Well, despite the fact that the supermarket did not have any more of that marvelous popcorn, it was a very pleasant afternoon. I enjoyed the giggles and smirks of the Democrats as the Republicans flailed around and revealed themselves for what they are. If I may adopt a new meme that has gained currency lately, the Democrats were in total array. I shall be watching again at noon today. I have no idea at all how this is going to end but it clearly will end badly for the Republicans.
On another more personal matter, I had a very useful zoom
conference this morning with my neurologist’s physician’s assistant, discussing
my Parkinson’s disease. I asked a number of pointed questions and got, for the
first time, clear coherent answers. To summarize the conversation briefly, it
turns out they have not a clue. They do not really know what causes Parkinson’s,
what it is, whether the medicine I take helps, what my prospects are. They
simply do not know. So I am going to stop asking and just go on with my life.
I am so glad to be living in a time when medicine has advanced far beyond what
could be offered to patients when I was just a child.
37 comments:
“It’s been a day of pure, uncut, Peruvian blue-flake schadenfreude, watching the G.O.P. stab each other in the throat,” Colbert said.
My information on Parkinson's is the same as yours with one exception--the effectiveness of the medication. My wife takes Rytery (sp?) several times a day, and it helps by reducing the symptoms significantly. I can usually detect, from her speech and balance problems, if she's missed a dose.
Much sympathy (to David Palmeter as well). When my family was given the news, one of the first things we heard was, "If you've met one person with Parkinson's, you've met one person with Parkinson's." Somewhat more helpful than the average tautology.
David, I am so glad that the medication helps. I take carbidopa levodopa and I must confess I cannot tell whether it helps or not. So long as I can think and teach and write, I can carry on.
Apropos Parkinson's (the subject/cartoonist in question is not quite a distant in-law):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9gFYolKFqww
https://www.amazon.com/My-Degeneration-Journey-Parkinsons-Medicine/dp/0271071028
Marcel,
Very moving youtube video. Thank you for posting.
re: Parkinson's and CBD oil
Unlike THC, CBD oil does not get you high. A YouTube search shows that people have different reactions to it, some improving more than others. The person in the following video had a slight reduction in tremors, but a great improvement in the ability to sleep.
77-Year-Old Coloradan With Parkinson's Does An About Face On Marijuana
As an aside, marijuana is legal here in Canada. My daughter had trouble sleeping, and she tried the CBD oil which means putting a couple of drops under your tongue before bed, and she said the effect was dramatic.
For Americans, hemp-derived CBD oil is legal in most places, even where marijuana-derived CBD oil is illegal.
Query:
I heard a conversation with Republican Rep. Gonzales, Texas, on the news this morning. He supports McCarthy, and maintains that McCarthy should not pull his hat out of the ring. That doing so would set a bad precedent for the Republican Party and for Congress generally. He asserted that the 20 diehard anti-McCarthy Representatives are holding the Party hostage, and if the Party caves and forces McCarthy to pull his name, then whoever is eventually named Speaker will be at the mercy of these 20 Representatives who are acting out of selfish motives, rather than in the interest of the people who elected them. This could continue even after a Speaker is selected, during a time of crisis, e.g., raising the debt ceiling, voting on financial support for Ukraine, etc. The Party should not cave to the 20 hold-outs, in the interests of the country. He proposed that some Democrats should switch their vote and support McCarthy, in the best interests of the country, which is having a Speaker elected who is not beholden to the 20 hold-outs. Asked if he was proposing that some Republicans should shift their support to a Democrat, e.g., Jeffries, he rejected that option.
The longer this drags on, it is harmful for the country, as much as we may enjoy watching the Republican Party self-destruct. Should Rep. Gonzales’ proposal be taken seriously by Democrats, or would it be a sign of disloyalty for some Democrats to vote for McCarthy as Speaker?
I think it would be a bad idea for any Democrats to vote for McCarthy.
My impression is that the Republican holdouts are motivated partly by policy issues but also partly by personality issues: they think McCarthy is a lightweight devoid of any principles (except the vaguest sort of Reaganesque boilerplate). They are all on the far right side of their party but they do stand for something, however dangerous and misguided. What does McCarthy stand for, other than the advancement of himself?
The best solution, istm, is for McCarthy to recognize he can't get to 218, withdraw, and then have the Repub caucus meet and figure out who among them can get to 218.
The only other feasible candidate whose name has been floated is Rep. Scalise. I do not know enough about is politics to predict whether the 20 hold-out would support or oppose his nomination. The main problem is the looming debt ceiling issue, which is expected to come to a head sometime around July. The 20 hold-outs are demanding that whoever is named as Speaker, that s/he will use the debt ceiling debate as leverage to cut spending in programs supported by Democrats. The more the Republicans appease the hold-outs’ demands, the more likely their program to use the debt ceiling as a means to cut spending on Democrat supported programs.
Actually, Democrats do not have to vote for McCarthy to get him appointed Speaker. If they vote present, that will reduce the number of votes which McCarthy needs to become appointed. I believe that caving into the demands of the hold-outs presents a greater danger to the Democrats than doing what they can to get McCarthy appointed.
Well, perhaps you're right and they should vote "present." I'm not sure.
Failure to raise the debt ceiling in a prompt way could cause v. bad consequences. They've been down that road before.
Scalise is "David Duke without the baggage."
McCarthy agreeing to a one person motion to vacate and the Rules Committee (and other committee) changes guarantees chaos. The only way the next two years aren't a clown show is if there are enough special elections in the right districts and the House changes hands.
The demise of of the Whig Party wasn't pretty and the end of the Reps likely won't be either but it's necessary.
aalll,
There will be no special elections in time to change what party controls the House. Unless a Speaker gets appointed who can stand up to the 20-hold outs who are holding the Republican Party hostage, we will face a much greater come July when the debt ceiling has to be raised in order to avoid the U.S. from defaulting on its debts. I believe it is in the best interests of both parties for Democrats to do what they can to get McCarthy appointed Speaker. As much as I would prefer Hakeem Jeffries being appointed, with the help of the Democrats, McCarthy, with all his faults, has a better chance of being elected. Otherwise the chaos you warn about will continue as the 20-hold outs wreak havoc on our government.
Marc, check out the rule changes McCarthy has agreed to. They guarantee what you fear regardless of who is Speaker on the Rep side.
A one person motion to vacate makes a change possible at any time. It would be political malpractice for the Dems to facilitate any Republican becoming speaker without any concessions from Republicans. The current structure of the American Right and its political organ makes that impossible. There is no pleasant way out of the current situation that works out well for the country.
"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."
(It now seems the eighth ballot will have a no Speaker outcome.)
One thing the 20 holdouts want, as I understand it, is no omnibus spending bills funding the entire govt in one big package, but separate appropriations bills for each agency. In itself, that's not necessarily a nutty idea, though the holdouts want it for bad reasons (i.e., they think it will give them a better chance of cutting or restraining spending on programs they don't like).
On the demise of the Repubs as a party: what reason is there to think they will go the way of the Whigs? Is there any evidence to suggest that the current divides within the caucus will lead to a complete splintering of the party? More evidence may come with the 2024 presidential race, but we obvs. aren't there yet.
Just saying "the Repubs have to go the way of the Whigs" is not a political strategy. It's an incantation or chant or slogan. That's fine for demos but not for actual politics.
If McCarthy wants democratic votes (or "presents") then he has to undo what he promised to the right-wingers and bargain with the Democrats.
"There is no pleasant way out of the current situation that works out well for the country."
Hmm.
So if McCarthy has made promises, why are the 20 holdouts still holding out? They must want something he hasn't promised them yet, or they must not trust him to keep the promises he's made.
BTW, legal CBD oil is produced from cannabis grown from seeds certified to have a THC level below 0.3 % (federal law). There are also high CBD varieties that are low THC but are above the 0.3% level (I grow both). Seeds (and product) that meet the federal standard s/b legal in North Carolina.
LFC, it seems they neither like nor trust him. I'm just making an observation about the Republican Party. All ideologies eventually fail and our system can't accommodate an ideologically captured political party. Given the general Republican reaction to Trump in general and the Jan. 6 coup attempt, the continued existence of the present Republican Party is incompatible with the United States continuing as a democratically representative republic.
How and what comes afterward is TBD.
I just watched a speech by Republican Rep. Matt Rosendale (Mont.). He complained that in too many instances legislation gets approved by the Speaker and the Minority Speaker by asserting “unanimous consent. He made it sound like this occurs without the members of the House being polled. But wouldn’t the Speaker and the Minority Speaker have to obtain the majority vote of each of their caucuses before they agreed to unanimous consent?
aalll,
I need a lexicon to decode all your acronyms and slang terms.
Dear Marc
In wars people fight or some of them just for the fuck of it once they are in the thick of the battle
To the Republicans politics is war and they are warriors, so they fight for the sheer senseless joy of it and for the lust for power,
It makes me think of Fromm's Anatomy of Violence and he lists many if I remember nine or ten motivations for violence.
It applies here to the Republican Party.
aalll,
Regarding your quotation of Lincoln, above, one commentator writes:
In not assigning blame, in not inciting rancor, in assuming an equality of devotion – “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God,” he reminded his listeners – Lincoln demonstrated his refusal to become The Other. The suffering wrought by the “mighty scourge of war” had come to the nation as a family, and had then, however inexplicably, to borne together. This augured well for the future – of which, disastrously, he had but forty-two days left.
According to this interpretation, Lincoln was not ascribing blame to either side. But you appear to be using the quotation to ascribe blame to the Republicans.
I checked on the meaning of unanimous consent. It is a mechanism used by deliberative bodies to expedite a vote where there appears to be little to no dissent. All it takes is for one member of the body to object to defeat unanimous consent. So Rep. Rosendale’s suggestion that the mechanism is being misused in order to avoid members of the House from voting is not accurate.
Marc
I heard that bit of his speech. What he said is that sometimes two members will come to the floor, one from each party, they will introduce bills, they will call for unanimous consent, and if no one else is on the floor the bills will pass by unanimous consent because there is no one else there -- to object, or whatever.
Sometimes those bills are relatively uncontroversial items having to do with naming buildings after people etc., but sometimes, according to Rosendale, they involve spending fairly substantial sums of money, and he doesn't like the fact that these bills go through w/o debate on unanimous consent. So he and others who share his views on this have taken to appearing on the floor in those situations to object, call for a vote, etc. But he doesn't like the procedure whereby bills can pass w.o members knowing about them or having the opportunity to vote on them.
Does he have a point? I really don't know bc I don't know enough about House procedure, but clearly these fiscal hawks, or whatever you want to call them, are pissed off about some things. No doubt I do not share any of their substantive priorities, but Rosendale was casting his point in procedural terms.
In short, the point, as I understand it, is that while one member's objection can defeat a unanimous consent, the member has to be on the floor to object, and if no one is on the floor -- other than the two members shepherding the bills -- the unanimous consent will go through.
Obviously that doesn't happen with really major legislation, but it happens too often in Rosendale's view.
Yes, I guess that is what Rosendale was getting at. But if there are no Republicans on the floor - including himself - to object to certain legislation - whose fault is that? They are getting paid by their constituents to be there. Sounds like crocodile tears to me.
Marc, there's a Speaker, a Majority Leader, and a Minority Leader as well as whips, etc for their respective caucuses. Only one Speaker.
All procedures can be abused. That includes unanimous consent but unreasonably limiting UC is also an abuse (sand in the gears,etc.). It's fair to assume if UC has the approval of the Speaker and the Minority Leader that the minority caucus has been consulted. Ditto for those occasions when two members from each party make a UC motion. Getting sideways with ones Leader and caucus isn't a good career move.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-55.htm
Your reference is a bit too Lost Causey for me. I'll reference this later passage as more to my taste, "Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'" Also the North was complicit in slavery so there's that.
The failure of Reconstruction has us dealing with this latest episode of our Cold Civil War. Sumner may have been right. I've always found his State Suicide Theory interesting. Hard to believe we could have done worse.
If one follows the Lincoln Douglas debates and other sources, it becomes clear that Slave Power had plans for the Western Hemisphere. Lincoln clearly saw that and was willing to pay the price. Perhaps on Earth 2 Lincoln's bodyguard wasn't a reprobate, Johnson never became president, we got a better Supreme Court, and Reconstruction worked but that's not our time line.
"Sounds like crocodile tears to me."
Of course, and keep in mind that Rosendale voted to overturn the Electoral college vote in 2021, voted against making Juneteenth a federal holiday, and voted against giving Capitol Police the Congressional Gold Metal after the Trump's 1/6/21 coup attempt. I vote racist, traitor, jerk.
Our would be masters:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FlvacqgXwAADoHF?format=jpg&name=small
.50 BMG on the right - would be Speaker Donalds.
aalll,
My hat off to you for your Civil War and Reconstruction erudition. Very impressive.
Your quotation from Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address (how many people who read and comment on this blog have ever even read Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address) demonstrates how brilliant a writer Lincoln was.
I knew none of what you disclose about Rosendale. Yes, a genuine reprobate, sermonizing on the House floor about how corrupt the Democrats are.
Where did you get that picture??? And against whom is Rep. Donalds arming himself? Against the white supremacists standing next to him, or Democrats?
aalll, LFC, and other history buffs,
Have you read Gore Vidal’s historical novel “Lincoln,” in which he portrays Lincoln as an autocratic tyrant who bent the Constitution and violated its provisions (e.g., jailing journalists who disagreed with him) in his determination to preserve the Union, and as something of a white supremacist? If so, what is your assessment of Vidal’s depiction?
Marc,
I have not read Vidal's _Lincoln_.
I have read (much of) James McPherson's _Battle Cry of Freedom_ , considered one of the most authoritative histories of the Civil War era. My impression from that account and others is that Lincoln did engage in some Constitution-bending (e.g. suspending habeas corpus), but he was facing an extraordinary situation, equivalent in some ways to what Churchill, in a different context obviously, was to call a "supreme emergency."
On Lincoln's attitudes about race, I think they were consistent with those of a lot of Northerners who opposed slavery -- or came to oppose it as the war dragged on - but who did not see Blacks, or at least most Blacks, as fully equal to whites in terms of their "capacities," for lack of a better word. But Lincoln's views on race probably evolved some and were probably more enlightened by the time of his death than they were ten years before. (The contribution of some African Americans to the war effort, and in particular the heroics in battle of the 54th Massachusetts regiment led by Robert Gould Shaw, might have played a role in that. But I will defer to those with more knowledge of the period.)
Speaking of U.S. history, one of the things on my reading list for 2023 is C. Vann Woodward's _The Strange Career of Jim Crow_. I bought a very nice paperback edition of it in a bookstore a couple of months ago.
LFC,
Thank you for your response.
I wish you luck getting to read and finish your new book. You, like David Palmeter, myself and others who read this blog are compulsive book purchasers, who cannot resist passing a bookstore and not checking out their latest bargains. Then the books pile up and we get distracted by life's demands, and the wife, husband, or significant other chastise us for being pack rats.
About 5 years ago my sister and her husband visited us in Chile.
My brother-in-law, Al, is a brilliant guy, very well-read, who did part of a doctorate in philosophy before dropping out to do a rapid course in computer programming in order to support his new family.
Al looked at my books and commented, "you have enough here to keep you busy the rest of your life".
Al was right. I haven't stopped buying books completely, but I buy fewer and fewer and I reread and reread and reread more and more.
I've come to realize the limits of my reading tastes and interests, which haven't changed much in the last 15 years and are very unlikely to change in the few years I have left.
Obviously, I'm not into new fiction or new trends in poetry or the latest theory on the origins of Nazism.
I doubt that I'm going to discover a great philosopher or poet, whom I have never read and whom I feel called upon to read. I realize that I'm just never going to read Proust's Search of Lost Time.
Marc, as LFC points out we were in uncharted territory. Given that and the likely disaster for the hemisphere (world?) that would have resulted from a Slave Power success, Lincoln did OK (save for his 1864 VP choice but that was a conciliatory move, not an autocratic one). Lincoln seems to have been a work in progress his whole life and that seems a good thing.
For some context we might consider Wilson's actions during WWI and Roosevelt and Warren during WWII (and Adams did the Alien and Sedition Acts but still stepped down in 1801).
Sounds familiar, s.w.
My book purchasing is slowing down as well, partly because I lack the space for it, but mostly because, as you describe, I'm learning more about my real interests and limitations as a reader. I'm also sensing that I genuinely have "enough" books, or close to enough, in most of my main areas of interest.
As a reader, I tend to be slow and undisciplined, and easily get sidetracked when another title/topic grabs my attention. I'll find out this year how realistic or unrealistic my resolution actually is - to finish one book a month.
Years ago I happened across a good bit of advice from Schopenhauer: "The largest library in disorder is not so useful as a smaller but orderly one." - "Thinking for Oneself" (Gutenberg.org)
I, however, more-or-less ignored this advice and ended up amassing a large (-ish?) collection of books touching on any variety of subjects for which I had even a mild interest. Probably half of them are destined to make their way back to the secondhand bookstore, in "gently used" condition. Eh, live and learn. :)
Michael,
When I was in high school and first read Will Durant's the Story of Philosophy, I had never read a work of philosophy and as for literature, I had just read what I was assigned in high school, which in the 1950's and early 60's was not a very open-minded selection.
So it was all unknown territory for me. I had no idea whether Hegel or Schopenhauer would speak to me. They were just names on a page of famous philosophers.
With time I've explored that territory and just I know that I'd prefer to visit San Francisco than Miami, having been in both places, I realize that Schopenhauer speaks to me more than Hegel does and that Nietzsche speaks to me even more than Schopenhauer does.
So why should I bother with Hegel? There's no final exam, there's no final grade. There's not even anyone in my life whom I can impress with what I read.
Post a Comment