On being late

The New Neo Posted on by

First, a confession: I am habitually late. But only a little bit – usually between five and ten minutes.

I have never been late for a plane. I have never been late when it really really mattered. But I am consistently late for other things, and this is the case even though it’s not something I’m aiming for and in fact I’m often trying very hard to be on time.

I’ve known for many years that one big reason I’m late is that I try to do too much. I know, I know; that sounds like the classic self-aggrandizing type of excuse (“I’m late because I’m just so intent on packing in a lot of tasks”), but it’s true. I tend to think I have time to squeeze in one more errand, and I usually don’t, but I never learn.

That must mean I’m some sort of optimist about time – which is really odd because most people would not say that optimism is one of my most salient characteristics. But it seems I usually underestimate the amount of time it will take me to do something, overestimate my own efficiency, think that traffic and parking will be easier than they really are, and assume that the traffic lights will turn green rather than red.

But the other day I arrived early to something, and it struck me (not for the first time, either) that part of my problem is that I don’t really like being early. I don’t like sitting in a theater waiting a half hour for it to fill up. I don’t like cooling my heels at a restaurant until the other party shows. I don’t like waiting in line for the doors to open. It’s not that I consider these things dreadful or intolerable, but they make me uncomfortable and antsy.

Of course, you might say I sacrifice my friends’ comfort to preserve my own. But that’s not really true, either, because – at least consciously – I really am trying to be on time, and I feel bad when I’m late and keep someone waiting, even if for only a few minutes. So there are two feelings at war with each other: the desire for punctuality and to spare the other person, and my own time-budgeting weaknesses and impatience at waiting. I must be trying to hit that exact sweet spot between the two, which I actually sometimes achieve but mostly don’t. Ater all, it’s a very tiny target.

I seem to be ruled by Hofstadter’s Law, which goes like this:

It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.

Law professor Terry Smith’s crusade to disenfranchise voters he sees as racist

The New Neo Posted on by

I suppose at this point nothing that emanates from the race-baiting Trump-hating crew (some of whom are lawyers and law professors) should shock me. But Terry Smith’s efforts seem particularly pernicious.

The following descriptive passage was written by Noah Berlatsky and appeared as an op-ed at NBC, but in it Berlatsky is referring to work done by law professor Terry Smith:

If the Trump era has taught us anything, it’s that large numbers of white people in the United States are motivated at least in part by racism in the voting booth. Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign for president…Trump made it clear in his campaign that “Make America Great Again” meant that America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure. White voters approved of that message by a whopping 58 percent to 37 percent…

Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it…

Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board. Similarly, in the 2016 case Peña v. Rodriguez, the Supreme Court ruled that when a juror expresses overt bigotry, the jury’s verdict should be invalidated…

“When voters go to the booth, they’re not expressing a mere personal preference,” Smith told me. According to Smith, voters who pull the levers to harm black people are violating the Constitution. If the Constitution means that overt racist appeals undermine the legality of union elections, it stands to reason that they undermine the legality of other elections, as well.

Read the whole thing, and reflect on the fact that Terry Smith is indeed a law professor. And he’s not alone; a significant amount of this sort of “reasoning” – which law professors, of all people, should know uses false analogies and is antithetical to liberty as well as the Constitution – is offered by law professors these days. And why is NBC publicizing this sort of thing? I assume it’s with the goal of moving the Overton Window and making such thoughts more acceptable.

I wonder what Smith would say about the black voters who vote for Trump – would he disenfranchise them, too, or do they get a pass because of their race? Or maybe he assumes they don’t exist?

I became curious about Terry Smith, and when I Googled him I found a motherlode of fascinating information. He was let go by DePaul because of a rather interesting controversy:

Distinguished Professor of Law Terry Smith agreed to part ways with the university following an agreement with the university’s lawyers to end his civil rights lawsuit…

Smith said in his lawsuit that he had “suffered significant abuses” in retaliation for his outspokenness on racial issues within the law school. The university defended itself by saying Smith had acted aggressively and inappropriately toward other faculty members…

Johnson said that the latest edition of the Faculty Handbook was used against Smith, and could be used similarly against other faculty of color, citing a new rule that says a professor could be charged with
misconduct for displaying a “pattern of extreme aggression and intimidation towards colleagues.”

“As a person of color, I feel that section of the handbook makes faculty of color especially vulnerable,” Shelby said. “Sometimes the way that we communicate is seen as outside of the norm, but it’s very normal for us.”

“If you get charged with extreme aggression and intimidation against colleagues, that is a very substantive charge,” Johnson said. “What the hell does that even mean? What’s extreme to you may not be extreme to me. (…) Black men in particular and people of color in general are always pegged as threatening, intimidating, aggressive, just because of our appearance.”

Sumi Cho, a law professor and ally of Smith’s, was also brought up on this misconduct charge. “It’s no coincidence that a black man and Korean woman were the first targets of a misconduct charge involving a pattern of extreme aggression and intimidation of colleagues,” Johnson said.

So black men are allowed to be more aggressive because it’s part of their culture? WTF? Smith is asking to be evaluated by different rules as to what is aggressive and intimidating, because he’s a black man and his own standards are different. If a white person said something like this about black people, that person would be in mega-trouble.

It took me a while and several articles to discover at least a little bit of what Smith is actually accused of saying. Details were very hard to come by, but I struck a bit of pay dirt here:

Professor Terry Smith, an African-American labor law and voting rights scholar, is seeking $3 million in damages in a civil rights lawsuit filed against the law dean Jennifer Rosato Perea, former DePaul president Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider and the university in February 2018.

Smith’s lawyer argued before a federal judge that the university should discontinue its ongoing attempt to terminate Smith for what it describes as a pattern of bullying and harassment until the suit is resolved. Eric Rumbaugh, who is representing DePaul in the case, argued that the school should not have to wait to move forward with firing Smith because his continuing “incivility” is an “existential threat” to the law school.

Smith felt the school had discriminated against him because he criticized its lack of racial diversity, passing him over for appointment to certain posts and committees. This part seems key:

One of the central controversies of the suit surrounds the tenure applications of Julie Lawton and Daniel Morales, two professors of color in the law school. Smith maintains he opposed their promotion because he harbored serious doubts about their qualifications, but Lawton and Morales said he only opposed them because they didn’t share his views on racial politics within the COL, court records show.

“Professors of color” can mean quite a few things, but Julie Lawton is black, and my guess is that Daniel Morales is Hispanic, but that doesn’t appear to have protected them from Smith’s wrath. Au contraire:

At a March 5, 2015 faculty meeting, Smith allegedly attacked and ridiculed other members of the law school. He accused Lawton of “disbelieving the concept of institutional racism,” and she asked him, for the second time, to leave her alone.

According to Lawton’s statement, he replied by saying, “I don’t give a fuck what you want! Who the hell are you to tell me that I can’t criticize you!”

In her statement, Lawton said Smith and Cho had attempted to characterize them as “a racial token pandering to the white establishment.”…

On Aug. 31, 2017, Rosato opened and authored her own investigation into the tenure controversy, despite the Telman report already clearing Smith of any wrongdoing five months earlier. She released the report in November 2017.

The report concluded that Smith, “acting in concert with Professor Sumi Cho, proceeded to carry out an orchestrated campaign to derail the Lawton and Morales tenure candidacies,” and that he engaged in “a pattern of bullying that rises to the level of extreme intimidation and aggression.”

Speaking specifically about Rosato’s investigation, a university spokesperson said, “the investigation was conducted fairly and objectively, according to the university’s established disciplinary process. It was motivated only by the desire to get to the bottom of the complaints about bullying, discord and toxic behavior, and to address those complaints in a way that protects the community and enables the law school to move forward together.”

Other law faculty, notably Maggie Livingston, the chair of the Tenure and Promotion Committee, claim Smith frequently used profanity and acted inappropriately and unprofessionally in the lead-up to the tenure votes. Livingston said in the report that Smith told her that “he had no use for any of [the candidates]” and called them “motherfuckers.”

The issue here is how much leeway should be given to professors to insult each other publicly or to harass each other. What sort of behavior is beyond the pale? What constitutes intimidation? How does race enter into it, if it does? In this case, both the accused, Smith, and his targets, the new professors, were “persons of color,” and that may have accounted for the bitterness and nastiness of Smith’s accusations – that he saw them as betraying what he sees as the proper politics for such people – his politics.

Remember when the adjective “hard-boiled” used to regularly be attached to reporters?

The New Neo Posted on by

Nowadays they seem rather soft-boiled, or perhaps “coddled” would be a better term:

Anchor Wolf Blitzer said on Thursday’s broadcast of CNN’s “Situation Room” that Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) calling CNN senior congressional correspondent Manu Raju a “liberal hack” was “disgusting.”

Blitzer said, “Manu, I want to ask you something that happened today with you up on Capitol Hill when you attempted to air a very fair, serious, important question to Republican Senator Martha McSally of Arizona. A question about the upcoming trial in the Senate.”

After playing a clip of the encounter, Blitzer said, “Instead of answering a fair question, she simply called you a ‘liberal hack.’ It was disgusting, it was awful.

One of the most repulsive things about the press these days is how sanctimonious they are in defending their own supposed (and yet for the most part non-existent) objectivity. Are Blitzer and Raju really that fragile? Is the press supposed to be given all deference and respect merely because of their august titles, as though they were royalty?

Whether Raju actually is a “liberal hack” isn’t even the issue, although a case can be made that he is. The issue is this: if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Being called a “liberal hack,” quelle horreur!

[ADDENDUM: A highly amusing take by Jim Treacher.]

How will the Senate handle the impeachment trial?

The New Neo Posted on by

Rumor has it that there are enough Republicans in the Senate who are willing to vote to allow witnesses in the Senate trial of Trump that there won’t be a simple dismissal, and the fear is that the Democrats will turn it into a parade of last-minute smear jobs and grandstanding.

Well, perhaps. But didn’t a lot of people on the right originally want a trial, to get an opportunity for Republicans to call their own witnesses as well as to publicly cross-examine the Democrats’ more sketchy witnesses? Or something of that sort?

I’m not at all sure the Senate will actually call witnesses, but if they do I don’t see why it wouldn’t backfire on the Democrats. That would certainly be my hope.

One interesting piece of news is that Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr (now, there’s a duo!) will be part of the Trump defense team. I’ve written many times about Dershowitz’s position on the impeachment. I have great respect for what he’s said, which makes extreme sense to me. Now he seems to be burning whatever final bridges might have remained to any lingering social life he might have had among his erstwhile friends of the liberal persuasion, who will take this move by him as an act of unforgivable treason. There are precious few profiles in courage these days, but in my book Dershowitz had been one.

If we remember back to when the Ukrainegate/Whistlegate story first broke, one of the most puzzling things about it was how it had the potential to hurt Joe Biden even more than Donald Trump. That prospect has somewhat receded over time, in no small part because the MSM has assiduously pooh-poohed it. But any trial in the Senate threatens to highlight this aspect of the matter once again. And, since the Democrats seem to be engaged at the moment in what has traditionally been the GOP’s favorite sport, the circular firing squad (Warren vs. Sanders, for example), I would think that Democrats would want to preserve Biden’s reputation as much as possible. A trial of Trump has always seemed a funny way to go about doing that. If Biden is further tarnished, who “electable” is left with a chance of challenging Trump?

I imagine their hope is that the trial will hurt Trump more than it would hurt Biden, of course. Seems pretty risky to me; so far, it hasn’t worked out that way.

The Warren vs. Sanders show

The New Neo Posted on by

If you want to get up to speed on the tension that came up between Warren and Sanders in the Democrats’ debate Tuesday night, see this. The summary version is that Warren accused Sanders of saying that in 2020 a woman can’t be elected president, and Sanders says he never said it, and the CNN questioner then asked a question that assumed Sanders had said it, and then later Warren refused to shake Sanders’ hand, and on and on and on, and the Sanders camp is calling Warren a snake.

Let’s get this out of the way: so what if Sanders said a woman can’t win in 2020? Wouldn’t he just be describing a situation in which voters feel a certain way, rather than agreeing with that sentiment?

Ah, but no one (especially no man, especially no white man) is allowed to say anything other than that women are wonderful and can do anything. And of course, Elizabeth Warren – who may not be a Native American but who I’m virtually certain is a woman – is not above playing the woman-wronged card.

I don’t agree with any of these Democrats on most things, but some of them rub me the wrong way more than others. Warren definitely causes my flesh to crawl. (John Kerry was and still is another, and that goes way back to the very beginning of his political career.}

Who will this sort of ruckus hurt more, Warren or Sanders? I don’t know, but I think the behavior of CNN might hurt that station even more, because Sanders supporters aren’t happy with what moderator Abby Phillip did:

Consequently, when the CNN moderators gave Sanders the Trump treatment, the outraged ululations of the Left could be heard from sea to shining sea. Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi tweeted, “This is an unusually vile performance by CNN.” The Nation’s Elie Mystal raged, “Jesus Christ I hate these biased questions from the moderators. ‘How would you keep your plan from bankrupting the country?’ JUST ASK THE KOCH BROTHERS TO MODERATE NEXT TIME!” HuffPost’s Zach Carter griped about CNN’s post-debate panel discussion, “CNN’s crew is just straight bashing Sanders post-debate.” The New Republic’s Libby Watson whined, “CNN is truly a terrible influence on this country.”

CNN, biased? Say it isn’t so, Joe.

And why does CNN prefer that Warren do better than Sanders? I’m not sure. Perhaps they think she is perceived as less leftist. I happen to think they are close to even. Perhaps they think that a woman has the best chance of beating Trump. I don’t see that.

One more thing – the evening after the debate I was with two women who are both Democrats. They were discussing the debate, which they’d both watched. I have no idea whether their viewpoints are typical of the Democratic voter, but both agreed that it was a wonderful debate in which all the candidates sounded good and acquitted themselves fabulously. One of these women is a Sanders supporter and one a Warren supporter, and the subject of the feud didn’t even come up.

My guess is that it means nothing to them, and that they are typical of the non-twitter Democrat voter. All they care about in the 2020 election is beating Trump, and they will vote for any Democrat nominated. To them, it doesn’t really seem to matter who it will be.

[NOTE: One of the grammatical rules I still struggle with at times is when to use “who” and when to use “whom.” I know all the tricks, but I still make errors. Is that last sentence in the post correct? I think so, but I’m still not certain.]

The art of the China deal

The New Neo Posted on by

Phase 1 completed:

If the Chinese make good on their promises in the trade deal with the United States, it’s a “very big win” for President Trump, Fox Business and Fox News host Neil Cavuto said Wednesday.

Appearing on “America’s Newsroom” with host Sandra Smith, Cavuto said that the devil is in the details when it comes to phase one of the agreement.

“The Chinese have committed to buy $200 million worth of American goods, Sandra, over the next couple of years,” said Cavuto. “Now, they have made similar promises in the past.”

“In fact, they have created eight times since 2010, when they’ve made similar deals,” he said. “So, they’re kind of like me on diet resolutions. You’ve got to check them to see if they are not sneaking some cannolis in the back room.”…

If the Chinese don’t hold up their end of the bargain, Cavuto said the threat to them would potentially become more tariffs…

Would you say that extremely cautious optimism is in order?

Well, now at least we know that Ilhan Omar writes her own tweets

The New Neo Posted on by

…because she couldn’t possibly be hiring someone to come up with this – and if she is it’s time to fire that person:

Reflect upon the fact that Omar is a member of Congress. Then again, at least she doesn’t believe that islands can tip over.

But seriously folks, when you get into your car, don’t you just put a few nickels into the slot and off it goes for miles and miles?

Lest you think my nickels reference irrelevant, let me remind you of this:

A nickel, in American usage, is a five-cent coin struck by the United States Mint. Composed of 75% copper and 25% nickel, the piece has been issued since 1866.

Copper and nickel, just like Polymet. Down with those nickel barons!

The scarlet “I” of IMPEACHMENT

The New Neo Posted on by

Impeachment, now and forever:

Pelosi likes to envision Trump like this:

It occurs to me that Pelosi would be great as Lady M.

And yes, today the House voted to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

[NOTE: I first wrote about the scarlet “I” in this post.]

I’m trying to care about the Democratic debate…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and Warren’s handshake snub of Sanders, or CNN’s favoring of Warren (the moderator’s question for Sanders reminds me of “have you stopped beating your wife?”), and all that jazz. But I just don’t.

The entire group is both offputting and boring – boring in that they say the same claptrap over and over. I’ve watched a few moments here and there, and I also read commentary on the debates, and I can’t bring myself to watch any more than that. As regular readers here know, I don’t care for debates anyway, ordinarily. And these are even worse than usual.

But here’s a thread to talk about them, if you feel differently. I certainly do care who ends up being the Democratic nominee, but it seems as though that event is a long way away.

Russian ministers resign, supposedly in protest

The New Neo Posted on by

From Russia:

In a surprise move, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev resigned along with the country’s entire Cabinet, Russian state news agency Tass reported Wednesday.

Medvedev made the announcement after Russia’s President Vladimir Putin unveiled a series of constitutional changes that Medvedev said would alter the country’s balance of power. Medvedev is a longtime close Putin ally. He has served as Russia’s prime minister since 2012. Before that, he spent four years as president, 2008-12…

Tass said Putin thanked Medvedev for his service but noted that the prime minister’s Cabinet failed to fulfill all the objectives set for it. The news agency said Putin plans to name Medvedev as a deputy in Russia’s Security Council. It was not immediately clear whether Putin asked for Medvedev to go and if his role in the Security Council – which he accepted – is a promotion or a demotion.

Putin…has been in power in Russia for more than two decades…Medvedev’s resignation could be a sign that Putin wants to try to extend his 20-year rule after his term of office formally expires in 2024…

Under Russia’s existing constitution, Putin would not be entitled to seek another presidential term in four years’ time.

So, is this some sort of elaborate theater designed to give the appearance of a protest, when it actually will end up facilitating Putin’s power grab? Things are not always what they seem.

Speaking of which, there’s also this:

The constitution currently bans anyone from serving more than two consecutive presidential terms, but Putin proposed Wednesday to limit future presidents to a maximum of two terms, total.

That sounds like a limitation of the presidential role rather than an expansion, but there may be a twist here I’m not seeing. My guess is that Putin wants to expand or at least continue his own power, and that just about everything he’s proposing is an effort to accomplish that.

So far, although I’ve looked, I haven’t seen any discussion of today’s developments that seems to offer much insight. Anyone care to try? I bet I get some takers.

[NOTE: By the way, that USA Today article from which I got most of the quotes in this post also helpfully offers this tidbit as somehow relevant to the occasion:

President Donald Trump has joked several times about trying to extend his time in the White House beyond the constitutionally-mandated two, four-year terms.

“He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” Trump said in a speech to Republican donors in 2008, speaking about China’s President Xi Jinping.

At least they acknowledge it was a joke. But there’s absolutely zero reason to put it in the article except to get people worried that Trump has something similar planned, and that his “joke” is just a pretend joke.]