Dangerous Make-Believe

By Stephen Macaulay

It is absolutely appropriate that CPAC was held in Orlando, the city that has even surpassed Anaheim in its association with the Magical Kingdom. Walt Disney World is the most popular amusement park on earth, with some 58-million annual visitors. . .a number that collapsed as a result of COVID-19. However, given the reaction of an audible number of attendees who booed the announcement at CPAC that because they were in someone else’s facility they had to follow that host’s rules, and the rules included wearing masks to help mitigate the potential spread of the virus, they probably wouldn’t mind a ride on Splash Mountain, even if they were doused in foul water.

Mask-free or die.

It is all too easy to see the cartoonish golden statue of Donald Trump that was made — where else? — in Mexico, a statue that had CPAC attendees posing with just as they would with Mickey, in relation to a cautionary tale from Exodus 32: 1-6. The worship of an idol. Aaron had told the Israelites that the golden calf had delivered them from Egypt. It didn’t.

And Trump has delivered his people from what?

There are some 10.1-million people unemployed in the U.S. right now.

There are some 512,000 dead Americans — Americans — from COVID-19.

Did that Golden Idol cause the unemployment, cause the deaths?

Look at it this way: Both started under his watch. He claimed the former was going to “just disappear.” He made mask-wearing a political, not a medical, thing. He knew that a bad economy wasn’t going to be good for his brand, so despite advice to the contrary, he claimed COVID wasn’t a big deal, which led to more people getting sick, more people dying, and more businesses going out of business.

Chant though they might, it doesn’t change the facts. But facts are, as we’ll see, troublesome for some people.

///

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born in New York City. She was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2018, representing the 14^th congressional district, which encompasses part of the Bronx, Queens and Rikers Island. She is a Democrat.

It is about 1,755 miles from the Bronx to Austin, Texas.

When the winter storm that set Texans back, way back on their collective boot heels, Ocasio-Cortez went to work and raised some $5-million for affected Texans.

Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX, went to Cancun.

So what did Ted Cruz do when he spoke at CPAC?

Among other things, made fun of Ocasio-Cortez, who had posted a powerful Instagram Live video predicated on her life experiences and what she experienced during the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6.

Ocasio-Cortez raises $5-million for people far away from her district.

Cruz goes on vacation while the people in his state struggle.

Regardless of what you think of the political points of view of either of these people, ask yourself one thing: Which of the two is a serious leader, someone who would have your back?

Ted Cruz, a man who ended up carrying water for the man who described his wife as being unattractive and who accused his father of participating in one of the biggest crimes of the 20^th century, is clearly not serious. Nor does he seem to care about anyone other than Rafael Edward Cruz.

///

The unacronymic name of CPAC is “Conservative Political Action Conference.” It is organized by the American Conservative Union.

Edmund Burke is the father of modern conservatism. Or maybe that should be real conservatism.

Consider this in light of what happened in Orlando:

“But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths.” ― Edmund Burke

Conservatism is about things like morality, good conduct, a free-market economy, and limited government. And these people are all juiced up about Donald Trump.

How do you square that circle?

///

According to the website for the Missouri secretary of state, Missouri is known as the “Show Me” state for the following reason:

“The most widely known legend attributes the phrase to Missouri's U.S. Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, who served in the United States House of Representatives from 1897 to 1903. While a member of the U.S. House Committee on Naval Affairs, Vandiver attended an 1899 naval banquet in Philadelphia. In a speech there, he declared, ‘I come from a state that raises corn and cotton and cockleburs and Democrats, and frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I am from Missouri. You have got to show me.’”

One way of looking at this is that the people of Missouri believe in facts. That evidence matters more than what people claim.

“I stood up and I said, I said, we ought to have a debate about election integrity, said, it is the right of the people to be heard. And my constituents in Missouri want to be heard on this issue.”

That is what Sen. Josh Hawley, R-MO, said in his CPAC 2020 comments.

Since Trump lost the 2020 election there has been a whole lot of rhetoric about how the “election was stolen.”

Where’s the evidence?

Show me.

///

Kristi Noem, governor of South Dakota, who is rumored to be a potential 2024 presidential candidate attacked Dr. Anthony Fauci at CPAC.

"As conservatives, we often forget that stories are much more powerful than facts and statistics," Noem said. "Our stories need to be told. It is the only way that we will inspire and motivate the American people to preserve this great country."

It is convenient that she’s not big on facts.

Few would argue that California has been an unfortunate hot spot for COVID-19.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, California has had 8,784 cases per 100,000 people. It has had 131 deaths per 100,000 people.

Of course, that’s a Blue State.

So how is South Dakota doing?

12,693 cases per 100,000 people.

213 deaths per 100,000 people.

Yes, Noem, facts and statistics ought to be avoided in favor of stories because they sure as hell are damning.

_____
Read the full list of CPAC’s presidential candidate straw poll — click on Forum.

It’s Trump’s Party and He’ll Run in ’24 if He Wants to

By Todd Lassa

Judging from the crowd reaction at the 2021 CPAC “America Uncancelled” gathering, and from the large-ish group of the former president’s supporters outside the Orlando Hyatt convention hall, Donald J. Trump has already won the 2024 presidential election, just as he “won” last November.

“I will continue to fight right by your side,” Trump told the adoring crowd at the beginning of his nearly two-hour speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference. “We’re not going to start a new party. We have the Republican Party. Wouldn’t that be brilliant? Let’s divide our vote. We’d never win again.”

This was the Sunday evening keynote, if that term applies to a speech in which ex-President Trump returned to familiar gripes and lies, specifically a repeat of how he really won a “stolen” election last November.

He called out the U.S. Supreme Court twice, at least, for refusing to hear challenges to the election results, including Texas’ suit against 18 states whose Electoral College votes went to Joseph R. Biden.

He repeated his attacks on Democrats, this time amping up the rhetoric such that they aren’t merely promulgating socialism but full-on communism. Trump slammed President Biden’s “failed” first month in office for many issues, including the dismantling of the former president’s draconian immigration policy and immediate stop on construction of the southern border wall on Mexico, making this policy look like the corollary to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which he spent four years unsuccessfully trying to kill.

Trump promised to challenge the 10 Republican representatives in the House who voted to impeach him last January (singling out Liz Cheney, the “warmonger” from Wyoming) and seven Republican senators who voted to convict him last month, in their next primaries, and crowed about how his endorsement of Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, (whose mention garnered a healthy round of “boos”) pushed him to re-election victory.

In the end, former President Donald J. Trump lit up the crowd with this: “We have to have triumph. We must have victory. That is exactly what we will do. We will go on to victory. We’re tougher than they are. We’re stronger than they are.”

“And then a Republican president will make a triumphant return to the White House,” Trump continued. “And I wonder who that will be. … I wonder who that will be. … Who, who, who will that be.” It wasn’t a question.

It most likely will not be Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, who appeared in the opening hours of CPAC last Friday to joke about how nice is was to be in Orlando, though “not as nice as Cancun.”

Cruz did not make CPAC’s straw poll of 2024 presidential nomination candidates, which Trump captured with 55% of the vote, The Hill reports. Florida Gov. Ron De Santis was next with 21%, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem grabbed 4%. And 95% of CPAC attendees said they want the GOP to continue Trump’s not-consistently conservative populism. (Click on Forum for the complete straw poll results.)

Which raises the question of how much of today’s GOP CPAC represents. Interviewed on CNN after Trump finished to the sounds of The Village People’s “YMCA,” (Fox News followed the speech with highlights of the speech), the ex-president’s national security advisor from 2018-19 and former Fox News contributor John Bolton, described the former president’s speech as “like watching an old movie, very stale … or TV reruns.”

Of Trump’s straw poll showing of 55% Bolton said, “that is a pathetic figure. I would expect 90%. That is an indication of how much he’s fallen already.”

How much has Trump fallen? On one hand, CPAC’s traditional role as representing the right edge of the Republican party could be seen as a misrepresentation of Trump’s continued popularity within the party (several pundits have remarked that Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY, has won the straw poll in the past, twice). On the other hand, no former Republican president has ever before bothered to even show up for the event a month after his successor’s inauguration.

It seems to all come down to what happens in the next 21 months. If Trump’s candidates beat “un-loyal” Republicans in next year’s congressional primaries, and then go on to beat Democrats in the November 2022 mid-terms, Trump might be on his way to a third presidential nomination. If none of that happens, McConnell and the traditional Republicans may prevail.

_____
Read the full list of CPAC’s presidential candidate straw poll — click on Forum.

CPAC is Bargain Basement Wholesale Politics

By Andrew Boyd

The only thing more stomach-churning, to me, than retail politics is wholesale politics, and CPAC is bargain basement in every respect, with a double dose of bombast and the gross absence of humility or measured speech that infects every corner of the body politic today. Giving it as much ink as I’m about to do here is a thoroughly detestable exercise, but that’s the assignment.

First off, CPAC polls are not terribly predictive of real outcomes, so proceed with caution. Yes, Trump pulled 55% of voters in the straw polling, twice that of second-place finisher Ron DeSantis and 13 times that of third-place Kristi Noem. Trump made it clear that a third-party candidacy is not the offing, for him at least. Blessed be he who refuses to commit political suicide. Trump, being transactional by nature, knows better.

It’s still Trump’s party, as I’ve previously argued, though one might wonder in what kind of shape Trump will be, physically and psychologically, four years hence, when his likely opponent would be Kamala Harris, who never saw a lie she didn’t consider first in terms of its political utility, which makes her just another D.C. bed bug.

More likely, to my mind, is a Ron DeSantis-Kristi Neom ticket. Other front runners might include Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley. Challenges from the anti-Trump pseudo-conservative wing of the party would include Nikki Haley and Liz Cheney. As of today, however, I’d say, there is no path to nomination that doesn’t run through Trump. Even swampy swamperton, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, has tacitly acknowledged as much.

More interesting to my mind is the ranking of issues in said polling, with election integrity (62%) running well ahead of more traditional kitchen-table conservative pain points like border security (35%), the economy (32%), gun rights (26%), taxes (22%), national security (20%) and abortion policy (16%).

For my left-leaning friends, this probably reads as the triumph of misinformation and QAnon-style conspiracy theories. I’m not of the belief that Trump was necessarily denied a landslide victory, but I am not afraid to assert that our election process is a shit show, systemically not up to the standards set forth by the likes of post-war Iraq. Maybe that purple dot thing isn’t a bad way to go, kind of the club stamp of democracy.

Four years may seem a long way off, but it’s really not, and I fear that we’re marching toward a political abyss; that the failure of our politicians to address well-founded concerns surrounding mass mail-in voting, error-riddled voter rolls, the death of voter ID, and the plainly extra-legal actions of state election officials and absence of legal remedy for same (thanks for nothing, SCOTUS) represents an existential threat to democracy and our peaceful co-existence; for if a plurality of the voting population does not believe in the essential propriety of national electoral outcomes, in a country so politically and cultural polarized, the cancer of political violence and mass social unrest will metastasize.

It’s high time that the adults in the room, if they exist, take a step back from the uber-cynical, morally bereft trench warfare of institutional party politics and mainstream media shout fests (yes, I’m including Newsmax and Fox News) and consider how we work together to keep this thing from going altogether off the rails. And don’t look to CPAC or its leftist equivalent for answers. You won’t find any.

_____
Read the full list of CPAC’s presidential candidate straw poll — click on Forum.

Texas Goes Off-Grid

By David Amaya

Amid President Biden’s plan to boost America's dependence on renewable energy, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a retaliatory executive order. It directs “every state agency to use all lawful powers and tools to challenge any federal action that threatens” natural gas in the state. Only three weeks after Abbott’s attempt to strengthen the natural gas industry’s defenses against federal oversight, the state’s entire energy grid nearly collapsed. Sources reveal that Texas was minutes and seconds away from a complete shutdown that would have lasted for months.

Several state leaders gave excuses as to why the state’s vulnerable power system failed millions of Texans. Gov. Abbott blamed non-renewables for the outage though 26 of the total 30 gigawatts lost in the blackout were traced back to natural gas. Former Republican Gov. Rick Perry stated that Texans would rather lose power than be part of the national grid system, as the state recorded several fatalities from hypothermia, including the death of 11-year-old Cristian Pavon. Despite being warned of the grid’s vulnerability in 2011, Texas took no action to weatherize the equipment. Texan leadership, in private and public sectors, failed us.

It is time Texas reframe climate change policy as infrastructure policy. Infrastructure policy includes more than merely weatherizing energy equipment; It calls for the mitigation of the severity a polar vortex has on roads and property by reducing carbon emissions. Texas has its energy grid system to show off its exceptionalism, but those days are now over. Think of millions of Texans observing how the free-market failed them. Depending on what Texas does next, the federal government may need to intrude and be part of the solution that regulates the industry.

Texas may well have looked at California to develop a Plan B for its constituents in the event of a blackout. California forces its energy providers to have a reserve of electricity for this exact reason. Not only that, but California is also part of a broader national energy-grid that allows them to borrow energy from other states. Texas has no such security. It relies on free-market competition to resolve these changes in energy demand. Texas, like California, must force the energy sector to come up with safeguards; the state has enforcement power for a reason.

Texans survived nature’s cold shoulder and the folly of Texas leadership. Despite the differences in each state’s party politics, California and Texas both have experience with large-scale energy blackouts, which feel like the beginning of a new era of energy security for the entire country. When reality transcends the need for performative politics (i.e., focusing on the national anthem in football games instead of urgent issues), nature’s forces remind us that party ID alone won’t help us adapt to changing climate. Informed and responsible leadership will. A reconciliation between energy practices that sets aside cynicism for uniting cooperation is desperately needed. As Texas has come to understand, electricity is as important to our society’s foundation as democracy.

_____
•Read Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on President Biden’s supply chain review — Click on Forum above.

Texas and California are Polar Opposites on Energy Regulation

By Todd Lassa

The Texas legislature has begun a comprehensive investigation on What Went Wrong, a week after a severe winter storm pushed its power grid within “minutes from failing” with three hearings by four state House and Senate committees.

More than 13 million state residents suffered no heat and electricity in sub-freezing temperatures as the Electric Reliability Council of Texas issued rolling blackouts to prevent a total collapse that experts say could have left the state without power for months.

Critics of Texas’ independent streak blame a policy that prevents the state from “borrowing” energy from neighboring states, in order to avoid federal regulations. Equipment at natural gas, coal and nuclear facilities became frozen and broke down, Time magazine reports, adding that after the last Texas freeze that caused blackouts, in 2011, federal regulators recommended the state weatherize energy equipment, including pipes, valves and other things necessary to keep the grid operating. When power in the state was back up again, many consumers were hit with energy bills of $10,000 and more, the result of unregulated price spikes by ERCOT for energy providers.

Perhaps trying to divert attention from the real problem that was affecting millions of Texans, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott blamed the state’s wind turbines that failed due to iced-up windmill parts and solar panels that collect no sunlight when it’s not sunny. (34 gigawatts were down in Texas on February 15, with wind representing just 4 gigawatts of that total.) Fox News’ prime time commentators directed blame to the “Green New Deal” proposal by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, to combat climate change, even though it remains only a proposal.

The energy crisis in Texas draws comparison with rolling blackouts in California last summer and fall, which were the result of extreme weather on the opposite end of the spectrum. California’s “first rolling blackouts in nearly 20 years,” according to the Los Angeles Times, affected less than half a million homes and businesses on August 14, for between 15 minutes and 2-1/2 hours at a time, with 321,000 more customers experiencing eight-minute to 90-minute blackouts the next evening.

Extreme heat and forest wildfires across the state caused the blackouts, and because neighboring states also suffered record high temperatures, California was not able to buy power from them.

California energy officials “didn’t line up the right sources and didn’t take climate change” causing the extreme temperatures “into account,” according to the LA Times.

As usual in politics, it comes down to following the money. Either state could proceed at considerable cost building out renewable energy sources with the hope the burgeoning industry will create new jobs, or continue to protect relatively cheap, relatively reliable fossil fuel sources and maintain that industry’s level of employment.

It raises the issue of regulation vs. de-regulation – and even the question of what regulation is for a public utility.

Fortunately, we have a left-column pundit from Texas, and a right-column pundit from California, to sort this all out.

_____
•Read Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on President Biden’s supply chain review — Click on Forum above.

•Email comments to editors@thehustings.news

Texas Faces California’s ‘Green’ Energy Supply

By Bryan Williams

Welcome to the club, Texas! California has been mismanaging its electrical power grid for going on 20 years. How can the two largest states in the nation by population, both with vast natural resources and human ingenuity fail their residents like this? It is 2021. Citizens should not be without electricity in the United States because of political and managerial problems.

That Texas is red and California is blue is also a conundrum. How can both political parties (California has been run by Democrats for nearly a generation -- Governator Schwarzenegger acted like a Republican for all of two years or so -- but that’s for another column -- and Texas, dominated by Republicans) get this so wrong?

I can’t speak to Texas’ woes, but I can to California’s. Democratic Gov. Gray Davis rushed in where only fools dare tread back in 2001, and actually put the state into the electricity buying business using taxpayer dollars, in order to stave off erroneous shortages of electricity due to market manipulation of California’s electricity supply. By the late 2010s and early 2020s, California’s electricity problem developed different causes with the same results: Millions left without power in the state that gave us the iPhone, PayPal, Tesla, and is home to Alphabet/Google, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Stanford University (that is to say -- places with LOTS of smart people.

Why? Because for years our politicians have replaced reliable electrical production with renewable resources like solar and wind to save us from the evils of CO2 pollution. When the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, California is a net exporter of electricity. But the sun sometimes is hidden behind clouds, and the wind doesn’t always blow. Meanwhile, the state’s nearly 40 million residents need more and more electricity to power those iPhones, Teslas, and all those Chromebooks (made by Google – one of which I am typing on now) that millions of kids need to be taught at home due to COVID school shutdowns. A brilliant, potential solution to California’s unstable energy supply is to use old electric car batteries to store excess electricity from solar and wind farms, but those “battery farms” are still years away. Really, how will that look to have stacks and stacks of greasy old car batteries next to those gleaming solar panels?

At the same time, baseline electricity production like (brace yourselves - I’m going to say something controversial) clean nuclear power is being shut down all over the state. Why? Because anything nuclear must be bad (right?), and because of short-sighted politicians in Washington, our nuclear power plants aren’t allowed to recycle their fuel like those in Europe, so we have to store spent nuclear fuel rods in pools of water in open air. Brilliant!

As for natural gas power plants, they emit too much CO2, and use fossil fuels to make electricity, though the California plants make more than enough energy from this to feed the entire state. What about hydro-electric power? Here’s another clean, renewable source of electricity, right? More and more of these century-old plants are being decommissioned because California’s left-leaning politicians are worried about their effect on fish. Meanwhile, California ratepayers (who pay the highest rates in the nation) get to sit in the dark and the heat, and now, the smoke. Now, California utilities are allowed to shut off power for wildfires sparked on land that state and federal political officials have for years failed to clear out. Meanwhile, those same politicians have failed to hold our electric utilities accountable for running the shoddy equipment that can spark fires, in the first place.

So to repeat, welcome, Texas! One question: When can we shut down the politicians and get back to the basics of providing electricity in the richest state in the richest nation in the world?

_____
•Read Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on President Biden’s supply chain review — Click on Forum above.

One Step Forward, Two Back

By Stephen Macaulay

Although there are certainly metrics associated with bringing kids back to the classrooms across the country, a country where the COVID-19 numbers are beginning to decline — but decline from a high place to what still should be an inconceivable place, were it not that we’ve become inured to large numbers (it is still a really big number, folks) — it seems that the anecdotal is important in thinking about this issue.

Kids and teachers are human beings, which is something that can be readily overlooked when they are turned into metrics. And let’s not forget about the other people who make schools operate, whether it is the absolutely important janitorial staff or the bus drivers or the school administrators. There are plenty of people who are involved that transcends the teacher-pupil ratio.

So, the anecdote.

I have a niece who is a third-grade teacher in Southwest Michigan. Before the pandemic, her parents, who live in Southeast Michigan, would periodically travel west, not only to see their daughter, but to bring her essential school supplies that they bought because (1) they knew their daughter, who was also buying things like paper and pencils, wasn’t exactly making a whole lot and (2) the school district didn’t have the funds either. As you may have learned of late, Southwest Michigan is an area where there isn’t a whole lot of interest in things like tax increases, even if it is for school children.

Teachers, like my niece, want to teach. They didn’t go into that profession thinking that they’re going to get rich. And as my niece has discovered, part of her income is going to support her students.

My niece has been back in the classroom for several weeks now. Whereas in a pre-pandemic year she would go in on weekends to decorate the classroom with educational materials, now she goes in on weekends to assure that there is proper spacing and to do some additional Lysol wiping.

Clearly, priorities change.

Although the school district she teaches in is literally about 10 miles from the Pfizer plant where the vaccine is made, she has yet to get her first shot: it will happen next week. It will be a Moderna jab. Do you want to know what my niece says is one of her biggest challenges while teaching during a pandemic?

“The kids want to hug one another.”

Yes, we’re talking about people here.

///

While the U.S. is deservedly renowned for many of its universities, when it comes to primary and secondary schools, things aren’t so swell.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) runs the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which “measures 15-year-olds’ ability to use their reading, mathematics and science knowledge and skills to meet real-life challenges.”

How well did U.S. middle schoolers do compared with those in other parts of the world in the most recent survey (2018)? Thirteenth place.

China, separated into four divisions for the survey ((1) Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang; (2) Singapore, (3) Macao and (4) Hong Kong) are in the first four positions.

To get a sense of performance, the students in the B-S-J-Z grouping scored 555 on reading, 591 in math and 590 in science.

In the U.S. those numbers are 504, 502 and 505.

Which ought to be an argument that we need to get students back into classrooms ASAP.

But here’s the thing. While it can most certainly be argued that local districts have local concerns and consequently don’t need some Big Government program to tell them what to do, the dirty little secret that doesn’t seem to want to be acknowledged is that: The pandemic is something that no one—local, state, regional, national—knew how to deal with. There is no handbook with protocol in it.*

Note how the CDC keeps changing its recommendations. It isn’t because it doesn’t know what it is doing. It is because things keep changing.

It is absurd to think that a school superintendent in any district in the country — to say nothing of the teachers, bus drivers, custodial staff, etc. — is a skilled epidemiologist who knows everything that one needs to know to keep people from being sick.

This takes the know-how of people who deal with these life-and-death situations on a daily basis.

Yes, there is huge frustration on behalf of parents who want their kids back in schools.

But to rush things, to think that bad things won’t happen simply because “damn it they won’t” will likely move things one step forward and then two in reverse.

And that surely won’t help the next ranking for the U.S. in the OECD global survey.

*Although it is worth noting an advisory group that was established by George H.W. Bush in 1990, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) wrote a document in August 2009, “Preparations for 2009-H1N1 Influenza,” to help mitigate the effects of the swine flu epidemics. And prior to Obama leaving office a 69-page report, “Playbook for Early Response to High-Consequence Emerging Infectious Disease Threats and Biological Incidents,” was developed by the National Security Council and presented to the executive branch — and was reportedly — and evidently — ignored by the Trump administration.

_____
•Read Stephen Macaulay on Trump vs. McConnell, and Bryan Williams on censured Republican moderates ; Click on FORUM.

The School Opening Conundrum

By Charles Dervarics

A few years back, I visited a high-poverty middle school during a lockdown, with students confined to classrooms and the doors closed. It also was a 90-degree day in an old building without air conditioning. Observing a math class, I couldn’t help but notice how the teacher had strategically placed 19 small and medium-size fans around the room, generating air flow to take advantage of the one open window. Clearly, she had faced similar challenges before, probably using her geometry skills for the best fan placement.

While this visit took place before COVID, I sometimes think about that school – still open during any normal academic year – when considering how fast schools should reopen in 2021.

With medical facilities and some colleges open for months now, conventional wisdom says it shouldn’t take that long for most K-12 schools to offer more than remote learning. With PPE, partitions, masks, and a goal to vaccinate teachers, it makes sense to offer in-person learning especially for low-income youngsters with the least technology access and the most chance of falling behind. But just as achievement among schools can vary greatly, so do the facilities and crowding that teachers and students have to deal with on a daily basis.

National debate on this issue has erupted anew now that President Biden has pledged to reopen the majority of schools during his first 100 days in office. But that plan is putting the president in crosshairs with some teacher unions, who warn of the risks posed by overcrowding, substandard ventilation systems and lagging vaccination rates.

Similar debates are playing out across the country, as typified by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s long battle with the Chicago Teachers Union on school reopening. And in San Francisco, the city just sued its own school district, citing a lack of planning and vision to get back to in-person instruction.

Meanwhile, Republicans have remained largely unified in calling for schools to re-open. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, recently called remote learning a “pale shadow of proper schooling” and said the science shows that schools can offer in-person instruction. Earlier this month, the House GOP tried to require schools to provide a reopening plan before getting funds from last December’s COVID relief bill. Democrats rebuffed that idea.

This GOP message plays well with its base. In some communities, it’s not uncommon to see residents who have replaced their Trump 2020 signs with signs pushing for school re-openings. A Republican push on this issue also may help recapture the attention of suburban parents weary of the school-at-home trend.

According to Burbio, a research and data company, about 39% of schools are currently open for traditional, in-person learning. That leaves the administration until late April – the end of Biden’s first 100 days – to reach the 50% mark.

On Feb. 12, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also offered a possible way forward. The agency outlined a series of steps to promote safe school openings, including use of masks by students, teachers and staff, social distancing, handwashing, strong cleaning and maintenance practices and speedy contact tracing in response to COVID cases. With the school year more than half over, those guidelines may arrive just in time.

_____
•Address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Low Risk to School-Age Youth vs. Being Deprived of Learning, Socialization

By Andrew Boyd

I met recently with a friend and colleague whose spouse and he made a decision some years back to pursue public schooling for their two young children, despite having the resources to have put them into private institutions. They are preparing now to graduate their son to the public middle school, which is not as well regarded as was the elementary program; however, they imagined that their son, and a couple dozen of his friends and their parents, could do some good in helping this school to advance and grow.

Then, the pandemic. Then two weeks to slow the spread. Then national lockdowns. And as our great national nightmare dragged on, many of those same parents have decided that they will be enrolling their kids in private institutions going forward. Add this little story to a growing pile of evidence favoring the argument that the extended national lockdown, in particular as it relates to schools, has been a complete disaster of both economic and social policy.

The costs of these policies are far-flung and harder to measure in the near-term relative to the daily updates on COVID infections and deaths, and as we all know, if it bleeds it leads, the ever-present failure of journalism to take its responsibility seriously. Add to that the disease of Trump Derangement Syndrome that has run wild through our political, social and media institutions, accompanied as it is by all loss of perspective, which only compounds the problem: That is, our inability, as a people to engage in reasoned, rational and thoughtful discussion of deadly serious issues. In such environs, all suffer, but none so much as the children, deprived of learning, socialization, protections from abuse and despair. One can hardly imagine the scale of this tragedy.

Now, as both COVID and TDS ebb, we see all kinds of interesting after-effects, including the breaking of bonds between staunch Democratic, even leftist, institutions such as the Chicago mayor's office and San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the teachers’ unions. Said unions will not escape unscathed, as the masses take note of their moral depravity, abject cowardice, and total lack of commitment to the children they purport to serve. So, too, with that megalomaniacal, Emmy-award nominated, dare I say Trump-esque simulacrum of a human being, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-NY, who may yet get his just desserts if Joey from Scranton lives up to his promise of a depoliticized DOJ (not holding my breath, exactly).

Need I revisit the science as it stands today (understanding evolves, you see)? The almost statistically insignificant danger to our children from COVID, the presence of a 95%-effective vaccine, soon to be broadly administered to “essentials,” or the countervailing dangers presented by this sham that is virtual schooling? Surely, all reasonable and reasoning people are beginning to see the need for change and fast. That, at least, is my hope.

We all have a stake in this, unquestionably, so the fact that I have three school-age children grants me no special ownership of the issue or moral high ground. My children, as best I can tell, are extraordinarily well-adapted, loved and supported, and the damage to their lives is arguably minimized, but I can see in their eyes a pressing sense of loneliness and a creeping despair. It’s not just COVID we’re fighting here. It’s the tragedy of the human condition and the ever-so-thin layer of social organization, friendship, support and shared sense of purpose that keep us all from the edge of the abyss. We must work now to repair and uphold these structures, lest we lose a grip on the whole damned thing.

_____
•Read Stephen Macaulay on Trump vs. McConnell, and Bryan Williams on censured Republican moderates ; Click on FORUM.

The Me-lection of Donald Trump

By David Amaya

What followed after former President Donald Trump’s instruction to Proud Boys, a far-right group that endorses violence, to “stand back and standby,” telling his loyalists that the only way he’ll lose the 2020 election is if it is stolen from him, and finally, to “fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore” before sending his rally off to the Capitol was his second impeachment. This impeachment would not be like any other in our history – the Representatives and Senators are not only the jurors and judges of the trial but also witnesses. In a careful balancing act between justice and incumbency, the Senate vote leaned towards incumbency.

The argument made by Donald Trump’s defense attorneys and most of his Republican backers that a former president can’t be subjugated to an impeachment trial is devoid of merit. It was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, (who has since been demoted to Senate minority leader) who postponed the trial for a date after Trump’s departure from presidency. McConnell’s decision was a hollow strategy that acted as a loophole to our hallow system of checks and balances.

Other than the purported defense that a former president shouldn’t be tried by the Senate, there is no other redeemable quality to the defense made for Mr. Trump. He was indeed guilty both “practically” and “morally” for the invasion of the Capitol, McConnell said after the vote to acquit, but Trump was freed from culpability because he is no longer in office.

In a move similar to McConnell’s expedient “the-end-justifies-the-means” strategy, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy bit his tongue about the pugnacious president and expressed support for the man who is “committed to helping elect Republicans in the House and Senate in 2022. For the sake of our country, the radical Democrat agenda must be stopped.” Both Republican leaders are gambling away their integrity for a chance at their party’s re-election and a fundraising cashflow crowdsourced by the man who refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.

Although the House impeachment managers were successful in illustrating the cold hard facts of Trump’s insurrectionist intention, they were unified with the Republicans in one way – they both perpetuated Trump’s everlasting war on what truth is and what facts are. Both sides succeeded in expressing how precarious our fragile republic is at the moment. Trump successfully persuaded legislators on both sides of the aisle to deny and strip the ideological opposition of their humanity, their entitlement to truth, and how to put party over country–the antithesis of the very premise that founded our country.

Lead impeachment manager, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-MD, prided himself in being part of the most bipartisan impeachment trial yet, but history may beg to differ. In 1974, President Richard Nixon was days away from being impeached before he resigned from the presidency for his crimes against the Democratic National Committee. Nixon’s Republican loyalists on Capitol Hill assured him he would not pass the impeachment vote–his party rejected him, so Nixon exiled himself voluntarily. Fast-forward to 2021 and the Republican party now defends a twice-impeached president who challenges the validity of our democracy’s electoral system; and for what, but to preserve and reinforce the Republican party’s incumbency.

_____
•Click on Forum to read Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s take on Trump’s impeachment trial.
•Address comments to editors@thehustings.news

The Final Steps to Trump’s Acquittal

By Todd Lassa

Once the votes were counted Saturday afternoon and Donald Trump was acquitted in his second Senate impeachment trial, both sides declared a victory. Because 10 Republicans joined 48 Democrats and the two independents who caucus with the latter party, lead House impeachment manager, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-MD, could lay claim to the “most bipartisan” trial vote ever (click on Forum to read Stephen Macaulay’s commentary on the impeachment trial, “The Long Con”).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, had it both ways, too, having been among the 43 Republicans in the minority who nonetheless snagged an acquittal because the 57-43 vote was 10 “guilties” short of the two-thirds needed to convict.

“They did this because they followed the wrong words of the most powerful man on earth,” McConnell said on the Senate floor after the vote, in what pundits were describing as the most critical excoriation of Trump made by either side. “There is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.”

McConnell, who when he still was Senate majority leader before President Biden’s inauguration, told his caucus they could vote their conscious in the impeachment trial, said he voted “not guilty” Saturday because the trial of a president after leaving office is unconstitutional. Last Tuesday, the Senate voted 56-44 that trying an ex-president is indeed constitutional, in a decision that required only a majority decision. A major point in the House impeachment managers’ argument was that if an ex-president could not be tried thusly, it would risk the nation with a “January surprise,” with carte-blanche to commit high crimes and misdemeanors as a lame-duck.

But McConnell forced delaying the trial until after the inauguration, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, said Saturday afternoon. The House voted for impeachment on January 15, while Trump was still in office.

Prior to the final Senate vote, Raskin moved to call a witness to give a video deposition in the case. Trump attorney Michael van der Veen objected, and Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-SC, threatened to call many witnesses for the defense, including House Speaker Pelosi, and draw out the trial to disrupt Biden’s agenda for weeks or even months to come.

In the end, the two sides agreed that the statement of Raskin’s intended witness, Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-WA, would be admitted as evidence and that defense would stipulate to its veracity.

Herrera Beutler’s statement is that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-CA, had called Trump during the siege urging him to call off the violent protesters. Trump had replied that the violent protesters were Antifa and Black Lives Matter, not pro-MAGA.

“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Trump replied, according to Herrera Beutler. CNN reported her description of the call Friday night, but according to various news reports, Herrera Beutler told about overhearing the conversation to a local Washington state newspaper and to constituents.

In his closing arguments, van der Veen said the defense was not admitting to the statement’s truthfulness, though the House impeachment managers apparently were satisfied with the outcome.

The trial itself came down to House impeachment managers building a case that then-President Trump called for his supporters to rally on the Capitol January 6 to “Stop the Steal” of his November 3 “landslide victory,” a.k.a., “the Big Lie,” and did nothing to prevent members of Congress and vice president Mike Pence, from the danger of the mob. Trump’s defense attorneys argued that the impeachment was a continuation of Democratic and mainstream Republican “hatred” since before he took office January 20, 2017, and that the trial was unconstitutional.

But the nine House impeachment managers appear satisfied that the trial and its bipartisan verdict achieved their goal overall and are looking forward to investigations in New York for Trump’s business practices, and especially in Fulton County, Georgia, for his phone call with secretary of state Ben Raffensperger. In the meantime, however, Trump continues to maintain control of the GOP, especially on state and local levels. Rep. Herrera Beutler, for example, faces potential censure from Washington state’s GOP and a Trump PAC-funded primary challenger next year for her statement in the impeachment trial.

•Click on Forum to read Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s take on Trump’s impeachment trial.
•Address comments to editors@thehustings.news

Trump Needs to be Rebuked for January 6

By Bryan Williams

Impeachment Part II has come and gone, and its result has surprised no one. Did there need to be a trial? I still say “yes.” President Trump had to be properly rebuked for what he did, and didn’t do, on January 6. He is forever besmirched as the only U.S. president impeached twice, and the only president who incited a mob to storm our seat of government. I have written before about the possibility of Trump running again in 2024, and I still believe he doesn't have the attention span to run again in in three-and-a-half years. There was a lot of talk about Hillary Clinton running again in 2020 and she didn't. She is a damaged good and her chances of winning were slim. I think the same can be said of Trump.

How much further should the "punish Trump" train go? Investigations in New York, Georgia and possibly Washington, D.C., could lead to more indictments of Trump. Of these, I think the Georgia attorney general’s fraud investigation of Trump’s call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has the most legs, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking Trump is going to face a prison sentence for it.

Several congressional Republicans have also let me down. I have enough experience with party politics to never expect legislators to impeach or convict a president from the same party. But this last impeachment was all kinds of weird. It is clear that Trump’s actions after last November’s election resulted in the Capitol insurrection and threats to the health of duly elected officials and the vice president. And let’s not forget the five people who died from it.

Key to the Senate’s lack of a two-thirds vote to convict, and the reason Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, gives for voting to acquit is whether it was constitutional to try a president after he is out of office. I wish the U.S. Supreme Court had been compelled to weigh in on this; It is a burning, relevant constitutional question and Chief Justice John Roberts turned a deaf ear, declining even to preside as judge of the trial and turning that duty over to senior Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont. When will our government start working for us?

I voted for Trump in 2020, and I still stand by that vote. I do not believe in Joe Biden, and so far, his governance is exactly as I expected. I liked a lot of Trump’s policies, but I did not like Trump's tweets and the uglier aspects of his personality. But I could never vote for him again. Those who stood up and voted their conscience on this impeachment (Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, etc.) deserve a second look (and boy, was I excited about Mitt Romney back in 2012 -- I was waving campaign signs for him every night).

We need principled leadership now, more than ever. Cheney and Romney are the only two politicians I think currently fit that bill, and their chances of going anywhere right now are nil. I’m going for a walk.

_____
•Click on Forum to read Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s take on Trump’s impeachment trial.
•Address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

Founding Fathers Rejected the Filibuster

By Chase Wheaton

The legislative filibuster in the Senate is probably one of the least understood aspects of our government, especially in a historical context, but is simultaneously the most significant obstacle to tangible governance and progress that currently exists in our legislative branch. And now that Senate Democrats are being forced to pass President Biden’s American Rescue Plan through budget reconciliation so that Republicans don’t use the filibuster to stonewall COVID relief for millions of Americans during a national crisis, it’s time we have a better understanding of the thing that’s been responsible for so much gridlock in Washington over the last 50 years.

In the original iteration of the Senate, there was no such thing as a legislative filibuster, and for good reason. On its surface, the legislative filibuster might sound like a tool to allow for sufficient debate before legislation is voted on, or even as a tool to prevent a majority party from simply ramming their agenda through Congress. Upon closer inspection, however, you’d see that the legislative filibuster creates a Congress that our founders explicitly wanted to avoid when they formed our government. The existence of this filibuster essentially means that, while passing most legislation only requires a simple majority of 51 votes, ending the debate on legislation to actually vote on it requires a super-majority of 60 votes. The way our Senate currently operates, you need more votes to end debate about a piece of legislation than you do to actually pass it. The result? A seemingly endless stalemate that hurts the working-class American voter more than anyone else.

This form of legislation is precisely what James Madison, one of the principle authors of the Constitution, warned against in The Federalist Papers, when he said that if super-majority voting requirements became routine in our legislative body, “the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.” Sadly, this is exactly how the filibuster has been used more and more frequently since its inception in the early 1800s. It has allowed legislators representing a minority percentage of the country to halt legislation from being passed by the majority party, and for no other reason than because they care more about power and their own party than they do about progress and our democratic institution. And while this procedural component of the Senate may feel like an unavoidable truth of legislating to some, the wonderful truth of the matter is that it doesn’t have to be.

One of the fundamental rules of both legislative bodies of Congress is that each gets to determine its own rules and operating procedures at the start of each term. This means that, if Senate Democrats so chose, they could end the legislative filibuster and open the doors to sweeping change and progress for our country, arguably at a time in our history where it’s needed now more than ever. Now is the time for bold and progressive legislation and governance, and to fulfill the campaign promises that Biden and the rest of the Democratic party made to the American people last year, and there’s no way to do that with the filibuster in place. Even if Republicans were to retake control of the Senate in two years and use the absence of the filibuster to their own legislative advantage, at least we’d know that Senate Democrats did absolutely everything in their power to help and serve the American people during this time of widespread tragedy and devastation, rather than simply roll over and accept an otherwise avoidable fate.

_____
Click on Forum for a new commentary by Stephen Macaulay

Kill the Legislative Filibuster?

By Todd Lassa

Before last November’s election, Joseph R. Biden punted on the question of whether he supports killing the Senate legislative filibuster. It’s a move Senate Democrats have been considering at least since it won a majority by the slimmest of margins, with Vice President Harris the tie-breaker for when legislation is split down party lines

The issue is not the first priority with Senate Democrats, who are moving President Biden’s $1.9-trillion coronavirus relief package via the arcane reconciliation process, which requires a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes – including 10 Republican senators – necessary when the potential of a filibuster is involved.

The question is, how much legislation can Biden’s Democratic allies in the Senate pass in the next two years without eliminating the legislative filibuster, which means most bills will require those 10 Republican votes? After January 2023, Democrats either will lose their wafer-thin Senate majority, or will build on it, though it is unlikely either party will gain at least 10 senators in the November 8, 2022 mid-terms.

Filibuster reformation seems to come up every four years with the presidential election, if not every two years.

In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, rallied Democrats to end the filibuster for federal judicial nominees and executive office appointments. Spiking the filibuster, called “the nuclear option,” requires only a simple majority vote.

Republicans warned that triggering the nuclear option on appointing federal judges would come back to bite Democrats whenever they inevitably lost the Senate majority.

And they were right. In 2017, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, led a majority of his party to end the judicial filibuster for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, paving the way for President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch as replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Adding hard-core partisanship to injury, Gorsuch’s Senate approval came the year after McConnell prevented a vote on Obama’s nominee late in his term to replace Scalia, Merrick Garland, who now is Biden’s nominee for attorney general.

In the end, Trump saw his three Supreme Court associate justice nominees get Senate approval in his four years in office, compared with Obama’s two associate justices in eight years.

The question for Democratic senators now is, how much more of Biden’s agenda could the Senate pass in the next 23 months if just 51 votes were needed? And would it be worth weathering the inevitable Senate and White House flip somewhere off in the future?

_____
Click on Forum for a new commentary by Stephen Macaulay
Email editors@thehustings.news with reader comments.

Not Carthage, But Important

By Stephen Macaulay

On January 26, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) tweeted, "I made clear that if Democrats ever attack the key Senate rules, it would drain the consent and comity out of the institution. A scorched-earth Senate would hardly be able to function."

He was talking about the filibuster. The Senate cloture rule calls for a supermajority, or 60 votes, to cut off debate. The Democrats, who hold a simple majority, would prefer that is all that is required to end debate; odds are, with Vice President Harris as president of the Senate, they would end all debate on subjects and get right to the voting, which they would again, as bill passage depends on a simple majority, come away as victors.

While “scorched-earth” may be a bit of an exaggeration — after all, we’re not talking the Third Punic War here and the salting of the ground upon which Carthage once stood — but a point of trying to uphold what the Senate should be about: being a deliberative body (it would be hard to put “greatest” in front of that term). To deliberate means to debate. To debate, when done properly, means to have an exchange of ideas, of opposing viewpoints.

In one regard it is somewhat ironic that I open with a tweet from McConnell in that it seems too many political issues are now being dealt with in 280 characters, rather than with an open, fulsome, spirited debate.

The Senate structure, as you know, is one where each state has equal representation. (The House, of course, has a structure predicated on population.) The point of the way the Senate is put together is to protect, in effect, the minority, meaning that California and New York can’t step on Wyoming and Vermont.

The Senate cloture rule does the same thing by requiring that there be two thirds, not one half, of the body in agreement that debate ends.

Of course, there’s the question of whether this is too high a bar, if getting cloture is some sort of impossibility. Perhaps that was once the case (or Senators just tended to be more loquacious back in the proverbial day) because from 1917 to 1968 cloture was invoked just eight times.

In 2019-2020 it was invoked 270 times (a record).

There is a feeling that we “must get things done.” A bunch of droning Senators doesn’t seem to be the way that can or will happen.

But McConnell does have a point, with the point being that before important things get done there needs to be sufficient support — by both sides — for its execution to have the positive effects anticipated by its existence.

To simply have a situation that says, in effect, “OK. We’ve had enough. Go back to your desk and put your head down,” isn’t going to be particularly beneficial.

This is not to argue that McConnell is an exemplary politician. He has proven himself over the years to be more of a tactician, a man who makes moves to benefit his, and his party’s, interests.

But there is something to be said for the ability of the minority to be heard in a fulsome manner.

And McConnell ought to know that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is far from being Cato.

_____
Click on Forum for new commentary by Stephen Macaulay