Thursday night: Biden, congressional leadership, and progressive Dems stand unified against Manchin and Sinema, raising hopes for joint passage of reconciliation and infrastructure bills.
New York Times front page, Friday morning:
I'm reading the first article now. It's even worse and stupider than the headline.
"Short of support amid a liberal revolt." "A humiliating blow to Mr. Biden and Democrats."
How do you characterize a situation where the president, the leaders of the House and Senate, the squad, and 95+% of House and Senate Dems are all in lockstep against two Senators?
Why, "the distance between the party’s left flank and a few centrists," of course.
This next quote is horseshit. Just factually, it's horseshit. Pelosi and Clyburn didn't whip the bill.
"Despite cajoling, pleading and arm-twisting, the House’s most liberal members would not budge."
Graf 11: "The liberals’ price for their infrastructure vote — Senate passage of the social policy measure — is beginning to drift out of reach."
Graf 24: "Some Democrats saw Mr. Manchin’s memo as at least a starting point for negotiations."
A contradiction? WHO CAN SAY?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The earliest designs for what would become the Beetle date from before the Nazi rise to power, and were dusted off and —by actual car designers—when Hitler was like "I'd like to get a cheap car with certain broad specs into production."
But then the war happened, and as a result the Beetle didn't go into mass production until the late 1940s. There weren't a zillion of them zipping around Berlin during the Nazi era—more like a hundred, tops.
A woman just won a ruling that British police violated her human rights by allowing a cop to engage in an ongoing sexual relationship with her while working undercover in her activist community. theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/s…
The tribunal found that the officer in question pursued sexual relationships with a long list of women while spying on their activist circles, and that if the Metropolitan Police wasn't aware of it, it was only because they chose not to be.
The ruling came down on the same day that an officer in the same police department was sentenced to life in prison for using his authority and badge to abduct, rape, and murder a woman he took from a London street this spring. washingtonpost.com/world/europe/c…
Teachers are supposed to get federal student loan forgiveness. But they have to apply to get it, and when they do, @usedgov frequently turns them down with no justification. politico.com/news/2021/09/2…
"The disclosure suggests further bureaucratic problems with the management of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which has come under fire from Democrats in recent years for rejecting more than 98 percent of all borrowers who applied."
"[The Department of Education has] blocked thousands of people who clearly work in public service—including educators—from pursuing [student debt forgiveness via] PSLF, often due to paperwork hurdles and other trivial administrative errors." protectborrowers.org/pheaa-ecf-deni…
I get feeling like it's unfair to be rejected because you don't check someone's boxes, but nobody has an obligation to like, or to consider liking, anyone for any reason. That's not how liking people works.
And that's before we even get to the straightforwardly practical relationship between having sex with someone and wanting their sexual ethics and values to be compatible with yours.
For a long time I thought some of these victories were pretty much safe, just because their outcomes are now broadly popular. But an antidemocratic political movement doesn't have to care about popularity in the same way that a party that has to win free and fair elections does.
Sodomy laws were almost entirely unenforced for quite a while before the Lawrence decision. But if we've learned one thing from the last five years, it's that norms, precedent, and tradition mean nothing to the modern Republican Party.
Since some folks are misinterpreting, I want to be clear: The people I'm talking about aren't making an ethical decision to reduce their impact on the planet through population reduction. They're foregoing having kids because they're scared of what the world is turning into.
We could debate whether population restriction is going to solve the planet's problems (it mostly wouldn't, and would cause all sorts of other trouble, is my answer), but this isn't that.