The times they are changin' ... changing but not without pain

A lengthy article in the sports section of the San Francisco Chronicle has haunted me for the last couple of weeks. Three young male University of San Francisco baseball players, recruited athletes all, have filed a class action lawsuit accusing longtime head coach Nino Giarratano and former associate head coach Troy Nakamura of creating an “intolerable sexualized environment.”

The coaches' behavior seems to have been quite unapologetically piggish.

They [the students] described an atmosphere in which [associate head coach Troy] Nakamura routinely used sexually graphic language in front of the team; flipped one player into a handstand and pretended to eat spaghetti out of his crotch area during a pre-practice skit; and once crawled onto the field naked, swinging his penis in plain view. Head coach Nino] Giarratano witnessed these incidents, according to John Doe 1, and kissed his cross and looked skyward when Nakamura crawled onto the field naked. 

... Nakamura identified a dinner style — barbecue, luau, fast-food — and then went around the circle asking players what they would bring to this pretend meal. He always found a way to make the exercise sexual, according to the lawsuit, and encouraged players to do the same. For instance, the lawsuit said, Nakamura referred to women’s body parts he wanted to eat and bodily fluids he wanted to drink ... “Coach Naks would make those comments and he would see us roll our eyes,” John Doe 1 said. “He would see us isolate ourselves from the group or walk away. He could see we were visibly uncomfortable, and then things started to pick up.” 

 ... “It was kind of crazy,” he said. “Did I just see Coach Naks naked on the field? What prompted that? I didn’t know. Most of these situations, he came out of nowhere being sexual and I didn’t understand why.”

The players bringing the lawsuit described being shocked and confused by what they felt was completely improper behavior by persons with authority over them. They were afraid of losing their scholarships, though eventually found the situation so unbearable that they looked to transfer to other baseball schools.

The description of these events in the Chron doesn't go into the question of what the other members of the team may have felt. Did they like this toxic masculine atmosphere or were they just going along to get along? Were they convinced that this sort of thing was what it took to build a cohesive, tough team?

 The athletes bringing the suit clearly had been raised -- by parents? in high school? in organized sports? -- to expect respect in dealings with coaches and others. They seem to have had supportive parents with whom they could share their pain. Let's hope they land somewhere that will work better for them.

• • •

A recent Washington Post article explored at length the efforts of a Bellevue, Nebraska police official, Chief Ken Clary, to reduce use of force incidents by his officers.

[While attending] the National Institute of Justice LEADS Scholars Program in Washington, ... he was introduced to a wealth of academic research indicating female officers excel at de-escalation and use force less frequently than male officers." 

... Between classes, Clary struck up friendships with Ivonne Roman, a Newark police officer who would go on to be a finalist for New York City police chief earlier this year, and Maureen McGough, an attorney who is chief of staff for the Policing Project at the New York University School of Law. Roman shared with Clary many of the obstacles she faced rising through the ranks in Newark. In a later conversation over lunch, Clary shared with McGough a dawning realization. 

“He looked at me and, out of nowhere, he said, ‘Mo', we have got to figure out how to get the toxic masculinity out of policing,’ ” she recalled. ...

So far, Cleary's two-year experiment with hiring women officers, especially women officers of color, has reduced use-of-force incidents.

And he's run into exactly the sort of resistance that might be expected. "You are lowering standards," he is told. Time will tell whether the culture of toxic masculinity can be tamped down by fiat from authority in a police context ...

• • •

Feminist writer Jill Filipovic examined the underlying context in which these two seemingly so different events are playing out,

The whole Democratic Party message is “we’re all in this together, and we will make life better for everyone.” What happens, though, when a significant chunk of the electorate doesn’t want to be in it together, and doesn’t want life to become better for everyone? ... The complaint that America has grown “too soft,” coupled with what we know about conservative voters’ desires for inequality and hierarchy, is at heart a complaint that life in America is too easy for too many people. [Nuts!]

... If a subset of conservative voters want less equality and less equal opportunity, and more inequity and hardship, then what? If those voters who say that America is too soft want life in America to be harder and more hierarchical and less forgiving, there is no rhetoric or message discipline Democrats can employ to win their votes. And what’s scary is that it seems that as more Americans who have traditionally been cut out of power and privilege do ascend to higher levels — many white women, some men of color — many of them respond with greater hostility to their fellow citizens. Some of them also seem to believe that identity-based hierarchies are justified, that a fairer playing field is not actually the goal, that life in America should be tougher and more brutal for more people.

She concludes:

 ... I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we’re in a period of broad social cruelty following four years of an intentionally cruel presidency and the rising power of a party that seems to believe strength is defined by dominance and abuse. 

If the public can move in a more callous direction, though, it can also move in a more compassionate one. I believe that’s a harder task to accomplish — it’s always easier to appeal to one’s devils than one’s better angels. But progressives can try. We do it by not backing away from our core values — the belief that all human beings have basic rights; a desire for a more fair, compassionate, and equal society — both in the policies we put forward and in how we behave toward others. ... we should be playing the long game here.

The struggles within the University of San Francisco baseball team and in the Bellevue, Nebraska police department seem to me evidence of new cultural constructs of empathy and equality having a difficult birth. The sooner, the better ...

Seen in the 'hood

Oh, do I ever understand that plaintive message. Way back in the day when I worked construction, my life would have been so much better if I could have kept a few tools in a box. 

No way. The wooden box I made, I intentionally usually left open and empty. That one, somebody torched on the truck. When I finally could afford a strong steel box, thieves stole the truck, ripped the chained box off, and abandoned the truck.

Security is a cost of doing business for tradesworkers.

Friday cat blogging

Janeway is sure there is something alive for her to chase inside the furnace vent. Maybe there is, but she's not going to have the chance to find out if we can help it. The huntress waits in hope, nonetheless.

Thanks transfolk and all the rest of genderqueer land

Yesterday, the Biden administration issued a new interpretation of the civil rights law that applies to schools, otherwise known as Title IX. These regulations carry the power of law. This is what the Department of Education hopes to enact. There will be push back!

The draft text of the regulation included this key sentence, according to the people familiar with it: “Discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” 

I'm gobsmacked. Not so much by the outlawing of discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as by that first prohibited category: "on the basis of sex stereotypes." If that sticks and gradually moves into our common experience, we'll be attempting something profoundly novel in this culture.

Women and men experience socially constrained stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. Huge numbers of us don't feel the roles we're expected to perform quite fit who we know ourselves to be. Mostly we find ways to be good enough at "male" or "female," but at the cost of not feeling quite ourselves. What would the world be like if we could be more ourselves? 

Slowly and painfully, largely thanks to the bravery of queer, lesbian and gay, transsexual, non-binary, intersex, and the whole melange of us who are somehow non-stereotype conforming, we're trying to change the world.

Sorry, gender-fearful Republicans.

Cosplay meets limits

What wouldn't Donald Trump give to be the recipient of that shit-eating grin? 

The photo is lifted from a tough article by a tough man, National Hockey League Hall of Famer Ken Dryden. In the 1970s, Dryden was THE MAN in Canadian hockey for the Montreal Canadiens who won the Stanley Cup (hockey's Super Bowl) five times with him in goal. 

He writes:

Putin also seems not to understand about hockey something that might relate to this moment: The tough are initiators, they deliver hard, devastating hits, but the really tough take those hits … and keep going, to win in the end. Just like in Leningrad. Obliterating the Ukrainian city of Mariupol doesn’t make you tough.

I'm no fan of this masculine chest bumping, but Dryden sure is more authentic than Vlad.

In some ways the most interesting thing about Dryden was that he took a year off hockey during his peak playing days to complete a law degree, interning for one of Ralph Nader's offshoots, the Ontario Public Interest Research Group. He was later a Liberal Party politician with only moderate success -- that places him with current Premier Justin Trudeau, perhaps a progressive Democrat if he were in the States.

By the way, the picture is from a 2021 exhibition in Sochi, Russia. Putin is looking at the referee who is likely determined not to let anything bad happen to his ruler.

Monster or wise woman? Or both?

When I heard that Madeleine Albright had died, my first, and essentially only, thought was of this 60 Minutes exchange from 1996. For more than a decade before George W. Bush's war of choice on Iraq in 2003, Iraqis lived under punishing economic sanctions imposed after Gulf War I, President G.H.W. Bush's excellent adventure in oil country. These economic sanctions endured and were increased under Bill Clinton. The first woman Secretary of State, a Clinton appointee, Albright was quizzed about the policy:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? 

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.

No wonder I thought her a monster. 

Apparently she later tried to walk this back a bit, but such a retreat rarely takes. I was later intrigued that she only discovered her Jewish ancestry late in life; her refugee parents thought concealment might help her survive even in America. And I did note that she used whatever megaphone she had in old age to denounce Donald Trump's flirtations with fascism.

But this was not someone to look up to.

So when all sorts of commentators began writing laudatory appreciations of this woman, I made myself read some of them because I'm committed to trying to understand even if I abhor. 

David Von Drehle of the Washington Post recounted an Albright remark as revealing as her brutal dismissal of Iraqi lives.

Madeleine Korbel Albright was so thoroughly her father’s daughter that she said her formative experience as a foreign policy expert was an event that happened when she could barely walk. “My mind-set is Munich,” she once said, while “most of my generation’s is Vietnam.” By “Munich” she meant the 1938 capitulation of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to Hitler’s demand for parts of the former Bohemia. Hitler kept right on going, sending tanks to Prague and more tanks to Poland and launching another, even worse world war. 

To have a Vietnam mind-set — today we might substitute “Afghanistan” — is to say the United States should not be the world’s policeman because policemen make mistakes. To have a Munich mind-set — today we might substitute “Ukraine” — is to say the other applicants for the job of maintaining order are likely to be worse.

This I can understand. 

I'm unequivocally, by age and also by choice, a member of that Vietnam cohort. Seeing that futile and immoral war, I've never believed in my government's high-minded pronouncements when it unleashes our bloated military might. 

Those of us who retain that mindset, or acquired it watching our misbegotten mideastern misconduct, are challenged by Russia's assault on Ukraine.

It's not hard to admire Ukrainian grit in the face of vicious invasion. A thwarted Russian force does seem to be using criminal tactics against Ukrainian cities. President Zelensky offers a model of heroism we apparently have yearned for.

Erudite Partner and I have been forced to examine what we think we'd be doing if we were Ukrainians. We are a couple of old ladies -- but we're pretty good organizers of people and things. We would try to be useful to our country. Other nice people probably would be urging us to get out if we could. 

The very idea of a just struggle in Ukraine is foreign to a life shaped by resistance to American empire. But there we are. I am not ashamed to support the Ukrainians in their war.

But, as proud member of the Vietnam generation, I remain wary. May peace with whatever justice can be salvaged come soon.

Who is left and who is right

Matt Yglesias offered one of his counterintuitive takes at his Slow Boring substack recently that that I found worth thinking about:

American politics has been shifting leftward for years. 

I know some people find that absurd. But imagine if [Republican House Speaker-in-waiting] Kevin McCarthy gave a speech this week where he said “after we retake the House this fall, we’re going to fight against wokeness by kicking gay soldiers out of the military and curb inflation by privatizing Social Security and cutting Medicaid and K-12 school funding.” That would be the best news the DCCC and DSCC have heard in years! But it would just mean McCarthy was reiterating his support for Paul Ryan’s policy ideas from 10 years ago. Meanwhile, Biden’s positions on virtually everything are at least a little bit to the left of Obama’s.

I think he is correct that Dems have moved left in many respects. 

This very broad coalition has to cover a lot of bases; we are a magnificent mix struggling to preserve a democracy in which citizen participation gives majorities some power. This coalition also struggles between and among its constituencies. This mystifies GOPers. Our internal battles look like "moving left" to a mono-cultural Republican party of old, white Christian nationalists. And they do move us somewhere new, in uneven fashion. 

But Matt's take is belied by what we saw in the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson. Republicans haven't moderated their most repressive aims; they merely expect to shift the battle away from the people to their packed court. At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern saw all too clear portents in the Republican grilling of the next Justice that, after decreeing that women are just vessels for fetuses, they hope the Court will come after the notion of a right to sexual privacy and individual choice, starting with gay marriage and moving on to contraception.

During Ketanji Brown Jackson’s hearings this week, GOP senators have, predictably, condemned Roe—but not as much as might be expected. Instead, many senators have turned their attention to a different precedent that’s likely next on their hit list once Roe likely falls this summer: Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 decision recognizing same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry. 

Loathing for Obergefell emerged early on Tuesday, when Republican Sen. John Cornyn launched a frontal assault on the ruling, then sought Jackson’s reaction. He began by criticizing “substantive due process,” which holds that the “liberty” protected by the due process clause protects substantive rights, not just procedural ones. The Supreme Court has used this theory to enforce “unenumerated rights” that it deems fundamental, including the right to marry, raise children, use contraception, and terminate a pregnancy. Along with equal protection, it served as the basis of Obergefell. According to Cornyn, however, this doctrine is “just another form of judicial policymaking” that can be used “to justify basically any result.” 

... In case it wasn’t clear what these senators were up to, Cornyn made it explicit on Wednesday afternoon. “The Constitution doesn’t mention the word abortion,” he lectured Jackson, “just like it doesn’t mention the word marriage.” ...

Look for these attacks on the lives of us all to be labelled "protecting religious freedom." As a person who identifies with a religion, I am offended.

This packed Supreme Court will be an obstacle to human freedom -- and to the desires of majorities of us -- until it isn't. How that happens I don't know, but if we preserve democracy, it will happen.

Electrify everything!

Every once in a while, it's worth reminding San Franciscans that we have something tangible we can do about climate change.  

CleanPowerSF, a city program, provides a choice of either 50% renewable or 100% renewable electric power to residents using the existing PG&E power lines. You can sign up here.

CleanPowerSF is only marginally more expensive than regular, dirty PG&E power.

Now we need to think about electric stoves, electric hot water heating, and electric powered cars -- all transitions that are more complicated and sometimes expensive than just ordering clean power through a city program.

The meaning of MAGA

Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama thought he had a clear path to winning an open Senate seat because he'd caught the gold ring: an endorsement from Donald Trump. He was Trump's guy; what could go wrong? Then the ex-president noticed that Brooks' campaign wasn't catching fire, so DJT took back his endorsement.

Brooks issued a statement explaining what Trump asked for from his endorsees. Trump demanded that he promise to:
    •    rescind the 2020 elections
    •    immediately remove Joe Biden from the White House
    •    immediately put President Trump back in the White House and
    •    and hold a new special election for the presidency

Brooks sought to recapture some shred of dignity by explaining:

As a lawyer, I’ve repeatedly advised President Trump that January 6 was the final election contest verdict and neither the U.S. Constitution nor the U.S. Code permit what President Trump asks. Period. 

I’ve told President Trump the truth knowing full well that it might cause President Trump to rescind his endorsement.

This story comes by way of Charlie Sykes who knows his Republican crackpots because he's seen the political party he once promoted hi-jacked by all manner of crazy.

The story has a moral: Every Republican candidate for any office should be asked by media and potential constituents at every appearance whether they are onboard with Trump's plan. Will they work to rescind the 2020 election, throw out Biden, and reseat Trump? Yes or no?

(Bet most of them will scamper away ...)

• • •

Meanwhile, Democratic communicator Dan Pfeiffer offers a deep dive into why the MAGA movement is so simpatico with Vladimir Putin:

1. Addicted to Strength: The concept of strength is the axis on which Republican politics has long rotated. Every Republican political campaign is about portraying the GOPer as strong and the Democrat as weak. ... When strength at all costs is emphasized at the expense of empathy, compassion, and morals, Putin can become the ideal leader for a morally bankrupt political party.

2. An Apocalyptic Mentality: The public tends to gravitate towards strongman-like figures out of fear. And fear is a central feature of Republican messaging. ... The driving force in the politics of fear is that before too long White people will represent a minority of Americans and the dominant political position that many believe is their birthright is at risk. Putin’s restorative nationalism is appealing to this segment of the population.

3. White Power: There is something grossly ironic about the America First movement idolizing a former KGB agent trying to reestablish America’s greatest adversary. But “America First,” really means “White America First. ... If you are skeptical about the central role of race, ask yourself why the Far Right loves Putin and Orban but disdains Xi Jinping of China? Pay close attention to what they are saying today in order to be prepared for tomorrow.

4. The Perverse Incentives of the Internet Attention Economy: Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, and Tucker Carlson have a lot in common. One of these commonalities is an inherent understanding of how to get and maintain attention in a media ecosystem powered by outrage. ...  

Unabridged version here.

Friday cat blogging

Nice to see this cat gets to join the fun in the sun. Janeway has one of these cat leash contraptions, but our noisy street isn't this attractive.

No idea what the "cat in puffy" flag was meant to signify.

Both pics from the Presidio while Walking San Francisco.

The Vindmans have a bit of an answer from President Joe

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman came to public notice as the brave national security officer who testified to Donald Trump's plot to extort the Ukrainian president for dirt on the Biden family. He lost his career path for that one. His twin, Yevgeny Vindman, also a White House national security officer, was fired and marched out unceremoniously by the Trump regime.

The twins were born in Ukraine, but joined the Jewish exodus from the late Soviet Union and grew up in New York City, becoming patriotic citizens along the way.

Wednesday, Vevgeny posted a tweet imploring his country to welcome Ukrainian refugees from the Russian invasion. 

Weapons and humanitarian aid ✅. What about refugees? Are we accepting refugees entry into the US? Refugees and immigrants contribute enormously to our country.

Y. Vindman replied to the inevitable questions:

I’m the cuter one. @AVindman is the goofier one.

Thursday Joe Biden promised a small measure of welcome to Ukrainian refugees and aid to European countries bearing the main burden of this mass migration.

Bowing to domestic and international pressure, the United States announced on Thursday that it would accept up to 100,000 Ukrainian refugees into the country and would donate $1 billion to help European countries handle a surge of migrants fleeing Russia’s invasion.

The announcement comes as countries facing an exodus of some three million refugees have sought assistance from the United States, which has been engaged in its own struggle to absorb thousands of refugees from the war in Afghanistan.

... Earlier this week, in discussions in Washington, U.S. officials said they were considering bringing in Ukrainians with relatives in the United States under a streamlined family reunification process. Other Ukrainians deemed to be vulnerable, such as members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community, political activists and journalists, potentially would be considered for temporary protection, according to the sources.

The Vindmans and even the Times highlight HIAS and Razom for Ukraine as go-to places for charitable donations to help refugees.

• • •

The Times is kinder about our obligations to Afghans than I would be. Can we get Joe Biden to take seriously the plight of people who fled during and after our military belly flop at withdrawal? A good country is one that recognizes its debts.

Where to go from here?

We streamed LUNANA: A YAK IN THE CLASSROOM this week. Nominated for an Oscar as Best International Feature Film, the movie tells the story of a young Bhutanese teacher dispatched, over his objections, to the most remote school in the country, a 10 day hike into the Himalayan foothills. His electronic devices go dead, keeping a fire burning requires collecting yak dung, and the school doesn't even have a blackboard. But the children turn out to be bright and eager to learn, the village leader's daughter teaches him to appreciate the magic of this remote valley, and even to how to get along with Norbu, the yak who lives in the classroom. Too soon, the teacher leaves this beautiful place, returns to accomplish his urban dream of emigrating to Australia -- and realizes that he may have left behind something vital.

Sounds trite, doesn't it? And maybe it is. The actors are beautiful and the scenery majestic. The film was an unalloyed joy to watch.

Yet I realized overnight that the film had stayed with me; there's depth in it.

I had the privilege of traveling in Bhutan in 2013. It was a fascinating place: a constitutional monarchy with a governing parliament, chosen by elections that international observers characterize as largely free and fair. The state aims to give all Bhutanese young people a modern education. In a country with many local dialects, all students learn English along with Dzongkha. Education promotes Western science; urban dwellers are plugged in citizens of the world. Yet Bhutan is also trying to keep its distinctive Buddhist culture alive and flourishing. Professional life is carried on in traditional dress; politicians compete to promote "Gross National Happiness" as well as security, health, and prosperity.

None of this is easy to balance. People we encountered in 2013 openly discussed whether the balance -- old and new, capitalist and cooperative, scientific and spiritual -- that makes Bhutan feel unique could be sustained. The tiny kingdom sits between Indian and China, both seeking influence. It has a Nepali minority who are very poorly treated. And if Bhutanese are really free, will they continue to want to preserve the national way of life?

These questions are the subject of Lunana. The filmmakers don't bash you over the head with them, but they are all there to ponder amid the gorgeous scenery. Highly recommended.

Happens every primary season

Paul Waldman, an opinion writer at the Washington Post, took a whack at a hardy perennial feature of primary season among Democrats. One set, labeled "centrists" by journalists, complains that progressives will force candidates so far to the left that they won't be able to win a general election. Another set says that voters will be uninspired by a nice safe candidate who offers only small incremental improvements in their lives. Waldman asserts Democratic centrists want to say politics is simple. They’re wrong. 

Exhibit A for Waldman is the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate primary contest between "moderate" Congressman Conor Lamb and Lt. Governor John Fetterman. It's not going the way some Democratic donors think it should. Fetterman is ahead in polls, not their guy Lamb.

The [Democratic donor] super PAC’s analysis is simple: Lamb is more centrist than Fetterman; Fetterman is winning because people don’t understand that; eventually they will, even if it doesn’t happen until the general election; so primary voters have to be persuaded to get with the program now and back the centrist in the race.  

The trouble is that while the Pennsylvania Senate primary might involve ideology, it isn’t just about ideology. With all due respect to Conor Lamb, he’s pretty indistinguishable from a thousand congressional candidates who have come before: clean-cut, solid résumé, just the kind of person you picture when you think “congressman.” 

Fetterman, on the other hand, stands out, from his imposing stature (6-foot-8) to his tattoos to his sartorial choices (he’s one of those shorts-in-the-winter guys) to his unashamed advocacy of issues such as marijuana legalization. Might his liberalism be a vulnerability in a closely divided state? It’s possible, but it’s also possible that his long record of concern for people in distressed areas of the state will help him win votes in places many Democrats don’t. Some people love Fetterman because of who he is, and some people don’t. 

... Lamb has discovered that reminding everyone he’s a moderate is taking him only so far. The argument between centrists and liberals might never be resolved, but don’t believe anyone who tells you the answer is as simple as these moderates believe.

Some comments: National Democratic leaders will almost always prefer the uninspiring "centrists" in these contests -- because should they get elected, they'll be a lot easier to work with. I bet I know who Chuck Schumer would prefer to deal with in his caucus.

The "moderate" candidates will almost always have an easier time raising money. People with big money don't want the boat rocked. Bernie proved you can get around this with small donors, but non-standard candidates will always face a high bar. 

And, from years of canvassing and working get-out-the-vote, votes aren't very attuned to these divides. These days, party label accounts for most vote choices. Among the sliver who really are making a choice, they want to feel like this person cares about people like me. That can go in as many directions as there are voters. 

I don't have a horse in the PA Senate race. Lamb was a sterling candidate who won a formerly Republican House seat in a very tough race in 2018. He was what that set of voters wanted. Fetterman is more a wild card, but he has won statewide before. The voters will decide May 17.

Here's Fetterman's introductory ad:

Old bulls performing today ...

Naturally she's experienced -- experienced at shoveling aside BS. That's always been part of her career path.

Crash, bang, boom, part 4 -- feeding the IRS edition

They're still at it on the roof above me. 

But we're getting stuff done around here. Today we filed our taxes, as early as I can ever remember accomplishing it.

This historical artifact (I think genuine) captures the ambivalence of the moment. Ultimately, the state we finance makes war possible. Of course taxes also do plenty of other things -- as many as we the people can squeeze out of the state through ongoing agitation. 

Citizenship is so much more than paying those taxes. At least this year I can be glad taxes are going to a pretty competent Biden administration rather than to an inept wannabe autocrat.  

Enough for now.

Shards from the Embattled Republic

An occasional list of links to provoking commentary. Some annotated by me. 

To-be Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

Theodore Johnson, director of the Fellows Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, writing at The Bulwark: "... what will it mean if the progressive wing of the Court made up of three women—one black, one Hispanic, and one Jewish—is consistently on the losing side, their constitutional interpretation on issues of civil rights and criminal justice routinely defeated?" My heart goes out to these sisters ... Can you imagine having to work with those pricks (one honorary)?

New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie: "for Americans who want a more equal society, the Supreme Court has been, is and will continue to be an adversary, not an ally. Understanding that fact is the first step toward doing something about it." 

• • •

Polish politician and member of the European Parliament Radosław Sikorski observes: "Populism has roots in many things, including frivolity. Electorates were voting for outlandish politicians in the UK, in the United States and elsewhere, out of a sense that nothing can go wrong, and therefore we can have these weird individuals. And now we know that things can go very badly wrong, and we need steadier hands." Over and over we have to learn this -- the politics of frivolity is a luxury item suitable only for an unserious society.

G. Elliot Morris, data nerd for The Economist: "Congressional election outcomes serve as very limited barometers of the public’s preferences for policy and presidents. ... If Democrats lose 30 or 40 seats in November, it is very hard to claim that x, y, or z is the thing that costs them electorally. That’s because lots of things matter marginally but most of the swing is already baked in. Though they have some control over how many seats they will lose in November, barring a war or political realignment by November, the Democrats lost Congress when they won the White House." I think of this well-founded observation when I read screeds about how Democrats should adopt this message or that one -- or throw this part of our coalition under the bus or that one ... We will need to work our darndest to hold as many Congressional seats as possible knowing the odds are against us, while winning some winnable Senate races and governor contests.

Nsé Ufot, chief executive of the New Georgia Project: “We need to remember that disinformation and fear that drives the other side, particularly around issues like critical race theory, do not equally drive Black voters ... We have to stop being reactive to talking points that motivate other audiences while ignoring the issues that actually matter to Black voters.” These Georgia folks have proved they know how to focus where their work can do the most good.

Stacey Abrams, running for Georgia governor, is very clear on what will get her elected: "You should not vote for me as a person. You should vote for me as a proxy, as a representative for who you are and what you want your community to be. The minute a politician becomes the product itself, we find ourselves in a lot of trouble. We’ve had recent examples of people buying the commodity versus the conduit." Abrams is the living antithesis of our frivolous politicians.

• • •

Philip Bump in the Washington Post: "Putin’s defenders in his fight against democracy are those who are disparaging America’s diversity, over and over again." Republicans are finding the present moment confusing. Putin invaded a democratic Ukraine, politics became more serious, and massaging racial and gender resentment ceased to provide an adequate compass. Some might find new bearings; many will remain unserious panderers to unserious crackpots.

Feminist stalwart Jessica Valenti: "To the politicians pushing anti-choice laws, women dying isn’t collateral damage—it’s just our job. They believe that if we were real mothers and real women, we’d give up anything for pregnancy: Our education, our finances, our safety, our health and even our lives." Woman hatred is real.

Paul Butler: "Students who think their education should be free of racist slurs from professors are not illiberal snowflakes who don’t understand academic values. They simply want to learn in an environment where their teachers don’t judge them by their race or gender." He's calling bull___ on fear of "cancel culture." 

Hamid Hayat served 14 years in federal prison for a crime he didn't commit because there was no crime. "His country once looked at him and imagined a terrorist. Americans feared his anger, and for that, he lost nearly everything. So if he does feel anger now, he isn’t free to show it. He still worries what co-workers and neighbors will think when they learn about his story. He still feels the need to show that he has a good heart, a good mind. He is still afraid of America’s fear." Because it was convenient for the people running the country, we let ourselves be run off our rails by exaggerated fears of Muslims. We should remember this, if we don't want to compound the folly and our crimes of cowardice.

Ariel Dorfman explores the urge of the powerful to censor: "... Winnie the Pooh was banned in China because apparently the portly, lovable bear was being used by dissidents to mock President Xi Jinping." 

For a last word here: the Reverend Dr Ellen Clark-King, Dean of King’s College London: "TL:DR  God is not male so broaden your pronouns."

Some people love showing their skills ...

They are out there everyday along San Francisco's Embarcadero.

They usually have an audience, but you get the sense that they perform mostly to impress each other.

I enjoyed the show while Walking San Francisco.

Away with useless grass!

Scanning The Nevada Independent, this wonderful ad popped up:

Since most readers here aren't located in Nevada, I've broken the link to the landscape company that placed it. Sorry if you wanted their services -- but you can probably find it.

The ad makes me jump for joy. 

The state of Nevada makes no sense as a population center. It's a desert, for goodness sake. 

Yet the Las Vegas area has been growing for years. And the city has been drawing its water from the Colorado River by way of artificial Lake Mead for decades. Because of the long running western drought, Lake Mead is currently at its lowest level ever. 

Now Las Vegas is actually somewhat better at water conservation than you might think. All those attractive fountains around casinos use recycled water quite efficiently. 

But in 2021 the Nevada legislature took what residents of many U.S. locales might consider a drastic step to reduce water waste. They moved to outlaw "useless grass" in many settings. 

LAS VEGAS—Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak has signed into law a bill supported by the Southern Nevada Water Authority that requires the removal of “useless,” or purely decorative, grass throughout the Las Vegas Valley by the end of 2026. ...

The law does not apply to grass in homeowners’ yards, or to grass used for recreation at schools and parks.

... Nonfunctional turf is grass that no one uses for sports, picnics, or other recreational activities. Some areas of nonfunctional turf are simply narrow strips grass bordering parking lots, walkways, and sidewalks. These narrow areas of purely decorative grass create significant amounts of sprinkler overspray and water waste.

Other examples of nonfunctional turf are found along streets between the curb and sidewalk; in traffic circles and medians; in landscaping at office parks and commercial properties, and at entryways for housing developments.

If the only person that uses the grass is pushing a lawn mower, it is nonfunctional.

So, happily, enterprising businesses are seeking to profit off helping landowners come into compliance.

And Nevada is setting a pattern that most regions will have to adopt as the earth warms. Unused expanses of green grass will become a luxury. Let's do it voluntarily before we're forced by necessity. We can learn to appreciate alternatives.

Crash, bang, boom, part 3; Friday cat blogging

 

A sensible cat might hide under a bed while the roofers bang above. Not Janeway. She wants to know what all the excitement is about.

Her human hopes this is the last day of this -- it's supposed to drizzle a little tomorrow.

Where does the world go from here?

There is so much enthusiasm, terror, and anxiety floating among us. The atmosphere is intoxicating and perilous. Let's survey about some of the emotions surfaced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pulled our heart strings by speaking to what we want to believe we value:

Right now, the destiny of our country is being decided. The destiny of our people, whether Ukrainians will be free, whether they will be able to preserve their democracy. Russia has attacked not just us, not just our land, our cities. It went on a brutal offensive against our values. Basic human values. Against our freedom, our right to live freely, choosing our own future. Against our desire for happiness, against our national dreams.

We're profoundly unused to heroism. Here's a guy -- and a people -- Davids up against a nasty Goliath. How could we not be moved? We, most of us, have plenty of reason to believe our country and society are in trouble, largely inept, decayed, amoral, racist, and scarcely functioning after pandemic and ascendant nationalist thuggery.

Historian of Ukraine Timothy Snyder diagnoses our feelings:

[Ukrainians] are consoling us.  Because Ukrainians are resisting, not just on the battlefield but as a society, they console us all. Every day they act is one when we can reflect, and hope. People do have values. The world is not empty.  People do find courage. There are things worth taking risks for.

It feels so good -- to be able to believe for a few minutes that the United States is for once on the right side of freedom. I'm seventy-four. No U.S. war in my lifetime has seemed to me just. (Yes, I can tell you why, but that's not what I'm writing about here.) I'm a Christian; I think most theory of "just war" is empire-serving sophistry. War is evil. But so is a brutish dictator choosing to invade a neighboring country and smash a functioning society. And yet, war is still never something to enjoy.

 

For some people -- perhaps too many -- there's both purpose and romance in a just cause. Hieu is a U.S. combat veteran who knew what he had to do. He was present when Russian missiles struck the Yavoriv military training center in western Ukraine.

When Russia launched its full-scale attack on Ukraine in February, he felt compelled to join the international legion, which is open to foreigners who want to fight the Russians. “It’s the right thing to do,” Hieu posted on his Facebook page in February. “I want to help the Ukrainian people and as [a] US veteran, I feel compelled to stand up for my American ideals. I’m mostly healthy and I’m qualified so I would not be able to rest easy knowing that I didn’t do something when I could.”

Let's hope he gets back alive.

In this time, I feel intense comradeship with Russians who want to explain to the world that they do not endorse what their ruler has begun.

Journalist Yevgenia Albats tells a western interviewer:

I feel awful. I'm a citizen of the Russian Federation. And I always thought that being political journalist, I have to have the same sort of constraints, in the same settings, as people I write for. I could have applied for Israeli citizenship because I'm Jewish, or Spanish or Portuguese citizenship, because centuries ago, my ancestors went from Morocco and they were kicked out from Spain and Portugal. It never even occurred to me to do that. I thought: “I have to be just a Russian citizen, as the readers are for whom I write.” 

I feel so ashamed [of] my country, which went through the awful realities of the World War II—my country, which lost 27 million people to Nazi occupation and the war. My dad fought at the front in World War II. And you know where? In Nikolaev. Yes. It is like a joke of history. My dad was parachuted onto the territory of Nazi-occupied Ukraine. ...

Ilia Krasilshchik is the former publisher of Meduza, an independent news outlet.

... The primary responsibility for this evil lies squarely at the feet of Mr. Putin and his entourage. But for those who opposed the regime, in ways big and small, the responsibility is also ours to bear. How did it happen? What did we do wrong? How do we prevent this from happening again? These are the questions we’re facing. No matter where we are — in Moscow, Tbilisi, Yerevan, Riga, Istanbul, Tel Aviv or New York — and no matter what we do. 

 ... We must now put aside our individual concerns and accept our common responsibility for the war. Such an act is, first and foremost, a moral necessity. But it could also be the first step toward a new Russian nation — a nation that could talk to the world in a language other than wars and threats, a nation that others will learn not to fear. It is toward creating this Russia that we, outcast and exiled and persecuted, should bend our efforts.

In the context of America's wars, especially the Iraq war, I would sometimes make the bitter joke that the only people as deeply ashamed of their country as I was of mine were anti-Zionist Israelis watching the pounding of Gaza. Antiwar Russians -- welcome to this sad club.

People in the United States need to understand that not everyone in the world sees the Russian invasion of Ukraine and our material and empathetic cheer-leading as we do.

Anthony Faiola and Lesley Wroughton report:

Many countries in the developing world, including some of Russia’s closest allies, are unsettled by Putin’s breach of Ukrainian sovereignty. Yet the giants of the Global South — including India, Brazil and South Africa — are hedging their bets while China still publicly backs Putin. Even NATO-member Turkey is acting coy, moving to shut off the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to all warships, not just the Russians. 

Just as Western onlookers often shrug at far-flung conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, some citizens in emerging economies are gazing at Ukraine and seeing themselves without a dog in this fight — and with compelling national interests for not alienating Russia. In a broad swath of the developing world, the Kremlin’s talking points are filtering into mainstream news and social media. But even more measured assessments portray Ukraine as not the battle royal between good and evil being witnessed by the West, but a Machiavellian tug of war between Washington and Moscow. ...

After all, there is little reason for most of the world to look upon the United States or Europe as particularly benevolent forces.

A 27-year-old doctor living near Nairobi in Kenya questioned how Americans could be outraged over the Russian invasion when “for so long, they had a monopoly over anarchy.” New York Times

And a monopoly over unjustified invasions of choice ...

To my moderate surprise, I think Joe Biden is handling this potentially catastrophic moment pretty well. He has been measured, resolute, and seems to remember that it is Ukrainians and European states that are in the immediate line of fire. So far, so good.

I do wonder, along with Peter Beinart who is feeling much chastened after having applauded past U.S. military adventures, whether Biden and his staff have visualized an endgame, especially to the sanctions which certainly are an act of economic war.

After 9/11, ... righteous indignation constricted public debate. I’m not even talking about the debate over invading Iraq. Think back to the debate over invading Afghanistan. Because the Taliban was so odious, because it deserved to be overthrown, Americans found it extremely difficult to question the wisdom of doing so. No one wanted to be accused of despising the Taliban less than everyone else. So not enough people (myself included) asked hard questions about America’s strategy.  

In this moment of justified fury at Vladimir Putin, I fear that’s happening again today.

It's not just Putin who needs an off-ramp. Someday Ukraine and the rest of us need to visualize a livable end.