There are a number of translations of the yiddish term “chutzpah.” Among the best-known is some variation on the following: chutzpah describes the gall of a person who murders his mother and father and argues that he’s entitled to the mercy of the court because he’s an orphan.
The Trump administration may actually have gone that orphan one better.
A U.S. judge in California on Friday ordered President Donald Trump’s administration to pay the costs of reuniting immigrant parents with children separated from them by officials at the U.S.-Mexican border, rather than forcing the parents to pay…
“It doesn’t make any sense for any of the parents who have been separated to pay for anything,” U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw, who last month ordered that the children be reunited with their parents by July 26, said at a hearing in San Diego…
A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which has sued the administration over the family separations, said at the hearing that immigrant parents had been told by immigration officials they had to pay for their travel. One parent was initially asked to pay $1,900 to be reunited with a child, according to ACLU court papers. Trump administration lawyer Sarah Fabian called the judge’s order on paying for the reunifications “a huge ask on HHS,” referring to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Fabian said those decisions were handled at the field level, adding that HHS, which houses the detained children, had limited resources.
“The government will make it happen,” Sabraw responded.
So according to an administration lawyer, expecting the government to pay the costs of cleaning up an inhumane mess of its own making is “a huge ask.” As Ed Brayton commented, first they kidnapped these children, and now they want to charge a ransom for them.
Some of you who have been regular readers of this blog know that one of my sons is a web developer.
Recognizing that turnout is far and away the most important aspect of the upcoming midterms–and believing, as his mother does, that these will be the most consequential American elections in a very long time–he and a couple of friends have developed a very simple, free application that allows people to check their registration status (and register if necessary), find their polling place, preview their ballots and more.
Here’s his description:
The Just Go Vote! app makes it easy to find all the information you need to be able to vote. You can check your registration and register, download a calendar of important election related dates, find your polling place, see your upcoming ballot choices and get an absentee ballot, and view a list of your representatives. To protect your privacy, there is no account sign up for this app. You enter info only to find what you need to vote, and it will be deleted if you delete the app.
Liz, Greg and I have worked really hard over the past few weeks to make this a reality. We agree that there is nothing more important at this moment than the mid-term elections, and to that end we wanted to make something that would help the millions of people who are eligible to vote, but who for whatever reason were unable to last time.
Please download the app, use it, and share it far and wide. Democracy does not work without participation. The Republican strategy of making it ever more difficult for people to exercise their right to vote has been working quite well for them. This app is our attempt to fight back and make it as easy as possible for people to participate in our democracy. If we move even a small percentage of voters who did not vote last time, we can easily take back our government and change our world for the better.
The app will shortly be available in the iOS App Store and in the Google Play Store, and it is already available as both a website and a PWA (progressive web app, just add it to your home screen) by simply visiting our site at https://justgovote.org
Thanks!!
I think the best thing about this app is how absolutely SIMPLE it is to use, even for non-techie, easily confused old folks (like his mother) who didn’t grow up in a digital world. Take a look–and spread the word far and wide.
If this simple tool helps to motivate even a few people per precinct who didn’t vote in 2016, it could make a huge difference.
Commenters to this blog have widely varied opinions about the economy, education, the reasons Trump won, what each of us should be doing about the country’s perilous situation, and much else–but I think everyone agrees on the importance of turning out the millions of eligible citizens who didn’t bother voting in November of 2016.
Here’s one thing we can all agree to do, and my kid has made it easy: DISTRIBUTE JUST GO VOTE!
A friend recently sent me a questionnaire he’d received from the NRA, along with a fundraising appeal warning that the November elections will “threaten your gun rights,” and explaining that the organization needs your money in order to protect its “pro-freedom” agenda. (I wonder when they’ll explain why that “pro-freedom agenda” required that they collaborate with Russian operatives…but I digress.)
The letter also disses all those polls showing widespread public support for background checks and other modest gun-control measures. (“Fake news!”)
If there is one thing academic researchers and legitimate political pollsters know, it is that the way you frame survey questions is critical: if you are trying to obtain an accurate reading of the public pulse, questions cannot be suggestive or loaded.
Of course, if political candidates and advocacy organizations were interested in accurate results, they’d hire a reputable pollster. The “surveys” and “polls” we all receive from various candidates and organizations are transparent efforts to separate us from our money; they are intended to push our buttons, not inquire about our opinions.
And the NRA has mastered the art of button-pushing. A few examples:
“Do you agree with the politicians and Hollywood elites who say the NRA is a terrorist organization?”
“Do you support a sweeping ban on semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns?”
“Should law-abiding Americans be forced to undergo a background check?”
“Should the federal government limit your ability to defend yourself and your family by banning magazines with more than 10 rounds?”
“Should the federal government be able to register and track all firearms in the U.S. and retain personal information about those who lawfully possess them?”
“Would you ever knowingly vote for a candidate for Congress who supports new anti-gun restrictions as part of his or her agenda?”
There’s more, of course, but these “poll questions” should give you a flavor of the rest.
Before you laugh at the transparency of these formulations or dismiss the obviousness of the propaganda, it may be worth thinking about the political psychology behind the choice of words employed in what was an expensive mailing. Remember, these “polls” go to NRA members (including the friend who shared this), not to the general public–and although reputable surveys suggest that the majority of those members are far more reasonable than the organization’s leadership, they are still likely to be favorably disposed to the NRA’s mission.
They aren’t likely to be favorably disposed to “Hollywood elites.” They are very likely to resent being called a terrorist organization.
The framing of the support/no support questions is patently dishonest, but very effective. Do you favor a “sweeping” ban? Do you want the government “forcing” “law-abiding” citizens to do anything? Surely you are already worried that the surveillance state is keeping tabs on everyone, and you don’t want them “retaining your personal information.”
I’m sure you are leery of Congressional candidates who make gun control part of an (obviously nefarious) “agenda.”
The big problem with special interest organizations like the NRA isn’t that they represent majority opinion. They don’t–not even close. They are effective because their issues are so salient to the minority of people who do agree with them. (This is also true of anti-choice and other single-issue voters.)
In criminal law classes, lawyers-to-be learn about something called mens rea–a term that means “criminal intent.” In order to find someone guilty of a crime, it is necessary to prove that they intended to commit that crime. Otherwise, depending upon the facts involved, they may instead be guilty of gross negligence, or found not guilty by reason of incapacity.
If I had to defend Donald Trump against charges of treason, I would argue he lacked the mental capacity to understand what treason is. After all, there’s plenty of evidence that he is seriously deranged and none-too-bright.
Mitch McConnell is another matter entirely.
NPR recently covered a speech by Joe Biden in which our former vice-President explained why the administration did not go public before the election with the information it had about Russian interference.
Former Vice President Joe Biden says he and President Barack Obama decided not to speak out publicly on Russian interference during the 2016 campaign after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to sign a bipartisan statement condemning the Kremlin’s role.
Speaking on Tuesday at the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden said the Obama administration sought a united front to dispel concerns that going public with such accusations would be seen as an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the election.
However, McConnell “wanted no part of having a bipartisan commitment saying, essentially, ‘Russia’s doing this. Stop,’ ” he said.
Essentially, McConnell blackmailed the President. If the administration accused Russia of meddling, he would accuse Obama of manufacturing the allegation in order to gain a partisan advantage.
The former vice president’s account echoes reporting that first appeared in The Washington Post in June describing a meeting that occurred the same month between Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, then-FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security adviser Lisa Monaco and 12 key members of Congress.
I have previously shared my belief that Mitch McConnell is the most evil man in America, and that was before I knew anything about this particular despicable episode.
Politicians and scholars have various definitions of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In my opinion, consistently advantaging the interests of your political party over your constitutional responsibilities and the welfare of the country qualifies.
I’m not talking about the various procedural games McConnell has always played; partisans in both parties engage in tactical efforts to advantage their “side” when they can. Refusing to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee–simply ignoring the Senate’s obligation to “advise and consent”–is another matter entirely. Not only was it a dishonorable breach of duty, McConnell had to know that he was doing long-lasting damage to the legitimacy of both the Senate and the Court–and further polarizing the country. He didn’t care; “winning” was more important.
As outrageous as that was, McConnell’s willingness to put his party’s interest above the security of the country–to ignore an attack by a foreign power on the integrity of the U.S. election, an attack that he knew had occurred and that he has subsequently confirmed that he knew had occurred–is every bit as treasonous as Trump’s slavish subservience to that foreign power.
Russiagate isn’t just the narrow story of a few corrupt officials. It isn’t even the story of a corrupt president. It’s the story of a corrupt political party, the one currently holding all the levers of power in Washington. After Trump groveled before Putin in Helsinki, many Republicans in Washington proclaimed their solemn concern, just as they did when the president expressed his sympathy for the white supremacists in Charlottesville last year. But all of them are fully aware that they are abetting a criminal conspiracy, and probably more than one.
Congressional Republicans have made it abundantly clear that the delivery of tax cuts and ideologically acceptable Supreme Court Justices to their patrons is far more important to them than protecting the security of the country they are pledged to serve.
Trump is stupid and insane. McConnell is smart and evil. They are both corrupt, self-serving traitors. Congressional Republican know that–and protect them anyway. What does that make them?
Now that Net Neutrality rules have been eliminated by Trump’s FCC, the question is: how will the repeal affect ordinary Americans? What consequences will be seen by the millions of Americans who turn increasingly to the Internet for everything from information to entertainment to commerce?
On June 11, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission’s repeal of the Open Internet Order—the net neutrality rules—went into effect. In the wake of this change, Americans are wondering how the repeal will affect them, and what it means for the future of internet access. Though consumers may not see changes quickly, the shift on net neutrality undermines the nation’s history on network regulation, creating a new era in how these networks operate in America.
So–in this brave “new era,” what can we expect?
The “quick and dirty” answer is: it depends. For one thing, there is a pending court challenge to the FCC’s authority to repeal Net Neutrality. For another, the Senate has passed Senate Joint Resolution 52, officially disapproving the repeal. (Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can undo recently created rules by federal agencies.)
It still has to pass in the House, and then be signed by the president, which makes its prospects dicey, but perhaps Mueller will have completed his investigation…
That said, the need for a vote in the House should make protection of Net Neutrality an issue in the upcoming midterms. Every Congressional candidate should be asked whether they will vote to reinstate the rules. In December of last year, the Hill reported that 83% of Americans support Net Neutrality.
(If there is a Justice Kavanaugh sitting on the Supreme Court, and the case reaches the high court, its prospects dim: Kavanaugh is on record opposing Net Neutrality on the grounds that Internet providers are publishers, and protected from government interference by the First Amendment. Equating companies like Verizon and AT&T with media outlets like the New York Times requires some convoluted logic. )
More encouraging, a number of states aren’t waiting for Congress or the courts. California, not surprisingly, looks to be first out of the gate with a “robust” protection of Net Neutrality, but a number of other states are in the process of crafting similar bills.
The latest version of the bill restores provisions that would prevent broadband providers from exempting some services from customers’ data caps and would ban providers from charging websites “access fees” to reach customers on a network or blocking or throttling content as it enters their networks from other networks, according to a fact sheet released by Wiener, Santiago, and state senator Kevin de León.
The enumerated practices are those that big telecom companies are expected to engage in now that the FCC has repealed national protections.
The new version of the bill needs to be approved by both houses of the California Legislature, then be signed by Governor Jerry Brown. From there, it could face legal challenges from the FCC, which prohibited states from adopting their own net neutrality protections when it repealed the national net neutrality rules. During the press conference, Santiago said the California bill would stand up to legal scrutiny. Legal experts have told WIRED they are unsure whether the FCC has authority to preempt state law on the issue.
As 83% of Americans understand (at least in this context), this administration’s indiscriminate war on all regulatory activity more often than not just favors big business over the rest of us.
