Obsidian Wings

Juicy

by JanieM

Not that these are hard to find, but maybe it's helpful to have them together in a convenient place:

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT AND ADDITIONAL RELIEF

Amicus brief filed by some (former?) prosecutors and former NJ gov Christine Whitman (why her? I don't know).

There are lots of delicious zingers even on a quick skim, including this:

Indeed, to allow a former president to use a claim of executive privilege to undermine the work of a current president would undermine the very purpose of executive privilege: to ensure that the Executive Branch can effectively discharge its constitutional powers.

I was wondering a few days ago who would get to be the referee if former presidents had executive privilege -- there are what, four of them alive right now? And the current executive in the mix of privilege as well?

Of course Clickbait thinks he's still the president, so no doubt he sees no complications here, even assuming he were capable of seeing complications that disfavor his omnipotent self.

I've been pulling quotes since these became available last night, but I've got commitments this morning and can't really dig in unti llater.

I don't think this is going to go well...

by russell

From the Guardian, a prediction about large scale human migration induced by climate change.

Basically, some parts of the world are going to be less habitable, or even not inhabitable at all.  Lots of people live in those places now.  They are going to leave the less habitable places they are now, and try to move to more habitable places.  

For "lots of people", think tens to hundreds of millions, possibly more than a billion.  And by "they are going to leave", I don't mean it's possible, or likely.  I mean it's going to happen, full stop, because people don't want to die, and they will go to great lengths to avoid dying.

The Guardian piece says dealing with all of this will require changes in how we think about and deal with each other - social changes, political and legal and institutional changes.  I think that is 100% correct, and I also think it's highly unlikely to happen in the kind of pro-active and well-managed way that the author calls for.

In my very humble opinion, it's going to be a chaotic hot mess.  Consider how increased migration from South and Central America to the US has been received here.  Consider how increased migration from Africa and the Middle East to western Europe has inspired a renewal of fascism there.

Waves of migration at these kinds of scales (possibly drive by changes in climate, as it happens) are not unknown historically.  They are also associated with massive disruption and in some cases the collapse of civilizations.

So, a matter for concern.

Intersectionality bites

by liberal japonicus

Hi all, this is a bit after the fact, but I've been marvelling about a few things that seem to require an examination through intersectionality. My take on intersectionality is that it is based on the fact that gender and race and other identities can often interact in ways that might be unexpected and for myself, I find that bell hooks is the person I have read and appreciated about this subject. Of course, people who really like intersectionality think that everything requires an examination through intersectionality, but some things require it more than others. Anyway, below the fold, three bites at the apple.

Follow the Money

by wj

We're overdue for a new Open Thread, so this is it.

To lead us off, we have this fascinating article in the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/08/19/gop-senate-rescue-midterms/
The teaser at the top:

A cash crunch at campaigns and the National Republican Senatorial Committee set off a panic as Republican candidates emerged from bruising primaries playing catch-up in polls and advertising.

It seems that the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, after months of touting record fundraising, topping $173 million. But the committee has burned through nearly all of it, with the NRSC’s cash on hand dwindling to $28.4 million by the end of June. So they burned thru some $145 million . . . of which only $23 million went to actual ads.

“If they were a corporation, the CEO would be fired and investigated,” said a national Republican consultant working on Senate races. “The way this money has been burned, there needs to be an audit or investigation because we’re not gonna take the Senate now and this money has been squandered. It’s a rip-off.”

A rip-off? In a party in thrall to an experienced conman? Who could ever have expected such a thing...? Given the expertise available, following the money may be a bit of a challenge. Especially for those who desperately need the funds, but dare not criticize the likely sinkhole for the funds.

Open Thread

by JanieM

As I think about the fact that there are too many topics to choose from, and I don't have time to put together something usefully focused on a single one of them, a phrase comes to mind. But it needs some background.

When I was an undergraduate at MIT, the head of the psychology department (now Brain and Cognitive Science) was one Hans-Lukas Teuber, one of those engaging and popular professors whose name was known to everyone. When I was there he taught the intro to psychology class, or 9.01 ("nine-oh-one"), psychology being "Course 9."

It was a popular class, so the lectures were given in one of the biggest lecture halls on campus (Room 26-100....). I never took the class, but I attended a few lectures with friends who were taking it and thus got a taste of why Professor Teuber was so popular. He was engaging, challenging, funny, smart, and clear.

Watch the first minute of this video, and then imagine him walking to the front of the lecture hall, looking out and up at a few hundred students, and saying, "Who vants to know vat?"

A variation of that question, in Teuber's accent, popped into my mind when I decided we were due for a new thread.

"Who vants to talk about vat?"

Kansas, Bloody Kansas **

by wj

For this week's Open Thread, let's lead off with some election returns.

Perhaps the most significant, to my mind, was the attempt to amend the Kansas Constitution. Currently, the right to an abortion is enshrined in the Kansas constitution. This was an attempt to remove that (so that the legislature could make it as illegal as possible). It was carefully slotted in for the primary, rather than the general election in November, because primaries tend to attract fewer, and more ideologically motivated, voters.

Well it didn't work. Kansas is a deep red state. In fact, it is the 8th most red state in the country. It hasn't voted for a Democrat for President since 1964. Trump won in 2020 by a 56-42 margin.

So what happened? The amendment went down 62-38. With abortion likely to be a serious issue this year (unless the Democrats an exceptionally inept in their campaigns), Republicans may have a problem. It will be ironic if their triumph in finally overturning Roe v Wade is what does them in.

** For those outside the US, it's a reference to how Kansas was characterized in the run up to the American Civil War.