "well regulated" Boogaloos are not.

Expand full comment

Referring back to the articles cited by Robert Wilkanowski, it seems to me that Proud Boys and Boogaloo were precisely what slave states had in mind - unfettered and armed white supremacists.

Expand full comment

How ironic that ‘saint’ Scalia, alleged champion of ‘originalist’ theory of law, reinterpreted the words of the Amendment to suit the NRA and the weapons industry! Since then, the NRA controlled legislators in all the red states have passed gun laws based on a distorted reading of Heller! Tragic!

Expand full comment

Well said. A terrific book on the subject is The Second Amendment, A Biography, by Michael Waldmen, copyright 2014.

He points out that for 218 years, the Second Amendment was considered by judges as the right of states to create militias, now the National Guard. For the most part, legal scholars ignored it as a topic of study and debate.

In Heller (2008) that the Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms means a citizen's right to defend their home and property. Which has led to the current problem we face today.

Expand full comment

My understanding, perhaps an incorrect one, was that the armed militia, referenced in our Constitution, was in lieu of the standing army we currently have.

Didn’t the Civil War establish that armed insurrection is not a legal remedy?

This feels like one of those nightmares where everything is off kilter.

Expand full comment

"A well regulated militia" is the phrase so often overlooked! (Why, why??) I can't believe the gathering of disenfranchised, annoyed, half crazy folks who stormed the capital were in any sense "well regulated." (Matt is equally unregulated!) I am convinced the Second Amendment meant to establish a military force to protect the new country (remember England forbade the possession of weapons by colonialists.) The Second Amendment allowed the formation of the National Guard. It never was meant to give individual yahoos the right to shoot anyone they wished. As for protecting against "enemies foreign and domestic," well, that is what the guard is for. It amazes me that the myth persists that—even with assault weapons— any rag tag group can arm themselves to overcome an arsenal of weapons of war. Sounds like John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

Expand full comment

I have come across articles by legal scholars that maintain that the intention of the second amendment was slave control, and nothing else. I just did a quick search and found this one:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-slave-owners-dictated-the-language-of-the-2nd-amendment

Expand full comment

Sorry...This is the one I was thinking of:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/opinion/second-amendment-slavery-james-madison.html

Expand full comment

Sounds about right Robert. And now that very Amendment endangers our entire democracy. It was never the slaves who threatened democracy. It was always the slaveholders willing destroy our country for personal profit.

Expand full comment

Diane, you really, really know your history in clear and certain terms… and your ability to get to the essence is a gift in today’s world - Puhleeze keep posting!

Expand full comment

Ms Love (from behind enemy lines here in SRQ) Can I use and quote this line from you? "Didn’t the Civil War establish that armed insurrection is not a legal remedy?"

It is absolutely the essence of why the far right defense from government is utter nonsense.

Expand full comment

It seems so self evident doesn’t it? You’re welcome to quote me.

And forgive my ignorance, but, what is SRQ?

Expand full comment

Oh, its the Airport designation and shorthand for Sarasota…

And thank you I’ll always get a credit for this statement when I use it!

Expand full comment

The armed militia was, among other things, intended to curb any standing army that might run amok.

Expand full comment

If we were still using muskets that might make sense.

Expand full comment

Absolutely! When I hear my gun-loving, gun-toting neighbors rhapsodizing about the 2nd Amendment and their rights, I come back to my son-in-law's comment - "They'll never hear the drone that takes them out." Even before the era of drones I wondered what sane person would think even an AR15 was sufficient to take on a modern day army.

Expand full comment

Hey, don't discount the Zombie Apocalypse...

Expand full comment

Agreed.

Expand full comment

There was to be no standing army. The purpose of the armed militia was to FORM the standing army when called up.

Expand full comment

The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Shays Rebellion occurred just before this during 1786-87. The Second Amendment was not meant to legitimize Shays Rebellion. I don't think there was an effective standing army to put down Shays Rebellion. The rebellion grew out of the Federal government not having funds to pay money owed to the former soldiers of the Revolutionary War. I believe it was Massachusetts militia who put down the rebellion. So it seems that the Second Amendment grew partly out of Shays Rebellion with the intention of having prepared state militia who could defend each state from any abuse or deadly threat, private of Federal, not simply disagreement with your neighbor or government.

Expand full comment

Letters between Wahington and his generals on the frontier suggest that the government wanted armed settlers to help the army brutalize the indigenous population.

Expand full comment

"..the intention of having prepared state militia who could defend each state from any abuse or deadly threat, private of Federal..." I would agree.

Expand full comment

Morning, R. Dooley!! When you say, "...where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest," I take it the November 2020 election would invalidate the Gaetz argument. As to "silences those who protest" sounds like what some states are doing (Florida?) Did I get that right?

Expand full comment

Morning, Lynell

The judge whose dissent contained that language was speaking, as I understand it, to mean a government that intends to remain in control and no longer hold elections, and silences those who protest that condition.

A variation on that theme would be a regime such as that in Russia where opposition candidates disappear, elections are routinely corrupt to the point of being ludicrous, and protestors are jailed, exiled or murdered.

Gaetz “appears” to be defending the position that the 2020 election was stolen, and an illegitimate administration is currently in power. That is coupled with his assertion that the media, in this case those companies that control social media, are in league with those who perpetrated this travesty that saw his leader removed from office.

Let’s be clear about one thing – I am not a Gaetz Whisperer, so who knows what, if anything, he truly believes. Also, the reading of the Second Amendment the judge expresses in his dissent, is his own.

The application of the second amendment to the times in which we live, is a subject that will be hotly debated for some time. In a perfect world, it would be redrawn, deleting the Militia intro and dealing the with topic of guns in the hands of citizens, directly.

Expand full comment

Per the Institute of Constitutional Advocacy and Protection @ Georgetown University Law Center, "Federal and state laws generally use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government to defend the United States or an individual state. See10 U.S.C. § 246.When not called forth, they are sometimes referred to as the “unorganized militia.” A group of people who consider themselves part of the able-bodied residents referred to as members of the militia under state or federal law is NOT legally permitted to activate itself for duty. A private militia that attempts to activate itself for duty, outside of the authority of the state or federal government, is ILLEGAL (Caps are for emphasis). How do I know if a group of armed people is an unauthorized private militia? Groups of armed individuals that engage in paramilitary activity or law enforcement functions without being called forth by a governor or the federal government and without reporting to any government authority are acting as UNAUTHORIZED private militias." The big question is how far will these militias go and will the military intervene?

Expand full comment

Is the Georgetown group’s position what Scalia used to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment in the Heller decision? Who funds this group, like the Federalist Society, one has to ‘look under the hood’, ‘follow the money’ regarding benevolent sounding names!

Expand full comment

What if the "militias are called forth by the president

Expand full comment

Thank you, R. Dooley, for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated.

Expand full comment

I include this in reply to your well argued comment because I would like your assessment of its accuracy. I contend that Scalia's argument in Heller is deeply flawed, almost to the point of malfeasance. His conclusion hinges on the interpretation that the "right" in question is an individual right and not a group right. He arrives at this position by defining "militia" to mean, not an organized group of citizens, but as all "able-bodied men". He accomplishes this legerdemain by torturing the word "the" in the Second Amendment's phrase, "to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence." (Internal quotes around "the" are Scalia's to show his emphasis.) He goes on to say "the militia" not "a militia" implying "the militia" being referred to is already in existence. No harm so far but Monte card trick occurs here: "This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men." That is, the use of "the" in the Constitution implies that "militia" means, "all able-bodied Men". As our current president might say, "Blarney!" Scalia has it inside-out. "Militia" in that era refers to the "group" of able-bodied men enlisted by law in the militia. That this group is equal to the individuals referred to as all able-bodied men does not dissolve the group; it merely states its membership.

I must confess to a disdain for Scalia: for his glibness, his irascibility, his famous sense of humor, etc. I prefer to condemn him for his abuse of the language, his insults and demeaning language toward his colleagues. In some ways, he is the Trump of Supreme Court Justices, with his colleagues too often cowering in fear of sharp tongued rebukes.

Expand full comment

Martin: Thank you for your comment. I will get back with you - right now I am deep in teaching duties and (on a happy note) celebrating my son's graduation from High School.

Expand full comment

What you say, Martin. Exactly.

Expand full comment

Thanks for so much detail.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this R.

Expand full comment

Are there no ethical guidelines that our representatives need to abide by? It is acceptable for Gaetz to tell people it is their right to take up arms against the government? If so our system is doomed. To vote against an investigation of the insurrection is close to treasonous imho!

Expand full comment

Iain, you have it exactly right. I suspect Canadians and other international observers have a more clear eyed view of the state of play in the US. We have been desensitized, gaslighted and worn down by years of this madness. Thank you for stating the obvious.

Expand full comment

Free speech is a sacred cow - though an important one. When coming from child molesters like Gaetz, it's hard to take. He'll eventually crash and burn. The big question is - will our democracy?

Expand full comment

But free speech IS limited. Gaetz is yelling "fire" when there is none.

Expand full comment

Cam Rannali: You may be aware of this: There's been an ongoing effort to gag discussion/teaching about Critical Race Theory, implicit/complicit bias, sexism, etc. Sad to say, these efforts are gaining traction in multiple states. NH, IA, OK have all been trying to push these gag orders. Here in NH, there was so much outcry about the bill, it couldn't be passed as a stand alone bill. So what they did do was to try hide it in the State Budget but we've been protesting to House/Senate committees, writing Letters to the Editors, doing visibilities (PEACEFUL protests) @ the State House and an alternative location for the legislature, and due to COVID, NH set up a Remote Testimony format for the public to give their support/opposition to bills, as well as direct written or Zoom testimony about them.

Expand full comment

I was aware of that - but not the specifics in NH - thanks. The white male establishment will not go quietly. PA has a similar problem with most of the rural counties over-represented, per capita. I have no idea what the upshot of all of this will be, but I have low expectations. I will keep my eyes, mind, and heart open. Good luck with your good work.

Expand full comment

And not a peep from GOP leadership. Appalling!

Expand full comment

Big surprise! A crowd of self serving traitors to the people the are supposed to serve. No integrity, no courage, no honor! A crowd of men and women in empty suits!

Expand full comment

Stay tuned. Jail awaits.

Expand full comment

I might have to accuse you of being an optimist! And the I must hope you are not! Lol

Expand full comment

Gaetz needs "termination, with extreme prejudice," as that term was understood in the movie Apocalypse Now.

Expand full comment

I agree. I’m a mystified American!

Expand full comment

Naive? No. Pragmatic yes. Dangerous rhetoric indeed.

Expand full comment

The rhetoric of bloody revolution is no stranger to the US. Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty should be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time. It was this dangerous rhetoric, used by Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber, which prompted Conor Cruise O'Brien to write in the New York Review of Books that Jefferson should be removed from the pantheon of US gods.

Expand full comment

My parents used to tell me I would get over being appalled at the very idea of war as a way toward peace and freedom when I grew up, just as they insisted I would grow to like raw onions in potato salad. I'm 66, neither undereducated nor ill-read, with lots of experience of a wide variety of cuisines; nevertheless, I still think watering the tree of liberty with anybody's blood and putting raw onions on anything are awfully stupid. Humans disappoint me. We have wasted so much potential by killing each other. (And all onions - with the possible exception of scallions - need to be cooked.)

Expand full comment

I grew up eating Walla Walla sweets. We ate them cooked, we ate them raw. we ate them in stews, we ate them in sandwiches and salads. What can I say? Chacun a son gout. But my distaste for violence abides.

Expand full comment

I knew the comparison was lame and that a devoted raw onion lover would respond. So glad your gout does not extend to violence. :-)

Expand full comment

Actually, I liked the raw onion comparison. There seems to be no limit to the madness of these radical Republicans. Check out the latest dangerous inanity to come out of Michael Flynn's mouth. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ex-trump-adviser-michael-flynn-says-myanmar-like-coup-should-happen-in-u-s-11622426143?reflink=mw_share_email

Expand full comment

Today's vote convinced me that it's time to exercise our Democratic majority.

I wrote my Senators and House Rep saying I fully support revising the filibuster rules. I also stressed that since the Republican blockage of the bipartisan effort was itself partisan, we had no reason to continue to treat GOP desires as special. A "partisan" House Select Committee investigation was the result of THEIR failure to participate. That the results are likely to identify guilt among their ranks is unfortunate. I'm prepared to face that possibility.

Repubs have showed us they won't negotiate in good faith and no longer share once common American values. It's time to flex our muscle and go forth without them.

There's work that needs to be done.

Expand full comment

"Republican blockage of the bipartisan effort was itself partisan." That right there, Gary Mengel.

Expand full comment

Gary Mengel, I agree, the GOP no longer shares once common American values and, further, they are pulling out all the stops to ensure minority rule by their party and it appears will support violence to achieve their goals. Their assault is on our Constitution, the rule of law, and democracy itself.

Expand full comment

For sure—at least the veil of any kind of decency has been destroyed and now we know they are the scum of the earth—especially the evil genie turtle face. Biden will show great resolution now.

Expand full comment

Yes, Gary Mengel.

"Business as usual" has become dangerous. It involves tacit acceptance of the unacceptable.

It is time for citizens to take a stand in support of the country's guiding principles: their vote; constitutional government.

It is time for responsible citizens to exercise every legal recourse to make their elected representatives aware of their duty to the country.

Expand full comment

Would you share the letters you wrote? I'm not a writer and can't seem to get anything on paper.

Expand full comment

Kim, I have found this helpful. My rage stifles my attempts to get my message out and I have found this helps me keep my communication civil. https://www.thoughtco.com/write-effective-letters-to-congress-3322301

Expand full comment

Thank you!

Expand full comment

Sorry Kim, I didn't think to keep a copy! Christy's note below is good advice, however. It's best to always be polite and brief. Above all, stick to a single issue - your letter will be read by an intern or a staffer (at best) and if you insert too many subjects into the mix it won't be effective. If you have several bones to pick, write several brief notes instead. GM

Expand full comment

Amen

Expand full comment

"People like me," said Susan Collins. What does she actually mean by that?

For the past couple of decades, I have observed the GOP degenerating into what more closely resembles an organized criminal syndicate. Republican refusal to accept a bipartisan independent commission to investigate the January insurrection is an obstruction of justice, not a political act.

Expand full comment

I think she means she’s “intellectually challenged” or maybe “reality challenged” or perhaps she’s faking it and she’s just “fascistly inclined”.

Expand full comment

LOL! Another good one tonight Ted! Keep em rolling in!

Expand full comment

Collins is the epitome of a rag blowing in the wind, whichever way the wind blows so goes Collins.

Expand full comment

Perfect description.

Expand full comment

👍 yup!

Expand full comment

Definitely the latter! The only reason she voted as she did is because they didn’t have the votes. She excels at pulling the wool over constituent eyes, so she has intellectual ability. She is just rudderless.

Expand full comment

Her rudder aims at wherever it's most beneficial to HER!

Expand full comment

Fascistly inclined gas lighting POS. Just as culpable as Leningrad Lindsey and Moscow Mitch. All of them traitors!

Expand full comment

I'm going with the last example.

Expand full comment

“'I never thought I’d see it up close and personal that politics could trump our country. I’m going to fight to save this country.'' [Sen. Joe Manchin]

Excuse me, Sen. Manchin?!!! You've been a senator since 2010, lived through 45's reign of terror, and "you never thought ..."? Well, color me scarlet and blue, but you haven't been thinking at all, of late; now, have you?!!!!!! For shame! And you even used the verb "to trump" ... a Freudian slip, perchance?

Today's vote was the expected disappointment that I assumed it would be. Schumer says that he'll try again in June ... Do we need more failures? Perhaps, President Biden should simply appoint a commission -- at least, that would be a start.

The GOP are nothing but a rogue mish-mash of undemocratic cads (bar a few), who prefer totalitarianism to a democratic republic, a lost cause, to say the least.

I loved your focus on Pres. Biden's budget, Prof. HCR -- there is so much to look forward to, if only the sewage tributaries of the Republican Cloaca Maxima can keep their ethical mire away from Biden's goals. We mustn't let down our guard -- not for one moment! And may the Force be with us!

Expand full comment

I’d prefer Nancy Pelosi appointing a commission as she can subpoena where Biden’s commission couldn’t. (though his could be bipartisan)

Expand full comment

I still think Nancy Pelosi could appoint a bipartisan commission (if rethuglicans would serve) to investigate. It could be fair and impartial and that would make the rethuglicans look bad again!

Expand full comment

No one has made this remark, Peri, and I consider it a viable Pelosi option. As in, get Cheney on the commission.

Expand full comment

Bipartisanship was DOA after Biden won. There is no longer a need to attempt to get it anymore. Pelosi in the House would be the best bet at getting a select committee off the ground. GO for it Nancy!

Expand full comment

You're correct, Sharon, on both counts: Pelosi's can subpoena, whereas POTUS' could be bipartisan.

Expand full comment

Rowshan, think about what Peri commented on. Pelosi actually getting a bipartisan commission together. Nothing to prevent it. Get Cheney on it. Get Pat Toomey on it. Get Kinzinger on it. Will enable us to see if the Repubs speaking out against Trump is just a show of deniability.

Meanwhile, then strike the iron and revise, not get rid of filibuster. The fact that those in opposition did not even have to be there to vote exposed it as just another lazy, sanctimonious tool for the minority party. And allowed Repubs like sexGates and goldstarGreen to talk militias and invite another insurrection at yet another insufferable Trump rally that gained national coverage as the majority of Americans stewed about the crushing of the commission.

Yikes

Expand full comment

Ooooooo! I like that scenario!!!!

Expand full comment

Is there not a strong prima facie case now for suspending all the Administration’s official dealings with those Republican Congressmen who have blocked an investigation, since anything resembling “business as usual” could be construed as acceptance of the actions of January 6th as “normal” and constituting collusion with persons under strong suspicion of having levied war against the US?

Expand full comment

The Force! Yes!

Expand full comment

Yes, Biden has performed beyond out highest expectation. But now is the time to learn from Obama and the ACA. Biden needs to go around the country and point out the benefits his administration has brought to communities and states! Mr. President, don't expect your accomplishments to speak for themselves - they won't!!!

As for Manchin, I'm watching him twist his large frame into a pretzel! He's looking every which way to avoid angering the Trumpists who form the bulk of his support. Put up or shut up Senator Manchin. Acting like Hamlet is not a good look right now!

Expand full comment

Now is the time for Democrats to show they mean business. Stop hand wringing over the R’s and begging them to come play. The R’s won’t work with Democrats because it’s not in their moneyed interest, and some of them will likely be exposed as complicit in January 6. The R’s do not concern themselves with bipartisanship or anything but their own agenda when they are in power.

When my kids were growing up, they knew by the tone of my voice, I was serious. If they did not straighten up, they knew Mom would act. Democrats have to show the R’s they will act.

Expand full comment

Manchineel needs a makeover fast.

Expand full comment

Susan Collins - “It won’t have credibility with people like me, but the press will cover it because that’s what’s going on.”

Sorry, Sen. Collins, you lost credibility long ago. Are you concerned?

Expand full comment

100%. Susan No cred. Collins. ( she is so bad at playing so stupid)

Expand full comment

"...so bad at playing stupid...." Very funny 😂 and sadly true!

Expand full comment

How in the world 🌎 did she survive the last election?

Expand full comment

Money. Sara Gideon was a great candidate but GOP coffers run deep. Remember this in 2022 in the Florida Governor's race. Ron DeSantis has a huge war chest. He is playing Trump-lite to attract as many Non-Party Affiliates (NPA) as he can. He just gave $1k bonuses to teachers with money received from the American Rescue Plan (ARP). Many teachers will vote for him in appreciation not realizing he was against the ARP. Being re-elected Gov. is the springboard to a run for President so the nation will be rewarded with a Mulligan in the White House. Some elections are not merely "local." Defeating Susan Collins was not strictly "local." In today's elections, Dems must think and act strategically.

Expand full comment

Fox News is always on in rural Maine. Deceit, lies and bribery. She knows the game well, she’s been at it a long time.

Expand full comment

Susan Senator. Collins is truly great at playing stupid. And she truly has no bcredibility

Expand full comment

She doesn’t care because she just got re-elected.

Expand full comment

Piketty’s careful, data-driven analysis (in his treatise, Capital in the 21st Century, and its sequel) shows that capitalist systems are strengthened and stabilized by a combination of steeply progressive income taxes and modest taxes on the net worth of the top 0.1%. His analysis applies to capitalist economies, not socialist economies, and the revenue makes it possible for a government that understands his results to serve its citizens well by providing a social safety net that makes it possible for the entire population to benefit from technological advances like machine learning and robotics while bolstering the positive effects of competition in business and industry. Republicans still cling to the trickle-down mythology, which was always based on ideological conjectures and never on data-driven economic analysis. Unfortunately, they have managed to sell this mythology to 40% of the electorate (namely, the white working class and almost nobody else) by promising to do everything they can to preserve the advantages that white Americans have always held over people with non-European ancestors. Republicans have used this grievance-based approach to retain power far beyond their numbers, and that is what has brought the US to the current impasse. There are just barely enough votes to break the impasse, but it will take a mighty effort to get those votes to the polls, especially since the Republicans are using their power to suppress them. People who want stop Republicans in their efforts to block rational governance must step up NOW with effort and/or money supporting effective get-out-the-vote projects nationwide.

Expand full comment

I think that a distillation of this might be that the amygdala of the "conservative" is scared of the other while the frontal cortex of the "liberal" recognizes that we all do better when we all do better.

Expand full comment

I don’t think Republicans are afraid of people with non-European ancestors. They just want to be able to abuse those people with impunity.

Expand full comment

😂😂😂 Love it!!!

Expand full comment

Kim Stanley Robinson mentions Piketty in "New York 2140" - which I'm currently reading - and I put both of his books on economics on my library book list earlier today. Thank you for the articulate abstract. I'm thinking a lot of it will be over my head, but am looking forward to reading what he has to offer.

Expand full comment

There’s a nice 4-page summary of the Capital book by that you can get from Amazon to read in the Kindle app. By Wagener. Costs $3. Well written, easy to read, explains the main conclusions.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01ENXYV1S/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_api_glt_CH8YHA62HFB7AVBJDE5R

Expand full comment

I'm going to stick with trying Piketty. Also, I'm allergic to giving any money to Bezos' wealth machine. I managed to make it through university and grad school without Cliff Notes and I'm not ready to give up exercising my brain yet. However, thank you for the ref.

Expand full comment

I think the effort will be worthwhile.

Expand full comment

Tom Nichols, The Atlantic, wrote a scathing piece on the current state of the GOP. He pulled no punches:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/republicans-stand-for-nothing-january-6-commission/619036/

Expand full comment

“A party that doesn’t believe in anything ends up believing only in its right to rule.” (Fascism wake up call!)

Expand full comment

They’re evil plain and simple.

Expand full comment

Quoted from this article by Tom Nichols:

“The Republicans, facing an investigation into an insurrection provoked by their own leader, have armored up and gone into armadillo mode. They will protect their own—rather than their nation and the Constitution they swore to defend. This behavior should serve as a warning: A party that doesn’t believe in anything ends up believing only in its right to rule. And a movement that believes only in its own power is a deadly enemy of constitutional democracy.”

He states the position of the republicans so clearly. 😢

Expand full comment

Good read! Thanks for sharing it, Diane. Nichols hits it on the nail when he describes "the modern GOP is rife with know-nothings and apocalyptic hysterics."

Expand full comment

Time to give up on non-partisanship. It takes two to tango. We should even stop recognizing the Republicans as a viable party (See the Atlantic article mentioned above.) One hundred and sixty years ago, members of the Democratic Party who opposed the Civil War and wanted to cut a pro-slavery deal with the Confederacy became known by the nickname of “Copperheads,” a venomous snake. Most of the Republican Senators who seemed to forget that they were among the targets being attacked on January 6 in the Capitol and who voted against a commission to investigate that invasion of the Capitol by insurrectionists also deserve a descriptive nickname which will follow them down through history. How about “Whores“? They did indeed prostrate themselves for the Trumpublican base’s pleasures for the price of their votes in 2022. And Senator McConnell, who set up the deal in the Senate between his “whores” and the Trumpublican voters, would of course be their pimp. Or can you come up with a more polite nickname for them?

Expand full comment

I might call them Jellyfish because they have no spine, demonstrate very low intelligence, and wait for the trump tide to carry them wherever it wants.

Expand full comment

sycophants (Webster- “fawning parasites”)

That ties in nicely with the

ele”phant” symbol of their party.

Expand full comment

I kinda prefer incels. I have sympathy for sex workers. I don't for incels.

Bootlickers, maybe. My more profane self has a very colorful metaphor at the ready, but I try and keep her off this page.

Expand full comment

I think my more profane self would really enjoy reading your more profane self's colorful metaphor - but I respect your decision.

Expand full comment

I toyed with "dirt bags" or "scumbags" before I settled on the more relevant "whores." The vast majority of Americans don't have the slightest idea of what an "incel" is.

Expand full comment

I call Marco Rubio a Puto because he's just in it for the money

Expand full comment

When I called them "whores," I made no sexual distinction. But he's in it for the votes as well, recognizing that the Cuban exile vote can only go so far.

Expand full comment

Incel is perfect because of the inferred victim-hood. They really do feel entitled.

Expand full comment

My problem with incel is that those of whom we speak don't tend to BE involuntarily celibate at all. For some reason, their wealth and power is able to attract sexual partners (and/or they have plenty of money to pay for it).

Expand full comment

I have a friend from over on Jim Wright's page who is RAF (ret) and as salty as they come. She has some good words, Wankspangle is the best. My personal favorite derivative is more profane: F**kknuckle. I take your point about incel not being in the common vernacular. I do admit that "whore" does fit, demeaning as it is to women.

Expand full comment

I think it was George Burns who said the letter “K” is the funniest.

Expand full comment

A sentimental favorite, but recognition of the Republican party is written into electoral law in most states and changing that would be a challenge in the best of times although one well worth taking up.

Expand full comment

Change must come from within what is left of the original Republican Party.

Expand full comment

Not liking the choice of term, since it is a word used to push already marginalized people (of many shades of gender, though mainly cis-gender women) even further down in the caste system. I understand the sentiment - identifying them with people who sell something essential of themselves - but the analogy doesn't really hold since sex workers are at the worst slaves and at the best small business owners and all have little or no real power, whereas Republican Senators are both wealthy and powerful.

Expand full comment

Very good. Mr. Nichols says that Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Democrat) of New York,

warned his colleagues in 1981 that the GOP “has become a party of ideas.” I suppose he recognized that they stood for something and were confident in their beliefs. The Republican Party of today has no platform and imho their leadership lacks integrity. If they have any ideas, I cannot listen to them because of who they are.

I give credit to the 6 Republicans who voted for the commission, especially Murkowski. See what she said at https://www.huffpost.com/entry/january-6-commission-murkowski-mcconnell_n_60b046e4e4b0c5658f91cff4 and in her meeting with reporters - https://otter.ai/u/vYkbNpp3cs_l8x-KeswB8Z5bG8g?f=

Is there a possibility that the Senate might re-vote? Are there any other Senators like Murkowski?

Expand full comment

After the vote, Schumer stated he may bring it up again for a vote.

Expand full comment

Schumer needs to stop beating a dead horse.

Expand full comment

No.

Expand full comment

TC! Now I get how flippin’ disgusted and mad you are. That is the shortest post EVER from you but totally correct!!!!

Excuse me for enjoying a short tiny LOL. I couldn’t help myself.

You are always sizzlin’ like some bacon in a cast iron skillet.

Expand full comment

I would like to know what real Republicans think of this vote. Not the Trumpers, but those who read and think for themselves.

Expand full comment

That was a great piece. Thanks for sharing.

Expand full comment

"Today, after the vote, he said, “I never thought I’d see it up close and personal that politics could trump our country. I’m going to fight to save this country.” "

All I can say to Senator Manchin is, you have been in the Senate the last 11 years and you never saw this behavior before? and the same to Senator Collins - who has been in the Senate even longer. Quit hoping for change, get to work and find a way to make Biden's plan happen. I feel we are running out of time and maybe already have.

I won't even try to address Senator Sinema and her not voting today.

Expand full comment

They’re all one big bad dirty joke at this point.

Expand full comment

I’m encouraged by President Biden’s budget proposal, but really sad about the outcome of the vote about the January 6 Commission. I called and left a message for my senator, Majority Leader Schumer. I almost wish Senator Amy Klobuchar could take over as the new Majority Leader.

Expand full comment

Me too. I think Chuck Schumer is ineffective. Every time he speaks I viscerally react negatively. Amy Klobuchar would be much more effective. It is time to get more women in power.

Expand full comment

Would the Democrats consider a change in leadership and support Amy Klobuchar? How would it be done?

Expand full comment

Susan as someone who lives in New York, I agree. He was more effective in his earlier days.

Expand full comment

I do like Amy!

Expand full comment

She’s a fighter!

Expand full comment

She is, and so bright and very engaging.

Expand full comment

Why do the Republicans like her so?

Expand full comment

Schumer is a hand wringer who has been played too many times now.

Expand full comment

Fritz Mondale loved her. He was terrific.

Expand full comment

Why?

Expand full comment

"Demand Justice, the leftwing judicial group, gave Klobuchar poor marks in its review of her voting record on Trump’s judicial nominees. The group’s latest scorecard assigned her an “F” rating, citing her support for Stras and eight other instances in which she voted to advance one of the president’s appeals court nominees. "(nationalinterest.org)

Expand full comment

I gave her high marks. Some of the nominees are totally valid.

Expand full comment

And they are?

Expand full comment

This nightmare started on Nov 8, 2016 when the unthinkable happened and the idiots elected an unqualified, mentally ill, despotic wannabe as POTUS. (It happened to be my and my great-grandson’s birthdays – so what should have been a happy day turned out to be devastating).

So, for 4 years we struggled to instill sanity in the dark depths of this insane nightmare and finally climbed to the edge of the hole, but not quite out of it. With an equal voice instead of being a minority, we still cannot stop the obstruction of the traitorous Repugnant Party. As John Pavlovitz observed yesterday, “The Republicans have no heart and the Democrats have no teeth.” It is so frustrating that we seem unable to stop the minority Repugnant Party from its obstruction that they no longer even try to hide when Moscow Mitch openly brags that is all that party will do. AND YET, the Dems still seem naively fixated on the proven fallacy that you can negotiate with this evil party with its intent to gain authoritarian control of our flailing “democracy.”

They have put in place outright racist voter suppression in the Old South since the Supreme Court said the voting rights act was unconstitutional in 2013 because of disparate treatment of the states "based on 40 year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day," which makes the formula unresponsive to current needs. Did they really think that racism had left the Deep South? It was tenuously driven underground until this surge of idiot Repugnant Party Cultists took over. If you do not keep fascists tied up, they will continue to suppress ppl.

I really fear that the ignorant rabble of the Repugnant Party will take over again in 2022, as we watch helplessly. And, unless he is in prison that insane despot will be elected again and that Nazi/Hitler analogy that we’ve witnessed before will come to pass. It can happen here – it is happening here. I fear for my grandsons.

Expand full comment

It took the perfect storm of Clinton, Sanders and Stein to bring Trump to the WH.

I will never forget or forgive any of them.

Expand full comment

Well, I think you've got to factor a couple other things into your "perfect storm". Above all else, the Comey effect. His decision to release information days before the election regarding the aid's computer tipped the scales, I believe. The only reason it needed that was the Bernie Bros "my way or the highway" spoiled mentality. Stein is the recipient of those who fell into one or the other trap of 15 years of carefully crafted "anti Hilary Clinton" Republicqn garbage.

Expand full comment

Though Stein really did lose three states for the Dems. She sat at the same Russian table as Flynn, and there’s little mention of her.

Expand full comment

...and let's not forget about Ron Johnson and Co who went to Russia for July 4th...

Expand full comment

And one hundred years from now when historians write about the time when America had a thriving democracy, all the players will get a mention.

Expand full comment

Oh, you’re talking about the Eisenhower years when Republicans actually cared for America and taxed the rich and built the infrastructure and later actually supported getting rid of Richard Nixon for being a crook caught in the act. Yeah, that was when we had some bipartisan democracy.

My lament is for the current Repugnant Party, which is covering up the assault on our democracy in which they were clearly complicit following their cult leader who actually goaded his ignorant followers to attack the democratic process because of his paranoid insanity that could not grasp that he actually lost the election.

Expand full comment

It's the same party in name only. A party intelligently hijacked by backers who understood that Grandpa's Old Party with its array of well-coiffed hair, white teeth and dark suits is a far better proposition than storm troopers and swastika armbands. Until DT came on the scene with his red MAGA caps, his mob connections and his updated brownshirts.

Expand full comment

Hillary added to her own self-destruction by calling trump supporters a "basket of deplorables" in 2016. In her 2017 book "What Happened," Hillary admitted it was one of the reasons she lost the election. The repub. "leaders" dove on the "deplorables" statement and used it to rally the repub. population. That statement and attitude cost her a lot of votes.

Expand full comment

And yet, calling these DESPICABLES "deplorables" was too kind.

Expand full comment

Nonetheless, it handed a weapon to her opposition. Better to completely avoid ad hominem attacks like that.

Expand full comment

That was the ultimate dumb dem move.

Expand full comment

?

Expand full comment

Rob, I was referencing Harry’s comment earlier about the Clinton-Stein-Sanders trifecta right after he posted it.

Expand full comment

Rob's question mark highlights the value of including something more specific in a comment than an indefinite pronoun like 'that', 'it' or 'this' - spell out what 'that' or 'this' or 'it' refers to, please. Often, a followup comment falls so far down the line that the subject referred to is unclear.

Expand full comment

This makes me so sad. I fear for my grandchild and (now) my great-grand-twins. Keep faith, Rob, and all, but keep pressure on your Senators and your Representatives. And frankly, Gaetz needs to go to jail, and be shut down. He and Cruz and so many others are as bad in their way as Trump ever thought of being.

Expand full comment

Loving the clarity here. Unfortunately the Dems can’t seem to be able to play hard ball.

Expand full comment

Morning, all!! Morning, Dr. R!! IMHO here is what needs to happen: The press, all of them, need to keep this flame going. No matter the "urgent issue" of the day, they need to keep asking lawmakers (Republicans and Democrats) at their press briefings about January 6, 2021 to keep it in the news.

Expand full comment

and we can do our part to keep the flame going in the press by writing a 2-3 sentence letter to the editor. Most effective is responding to a fresh news story in your local paper. Who has a pithy sample?

Expand full comment

Ellie, every time I write a letter to editor or to a legislator or to a local board or make a public comment, I stress this thought. “Your (organization entity) appears to denounce violence whether it is physical or imbued in rhetoric. However, at same time you give a lot of time and space to amplifying the lie that our democracy is corrupt. That’s a ticking bomb. Please remember we can only defuse a bomb with the TRUTH. Period.”

Expand full comment

I’ve written quite a few letters to my local paper, the Tampa Bay Times, and I’ve had 0 published. Lately I’ve been noticing that their editorial slant, from their actual editorials, to the political cartoons they print, have been right leaning drivel. That doesn’t mean I’ll give up, but I just have come to terms with the futility of it all.

Expand full comment

Agreed. While I’ve had numerous letters published in the past, not so lately. It’s likely they are leaning right to preserve readership. We old liberals continue to support local papers even if they disappoint. While Republicans have a fit and cancel their subscription. Such a conundrum.

Expand full comment

My local (Gatehouse owned) paper has about 3-5 local stories a day, and allows 3-4 letters to the editor per day. I continue to subscribe to the E edition (I need the $27 per month hard copy cost to defray my other subscriptions) to support what tiny bit of local journalism remains.

Most recently, an award winning photojournalist (who just celebrated his 30 year anniversary with the Register Guard) has been the author of local pieces, which has never been the case; his camera does great talking for him.

Expand full comment

Yes, on my to-do list, Ellie...thanks!

Expand full comment

Morning, Lynell! I'd like to see the press stop giving air to the former guy and instead focus, just like you're suggesting, on the insurrection of 6 January.

As a sidebar, I wonder what the danger is of a body that ends up investigating itself. My thought is that with this vote to not create a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection, there is evidence that there are some people within that body might have some level of culpability, and therefore could be viewed in the light of the fox guarding the henhouse. If these congresscritters are unable to hold an investigation of themselves, invite the DOJ (separate and distinct from the criminal investigations of the Capitol invaders) to investigate the machinations of congress, the executive branch, and others who have a vested interest in the outcome of overturning a lawful and certified election.

Expand full comment

Morning, Ally!! Agree about "the fox guarding the henhouse." I also tend to agree with the author of the Atlantic article, Tom Nichol, when he writes: "Today’s Republicans exist only to stay in power, not least so that their elected officials can avoid what they dread most: being sent home to live among their constituents. The conservative writer George Will is right that the Republican Party in 2021 has become 'something new in American history,' a 'political party defined by the terror it feels for its own voters.'”

Somebody on this page provided the link to the article - thank you! - but I'll repost it here: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/republicans-stand-for-nothing-january-6-commission/619036/

So fine-fine, especially about their fear of their constituency, but We, the People, All of Us this Time, are also afraid -- afraid of the loss of democracy however fraught it is, the Constitution, the Rule of Law.

Expand full comment

Just finished reading the Atlantic article. Our cloak of democracy is unraveling at the alter of fear of "other".

Expand full comment

Perhaps a special counsel?

Expand full comment

I'll take whatever works, Kathy...Morning!!

Expand full comment

Good morning! Off soon to hand walk the old man horse who got injected yesterday. Can’t wait for the peace of animals happily munching hay.

Expand full comment

Hope all is well for you both these days. Give that horse a name for me, please. I remember names of animals better than their people!

Expand full comment

My old guy is Peter, a 21 year old Oldenburg who I’ve taken from training to fourth level dressage. He’s amazing, still going strong and loves his job. He’s my heart horse and best friend. I have him half leased for the summer to help a friend get her bronze medal on him. My new boy is Hudson, 9 year old Dutch Warmblood, who is a green Prix St. Georges. I hope to earn my silver medal on him. They’re both fairly big redheads! Peter is spooky, Hudson is hot but a steady Eddie. I’ve ridden Peter a few times since ending treatment a month ago, but haven’t gotten back on Hudson yet. Given the cancer, those dreams are on hold. I have surgery on Wednesday to remove a few lymph nodes in my groin. Otherwise, my response to treatment has been excellent. My doctor anticipates two months before I can ride. At 60, fitness is hard to regain… Fingers and toes are all crossed!

Expand full comment

Yes.

Expand full comment

What I'd like to see is the media pointing out, over & over, every time McConnell bleats about a partisan investigation of 1/6, that McConnell and other Senate Republicans rejected a bipartisan investigation, leaving only a partisan investigation as alternative.

Furthermore, under the terms of the now failed bipartisan investigation, the process would have had to wind up at the end of 2021. Now any investigation will go well into 2022 if not longer, a continuing reminder of what Republican Senators did or did not do leading up to 1/6, on 1/6 and continue to alleviate about nonstop.

Expand full comment

Yep. I mentioned yesterday (I think!) that Democrats could now be free to investigate into 2022 if need be. Of course, they'll want to be doing their own campaigning, but I for one will vote for any Democrat who got stuck on a 1/6 commission!

Expand full comment

The traditional filibuster has some merit so long as passionate advocates for an unpopular bill are willing to stand an their hind feet and argue in front of the chamber. The present no-effort filibuster-lite has proven to be poisonous.

Expand full comment

I'm afraid it has to go. It is not in the Constitution.

Expand full comment

From a certain perspective human behavior is not actually complicated. When apartheid was challenged in South Africa Nelson Mandela stood center stage and did deserve credit but there was also something else that happened. A negotiating group was consulted to help the parties come to agreement. I’m sorry but I do not remember their name but I was very impressed with their method. It was tied to a philosophy of meme’s. A meme is a thought form and their operative theory was that each individual human is at a certain stage in his or her development where a particular type of thought form is dominate for them. These were color coded for ease of explanation.

Red thought forms or meme’s are typified by the notion that right makes right. ‘my way or the highway’. Blue’s are typified by the notion of boy scouts. ‘There are rules and if we all follow them we will all be ok”. Then there are the Oranges working with scientific thoughts, “there are rules but they are the rules of the universe and we simply have to discover them”. And then there are the Green’s. To a green meme-er there is nothing as important as consensus. ‘We all just have to come to an agreement then we will be Ok.’

The negotiation facilitation team simply translated the discussion from one meme to another so that each group could understand in their own language. That is Mandela’s group were greens and the whites were reds. The negotiation group would take the message ‘We have to compromise’ and translated it to a “Do this or else” tone. And vice versa.

Apartheid was done but this was the process that ushered it out. We are having the same problem. Biden, Obama, perhaps Harris are all greens. They will never give up the notion that compromise can work. McConnell, is a red as are most of the other loud republicans we hear from. To them the notion of compromise is simply a bulling tactic and is never taken seriously.

The majority of American voters are orange or green. A significant and now very well defined minority are red. Red’s only respond to confrontation. That is just the way it works.

Frankly, I didn’t make this up. But I’m always amazed when simple truths like this are discovered and then forgotten.

The interesting caveat to this meme theory is that while a typical red or green simply cannot convert or use a different approach without coaching because it is simply too uncomfortable instead they will persist in their own meme despite clear evidence that their method has failed. Only violet meme-ers are able to pick the meme that is needed in any given circumstance according to whom they are dealing with. There are only one percent of violet meme-ers around. And since this theory has faded from our focus they are not empowered.

Obama was simply incapable of demanding the Senate do its job. Is Biden like wise incapable? The evidence would suggest this is true.

Expand full comment

Fascinating. Discouraging because it helps me understand that Schumer may well not be playing hardball behind the scenes. He might truly believe, against all evidence, that compromise with the Republicans is possible. Just heard him say he was “disappointed” that Republicans didn’t vote to form a bipartisan committee. Disappointed? I’m enraged and frightened.

Expand full comment

The terrifying part is that the leading conspirators are still walking free and pretending they're pillars of respectable society. It's only those they put up to invading the Capitol then threw under the bus that face charges.

Expand full comment

So interesting. I took a workshop years ago which taught women in business how to communicate like a man. A female can see a problem and immediately reach a solution. A male must go through a number of steps to get to the same solution. Women had to take the men through the steps with patience. How can we get this message to Biden et al ? We need to break their habit with something that grabs their attention and challenges their method. I would love a copy of this to share beyond this group. Is that possible?

Expand full comment

Patrick, There is no resource mentioning 'meme's' or a 'philosophy of meme's' with reference to the approximately 4 years of negotiating the end of apartheid in South Africa. Might you have read a short piece in the New Republic about whether 'game theory' had a role in the negotiations? I was not impressed with the article, nor have I seen any other mention of game theory in conjunction with the negotiations. A link to the article is below and beneath that is an outline of the negotiations in Wikipedia.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115877/end-apartheid-south-africa-game-theory-and-mandela-negotiations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiations_to_end_apartheid_in_South_Africa

Expand full comment

As I said I don’t truly remember the reference but I think it is likely to have been in Ken Wilber's A Theory of Everything.

This website explains some of the meme theory I was mentioning and notes the fact that this is no longer the general use of the word meme.

https://www.schoolofcoachingmastery.com/coaching-blog/bid/18308/Are-You-Stuck-in-the-Green-Meme

This reference is to acknowledge that this group from Harvard was involved in the negotiations and that much of it was secret. And, that a clinical negotiations team from Harvard was involved.

https://today.law.harvard.edu/michael-young-discusses-his-role-as-facilitator-in-anti-apartheid-negotiations-video/

p

Expand full comment

Patrick, It was good to have contact with you today. Your good spirit and I hope full recovery are in my thoughts. Unless you changed your mind, we will miss you on the forum. Perhaps, you will return. Warm wishes, Fern.

Expand full comment

Patrick, I am glad that I pursued the subject of your initial comment. Thank you for setting me in the right direction. The subject is intriguing. I'll say goodbye now and return to memes, perhaps, to learn why we often don't get along with each other very well.

Expand full comment

There is parallel here with study of auras. Similar characteristics with colors.

Good reference ....Barbara Bowers, PhD

What Color is Your Aura?

Personality Spectrums for Understanding and Growth

Expand full comment

I still like the filibuster solution that it takes 40 votes to keep the filibuster going rather than 60 to stop it. Then they have to sit there to make sure there isn't a vote on keeping it going called while they take a break.

Expand full comment