"In the months after the election, the stock price of CVR, Icahn’s refiner, nearly doubled—a surge that is difficult to explain without acknowledging the appointment of the company’s lead shareholder to a White House position. The rally meant a personal benefit for Icahn, at least on paper, of half a billion dollars."
Although perhaps a better question than the headline would be "Why are publishers and reporters so committed to not actually reporting what is going on?"
You may feel like you're totally up on the news and how bad things are getting in America because you know stuff, like you know how Trump ordered government employees to find proof he had big crowds at his inauguration or how Betsy "I Bought This Cabinet Seat Myself" DeVos was barely confirmed as his Secretary of (Killing Off Public) Education, and of course you are completely up on the fact that he nominated someone for the Supreme Court and he banned Muslims from coming into the country, so congrats, you, on being informed.
Except you aren't.
The other day I found myself thinking Who actually has been confirmed on Trump's cabinet? I was surprised to learn we've got a Secretary of State -- Rex Tillerson! -- since I'd heard nothing much about that (seemingly important) Cabinet position. That, in turn, made me wonder what else I'd been missing as the various real- and fake-media sources went nuts over real news (the Muslim ban) and fake news (the crowds at the inauguration).
There's been a lot going on, it turns out, so much so that I don't know if anyone, including the White House, knows how much has been going on -- like the thing with Steve Bannon slipping in an executive order making himself a member of the National Security Council, something that didn't make the headlines it should because when the ship is sinking it seems like it's less important to also announce the captain has been embezzling money.
While some claim it's the most prolific executive action yet, Wikipedia has 23 such actions by Obama as of the first week of February 2009, so it's not clear even whether the media has as much information as, say, a website voluntarily maintained by anonymous people who get their information primarily from other websites. (If there is an official listing of all executive actions anywhere, I haven't been able to find it.)
Most of the articles that discuss this at all simply list the orders, with no analysis or explanation or context, which means that the media is again not doing very much to help people understand how their government works (or doesn't) and is focusing on the high-profile stories like Betsy DeVos, but that raises the question: are these stories high profile because they are important? Or are they high profile because they are interesting to talk about and easy to understand?
I'm going to look at the specific executive actions going forward, on and off, but in the meantime, ask yourself: whatever the number of executive orders is so far (7, 14, 21, 23?) how many Trump Presidency (TM) actions can you list off the top of your head?
The vast majority of people in this country have little information and less understanding of how government actually works and what government actually does. That's why it's so easy for Republicans to hijack the political process (with at best the complacency of the Democratic Party and at worst the Democrats' own efforts to use 'social issues' to distract from the real issues.) If even the best-informed and politically motivated people have only a vague clue as to what is going on, how can we hope to have people who aren't as energized about the political process to grasp the realities of the situation.
I have a rule for charitable giving that I think makes a lot of sense: if I spend money frivolously -- by buying something that is a pure luxury, like plants in my Plants Vs. Zombies 2 videogame -- I try to match that with a charitable contribution in the same amount, so that if I use $1.99 selfishly I use another $1.99 unselfishly.
I think that applies to politics and information, as well. So try this: every time you click on a story about Donald Trump's Twitter beefs, ask yourself what you know about what he's done that day that matters, and then go read up on that, too.
Scott Walker Says He Would Support Article V Convention To Amend Constitution, said the innocuous-seeming headline on Madison.com, written by editors and reporters who bemoan fake news and the fate of newspapers while contributing to their own demise by completely failing to report on real news, by which I mean "did they ask follow-up questions and possibly see what it was Failed Presidential Candidate Scott Walker doesn't like about our US Constitution which is only The GREATEST CONSTITUTION IN THE WORLD?"
I'm not a political reporter, of course, which means I have a memory, Google, and the desire to use them instead of just hacking away until I get my paycheck, so I googled "ALEC Article V Amendments."
You may remember "ALEC," which was kind of a big deal before the Democrats decided that they would simply blame 'fake news' for their continuing to lose elections. "ALEC" is the "American Legislative Exchange Council" and it is essentially a lobbying group for extremely conservative reform.
The federal government has steadily consolidated its power while eroding state control in ways that are clearly inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Foreseeing this possibility, our constitutional framers created a method for states to introduce amendments to the U.S. Constitution through an Article V Convention. This draft model policy serves as an application to Congress to call an Article V Convention limited to proposing amendments to that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government; limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and limit the terms of office for federal officials and members of Congress.
Now, keep in mind, none of those things are in and of themselves particularly conservative, or bad. Laws which affect both parties equally (like Virginia's stripping of gubernatorial power) can come back to bite you. Remember when the Democrats were mad that GOP senators were stalling things with filibusters? Bernie filibusters all the time, and that Texan legislator won national acclaim for filibustering a Texas abortion law. The "filibuster," by the way, is the ultimate domination of a minority (1 person, or at the most the number of people that 1 person represents) over the majority (us.)
ALEC has also set out, in a 56-page brochure, (available on PDF!) some helpful guidelines for states to call for an run an Article V convention. They include tips like "Don't make applications [for a convention] too general" and "Don't make applications to specific."
One big thing ALEC is pushing is a 'balanced budget amendment.' This, too, is not an automatically bad thing. Thomas Jefferson wanted one, but Jefferson also wanted to prohibit the US from printing paper money. (Nor is consistency a hobgoblin in Jefferson's mind: he later busted the budget buying the Louisiana territory.) Balanced budget amendment talk became big when pushed by a Taxpayers group beginning in the 1980s when Reagan was elected. It should be noted that whenever there is a Republican president, as there has been 20 of the last 36 years, there is nothing that keeps that Republican president from refusing to sign any budget that is not 'balanced.' Same goes for when the GOP controls Congress. The Republican push for a balanced budget amendment is the equivalent of a dieter asking you to lock his refrigerator so he can't raid it.
Then again, under most proposals, you could still raid the 'fridge under a Balanced Budget Amendment, since most proposals would require a budget to be balanced unless 3/5 of Congress -- less than that needed to override a presidential veto -- voted to UNbalance it.
While most articles focus on the Balanced Budget aspect of ALEC's Article V push (which was said to be almost near its goal in 2014, so perhaps even now people, including me, are being alarmist about, but since we were asleep at the switch on the Trumpocalypse, maybe it's time to be a bit alarmist about things again) ALEC also wants an amendment to limit terms in the federal government. Did the Founders believe in term limits? Maybe, maybe not: Washington stepped down after two terms and every president honored that right up until FDR decided to honor the will of the people, after which the Republicans decided that the will of the people was bunk and proposed the 22nd Amendment. (The GOP controlled Congress at the time.)
But the amendment nobody seems to mention is the "Government Of The People" amendment. In this amendment. ALEC proposes to amend the Constitution to let states nullify federal laws they do not like. Nullification, too, is not a new concept: Jefferson and James Madison argued states had the right to nullify the Alien & Sedition Acts, but in 1809 the US Supreme Court said states can't nullify federal laws, what with the US Constitution saying federal laws are the 'supreme' law of the land.
Nullification was perhaps most famously argued on behalf of the states that would form the Confederacy, arguing that the states could nullify federal attempts to make African-Americans people, not property. Nullifcation has also been used, though, to try to help that cause: Wisconsin argued it could nullify the Fugitive Slave Act: Wisconsin state courts had freed a slave, finding the Act unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court reversed.
The GOP spent most of the last 6 years trying to undo Obamacare, but let's not forget the GOP's state- and federal attacks on equal rights for people, voting rights for minorities, and other fundamental areas of our society. The Amendment would let individual states -- controlled by Republicans and an increasingly-conservative judiciary (Scott Walker in Wisconsin has promoted judges who were or are members of the "Federalist Society," an extremely conservative legal group) -- nullify any laws they found inconvenient or unlikeable. Including, say, Medicare or Social Security? Possibly. Such a move would make the United States also more balkanized, more like the European Union than like the United States; it would certainly weaken the federal government, which may sound good to some people at some times but should sound terrible to all people at all times, as it is the federal government, not the states, which have secured equal rights to people, extended the vote to women, provided for a base level of care for our elderly and disabled (shamefully low though it is, it's there), modernized commerce with the US highway system, got us to the Moon, and otherwise turned the United States from a backward, agrarian dependency to the only remaining superpower.
Jezebel then quotes a September -- hey, that's before the election! -- report from Newsweek:
Here’s some context, from a Newsweek report in September:
Many foreign governments retain close ties to and even control of companies in their country, including several that already are partnered with the Trump Organization. Any government wanting to seek future influence with President Trump could do so by arranging for a partnership with the Trump Organization, feeding money directly to the family or simply stashing it away inside the company for their use once Trump is out of the White House. This is why, without a permanent departure of the entire Trump family from their company, the prospect of legal bribery by overseas powers seeking to influence American foreign policy, either through existing or future partnerships, will remain a reality throughout a Trump presidency.
As Jezebel noted, not a single facet of that is actually illegal. If you were wondering why Trump wanted to be president, put a tick next to "in order to make legal, obscene profits for his companies," and close your notebook.
Wisconsin, which prior to today had only two laws making it a serious crime to defraud the government, has taken a big step towards pretending it still has a clean government by threatening to make it extra-super-duper illegal to defraud the government.
Failed presidential "candidate" Scott Walker, who only avoided prosecution on corruption charges because a court packed with "judges" elected by the same big-business donors who backed Walker killed the investigation, expressed support for the bill:
Whoever gives fraudulent information to the state should be prosecuted, Walker said, forgetting that a major donor to his campaign was the impetus for the bill; the donor received a $500,000 "loan" that he never repaid after lying on his application and meeting with Walker aides -- one of whom pressured the Wisconsin Economic Development Commission (WEDC) to make the loan.
Bad Republican Rick Santorum -- whose actual existence is only third on the list of Google results you get when you Google "Santorum" -- has no chance of getting elected president and isn't really trying; he's just trying to up his Q-rating so he can get the time slot that Glenn Beck will be vacating this year on Fox. Which is why he can say stupid things like how pre-kindergarten classes are actually Nazi indoctrination schemes.
Speaking at a Republican forum which featured the people who you won't see in the campaign at this time next year, Santorum talked about the growing threat of "socialism:"
His uncle, he said, “used to get up in a brown shirt and march and be told how to be a good little fascist.... I don’t know, maybe they called it early pre-K or something like that, that the government sponsored to get your children in there so they can indoctrinate them,” Santorum said.
(Source.) I think two key points to take from that quote are that (1) Rick Santorum's uncle was a fascist, and (2) The apple never falls far from the tree:
Republicans, who will let you die in the streets if you disagree with their political views, also do not mind simply making up lies to tell on the floor of Congress, as Republican Senator John Kyl (Liar; AZ), claiming -- falsely-- that abortions make up "90%" of what Planned Parenthood does.
That statement was a lie, and Kyl -- a liar - - knew it; his staff later said that Kyl's speech wasn't intended to be factual.
All things considered, lying isn't as bad as allowing convicted rapists to get health care while denying it to children (as Republicans do), but it's still bad. So John Kyl, welcome to the ranks of Bad Republicans.
Republicans, who would like you to die in the streets because you disagree with them, also feel free to lie to the press about whether or not they punched their girlfriend in the chest, and other Republicans will then defend them.
That report shows that someone had made an emergency call about "a male throwing a female onto the ground," with the male turning out to be Future Wife Beater Scott Bundgaard.
Bundgaard, who will probably beat his children someday, too, claimed to police that he was trying to put his girlfriend back into the car, but he forgot to mention that during the fight inside the car, he'd "used his right arm in a swinging motion and hit Ms. Ballard [the girlfriend] over her chest... twice." Leaving bruises.
Oh, and he forgot to mention that he took the woman's phone and threw it out the window to keep her from calling for help.
He also left out that he'd pushed her to the ground twice, after locking her out of the car.
That all directly contradicts all the lies Bundgaard told the press and his constituents after being arrested and then freed -- did I mention that Bundgaard told the press he didn't want special treatment, but that the report shows he told them he couldn't be arrested because of his position? -- but it's not like he did something really bad, like try to get health care for poor people, so I'm sure he'll be re-elected by a landslide in Arizona -- probably on a platform of "I beat up my girlfriend, I'll beat up some illegal immigrants, too."
Publicus Proventus translates, roughly, to either Public discourse, or "Of the people of growing up," depending on which day you run it through the English-to-Latin translator.
It also means, in this case, my political thoughts, which I've decided to start being more upfront about on this blog (and elsewhere.)
I'm an old politics guy. I used to really, really, like politics: I liked following them, debating them. I liked thinking about governmental issues, and talking about them. I liked a good give-and-take about societal issues. I even ran for office (local office) twice and then almost ran for statewide office, once.
Then I graduated law school and got married and settled into a life of chasing 3-year-olds and coaching softball teams and blogging about Gamera and suing people, and drifted away from it. Eventually, I didn't pay much attention to politics at all. I still voted, dutifully, every four years, but other than that I didn't do much else.
That all began to change, and the first part was when I realized with dismay that I was witnessing, under George W. Bush, the systematic dismantling of our country -- an ongoing build-up of the wrong parts of government, tear-down of the right parts of civil society, and worse. I began to grow concerned that I'd missed something, that maybe things were too far gone for me to change them, and I also wondered what I could do to change them.
As that went on, as I from time-to-time became more involved and tried to follow the issues more and talk about them more with people, I began to want, more and more, to do something about it. But I didn't know what to do about it. I didn't want to run for office, and I didn't have much else I could do.
Except write. So I started, here and there, to write, last fall, mostly, about political issues, something I'd steered away from in all my blogging before that. I shouldn't have steered away from it, because since I began blogging I also had increasingly well-informed (and sometimes alarmed) opinions about what was happening.
But I did steer away from it, largely because I didn't want to offend anyone. I didn't want someone who enjoys reading about my kids, or my music, or my beliefs regarding who might or might not be The Best Rock Band, to get offended because I believed, too, that health care was a universal right.
Eventually, though, my concerns about health care in particular and poor people in general won out, and I began blogging, off-and-on, about political issues, culminating in the One Percent series of posts in which I even offended a long-time reader (who, luckily, came back or never left. Thanks, Petri Dish, for continuing to read!).
After the health care bill passed -- largely because of me, I'm sure -- I thought to myself I should keep this up. There's nothing, after all, that says I can't tell stories about Mr Bunches, and talk about The Best Pizza Topping, and also have a political viewpoint.
So, I'll be publishing Publicus Proventus on Sundays, probably alternating with Nonsportsmanlike Conduct! Or more often. Who knows.
And I'm not sorry if I offend you -- if you're offended by what I believe, you don't have to read - -but you should, if you're offended, tell me why. After all, if you don't care enough to say what you think and then defend it, what you think can't be worth very much, can it?
Here's the posts in this category, most recent first. Page down for the explanation behind this all...