Some cite her membership of the Green Party to show her troll type tendencies. But, I'll grant some good faith here, mixed with just a basic part of her personality. That sort of thing, the showy stuff, isn't going to disappear. That part of the op-ed is a bit silly. And, I will grant (honestly) she has basic progressive positions on a range of issues, sometimes more so than Manchin. She is a bother, but bothers are not just fakes.
I am even sympathetic to a degree -- more so than some -- of the passion for bipartisanship. Fine. The problem is that Republicans have to put up or shut up. The mild infrastructure bill that some supported was a limited example of just that. But, what else? I'll accept compromising on reconciliation and voting rights if there was some real evidence of bipartisan support of a weaker package. To do so for a bill that is supported by the median of the party and probably would get 48 votes, without ONE Republican joining in? Come the fuck on.
Still, though it might ruin her "independent Democrat" cred some, if she wants to act like a (pesky) gadfly, why not be honest about it? Maybe, she can get a bit of it out of her system without doing unproductive things like not meeting with her constituents and saying what she wants. Note that this is a red flag to people -- it is not that they just want her to be a "loyal Democrat" with every disagreement a sign she is some "traitor." OTOH, blocking something like voting rights? Well, that is a deal breaker.
(Voting is also one of those "must haves" where if you need to break the filibuster, okay, you break the filibuster. This is so even if you think that is not appropriate for other legislation. It's like when at some point blocking Obama's appointments got to be too much and you had to end filibusters for executive appointments. A few now forget why it was done and are all "I don't think we should have done that." No. It was appropriate.)
We already have a few independents, including the guy from Maine. She can even say that it will encourage Republicans to join the coalition at times. Someone like Evan McMullen (the conservative challenging Sen. Mike Lee and who ran an independence run in 2016) can on certain issues, for instance. Which might be a pipe dream short term, but hey, I'm sympathetic to the dream. I'm less sure by this point her good faith.
Vaccine Hesitancy: A lot of attention is give to Republican politicians (especially the governors of Texas and Florida) and media voices (such as Tucker Carlson) promoting vaccine hesitancy and blocking good Big V policies in the name of "freedom." And, that sort of thing is a big problem.
It would not be if there lacked a fertile soil for it to grow. There is some vaccine hesitancy and it's not just against liberals and the like. I'm sure that is part of it. Maybe, significant part. But, there is also some real concern over the (real) hardships of dealing with COVID. Of the possible effects of a vaccine, one unlike some other one, we are not as used to. The bothers of masks, even if it seems trivial in most cases. And, so on.
The vaccine hesitancy that arose in recent years [to be clear, there are different moving parts here] has been somewhat cross-ideological. Robert Kennedy Jr., for instance, has been on the case. The article cites some people who were hesitant and as locals in a NYC paper, logically they are not just the usual conservative suspects.
But, and mandates played a big part here, there are ways to push them. Such is why enabling resistance, which often will disappear when pressures are put on it, is so nefarious. At this point, yes, we should have mandates. They work. And, those who focus on this sort of thing will tell you, there are things you can do to address hesitance in general. It's very important.
Michael Caine: Something a bit less important. Caine, 88, said that he has basically retired from acting. He is promoting a movie and at least one other is in the process of being released, but he says he might be done. Well, maybe some voice or stage work will come up. Okay.
Well, he has been at this from the 1950s, so he had a good run. We will see. I recall Anthony Hopkins saying something like this some time back, and he has done a lot more work since. OTOH, recently saw something about Gene Hackman talking about The French Connection and he really has been out of acting for a while now.
Caine is great overall, including his distinctive voice. Seems a down to earth guy, but who knows. Haven't heard anything bad about him. His latest sounds like it might be good; he's a grumpy old writer forced to go on a book tour, from what I can tell.
Mets: (Added) These things necessary to turn the team around highlight basic concerns of mine. Yes, you need a "veteran manager" who is not a "figurehead." Yes, you need a winning culture, with the "toxic positivity" (no matter how lovable Alonso was) not the way to go. Who is the new lead person for baseball operations will factor in here.
And, yes there needs to be better hiring/vetting practices. To give some credit, they did make some good talent selections, though their deadline moves (or lack thereof) was not among them. The article does not reference injuries, but from various accounts, that too was a problem. Many teams had them, but the Mets seemed to have more. And, the stringing us along with deGrom was annoying. Fans were right to see problems there.
The new owner spoke of a World Series win (or at least getting there) in three to five years. I didn't expect a total win right away. But, the team continued to have troubling problems that felt "more of the same." Keeping a non-veteran manager there because of the Beltran controversy in 2020 to me was but a sign of how it seemed like they were not ready to move on. They did not have to get to the playoffs (though that would have been nice), but after a somewhat misleading good run, the team collapsed. That too seemed familiar. Okay. It's time to shape up.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!