What the Senate Filibuster Assault Means
Washington wisdom once held that while Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema were the public faces of Democratic reluctance to breaking the Senate filibuster, others in the caucus quietly supported the duo. But on Wednesday night, 48 out of 50 Senate Democrats voted to use the “nuclear option” in an attempt to overturn election laws in most states.
That means the partisan abolition of the Senate’s 60-vote requirement for most legislation is no longer an abstraction. It’s an institutional Democratic Party position—a trigger that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has committed to pull as soon as he has 50 votes and a co-partisan as Vice President. Democrats may have failed to ram their legislation through this week, but they have changed the nature of the U.S. Senate merely by trying to make it a majoritarian body for the first time. The fallout should start in this year’s midterms in competitive states.
***
Mr. Schumer brought partisan voting-rules legislation to the floor Wednesday despite the insistence of Sens. Sinema and Manchin that they wouldn’t change Senate rules to allow it to pass with only 50 votes. Democrats then embarked on a flight of procedural fantasy, claiming they could prevail by demanding only a “talking filibuster”—a meaningless distinction as their version would still guarantee the legislation could be rammed through.
They lost 48 to 52, but the paucity of Democratic dissenters is astonishing given recent Senate history. Dianne Feinstein, the senior Senator from California, went along after defending the filibuster well into the new Congress. She said last June that she might scrap the filibuster if “democracy were in jeopardy,” but “I don’t see it being in jeopardy right now.”
Newsletter Sign-up
Opinion: Morning Editorial Report
Chris Coons, the Delaware Senator who cultivates a bipartisan reputation, also voted to destroy the filibuster. In 2017 he led a coalition of 32 Democrats declaring they are “united in their determination” to maintain it. Twenty-nine GOP Senators also signed Mr. Coons’s letter. That’s right: While only two Democrats still back the filibuster under Mr. Biden, more than half of the Republican caucus supported it as a guardrail on their own majority under Donald Trump.
Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, who had been noncommittal on the issue, also fell in line, though he faces a competitive election this November. He likely fears a Democratic primary challenge, but his vote will put new issues at play in the general election. Now that he’s committed to torch Senate rules on a partisan basis, a simple Democratic majority could add states to the U.S. or pack the Supreme Court.
When rules constrain Senate partisanship, voters in swing states can view candidates as independent figures rather than partisan foot-soldiers. Now that changes: To elect even a 50-50 Senate with a Democratic President could be to authorize much of the progressive agenda.
This will be a hard perception to shake on the 2022 campaign trail for Maggie Hassan in New Hampshire and Michael Bennet in Colorado, both of whom also signed Mr. Coons’s 2017 letter, and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada. Raphael Warnock of Georgia benefited in his 2021 runoff election from Mr. Manchin’s 2020 promise that he wouldn’t eliminate the filibuster in a 50-50 Senate. Now voters need to keep in mind that Mr. Manchin’s commitment means nothing if Democrats pick up two seats in 2022.
As for Republicans, the next GOP Senate majority will now be under much more pressure to eliminate the filibuster as a pre-emptive procedural strike. Populist Senators will point to this week’s vote to say that Democrats are planning to change the rules as soon as they get back into power. GOP leader Mitch McConnell and other institutionalists will have more trouble talking them down.
The intellectuals pushing to kill the filibuster claim the Senate’s structure is biased against Democrats, and may lock them out of power for a decade. That claim is wildly exaggerated—weren’t Democrats eyeing a 53 or 54 seat majority in 2020? But if it were true, then it would be even more short-sighted to dismantle protections for the minority party.
***
Speaking of short-sighted, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are already opening the door to primary challenges to Sens. Manchin and Sinema. Good luck keeping the seat with another candidate in West Virginia, where Mr. Trump won by 39 points. Progressives want to take revenge on a moderate Democrat by easing the path to GOP Senate majorities.
This week’s filibuster vote undermines checks and balances in the U.S. political system. With the rise of straight-ticket voting, Presidents are increasingly elected with congressional majorities. The limitations on what those majorities can do is rapidly attenuating, and if voters don’t send a contrary message, the result will be a combustible mix of greater polarization, partisan brinkmanship and heightened election stakes.
********************************************
Industrialist Sir Richard Arkwright condemned for profiting from the slave trade, says English Heritage
Not remotely a balanced perspective
The legacy of Sir Richard Arkwright, the British inventor credited with pioneering factory production in the 18th century, has been reassessed due to his profiting from the cotton trade during the Industrial Revolution.
English Heritage has included claims that the mill owner benefited from a system which “exploited enslaved workers from Africa”, in updated online information for his blue plaque.
The update, made as part of a review of blue plaques launched in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests, has drawn criticism from historians concerned that history is being viewed only through the lens of the slave trade, and that ordinary workers could also be found guilty by association with a cotton industry that was supported by slavery.
New online information stated: “Arkwright’s wealth from the cotton industry was inextricably linked to the transatlantic slave trade which reached its peak in the 18th century. The system exploited enslaved workers from Africa to work under horrifying conditions in the cotton plantations in the Americas.
“It is inevitable that any mill working in Britain at this time would have sourced the majority of their cotton from the slave plantations. As such, mill owners such as Arkwright both contributed to and benefitted [sic] from, the slave trade.”
In the 1770s, Sir Richard developed a “carding” machine which sped up the process prior to spinning, along with spinning frames speeding up the process of turning cotton fibre into workable yarn.
He used these machines in a string of mills, including a major complex in Cromford, Derbyshire, where his creation of a disciplined working day of 13-hour shifts, involving mechanised manufacturing, led to him being nicknamed the “Father of the Factory System”.
However, the factory system was criticised at the time, especially for making use of child labour, which made up a large proportion of Sir Richard’s workforce, and for subjecting workers to dangerous and inhumane conditions.
Concerns have been raised that English Heritage’s update on Sir Richard, which ties him to the slave trade, could also attach to guilt to factory workers who indirectly benefited from the cotton trade by working in his mills.
Prof Robert Tombs, a historian at the University of Cambridge, said: “Richard Arkwright, a working-class man who invented a machine for spinning cotton, is apparently being blamed for slavery, because most cotton was grown by slaves. So presumably workers in cotton mills, their dependents, and all their customers are also responsible.
“By this logic, everybody was to blame – which is perhaps the best conclusion, as slavery and other forms of coerced labour were part of the world economy for millennia, and created much of what we now consider ‘world heritage’.”
Prof Neil Biggar, a theology expert at the University of Oxford, has criticised the viewing of Sir Richard’s legacy purely through the lens of slavery, calling it a “politically biased, monomaniacal focus”.
Dr Zareer Masani, a historian on British colonialism, said: “Reducing all history to that of slavery and then tracing links to it, however tenuous, of most people of influence, especially in the 18th century, has become a popular pastime with our new arbiters of taste since Black Lives Matter.”
He added that this analysis misses the “ills of factory labour far closer to home”.
*********************************************
Who is Labour's hero? A nurse who stopped a man seeing his dying wife
For once there is an actual difference between Labour and the Tories. And in one official tweet by the Labour Party, you can see what it is.
The tweet was issued by the Labour Party on January 13 and has attracted remarkably little attention.
In truth, it should have led every bulletin and been on every front page, for it takes you directly into the mind of Sir Keir Starmer and all the other lockdown fanatics, in a way never previously possible.
It approvingly quotes a nurse, whose name is given as ‘Jenny, NHS nurse’. She says: ‘I remember May 20, 2020 vividly. I spent hours on the phone to a man who was in the hospital car park, utterly desperate to see his wife.
‘He begged, wept, shouted to be let in but we said no – for the greater good of everyone else. She died unexpectedly and alone, as the Government had a party.’
I feel sorry for ‘Jenny’, because she was deluded by fear propaganda and did not really know what she was doing. But I still think that what she did was terribly wrong.
If I had prevented a husband from seeing his dying wife ‘for the greater good of everyone else’, while the poor man begged and shouted for mercy, I might now keep quiet about it.
Even more, I might feel a deep sense of regret and shame that my self-righteous officiousness had so utterly blinded me to the simple human necessity for kindness above all.
God knows we are all capable of appalling cruelty, but it is never worse than when we think we are doing it for a good reason. This is why all Utopias end with the idealists arresting and then killing those who will not conform to the new paradise. The fanaticism of the Covid authoritarians is frantic mainly because they think that what they are doing is unquestionably right.
You don’t want people like Jenny running the Government.
**************************************************
Woke cancel culture crazies demanding candy must now be 'all-inclusive'
Just when you thought the insanity of cancel culture couldn’t get any crazier, it just did. We’ve watched decades-old pancake syrup symbols get canceled. Beloved children’s book characters have been canceled. Iconic butter logos have evaporated. Sports’ teams are left mascot-less.
We need to appreciate that cancel culture targets people, places and even things. Nothing is outside its crosshairs. The reasons for getting canceled usually revolve around some heinous behavior. Sure, some people do bad things and earn well-deserved condemnation for such.
However, many of the targets of this “wave of crazy calls for societal cancellation” are inanimate objects. Statues are a huge focal point of the “wacko wokies”. If anything offends these sensitive souls, it needs to be erased. There’s no debate. There’s no discussion. It must go.
Cartoons, especially, have been under a weary assault from the cancel culture mob. An iconic Warner Brothers skunk, Pepé Le Pew, was canceled for seemingly being a little too provocative with a lady cat. When we first heard this one, we thought it was a bad joke. It wasn’t.
The cancel culture police skunked a cartoon skunk. Charles Blow, a radical New York Times rag contributor, instigated the whole Pepé the Pew scandal. Somehow, we’re not surprised. Books have been canceled. If a t-shirt slogan offends some wokie, expect it to be up for cancellation.
It’s like a modern-day lynching. However, don’t tell the woke mob that. Actor Rowan Atkinson, aka Mr. Bean, said it pretty succinctly. He sees cancel culture as “a medieval mob looking for someone to burn.” No one is exempt from this radical legion of doom.
It doesn’t matter how long ago someone did something or said something wrong. If you made an irredeemably insensitive comment as a teenager, expect to feel the wrath of the cancel culture police. Again, it’s a mob looking for victims; often innocent victims.
The cancel culture police incessantly attack politicians, conservatives, of course. President Donald Trump has been the most prominent. Two social media companies slammed shut the former president’s ability to communicate on social media. It’s a disgrace.
Even though a chunk of the things targeted by cancel culture seem senseless, we’d think candy would avoid prosecution. Nope, cancel culture and the wokists’ all-inclusive agenda just hit one of America’s favorite little chunks of chocolate, some with peanuts.
M&M’s are either racist or homophobic; we’re uncertain which. Or at least that’s the opinion of the cancel culture police. So, the problem needs to be corrected by making these little bite-sized delights “all-inclusive”. Yep, we’re not kidding.
Mars Wrigley owns the M&M Candy franchise. The obviously “woke company” issued a heartfelt statement about their beloved little candy guys and gals. They announced “a global commitment to creating a world where everyone feels they belong and society is inclusive.”
Sure, we’re all for things that make society better. Everybody deserves to feel like they belong. That should be a noble goal for every human being. But how in the world can candy be all-inclusive? Well, we’re about to expose you to some of the craziest cancel culture notions yet.
You see, the little green ones in your M&M bag, their “peachy legs” and “stiletto boots” are somehow potentially offensive. No kidding, that’s one of the company’s all-inclusive changes. Some M&M eater, in their infinite wisdom, felt the “green guys” were too sexualized.
We’re sorry, but if someone can generate sexualized thoughts about a green, bite-sized piece of candy, there’s a specially padded room necessary. Now, the brown M&M’s didn’t avoid scrutiny either. They must have the heels on their little boots lowered to “professional height”.
We’ll give you a chance to catch your breath if you’re laughing as hard as we did. Oh, and the little rivalry between the green and brown M&M’s? That’s over. Company spokespersons insist these rival candies will be “together, throwing shine and not shade”.
Now, there were some very positive changes made. Ahem. The little orange M&M’s will finally get their sneakers tied properly. I guess that must have broadcast some sort of “slacker” connotation. And we’re certain everyone is left asking one critical question.
What are they going to do with those big bullies, the red M&M’s? These nefarious red instigators will now start to be nicer to their fellow candy members. Take a deep breath now. The wave of cancel culture is so far out of control, it’s impossible to keep up.
Sometimes it’s funny, but usually it’s not. Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta Braves fans better leave their favorite headdress at home on game day. The Washington Redskins are now a mascot-less team. The Cleveland Indians bid a fond farewell to Chief Wahoo.
This is a crackdown on things that seem meaningless. If it weren’t so sad, it really would be funny. However, these clowns are totally serious. Better clean up your act, “Donald”. You’re one “Duck” who might be the next victim on these “quack’s” list to be publicly "tarred and feathered".
**************************************************
It takes 8 years to get an apology from the London police after their disgusting behaviour
Even the sergeant in charge was complicit
Dr Konstancja Duff has previously described suffering lasting trauma following her treatment by police, who arrested her on suspicion of obstructing and assaulting police on 5 May 2013 after she tried to hand a “know-your-rights” legal advice card to a 15-year-old being stopped and searched in Hackney.
While Dr Duff, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Nottingham, was later cleared of the charges in court, she was taken to Stoke Newington police station, where her clothes were cut off with a pair of scissors after she refused to co-operate with officers.
CCTV footage recently released to her as part of a civil lawsuit against the force, which has now reportedly agreed to pay her compensation, “backed up what I had said in my statements for years and years”, Dr Duff said, alleging that she had faced “a barrage of misinformation” with claims that officers had been acting professionally out of concern for her safety.
In the footage, published by The Guardian, Sergeant Kurtis Howard, who was in charge of the custody area – and was cleared of wrongdoing by a disciplinary panel in 2018 – can be heard directing colleagues to show Dr Duff that “resistance is futile” and to search her “by any means necessary”.
“Treat her like a terrorist, I don’t care,” he adds.
Following the search, during which Dr Duff alleged she was pinned to the cell floor with her legs tied together and touched inappropriately, a male officer asks: “Didn’t find anything untoward on her, ladies?” One female officer replies: “A lot of hair.”
In another clip, one officer references a “smell”, and another says: “Oh, it’s her knickers.”
Dr Duff told The Guardian that the CCTV exchanges exposed “the culture of sexualised mockery, the dehumanising attitude” displayed while she was strip-searched, adding: “The crucial issue is that racism, misogyny [and] sexual violence, are normalised in policing.
“And the way in which they treated me, the fact that’s normal is shown by the way that at every level of the system it was rubber-stamped for eight years.”
In an apology, Inspector Andy O’Donnell from Scotland Yard’s directorate of professional standards, reportedly told Dr Duff: “I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely and unreservedly apologise for the sexist, derogatory and unacceptable language used about you and for any upset and distress this may have caused.
“I hope that settlement of this claim and this recognition of the impact of what happened that day will enable you to put this incident behind you.”
The Met said in a statement: “In November 2021, the Met settled a claim following the arrest of a woman in Hackney in May 2013. We have sincerely apologised to the complainant for the language used while she was in custody and any distress caused.
“Following the conclusion of the civil claim, allegations of misconduct relating to these comments were referred to our Directorate of Professional Standards and are currently being investigated. This investigation remains ongoing.”
London mayor Sadiq Khan was among those to react with dismay on Monday to the “utterly disgraceful” incident. “I strongly condemn the derogatory and sexist actions towards Dr Duff,” he tweeted. “The Met are right to have apologised for this appalling incident. Women in our city must be able to trust the police.”
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment