Paris, or, I should not be held responsible for my actions.

So of course it is well known by now that we've pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement.  One thing that actually struck me is the amount on misinformation on the agreement, and how well Republicans have used that to their advantage.

The agreement never sets limits for us, or anyone else.  What it does is establish carbon markets, a program to assist poorer nations to develop renewable energy infrastructures by providing funding as an incentive against fossil fuel usage even when fossil fuels cost less, and a fining system for those who violate parts of the agreement.

This has been a big sticking point with some Americans.  "Why should we have to give them anything?" Because we in the United States extracted the largest material gain, by far, from two centuries of unchecked fossil fuel consumption and polluting. This is ill-gotten wealth we have obtained, and now we're going to act like we don't owe anyone anything?

We are more responsible for human-related carbon emissions throughout history than all other nations, both historical and present, combined.  By, like, a lot too.  We used to be a nation that took responsibility for our actions, and made things right when we did wrong.  But now we have Lying Traitor trump is I guess whatever.

Good Riddance to the Filibuster

Strom Thurmond's 24-hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957

The Republican majority in the senate recently confirmed Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch after the majority changed the rules to do away with the filibuster of Supreme Court justices. The move to end the filibuster will continue until an important enough piece of legislation is passed by the Republicans and filibustered by the Democrats; then the filibuster will finally be gone for good. I for one, am happy about this. I'm not happy about Gorsuch or the wave of terrible legislation that will eventually become law, but the filibuster itself is one of the more reprehensible legislative tricks allowed in our government.

The filibuster is a procedural technique allowing a single senator or senators to ramble on endlessly to prevent a vote on legislation that has been passed by the majority. The filibuster was first used in 1837 and in 1917 a rule called cloture was introduced. Cloture was the ability for a larger majority to end a filibuster and it originally required a vote of two-thirds and then three-fifths in 1975. The existence of the filibuster and the rules of our senate get even more bizarre: Cloture can be eliminated by a simple majority vote, but as I just said, cloture can only be invoked with 60 votes or a "supermajority" but the rules can be changed with merely a majority vote. Does anyone else find this whole process a little odd?

The filibuster itself is mentioned nowhere is the Constitution and while the Constitution states that the senate can set its own rules, it also says in the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". Now in fairness, the Ninth Amendment could be interpreted to make a great number of things unconstitutional, but since the Constitution lays out a few very specific scenarios in which more than a majority vote is needed and passing routine legislation and making appointments isn't one of them, I think it's certainly fair to question the constitutionality of the filibuster.

Constitutionality aside, how is any of this remotely democratic?* Shouldn't a majority be able to rule as a majority? I think so. 

Ultimately, elections have consequences and the majority that wins out should be able to rule with constraints, but those constraints shouldn't include simply finding an angry minority to blather on about something as to prevent legislation or an appointment favored by the elected majority. With a majority in congress, the presidency, the elimination of the filibuster, and a majority on the Supreme Court, the Republicans own everything that happens. That's the way it should be.

*Some of you may correctly point out that the senate isn't democratic. This is true of course, but that's another post.

We're All Criminals

A common rhetorical dodge used by people who want crackdowns on immigration is that they're only opposed to "illegal" immigration.  I have to wonder if these people have ever received a speeding ticket because that is roughly the same level of crime we're talking about.  We're all criminals in one form or another.  I have yet to meet someone who has never driven their car too fast, drank underage, used illegal drugs, downloaded music or movies illegally, or stolen office supplies.  The entire American southwest was stolen from Mexico in the Mexican-American War to expand slavery; a practice which is now illegal.  You could say that collectively, all of us who descended from immigrants posses stolen property.  Legality has nothing to do with justice or morality, it merely expresses power.  It's hard for me to get worked up about people who cross some arbitrary line in the sand or overstay their visa usually for the purposes of working.

With Trump's latest executive action, any undocumented immigrant suspected of any crime or deemed by any law enforcement officer as a threat to public safety will be subject to deportation. Furthermore, I've always been unclear about what counts as probable cause for arrest for an immigration violation.  Is being brown and speaking with an accent probable cause?  If you don't have ID on you, are you subject to detention?  On the books already, is the constitutionally dubious ability of customs to set up checkpoints 100 miles from the border.  The new and existing practices of ICE, along with the rushed hiring of more ICE officers, and lack of immigration judges, leaves a system that is ripe for abuse and is a nearly vertical slope toward authoritarianism.

The immigration policies of the Trump Administration will cause fear among our immigrant community, documented and undocumented alike.  Immigrants will be reluctant to report serious crimes due to fear of being deported, racists will feel emboldened, employers will continue to exploit their workers, and ICE will be so overwhelmed with cases that truly dangerous criminals will inevitably slip through the cracks.  Deporting millions of immigrants will do nothing to make us safer or to improve working conditions; it will do the opposite.

I sincerely doubt any ICE officers are reading this, but if there are, then you need to quit.  What you're doing is immoral and runs contrary to the idea that is America.  If what you wanted when you took a job in law enforcement was to be a hero, then do something heroic and resign.      

The Muslim Ban is the Policy of the Republican Party

Ronald Reagan pictured here with notable racist/traitor Richard Nixon and notable criminal Spiro Agnew in 1971.  Reagan kicked off his 1980 Presidential campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, with a speech emphasizing "states rights" just a couple miles from where civil rights workers had been the victims of state-sanctioned murder.

Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are the leaders of the Republican Party and they endorse Trump's executive order on immigration and refugees.  The order is the policy of the mainstream Republican Party.  This is important to emphasize because many people including the Clinton campaign, have engaged in the habit of going after Trump personally, but at the same time letting Republicans off the hook.

Trump and the Republican Party are one in the same.  Trump is the perfect expression of the Republican id:  Racist, nationalistic, greedy, anti-intellectual, fear mongering, and worshipers of the prosperity gospel.  This white nationalism did not begin with Trump, nor will it end with him.  Watch the primary debates again, if you can stomach it; they all endorsed some iteration of the Muslim ban. Watch how many Republicans vote for Jeff Sessions.  This is why it is important to go after the whole party.

Trump is crazier than a generic Republican candidate is, but all the policies are the same.  The party will own everything Trump does until they decide to impeach him.

Get Ready

If the schedule of the confirmation hearings is any judge, expect a lot of bad legislation to come out of congress in coming days and weeks.  This legislation needs to be fought at every turn.  If the ACA's replacement (for example) is anything less than Medicare for all...oppose it.

Oppose all of Trump's cabinet appointments, but particularly Sessions, DeVos, Pruitt, Carson, and Price.  I may be missing some, the lightening speed of the hearings has my brain going in all directions (this is a deliberate effect), but the point is:  Universal opposition can work. 

Get ready to protest, boycott, and be disobedient.  Get ready to call your elected officials more often. 

The left is going to lose far more battles than it will win.  There is no preventing this, but we have to try.  Ultimately if we can tie the Republicans to Trump and vice-versa, and get people to show up to the polls, we will win. 

Go After the Money

One of many tools to fight the Trump Administration and the Republican power grab is to go after those who contribute material support to such endeavors.  By "go after" I don't want to be misinterpreted: I do not condone any kind of illegal or threatening behavior.  However, boycotts, protesting, and starting uncomfortable conversations, are not only legal but necessary.

So how do we find out who has been contributing to the party of insecure white resentment?  It turns out, there is a very easy online tool http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/?name=campaign%20contributions

Using my own arbitrary judgment, I'm choosing donors who've contributed more than $500.  Who are these people in Montpelier?

JOHNSTON, DARCIE
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, CONSULTANT, JOHNSTON CONSULTING INC.

$2,000 to Donald Trump

$295 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

HENEY, MARY M
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

W. J. HENEY & SON, INC.

$600 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

GRAYCK, DAVID
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

$500 to Tom Reed (R)

$1000 to Elise Stefanik (R)

$500 to Steven Wells (R)

$240  to John Faso (R)

SCOTT, PHILIP
MIDDLESEX, VT 05602

GOVERNOR

$500 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

LAMBERTON, WAYNE
MONTPELIER, VT 05602

LAMBERTON ELECTRIC

$2,500 to the Vermont Republican Federal Elections committee

Liberals Suck at Politics

I attended an emergency community meeting the other night sponsored by the AFL-CIO and I came away with one giant take-a-way:  Liberals/progressives suck at politics.  I've actually known this for a while, but it was reinforced by some of the denial that I witnessed.  With the election of Trump, I think it's critical that liberals understand some things.

1. Don't care what the opposition thinks.  There is value in listening to other perspectives and understanding other points of view.  That being said, energy is much better spent trying to get non/low propensity voters to show up to the polls than to persuade conservatives to change their minds.  Are you really going to convince someone who completely disregards the scientific community and thinks climate change is a hoax that climate change is real?  No.  Are you going to persuade someone who thinks that black people have major advantages over white people that racism exists?  Not likely.  Are you going to sway someone who thinks that there is no difference between the two parties that Social Security and Medicare are more likely to be cut if they elect a Republican?  Maybe.
2. Understand the opposition.  If I had to choose Obama's biggest failing as a President, it would be not understanding conservatives.  I think that Obama thinks, that all conservatives are like the ones he met at Harvard (think David Brooks).  They're not. Newsflash:  People who allow your citizenship to become a defining issue for the first part of your presidency are not operating in good faith.  People who impeach a president over lying about a blowjob are not operating in good faith.  People who hold the economy hostage by credibly threatening not to raise the debt ceiling, are not operating in good faith.  People who refuse to even hold hearings for your SCOTUS nominee are not operating in good faith.
3. Emphasize the stakes.  You know what I didn't hear from the Clinton campaign?  I didn't hear about the Supreme Court.  I didn't hear about Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.  I didn't hear about climate change.  I didn't hear about college tuition.  I didn't hear about building infrastructure.  Clinton had policies to improve these things, but they rarely if ever came up. Not in her ads, not in the debates.  The only things I heard were "Trump is a monster" (true) and "Go to HillaryClinton.com" which is the single worst phrase a candidate can utter.
4. Bipartisanship is a means not an end.  Working with the other side is fine if it aimed at achieving a greater good even though you don't get everything you want, but that is never where you should begin the conversation.  Working with the other side is bad if it ends with overly complicated policies that barely address the problem and make it easy for conservatives to label government ineffective.   Too often I see Democrats beginning from a negotiated position before negotiations have even started.  Set high goals and aim for them to be implemented broadly (like Social Security), that way if they're repealed they fuck over a much larger chunk of the population.
5. Politics happens more than once every four years.  Generally speaking, if Democrats show up to the polls, they win.  The problem is, they only show up occasionally and usually only for a presidential election.  Republicans show up to nearly every election like clockwork and that is why they control the majority of statehouses, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and soon the Presidency and the Supreme Court.  Democrats didn't even show up in high numbers in the primary where there was the possibility for real divergence from the party elite.  As brilliant film director and sexual predator, Woody Allen said, "80% of life is showing up".
6.  You don't need to like the politicians you elect.  I very seldom vote for someone I like as a human or don't have some serious disagreements with.  You have to be a little off to run for office, so don't expect these people to be perfect.  At the end of the day, you're electing someone to do a job.  Politicians are vehicles for change, not the catalyst.  It's crazy to place a whole lot of trust in politicians, so regard all of them with skepticism.
7. Voting is a collective act, not personal expression, or a consumer choice.  Refer back to rule six.  If voting was supposed to be a form of self-expression, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anonymous.  Voting is a collective action to assign power.  Nothing more, nothing less.
8. Expect them to cheat.  People cheating to gain power?  Next thing you'll tell me is people lie on their resumes.  Seriously, they cheat because they know the electorate as a whole is not on their side.  What's the best way to respond?  Get more people to vote.
9. Politics is about power.  This is rule number one of political science, but it seems completely lost on many people.  Ultimately, power is being assigned and divided up.  The only difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms of government is how power is assigned.  If you want to understand politics don't watch The West Wing, watch Game of Thrones.