[y66]

Jonathan Bernstein said:

Reportedly, there’s a deal on an infrastructure bill, which may or may not have the votes to defeat a filibuster in the Senate and may not even have enough votes to clear the House and at any rate will be vetoed by President Joe Biden unless a different bill including other portions of his original proposal is passed and while no one knows what that bill would look like, if it does in fact pass it would almost certainly have to do so with only Democratic votes, which means it would have to go through the budget-reconciliation procedure in the Senate.

Got that?

As political scientist Matt Glassman said, “Regardless of who does it, when the legislative filibuster eventually gets blown up---and absent some major development, it'll be sooner rather than later---stuff like this whole two-bill reconciliation tandem bike negotiation episode is gonna look plain bananaland in retrospect.”

So let’s sort this deal through, and see why it’s not “bananaland” under the current rules. In fact, it’s a rather clever solution to a complicated problem, even though it involves a lot of hostage-taking.

1. Biden and pretty much every congressional Democrat want a very large infrastructure package, which would include funding for a sprawling hodgepodge of both traditional and less traditional stuff.

2. A handful of Democrats, including Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, care deeply about burnishing their reputations for bipartisanship.

3. Quite a few Republicans would like at least some of this spending to pass, including several who also want to prove their bipartisanship.

4. Most Republicans, whether they want infrastructure spending or not, have exactly the opposite goal. They very much do not want to be seen doing anything that looks even remotely bipartisan. If Biden is for it, they want to be against it.

Making everyone happy under these conditions was tricky, but it appears that this deal has come close. We’re to have two bills. One will be bipartisan, worked out in negotiations among the White House and a group of Democratic and Republican senators. It will include the kinds of projects that Republicans are happy to back and will be paid for without cutting spending that Democrats like or raising taxes that Republicans don’t like — in large part, this will be done by only pretending to pay for it (which economists find reasonable, given both the long-term payoffs of infrastructure and low interest rates). That bill will need 60 votes to defeat the filibuster.

A second bill will contain spending for all the other things that Biden proposed and Democrats want. It will be passed in the Senate under the reconciliation rules, which protect some bills from the filibuster. It has yet to be negotiated, but it will have to keep Manchin and Sinema on board, as well as the most liberal lawmakers in Congress. With no margin of error in the Senate and only a slim majority in the House, Democrats can’t afford to lose anyone.

Why not just cut a deal over the whole thing? Because the votes probably aren’t there. Only a handful of House Republicans would be willing to vote for any high-profile bipartisan bill, and anything that relatively moderate Republicans sign on to is going to lose at least some of the most liberal House Democrats. So even a compromise bill that could win 60 votes in the Senate (should it be possible) might well fail in the House.

The two-bill solution solves this problem by promising progressives that if they vote for the bipartisan plan, they’ll also get their priorities funded separately. Not everything they want — it has to get through Manchin and Sinema. But the idea is that Manchin and Sinema got what they really wanted Thursday, with a White House ceremony celebrating bipartisanship and compromise. As long as they care more about that than they do about the substance, it should all work out. Even if the bipartisan bill falls short (the group that negotiated the deal included only five Republican senators, which means they’ll need five more).

The good news late Thursday was that none of the five Republicans had backed away, even when Biden explicitly said that he would only sign the bipartisan bill if the reconciliation bill also passes. That suggests they had agreed to the two-bill plan, even though they won’t vote for the second part of it. It also suggests (as reporting indicates) that they trust Biden and the Democrats to use the second bill only for those items that were completely omitted from the compromise bill. After all, Republicans bargained down the totals spent on roads and bridges and so on in the bipartisan bill; they don’t want those numbers topped up when the second bill is drafted.

There are two paths to success from here. The first is the two-bill plan agreed to today. It’s possible that the five Republican negotiators have at least five allies prepared to support the first measure; that all 10 (or more) will stick with it as things move forward; and that Democrats will reach agreement on the second bill and hang together to vote for both. The other path? The bipartisan bill fails to get 60 votes in the Senate, but having made their point and received their credit, Manchin and Sinema negotiate a single bill they (and their most liberal colleagues) can live with, and pass it with only Democratic votes through reconciliation. Should that happen, it’s possible that the totals negotiated in the bipartisan deal could be revisited, although the swing votes would then have considerable leverage.

Or it could all fall apart. If the bipartisan deal fails to get 60 votes in the Senate, and if even one Democrat there refuses to move ahead with a Democrats-only single bill, then no deal will pass. Or if the liberals and moderates can’t agree on the reconciliation bill. Or … well, there are other things that can go wrong. My guess, though, is that this is the least likely outcome from where we are now.

[y66]

Alex Horton at WaPo said:

Army Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admonished lawmakers over questions about critical race theory at a Wednesday hearing, saying it is important for leaders to be well-versed in many schools of thought.

“I’ve read Karl Marx. I’ve read Lenin. That doesn’t make me a communist,” Milley told the House Armed Services Committee. “So what is wrong with understanding … the country which we are here to defend?”

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) criticized reports that the U.S. Military Academy teaches a course involving the theory, which broadly explores the idea that racism reaches beyond individual prejudice and affects minorities at the institutional level, particularly in criminal justice.

The course at the academy includes phrases such as “White rage,” Waltz claimed, and he pressed Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the nation’s first Black Pentagon chief, to investigate further.

Soon after, when the committee gave Milley a chance to expand, he launched into an impassioned defense of inquiry about U.S. society and its racial dynamics.

“I want to understand White rage. And I’m White,” Milley said, focused on learning more about the mostly White, mostly male mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.

“What is it that caused thousands of people to assault this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America. What caused that?” Milley asked. “I want to find that out.”

Milley said he was offended that critics, among them lawmakers and right-wing commentators like Fox News host Tucker Carlson, have accused the military of being “woke or something else because we’re studying some theories that are out there.”

[kenberg]

CRT has become a much talked about subject, especially the teaching of CRT in schools. Does anyone have some direct knowledge of how this actually plays out in schools?

I'll use a different topic to try to explain what I am getting at. In my high school psycholgy course, the teacher, who I liked then and remeber kindly now, gave the following opinion on sex:

"No girl, no matter how modern she thinks she is, can really be truly happy in a sexual relationship outside of marriage"

Here is my point: Whatever you think of that statement, we were not given an exam question that read "Can a girl be truly happy in a sexual relationship outside of marriage?". Answer yes or no, pass or fail.

He was a good man, he gave his opinion on various matters, we were not required to accept his opinions as fact and confirm them on exams.


A substantial exploration of various thoughts on American History is fine with me. I would not be so happy if tenets of CRT, views rather than historical facts, are presented as indisputable truth that must be recited as fact in order to pass a course. George Washington did not confess to his father that he had cut down the cherry tree and the Revolutionary War (yes, I said Revolutionary, not Civil) was not fought to preserve slavery. If I had to agree to either of these claims in order to get a high school diploma there would be problems.
So. In general I would like to hear just what happens in, say, a ninth-grade classroom where CRT is being taught. In particular, I would like to know if it is acceptable for students to disagree.
Does anyone have direct experience with what is being taught and how? By direct experience I mean, for example, they have kids who are taking such a ninth-grade class.

Side-note: In my high school history class we skipped the section of the text on the war with Mexico since (I assume this was the reason) it made the US look like a land grabber. So I read it on my own. I approve of taking a good hard look. But it should be an inquiry where discussion is expected and alternative views are allowed and even encouraged.


Much of the debate over CRT seems to be devoid of actual statements such as "Here is the text the students use, here is the exam that they must take". My views on the teaching of CRT would be heavily influenced by such information.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-June-26, 07:07, said:

CRT has become a much talked about subject, especially the teaching of CRT in schools. Does anyone have some direct knowledge of how this actually plays out in schools?

I'll use a different topic to try to explain what I am getting at. In my high school psycholgy course, the teacher, who I liked then and remeber kindly now, gave the following opinion on sex:

"No girl, no matter how modern she thinks she is, can really be truly happy in a sexual relationship outside of marriage"

Here is my point: Whatever you think of that statement, we were not given an exam question that read "Can a girl be truly happy in a sexual relationship outside of marriage?". Answer yes or no, pass or fail.

He was a good man, he gave his opinion on various matters, we were not required to accept his opinions as fact and confirm them on exams.


A substantial exploration of various thoughts on American History is fine with me. I would not be so happy if tenets of CRT, views rather than historical facts, are presented as indisputable truth that must be recited as fact in order to pass a course. George Washington did not confess to his father that he had cut down the cherry tree and the Revolutionary War (yes, I said Revolutionary, not Civil) was not fought to preserve slavery. If I had to agree to either of these claims in order to get a high school diploma there would be problems.
So. In general I would like to hear just what happens in, say, a ninth-grade classroom where CRT is being taught. In particular, I would like to know if it is acceptable for students to disagree.
Does anyone have direct experience with what is being taught and how? By direct experience I mean, for example, they have kids who are taking such a ninth-grade class.

Side-note: In my high school history class we skipped the section of the text on the war with Mexico since (I assume this was the reason) it made the US look like a land grabber. So I read it on my own. I approve of taking a good hard look. But it should be an inquiry where discussion is expected and alternative views are allowed and even encouraged.


Much of the debate over CRT seems to be devoid of actual statements such as "Here is the text the students use, here is the exam that they must take". My views on the teaching of CRT would be heavily influenced by such information.

I have a granddaughter in private school here in ruby-red Oklahoma, a state that recently passed an anti-CRT law. I'll try to find out if there is any affect.

That said, it seems to me that trying to understand systemic racism is a squishy undertaking - that it is impossible to quantify. There are statistics - black Americans are arrested and convicted and sent to prison at a much greater rate than their percentage of total population would suggest: why that is so is squishy. And from what I know, that question is pretty much the impetus of CRT in legal theory, and it began as a narrow concern within law school academia.

Squishy should be a part of the learning experience. How else do you teach critical thinking? I don't think it is what students are taught but how they taught to think for themselves that is of critical importance.

[Gilithin]

kenberg, on 2021-June-26, 07:07, said:

CRT has become a much talked about subject, especially the teaching of CRT in schools. Does anyone have some direct knowledge of how this actually plays out in schools?

From what I have picked up from interviews with actual educators, there appears to be no state in which CRT is actually taught as part of the syllabus at school level. This is different at university level, where CRT is routinely taught in appropriate subjects. Certain aspects that are included in CRT, such as facts concerning the history of the USA, are of course taught in schools. If the current laws being introduced in red states were to ban such facts being taught to students, I would regard that as problematic but in fairness not more problematic than being allowed to teach the Big Bang over creationism or that the world is not flat despite certain Bible passages.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-26, 07:50, said:

I have a granddaughter in private school here in ruby-red Oklahoma, a state that recently passed an anti-CRT law. I'll try to find out if there is any affect.

That said, it seems to me that trying to understand systemic racism is a squishy undertaking - that it is impossible to quantify. There are statistics - black Americans are arrested and convicted and sent to prison at a much greater rate than their percentage of total population would suggest: why that is so is squishy. And from what I know, that question is pretty much the impetus of CRT in legal theory, and it began as a narrow concern within law school academia.

Squishy should be a part of the learning experience. How else do you teach critical thinking? I don't think it is what students are taught but how they taught to think for themselves that is of critical importance.

Your last sentence is reflects what I am saying.

Mt high school was a mixed bag. My biology teacher didn't know any biology and my engineering drawing teacher had a substantial problem with alcohol. But many of my teachers were quite good. I particularly appreciated the many assignments that I was given to write essays. Often the general area was stipulated but beyond that I could choose what interested me and, very important, I was to draw my own conclusions. I wrote on Douglas MacCarthur in the 1952-53 school year when I was a freshman. Before starting I knew he had executed the Inchon landing, I knew of his dismissal by Truman, I knew he was a candidate for president in 52, but I learned a lot more in preparing the essay. his return to the Philippines, for example. I can't recall just what all I ended up thinking but I worked at it and thought whatever I thought. Critically, I was not required to accept any particular conclusion.

Here is a tenet that I believe is from CRT: It's not enough support equal opportunity. This could lead to some interesting discussions. My own views, long held, are that we must see to it that opportunity is provided. After that, we stand back, we accept that some people will make bad choices, we should provide second chances if reasonable, but ultimately we accept that not everyone will choose a successful path. The devil is always in the details, but I doubt I will be changing my mind about the general principal and, as is often the case, I believe that a great many people share my view.

I am really hoping to see some exams or texts or study sheets that students take in a CRT course. I have no idea of what is actually being taught under that heading, and from what I have seen many people who are arguing either for teaching CRT or against teaching CRT have no better of an idea than I have.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-June-26, 08:55, said:

Your last sentence is reflects what I am saying.

Mt high school was a mixed bag. My biology teacher didn't know any biology and my engineering drawing teacher had a substantial problem with alcohol. But many of my teachers were quite good. I particularly appreciated the many assignments that I was given to write essays. Often the general area was stipulated but beyond that I could choose what interested me and, very important, I was to draw my own conclusions. I wrote on Douglas MacCarthur in the 1952-53 school year when I was a freshman. Before starting I knew he had executed the Inchon landing, I knew of his dismissal by Truman, I knew he was a candidate for president in 52, but I learned a lot more in preparing the essay. his return to the Philippines, for example. I can't recall just what all I ended up thinking but I worked at it and thought whatever I thought. Critically, I was not required to accept any particular conclusion.

Here is a tenet that I believe is from CRT: It's not enough support equal opportunity. This could lead to some interesting discussions. My own views, long held, are that we must see to it that opportunity is provided. After that, we stand back, we accept that some people will make bad choices, we should provide second chances if reasonable, but ultimately we accept that not everyone will choose a successful path. The devil is always in the details, but I doubt I will be changing my mind about the general principal and, as is often the case, I believe that a great many people share my view.

I am really hoping to see some exams or texts or study sheets that students take in a CRT course. I have no idea of what is actually being taught under that heading, and from what I have seen many people who are arguing either for teaching CRT or against teaching CRT have no better of an idea than I have.

From my understanding, what you are asking to see is vapor, a boogey-man created by Republican propaganda in response to the 1619 Project of the New York Times, which, as far as I know, was never officially part of any school's curriculum.
https://en.wikipedia...he_1619_Project

Quote

In July 2020, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas proposed the "Saving American History Act of 2020", prohibiting K-12 schools from using federal funds to teach curriculum related to the 1619 project, and make schools that did ineligible for federal professional-development grants. Cotton added that "The 1619 Project is a racially divisive and revisionist account of history that threatens the integrity of the Union by denying the true principles on which it was founded."^[61] On September 6, 2020, Trump responded on Twitter to a claim that the State of California was adding the 1619 project to the state's public school curriculum. Trump stated that the Department of Education was investigating the matter and, if the aforementioned claim was found true, federal funding would be withheld from Californian public schools.^[62][63][64] On September 17, Trump announced the 1776 Commission to develop a "patriotic" curriculum

I could be wrong, though.

[Gilithin]

kenberg, on 2021-June-26, 08:55, said:

Here is a tenet that I believe is from CRT: It's not enough support equal opportunity.

From the wiki entry:

Quote

In the field of legal studies, CRT emphasizes that merely making laws colorblind on paper may not be enough to make the application of the laws colorblind; ostensibly colorblind laws can be applied in racially discriminatory ways.

Strangely enough, one of the biggest criticisms of CT generally is precisely that it does not provide a suggestion of a clear course regarding practical political policy. Rather it is concerned with identifying how the structures and cultural influences of a society work together to create social problems, with CRT specifically focussed on the social problems surrounding race under the axiomatic assumption that race is a socially constructed entity. Exactly what should be done about any enlightenment that comes from CRT is specifically not part of the academic subject.

[kenberg]

Gilithin, on 2021-June-26, 09:40, said:

From the wiki entry:


Strangely enough, one of the biggest criticisms of CT generally is precisely that it does not provide a suggestion of a clear course regarding practical political policy. Rather it is concerned with identifying how the structures and cultural influences of a society work together to create social problems, with CRT specifically focussed on the social problems surrounding race under the axiomatic assumption that race is a socially constructed entity. Exactly what should be done about any enlightenment that comes from CRT is specifically not part of the academic subject.

I wonder how the following thought fits in with CRT:
I will benefit if everyone is provided with the opportunity for a good life.

Ok,"everyone" needs some qualifications, I am not interested in providing the criminally psychopathic with a good life. But it's a clear enough statement I think. If a young person has the opportunity for a good education then, fairly often, that person will take advantage of that opportunity, become self-supporting, become a contributing member of society, and that result will be good for us all.
This does not require that I develop massive guilt feelings about either myself or about White people in general, it simply requires noting the truth, I believe the obvious truth, that we will all be better off if all others (again deleting psychos from "all") have good opportunities and take advantage of these good opportunities.
This will not solve all problems but it seems to me we could get very large agreement on this and move forward.
Coming back to your point, it has practicality on its side.

Anyway, before favoring or not favoring the teaching of CRT in schools, I want to see some texts and exams so I can see what really we are speaking of. I looked at the wik. Quite a bit to read and digest.

[Gilithin]

kenberg, on 2021-June-26, 10:56, said:

I wonder how the following thought fits in with CRT:
I will benefit if everyone is provided with the opportunity for a good life.

Ken, you are trying to force a political position onto an academic subject. CRT is not meant to be political. Let it do what it is meant for and leave the political decisions that follow to think tanks and politicians.

[kenberg]

Gilithin, on 2021-June-26, 12:12, said:

Ken, you are trying to force a political position onto an academic subject. CRT is not meant to be political. Let it do what it is meant for and leave the political decisions that follow to think tanks and politicians.

Probably you are right. David Brooks, on PBS Newshour, mentioned a T-shirt slogan he had as a student: "That's fine in practice, but does it work in theory?"

[Winstonm]

Ken, Snopes has a fact check on CRT.

Quote

Critical race theory doesn’t, for example, argue that anyone is “inherently privileged, racist, sexist, or oppressive,” as the Tennessee law states. In fact, critical race theorists generally acknowledge that race itself is socially constructed, and that even though there are no “inherent” attributes based on race, white people are statistically more likely to do better in society than similarly-situated people of color. Critical race theory interrogates why that is the case.

[thepossum]

.

[kenberg]

'll go off on a crazy binge but then come back to reality.
The Wik entry
https://en.wikipedia...cal_race_theory
has a list of Common Themes of CRT.
The first one is Critique if Liberalism. It says

Quote

Critical race theory scholars question foundational liberal concepts such as Enlightenment rationalism, legal equality, and Constitutional neutrality, and challenge the incrementalist approach of traditional civil-rights discourse.^[28] They favor a race-conscious approach to social transformation, critiquing liberal ideas such as affirmative action, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle^[43] with an approach that relies more on political organizing, in contrast to liberalism's reliance onrights-based remedies.

What would it even mean to teach this to a ninth-grader? in order to understand any criticism of Enlightenment the student needs to learn what this refers to. I was a decent student but I doubt I could have defined the term. Same with Rationalism. Perhaps by age 13 I had heard of "I think, therefore I am". or maybe I hadn't heard of it, but I certainly hadn't thought though any philosophy it entails Somewhere along the way I learned Descartes's rule of signs for algebra class but I had little if any knowledge of his philosophy. So if we are going to explain CBT's skepticism of Enlightenment, Rationalism, and other matters we first need to take a couple of months to explain to the ninth-grader what these concepts are that CRT is skeptical of. After that, we could discuss whether it really is best to discard these concepts and rely instead on political organizing. Mitch McConnel might well agree with CRT that political organizing is far more important than Enlightenment.

Ok, back to reality. Surely the advocates of CRT are not suggesting that ninth-graders read Spinoza so that they can understand the CRT objections to what he says. i am left with confusion as to just what is being advocated by those who want to teach CRT but my guess is that what they want to teach would not be all that recognizable as CRT.


As happens, there was an article by George Will in WaPo this morning. Yes I read conservative columnists. It's not about CRT but it is about some contemporary issues relating to education and it appears to get at my overall views. Will addresses arguments made by Michael Sandel in a book called The Tyranny of Merit. I have not read the book but my guess is that while I would not agree with all of what Will has to say I also would not agree with Sandel. I have long advocated doing our best to provide opportunity for everyone to develop their talents but then choosing on merit. I favor giving help to those who just cannot cope with the demands of the world, but still I believe decisions about jobs, entrance to training programs and such be strongly based on merit. No doubt the right way to learn just what Sandel is saying is to read his book rather than to read Will's description, but I hope Will is discussing Sandel fairly. At any rate, the topic seems to be current and important.

As to CRT, I am done with it for the moment. If I ever see some text material or exam material that is directly related to what it means to teach CRT I might come back to it. but right now I think the debate might well be over the teaching of something called CRT that only remotely resembles what CRT actually is.

[y66]

What if American Democracy Fails the Climate Crisis?

Quote

Ezra Klein and four environmental thinkers discuss the limits of politics in facing down the threat to the planet.

Continues to fail massively?

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2021-June-27, 09:27, said:

If I ever see some text material or exam material that is directly related to what it means to teach CRT I might come back to it. but right now I think the debate might well be over the teaching of something called CRT that only remotely resembles what CRT actually is.

This has been the point I have been trying to make (obviously, a poor attempt), that CRT as it is currently being thrown about in the media is a strawman.

[awm]

After reading up on this a bit, it seems clear that:

1. Critical Race Theory is a subject that is normally taught in law schools. It tries to answer the question: "If the law does not explicitly discriminate and we reject racist ideas about the inherent inferiority of some ethnic groups, why is it still the case that minorities fare worse on virtually every quality-of-life measure in the US?" Understanding this is important for future lawyers (or judges, or politicians) -- it's important to see how laws which are textually race-neutral can perpetuate discriminatory outcomes (either by making it difficult to break out of the status quo, through selective enforcement, or in other ways).

2. There is no curriculum to teach critical race theory in high schools or junior high schools (and never has been). The theory has been around for decades; all that has changed is Republicans looking for a scapegoat / distraction. In fact the efforts to "ban critical race theory" will either accomplish nothing (because it's not taught in public K-12 schools and it isn't what Republicans think it is) or will attempt to ban diversity training in companies and government offices (which will be overturned in court as it violates the Civil Rights act).

3. What Republicans are actually trying to push back against is the idea that racism is still a big problem in the US. They'd prefer to believe that racism ended years ago (with the Civil Rights act, or even the Civil War -- actually some of them seem to believe that Black people were better off BEFORE the Civil War) or at least that racism today is restricted to a tiny minority of KKK members and the like. In fact most Republicans believe that reverse racism (against white people) is a much more serious problem in the US today.

The reason this discussion is happening now is because of the very visible Black Lives Matter protests due to the now much more visible police murders of Black people. Given the video tape in some of these cases (Derek Chauvin most prominently) it's increasingly difficult to believe that racism in the US is a thing of the past... and a lot of people want to blame Republicans for this problem (probably correctly, but they certainly don't want to accept blame).

[Winstonm]

awm, on 2021-June-27, 10:48, said:

After reading up on this a bit, it seems clear that:

1. Critical Race Theory is a subject that is normally taught in law schools. It tries to answer the question: "If the law does not explicitly discriminate and we reject racist ideas about the inherent inferiority of some ethnic groups, why is it still the case that minorities fare worse on virtually every quality-of-life measure in the US?" Understanding this is important for future lawyers (or judges, or politicians) -- it's important to see how laws which are textually race-neutral can perpetuate discriminatory outcomes (either by making it difficult to break out of the status quo, through selective enforcement, or in other ways).

2. There is no curriculum to teach critical race theory in high schools or junior high schools (and never has been). The theory has been around for decades; all that has changed is Republicans looking for a scapegoat / distraction. In fact the efforts to "ban critical race theory" will either accomplish nothing (because it's not taught in public K-12 schools and it isn't what Republicans think it is) or will attempt to ban diversity training in companies and government offices (which will be overturned in court as it violates the Civil Rights act).

3. What Republicans are actually trying to push back against is the idea that racism is still a big problem in the US. They'd prefer to believe that racism ended years ago (with the Civil Rights act, or even the Civil War -- actually some of them seem to believe that Black people were better off BEFORE the Civil War) or at least that racism today is restricted to a tiny minority of KKK members and the like. In fact most Republicans believe that reverse racism (against white people) is a much more serious problem in the US today.

The reason this discussion is happening now is because of the very visible Black Lives Matter protests due to the now much more visible police murders of Black people. Given the video tape in some of these cases (Derek Chauvin most prominently) it's increasing difficult to believe that racism in the US is a thing of the past... and a lot of people want to blame Republicans for this problem (probably correctly, but they certainly don't want to accept blame).

#3 reminds me of a Tom Lehrer song - I think it was called the MLF lullaby;
‘Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that cannot happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then.’

[Chas_P]

Winstonm, on 2021-June-27, 13:15, said:

#3 reminds me of a Tom Lehrer song - I think it was called the MLF lullaby;
‘Once all the Germans were warlike and mean
But that cannot happen again
We taught them a lesson in 1918
And they’ve hardly bothered us since then.’

For your gratification.

[y66]

From Inside William Barr’s Breakup With Trump by Jonathan D. Karl at The Atlantic:

Quote

On December 1, 2020, shortly after meeting with Barr, Michael Balsamo posted a story on AP that led with:

Disputing Donald Trump’s persistent baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department had uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.

That afternoon, Barr met with the president to discuss the story.

Trump: Did you say that?

Barr: Yes

Trump: How the f#ck could you do this to me? Why did you say it?

Barr: Because it’s true. ... You know, you only have five weeks, Mr. President, after an election to make legal challenges. This would have taken a crackerjack team with a really coherent and disciplined strategy. Instead, you have a clown show. No self-respecting lawyer is going anywhere near it. It’s just a joke. That’s why you are where you are.

The part about no self-respecting lawyer going anywhere near it is pretty rich.