Today, the response would have to be at a whole other order of magnitude—an unprecedented shock to the system that would force those all but most Trump’s impassioned supporters to rethink the consequences of his nomination. It would involve a clear declaration by as many voices as possible that Trump would be unacceptable as a president, accompanied by a massive media campaign designed to undermine the core of his appeal. It would mean a frontal attack on his character and temperament—and a willingness to absorb all the blows he is brilliantly capable of launching. It’s not clear that they could even pull it off at this late date—and if you look at what the options really are, it’s not clear the party would avoid serious long-term damage if they did. But at this point, this implausible nuclear option is the only remotely plausible approach.
The Utah Senate on Wednesday called on Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment — so that state senators could again select U.S. senators.
It voted 20-6 to pass SJR2, and sent it to the House. It calls for Congress to repeal the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1913 to allow people to directly elect U.S. senators.
Its sponsor, Sen. Al Jackson, R-Highland, says electing senators by the state Senate is needed because no branch of the federal government now represents the needs of state governments. A change would force senators to do that.
While we have an interest in making sure Britain continues to have global influence, the British themselves obviously have a larger interest in it. There is no reason to believe we can judge how to maintain that influence better than they can. They may even resent it if we lecture them on this issue.
The second point is that we aren’t likely to sway the British by making a case based on our interests, either. The referendum involves some of the most profound interests a nation can have. Many Britons see the European Union as a threat to their economy, their sovereignty, even their way of life. We cannot convince them they are wrong about these issues, and it is not our place to try. And it is not reasonable to ask people who have these concerns that they should look past them because we find their membership in the EU useful to our own foreign policy.
Threats about trade relations are worse than pointless. Refusing to negotiate a trade deal with a post-Brexit Britain would be a punitive gesture made at our own considerable expense. For that reason, the threat is not credible: Of course we would make a deal.
For the first time in years, the Right’s defenses would be completely destroyed, perhaps never to be rebuilt. Swiftly, the courts would be packed with ideologues; immediately, Congress would run through the remaining items on the Obama-Clinton laundry list; before the voters had a chance to stop them, the White House would usher in an irreversible amnesty; and, Trump having been turned into a pariah by a hostile press, his “anti-PC” attitude would be rendered toxic in perpetuity. The likely result of Trump’s selection as the Republican nominee, in other words, would be the entrenchment of all that his supporters claim vehemently to hate. That thrill that his acolytes would feel when they saw Trump named the winner of the primaries? It’d be gone in a matter of minutes.
So Elizabeth — when she was young, very charming, very, very charming. Could’t have a baby. Sad. Really sad. https://t.co/9RRlJUZzyb
— Katherine Miller (@katherinemiller) February 23, 2016
I mean, she just wanted a little baby. Waited years and years. Didn’t happen. No kids. Very sad. I mean, years go by. Years.
— Katherine Miller (@katherinemiller) February 23, 2016
Yet, contrary to reports, the Trump supporters I’m talking about aren’t fools. They aren’t racists either. They don’t think much would change one way or the other if Trump were elected. The political system has failed them so badly that they think it can’t be repaired and little’s at stake. The election therefore reduces to an opportunity to express disgust. And that’s where Trump’s defects come in: They’re what make him such an effective messenger.
The fact that he’s outrageous is essential. (Ask yourself, what would he be without his outrageousness? Take that away and nothing remains.) Trump delights mainly in offending the people who think they’re superior — the people who radiate contempt for his supporters. The more he offends the superior people, the more his supporters like it. Trump wages war on political correctness. Political correctness requires more than ordinary courtesy: It’s a ritual, like knowing which fork to use, by which superior people recognize each other.
This isn’t the whole explanation of Trumpism, by any means, but I think it’s part of the explanation. Supporting Trump is an act of class protest — not just over hard economic times, the effect of immigration on wages or the depredations of Wall Street, but also, and perhaps most of all, over lack of respect. That’s something no American, with or without a college degree, will stand for.
How can the GOP continue to push the same agenda when one-third of the party wants it to make a radical break from its past and stand for something fundamentally different? Trump outflanks the party from the right on immigration and terrorism, outflanks it from the left on taxes, benefits, and a range of other domestic policy issues, and ridicules just about everyone else in the party for their rank stupidity and for contributing to a decline in the country that he alone can reverse.
A third of Republican voters endorse this profoundly anti-Republican message.
As I’ve argued before, that appears to leave two possible paths forward for the GOP. One is for the party as a whole to shift ideological direction to appeal explicitly to the rogue third of the party — though that could easily alienate a good portion of the party’s other two-thirds. And that leaves the second option, which is for the party to break apart, with the rogue Republicans forming the base of some new party.
It’s getting ugly in Nevada, as reporters at the state’s Republican caucuses are spotting irregularities, disorganization and open violations of caucus rules.
The state GOP claims there have been “no official reports of voting irregularities or violations,” but anecdotal scenes of chaos seem to contradict that message…
Just as sabermetrics led to a change in how umpires called the game, political science led to a change in how party elites intervened in the campaign. Because the smart people said he had no chance, they presumed that they did not have to do anything. And now it’s too late.
Let me be very clear at this point: This is just a theory and I have almost no data to support it. This is an untested hypothesis. Like most of my analysis of the 2016 election cycle, it’s probably, mostly wrong.
But I wonder: Just how much of Trump’s rise came about because the people who could have stopped him read analyses asserting that he had no chance of winning? How much did political scientists refute their own hypotheses?
The worsening of tidal flooding in American coastal communities is largely a consequence of greenhouse gases from human activity, and the problem will grow far worse in coming decades, scientists reported Monday.
Those emissions, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, are causing the ocean to rise at the fastest rate since at least the founding of ancient Rome, the scientists said. They added that in the absence of human emissions, the ocean surface would be rising less rapidly and might even be falling.
I never expected to like Jeb. Boarding school toff. Political scion. Staunch pro-lifer. NRA favorite. Oh, and ugh, the Terri Schiavo stuff.
Still, I couldn’t help but warm to him as the campaign wore on. And then even pull for him, a little. It was partly the pathos. Jeb felt somehow more human than other candidates. Vulnerable, struggling, unable to conceal flashes of fear and melancholy.
He also showed compassion on the trail. Take this, from a British journalist who, for unclear reasons, felt compelled to stand up at Jeb’s event in Greenville on Friday and say this: “My job as a columnist is to follow these rallies. I haven’t heard any other candidate give a long period in their speech to talking about people with learning disabilities, to talk about people at the bottom of the pack. And whatever happens to your campaign, sir, that heart you should be really proud of.” I concur, randomly effusive British journalist.
From: Jeb Bush was not a joke.
1. A little riff on what America today's political dysfunction means for capitalism.
— Richard Florida (@Richard_Florida) February 14, 2016
2. You don't have to be a neo-marxist to recognize that dysfunction in American politics especially in the GOP is not good for capitalism.
— Richard Florida (@Richard_Florida) February 14, 2016
3. A key function of government is to maintain the integrity of the economic system & enable so-called "capitalist accumulation."
— Richard Florida (@Richard_Florida) February 14, 2016
Fans, for the past two weeks you have been reading about the bad break I got. Yet today I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of this earth. I have been in ballparks for seventeen years and have never received anything but kindness and encouragement from you fans.
Look at these grand men. Which of you wouldn’t consider it the highlight of his career just to associate with them for even one day? Sure, I’m lucky. Who wouldn’t consider it an honor to have known Jacob Ruppert? Also, the builder of baseball’s greatest empire, Ed Barrow? To have spent six years with that wonderful little fellow, Miller Huggins? Then to have spent the next nine years with that outstanding leader, that smart student of psychology, the best manager in baseball today, Joe McCarthy? Sure, I’m lucky.
When the New York Giants, a team you would give your right arm to beat, and vice versa, sends you a gift – that’s something. When everybody down to the groundskeepers and those boys in white coats remember you with trophies – that’s something. When you have a wonderful mother-in-law who takes sides with you in squabbles with her own daughter – that’s something. When you have a father and a mother who work all their lives so you can have an education and build your body – it’s a blessing. When you have a wife who has been a tower of strength and shown more courage than you dreamed existed – that’s the finest I know.
So I close in saying that I might have been given a bad break, but I’ve got an awful lot to live for.
In such a scenario, the race would be decided in the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote and the majority choice wins. Right now, Republicans control 34 state delegations, Democrats control 14, and two are split evenly. The question is whether Republicans in the House vote would vote for Trump, the party’s official nominee, over an independent conservative candidate.
It would depend almost entirely on who that candidate was.
Twitter is a private company, of course, and if it wants to outlaw strong language, it can. In fact, it’s well within its rights to have one set of rules for Robert Stacy McCain, and another set of rules for everyone else. It’s allowed to ban McCain for no reason other than its bosses don’t like him. If Twitter wants to take a side in the online culture war, it can. It can confiscate Milo Yiannopoulos’s blue checkmark. This is not about the First Amendment.
But if that’s what Twitter is doing, it’s certainly not being honest about it—and its many, many customers who value the ethos of free speech would certainly object. In constructing its Trust and Safety Council, the social media platform explicitly claimed it was trying to strike a balance between allowing free speech and prohibiting harassment and abuse. But its selections for this committee were entirely one-sided—there’s not a single uncompromising anti-censorship figure or group on the list. It looks like Twitter gave control of its harassment policy to a bunch of ideologues, and now their enemies are being excluded from the platform.
Even some supporters of President Barack Obama’s moves to strengthen relations with Cuba are questioning the timing of his planned visit to the Communist island next month, after arrests of dissidents by Raul Castro’s government reached a five-year high.
Obama vowed Thursday that he’ll promote human rights during his historic visit, the first by a sitting American president since 1928. But more than a year of warming relations between the nations, separated by just 90 miles, have so far failed to slow the Cuban government’s crackdown on political dissidents.
The Madrid-based Cuban Observatory on Human Rights said 1,474 people, including 512 women, were “arbitrarily” detained in January. The arrests have been climbing since the December 2014 announcement that the two governments would improve ties.
David Bowie died on January 10, 2016, two days after his 69th birthday and the release of Blackstar, his 25th album. The news came meteorically; we were dazed and flattened, looking at the world through debris and glitter that suddenly it seemed we’d borrowed from him. Lady Gaga paid extended, exhaustive tribute to him at the Grammys on Monday night; in the week following his death, there was a second line for him in New Orleans, a shrine outside his apartment in Tribeca, a series of farewells from his musical echelon, a million Instagrams, a segment on SNL. Bowie was that rare thing, a revolutionary who was also near-universally beloved. He gave off an uncanny combination of generosity and brilliance, in which he seemed to give everything to and ask nothing of the people who idolized him—except for, I guess, the bodies of the young teenage girls he fucked.
Word choice is hard here. Should we say “raped” automatically if a grown man has sex with a teenager? Does it matter at all if the 15-year-old, now much older, describes their encounter as one of the best nights of her life? What is our word for a “yes” given on a plane that’s almost vertically unequal? Does contemporary morality dictate that we trust a young woman when she says she consented freely, or believe that she couldn’t have, no matter what she says?
Gerald Friedman, an economics professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, produced an analysis of Bernie Sanders’ economic plan predicting eye-popping benefits from the candidate’s program: 4.5 percent real GDP growth between 2016 and 2026, at which time median income would be $82,151 — about $23,000 above the Congressional Budget Office baseline.
Reaction from the economics establishment was swift and vicious. Democratic Party heavy hitters — Alan Krueger of Princeton, Austan Goolsbee of the University of Chicago, plus Christina Romer and Laura D’Andrea Tyson of Berkeley, all four former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers — put out an ex cathedra declaration that Friedman’s paper was utterly beyond the pale of serious analysis.
Paul Krugman joined the dogpile, writing three consecutive posts (“Worried Wonks,” “What Has the Wonks Worried,” “Wonkery Has a Well-Known Liberal Bias,” — noticing a theme?) on how Friedman’s paper was utterly preposterous, and demanding Sanders immediately denounce it. Brad DeLong was kinder, but still insisted that Friedman was enabling right-wing economic derp.
Apple has the ability to temporarily update the software on Farook’s iPhone and remove the three barriers to using a brute-force attack. But before any iPhone will accept new software, it checks to see if the software update has a valid signature from Apple. Because only Apple has these signatures, only Apple can update Farook’s iPhone. The FBI cannot do this without Apple’s help.
Here, the court’s order is specifically tailored to both Apple’s and the government’s concerns. First, it requires Apple to use its access to temporarily remove only the three barriers to using a brute force attack discussed above. It does not require any adjustment to the iPhone’s encryption. Second, the order requires Apple to explicitly restrict its software update so that it can only run on Farook’s iPhone and be both temporary and reversible. It does not require altering any other software or access to any other iPhones. Third, the order allows Apple to comply with the order at its own facility, if it so chooses.
In other words, the FBI wants to bring Farook’s iPhone to Apple, let the manufacturer perform the temporary update, and then allow the FBI to remotely perform a brute force attack to discover Farook’s passcode. Once the FBI has discovered the passcode, Apple simply reverses the update and returns the iPhone with its original software and contents to the FBI.
I’m playing a shallow center field. It’s the eighth inning, the score is tied and I don’t want Larry Doby scoring from second base. One run could be the ball game. The ballgame could be the series. You never know. Wertz hits it. A solid sound. I learned a lot from the sound of the ball on the bat. Always did. I could tell from the sound whether to come in or go back. This time I’m going back, a long way back, but there is no doubt in my mind. I am going to catch this ball. I turn and run for the bleachers. But I got it. Maybe you didn’t know that but I knew it. Soon as it got hit, I knew I’d catch this ball. But that wasn’t the problem. The problem was Larry Doby on second base. On a deep fly to center field at the Polo Grounds, a runner could score all the way from second. I’ve done that myself and more than once. So if I make the catch, which I will, and Larry scores from second, they still get the run that puts them ahead. All the time I’m running back, I’m thinking, ‘Willie, you’ve got to get this ball back into the infield.’ I run fifty or seventy-five yards – right to the warning track- and I take the ball a little toward my left shoulder. Suppose I stop and turn and throw. I will get nothing on the ball. No momentum going into my throw. What I have to do is this: after I make the catch, turn. Put all my momentum into that turn. To keep my momentum, to get it working for me, I have to turn very hard and short and throw the ball from exactly the point I caught it. The momentum goes into my turn and up through my legs and into my throw. Larry Doby ran to third, but he couldn’t score. Al Rosen didn’t even advance from first. All the while I was running back, I was planning how to get off that throw. Then some of them wrote, I made that throw by instinct.
I noticed the SJW-ish tone too, but thought to myself: that’s not a bug, it’s a feature. To the extent that the left is often about playing the victim, it seems to me that Barnett and Rosenkranz are saying, “Two can play at this game.” The conservatives are taking the “talk of micro-aggressions and trauma,” typically deployed so effectively by liberals, and turning it around on them.Is it sincere, or trolling, or a little bit of both? To be honest, I find it hard to tell (but perhaps that’s a sign of how exquisitely calibrated the Barnett/Rosenkranz message is).
Both sides in this debate, the liberals and the conservatives, profess to be standing up for students — the liberals for students who feel oppressed by Justice Scalia, and the conservatives for students who feel oppressed by liberal orthodoxy.
Yesterday was the GOP campaign’s biggest psychological shift, not tied to a debate, since voting began in Iowa 17 days ago. The clarifying day points to the three-man race that insiders have so long expected, with a revived Rubio on the path to go the distance as an establishment alternative to Trump and Cruz. The surprise endorsement of Rubio by South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley came a day after Jeb had told NBC’s Peter Alexander that her nod, ahead of Saturday’s GOP primary, is “probably the most meaningful endorsement … would be the most powerful meaningful one in the state.” Oof!
You were famously attacked for having liberal views. Now progressivism seems to be taking off within the Democratic Party. Do you ever feel like you ran in the wrong era?
Look, it’s a different time. There are different conditions. We went through a terrible recession, largely, in my view, because of policies from a Republican president and Republican Congress. The guy in the White House did a lot to get us out of this thing, but when a country goes through something like this—well, the fact that the numbers are looking better doesn’t change the fact that people have gone through hell in the process. And they are still hurting!
There has been a lot of talk about why voters are so angry, but you seem to be saying that the recession was more catastrophic than people even realize.
Memories are short in some ways. We almost went into a great depression. If it hadn’t been for Obama and Bernanke and the Congress at the time, I think we would have. But the other thing is this. The international situation continues to roil the waters. At a time when the country ought to be feeling better about itself, we have this situation in the Middle East, and we all know where that came from, right?
Then, in the 1960s, slam dunks started to take off. They were a captivating shot that reinforced the role of the so-called “big man” on the courts.
There was a political dimension to all of this as well. The dunk was becoming popular at a turbulent time in the country. The Black Panthers were organizing and arming themselves in Oakland and some white Americans were worried a revolution was about to take place. The rise of dunking was seen by some racist critics as a literal manifestation of “Black Power,” embodied in masters of the dunk like Lew Alcindor, who would later change his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
As Britain waits to find out which way Boris Johnson will jump in the EU referendum, my mind turns to the way things used to be in what we historians call the olden days. Waiting for Boris reminds me of the situation that pertained in the mediaeval and early modern era, when there tended to great excitement and anticipation when the Queen went into labour. What would emerge? A boy or a girl? Would the kingdom get an heir? Did the new arrival portend political security or future instability? And then came the great moment.
The point I’m trying to make here is not that the Senate should do this or that, but that whatever it does, replacing Scalia in the current polarized atmosphere is going to tear our already frayed bonds even worse. How can anyone who cares about the country look forward to what’s to come? The result of the confirmation battle, whatever side wins, will be simply this: that we will hate each other even more across partisan lines.
It is, of course, bizarre that it has come to this for the nation: that the nomination of a Supreme Court justice could inspire such passions. But that’s because of the role the Court has taken in the culture war. This is the poisoned fruit of what Ted Kennedy and his Senate Democratic colleagues did to Robert Bork. And this is also the poisoned fruit of the culture-war results-oriented jurisprudence of the Court — especially Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy — on abortion and same-sex marriage. It fell to Scalia, over and over again, to reveal the partisan emptiness of these rulings, and therefore how nakedly political the Court had become on defending the Sexual Revolution at all costs.
“Since Mayor de Blasio took office in New York, the number of recorded street stops has continued to decline, to about 24,000 last year from 45,787 in 2014, according to Mr. Zimroth’s letter. Those tallies represent a small fraction of the stop-and-frisk activity logged during the administration of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a political independent, when recorded stops reached a height of 685,000 in 2011, and fell to about 192,000 in 2013, which was Mr. Bloomberg’s last year in office.
Even with recorded stops receding, broad swaths of officers are yet unable to articulate a rationale for the ones they carry out, or for the frisks that often follow, Mr. Zimroth’s report said. The report — citing a departmental audit of nearly 600 stop reports that officers filled out over 90 days last summer, as part of a pilot program — said documentation for the stops, and frisks, was lacking in nearly 30 percent of cases. Similar findings were included in a broader internal audit of officers’ stop reports and logbook entries for encounters in November and December.
More striking is that sergeants given the task of reviewing stop-report forms in many cases failed to note the officers’ deficiencies, or take steps to correct them, the report said, citing the internal audit of the pilot program.”
The U.S. Senate has confirmed only five Supreme Court justices during presidential election years since 1912 – and the last time it happened current Vice President Joe Biden defended the Senate’s constitutional right to act as “a forceful constitutional counterweight” to the president’s nominee.
“The president exercises better judgment when he considers the prevailing views of the Senate, and the American people, before making a nomination,” Biden, D-Del., said during the confirmation hearings of current Justice Anthony Kennedy. He added that “if the president does consider the views of the Senate and the people in making the nomination, the Senate may not need to act as such a forceful constitutional counterweight.”
The conservative news site, which hasn’t been shy in its criticism of Notley and her government, was sent a letter late last week from the Justice Department defending the ban.
Notley’s spokeswoman and communications director Cheryl Oates provided a written statement on Tuesday about the decision.
“The government’s position is that if you have testified under oath that you are not a journalist, then we don’t consider you a journalist,” she said.
Oates’s comment refers to testimony given by Levant in a libel suit in 2014. He told the court that he was a commentator and a pundit, not a reporter.
Yet gene editing could provide revolutionary benefits to our children. A team based at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children in London recently used gene editing to treat a one-year-old girl with leukaemia, who is now in remission. More technology is in the pipeline. A team based at Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania reported in this week’s Nature Biotechnology that they were able to correct a genetic liver disease in newborn mice. Taking this technology into human embryos could correct devastating genetic diseases in the womb.
But isn’t this a slippery slope to designer babies genetically engineered to be healthier, cleverer or more beautiful than they would otherwise be? Wouldn’t it provide a technology that would only be available to the super-wealthy, potentially creating the kind of divided society that HG Wells envisaged in his futuristic novel, The Time Machine? Perhaps. But let’s worry about the future in the future.
“A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on,” London preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon said in 1855, well before the invention of the Internet.
A case in point just popped up.
We are now experiencing a growth in class-based politics not seen since the New Deal. During the long period of generally sustained prosperity from the ’50s to 2007, class issues remained, but were increasingly subsumed by social issues—civil and gay rights, feminism, environment—that often cut across class lines. Democrats employed liberal social issues to build a wide-ranging coalition that spanned the ghettos and barrios as well as the elite neighborhoods of the big cities. Similarly, Republicans cobbled together their coalition by stressing conservative social ideas, free-market economics, and a focus on national defense; this cemented the country club wing with the culturally conservative suburban and exurban masses.
The chaos and constant surprises of this campaign represent the beginning of a new political era shaped largely by class. In November Trump hopes to ride the concerns of the white working class to victory in the Rust Belt to overcome Hillary Clinton’s coastal edge. Close to 20 percent of Democrats, according to Mercury Analytics surveys, plan to support Trump as their champion. In the coming months, the donor class, politicians, and pundits will be forced to address the needs of Trump’s supporters, as well as those of Sanders’s youth precariat in ways mainstream politicians have avoided for years.
In honor of #PresidentsDay, here are my one-tweet reviews of every president up to FDR.
— Jay Cost (@JayCostTWS) February 15, 2016
As the story goes, Liefeld sent this drawing of a “new character” to writer Fabian Nicieza, who responded that it was nothing but a copy of the DC character Deathstroke. So Nicieza dubbed the character “Deadpool,” because, logically, a deadpool is where you’d be most likely to find people doing the deathstroke.
Much like DC’s character Lobo, Deadpool quickly became a parody of the kind of ultraviolent antiheroes popular at the time, like Wolverine and the Punisher. Also like Lobo, Deadpool became superpopular among irony-blind comics readers, making him (as far as I can tell) the only new non-Turtle superhero to gain mainstream recognition for Stan knows how long. Seriously, if you can think of another superhero that was introduced since Deadpool in 1993 and would be recognizable to your average non-nerd person on the street, I want to hear about them).