#Senate Bill 235 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

dontmeantobepoliticalbut · 1 year

Text

I almost started this by saying, “well, this is it—things can’t get any dumber,” but then I remembered how many times that statement has turned out to be wrong. What triggered it this time was learning about Montana Senate Bill 235, because if that bill became law, schools in that state would be forbidden to teach science.

Ah. I see that, even after all this time, some of you are still reluctant to believe me when I report things like this. “I’ve trusted you so far, Kevin, to the point that I was about to start writing you a series of large checks on a monthly basis. But now I’m not so sure, because this cannot be real.” But it is. Here’s the Montana state legislature admitting it, and here’s the text of the bill:

“WHEREAS, the purpose of K-12 education is to educate children in the facts of our world to better prepare them for their future …, and to that end children must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory; and

WHEREAS, a scientific fact is observable and repeatable, and if it does not meet these criteria, it is a theory that is defined as speculation and is for higher education to explore, debate, and test to ultimately reach a scientific conclusion of fact or fiction.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

NEW SECTION. Section 1. Requirements for science instruction in schools.

(1) Science instruction may not include subject matter that is not scientific fact.

(2) The board of public education may not include in content area standards any standard requiring curriculum or instruction in a scientific topic that is not scientific fact.

(3) The superintendent of public instruction shall ensure that any science curriculum guides developed by the office of public instruction include only scientific fact.

(4)(a) The trustees of a school district shall ensure that science curriculum and instructional materials, including textbooks, used in the district include only scientific fact.

(b) Beginning July 1, 2025, a parent may appeal the trustees’ lack of compliance … to the county superintendent and, subsequently, to the superintendent of public instruction….

(5) The legislature intends for this section to be strictly enforced and narrowly interpreted.

(6) As used in this section, “scientific fact” means an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon.”

Emphasis added. So if this were to become law, kids in grades K-12 could be instructed only about “scientific facts,” and anything that isn’t a “scientific fact” would be purged from their textbooks. Just the facts—what could be wrong with that, the sponsor of this bill would probably say if you asked him? But of course the kicker is section six, which limits the definition of “scientific fact” to “an indisputable and repeatable observation of a natural phenomenon.” Indisputable. Under this bill, anything that can be disputed would fail to qualify as a “scientific fact,” and could not be taught to the children of Montana.

Taken literally, that would be pretty much everything short of a purely objective measurement. The sponsor probably doesn’t intend it to be taken that literally, and even if he did, stuff like basic chemistry and physics might survive. So kids would still learn to do more than, like, count things. But the word “indisputable” would dramatically limit what can be taught as “science.” (I realize I probably don’t need to explain this to you, but allow me to vent for a couple of paragraphs.) In fact, you could argue this would eliminate the scientific method itself, which is fundamentally about disputing things and trying to disprove hypotheses.

Well, it wouldn’t eliminate it, you just couldn’t teach kids in Montana about it.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Daniel Emrich, isn’t wrong to say that scientific facts should be “observable” and “repeatable,” but he’s plainly unclear on the concept of “theories,” as the preface to the bill shows. Theories are not “defined as speculation.” A particular “theory” might be speculative if it hasn’t been tested, but I think scientists would call that a “hypothesis.” A hypothesis that stands up to testing might get promoted to a “theory,” but that doesn’t mean it becomes “indisputable.” My understanding is that people are still disputing some of what Newton and Einstein thought about gravity, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t tell kids about it. Studies have repeatedly shown it works, even in Montana.

My guess would be that what Emrich is really after here is stuff like the “theory of evolution” or the “theory of climate change,” without actually saying so. He is free to dispute those, but he’s got First Amendment problems with trying to ban teaching them. And I agree that as the preface says, children “must know the difference between scientific fact and scientific theory,” but legislators should too.

To give credit where credit is due, Emrich has also sponsored a bill that would eliminate jail penalties for littering, and I’m completely on board with that one.

#us politics #news #op eds #lowering the bar #montana #2023 #science #trust the science #science bans #Senate Bill 235 #Montana state legislature #republicans #conservatives #gop #scientific facts #Daniel Emrich

53 notes · View notes

ralfmaximus · 1 year

Text

More than 20 people testified against Senate Bill 235, concerned that it could keep teachers from including gravitational theory, evolution and cell theory in curriculum.

Basically anything with "theory" in the title, like The Theory of Evolution or (ahem) Critical Race Theory pisses off Conservatives so they're trying to eliminate it.

Let's only teach proven facts, not theory they say.

Facts like the world was created 6000 years ago, dinosaur fossils are tools of Satan to trick us, and there are only two genders: AK-47 and AR-15.

#february 2023

18 notes · View notes

sleepyleftistdemon · 1 year

Link

At the bill's first public hearing, objectors pointed out that this was likely to be interpreted to ban introduction of any scientific concept commonly referred to with the word "theory." The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are the two most commonly known examples. It would be extremely weird, to say the least, to scrub Newtonian physics from the curriculum because the equations represent a theory of how objects move that, as it turns out, is just a mostly-accurate-enough approximation of what's going on in the quantum realm.

I wonder if they want us stupid for corporations or religions to take over...

4 notes · View notes

96thdayofrage · 2 years

Text

Diamond Campbell, a powerlifter at Bruce High School in Mississippi, was almost disqualified from the state championship April 1.

But it wasn't because of her form. It was because of her hair.

"I remember looking back, and on the board, it'll be green or red. If it's green, you know, you got it. You can go on and do the next weight," Campbell, 16, said in a recent interview, recalling the moment she stepped off the platform after completing her first lift. "So I looked at the board, and it was red. I was confused."

A judge informed one of her coaches that Campbell would need to remove the beads securing the ends of her braids in order to stay in the competition.

A viral photo of some of Campbell's teammates and competitors frantically helping her remove the beads has been shared on Facebook more than 35,000 times, with many people remarking it was an "amazing" and "awesome" display of good sportsmanship. But Campbell; her mother, Melody; and a host of others said they see something different when they look at the image: the results of hair discrimination.

In interviews with NBC News, the parents of two children singled out over their natural hairstyles or textures said their experiences highlight the necessity of the Crown Act, which would ban hair discrimination in workplaces, schools and other contexts. The name "Crown" stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair.

The bill passed the House in March, with a vote of 235-189 mostly along party lines, but it has a murky future in the evenly divided Senate. President Joe Biden has said he would sign the bill into law.

The act would allow Black people and others to wear their hair how they want without fear of being punished or targeted. More than a dozen states — including California, New Jersey and New York — have passed versions of the bill.

Campbell said her experience last month speaks to the need for it.

"I had to finish the lift in a way where my hair wasn't the way that I wanted it to be. It made me feel less confident," she said. "And it stripped, like, a little bit of myself away at that point."

The Mississippi High School Activities Association has since changed the rule and said powerlifters will be allowed to wear beads next season.

But Campbell, a junior at Bruce High School, where a majority of the student body is white, said that will do nothing to address the trauma she experienced.

"I tried to forget about it because it did make me feel bad," she said. "It made me feel low, like humiliated in a way."

"I'm just a teenage girl," she added.

Campbell's experience has drawn comparisons to a December 2018 incident in which Andrew Johnson, a Black varsity high school wrestler in New Jersey with dreadlocks, was forced to choose between cutting his hair or forfeiting his match. Johnson, then 16, went on to win the match. His experience sparked a state civil rights probe.

In Minnesota last month, a mother said her 12-year-old son's teacher cut his Afro without her permission. Tadow McReynolds posted a video of her son's botched haircut to TikTok that she said was viewed more than 1 million times. In a series of Facebook posts, she said her son "was really violated" and that the school had acknowledged no fault.

McReynolds declined a request for an interview, saying she wanted her and her son's lives "to be back as normal as possible." The school's principal, Matthew Kasowicz, who is white, declined to comment on McReynolds' allegations, saying he was prohibited under state and federal law from discussing individual students or employees.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., the lead sponsor of the Crown Act, said hair discrimination disproportionately affects Black people, and how a person wears their hair has no impact on their ability to do a job, obtain an education or compete in sports.

"As a student, this is an insidious form of discrimination," Watson Coleman said in an interview. "It needs to be eliminated. There needs to be consequences for those who violate that law."

She said the bill would amend civil rights laws to extend the definition of illegal discrimination to include natural hair or hairstyles that people wear to communicate or emulate the African or Black culture, such as Afros, braids, Bantu knots, locs and twists.

"We shouldn't have to deal with this at this time, in 2022, in the most diverse country in the world," Watson Coleman said. "And to see these events continue to take place suggests the very urgent need to pass this legislation in the Senate."

When Desiree Bullock moved from Cincinnati to East Bernard, Texas, in February, she said she was prevented from enrolling her son, Dyree Williams, in East Bernard High School because of his hair. She said a guidance counselor told her his hair went against the school district's dress code policy for male students, a copy of which she provided to NBC News. It states that "braided hair or twisted rows/strands will not be allowed" and that boys' hair may not extend below the eyebrows, tops of the ears or a "conventional standup shirt collar." The majority of students at the school are white, according to data from the Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics.

Bullock said she told the counselor that her son has locs, and she said the counselor replied, "Well, he's going to have to cut those." Bullock said she then contacted Courtney Hudgins, the superintendent of the East Bernard Independent School District, to seek an exemption for her son but she was shot down. In an email shared with NBC News, Hudgins told Bullock: "Assuming the children can meet the dress code requirements, as well as all necessary paperwork for enrollment, they are welcome to enroll with our district registrar."

Reached via email, Hudgins did not answer specific questions regarding Bullock's allegations, including whether Williams' locs would prevent him from enrolling in the high school. In a statement, Hudgins said the school district "has not denied enrollment to the individual involved in this situation, as no enrollment or registration documents have been filed. East Bernard ISD intends to comply with state law regarding enrollment and attendance if and when an enrollment application is completed."

Bullock, who provides home care for students and adults with developmental disabilities, said she is now home-schooling her son and two of her other children, ages 12 and 14. Williams said he feels like he is being discriminated against and that being home-schooled has prevented him from competing in high school sports, something he looked forward to.

"It really impacted me hard," he said.

Bullock said the episode has also taken a toll on his self-esteem, but she has assured him he doesn't have to change his hair for anyone.

"The type of parent I am, I talk to my child all the time and I let him know, whatever they think about you, that's something within them, not you," she said.

Bullock is hopeful the Crown Act will become a national law.

"I do plan on staying in Texas," she said. "I actually plan for that law to pass and for things to change."

4 notes · View notes

sridharm-1980 · 1 month

Text

🗣 The Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives and Democratic-majority Senate on Friday will scramble to beat a midnight government shutdown deadline by passing a $1.2 trillion bill keeping the government funded through September.

#DJIA

#NASDAQ100

#SP500

#DAX

#CAC40

#FTSE

#Sensex

#Nifty

#nikkei

#ASX200

DOW JONES ,NASDAQ, S&P 500

FUTURES INCH LOWER....

TRADE SAFELY AND SMARTLY🤝👍

HAPPY TRADING👍❤

HAPPY WEEKEND....🤝⚽️ 🏈⚾️🎾🏸🏓♟⛱🍹🥂🍷🍾 🍾 🍾

LOVE YOU ALL MY LOVABLE ❤

ALL 235 COUNTRIES

#stockmarkets INVESTORS TRADERS,PREDICTORS ,

TRACKERS WORLDWIDE 🌐......

IN EARTH 🌎........🤝💓💗💖💯🙏

ALWAYS NO.1

MASTERMIND

YOUR DON SRIDHAR.M

YOUR GODFATHER OF MASSES

LOVE YOU ALL MY LOVABLE ❤

ALL 235 COUNTRIES

#stockmarkets INVESTORS TRADERS,PREDICTORS ,

TRACKERS WORLDWIDE 🌐......

IN EARTH 🌎......💋 💋 💋💋

💋 💋 💋 💓💗💖💯🙏

THIS IS SRIDHAR.M☝

0 notes

xtruss · 2 months

Text

What Are Russia's Top 5 Anti-Satellite Systems?

— Ekaterina Blinova | Thursday February 15, 2024

Russia has effective means to thwart adversary satellites, including arms based on new physical principles. What are they? Moscow trashed the groundless rumors of its alleged efforts to deploy a nuclear anti-satellite system in space on February 15.

A day earlier, mainstream US media claimed that Washington had informed Congress and its European allies about Russia's work on a new, space-based nuclear weapon designed to undermine the US satellite network.

A new bugaboo about Russia's supposed plans to destroy American satellites with nuclear arms is aimed at ramming a $60 billion funding package for Ukraine through US Congress, military analyst and editor-in-chief of the National Defense magazine Igor Korotchenko told Sputnik on Thursday. Even though the package in question was earlier passed in the US Senate as part of a $95 billion bill, the chances of the House approving the legislation is considered slim.

According to Korotchenko, Russia has cheaper and more effective means of anti-satellite warfare than those that Washington accuses it of developing.

“This is a question of approaches. The fact is that the deployment of nuclear weapons in space is ineffective in terms of its use, especially given that Russia has much simpler and cheaper means to disable, in the event of hostilities, a significant part of the US satellite constellation," the expert underscored.

Sputnik has taken a look at the systems that could do the job.

The Nudol System

On November 15, 2021, Moscow conducted a direct-ascent hit-to-kill anti-satellite (ASAT) test using the A-235 Nudol Anti-Satellite System. The test shot down an old Soviet reconnaissance satellite launched back in 1982.

The A-235 Nudol is an improved modification of the A-135 Amur strategic missile defense system. The missile can hit a target at a distance of up to 1,500 kilometers (versus 850 kilometers for the A-135), while its interception speed is increased to Mach 10 (versus Mach 3.5 for the A-135).

In contrast to its predecessor, the A-235 May Use Kinetic Force, not nuclear or high-explosive fragmentation, to destroy the target.

The development of the A-235 Nudol started in 1985-1986 and was carried out in compliance with international ballistic missile agreements existing at the time. The weapon was designed to become the first Soviet mobile missile defense system capable of intercepting intercontinental-range missiles, spacecraft and satellites operating at high orbits.

Immediately after the Cold War, the development of the A-235 was suspended and restarted in 2011 by Almaz-Antey, nine years after the Bush administration unilaterally terminated the Antiballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002.

The system has been tested several times since 2014; however, in November 2021 the missile was fired at a specific moving space target and eventually destroyed it, causing a fuss in the Pentagon.

Russian Scientists Suggest New Means of Satellite Control! © Photo: JSC Academician MF Reshetnev Information Satellite Systems

Nanosatellites: Nivelir, Burevestnik and Numismat

The development of Russia's secretive project Nivelir ("Leveler") has reportedly been carried out by the Central Scientific Research Institute of Chemistry and Mechanics Named after D.I. Mendeleyev since 2011.

The endeavor supposedly envisaged building small satellites designed to inspect other satellites in space. The first three satellite-inspectors were reportedly attached to three communications satellites launched between 2013 and 2015.

According to other sources, Russia has been experimenting with satellite inspectors since 2017. The satellites maneuvered in orbit, moving away from each other and then getting closer. In 2019, the Cosmos-2535 and Cosmos-2536 devices were launched. Their goal was to study the impact of "artificial and natural factors of outer space" on Russia's space devices and to develop "technology for their protection."

It is understood that the idea behind placing satellite-inspectors in specific orbits is to affect "adversary" satellites in various ways, including "inspecting" them, i.e. collecting all necessary information on them.

The Burevestnik Project (not to be confused with the ballistic missile) is reportedly being developed on the basis of the Nivelir project. The spacecraft is allegedly capable of tracking many fast-moving objects in space at once, including missiles and satellites in high orbits. The so-called Numismat ("Numismatist", or "coin collector") radar systems for near space is also said to be developed in Russia. These are also "nanosatellites" that are difficult to detect.

The Kontakt System

The USSR started to develop the 30P6 Kontakt ("Contact") system in 1983. The 79М6 munition – a three-stage rocket – was supposed to be mounted on the MiG-31D fighter-interceptor.

Launched from an airplane at an altitude of 15 kilometers the munition was designed to fire a fragmentation warhead into space. It was assumed that the Kontakt system would be a stealth and inexpensive means of destroying enemy satellites.

A series of tests ended up in an allegedly successful launch that took place on July 26, 1991. An experimental aircraft Izdeliye "07-2" (MiG-31D) armed with the 79M6 missile suspension took off from the Sary-Shagan airfield over the Bet-Pak Dala training grounds. It is known that two stages of the rocket were solid-propelled, and the last stage, which controlled the final guidance of the kinetic warhead at the target, was liquid.

The MiG-31 fighter was picked since it can fly at extreme altitudes in the stratosphere while carrying large non-standard missiles and firing all types of weapons at maximum altitude. In addition, the MiG-31's capabilities allow it to carry large-caliber anti-satellite weapons.

The secretive project was frozen after the collapse of the USSR, but in 2009, Russia announced the resumption of work on Kontakt using the MiG-31. According to the media, the Russian military is currently testing the upgraded version of the system.

The Tirada Electronic Warfare System

According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Tirada-2S Radio-Electronic Communication Suppression System is capable of electronically jamming satellite communications with complete disabling. In this case, satellites can be deactivated directly from the Earth's surface.

There is little information about the system's specifications in the public domain. The system was first mentioned by the deputy head of the 46th Central Research Institute of the Russian Ministry of Defense Oleg Achasov in 2017. Achasov said that the Tirada-2S mobile complex to jam communication satellites was created as part of the weapons modernization program for 2018-2027.

A year later, at the international military-technical forum "Army-2018" a contract was signed for the supply of an automated satellite communication jamming station "Tirada 2.3" to the Russian military.

In 2020, the mysterious electronic warfare was tested by the personnel of the Central Military District in the Sverdlovsk region. The Ministry of Defense noted at the time that "the crews of the Tirada complex trained the detection of satellite communication channels that provide a cycle of combat control and data transmission by reconnaissance aircraft and sabotage groups of a mock enemy. Having identified the channel and belonging to a space satellite, the Tirada crews conducted suppression and set up controlled interference to prevent the signal from passing through."

The Peresvet Laser System

On March 1, 2018, Russian President Vladimir Putin first mentioned Russia's laser weapon for air defense and anti-satellite warfare, the Peresvet, during his address to the Federal Assembly.

The Peresvet, named after a medieval Orthodox warrior monk Alexander Peresvet, entered experimental combat duty in the Russian Armed Forces in December 2018. By February 2019, the Russian president announced the laser installations had confirmed their unique characteristics along with the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles.

According to Russian military observers, the laser system is capable of blinding the optical systems of reconnaissance satellites, drones, and aircraft. The Peresvet project remains classified, so it's hard to say what type of laser it is equipped with. Some scientists believe that this is a nuclear-pumped laser, others believe that the complex uses an oxygen-iodine laser (OIL) with iodine explosive pumping.

The aforementioned systems are just a few of those potentially developed by the Russian military-industrial complex, indicating that Russia is capable of using its decades-long scientific and technological potential to ensure the nation's security in the event of a large-scale conflict.

0 notes

maswartz · 1 year

Link

You can practically see the future generations of Americans becoming dumber in real time.

1 note · View note

meret118 · 1 year

Text

#GOP

0 notes

biglisbonnews · 1 year

Photo

Montana bill would ban teaching of scientific theories in schools Montana freshman Senator Daniel Emrich (R) thinks children shouldn't be taught scientific theories. He introduced Senate Bill 235, which says, "The trustees of a school district shall ensure that science curriculum and instructional materials, including textbooks, used in the district include only scientific fact." — Read the rest https://boingboing.net/2023/02/08/montana-bill-would-ban-teaching-of-scientific-theories-in-schools.html

#Post #very stable geniuses #Mark Frauenfelder #Boing Boing

0 notes

dnaamericaapp · 2 years

Text

'It Made Me Feel Low': African American Students Urge Passage Of Crown Act To End Hair Discrimination

Diamond Campbell, a powerlifter at Bruce High School in Mississippi, was almost disqualified from the state championship April 1.

But it wasn't because of her form. It was because of her hair.

A judge informed one of her coaches that Campbell would need to remove the beads securing the ends of her braids in order to stay in the competition.

Stay tuned…

DNA America

“it’s what we know, not what you want us to believe.”

#dna #dnaamerica #news #politics

0 notes

rapeculturerealities · 2 years

Text

House passes Crown Act banning discrimination against Black hairstyles

The House on Friday passed the Crown Act, which would ban hair-related discrimination.

The measure, H.R. 2116, passed in a vote of 235-189 along party lines. It was introduced by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J.

Crown stands for Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair, and the act prohibits "discrimination based on an individual's texture or style of hair." The bill now goes to the Senate.

#Hr2116 #Crown act #Black hair #Black hair styles #Racism #Misogynoir

282 notes · View notes

sarcasticcynic · 2 years

Text

The Violence Against Women Act provides funding toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil lawsuits in cases where prosecutors choose not to pursue criminal charges. VAWA was first introduced in 1990 by then-Senator Joe Biden. It first passed in 1994, under President Clinton, with broad bipartisan support: the votes were 235-195 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate.

Bipartisan majorities in Congress reauthorized VAWA in 2000, and again in 2005 under President Bush. This bipartisan support for VAWA--like so many other things--vanished once an African-American sat in the Oval Office: when VAWA was up for reauthorization in the 2012-13 legislative session, under President Obama, many Republicans suddenly decided they had to oppose it. It passed anyway, and Obama signed it into law in 2013.

VAWA next came up for reauthorization in 2018. At the time, Trump held the White House and Republicans controlled both the House of Representatives and the Senate, so it would have been easy for the GOP to pass a bill reauthorizing VAWA. But Donald Trump is openly hostile towards women with claims of assault for some reason, and the GOP adopted his views and let VAWA languish.

On July 26, 2018, 104 Democrats sponsored the “Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2018” in the House of Representatives. Not a single Republican joined them, however; instead, Republican House leadership decided to refer the bill to six different House committees, where it died.

Democrats tried again after they took control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, introducing the "Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019." It passed the House in April of 2019, but died in the Republican-controlled Senate. Just another of the many bills for which then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unilaterally prevented any debate, let alone a vote.

After Democrats took control of the House, the Senate, and the White House in the 2020 elections, Democrats introduced the "Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2021." It passed the House in March of 2021, and went to the Senate... where Minority Leader McConnell indicated that Republicans would filibuster the bill, so it died yet again despite the Democratic majority.

And now suddenly House Republicans are bragging about the wonderful "bipartisanship" that has enabled some of them to cosponsor the "Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022." They're particularly proud of themselves for preserving the so-called "boyfriend loophole" (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(32), (33))--which the NRA supports--in an effort to scrape together enough Republican support in the Senate to overcome the GOP filibuster that they know for a fact McConnell will demand:

"I have full confidence that this is going to pass in the Senate ... what's important now is to get something at least 60 senators can agree on."

Congratulations, guys! It took you only ten years--and Angelina Jolie--to get your fucking heads out of your fucking asses and go back to protecting women against violence, which had always been a bipartisan issue until you decided to make it political. Yeah, forgive us for not throwing you a ticker-tape parade.

9 notes · View notes

feelingbluepolitics · 5 years

Text

On the trump/McConnell shut down, with analysis added to the analysis.

"McConnell (R-Ky.) could bring a “clean” funding bill to the floor, free up his GOP caucus to support it and could quite possibly secure enough votes to override a presidential veto."

Notes: There's no question that McConnell could pull together 2/3rds of the Senate to override trump's budget veto. If he's shooting for 67 veto votes, he's starting with every Democratic vote, because there isn't a Democrat in Congress who will miss an opportunity to veto trump in general.

Very few in Congress ever cared about the stupid wall; even trump didn't. He cared about being torn down and mocked by Ann Coulter, who, as a shock jockette, fully embraced the wall from the beginning.

But McConnell may, or may not, have enough pull to help pull off a 2/3rds override in the House. The House, which normally has 435 members, currently has 434 because North Carolina Republicons cheat grossly in elections and it's a complete mess relating to Mark Harris. But with 235 Democrats now holding the majority, it is still a huge question of corraling enough House Republicons to get to 2/3rds. McConnell, not stupid, is taking a pass on bidding against himself.

McConnell, as the Party leader, 1) has little interest in fracturing Republicons, preferring always a solid block of opposition against Democrats, and 2) is fruitlessly, passive-aggressively, teaching trump a retrospective lesson.

The lesson looks a bit like this:

trump: I think I'll lose lots of weight this year.

McConnell: Do it cautiously and cunningly so you don't weaken yourself.

trump: No.

McConnell: Ok. You stupid, irritating fool. (And withholds all food indefinitely.)

"McConnell already did it once, when he believed he had [t]rump’s blessing. Before the holidays he allowed a vote to keep the government running until Feb. 8, to avoid a shutdown and buy more time to negotiate [t]rump’s demand for border wall funding. It passed easily.

"But then [t]rump bowed to pressure from his base, House Republicans dared not challenge him, and the parts of the government that had not yet been funded were shut down.

"Now it’s 21 days later and we’re teetering toward the longest government shutdown in American history, with no sense of how it will end. Many federal workers are missing their first paycheck Friday and are resorting to crowdfunding, side jobs and even selling their belongings to pay their bills. A[n] advocate for veterans sounded a dire warning that financial insecurity is a leading cause of suicide. The FBI agents union said not paying agents amounts to a national security threat.

"When Senate Democrats tried this week to bring up a House-passed bill to open parts of the government unrelated to border security, like the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Agriculture, McConnell batted it down, saying, 'The last thing we need to do right now is to trade absolutely pointless show votes back and forth across the aisle.'

"That from a politician who in December was saying confidently that Congress was going to avoid a shutdown."

Notes: Exactly. trump stomped in with a repudiation of McConnell. McConnell is always a force of punitive evil. Haven't we noticed yet?

Also, trump is the ugly face of the Republicon Party right now, but McConnell is its reptilian, calculating mind and its lack of soul. McConnell is its Horcrux.

Also, although we the public are just now finding out about the FBI's actual, long-term, open investigation into whether trump really is a Russian tool, McConnell is in it up to his neck, having extorted federal government silence to get trump elected in the face of these extreme concerns. If he is too cold-blooded to feel concern, he's not too cold-blooded to feel ice cold anger, and all this is very current, running in tandem with trump lurching into a shut down and twisting in the vortex of McConnell's icy ire.

..."McConnell has left the shutdown public relations to other Republicans, skipping news conferences and keeping a low profile. He maintains the position that he won’t fracture the party and bring up a bill that [t]rump won’t sign, so he can argue this is a problem for [t]rump and House Democrats to figure out.

"Already some GOP senators up for election in 2020, such as Cory Gardner (Colo.) and Susan Collins (Maine), are deflecting, calling for an end to the shutdown regardless of the border wall money.

..."Meanwhile, in McConnell’s home state, there’s an effort to draw more attention to his lack of effort to intervene in the standoff. Federal workers protested outside of his office, a Democratic group is putting up a billboard to pressure McConnell, and an opinion writer at the Louisville Courier-Journal penned a column titled: 'McConnell, stop sitting on your hands. End this government shutdown.'”

Notes: McConnell = impervious Horcrux. Pressure is not going to work.

But let's not make any mistakes on this one, key point. While Democrats are no longer powerless overall, and on the surface it looks like a battle between trump and Pelosi's House, this shut down is actually Republicon warfare.

It is the trump/McConnell shut down. But it is also a trump versus McConnell set battle, with both closer in effect than they have ever come to seriously wounding the Republicon Party with the fall out. McConnell has put trump and his border wall outside the Party wall in the cold, and now we are all watching the non-leader twist ineffectively in the rope he impulsively grabbed and stole, which is hanging his political career day by day while McConnell folds his arms and watches without expression.

65 notes · View notes

theliberaltony · 5 years

Link

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Only a few dozen of the 235 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives have publicly called for the impeachment of President Trump, or even for Congress to launch a formal impeachment investigation. And that number hasn’t meaningfully changed — so far, at least — even after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller gave a closing public statement Wednesday in which he all but said his investigation concluded that Trump obstructed justice regarding the probe of potential Russian interference in the 2016 election.

But the relatively small number of Democrats calling for impeachment doesn’t mean the vast majority of House Democrats oppose impeachment — or, more precisely, that they would vote “no” on impeachment. In fact, it’s likely the overwhelming majority of House Democrats would vote to both the launch of an impeachment inquiry and for impeachment itself if either or both came up for a vote.1

That’s why the dynamics of impeachment are so interesting and complicated. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seems reluctant to allow Democrats to really even start the impeachment process. That may be because she understands that once it gets going, Democrats wary of impeachment, even Pelosi herself, are going to feel a lot of pressure to take pro-impeachment votes.

So it’s worth thinking about House Democrats and impeachment by basically dividing the party’s members into four blocs, rather than simple “for” and “against”:

1. Publicly in favor of starting the impeachment process now (About 40 members)

These are the Democrats who have called for Congress to start a formal impeachment process. Some of them have already said Trump should be impeached, while others have emphasized they simply favor starting the process. (News organizations are using slightly different standards to define “pro-impeachment” and some members of Congress are making statements that aren’t totally clear on this issue, so that’s why we are using ranges instead of precise counts.)

This group includes recently elected lawmakers like Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib but also some veterans like House Budget Committee Chairman John Yarmuth of Kentucky. It’s clear they would vote to start the impeachment process. And if actually impeaching Trump came to a vote, these members almost certainly would vote in favor.

2. Generally known to oppose starting the impeachment process but likely to support it in a formal vote (five to 10 members)

Pelosi, No. 2 Steny Hoyer and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the No. 5 ranking Democrat, have all been publicly resistant to impeachment. Illinois’ Cheri Bustos and Connecticut’s Rosa DeLauro, two other members of the party’s leadership, have argued against pushing impeachment in private meetings of senior Democrats, according to Politico and the Washington Post. (Neither congresswoman has denied those characterizations.)

Other Democrats who have publicly downplayed the idea of beginning an impeachment inquiry include Connecticut’s Jim Himes and civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis of Georgia.

The general argument from this bloc is that impeachment serves little purpose because the GOP-controlled Senate is unlikely to seriously consider removing the president from office. Moreover, these lawmakers argue, impeachment proceedings might result in a political backlash against Democrats. (That the Senate would not vote to remove Trump is almost certainly true; I have some doubts about whether the public would necessarily turn against Democrats because of impeachment.)

But here’s the thing about these members: Nearly all of them represent heavily Democratic-leaning districts and almost never take the president’s position in key votes, according to our Trump Score. It’s simply hard to imagine, if a vote on either starting an impeachment inquiry or impeaching Trump actually occurred, that these members would vote “no.”

For one, polls suggest a majority of Democratic voters support impeachment, and many of the party’s activists are pushing the idea hard. So there would be strong political pressure for a “yes” vote in many of these members’ districts. Secondly, Pelosi, in particular, has argued she believes Trump has committed impeachable offenses — so she would have a hard time defending a “no” vote on the substance.

Pelosi, of course, has a lot of control over what gets to the House floor for a formal vote.2 So she can create all kinds of impediments to an impeachment vote happening in the first place. But if a vote on impeachment occurs, I think Pelosi herself would vote in favor.

3. Not publicly for impeachment but likely to vote for it (about 150 House members)

This is the “silent majority,” so to speak, among House Democrats — the rank-and-file members. So far, they haven’t been clamoring for impeachment — either because they broadly agree with Pelosi’s view that impeachment is bad politics for the party or because they’re simply deferring, at least for now, to the political judgment of the Californian who House Democrats have chosen as their leader since 2002.

These members haven’t quite been utterly silent, to be sure.

“Special Counsel Mueller made clear today that it is up to Congress to take further action,” Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana said in a statement Wednesday after Mueller’s remarks. “It is the responsibility of Congress to respond to numerous cases of misconduct described in the Mueller report and to ensure that no one is above the rule of law.

See what he did there? I’m not sure exactly if Richmond is calling for impeachment or not — and I assume that was the point.

In any case, just like the “publicly opposed to impeachment” group, these members largely represent safe Democratic districts — districts that are blue enough to withstand an impeachment backlash even if it did occur. And with polls suggesting that a majority of Democrats overall favor impeachment, that’s likely the position held by the majority of these members’ constituents. As Richmond’s statement suggests, I would therefore be surprised if the average Democratic representative voted against impeachment if it came up for a vote.

4. Conservative and swing-seat Democrats who might actually vote “no” (30 to 50 members)

There are 31 House Democrats who represent districts that Trump won in 2016. Many of those Democrats are also members of the Blue Dog Coalition, a bloc of the Democrats’ most conservative members, but 15 of the Blue Dogs are not from Trump districts.

These are the Democrats with the clearest incentives to vote against some kind of impeachment resolution — their constituents voted for the president, opted to back a moderate for the House or both. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, a Blue Dog, and Anthony Brindisi of New York, a Blue Dog and from a Trump-won district, are among those in this bloc who have recently spoken out against impeachment.

Even this group would face some pressure in their districts to back an impeachment resolution, since I would assume the kinds of activists who donate money and volunteer for even conservative Democrats are still fairly anti-Trump. And that fact, maybe more than anything, explains why the Democratic leadership has resisted the impeachment push.

Democrats have 235 votes in the House, so at least some members who represent the 31 districts that supported Trump in 2016 would have to back an impeachment resolution for it to pass by simple majority (218). And that could hurt their re-election prospects in 2020, perhaps jeopardizing Democrats’ majority. Pelosi is aware of the cross pressures these members would face from an impeachment vote and is trying to take that on her herself instead of leaving these members in a tough position.

If impeachment came up for a vote, there is almost certainly a pro-impeachment majority among House Democrats. There is likely a pro-impeachment majority in the House overall, because even some members in districts that backed Trump may not be able to vote against impeachment, considering the details described in Mueller’s report and the demands of their more liberal constituents. So expect the kabuki dance between Pelosi and the pro-impeachment bloc to continue. The pro-impeachment group probably has the votes, if there is a vote. But Pelosi can probably stop a vote from ever taking place — particularly if the silent majority of House members never really pushes for one.

#IFTTT #Politics – FiveThirtyEight #politics #538 #Perry Bacon Jr.

7 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 5 years

Link

On Tuesday afternoon, US Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, put the “Green New Deal,” a policy proposal co-sponsored by 89 out of 235 Democrats in the House of Representatives and 11 out 47 in the Senate, up for a vote on the Senate floor.

The “Green New Deal” has made endless headlines since it was introduced over a month ago by two Democrats: New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey. The content of the proposal is a non-binding resolution introduced in both houses of Congress calling for transitioning American energy production to non-carbon-based sources within 10 years.

The WSWS has previously exposed the bogus character of the “Green New Deal,” which promotes the fiction that there is a solution to climate change within the framework of the United States and while preserving the capitalist system—in other words, a national, “free market” solution to a threat to the existence of humanity that requires global economic planning only possible under world socialism (see: “The fallacies and evasions of the Green New Deal”).

Tuesday’s political stunt added new layers of duplicity, with the Republicans carrying out a cynical maneuver to force the Democrats to vote for the bill offered by Markey and Ocasio-Cortez. Instead, not a single Democrat did so.

The final tally was 57-0 against the bill, with 43 Democrats voting “present,” the equivalent of abstaining. The 11 Democratic senators who had publicly endorsed the bill declined to vote for it, including such presidential candidates as Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. Three Democrats openly voted no: Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona (a one-time Green Party activist!), and Doug Jones from Alabama. Senator Angus King from Maine, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted against it.

The overwhelming majority of Republicans are deeply hostile to any government action on the issue of climate change, with many going as far to deny the existence of a climate crisis altogether. Others oppose climate change policy because they, along with many Democrats, are paid stooges of big fossil fuel companies. Some fall into both categories.

McConnell and the Republicans called a vote on the issue knowing it would cause a crisis for the Democratic Party. They hoped to force Democrats to publicly dissociate themselves from the bill—and thus embarrass themselves in front of young people and others genuinely committed to fighting climate change—and on this score they succeeded.

What accounts for the zero votes in favor of a policy proposal that is being co-sponsored by 100 Democratic representatives and senators? After all, it has been endorsed by many 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates, and action on climate change has broad support throughout the country, even in many Republican districts.

The Democrats could not agree to a vote, first and foremost, because they knew it would reveal that most of them oppose even this minimal and non-binding resolution. The vote is another indication that the Democratic Party has no intention of passing the “Green New Deal,” or any other policy proposal which might infringe on the profits of big business, to which they are tied hand and foot.

The leader of the Democrats in Congress, multimillionaire Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, has derisively referred to the resolution as a “green dream.” For his part, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, known as the “senator from Wall Street,” has received $310,020 from the oil and gas industry throughout his political career.

Even Democratic supporters and co-sponsors of the Green New Deal with less damning pro-corporate records have since qualified their support, calling the proposal merely “aspirational.” In the words of co-sponsor and Democratic presidential hopeful Senator Amy Klobuchar, it is at best “something that we need to move toward.”

However, the most deceitful aspect of the whole framework of this “debate” lies in the content of the Green New Deal itself. While drawing attention to some of the most critical aspects of the climate crisis, this proposal, even if it were adopted by Congress, would have zero impact on federal policy. Its non-binding status means that the US government would not in any way be required to work toward its stated goals.

So far to the right is the Democratic Party that it cannot even be pressured to vote for a proposal brought forward by its own representatives that requires that it does nothing!

It is in this context that the role of Ocasio-Cortez, the face of the Green New Deal, must be understood. Her role in Tuesday’s drama was to encourage Democrats to vote “present” to cover over the divisions within the party over this political fraud.

Ocasio-Cortez is painted by the media and the various fake-left organizations in the orbit of the Democratic Party, above all the Democratic Socialists of America, as an insurgent who is “taking on” the old guard of the party. Her “Green New Deal” has been held up as evidence of her commitment to “radical” change.

Tuesday’s debacle revealed on a small scale the entire political function of Ocasio-Cortez. Instead of pressuring the Democrats to take a stand on the Green New Deal, she covered for their refusal to do so.

Political figures and parties must be judged, as Lenin once put it, “not by the glittering uniforms they don or by the high-sounding appellations they give themselves, but by their actions and by what they actually advocate.”

Ocasio-Cortez is a Democrat, who supports Democratic Party policies, toes the Democratic Party line, advocates supporting Democratic Party candidates, and praises the stellar leadership of Speaker Pelosi, a key political agent of the US ruling elite and the military-intelligence apparatus.

She criticizes social inequality, global warming, etc. but refuses to say anything about the social system that produces these maladies and the political forces responsible for them. She proposes curing inequality by supporting the Democratic Party, one of the two parties that promotes it. She proposes to attack the wealth of the rich while leaving untouched the economic system upon which this wealth is based. In the case of climate change, she calls for radical policies (in words) on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, while on Tuesday giving her party an amnesty when it came to an actual vote.

The media campaign around Ocasio-Cortez and her Green New Deal is a repetition of the operation that was mounted behind the 2016 Sanders campaign, which was used to promote the fiction that the Democratic Party can be reformed. Sanders’ own role in 2016 was to channel opposition behind Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the military and Wall Street. Ocasio-Cortez is being primed to perform this same role in the 2020 elections.

There exists a powerful force capable of taking on the issue of climate change, along with every other fundamental issue facing humanity today, and it is not the Democratic Party. It is the American and international working class, in the struggle for socialism.

This author also recommends:

The fallacies and evasions of the Green New Deal [5 March 2019]

The political role of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [31 January, 2019]

Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders praise McCain: An object lesson in the politics of the pseudo-left [28 August 2018]

#ocasio-cortez #bernie sanders #socialism #green new deal #demorats #republicunts

3 notes · View notes