Friday, February 12, 2021

Happy Chinese New Year ✧ Year of the Ox



Received a Lucky Coin from good friends in California
who observe the Chinese New Year!
It represents gratitude and a wish for our longevity
and for good luck in the coming year. So kind!
Happy Year of the Ox!

44 comments:

  1. Scientists like their odds against the wily coronavirus from South Africa [Click] General considerations re viral mutations and effectiveness of vaccines.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Listener--in local ornithological news, a couple of days ago we saw a group of white pelicans in a local ponding basin. This is still a bit early, but seems not unreasonable for them to be on their way to Canada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PhD*Son suggests that the fires and drought would have impinged on their habitat and food supplies, so they may have migrated a bit early.

      Delete
  3. We had some rain last night, and today dawned clear, breezy, and cold enough that we decided to delay our morning constitutional until the afternoon. Unusually for such conditions, the mountains remain shrouded in clouds.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Replies
    1. I don't see that it is likely to make any difference here to speak of.

      Delete
    2. Nor here.

      But could it affect gerrymandering?

      Delete
    3. September 30!!! The legislature will get the data needed to draw new districts just over two months before nominating petitions are due! I don't see how it can work.

      Delete
  5. Words used by DT's defense team in their opening remarks...

    unjust, unconstitutional, political vengeance, further divides our nation, witch hunt, divorced from facts, evidence and interest of the American people, Senate should reject, absurd "no thinking person", "nothing in the text could be construed", slander...

    R's always resort to projection and seem to be in a perpetual fantasy "Opposites Day."

    ReplyDelete
  6. The lead Defense lawyer is wearing an appropriately yellow tie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As expected, Defense is playing the "what about" game. What about how sometimes Democrats have used inflammatory language.

    Of course, none of it was spoken while the joint session of Congress was counting the Electoral votes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Defense: We should all just move forward in unity and cool the temperature.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ezra Klein in the NYT: The Senate is making a mockery of itself. A former Senate staffer explains how the institution became a legislative black hole— and how to fix it. [Click]
    I think this link will get you to the full transcript. [Click]

    Excerpt: . . . one of the biggest misconceptions about the filibuster. . . is the idea that it promotes bipartisanship, when, in fact, it does the opposite. Because it gives the party that’s out of power the means, motive, and opportunity to block the party that’s in power from getting anything done.

    And when the party that’s in power doesn’t get anything done, when voters see nothing but gridlock from Washington, they turn to the party that’s out of power and try to put them back in office. And Republicans are well poised to take back majorities in both the House and Senate. All they need is a handful of seats to do so. So they have every rational political incentive to block Biden from achieving any victories.

    A program that, as you say, would cut child poverty massively would be a huge victory for Biden. The ability for Biden to pass it on a bipartisan basis would be a huge victory for his campaign promise to restore bipartisanship and unity. So Republicans collectively don’t want to see President Biden standing at a signing ceremony with Mitt Romney, signing a bill that is going to massively slash child poverty because that’s not good for their political interests and their desire to take back their majorities in the 2022 midterms. I’m not saying this is right, but that’s the rational political calculation for them. So that’s why you have Rubio, Lee, and all these others who supposedly care about this issue coming out and shooting it down.

    to be continued

    ReplyDelete
  10. The irony here is that the framers saw this coming. And they identified this misperception about supermajority threshold at the time in 1789. The reason they saw it was that they had just finished having direct firsthand experience with the Articles of Confederation, which did require a supermajority threshold for most major categories of legislation.
    And so, in Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton addresses this misperception head on. And he says, what at first sight might seem a remedy, referring to a supermajority threshold, is, in fact, a poison. And he says — now I’m going back to my words, but he says you might think it would cause compromise, but really, what it does is, it provides an irresistible temptation for the party that’s out of power to make the party in power look bad. He uses the words “to embarrass the administration and the good functioning of government.”

    So it’s not what you would think at the time. You think, oh, 60 votes. Well, there’s 50 Democrats so that means they got to get 10 Republicans, so that’s going to force bipartisanship. But really, what it does is, give Republicans the ability to simply make Democrats look bad at all times. And in a polarized environment, that’s the rational political choice.

    EZRA KLEIN: So I’m just going to read the section of the Federalist Papers — and this is from Federalist 22 — just because I love the quote so much. “The necessity of unanimity in public bodies or of something approaching towards it” — so a supermajority requirement — “has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority.”

    They really did look at this, and they really did reject it. And the point you made here — and frankly, the point they make there — I think is very important and very subtle. And it is one of the things that has actually changed in the way people thought about this over the course of my time in Washington. . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I still like the idea of changing the cloture rule from requiring 60 votes to stop a filibuster to 40 votes to continue it. That should be enough of a compromise to get Manchin and others on board.

      Delete
    2. Or 60% of those present and voting, which in practice comes to almost the same thing.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the clarification, Alan. I understand the matter better now.

      Delete
    4. Tried this earlier in the afternoon, but encountered connectivity issues.

      Thanks, Alan. Now I understand the issue better.

      Delete
  11. So, DT's Defense team can only denigrate the House Managers and Democrats, because they have little to offer by way of proof that DT wasn't inciting insurrection. While I appreciated hearing the more full context of DT's speech on January 6th and his Charlottesville speech, he clearly incited insurrection and no amount of pointing the finger at others who have used similar words, like "fight", will undo that. The elephant in the room is that those other speeches were not made after summoning the cavalry and while a joint session of Congress was meeting to certify an election. None of those other speeches took place in range of an event that it was intended to oppose, and with violence. None of those other speeches were intended to stop the peaceful transition of power.

    It's like watching loan sharks and car salesmen try to sell you oceanfront property in the Everglades.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Evidently somebody messed up the count and failed to report thousands of COVID cases. I can't find the site where I used to get the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Argh!

      What I see is this: https://coronavirus.ohio.gov/wps/portal/gov/covid-19/dashboards/overview

      They expect the totals for the next few days to be higher than usual as they reconcile the numbers since November. So frustrating for you, Susan!

      Delete
  13. Replies
    1. I particularly liked the story about the gal who smashed several of her cell phones before the minions of the law arrived with a search warrant. I hope they were expensive models!

      Delete
  14. Miyoko is signed up for her first dose of the [Pfizer] Covid vaccine next Tuesday. I'm not sure if the call was in response to the online form I filled out a couple of weeks ago, or the different one I filled out a day or two ago, but it certainly doesn't matter. The county was supposed to get 8,000 doses at the beginning of this week, and with no advance notice they got 19,000. That seems to have speeded things up. . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should have read 18,000. But this coming week they are supposed to get another 19,000 doses. The county's two main vaccination sites are able to administer 3,000 doses per day.

      Delete
  15. Trump Refused McCarthy’s Request to Call Off Rioters [Click] It’s more of a story than one would expect from the lede.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Glad for you Alan. Less worry when loved ones get cared for. Worth a whole lot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, puddle. There is confusion about when people less than 75 years old will be vaccinated (I'm a mere 74½), but I am hopeful it will be soon.

      Delete
  17. Postmaster general's new plan could include slower mail and postage hike [Click] This is how he tries to keep his job? Doesn’t sound like it’s going to fly with the new President. I have thought for quite some time that they ought to emulate Deutsche Post. Bring back postal banking, offer e-mail accounts and services, among other things.

    ReplyDelete
  18. VT cases: 13,415-13,249= 166
    2895 active cases
    189 deaths (+1)
    Recovered 10,331 (77%)
    Hospital 47 (-1) ICU 11(+1)
    Tests 315,851 (+1046)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My town has had 3 new cases in the past week.
      Next town to our east had 2. Town to our west had 15. Burlington had 50.

      Delete
  19. From what little I heard of the defense's presentation, seems to me it will give those senators who want to acquit cover to do so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. But not enough cover to stand up to history.

      Delete
    2. They don't need to stand up to History. They just need not to face primary challengers.

      Delete