January 23, 2018

Shutdown ends, shifting focus to next spending bill, ‘dreamers’


President Trump signed a short-term spending bill to fund the government through Feb. 8 after it passed the Senate and House on the strength of a statement from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that he would address the status of young immigrants called “dreamers” who were brought to this country illegally as children. Thirty-three Senate Democrats joined 48 Republicans to break the impasse.

  • A bipartisan group of senators formed this weekend to try to move talks forward and encourage leadership to speak to each other. The talks were led by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who literally made senators use a talking stick so no one interrupted each other. [BuzzFeed / Emma Loop]
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) holds a colorfully beaded "talking stick" in her office on Capitol Hill, which she used during contentious negotiations between Senate moderates to end the shutdown. (Alan Fram/AP)

The shutdown exposed the challenges facing congressional Democrats daily: how to wrangle victories while in the minority and keep the party’s base energized ahead of the November elections.

The Resistance will struggle when it tries to replicate the tactics of the tea party movement. The left learned with its failed shutdown gambit that it cannot beat President Trump by copying the same playbook that the right used against Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Many Republicans think the federal government isn’t just a problem, but a leviathan that needs to be slayed. Democrats, in contrast, believe that government is a force for good, and party leaders see it as their solemn duty to deliver services. They see themselves as “afflicted,” as Hillary Clinton likes to say, “with the responsibility gene.”

That’s partly why it took Republicans two weeks to cave when they shut down the federal government in 2013,

President Trump at the White House Friday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
President Trump at the White House Friday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)
It was an out-of-character role for a president used to commanding and demanding center stage: seen but not publicly heard outside the confines of his team’s highly-controlled communications operation.

Keeping the president as contained as possible and largely hidden from view deprived Democrats of the bogeyman they expected when they decided to force the shutdown.

As negotiations stalled Friday night, McConnell called Trump and told him he should prepare for a shutdown. “Trump, ever eager for a deal, responded by asking who else he should call and suggested he dial Democrats or try [Schumer] again,” Ashley Parker and Josh Dawsey report. “But McConnell urged the president to sit tight and make the Democrats come to them … Trump paused, agreed, and then offered McConnell his highest praise: ‘You are a good negotiator.’ … Over the weekend, aides like [Mick] Mulvaney, [John] Kelly and [Marc] Short warned Trump to stay out of the fight and let it play out on Capitol Hill. … McConnell and [Ryan] also believed that the Democrats were in a politically tricky position, and called Trump multiple times to ensure he remained locked into the approach … Trump told advisers on several occasions he was listening — even if his instincts were to do otherwise…



Democratic senators believe that a Senate immigration bill passing with a significant bipartisan majority would ultimately force House Republicans to capitulate on the issue. But House conservatives won’t be easy to sway, and the president remains a true wild card.

The deal that reopened the government did nothing to ensure the House will act on a bill that the Senate passes, and conservatives aligned with the Freedom Caucus predicted that the bipartisan proposals currently being considered would be dead on arrival in their chamber.

“House Republicans, meanwhile, are entertaining much more restrictive legislation that would grant legal status only to those who applied for and received DACA protections,” Mike DeBonis reports. “In addition, the bill sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) and Labrador would reduce the number of authorized legal immigrants by roughly 25 percent — about 260,000 a year — while also authorizing border-wall construction, funding 10,000 new Border Patrol and immigration enforcement officers, and mandating employers use the federal ‘E-Verify' system to screen employees for immigration status. The legislation also would crack down on ‘sanctuary cities’ that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

“Any one of those provisions represents a deal-killer for Democrats — as well as for many Republicans,” DeBonis notes. 

Bipartisan talks among House members have produced a bill sponsored by Reps. Will Hurd (R-Tex.) and Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) that would take a much narrower approach to protecting dreamers and could ultimately get Democrats on board. But under pressure from their conservative ranks, House Republican leaders have shown little enthusiasm for the bill.”


As a congressman, Paul Ryan agitated for a bipartisan immigration deal. To become speaker, he pledged that he’d only bring an immigration bill to the floor if a majority of GOP lawmakers would vote for it. That’s the so-called Hastert Rule.

For now, he’s trying to thread the needle. “We don’t want to kick kids out,” he said on Fox News yesterday. “But … we don’t want to say to people in other countries, ‘Oh, get yourself to America illegally because sooner or later you will get legalized.’ We need to make sure that we control immigration.”

House leaders said they’re still acting as if the deadline to deal with DACA is March 6, which is when Trump announced last year that he would end the program.

Hoping for a Bargain in a Swift Surrender


By CARL HULSE 


Senate Democrats believe they are limiting damage from a political miscalculation by surrendering, but doing so has drawn a fierce backlash from the left.

The fierce backlash underscored the challenge confronting Mr. Schumer and more centrist Democrats as they attempt to negotiate with Republicans and President Trump to reach an agreement on immigration without alienating the more liberal factions of a party that has moved distinctly to the left. Their balancing act reflects the broader tension in the party as it tries to reconcile the fervor of blue-state opponents of Mr. Trump and the caution of Democrats in states where they must appeal to Trump supporters.
Democrats need to protect 10 Senate Democrats up for re-election in states carried by the president and appeal to the swing voters who could flip control of the House. Those vulnerable Senate Democrats were key to sparking the bipartisan drive to bring the shutdown to an end. Yet many of the Senate Democrats considered potential 2020 presidential candidates voted to keep the shutdown going.
Heading into the showdown, Mr. Schumer and other top Democrats figured that Mr. Trump was at a vulnerable moment, given the uproar surrounding racially charged comments made in a recent meeting with senators to discuss immigration, disturbing words that came on top of persistent accounts of Oval Office chaos.
And they saw the so-called Dreamers — the young immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children — as a particularly appealing group, as they faced deportation to countries they barely knew through no wrongdoing of their own. Polling consistently finds deep American sympathy for those immigrants, and under intense pressure from the left to stand tough, Democrats hoped the public would embrace the use of all possible measures to help them.
But over the course of the weekend, Democrats increasingly came to realize they had maneuvered themselves into a difficult position that made many of the party’s moderate senators uncomfortable. Republicans were not distancing themselves from the president despite his erratic swings on immigration policy. And while the Dreamers may be a highly sympathetic group, using them as a rationale for shuttering the federal government was not playing well.
The president, top Republicans and their allies had some success in framing the showdown as a case of Democrats putting the interests of “illegal immigrants” ahead of American citizens, a line of attack Democrats felt they could not weather.

“Voters in Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were getting Republican robo-calls saying Democrats had ‘prioritized illegal immigrants over American citizens,’” Robert Costa, Erica Werner and Karen Tumulty report. “Polls consistently show that a large majority of the public is sympathetic to the plight of the hundreds of thousands of (dreamers) … But what the Democratic senators were sensing was something else that shows up in the polls: Most voters do not want to see the government shut down over immigration. And the causes that are articles of faith with the Democrats’ liberal and ethnically diverse base can alienate many voters in conservative, largely white battleground states. 
---
In relenting so rapidly, Democrats saw some tangible benefits. They managed to highlight the plight of the Dreamers while avoiding a prolonged shutdown that could have ultimately damaged their cause. And by conceding defeat on Monday, Democrats avoided widespread disruptions in government operations that would have cascaded during the week and beyond.
They also won the pledge from Mr. McConnell to allow broad bipartisan negotiations on immigration, overall spending, health programs and other unresolved issues. If those fail to produce an agreement by Feb. 8, he promised to open an immigration debate on the Senate floor. Senators on both sides of the aisle saw that as a breakthrough that could provide a chance for the polarized chamber to engage in what has become a rare occurrence: actual legislating.
What they do not have is any certainty that Mr. Trump will back whatever legislation the Senate produces or that the House will even consider it.
The agreement to end the shutdown came after weekend negotiations among a bipartisan group of about two dozen lawmakers assembled by Mr. Manchin and Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine. Members of the group all saw the shutdown as unacceptable and contributing to public disgust with Washington, motivating them to pursue a solution outside the chamber’s leadership.
They say they are intent on finding a way to protect the immigrants covered by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program as well as fashioning a “global” agreement on spending, disaster aid and a variety of other issues that have defied resolution.
Republican participation in the bipartisan group was crucial for Democrats seeking assurances from Mr. McConnell on the way forward. While they were nervous about accepting the word of Mr. McConnell given their history of clashes with him, they doubted that he would undercut such a substantial number of his fellow Republicans.
“I expect the majority leader to fulfill his commitment to the Senate, to me and to the bipartisan group and abide by this agreement,” Mr. Schumer said. “If he does not, of course — and I expect he will — he will have breached the trust of not only the Democratic senators, but members of his own party as well.”
Still, immigration activists found fault with putting any faith in Mr. McConnell. And they noted that even if the Senate can draft a measure that attracts a broad majority, it faces a steep test in the House, which ignored a 2013 Senate immigration measure that passed with 68 votes.
Negotiations will now begin with Democrats in a new posture. During a Friday meeting with Mr. Trump aimed at settling the dispute, Mr. Schumer said Democrats would agree to provide significant funding for the wall along the Mexican border that Mr. Trump has made a central and symbolic element of his agenda. They had previously opposed any funding for the wall.
While Democrats gave that ground, they are not without weapons. Should the negotiations collapse, they will be able to pound Republicans for abandoning the Dreamers. They could also vote again to shutter the government, though that seems unlikely after this episode.

Chuck Schumer is pictured. | Getty Images


EZRA KLEIN, VOX

 1)Consider what we don’t know about what comes next. We don’t know which immigration bill, or bills, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will bring to the Senate floor. We don’t know if any immigration compromise passes the Senate. We don’t know if an immigration bill that passes the Senate will get a vote in the House. Even if it does get a vote in the House, we don’t know if it’ll pass. And if it does pass, we don’t know if Trump will sign it.
2) We also don’t know what the implicit Democratic position is here. If Democrats get a fair vote in the House and Senate on an immigration deal and it doesn’t pass, will they shut down the government again in three weeks? Put differently, is this a deal about a fair process or about a particular outcome? If Democrats don’t get a deal and they shut the government back down in three weeks, it’s hard to see what was lost here.
3) Democratic opponents of the deal believe that an extended shutdown increases the likelihood of a DREAMer compromise. But does it? That is to say that an extended shutdown will cause Trump so much political or personal pain that he will accept one of the immigration compromises he has thus far rejected. Neither dynamic is obvious to me.
4) Politically, Trump’s entire brand is anti-immigration politics, and if there is round-the-clock news coverage of a shutdown over immigration, he’ll think it’s good for his base. Personally, Trump’s goal in life is to be seen as a winner, and to double down when attacked or under pressure, and so it’s hard to see how a high-stakes battle over a shutdown — which would make a deal on immigration look like a cave to reopen the government by Trump — helps.
5) Beyond that, shutting down the government should be a last resort in the most extreme situations (if that). And historically, shutting down the government usually doesn’t end with the party that forced the shutdown getting the policy concessions it wants — it often strengthens the president’s party. To the extent there’s an open path in which an immigration deal can be negotiated and brought to a vote with the government still open, that’s a good thing.

POLITICO

California’s two Democratic senators could barely contain their anger after Chuck Schumer cut a deal with Mitch McConnell to reopen the government on Monday — and deal later with the 200,000 Dreamers in their state facing deportation.
“I’m disappointed with a conversation that suggests a false choice: You either fund the government or you take care of these … kids. We can do both,” Sen. Kamala Harris fumed. It would be “foolhardy” to trust McConnell, she said of the majority leader’s promise to take up an immigration bill in the coming weeks.
The Democratic strategy going in was to use their leverage in the government funding fight to help Dreamers, lamented Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who had expressed grave misgivings about a shutdown days earlier.
“I trust that because the leadership did it this way, that they must know something I don’t,” she said.
The turn of events Monday marked the most serious cracks in the unity Schumer has painstakingly built within his caucus since he became Democratic leader a year ago. After holding almost all Democrats together through fights over the Supreme Court, health care, taxes and even Friday’s vote that shut down the government, Schumer is now under attack from the left and confronting pointed criticism of his negotiating skill.
His performance resulted in a Democratic-led shutdown — and an agreement with McConnell that provided no guarantee of a new immigration law. But multiple Democratic senators and aides told POLITICO in the aftermath that it might have been Schumer's only way out: He couldn’t go against the bulk of his left-leaning caucus in fighting for DACA recipients. But he also could not allow the shutdown to drag on for so long that it began hurting his vulnerable incumbents.
“That’s where a majority of caucus was going. So he represented his caucus,” said Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who voted with Republicans on the roll call that shut down the government on Saturday morning.
No Democratic senator suggested that Schumer’s leadership is under any threat after his agreement with McConnell to fund the government through Feb. 8. ...But progressive senators were visibly miffed by what their leader had just done, even if they did not publicly go after him.
----
But liberal groups were furious, threatening in a conference call with progressive senators on Monday to spend money against Schumer and his vulnerable incumbents this fall, according to a person on the call. Those groups put out barbed statements, with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee casting Schumer and supporters of his deal as “weak-kneed."
“It’s Schumer’s job to lead and keep his caucus together to fight for progressive values, and he didn’t do it,” said Ezra Levin, co-executive director of the activist group Indivisible.
 [But] after reviewing polls and the Senate map this year — 10 Democrats face reelection in states that Trump won — McConnell concluded a lengthy shutdown would hurt Democrats more than Republicans, according to a Republican aide. Likewise, the Democratic Caucus began sensing quickly that a long shutdown over immigration would begin damaging the sympathetic public view of Dreamers, a Democratic aide said.
----
But the one hang-up for Democrats was McConnell. Citing a stalled commitment he made years ago to take up a bill to revive the Export-Import Bank and vague recent statements on immigration, Democrats regard McConnell as untrustworthy. They believe he prefers to legislate through partisan broadsides instead of finding common ground.
But the emergence of the moderate group's Republican members — and their private pledges to work together on immigration — was enough to push 33 Democrats across the finish line in support of Schumer, including his entire leadership team.
-- A new cliff now looms in 16 daysIn addition to immigration, both parties and both chambers still need to hash out a deal on military and domestic spending.

  • Jennifer Rubin: “It is unlikely to matter by the midterms. Especially during the Trump era, the sheer volume of news cycles between now and then should make this a distant memory. (If you recall, the GOP staged and lost a government shutdown in 2013, and then won big in 2014.)” 

January 21, 2018


WELCOME  TO AMERICA  IN TRUMPLAND. AFTER ONE  YEAR, CHAOS CONTINUES  TO RULE.
Washington DC: There were calls for impeachment at the Lincoln Memorial where some protesters descended 

DAN BALZ, WASHINGTON POST


The elements that produced this weekend’s government shutdown sum up the first year of Donald Trump’s presidency: a dealmaking chief executive who can’t make a deal; a divided Republican Party struggling to govern and in an uneasy relationship with the president; and a Democratic Party tethered to its anti-Trump progressive base in the face of political risk.
It was fitting that the anniversary of Trump’s inauguration would be a day of chaos, uncertainty, recrimination and efforts at political point-scoring. That has been a hallmark of the Trump presidency. Why should the anniversary of his swearing-in be significantly different from most of the previous 365 days?
[The early weeks of 2018 have felt eerily similar to those of 2017, as upheaval has consumed the president’s agenda and message — including the shutdown battle, a tell-all book chronicling a president at sea and news of a payout before the 2016 election to a porn star alleging an affair with Trump.]
----
 The story the past two weeks is of a president who either doesn’t know his own mind, isn’t in charge of his own White House or simply cannot be trusted with his word. He ping-ponged from promising to take heat if legislators brought him an immigration deal, to balking when Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) delivered the outlines of one, to unexpectedly summoning  Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) to the White House on Friday for talks, to deciding or being persuaded by those around him not to go ahead with whatever he and Schumer were discussing.
Washington DC: A female protester takes a seat at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool with her sign 

---
The president bears significant responsibility for the mixed signals he delivered and for not making clear his bottom line. It was telling that neither the Democrats nor Trump’s Republican allies on Capitol Hill knew what he was willing to accept.
[“I’m looking for something that President Trump supports,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in public frustration at one point late in the negotiations. “And he’s not yet indicated what measure he’s willing to sign.”]
[“Negotiating with President Trump is like negotiating with Jell-O,” Schumer complained on the Senate floor Saturday, some 12 hours into the shutdown. “It’s next to impossible.”]

[The final 24 hours before the shutdown played out in a dizzying series of private huddles, frenzied phone calls and belligerent public pronouncements from both sides. Through it all, the president remained mercurial and unreadable even to those ostensibly negotiating with him.
Many Republicans relished the spot Schumer was in — torn between liberals positioning for a 2020 presidential race and centrists facing reelection in 2018 in conservative states — and wanted to keep him under pressure.
Over cheeseburgers in the private dining room just off the Oval Office, Trump and Schumer discussed a comprehensive deal that would include an immigration component and keep the government open, along with disaster relief and budget caps. Schumer signaled he would be open to border wall funding in exchange for action to protect those covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) but he wanted the president to agree to a five-day measure to keep the government open to give both sides time to negotiate something longer term. 
But as the day wore on, McConnell urged  Chief of Staff John Kelly to not give in. Worried White House aides began making calls to their counterparts on the Hill, assuring them that Trump wouldn’t “give away the store,” .... [In the end,] Kelly called Schumer, telling the Democrat that his immigration proposal was too liberal and would not work for the administration. ]
The Republicans own the government in Washington, controlling the White House, the House and the Senate. Yet over the past year, they have found themselves repeatedly stymied by their own internal divisions, their lack of clarity on matters such as health care, and their tense relationship with a president whom few of them favored during the 2016 GOP primaries and whose behavior rankles even those who have remained relatively silent.
The Republicans have made a bargain: accept the president’s bad behavior as a price for moving a conservative agenda. They’ve pushed through judges at a fast pace. They managed to pass a tax bill in record speed at the end of last year, an accomplishment they hope will pay dividends in an election year they head into with a certain amount of dread. But this has been anything but an enjoyable year for those who dreamed for years of having the kind of power the party now has.
Since the fall — as Republicans pushed to lower the corporate tax rate and provide income tax cuts that will greatly benefit the wealthy — two vulnerable populations awaited help.
One group is the dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children, who were given protected status by Obama but suddenly saw that protection taken away by Trump.
The other is the beneficiaries of one of the most popular and successful safety net programs of the modern era, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, better known as CHIP.
Both these groups of young people became central players in what turned into monthly battles over funding the government for the duration of this fiscal year. That, despite the fact that an overwhelming percentage of Americans — including elected officials from both parties, as well as the president — favor extending CHIP and restoring the dreamers’ protection from deportation.
Republicans attached a six-year extension of CHIP to the latest short-term spending bill, hoping the move would force Democrats to swallow the bill without a deal on the dreamers. That calculation, cynical in the eyes of Democrats — who have been calling for action on CHIP for months — failed and created the conditions that helped bring about the shutdown.
Democrats, meanwhile, showed how a year of grass-roots resistance to Trump has affected their party. The party not only leans further to the left; it is also more militant in opposition to the president, making any negotiation complicated. The power of this resistance blossomed the day after Trump’s inauguration with the Women’s March, nationwide outpourings that were larger and stronger than anyone anticipated. Women continue to lead the resistance to Trump, and Saturday’s anniversary marches across the country highlighted that anew.
New York City: Tens of thousands of protesters gathered near Central Park for the Manhattan march. The group's Facebook page suggested that as many as 80,000 planned to attend

 New York City: Tens of thousands of protesters gathered near Central Park for the Manhattan march. 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5292295/Womens-March-anniversary-Trumps-inauguration.html#ixzz54o9ANSz9
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, daily demonstrations by dreamers and their allies have heightened the pressure on Schumer and other Democratic leaders not to let another opportunity pass to fix their status. 

January 20, 2018

Senate Dems block bid to fund the government for 4 weeks
  • The government stopped operating at 12:01 a.m. after Senate Democrats blocked passage of a stopgap spending bill.
  • Giving his staff almost no notice, President Trump invited Senator Chuck Schumer to a last-ditch, one-on-one negotiating session in the Oval Office. It went nowhere.
  • Leaders of both parties said they would continue to talk, raising the possibility of a solution over the weekend. But even if Senate leaders are able to work out a compromise, the deal would have to also pass the House. The government would remain closed until that happens.
  • Senate Democrats, showed remarkable solidarity in the face of a clear political danger,
  • Trump administration officials painted radically different scenarios of whether basic governmental functions would continue or halt if an accord was not reached.
  •  Most mandatory programs — such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that are automatically funded rather than subject to congressional appropriations — can continue without disruption.
  • Who will pay the political price for the shutdown? With the rapid-fire news cycle, it may be forgotten by November.
Forty-four Democrats and four Republicans voted against the short-term spending bill that passed the House on Thursday evening, many of them saying they could not vote for a measure that does nothing for the 700,000 undocumented young people President Donald Trump has put at risk of losing protection from deportation. The bill, which needed 60 votes to proceed, failed in a 50-49 vote, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voting against it for procedural reasons. 
Leaders in both chambers haven’t settled on a Plan B. There’s no deal to help so-called Dreamers and no agreement on an even shorter-term bill to extend funding while they work on one. There’s not even certainty about what Trump actually wants. Earlier in the day, he rejected an offer from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to fund his border wall, the Democrat said. Senators remained in the chamber discussing a path forward but didn’t find one before the deadline. 
It will be difficult to reach a long-term deal to reopen the government. Democrats want protections for Dreamers first, but White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said that’s not something the administration will discuss until government funding is approved. 


The House-passed bill would fund government operations through Feb. 16, and extend funding by six years for the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program, a provision intended to secure Democratic votes.
But Democrats were seeking concessions on other priorities, such as protecting young undocumented immigrants from deportation, increasing domestic spending, securing disaster aid for Puerto Rico and bolstering the government’s response to the opioid epidemic.
The standoff on immigration dates back to September, when Mr. Trump moved to end an Obama-era program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which shields the young immigrants from deportation. Democrats have been eager to enshrine into law protections for those immigrants.
At the same time, congressional leaders from both parties have been trying to reach an agreement to raise strict limits on domestic and military spending, a deal that would pave the way for a long-term spending package. So far this fiscal year, they have relied on stopgap measures to keep the government funded.

What’s affected — and what’s not — by the government shutdown


January 19, 2018



The Family That Built an Empire of Pain

The Sackler dynasty’s ruthless marketing of painkillers has generated billions of dollars—and millions of addicts.




NEW YORKER, Patrick Radden Keefe

January 16, 2018

NYC's pro-segregation progressives


NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi
(COREY SIPKIN/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

ERROL LOUIS, NY DAILY NEWS

From the fateful moment he agreed to lead the Montgomery bus boycott to the day a racist assassin’s bullet took his life, Martin Luther King Jr. caused and courted trouble, upsetting comfortable social arrangements and disturbing the political and religious status quo of a society that was aching for change.
America laments King’s absence every day. New York, for one, could use a little disturbing.
Our city’s political leaders will freely throw King’s name around today, as they do around this time every year. They will solemnly inform audiences that continuing King’s legacy means pressing their popular pet causes, a grab-bag of progressive stances that already enjoy the support of probably 80% or more of all New Yorkers.
It’s easy enough — and so convenient! — to conclude that Dr. King, if alive, would champion the rights of immigrants, side with labor unions and the LGBTQ community, and seek to boost the level of welfare grants and other assistance to the poor.
But today’s festival of liberal self-congratulation, in which members of New York’s establishment pat one another on the back, actually isn’t very King-like. To truly follow in the great man’s footsteps would mean summoning the courage to tackle the same issue he fought and died for — unraveling our city’s web of segregated housing and schools.
Honoring King would mean finally pressing for passage of a City Council bill, bottled up and ignored in past years, that would require boards of the city’s 300,000 cooperative apartments to abide by the fair-housing laws and provide applicants with the reason they were accepted or rejected.
At present, the coops get a pass on fair-housing law, allowing them to discriminate against applicants based on race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation or other criteria that would, in another context, be illegal. Years ago, Councilman Brad Lander introduced a simple bill that would have extended fair-housing requirements to coops and started a process of data collection to detect discriminatory patterns.
But the bill has never gained enough co-sponsors to have a realistic chance at passage. The last two oh-so-progressive speakers, Christine Quinn and Melissa Mark-Viverito, did nothing to advance the issue.
Not only has the Council turned a blind eye to housing discrimination, members actively support the city’s existing segregation by insisting that lotteries to allocate affordable housing give preference to people who happen to live near a proposed development site. That ensures that new affordable housing built in (segregated) black neighborhoods will go to black New Yorkers, and the same will happen in white and Latino areas.
A citywide housing lottery that gave equal preference to people based on need rather than zip code would begin to break down the city’s segregated patterns. A lawsuit has been filed by the Anti-Discrimination Center, a civil rights organization, but the progressive de Blasio administration is fighting the case tooth and nail.
That same administration, when pressed about the city’s highly racially segregated schools, throws its hands up in the air and blames the phenomenon on . . . segregated neighborhoods!
That is not how King dealt with things. In his famous 7,000-word “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” authored during an epic 1963 civil rights confrontation, King explained why he submitted to arrest and imprisonment to break the back of discrimination in Alabama.
“Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue,” he wrote. “It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”
That is a world away from New York’s liberal establishment, which seems bent on ignoring the city’s segregation.
Truly progressive leaders would follow in the brave footsteps of people like Councilwoman Helen Rosenthal, who spent months painstakingly cajoling local leaders into rezoning 11 schools in Community School District 3 on Manhattan’s West Side. That worthy effort makes a new school and gifted-student program available to kids from the Amsterdam Houses development, and gives schools a more equal mix of low-income students.
Rosenthal unquestionably did the right thing. For her efforts, she got a tough re-election challenge, which she beat back last fall.
More New York pols — especially council members scheduled to depart in four years thanks to term limits — should consider walking the tough, challenging path pioneered by King. It might mean annoying one’s friends and neighbors. But as King’s life proves, the path to true change involves disruption and discomfort, not platitudes and a warm bath of applause.

Louis is political anchor of NY1 News.

The Heartbeat of Racism Is Denial



Credit Tom Brenner/The New York Times

NY TIMES, IBRAM X. KENDI

When our reality is too ugly, we deny reality. It is too painful to look at. Reality is too hard to accept.
Mental health experts routinely say that denial is among the most common defense mechanisms. Denial is how the person defends his superior sense of self, her racially unequal society.
Denial is how America defends itself as superior to “shithole countries” in Africa and elsewhere, as President Trump reportedly described them in a White House meeting last week, although he has since, well, denied that. It’s also how America defends itself as superior to those “developing countries” in Africa, to quote how liberal opponents of Mr. Trump might often describe them.
Mr. Trump appears to be unifying America — unifying Americans in their denial. The more racist Mr. Trump sounds, the more Trump country denies his racism, and the more his opponents look away from their own racism to brand Trump country as racist. Through it all, America remains a unified country of denial.
The reckoning of Mr. Trump’s racism must become the reckoning of American racism. Because the American creed of denial — “I’m not a racist” — knows no political parties, no ideologies, no colors, no regions.
On Friday, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, affirmed that Mr. Trump did use the term “shithole” during a White House meeting on immigration with lawmakers. Mr. Durbin rightfully described Mr. Trump’s words as “hate-filled, vile and racist,” and added, “I cannot believe that in the history of the White House in that Oval Office, any president has ever spoken the words that I personally heard our president speak yesterday.”
But Mr. Trump is no exception. In framing Mr. Trump’s racism as exceptional, in seeking to highlight the depth of the president’s cruelty, Mr. Durbin, a reliably liberal senator, showed the depth of denial of American racism.
Washington standing among African-American field workers harvesting grain. (Credit: Buyenlarge/Getty Images)
Begin with the eight presidents who held slaves while in the Oval Office. Then consider how Abraham Lincoln urged black people to leave the United States. “Even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race,” Lincoln told five black guests at the White House in 1862. So “it is better for us both, therefore, to be separated.”
Raging then as we are raging now, the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison responded, “Can anything be more puerile, absurd, illogical, impertinent, untimely?” He added that “had it not been for the cupidity of their white enslavers, not one of their race would now be found upon this continent.”
Presidential history also includes the social Darwinism of Theodore Roosevelt, the federal-government-segregating, “Birth of a Nation”-praising Woodrow Wilson — and the bigotry that came from the mouths of presidents who are generally seen as essential to racial progress. President Lyndon B. Johnson said “nigger” nearly as often as Ku Klux Klansmen did.
President Lyndon Johnson meets in the White House Cabinet Room with top military and defense advisers on Oct. 31, 1968 in Washington.

This denial of racism is the heartbeat of racism. Where there is suffering from racist policies, there are denials that those policies are racist. The beat of denial sounds the same across time and space.
I grew up to the beat of racist denial in Queens, not far from where Mr. Trump grew up. I was raised in the urban “hell” of neighborhoods he probably avoided, alongside immigrants from countries he derided last week. In school or elsewhere, we all heard recitals of the American ideal of equality, especially on the day we celebrate the life of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Those events often feature recitals of the words “all men are created equal,” which were written by a slaveholder who once declared that black people “are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind.”
Thomas Jefferson was not a founding father of equality. He was a founding father of the heartbeat of denial that lives through both Mr. Trump’s denials and the assertion that his racial views are abnormal for America and its presidents.



Fifty years ago, Richard Nixon transformed this historic heartbeat of denial into an intoxicating political philosophy. His presidential candidacy appealed to George Wallace-type segregationists while also attracting Americans who refused to live near “dangerous” black residents, obstructed the desegregation of schools, resisted affirmative action policies, framed black mothers on welfare as undeserving, called the black family pathological and denigrated black culture — all those racists who refused to believe they were racist in 1968.
Nixon designed his campaign, one of his advisers explained, to allow a potential supporter to “avoid admitting to himself that he was attracted by” the “racist appeal.”
A new vocabulary emerged, allowing users to evade admissions of racism. It still holds fast after all these years. The vocabulary list includes these: law and order. War on drugs. Model minority. Reverse discrimination. Race-neutral. Welfare queen. Handout. Tough on crime. Personal responsibility. Black-on-black crime. Achievement gap. No excuses. Race card. Colorblind. Post-racial. Illegal immigrant. Obamacare. War on Cops. Blue Lives Matter. All Lives Matter. Entitlements. Voter fraud. Economic anxiety.
The denials using these phrases come from both conservatives and white liberals who think people of color are stuck in cycles of unstable families and criminal cultures, and that the deprivations of poverty and discrimination spin out bad people.
Mr. Trump opened his candidacy with racism, calling Mexicans criminals and rapists. Since taking office, he has looked away from the disaster zone in Puerto Rico, he has called some violent white supremacists “very fine people,” and he has described Nigerians as living in “huts.”
When someone identifies the obvious, Mr. Trump resounds the beat of denial as he did before he was president: “I’m the least racist person that you’ve ever met,” that “you’ve ever seen,” that “you’ve ever encountered.”
These are ugly denials. But it’s the denials from those who stand in strong opposition to this president that are more frustrating to me: denials that their attacks on identity politics are racist. Denials that the paltry number of people of color in elite spaces marks racism.
Image result for dr martin luther king jr

Those denials echo the same ones that frustrated Dr. King in 1963 as he sat in a Birmingham jail cell and wrote, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.”
Mr. Trump, I suspect, will go to his grave with his heart beating in denial of the ill will of racism. Many others will as well.
Because we naturally want to look away from our ugliness. We paint over racist reality to make a beautiful delusion of self, of society. We defend this beautiful self and society from our racist reality with the weapons of denial.
Denial is fueled by the stigma associated with being a racist. Feeding the stigma is how “racist” is considered almost like an identity, a brand.
But a racist is not who a person is. A racist is what a person is, what a person is saying, what a person is doing.
Racist is not a fixed category like “not racist,” which is steeped denial. Only racists say they are not racist. Only the racist lives by the heartbeat of denial.
The antiracist lives by the opposite heartbeat, one that rarely and irregularly sounds in America — the heartbeat of confession.



January 6, 2018

ON THE FIRE AND FURY: EVERYBODY KNOWS



Image result for THE FIRE AND FURY:


MICHAEL TOMASKY, DAILY BEAST

---
Everyone knows what’s been happening in this White House. And yet to see it all laid out there in one cannon blast, much of it coming from the mouths of Trump’s own aides and sometimes from Trump himself, serves to remind us in a sobering way: There are dozens, hundreds, thousands of people letting this happen.


Rupert Murdoch thinks Trump is an idiot, but he’s letting it happen, because, well, look at those ratings. Conservative political professionals—the lobbyists, the issue people, the fixers—are letting it happen because hey, their clients are getting their favors now out of this EPA, this Labor Department, and who wants to stop that? Corporate America is letting it happen, because look at those tax cuts, and look ma, we can drill anywhere we want to now.
And most of all, elected Republicans are letting it happen, for all of the above reasons, and for the courts, and for power. Mind you those are decent reasons, looked at one way. But these people did something that Murdoch and the lobbyists and corporate America did not. They swore oaths to the Constitution. They work for us. They have agreed to uphold laws. And they’re standing there watching this clown posse micturate on the Constitution....
----
Billionaire Rebekah Mercer  (Oliver Contreras/For The Washington Post)
Thursday evening came the news that Rebekah Mercer, Bannon’s fairy godmother, is formally cutting ties with him. You must read this for the important development it is. Mercer was closer to Bannon than to Trump. She forced him (and Kellyanne Conway) onto the campaign. At one point, Wolff writes that “as the drumbeat for Bannon’s removal grew [from the White House], the Mercers stepped in to protect their investment in radical government overthrow and the future of Steve Bannon.”
That Mercer has now chosen Trump over Bannon suggests a sad outcome here. It suggests that in the end, all that’s going to come of the hubbub over this book and its revelations is that the right is going to cut Bannon’s nuts off, circle the wagons, and go on as before. Sean Hannity and company will keep telling the same lies. Sarah Huckabee Sanders will keep standing up and unanswering every question in a language that we recognize as English except that we’re accustomed to hearing these kinds of day-is-night axioms in the tongues of history’s various banana Republicans. Republicans will continue to limn the president’s “exquisite leadership.”

ORWELL ON DEMOCRACY, HUXLEY & ORWELL ON LOVE AND HATE


amospoe:
“ “Big Brother is Watching You.”
― George Orwell, 1984
”
Or is it bad brother?

DAVID REMNICK, NEW YORKER

George Orwell, the most fearless of commentators, was right to point out that public opinion [Each time Orwell uses the words 'public opinion,' substitute the word,democracy--Esco.] is no more innately wise than humans are innately kind. People can behave foolishly, recklessly, self-destructively in the aggregate just as they can individually. Sometimes all they require is a leader of cunning, a demagogue who reads the waves of resentment and rides them to a popular victory. “The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion,” Orwell wrote in his essay “Freedom of the Park.” “The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them.”

-----------------------------------------------


24hoursinthelifeofawoman:
“ “Beauty is worse than wine, it intoxicates both the holder and beholder.”
- Aldous Huxley
”
Aldous Huxley

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us.”  

Neil Postman-“Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business” 



Orwell foresaw the age of Trump. Huxley foresaw American culture. Esco believes, like Jung, that moderation in, and integration of all things is the best course.









Fentanyl’s impact on overdose deaths is stunning.
Heroin
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
  • Fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid, is now the deadliest drug in the United States, according to recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [BuzzFeed / Dan Vergano
  • That drug and related synthetic opioids like carfentanil were responsible for about 21,000 deaths out of 65,000 total deaths from heroin, cocaine, and prescription painkillers, from January 2016 to January 2017. This is notable, given that fentanyl has only been around for about five years. [BuzzFeed / Dan Vergano
  • It's already well-known in some states, having caused rashes of overdoses in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio. New Hampshire, which has one of the highest per capita drug overdose death rates in the nation, saw a full two-thirds of its drug deaths come from fentanyl in 2016. [Concord Monitor / Ella Nilsen
  • The drug is so deadly because of its potency; it's anywhere from 50 to 100 times more powerful than morphine. [Centers for Disease Control
  • And it can easily be slipped into a batch of heroin, so sometimes drug users don’t know what they're taking. Often, drug dealers try to cut their batches of heroin with fentanyl to increase the potency of the drug and their profits. [STAT / Allison Bond