JustOneMinute

Saturday Afternoon

Away we go.

Officing Alone

Peggy Noonan makes a point about the breakdown of community that could have been lifted from 'Bowling Alone'. But she talking about remote work and the end to office-time:

The primary location of daily integration in America—the coming together of all ages, religions, ethnicities and political tendencies, all colors, classes and conditions—has been, during the past century, the office. It is where you learn to negotiate relationships with people very different from you, where you discover what people with different experiences of life really think. You discern all this in the joke, the aside, the shared confidence, the rolled eyes. And with all this variety you manage to come together in a shared, formal mission: Get that account, sell that property, get the story, process those claims.

Daily life in America happened in the office. If it doesn’t, where will America happen?

And, this being a political column, my second worry. The end of the office will contribute to polarization. Receding from office life will become another way of self-segregating. People will be exposed to less and, in their downtime, will burrow down into their sites, their groups, their online angers. Their group-driven information and facts.

 

Bannon Guilty of Contempt

Steve Bannon is found guilty of congempt of Congress. Sentencing will be Oct 21, so that's his last chance to do a Mae West callback. In my rich fantasy life we get this:

"Mr. Bannon, are you trying to show contempot for Congress?"

No, your Honor, I'm trying to hide it."

Yeah, I have big dreams...

 

Biden On The Road

Joe Biden brings back the Terrorist Fist Jab while in Saudi Arabia greeting MBS, the man believed to be the impetus behind the brutal murder/ dismemberment of Khashoggi. Biden's backers (The Few, The Proud...) say the fist bump was chillier than alternatives, but the Saudi PR team was pushing videos so I'd guess they were happy with the photo op they got.

And in the background, there remains a real mystery as to the Saudi oil production capability.

Secret's Out - Biden's Too Old

Big if true - White House insiders and follks on the street agree - Biden is getting older, not better.

Independence Day!

Boom!

Saturday Afternoon

So, any excitement this week?

Saturday Open Thread

Here we go.

Sunday Afternoon

Here we go again.

Sweet Jiminy!

OK, we are taking on the Tough Questions du Jour - why was Rod Stewart singing "Sweet Caroline" at the Queen's Platinum Jubilee Concert? Isn't that a Red Sox Nation thing?

Well, yes-ish, per the Times - Sweet Caroline is a fan favorite around the world and in many sports, and has been a thing in Northern Ireland for years, but... per the Times, the song came to Wembley in 2019 for the Red Sox-Yankees two game set and then took off during the Euro 2020 soccer tournament in 2021. LOTS more here, but I know you want to see Rod take a whack at it. Come in at the 1:55 mark, as Rod explains that the BBC made him sing this. Might want to think about turning down the sound and closing your eyes, but here goes...

Memorial Day Weekend!

Memorial Day is nigh! For me its a time to remember gas for the grill, the names of my kids' Significant Others (JK! Its the kids' names I still stumble on!), our nations's war dead and of course this old post from carefree 2008, when Candidate Barack re-imagined the holiday:

Obama: He's Ready To Tell Us His Secret

Obama is ready to tell us his secret - he sees dead people... Obama's intro to his Memorial Day speech in New Mexico:

On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong.

They've fallen - but they've gotten back up!  Well, he was in New Mexico...

Only fourteen years? Seems like a lifetime ago.

Monday Morning, And Biden Does It Again

Let's start the week with a resounding chorus of "WTF is it now?".

I'll open with this - back in the day (1916, actually) Woodrow Wilson's campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war".

Looks like Biden is pining his hopes on "He talked us into war". First up, by declaring his view that Putin was a war criminal and subsequently ad-libbing "For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power”, Biden has raised the stakes in Ukraine to even more dangerous levels.

Now he is on a Pacific visit, so Biden has up-ended the longstanding US policy of 'strategic ambiguity' on Taiwan. And once again, after Biden's mouth finished its walkabout his aides began a frantic walk-back:

Biden Says U.S. Military Would Defend Taiwan if China Invaded

May 23, 2022; By Kanno-Youngs and Peter Baker

TOKYO — President Biden indicated on Monday that he would use military force to defend Taiwan if it were ever attacked by China, dispensing with the “strategic ambiguity” traditionally favored by American presidents and repeating even more unequivocally statements that his staff tried to walk back in the past.

At a news conference with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan during a visit to Tokyo, Mr. Biden suggested that he would be willing to go further on behalf of Taiwan than he has in helping Ukraine, where he has provided tens of billions of dollars in arms as well as intelligence assistance to help defeat Russian invaders but refused to send American troops.

“You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons,” a reporter said to Mr. Biden. “Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?”

“Yes,” Mr. Biden answered flatly.

“You are?” the reporter followed up.

“That’s the commitment we made,” he said.

The president’s declaration, offered without caveat or clarification, set the stage for fresh tensions between the United States and China, which insists that Taiwan is a part of its territory and cannot exist as a sovereign nation. It also surprised some members of Mr. Biden’s own administration watching in the room, who did not expect him to promise such unvarnished resolve. The United States has historically warned China against using force against Taiwan while generally remaining vague about how far it would go to aid the island in such a circumstance.

The White House quickly tried to deny that the president meant what he seemed to be saying. “As the president said, our policy has not changed,” the White House said in a statement hurriedly sent to reporters. “He reiterated our One China Policy and our commitment to peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. He also reiterated our commitment under the Taiwan Relations Act to provide Taiwan with the military means to defend itself.”

But Mr. Biden’s comments went beyond simply reiterating that the United States would provide Taiwan with arms, because the question was posed as a contrast to what he had done with Ukraine. The president made no effort to qualify what he intended when he agreed that he would “get involved militarily.”

Oh, brother. The point of 'strategic ambiguity' was that a firm US commitment to fight alongside Taiwan would both antagonize the mainland Chinese government and embolden Taiwanese separatists. Better to leave potential adversaries uncertain about just what dangers they faced if war started (perhaps triggered by a formal Taiwanese declaration of separation.)

And why change that policy now? My view is that one silver lining from this Ukranian horror is its likely impact on Xi and any subsequent Chinese leader. I'd hope that any assurances from his generals and admirals that the Chinese military was up to the challenge of a cross-strait invasion contested by Taiwan and perhaps the US Seventh Fleet would be met with a prudent question - "What do you suppose Putin was told about invading Ukraine?".

The last time China had a sizeable military engagement was their 1979 invasion of battle-hardened North Vietnam. Although a mismatch on paper it went poorly for the Chinese. Would they could attempt to invade Taiwan without first staging a warm-up war elsewhere?

A Chinese blockade of Taiwan relying on missiles and mines seems more managable militarily, although even that would probably lead to an economic war China may not want to fight. A Chinese strategy that culminates with an invasion would probably start with a blockade anyway (to limit supply of military aid), so a war in Taiwan is likely to start with a lot of obvious warnings.

Maybe a clear red line drawn by the US will discourage Chinese adventurism without firing up Taiwan. But if the US is changing its policy it would be nice to imagine the US foreign policy pros at State and Defense have chimed in first. "Foreign policy by ad-lib" was a feature of the Obama administration (and his campaign!), so its not as if Biden is a lonely Dem on this approach.

ERRATA: Obama apparently ad-libbed on Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Isreal in remarks to AIPAC in Jun 2008.

A brain fart that Egypt was not an ally came in September 2012 during a campaign effort on Telemundo.

Happy Monday!

Here we go, into the week!

LOL NY Times...

The NY Times seems to be testing a feature that is new to me - present the story they want to tell (and their Upper West Side readers want to read) early on and then run appropriate corrections and clarifications deep in the original story. No need for embarrassing appended editor's notes!

Here we go. The topic is Schumer's failed 'plant a flag for the elections' vote on a Dem abortion bill. Their narrative goal is evergreen: Common sense Dems thwarted by extremist Republicans, ie, all of them.

Bill to Guarantee Abortion Rights Fails in Senate

Dated May 11 and the byline goes to Annie Karni, a name we will keep in mind.

WASHINGTON — Democrats tried and failed on Wednesday to push forward legislation to guarantee abortion rights nationwide, as Republicans and one Democrat in the Senate blocked an effort to enshrine the landmark Roe v. Wade precedent in federal law.

With 51 senators opposed and 49 in support, Democrats fell short of the 60 votes they would have needed to take up sweeping legislation to ensure abortion access and explicitly bar a wide array of restrictions.

...

Republicans, who unanimously opposed the measure, were joined by one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia. Mr. Manchin, who opposes abortion rights, said the legislation was overly broad, noting that it would go substantially further than simply codifying Roe and warning that it would “expand abortion.”

The resulting vote showed that a majority does not now exist in the Senate to support maintaining legal abortion nationwide. Democrats who supported the bill framed it as a call to action, ahead of midterm elections, for voters who support abortion rights to elect likeminded candidates who will preserve them.

People who read beyond the Times and have been following the debate will notice two howlers, because the bill goes well beyond enshrining Roe v. Wade, and majority does exist in the Senate for a pro-choice bill.

But don't take my word for it! Eventually (paragraph 17-18):

The legislation Democrats tried to advance on Wednesday, called the Women’s Health Protection Act, would protect abortion access nationwide, going beyond simply codifying Roe. It would explicitly prohibit a long list of abortion restrictions, including some that have been enacted by states since Roe was decided in 1973 and that have severely limited access to the procedure.

Democrats conceded that their bill was more expansive than Roe, saying that they had drafted the measure in line with their view that some of the statewide restrictions that have been put in place over the past decade are inconsistent with that precedent.

As to a possible Senate majority, that is retracted in paragraphs 19 and 20:

That position cost them support from Mr. Manchin and two Republicans who back abortion rights but said they wanted merely to preserve the status quo — not roll back existing abortion restrictions.

Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, had proposed a narrower bill that they said would codify Roe by outlawing any limit that would put an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It borrowed language from the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which affirmed what it called the essential holding in Roe: that states may not prohibit abortions before fetal viability.

Democrats dismissed the proposal as toothless, noting that it lacked clear guidance about what states can and cannot do, and that it would not explicitly rule out abortion bans before a fetus is viable or bar any specific prohibitions on abortion methods.

So basically, the bill attempts to "codify Roe" by re-writing it as the law as abortion actists would prefer.

But at least this story gives determined (and patient!) readers a fighting chance at finding the facts. Last week Ms. Karni previewed the bill, and provided only the most opaque of belated clarifications. Here we go again, as common-sense Dems battle extremist Reps:

Democrats Plan a Bid to Codify Roe, but Lack the Votes to Succeed

In announcing a Wednesday vote on doomed legislation to enshrine abortion rights into federal law, the top Senate Democrat teed up a political fight for the midterm campaign.

May 5, 2022 by Annie Karnie

WASHINGTON — Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, moved on Thursday to set up a vote next week on a bill to codify abortion rights into federal law, acting quickly in the wake of a leaked Supreme Court draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade, despite clear evidence that the measure lacks the support to be enacted.

The plan is little more than an effort to send a political message before the midterm elections and a seismic ruling that could have major legal, cultural and electoral consequences, with deep significance for voters across the political spectrum.

The legislation is all but certain to be blocked by Republicans, falling short of the 60 votes needed to advance past a filibuster. It also appears to lack even the simple majority it would need to pass the 50-50 Senate, given that Senator Joe Manchin III, the centrist Democrat from West Virginia who opposes abortion rights, voted against bringing up a nearly identical measure in February and has shown no signs that he has shifted his position.

...

Even if Democrats have no real path to passing a bill to enshrine Roe into federal law, the vote will give them a chance to show their progressive core supporters that they are trying to do so. They also hope the action stokes a backlash against Republicans by swing voters, including college-educated suburban women, who might be alienated by the G.O.P.’s opposition to abortion rights.

OK, the headline and paragraph 8 talk about codifying Roe. Much late, starting at para. 17:

They have also altered the measure [from a February version] in an effort to garner more support among Republicans who back abortion rights, removing a lengthy series of findings, including passages that referred to abortion restrictions as “a tool of gender oppression” and as being “rooted in misogyny.” Also scrapped was a section clarifying that while the bill refers to women, it is meant to protect the rights of “every person capable of becoming pregnant,” including transgender men and nonbinary individuals.

Yeah, swing voters worry about protecting abortion rights for transgender men. Whatev. They took that out. Still, para. 18-23:

But the fundamentals of the bill remain the same. It states that health care providers have a legal right to perform abortions, and patients to receive them, and would expressly nullify a wide range of requirements, restrictions and bans.

Democrats had hoped that removing the nonbinding findings could win over Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, two Republicans who support abortion rights.

But Ms. Collins said on Thursday that she still opposed the bill, because it went beyond simply codifying Roe v. Wade, which she supports, and lacked provisions that would allow Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions.

Democrats said they were not interested in finding a compromise that might be acceptable to Ms. Collins and Ms. Murkowski, who have introduced a narrower bill that would bar states from imposing an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion before her fetus is viable.

The Democrats’ bill is more prescriptive, explicitly invalidating any abortion ban or restriction before viability, which it defines as the point at which the treating physician judges the fetus has “a reasonable likelihood” of “sustained” survival outside the womb.

“We’re not cutting back; we’re not compromising,” Mr. Schumer said at a news conference when asked if he would consider taking up the Republican bill. “We’re not looking to compromise on something as vital as this. This has been American law for 50 years.”

Ms. Karnie updated and clarified her description of the Collins/ Murkowski bill for her latest story. I'll reprise it for comparison:

Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, had proposed a narrower bill that they said would codify Roe by outlawing any limit that would put an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It borrowed language from the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, which affirmed what it called the essential holding in Roe: that states may not prohibit abortions before fetal viability.

Well, yes - the mysterious "undue burden" of the earlier story is now explained as coming from Casey (1992) which upheld restrictions (such as parental notification) which were found to be an undue burden.