Making the case for regulation after Texas demonstrates that capitalism doesn’t do the right thing.
History’s second draft of Jan 6 from the Guardian.
The riot arose from a gathering to “save America” and “stop the steal”, inspired by Donald Trump’s lie that the 2020 presidential election was rigged and widely advertised on social media. Trump headlined the rally, delivering an incendiary speech which he had billed weeks earlier with a tweet saying: “Big protest in DC on 6 January. Be there, will be wild!”
The riot that ensued left five dead. A woman trying to break into the House was shot dead by police. A Capitol officer, Brian Sicknick, died after being struck with a fire extinguisher.
Meanwhile, a new AG is up for confirmation:
Garland’s emphasis on white supremacy, and his clear labelling of it as domestic terrorism, marks a departure from the leadership of Trump and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, who tended to minimize the danger or, in the case of the former president, actively refuse to condemn far-right and racist groups.
Heartening to see that Garland will address attempts to undermine commonsense with some distinction. The question is a trap, as Hawley wanted to present the riot as a “peaceful demonstration.”
Garland’s hearing saw him quizzed on his definition of domestic terror by one of the Republican senators accused of egging the seditionists on. Joshua Hawley of Missouri was photographed with a clenched fist in a display of solidarity with the “stop the steal” crowd outside the Capitol, shortly before violence erupted.
Hawley asked Garland if he thought violence against federal property during racial-justice protests was a form of domestic terrorism. Without mentioning Hawley’s actions on 6 January, Garland replied that to disrupt democratic processes, as in the Capitol insurrection, did fit the definition. “Attacking a courthouse at night” did not.
It takes a lot of nerve to outsource your legislative job.
A North Dakota bill that could upend Apple’s control of the iPhone app ecosystem was first given to a lawmaker in draft form by an Epic Games lobbyist, according to a new report.
Gerson in The Post gets at an underlying reason for conservative collapse under trump: no policy, no ideology, just fear:
There is a natural process by which political parties renew themselves. Newt Gingrich’s combative, uncompromising Republican revolution in the mid-1990s was a foil for the compassionate conservatism that defined the party in the 2000 presidential election. The rise of tea-party, anti-government populism set the stage for a contrasting reform conservatism, which sought to modernize government in pursuit of populist goals.
This dialectic, however, really operates only in the realm of policy. If Trumpism were merely a set of proposals, there could be an antithesis. But the movement fully revealed by the Jan. 6 invasion of the U.S. Capitol is united by a belief that the White, Christian America of its imagination is on the verge of destruction, and that it must be preserved by any means necessary. This is less a political philosophy than a warped religious belief. There can be no compromise in a culture war. There can be no splitting of differences at Armageddon.
Depressing. No way out?
The greatest need in our politics is a conservatism that opposes authoritarianism. The greatest question: Can such a movement emerge within the framework of the Republican Party?
As it stands, I am skeptical.
Doldrums, or Sargasso Sea?
The AP reports on what sounds like a tiff on the playground. Fox cut away from impeachment proceedings – for whatever reason – and recess broke out.
Williams described the case that House managers were building as chilling and an important exercise in democracy. “The impeachment trial that you’re all ignoring, I guess you’re afraid …”
At that point, he was shouted down by Watters and Gutfeld.
“You’re being so rude because I’m so right,” Williams said.
I was there. History was there. The Republicans were there. Where are they now?
What’s distinctive right now isn’t the fact that someone like Greene exists but that no one has emerged to play the role of Buckley. A longtime Republican leader like Mitch McConnell can try — he denounced Greene’s “loony lies and conspiracy theories” as a “cancer” on the party — but after he served four years as an ally to Donald Trump, his words aren’t worth much.
Buckley played the erudite critic of the conservative through my political adolescence. My hard-left household listened to the positions he presented (PBS, NPR) and moderated our stances because of him. He didn’t change how we voted but moderated positions about g0vernment.
Greene doesn’t know what she’s doing. McConnell probably does, but doesn’t care. Buckley – bless his iron-cold heart – cared.
<a href=“https://ift.tt/3auADkc”>Greene’s snark</a>
But you didn’t tell me I wasn’t supposed to pee in the pool! <sarcasm answers sarcasm>
Democrats argued that Ms. Greene’s comments — and Republican leaders’ refusal to take action against her themselves — had created an untenable situation that required the unusual action. In social media posts made before she was elected, Ms. Greene endorsed executing top Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi; suggested a number of school shootings were secretly perpetrated by government actors; and repeatedly trafficked in anti-Semitic and Islamophobic conspiracy theories.
What indicates the Greene isn’t fit to sit on committees is her address, supposedly justifying her comments:
“I was allowed to believe things that weren’t true and I would ask questions about them and talk about them, and that is absolutely what I regret,” Ms. Greene said, wearing a mask embroidered with the phrase “FREE SPEECH.”
It’s the sarcasm in contempt of the process that demands she takes the bench.
I probably should have mentioned this before, but Pai’s leaving is a good occasion. Bullet lists are administrative faves because they appear to make factual claims.
Just as he had done during his tenure, however, Pai has mirrored the 45th president’s approach and, rather than give an overview of actions to show a coherent drive and philosophy, has created the longest list possible. Bigger is better.
They leave out anything unwanted. Leave no room for counterpoint. Appear complete when partial. Appear cohesive when scattered.
Close relation: Take Aways.
It’s all about bragging rights.
Back on December 22, The Washington Post reported that organizers planning to rally on January 6 were openly discussing the potential for violence on that day on multiple social media platforms, including Parler, Gab, and Telegram. Reporter Marissa Lang continued in several subsequent stories to explain the high potential for violence at yesterday’s events. Several other outlets, including Bloomberg and BuzzFeed, have also reported that the extremists who stormed the Capitol had been planning well in advance not only on fringe or explicitly right-wing sites but also in Facebook groups.
Yay to John for unpacking fb’s arguments against privacy and for data collecion.
Facebook’s argument is along the lines of arguing that the police shouldn’t crack down on burglaries because doing so might hurt pawn shops that have been thriving during a years-long crime spree. The information used for tracking belongs to the users whose behavior and interests is being tracked, not to Facebook and the companies, no matter how small and noble, who advertise with them.