===
I was annoyed that a horrible call and more led Kansas to escape their one real threat, resulting in two teams in the Supreme Bowl that many not me will watch. I would be annoyed if the Bills lost fair and square, but even harder now. Anyway, my support is with Tampa as a team, even if Pretty Boy leading the way taints the process. Wish for a Super Bowl I can enjoy, preferably without him being involved (even the two Giants wins had him).
Once we get that out of the way, we will be marching toward baseball season, with pitchers and catchers due this month. The Big V still makes things far from clear, even if vaccines and (up to a point) success during the not quite the same (closer contact, fewer games) NFL season (which itself had blips). No DH this season in the NL though there is a lot of people rooting for it. It depresses me. There is enough offense as is, including the resulting increase of the usage of the bullpen. Why is there such a driving need for even more offense, taking away strategical moves to boot?
On the front, there has been a lot of Mets news, including not signing any of the key free agents (they did sign some, including a big trade; but, that was a surprise, not the usual suspects). The current NY Daily News Mets reporter (replacing another woman a couple years or so ago, who is now covering the Yankees) argues not signing Trevor B. was not really some big disappointment while analyzing their moves and possible further moves.
Deesa Thosar also had a bit bite in her covering of the sexual harassment controversies, including bluntly in a past article referencing TB "harassing" more than one person. She also argued that women should not have the job of cleaning up the mess of sexual harassment (and worse) in baseball. Sure enough. I do think they can have a role, including maybe Sandy Alderson and others in baseball seeking out their counsel (and options for jobs).
The two women reporters, anyway, covered the team well. Among the various good sports reporters out there, there are many good women that stand out. I wish SNY had a woman sideline reporter for Mets games like the NFL does for games. How about even for eye candy reasons?
(Update: Reports are that the Mets have went with a middle range center-fielder option, Albert Almora, akin the the catcher they signed. The Mets got their big name with a surprise at shortstop and the big thing to look for is for them to get him long term. This is more of a limited move.
There was a big name (or two) talked about but Lindor served that role. So, shrugs. I think they will also get another back-end starter. We should see more avoidance of Dom Smith playing a corner spot, but figure he can play enough to keep him active, both there and in the infield. This is not a reason in my view to root for the DH either. There is a trade-off there.)
====
The Trump Impeachment Trial starts on Tuesday and it is almost blocked out by all the other stuff going on. I linked some comments against having one for which I added a couple extended comments. Here is a taste:
A full-blown trial will take a long time and be a circus. The Senate has other important priorities during the pandemic. Moreover, the country does not at this time need another extended discussion about the former President dominating the news.Again, I don't want to belabor the point here, I will though, but this upsets me. What this sounds like to me is that he wants to "move on" since an accounting of the insurrection [he separately says he thinks it is sensible to label it as such when talking about the relevant 14th Amendment provision] is not really important now. We dealt with it enough. Facing up to it in a full trial, as compared to piecemeal stuff, will be a "circus."
The last part is almost absurd. He's going to be a major issue regardless. The trial provides a chance for the matter to be addressed so that it doesn't linger on. Not that, again, he will simply go away. The participants are being handled by the criminal justice system at the moment and in each case Trump in some fashion is at least a silent partner. The true accounting, as we saw in the area of torture in the Bush years or the 2016 election, will take years. This will include in the upcoming weeks and months.
But, there is a certain immediacy here that we need to move on from. And, a trial is part of that. It will be far from a "circus" as well, even though like any public even trial will have that aspect. The comment to me seems like a desire to push what happened -- a MONTH ago -- away since we have better things to worry about. This is madness on a basic level. We have to face up to what happened, the invasion not just a crazy fringe, but an extreme version of a much bigger part of this nation.
The author wants to use the more legalistic 14th Amendment disenfranchisement mechanism. I don't think this will totally allow us to push things away since it will (should) involve some sort of congressional involvement. Just having scattered means of enforcement piecemeal is the road to problems. It also trivializes things to a major extent. The provision can apply to some small fry (as it did after the Civil War) who wants to run for office in some locality. This seems to be a charm for him, putting aside the involvement of the judiciary (though just what is required is simply far from clear -- you can cite 1869 state court rulings all you want, still true).
The provision sets up an almost bureaucratic remedy here, upheld by some local election review action if challenged. Putting aside my concerns that it might be seen as antiquated or at least novel (it last was really used over 100 years ago), this isn't what the impeachment is about. The impeachment very well is about bringing Trump to trial in front of the country. Having the country face up to what happened and what Trump's role in it was. Not on Rachel Maddow or a trial of the guy who wants to eat organic food in prison. No. Trump himself. Who realistically won't be arrested for it. This will be his trial.
Yes, it is likely he won't be convicted by the Senate. But, this is part of the process. Republicans in the Senate already swore an oath that they will basically violate as they did last time.* The country has to face up to that. That is part of what electing Democrats to control the House was about and having control of the Senate. The author is also concerned about Trump being found not guilty. But, it will be the not guilty of OJ Simpson. As last time, Republicans repeatedly are not saying he didn't do it. Procedural concerns -- told with the level of passion suggestive of them being aware they are full of shit -- are repeatedly provided.
After this, the 14th Amendment remedy can be provided. Let's see how many Republicans actually sign on a resolution officially saying he committed insurrection. Let's see if that too will be a "circus," labeled merely a partisan thing. Anyway, it is not the same thing. Impeachment is a special national political inquest. It is proper and necessary that we face this. A trial now is a good thing, including if you are concerned about other problems. Let us get it over with then. The reasoning falls even on its own premises.
Concerns about procedural niceties (like another person parsing text on who presides) is bullshit. Trump is not being treated unfairly. If anything, a majority vote via the 14A remedy [without Trump getting a chance for an extended defense] with a few judges upholding it since there is a rational basis for it (a criminal conviction for insurrection wasn't necessary in the past) to me comes off as more unfair to some degree. Law professors can parse things like the presiding officer but the author himself noted the same presiding officer was present in past impeachments.
So what the hell is really at stake here? A Chief Justice presides when the person impeached is a sitting president and in the same clause "persons" overall are referenced. A Chief Justice probably can (should) preside now too but it is a more complicated and disputed point. Plus, you are not going to force the guy, realistically. The real concern, and then more symbolically to be realistic since a presiding officer has limited power and a vice president still can be self-interested in other cases too, is when a vice president would preside for someone whose position they might step into. Impeachments for people who left office also was a common practice when the clause was ratified. But, who really cares about history when it results in conclusions not your own?
===
Anyway, the trial begins on Tuesday. The Democrats, after two weeks, also control committees, the organizing resolution finally settled upon. Harris also got a chance to do something Biden never did -- break a tie. And, it looks like something about five years in the making will come -- a hearing for Merrick Garland.
---
* In an alternative universe, the trial would be a way for many Republicans (not just a few -- like the five that didn't vote to end debate on a vote that the trial itself is unconstitutional, which is moronic stuff) to show themselves as serious about the problem at hand. Not just mildly concerned and saying enough to show "I care." To show Trump crossed a red line.
Many in the House are just assholes, including those who can't manage even to just be checked for guns before going on to the floor. See, non-assholes might find that sort of thing asinine, but realize a few weeks after an armed attack might warrant being a grown-up. There is a range there, but senators have their own things, including needing to call out the trial. How about just letting it be, even if you (badly) vote not to convict?
GM will see such things and sigh, this is the sort of "circus" that bothers him. But, it is also a result of one side failing to step up to the occasion. An occasion that should be addressed. Skipping it is not the solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!