"Voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger for petting."

Yesterday I sent an email to my senior US Senator Lisa Murkowski urging her to gather enough Republican colleagues to block Trump's destruction of the United States.  I'm not generally a confrontative person and I tried to be polite.

But I just read George F. Will's Washington Post column for today.  He made my email look like a fan letter.

George F. Will is a well known conservative writer.  His Wikipedia page starts out with this:

"George Frederick Will (born May 4, 1941) is an American conservative political commentator. He writes regular columns for The Washington Post and provides commentary for NBC News and MSNBC.[3] In 1986, The Wall Street Journal called him "perhaps the most powerful journalist in America," in a league with Walter Lippmann (1889–1974).[4][5] He won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1977."

After trashing the president he goes on to do the same to the Republicans in the US Senate:

The nation’s downward spiral into acrimony and sporadic anarchy has had many causes much larger than the small man who is the great exacerbator of them. Most of the causes predate his presidency, and most will survive its January terminus. The measures necessary for restoration of national equilibrium are many and will be protracted far beyond his removal. One such measure must be the removal of those in Congress who, unlike the sycophantic mediocrities who cosset him in the White House, will not disappear “magically,” as Eric Trump said the coronavirus would. Voters must dispatch his congressional enablers, especially the senators who still gambol around his ankles with a canine hunger for petting.In life’s unforgiving arithmetic, we are the sum of our choices. Congressional Republicans have made theirs for more than 1,200 days. We cannot know all the measures necessary to restore the nation’s domestic health and international standing, but we know the first step: Senate Republicans must be routed, as condign punishment for their Vichyite collaboration, leaving the Republican remnant to wonder: Was it sensible to sacrifice dignity, such as it ever was, and to shed principles, if convictions so easily jettisoned could be dignified as principles, for . . . what? Praying people should pray, and all others should hope: May I never crave anything as much as these people crave membership in the world’s most risible deliberative body.
A political party’s primary function is to bestow its imprimatur on candidates, thereby proclaiming: This is who we are. In 2016, the Republican Party gave its principal nomination to a vulgarian and then toiled to elect him. And to stock Congress with invertebrates whose unswerving abjectness has enabled his institutional vandalism, who have voiced no serious objections to his Niagara of lies, and whom T.S. Eliot anticipated: 

We are the hollow men . . .Our dried voices, whenWe whisper togetherAre quiet and meaninglessAs wind in dry grassor rats’ feet over broken glass . . ."

In a remarkable and far more complex and academic article in The Atlantic,  "History Will Judge the Complicit:  Why have Republican leaders abandoned their principles in support of an immoral and dangerous president?"  Anne Applebaum asks why some people become collaborators (in the negative connotation)?

"Since the Second World War, historians and political scientists have tried to explain why some people in extreme circumstances become collaborators and others do not. The late Harvard scholar Stanley Hoffmann had firsthand knowledge of the subject—as a child, he and his mother hid from the Nazis in Lamalou-les-Bains, a village in the south of France. But he was modest about his own conclusions, noting that “a careful historian would have—almost—to write a huge series of case histories; for there seem to have been almost as many collaborationisms as there were proponents or practitioners of collaboration.” Still, Hoffmann made a stab at classification, beginning with a division of collaborators into “voluntary” and “involuntary.” Many people in the latter group had no choice. Forced into a “reluctant recognition of necessity,” they could not avoid dealing with the Nazi occupiers who were running their country.

One East German she interviewed said that was not an interesting question.  More interesting was why some people do NOT become collaborators.  This article puts the question about why Republican Senators stay loyal to Trump into a much larger historical context.  She looks at the Nazi occupied France, East Germany, and Poland - all countries taken over by a different ideology - and looks at people who did and did not become collaborators with the new regimes.  Then applies that discussion to the Republicans in the Senate.   She goes far beyond voluntary and involuntary.

Another Letter To Senator Lisa Murkowsi

Dear Senator Murkowski,

I wrote you during impeachment when many of us knew it was only a matter of time before we'd get where we are today.  We didn't know the specific crisis that would come, but we knew when it did, Trump would do terrible things.  We've passed 100,000 COVID deaths.  Trump's militant racist messages have contributed to the demonstrations and violence in the streets today.

While the Rule of Law is the basis of our democracy, Trump's destroying the Department of Justice and undermining so many other agencies.  With COVID making mail-in elections necessary, Trump has put a political hack in control of the Post Office.  You missed your chance to stop all this during impeachment.

In early May I wrote to request you find six other Republican Senators brave enough to block Trump's lawless presidency.  Shortly after that the former top federal ethics officer Walter Shaup called on just four Senate Republicans to stop Trump.

There is little doubt in my mind that Trump plans to meddle with the election.  His new, greater control of the Post Office makes it much easier to steal the election by delaying ballots being sent out and  'losing' ballots being returned.  And he's already preparing for the possibility he might lose, by inciting militant revolt by claiming the Democrats are going to rig the election.  That will be his claim if he loses.

You are one of 100 people who can stop this president before we have war in the streets.  After November 3, your power will be diminished.  The Senate has let Trump get away with one violation of the law, of norms, of decency after another.  He knows the Senate won't hold  him accountable - because it's done nothing to counter his violations.  You've given him license to do crazier and crazier things.

My hope is that everything I'm saying here, you already know well and that you are working with Republican colleagues to stop the destruction of our nation that Trump is carrying out daily.

Thank you for listening.  I desperately hope that soon I'll be thanking you for taking action.

Steven Aufrecht

My Letter Today To Senator Lisa Murkowski

Senator,

The time to take action was a while ago. Further delay will be disastrous.   I urge you to find enough Republican colleagues to block all legislation in the Senate that further empowers Trump and erodes our crumbling democracy.

I don't pretend to understand the pressures you are under.  I wrote to you during impeachment that if you didn't stand up against Trump then, Trump would cause incalculable damage at the next major crisis.  (Not that the day-to-day blows against democracy, the dismantling of the US' alliances around the world, the horrors against immigrants,  the dismantling of women's rights, the attacks on our intelligence services, etc. weren't all outrages of their own.)  And now, a couple of months after the Senate passed on the chance to impeach Trump, or even just hear more witnesses and review documents,  we have the virus.
Trump is at the helm causing through his action and inaction, his encouragement of armed protest against governors, his promotion of untested cures, the needless deaths of tens of thousands of Americans.  He won't increase tests because "too much testing makes the US look bad."   Meanwhile all the professional health experts say testing is essential to stopping the virus.
I urge you as strongly as I can to recruit five or six  Republican Senators  (or whatever number is needed to stop Trump's mismanagement of the COVID crisis and his dismantling of democracy) who have the courage to say "No More."  To vote, as a block, against legislation that strengthens Trump or supports his refusal to let his appointees testify.  To vote against appointments until there is legislation that insures fair elections (stopping voter roll purges, shutting down polling places in minority neighborhoods, blocking vote by mail during this pandemic, etc.), and that insures the continuation of the US Post Office as we know it. This is a particular issue in rural Alaska.

My mother went to school in the 1930s in Germany.  She experienced the rise of Hitler and she managed to get out at age 17 in August 1939. Her parents didn't make it out and I never knew any of my grandparents because my father's parents also died, victims of Hitler. I've only begun to fully understand recently, as I interact with my own grandchildren,  how great a loss it is to not know your grandparents.

My mother always told me when I was growing up that it could happen here.  Trump's actions and the Senate's failure to check his power is making my mother's prophecy reality.   If Trump is reelected he will feel no need to follow any rules but his own.   He's already pardoning all his convicted cronies and now Barr has had the DOJ drop charges against Michael Flynn.  A fair justice system, a foundation of democracy, is crumbling before our eyes.

If this isn't the time to take bold action, there is no such time for you and other Republican Senators.  
I have told anyone who asks that I suspected you were keeping a low profile until you could do something.  But I'm afraid you have waited too long.  

I pray that you focus on finding enough Senate colleagues that you can stop this president from further destroying the United States.  Even if he is not reelected, he would be able, with the current Republican Senate majority, to continue to do damage and to make the US a second rate country until January 2021.

You can't keep waiting.  Time is up.  Our democracy is at stake.

Lisa Murkowski Wants It Both Ways - But I Suspect She's Alienated Everyone

I believe that Sen. Murkowski has thought hard on the issue of how to vote on the president's impeachment.  In the end, she has fallen into the trap laid for all people who try to see both sides (actually one needs to see all sides, but she talks in her speech more about two sides).  She has tried to cut the baby in half.  She's chastised the Senate (and the House) for having a rotten foundation, so the fair process she worked for failed.  BUT, nevertheless, she's voting against impeachment.

So she's probably alienated both sides.  I don't know what sort of bargains she's made with fellow Republicans, but I suspect her showing any sympathy at all for the House arguments is going to to be seen as challenging the president.  This will alienate members of her own party in Alaska and  she'll have a serious challenge in the 2022 primary.  Although acting 'moderate' she's decided to  vote to acquit Trump, and thus she'll have no support from the Democrats as she did last time when she ran as a write-in candidate.  No matter how much you wring your hands before doing it, voting to acquit won't cut it for those who are appalled at the president's behavior and the Senate majority's part of the 'jury' collusion with the defendant on trial issues, their  obfuscation of the issues, and refusal to hear more evidence.

The Republican Party simply has no more room for 'moderate' Republicans.  And the Democrats are tired of being teased by all the professions of 'making up my mind.'

Here's the video of her speech.  Below is the transcript with my comments in red.  I'd note the transcript comes from Sen. Murkowski's website and while it deviates slightly from the video, I'm guessing it's what she read from.




Transcript:

“I rise to address the trial of Donald John Trump. The founders gave this body the sole power to try all impeachments, and exercising that power is a weighty responsibility.
“This was only the third time in the history of our country that the Senate convened to handle a presidential impeachment, and only the second in the past 150 years.  I was part of a small group that worked to secure a fair, honest, and transparent structure for the trial, based on how this chamber handled the trial of President Clinton.  Twenty-four hours of arguments for each side, sixteen hours of questions from members, with the full House record admitted as evidence, should have been more than enough to answer the questions: do we need to hear more?  Should there be additional process?
“The structure we built should have been sufficient, but the foundation upon which it rested was rotten.
“The House rushed through what should be one of the most serious, consequential undertakings of the legislative branch simply to meet an artificial, self-imposed deadline.  Prior presidential impeachments resulted from years of investigations, where subpoenas were issued and litigated.

[The White House lawyers made two conflicting arguments:  1) that the House rushed this through, and 2) that there was no need for more information because the House had gathered an exhaustive collection of witnesses and documents.  Murkowski is leaning on their 'rushed it through' argument.  Of course, the years of litigation she mentions would mean that impeachment would drag on for years, which would have been against one of the other WH arguments - that impeachment focus prevents any legislation from getting passed.  Though they failed to mention the hundreds of passed House bills being blocked by the Senate Majority Leader.]

Where there were massive amounts of documents produced and witnesses deposed.  Where resistance from the executive was overcome through court proceedings and accommodations.
“The House failed in its responsibilities.  And the Senate should be ashamed by the rank partisanship that has been on display.  We cannot be the greatest deliberative body when we kick things off by issuing letters to the media instead of coming together to set the parameters of the trial and negotiate in good faith how we should proceed.  For all the talk of impartiality, it is clear that few in this chamber approached this with a genuinely open mind.  Some have been calling for this President to be impeached for years.  Others saw little need to even consider the arguments before stating their intentions to acquit.

She's a little cagey here.  When she accuses the House, she's clearly accusing the Democrats.  But when she accuses the Senate of 'rank partisanship' it's not clear if that's directed at the Republicans alone (who openly worked with the WH on how to proceed, to exclude witnesses, and try to get this done before the State of the Union speech.  Or if she is including the Democrats too.  Clearly she's implicating them when she talks about some calling for impeachment for years.  But, really, it doesn't matter when people called for impeachment.  It matters whether the charges are grave and the facts are certain.  

“Over the course of the past few weeks, we have all seen videos from twenty years ago, where members who were present during the Clinton trial took the exact opposite stance than they take today.  That level of hypocrisy is astounding even for D.C.

A good point.  

“The President’s behavior was shameful and wrong.  His personal interests do not take precedence over those of this great nation.  The president has the responsibility to uphold the integrity and honor of the office.  Not just for himself but for all future presidents.  Degrading the office, by actions or even name calling, weakens it for future presidents, and weakens our country.

More good points.  

“All of this rotted the foundation of the process, and this was why I reached the conclusion that there would be no fair trial.  While the trial was held in the Senate, it was litigated in the court of public opinion.

It's not based on the rules of a court of law.  The 'jury' worked with the defendant on the trial rules.  The foreman of the Senate/jury already declared the defendant would be acquitted from the beginning.  Public opinion IS important to impeachment.  Nixon resigned when public opinion changed and Republican senators told him they would vote for impeachment.  

“For half the country, there had already been far too much process.  They consider the entire impeachment inquiry to be baseless, and thought the Senate should have dismissed the case as soon as it reached us.  For the other half, no matter how many witnesses were summoned or deposed, no matter how many documents were produced, the only way the trial would have been considered “fair” was if it resulted in the President’s removal from office.

I think she's simplifying public opinion here.  She might have added that for at least 40% of the country, Trump could commit any crime and they would not have a problem.  But well more than half wanted to see witnesses called. I'm regularly astounded that Republicans keep chastising Democrats about fairness when the president violates all norms of fairness on a daily basis.  

“During the month that the House declined to transmit the articles to the Senate, the demon of faction extended his scepter, the outcome became clear, and a careless media cheerfully tried to put out the fires with gasoline.  

Let's give Murkowski's staff credit. "The demon of faction extended his scepter" comes from Federalist Paper # 65 written by Publius (Hamilton) where he writes about impeachment and who should carry it out.  The demon might come because of procrastination and prolonged inaction he argues.  But the thirty days the But the House held back the  articles of impeachment because the Senate Majority leader wouldn't disclose anything about how the trial would be conducted, is nothing compared to the years of litigation Murkowski was calling for earlier.  Here's part of that section from Hamilton:

". . . the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men." 

We debated witnesses instead of the case before the Senate. Rather than the President’s conduct, the focus turned to how a lack of additional witnesses could be used to undermine any final conclusion.

It's true, the White House counsel focused on witnesses and all other manner of process and theoretical legal issues.  The House Managers were much more focused on the details of Trump's violations  

“What started with political initiatives that degraded the Office of the President and left the Congress wallowing in partisan mud, threatened to drag the last remaining branch down along with us.  I have taken tough votes before to uphold the integrity of our courts.  

I'm assuming this refers to her not wanting to force the Chief Justice to become involved if the vote for witnesses was 50-50 and he would be called on the break the tie.  

And when it became clear that a tie vote in the Senate would simply be used to burn down our third branch of government for partisan political purposes, I said—enough.
“The response to the President’s behavior is not to disenfranchise nearly 63 million Americans and remove him from the ballot.

This is one of the specious arguments repeated over and over by the the White House defense team.  

1.  Impeachment is the remedy in the constitution for making the president accountable.  The idea that impeachment is illegitimate now because it "removes him from the ballot" is just plain wrong.  That is what an impeachment does.  Period.  The fact that this is the president's first term and he can run again is irrelevant.  There were no term limits in the Constitution, so when they wrote this they knew that impeachment would  remove someone who might run again.   Actually it appears that the Senate is given two options - they can vote to remove him from office, plus they can ban him from running for any future office.  But they don't have to do the latter.  So, if they only removed him from office, it's possible the Republicans could nominate him again.  So this wouldn't remove him from the ballot .
2.  "disenfranchise 63 million Americans" -  This argument neglects the fact that the 65,844,954 Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton were disenfranchised by the arcane rules of the electoral college.  Furthermore,  the 2018 election wiped out the large Republican majority in the House and gave the Democrats a large majority.  This more recent election gives us a better look at the will of the American people than 2016.  They empowered the House to proceed with impeachment.]

 The House could have pursued censure, not immediately jumped to the remedy of last resort.  I cannot vote to convict.  The Constitution provides for impeachment, but does not demand it in all instances.  An incremental first step, to remind the President that, as Montesquieu said, “Political virtue is a renunciation of oneself” and this requires “a continuous preference of the public interest over one’s own.” Removal from office, and being barred from ever holding another office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States is the political death penalty.  [Again, being barred from running for office again is not automatic.  Here's another opinion on that. Furthermore while 'political death penalty' might seem a horrible fate for a Senator, it's minor compared to actual death penalty.  Or even prison.  This is more like removing someone from a job for misdeeds.] The President’s name is on ballots that have already been cast. The voters will pronounce a verdict in nine months, and we must trust their judgment. [emphasis added]
“This process has been the apotheosis of the problem of Congressional abdication.  

"Apotheosis

Description  Apotheosis is the glorification of a subject to divine level and most commonly, the treatment of a human like a god. The term has meanings in theology, where it refers to a belief, and in art, where it refers to a genre. In theology, apotheosis refers to the idea that an individual has been raised to godlike stature. Wikipedia "

Through the refusal to exercise war powers, or relinquishing the power of the purse, selective oversight, and an unwillingness to check emergency declarations designed to skirt Congress – we have failed time and time again.  We cannot continue to cede authority to the executive. [So, since we have failed over and over again to reign in presidential usurpation of Congressional power, and even though you cite the president's failures in your eight paragraph, now is not the time to re-exert our power.  "We cannot continue to cede authority to the executive."  How does that lead to a vote to acquit?]
“The question that must be answered, given the intense polarization in our country, is where do we go from here?  Sadly, I have no definitive answers.  But I do have hope – because I must have hope.  As I tried to build consensus over the past few weeks I had many private conversations with my colleagues.  Many share my sadness for the state of our institutions.  It is my hope that we have found the bottom.  That both sides can look inward and reflect on the apparent willingness each has to destroy not just each other, but all of the institutions of our government. And for what?  Because it may help win an election?
“At some point – for our country – winning has to be about more than just winning – or we will all lose.”

Twitter Vented On Lisa Murkowski Today

After deciding not to vote for witnesses and additional documentation, Lisa Murkowski tweeted
yesterday:

Everyone should be treated equally under the law. I’ve been working hard with @SenatorCardin to make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) part of the Constitution.
➡ https://t.co/vMcv0BYtz2 pic.twitter.com/G8cxIn7jem

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) February 1, 2020

The Twitter responses were not friendly.  Here are a few of the one thousand plus responses:

• Shame on you forever.
• So glad to hear this. Looking forward to all the witnesses who don’t have to skip work to testify at trials.
• You don't believe tRUMP should be held accountable. He hasn't been treated equally under the law. You say he is above the law & can commit any crime & any treasonous thing he wants to. You support this dictator & GOP cheating for the 2020 election with help from other countries.
• and NO ONE should be above the law. you didn't allow witnesses and disparaged your oath to do fair & impartial justice. this stain on your legacy is everlasting
• Say What? Constitution, what is that. Law, what law? We are now a lawless Country thanks to the GOP. Shame, shame.
• You're now irrelevant! Go away.
• You've lost every ounce of credibility you ever had by voting no to witnesses. #Cowards
• You forgot to add that this excludes @potus. #impotus gets special treatment and is truly above the law even when our Senators were charged with protecting our country. Your words are meaningless now, Senator.
• Oh honey, from this point forward you own trump and his behavior and corruption. That’s your legacy.
• Oh, WOW!! How can you write that first sentence with a straight damned face.
• #MoscowMitch comes out against it. Then you’ll be “concerned” and “troubled” by his statements, then either vote how he tells you, or pretend to be independent by voting against him when the vote doesn’t matter.
• You betrayed our country
• The Constitution? Really? You always had my support until yesterday. #GOPComplicitTraitors #GOPCorruptionOverCountry
• 75% of us wanted witnesses and documents. What happened to representing the people? You're no better than trump.

First, as negative tweets, these are pretty mild. They are all fact based (Murkowski's vote against witnesses and more documents) and they tend to reflect the opinion/feelings of the writer based on that action. She's not called names or disparaged because of physical characteristics.

Second, I'm guessing most of the comments were not from Alaskans. I'm guessing most of these people don't really know much about Murkowski. Basically, most know that she was considering voting for witnesses, and then changed her mind.

Third, my response to this was that at least people should acknowledge if she gets this changed (is this what she got in exchange for voting no on witnesses?) it would be a good thing, but then raise there anger at her witness vote. (If this was her bargain, she has more faith in her party keeping its promise than I have.)

Fourth,I learned long ago that after a powerful emotional event, it's best to just lie low a bit while people vent their anger. People aren't ready for rational discussion when they are really mad. Just showing her face on Twitter was likely to unleash a flood of anger.

Fifth, people are shouting about how excluding witnesses proves it's a sham trial. But it was obviously a sham trial from the beginning when the head of the jury said he was consulting with the defendant on how to plan the case.

Sixth, allowing witnesses and documents definitely would have prolonged the trial. There's a possibility it would have revealed more blockbuster revelations than we already know about. But enough to win over 16 more Republicans to convict? I doubt it. Even if Senators don't have some hidden shame, they know that Trump can simply make crap up about them and it will blemish them for a long time. And that he would.

Seventh, but I do hope that liberals are really careful about what they see and hear. There are plenty of folks out there focusing on the competition aspects of the Democratic race, rather than on the substance. It's much easier to understand and conflict gets clicks. I'll just say, that if it's about one Democrat being nasty about another one, take it with a grain of salt. Assume it's a troll trying to divide progressives until you get evidence it's not.

Eighth, the same people who said Trump couldn't win four years ago, are giving their opinions about electability now. It's opinion based on selective or just limited data. What polls say now is pretty meaningless. Electability is less about policy and more about charisma. Reagan - a charismatic, well spoken conservative - was followed by Clinton, a charismatic, well spoken moderate. If you have both - ability to speak to the issues and to the voters - you can win. Besides, winning is going to be about getting voters to the polls, countering false reports, making sure voting machines are fixed or hacked. And these responses to Lisa Murkowski's Tweet show that people are fighting mad. If they all can be recruited to each get ten people who have never voted to vote, Trump doesn't have a chance.

Finally, for those of you who have never seen Twitter, you can go and look at it without paying and without becoming a member. Just go to Twitter.com and poke around a bit. I'm going to do several posts on Twitter in the next weeks. At the very least you should know what it looks and feels like. In the search box you can put in topics or names you'd like to see.

Sen Dan Sullivan Responds Quickly To My Email Concerning Impeachment [UPDATED With Murkowski's Impeachment Response And Views Flying Out Of Anchorage)

The options one has when picking a topic at Dan Sullivan's 'contact' site does include Impeachment.  Not could I find "other.'   So I marked something like "Crime and Law Enforcement."

If you want to contact Sen. Sullivan you can at this link.
Senator Lisa Murkowski can be contacted here.

For non-Alaskans, you can get to your Senators here.

His response does not address the specific issues I raised, but it suggests that he's getting at least a few letters.  It stays neutral except for a part that takes a jab at the fairness of the House process.  Here's the response:

"Dear Mr. A,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the impeachment of President Trump. I appreciate your thoughts on this issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United Sates, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The House and Senate have essential, but different roles in carrying out the constitutional responsibilities required for the impeachment inquiry and trial. An impeachment proceeding must originate in the House of Representatives.
Following allegations that President Trump potentially engaged Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, the House of Representatives initiated an impeachment inquiry on September 24, 2019.
Articles of impeachment are a set of charges, and act similar to an indictment in court. Following the House’s decision to impeach, the Senate conducts a trial. When the trial concludes, the Senate meets as a whole to deliberate. A conviction requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present.
On December 18, 2019, the House approved two articles of impeachment: Article I by a vote of 230 to 197, and Article II by a vote of 229 to 198. This matter has now moved to the Senate, where a trial is being conducted. On January 22, 2020, the Senate agreed to rules for the procedures of the impeachment trial. These rules, very similar to those used during the impeachment of former President Clinton, allow the House managers and the President’s legal team 24 hours each to present their arguments. Importantly, these rules allow the Senate to call additional witnesses and request documents if determined necessary after the first phase of the trial where both sides are able to fully present their side of the case and answer questions from Senators. The fair and reasonable rules agreed to for the trial in the Senate stand in sharp contrast to the process in the House.
Now that articles of impeachment have come before the Senate for consideration, I have sworn an oath as a juror to do “impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws,” and I will reserve final judgement on this matter until all facts are known. I encourage you to read the impeachment proceedings from both the House managers and the President’s legal team, and determine for yourself the fairness of the proceedings and whether the actions of the President constitute an impeachable offense. The impeachment briefings can be found on my website at the following link:
https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/information-on-the-senates-impeachment-proceedings
Thank you again for contacting me on this issue. If you have any more questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or my staff. My office can be reached at 202-224-3004, or online at www.sullivan.senate.gov."

Sincerely,

Dan Sullivan
United States Senator 

[UPDATE January 27, 2020m 9:57pm Seattle time:  This email from Senator Murkowski, in response to an email I sent a week ago, came shortly after I posted Sen. Sullivan's response.  But I

was on an airplane and I only just saw it after spending time with my granddaughter here and daughter here on Bainbridge.

"Dear Steven:

          Thank you for contacting me to share your views.  I appreciate hearing from you and having the opportunity to explain my position on the Articles of Impeachment against the President and the trial being held in the Senate.
          As you know, the Articles of Impeachment have been sent over from the House and are now before us.  Our responsibilities as a Senate are outlined in the U.S. Constitution—the Senate will act as the court of impeachment.  Our duty is to oversee a fair trial.
          While I encouraged the Majority Leader and Minority Leader to come ­to an agreement on setting the parameters for the Senate trial, after several weeks that did not happen.  I supported the organizing resolution offered by Majority Leader McConnell, which follows the framework set in the 1999 trial of President Clinton.  This effectively provides President Trump the same treatment every senator thought was fair for President Clinton during his impeachment trial.  This process allows the House and the President to present their case, following which Senators are allowed time to submit questions to the case managers.  After those questions, the Senate will then be allowed to vote on whether it is in order to ask for witness testimony or additional documents.
          The removal of a duly elected President by impeachment is a significant and serious matter and should not be approached lightly.  I have taken an oath to deliver impartial justice according to the Constitution and the law.  I will not rush to judgment, making all decisions based on the facts of the case presented.
          Again, thank you for contacting me.
United States Senator
Lisa Murkowski
http://murkowski.senate.gov*"

Why Everyone Should Turn Off Online Movies Until They Finish Reading Proof Of Conspiracy - Plus A Brief Twitter Explanation

OK, it's hard to read Proof of Conspiracy because it doesn't come out until Tuesday September 3.  So you have the weekend to binge view.

I've already posted about Seth Abramson's previous book, Proof of Collusion which was like the background guide for the Mueller Report.

Here's an overview of what you'll get in Proof of Conspiracy from the author via a 15 Tweet thread:   [*For those who don't know a Tweet from a Thread, skip down to the bottom of this post]

Seth Abramson
@SethAbramson
·
Aug 30
1/ Two things are simultaneously true:
(1) PROOF OF CONSPIRACY will shock you and profoundly alter your understanding of what the Trump presidency means for the whole world.
(2) PROOF OF CONSPIRACY is fully sourced: 3,250 endnotes and 4,330 citations are being published online.
2/ In fact, for the first time, I'm going to direct people to the website for the 378 pages (not a typo) of endnotes and citations for PROOF OF CONSPIRACY that are available for free online. All stem from the endnotes in the print book, which is 592 pages: https://static.macmillan.com/static/macmillan/proofofconspiracy/endnotes.pdf

3/ The Trump collusion narrative that lay outside the scope of the Mueller Report is larger by a factor of 5—at least—than what even those who've read the full Report have seen. Mueller focused on 1 crime and 1 country; PROOF OF CONSPIRACY looks at *many* crimes and 10 countries.
4/ Every day, America is rediscovering the narrowness of the Mueller Report. Not merely because the Report says at its beginning that Trumpworld witnesses withheld, hid, and destroyed evidence—making a proper, conclusive investigation impossible—but because the probe ended early.

5/ I'm not criticizing Mueller. I believe there were pressures/anxieties in play in his investigation we will one day discover. But the investigation ended with *all* counterintelligence information—a far greater stock of information than what was in the Report—being farmed out.

6/ The Mueller probe ended with key subpoenas unfulfilled, key witnesses unquestioned, key issues unlitigated, key cooperation deals wantonly broken, key lines of inquiry that lay outside the narrow scope of the investigation wholly—seemingly carelessly—unexplored. That's a fact.
7/ The problem we have is that not only did media do nothing to consider, explore, or reveal to news-watchers the *vast* narrative that lay outside the scope of the Mueller Report, it didn't even educate viewers on the *Mueller Report*.
Not Volume 1, at least. *That* it ignored.
8/ Tell most people that the Mueller Report reveals that Trump's top Russia adviser for the entirety of the 2016 campaign was a Soviet-born man who currently works for the Kremlin in Moscow and who Putin has described as a "friend," and they'll say, "No it doesn't."
But it does.

9/ Tell most people that the Mueller Report reveals that weeks before the 2016 election a Kremlin ally wrote Trump's lawyer to confirm the existence of blackmail videos of Trump, thereby issuing an implicit threat from the Kremlin, and they'll say, "No it doesn't."
But it does.

10/ Tell most people that the Mueller Report proves that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin—and that an indictment undergirded by that collusion couldn't be brought only because Trump convinced Manafort to lie to the feds—and they'll say, "No it doesn't."
But it does.


11/ Media has so ill-prepared us to understand the foundation upon which PROOF OF CONSPIRACY was written that the book must, at points, remind readers of these facts—with citations to the Report and elsewhere—in order to unfold its even-more-terrifying (and fully sourced) story.
10/ Tell most people that the Mueller Report proves that the Trump campaign colluded with the Kremlin—and that an indictment undergirded by that collusion couldn't be brought only because Trump convinced Manafort to lie to the feds—and they'll say, "No it doesn't."
But it does.

11/ Media has so ill-prepared us to understand the foundation upon which PROOF OF CONSPIRACY was written that the book must, at points, remind readers of these facts—with citations to the Report and elsewhere—in order to unfold its even-more-terrifying (and fully sourced) story.

12/ What we've gotten, instead, is 1,000+ Trump propagandists like John Solomon or anyone at Fox News or Chuck Ross who are lying—bald-facedly lying—every day about what Volume 1 does and does not say, likely because they *haven't read it* and they assume no one else has, either.

13/ If you want to know how carefully documented PROOF OF CONSPIRACY is, consider that whereas most in media ignored Vol. 1 of the Mueller Report—and some lied about having read it and what's in it—I publicly live-tweeted my first reading of it in a thread spanning 500 tweets.

14/ What we're getting:
@ChrisCuomo
—a smart, dedicated journalist—arguing with profoundly dishonest Trump cultist
@KayleighMcEnany
.
What we deserve: Deep dives on the Saudi- and Emirati-funded Israeli disinformation campaign that the Trumps knew about and that helped Trump win.

15/ Upshot: I'm a ride-or-die Mueller-Report-Volume-1 nerd who owes nothing to corporate bosses or advertisers and will offer long-form analysis of a national emergency whether some scoff or not. I worked harder on PROOF OF CONSPIRACY than anything I've worked on in my life. /end

I'm thinking of sending this Tweet to my US Senators.  Dan Sullivan has said his staff has been reading the Mueller Report, but he hasn't.  Murkowski says it's slow, but she's plowing through it.    It should be high a priority.

And so should Proof of Conspiracy.  Maybe this author written set of Cliff Notes might help Sullivan.



*Tweets And Threads

Twitter is a kind of social media where members can post mini-blog posts of up to 280 characters. It used to be 140 characters but eventually they doubled it.

https://www.lifewire.com/twitter-slang-and-key-terms-explained-2655399is a post on Twitter.  They look like this:

EARTH TO DAN SULLIVAN @SenDanSullivan
Critically ill Immigrant kids are being cut-off from medical treatment by the Trump Administration! @POTUS
Do you care?@lisamurkowski @DrAlGrossAK @adn @JuneauEmpire @FDNMPolitics

— Elstun (@ElstunL) September 1, 2019

People can add photos and videos.  And people can comment as well.  But you're limited, as I said, to 280 characters.  People can have a Twitter name (here, it's Elstun) and a @elstonL is how you find him.  The @SenDanSullivan in this post will let Sullivan know he's been mentioned in a Tweet.  There's lots more.  Here's a page which explains key Twitter terms.  I mention all this because I know many people never look at Twitter, even though they hear about the President tweeting every day.

A Thread is a series of Tweets all connected.  This is a way to say more than you can with just 280 characters.

I chose not to 'embed' Seth's Twitter Thread (then it would have looked like it does on Twitter) so I could edit out things that you really don't need, including all the comments.  But if you want, here's the same link as in the beginning which will take you to Seth's Twitter Thread on Twitter.  And no, you don't have to be a member of Twitter to read Tweets there.

Researchers Offer Four Common Characteristics of Mass Shooters

Scholars Jillian Peterson and James Densley  list four common traits of the mass shooters they studied.  This is a very abbreviated form from the LA Times.

"First, the vast majority of mass shooters in our study experienced trauma and exposure to violence at a young age. The nature of their exposure included parental suicide, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence and/or severe bullying. . .
Second, practically every mass shooter we studied had reached an identifiable crisis point in the weeks or months leading up to the shooting.  . .
Third, most of the shooters had studied the actions of other shooters and sought validation for their motives. . .
Fourth, the shooters all had the means to carry out their plans.     . . "

They go on to list ways to prevent such shootings.  Basically:

• remove access to good locations by adding more security
• remove access to guns
• remove the notoriety they seek and get from the media
• remove barriers to reporting people for people who see signs of potential violence*
• much more education about mental health and how to cope and get help in all schools

*This is in contrast to the article that friends of the Ohio shooter broke off from him when he DID show signs, but apparently they didn't tell police until after the shootings.  

But let's remember that the NRA not only leans hard on its Republican (and a very few Democratic) members of Congress to prevent  banning any weapons or adding any restrictions to getting weapons, BUT just as pernicious is their successful ban on government agencies doing research on gun violence.  If you can't do research, you can't show the impact of guns on society.  Fortunately, there are some non-governmental research who continue to study gun violence.

In the 2016 election cycle, Open Secrets tells us the NRA spent  $839,574 on Congressional candidates.
In 2018 (not a presidential election year), they spent  $711,654.

Here's what they spent on Alaskan members of Congress in 2016.  

Name	Office	Total Contributions
Young, Don (R-AK)	House	$6,950
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK)	Senate	$4,500
Sullivan, Dan (R-AK)	Senate	$2,000

And let's remember the NRA, which used to be an organization of hunters and gun collectors that taught gun safety, is now an organization funded significantly by the gun industry.

How many shootings will it take until half the voting population personally knows someone who died in a mass shooting?  Will we change the laws then?

Comparing Congressional Tweets - AOC Shines

What is it that I like so much about AOC Tweets?
I think it's that she tweets the way I would if I were in Congress, and the way I blogged the Alaska Legislature back in 2010.  Showing us what new eyes notice about the place.  Not worried about 'what you're supposed to do or not do.'  Showing people what goes on behind the scenes that others either take for granted or think shouldn't be talked about.  She also does a great job of giving credit to others.

So here's a great one from today.  [If you click on the > at the bottom right of the Tweet, it will take you to the Twitter page of each of these Members of Congress.]

Let’s talk abt how Gov works behind the scenes: Remember that Big Pharma hearing last week?

Here’s how it happened.

A 23 y/o staffer in my office met w/ local HIV advocates. They argued the CDC held the patent for PrEP & Gilead was price gouging.

She picked it up + dug in. /1

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 24, 2019

My senior US Senator Lisa Murkowski:

As medicine and technology evolve, we must ensure that our healthcare professionals, even in the most rural areas, have access to the continued education that will allow them to provide the best care possible.

— Sen. Lisa Murkowski (@lisamurkowski) May 24, 2019

My Junior Senator Dan Sullivan:

I’d like to commend @IvankaTrump for strongly advocating for #paidfamilyleave. There are a number of proposals—some bipartisan—in the Senate that I will be taking a serious look at in the coming weeks and months. pic.twitter.com/k1EVMSsuPe

— SenDanSullivan (@SenDanSullivan) May 24, 2019

And my member of congress, Don Young:

#OTD in 1919, the House passed the #19thAmendment, finally granting women the right to vote. 100 years on, we honor the women who fought to make history, and celebrate those who continue to do so. Learn more about the 19th Amendment: https://t.co/dQ1tQBmi3G via @librarycongress pic.twitter.com/Kuq0VAecMR

— Rep. Don Young (@repdonyoung) May 21, 2019

My assessment apparently isn't isolated.  Here's how many people follow each of the members of Congress on Twitter:

Ocasio-Cortez has 4.3M Followers
Murkowski has 260K Followers
Sullivan has 36.4K Followers
Young has 19K Followers

OK, AOC is part of the internet age, but it's more than that.  She's got

• 16 times what Murkowski has
• 118 times what Sullivan has
• 226 times what Young has

in just four months in Congress.  Other people must also appreciate her insights into how things work and her candor.

Obviously, this is just one measure of a member of congress, so take these numbers and put them into your mental notebook to compare to other measures you're tracking.

Once Again, Lisa Murkowski Shows Fellow Republicans What Principled Courage Looks Like - This Time On Climate Change

No one with an open mind who learns the basics of climate change, can have any doubt it's real, it's human caused, and it's going to mess with our planet big time.  The sooner we take serious action to slow it down, the fewer the climate caused disruptions in the future.  Action to slow down climate change will have more long-term impact on humanity than any other issue.

You have to have a reason to oppose action to slow climate change - a big financial interest in burning carbons, or pressure from important friends who have such an interest.  Friends who have banned the words 'climate change' from Republican lips, and won't be your friend if they somehow slip out of them.  Some of these people are so committed to their party that they stay willfully ignorant.  Others know there is a conflict between their party position and reality and it probably eats them inside when they think about their inaction.  (So the more they hear about this from their constituents, the sooner they will take action.  So contact your Republican Senators.)

And now we have two US Senators from CO2 producing states - a Democrat, Joe Manchin, from the coal country of West Virginia and the other from my oil rich home state of Alaska, Republican Lisa - writing an opinion piece in the Washington Post - Lisa Murkowski and Joe Manchin: It’s time to act on climate change — responsibly.  A short excerpt:

The two of us have more in common than might meet the eye. We come from different parties, but we are both avid outdoorsmen and represent states that take great pride in the resources we provide to the nation and to friends and allies around the world. Alaska and West Virginia know that resource development and environmental stewardship must move in tandem, which is why we are committed to putting forward bipartisan solutions to help address climate change.
There is no question that climate change is real or that human activities are driving much of it. We are seeing the impacts in our home states. Scientists tell us that the Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. Rising temperatures and diminishing sea ice on Alaska’s shores are affecting our fisheries and forcing some remote communities to seek partial or total relocation. In summer 2016, West Virginia experienced unprecedented flooding that killed 23 residents and inflicted tremendous damage across the state.

This is big.  In the cases of both Senators, CO2 production is important, and politicians cross the producers at their own risk.  Manchin just won reelection, so he has six years for his constituents to forget this, or for them to come to appreciate his leadership on the issue in their state.  Murkowski has four more years to her next election.

And Murkowski and Manchin are the Chair and Ranking Member* of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee respectively.

The fact that this is big highlights a lot of what's wrong about politics in the US - big anonymous money supporting or attacking politicians because of their stance on a particular issue.  [Note:  Alaska Common Ground and others are hosting a talk by Jeff Clements, author of Corporations Are Not People, March 21 at 49th Street Brewing at 6pm with a live feed.]

If you think about political parties as religious denominations, it's easier to understand the difficulty for someone like Lisa Murkowski.  She's grown up Republican.  Much of her family and many of her close friends are Republicans.  And it's a tightly controlled church - particularly for elected Republican officials.  They want you to toe the party line.  Every step over that line is seen as a betrayal of your religion and all your family and friends who believe.  And during this administration, there's an added pressure - a vindictive president who punishes people who disagree with him.

On the other hand, Lisa Murkowski, while seen by Democrats as making the right decisions on some key policies, is, after all, a Republican who takes the wrong stand from their perspective, on a lot of issues - like drilling in ANWR.  She and Manchin can argue they are the people in the middle who better reflect what Americans want.  Except that the middle has moved so far to the right on many issues that the middle is far to the right of someone like Richard Nixon.  (And conservatives will, correctly, look at some social issues - like LGBTQ rights - as examples of leftward movement.)

But Murkowski was abandoned by the Republican party in 2010 when Joe Miller beat her in the primary.  She ran as a write-in candidate and, with the help of Alaska Native organizations and many Democrats, was reelected in the regular election.  After ditching her, the Republicans took her back in the fold, though only very reluctantly for many.

So it's important for Alaskans to let her know we've got her back.  (Do we?  We'll see what kind of primary opposition Murkowski gets and whom the Democrats will nominate, I guess.)  At the very least, people should send her a note, an email, or call her office  ((907) 271-3735) and thank her for taking this stand on climate change.  And ask two friends to do the same.

And West Virginians you can email Joe Manchin and thank him.

And the rest of you can let them know you appreciate their taking a principled stand on climate change.  And if you have another Republican Senator, let them know they should take the Climate Change Plunge as well.



*Ranking Member is the most senior member of the committee of the minority party.

Vampire Blood Offer, Anti-Semitic Comment, GND And Anti-AOC Tweeters, And "That Ain't Actually True"

There's so much to write about, but not nearly enough time to do it well.  So let me just offer some highlights.

On my post Vampire History Of Alaska, I got a comment from Leonard who has become a vampire and is offering vampire blood to others.  Is this like ISIS recruitment?  Just a joke?  A scam?

On a 2010 post Does Lisa Murkowski's Religious Preference Matter? I got a new comment that makes allegations about Jews that I really can't understand.  I do understand that part that suggests Murkowski is a secret Jew who's made her way into a power position.

Both of those comments force me to decide if I should just delete the comments, or leave them there to let people see how bizarre some people are.  I've responded, with some hesitation, to the anti-semitic one - because I think people should see the kinds of things people right, and to put them into context, though I couldn't commit to dealing with every allegation in detail.

Then there's the Green New Deal.  I've started a post on that, but I need to do more research.  As someone who has spent a lot of time finding out about climate change, I'm for the idea, but I realized I didn't know all the details.  What I have learned through my involvement with Citizens Climate Change is:

• Climate Change is real
• It's caused by humans
• 'Fighting' Climate Change isn't going to bring economic ruin, but rather will add jobs to the economy, and keep the US competitive as the world shifts to new sources of energy
• A carbon fee with dividend is a market based approach that is the most politically viable and technically effective way to go 

All the scare stuff is by those with vested interests in fossil fuel based energy, people who use it to stoke partisan enmity, or those who who just resist change in general.

And as I read about the GND, I've noticed an unusual number of attacks against it and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.  When she tweets, there are way more anti-AOC responses than there should be.  People who follow her only to attack her it would seem, or are getting sent to attack her tweets by others.  I have checked out a few of these people.  Like Forrest Cook.  His Twitter page says he signed up in July 2009, he's got a total of 13 Tweets and 6 followers.

Of those 6, three are clearly from Kansas (as is Cook). Four have 25 or fewer followers and aren't very active.  Two followers, including Shinobi Ninja, have lots of posts and followers.

Cook's first tweet was July 21, 2009.  
Cook's second tweet was Feb 19, 2019.  And 17 more since then - including today Feb 24, 2019.
He's following 45 Tweeters - including all the Democrats who have announced for President, AOC, Bill Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi.  (He's also following Trump, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, and Kevin McCarthy.

How many newly reactivated Tweeters are out there?  Was Forrest recruited to reactivate?  Was his Twitter handle taken over?  Or has just gotten back into this on his own?   I sent him a tweet asking what got him started again. Here's his response:

"I just never got into Twitter until recently...time to enter another fold of Social Media...although, no mater the venue, the message, the hate and the angst is still the same"

There's more:

Andrew Sullivan  reacts to a new book - Frédéric Martel's In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy.  Here's just a snippet.  You can read it all here.

"I’m no naïf when it comes to the gayness of the church. I’ve lived in it as a gay man for all my adult life, and my eyes are open. And so the book did not surprise me, as such, but it still stunned, shocked, and disgusted me. You simply cannot unread it, or banish what is quite obviously true from your mind. It helps explain more deeply the rants of Pope Francis about so many of his cardinals, especially his denunciations of “Pharisees” and “hypocrites,” with their sexual amorality and their vast wealth and power. “Behind rigidity something always lies hidden; in many cases, a double life,” he has said. He has excoriated “hypocrites” who live “hidden and often dissolute lives,” those who “put makeup on their soul and live off makeup”; he has exclaimed in public that “hypocrisy does a lot of harm: it’s a way of life.”
The only tiny consolation of the book is the knowledge that we now have a pope — with all his flaws — who knows what he’s dealing with, and has acted, quite ruthlessly at times, to demote, defrock, or reassign the most egregious cases to places where they have close to nothing to do. And if you want to understand the ferocity of the opposition to him on the Catholic right, this is the key. His most determined opponents are far-right closet cases, living in palaces, leading completely double lives, backed by the most vicious of reactionaries and bigots on the European and American far right, and often smarting at their demotions."

Finally, a very subtle and essay by a black Southerner on the difficulty of speaking honestly - Kiese Laymon's "That's Not Actually True."

"Weeks after I finish my audiobook, I will be interviewed on NPR by a much older white man from up north. I will imagine him sliding around his office in his socks. Near the end of our interview, he will sincerely ask me why I still talk to my mother. I will say, “Oh my god.” Then I will tell him the question should be why do we still talk to y’all when, northern or Southern, y’all refuse to critically engage with your investment in your belief that niggers ain’t shit. I will answer the question before the older white man from up north can answer and say, “If y’all ever paid us what we worked for, we wouldn’t talk to y’all. You know that right? We really wouldn’t. But we ain’t got no money so we talk to y’all. And we hope it makes our checks bigger.”
That’s not actually true."

Miscellaneous Bits And Pieces

I've been working on a post in reaction to the Covington High School buzz.  (I'm trying to think of a reasonable name for the many social media/mainstream media phenomena that cause a temporary ringing in our ears, then are gone as something else gets our attention.  This is clearly not a good way to get an understanding of what's happening in the world.  Well, this is my problem.  This parenthetical comment was not what I was writing about, but could become a whole post on its own.  And the Covington post is raising so many issues that I can't tie it all together.  But maybe that shouldn't be my goal, since the world itself is messy.  But the whole point I used to think, was that a blog post should make at least a small part of the universe a little less opaque.)

Also working on the lack of useful instructions for people who sit in the emergency rows in airplanes.

My daughter invited me to her Barrecor exercise class yesterday and it was much easier than the high intensity workout my son took me to three years ago in San Francisco.  After the one - in which I made it through the routines without embarrassing myself - I ached badly for three days.  But today, no new aches or pains.

Today I did a bike ride, which here on Bainbridge Island means lots of ups and downs through big trees.  And water.  There was a raft of water birds at my turnaround spot, and a view of Seattle.

And the sun came out and lit up downtown Seattle across the channel.  Here are two different pictures - one from my old Canon Powershot and the other from my new used iPhone 7.


I like the Canon result better, but maybe it's because I tried to enlarge the iPhone image too much.


Getting good granddaughter time while we're here.







And Murkowski voted to open the government without requiring $5 billion, or is it $7 billion now?

And Dunleavy's new commissioner of administration apparently lied to the a Senate committee about his background.  But, hey guys, he went to a Christian college, that's all Dunleavy had to read.




And finally, I recommend this video be shown at the School Board meeting when they discuss the minimum times kids should get to be at recess and lunch.  Right now it's being whittled down to nothing, which means teachers have kids with way too much unused energy who can't sit still in class.  (I couldn't figure out a way to embed the video itself, so you get the whole tweet.)

#MostWatched Principal gets students up and dancing pic.twitter.com/Yc7cDmtpAN

— CGTN (@CGTNOfficial) January 24, 2019

So, it's not that I don't have anything to write about, rather there's too much, and I'm trying to write the posts so you can read and get the bigger sense of things.  Not easy.  Remember that once each day ends, it's gone.  So don't complain about waiting in line - take those seconds or minutes and enjoy your life.  Try thinking about something important.  Text your members of congress what you're thinking they should do.  Send a note to someone you care about.

[UPDATE 10:14 pm:  And the ADN had an article today about how three major oil companies have carbon pricing already built into their long term plans, the House has reintroduce a carbon fee and dividend bill, and the Senate is working on one too.  There is good news.  But as Vox notes:

"But what’s gone largely unnoticed is that Exxon’s proposal comes with a massive catch: In exchange for a tax, the company wants immunity from all climate lawsuits in the future."]

Dear Lisa, I'm at the airport now . . . UPDATED

I just sent an email to Senator Lisa Murkowski after talking to the TSA folks here at the airport.  One said I better fly while I can.  Alaskans are particularly dependent on air travel.  Driving out of state is not practical for most people.  It takes too long.

The TSA agents have rent or mortgages to pay, they have food to buy, utilities to pay for, and all the same monthly expenses everyone else has.  But they are now working for no pay.  The promise of eventually getting paid isn't very helpful if you can't pay your current bills and you fall behind on student loans or a mortgage payment.  It is unconscionable to not pay them.

Meanwhile Trump talks about a 'crisis' that he's going to solve with a wall that will take at least ten years to build.  That's not a crisis.  And blaming the Democrats, well Trump blames others for everything.  He had a Republican Congress for two years if he really needed a wall.

It's hard to tell if this is just one more tantrum from the president because he can't get his way and can't acknowledge ever being wrong, or this was suggested by his patron in Moscow to help make the US unable to serve its people and the world.

Either way it's a disgrace that Senate Republicans, who apparently complain about the president privately, but won't do anything to stop his destruction of the US publicly.

UPDATE 8:19pm:

When we walked out of SEATAC this afternoon we were given this pamphlet.

The link goes to here.  So to 'protect' the American people from terrorists coming across the border, we aren't going to pay TSA agents and FAA employees, but force some to work and furlough others.  Really.  What more could Putin wish for than to destroy the US from the White House?  You don't believe in collusion with Russia?  Read Seth Abramson's Proof of Collusion, carefully, then tell my where he's wrong.

Where Do We Go From Here? Republicans And Power

Democracy is not about outcome - it's about the process we take to get outcomes.  We are supposed to make decisions in ways that represent the will of the people.  That's, of course, an ideal that originally didn't include women, Indians, or blacks.

The constitution was intended to set up processes that would insure a reasonably decent life for, at least, white males with property.  Over the years, others got added, at least on paper, to the decision making as voters. The representation of women and people of color has grown in Congress.  We saw some very smart women in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, yet in the end, it was white males who dominated once again.  "She's credible and poised, but we're going with our guy."  For the Republicans, democratic process was short circuited so they could get the outcome they wanted.


The US Constitution begins:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I hope our newest originalist pays attention to these basic goals (particularly the ones I've highlighted.  We certainly are not succeeding when it comes to domestic tranquility and the general welfare is getting less important than the welfare of the wealthy.  Senators Graham and McConnell and the president were more worried about justice for some man who might get falsely accused than they were about all the women that have been and continue to be actually sexually harassed, abused, and assaulted.

When Supreme Court justices required 60 votes for confirmation, presidents had to offer justices who were moderate enough to garner at least some votes from the party out of power.  The Republicans lowered the bar to 50 votes.  And Saturday they got 50 votes from Senators representing only 44.2% of the US population.  Those 48 Senators who opposed Kavanaugh represented 55.8% of the US population.

This can be, because every state gets two senators - my state, Alaska, with only under 800,000 people gets the same number of U. S. Senators as California with nearly 40 million people.  This disconnect between the idea of  majority rule and what really happens has reached the breaking point as McConnell pushed Kavanaugh onto the Supreme Court, against popular will and without allowing the FBI to do a real investigation.  (The real story - not the he said/she details the media got all over - was what deals people were offered behind closed doors, and what threats were made if they didn't take those offers.  The Alaska Republican Party is already considering stripping Lisa Murkowski of her red R.

Such a sharply divided decision bodes nothing good, except maybe stronger calls for reform.  It lays bare the partisan nature of the Republicans packing the court.  Obama's choice of Merrick Garland was met with bi-partisan recognition of his qualification to be on the court, and McConnell's refusal to even hold hearings.  The Democrats had relatively mild opposition to Neil Gorsuch.  It was only when a candidate as openly partisan, as Kavanaugh revealed himself in the hearings, was nominated that Democrats really dug in to oppose him.

We are in a crisis of confidence in our government.  Here are a couple of possible scenarios I to watch for::

1. Chief Justice Roberts has shown at times, that he understands that the court needs credibility.  He broke with his fellow (I can use that term because they are all men) conservatives to preserve Obamacare.  If he recognizes the crisis that is coming to the court with his name on it, he may well take Kennedy's swing role from time to time.  
2. If Roberts doesn't work to moderate the courts' decisions, there will be growing calls to increase the size of the court.  If you look carefully through the Constitution, you won't find the number of justices set.  It's set by Congress and has changed several times over the last two hundred plus years.   You can read more about the size of the court here and here   
3. Since Republicans have taken off their nice masks, it will be hard for Democrats to not follow suit.  In Game Theory, the Prisoners Dilemma to be precise,  the Tit for Tat strategy wins in the long run.  It requires a player to mimic the moves of his opponent.  Start by cooperating, but if the opponent 'defects' (in the language of Game Theory), then you need to defect too.  If the other side doesn't wise up, this strategy can lead to endless warfare.