Good morning,
If you’re anything like me, you're finding it hard to keep track of the news lately. Most weeks, I read various newspapers, take a deep breath, have a cup of coffee, and move on. Increasingly, we are bombarded with events that defy explanation, justification, or logic. Some weeks bring a waterfall of inexplicable events that make my head spin. The last week was one of those, as there have been a slew of stories, any of which would make major headlines in any other era.
The stories, each more bizarre than the last, just keep coming. I’m going to touch on those I find most interesting and add my take on each — which is perhaps different from what you’ve already read.
Knowledge is power
The most bizarre, and probably the least reported, story of the past few weeks is the dismantling of a multi-million dollar, ocean monitoring system that has been collecting data on ocean temperatures, currents, and chemistry. While this might on first blush seem like a cost-saving exercise, it instead is an unwinding of our effort to better understand data and patterns that affect fisheries, the magnitude and frequency of severe weather events, and longer-term environmental impacts.
The program is 10 years into a 25-year anticipated life. The annual cost is around $48 million, and the data derived is meaningful. The dismantling and removal of the over 900 instruments in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans is estimated to take as much as 15 months. The New York Times quotes Craig McLean, acting chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration during the President’s first term: “This reflects the further lack of understanding that the current administration has of scientific value and scientific merit.”
MY TAKE: While I agree with Mr. McLean, I think the story goes beyond mere "lack of understanding." I believe the administration is fully aware of the scientific value of the project. The real agendas here are two-fold: First, this is part of a systematic discrediting of sources of authority other than its own. Second, there's a fear that the data might be used to further efforts to address the risks of climate change (risks endorsed by over 98% of climate scientists, but not by this White House).
The slush fund that died (or did it?)
The facts are pretty well known: The President sued the IRS for $10 billion because of the unauthorized leak of his tax returns. The person who did that is now incarcerated. The President sued under some specious legal theories, without demonstration of actual damages, in a suit filed beyond the statute of limitations. The fund seems nothing more than an unabashed attempt to reward political bedfellows and the January 6th rioters.
The money is our money. And yet the United States government was going to advance nearly $2 billion to people accused of crimes, most of them indicted and some of whom were convicted. This expenditure wasn’t approved by Congress. If it made it all the way through the courts, there were many ways it eventually would have been tossed. While the administration no doubt knows this (and has dismissed its case, so as to avoid court oversight), and while Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the fund was dropped, this may only have been a temporary attempt to mollify the Republican senators who were resistant to this behavior.
MY TAKE: Two things: First, in a broader context, this is a calculated message to those who might in the future act in support of the administration — and commit crimes in doing so. The message is “We have your back.” Second, this is by no means over, as the President remarked, shortly after Blanche’s assurance that the fund was dead, “I love it,” and “I think it’s so important.” This seems part of a pattern that began with “assurances” of federal court and cabinet nominees that were made before committees, only to be ignored once in office. It seems some Republican senators wised up, as there's a groundswell to include a written ban on the fund, to be written into the immigration bill that the President so desperately desires. And yet, again, the majority of Republican senators couldn’t even settle on memorializing in writing the assurances that were made verbally to them in open hearing.
The republicans push back on war powers
The Senate wasn’t the only house of Congress busy last week. The House passed a resolution to force the President either to pull troops from the Iran War or obtain Congressional approval to continue. This will bring a showdown on the War Powers Resolution, which was adopted in the post-Watergate era to limit a president’s ability to commit troops without authorization from Congress.
MY TAKE: While it has been settled law since its adoption, there's an argument that suggests the executive need not comply with restrictions on the right to declare and fight wars. I think those, including the Supreme Court, who seek further expansion of the executive’s powers may well welcome a confrontation onwhether this is an unreasonable restraint on presidential prerogative. As to the Iran war, the administration didn't seek Congressional approval, and it has been prosecuted with minimal input. Meanwhile, the war’s aims remain unclear and/or unfulfilled, Notwithstanding the administration’s abjuring congressional consultation, I question whether this showdown is appropriate at this time. Signaling discord within our government, or tying the hands of the Commander in Chief, is just delivering to the Iranian regime a gift they could only dream of receiving.
Immigration funding
The president wants funding of ICE and Border Control agents to proceed unimpeded. The Democrats have asked for certain restrictions on the latitude exercised by ICE and Border Control agents — limitations mandated by the Constitution and law. You know, legal niceties like requiring warrants for arrest or search and seizure, being safe in one’s home, or being timely charged or released. Pending an agreement on these limitations, the Democrats said they would approve all other funding of the Department of Homeland Security. The Republicans demurred and here we are.
MY TAKE: Sure, the administration wants the continuation of the extra-legal and unconstitutional latitude allowed to these officers, but if one believes the administration — that we're now more focused no longer on the non-criminal long-term folks who arrived often decades ago — why resist what seem like reasonable limitations? Why is it so unreasonable to expect these officers to behave as we expect all other law enforcement officers in America to behave?
It should be deeply concerning that undertrained agents of the federal government, often in unmarked cars and without identifying badges are roaming our city streets and picking up people suspected of not being citizens. And what are these ICE and Border Control officers going to be doing when the upcoming midterm elections roll around? The budget is enormous — larger than the military budgets of many nations. Perhaps they'll be deployed at voting sites to “protect election integrity” in November. The mind wanders to dark places...
Hatred in her eyes
The attacks on the press have been relentless: When questioned by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, the President commented that she had “hatred in her eyes.” The name-calling, the accusations of bias, the demeaning comments about journalists’ abilities and/or ethics have been relentless. Some feel this merely is an exercise in the more candid comments of the President — just “Trump being Trump.”
MY TAKE: This isn’t about Kaitlan Collins at all. This is part of a coordinated effort to make the press into the story. By repeatedly and consistently demonizing and gaslighting the Fourth Estate, the administration is delegitimizing an alternate source of information to which people might otherwise turn.
National security appointments
Bill Pulte, the current director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency has been nominated for Director of National Intelligence. There are many who decry his lack of qualifications — and his undying sycophancy toward our leader. In the meantime, Elias Irizarry, who pleaded guilty in connection with the January 6th rioting at the Capitol, has been hired by the Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict office at the Pentagon. Many say that because his participation in January 6th precludes his nomination.
MY TAKE: The bar has been established and it’s low. If Tulsi Gabbard was qualified enough for this, then Pulte should be confirmed right now and we should just move on, as the Senate exercising its duty to provide its advice and consent increasingly feels like a quaint old practice thrown to the wayside. As to the nomination of Irizarry, who was only 19 at the time of the insurrection, I say there are times when we should forgive and forget. When he watched videos of that fateful day, he noted, “It is something I have to live with being a part of. I don’t know what I can do to make it right.” The man is contrite. Judge Chutkan sentenced Mr. Irizarry to a 14-day sentence, noting, “I suspect you are going to make something very remarkable of your life.” Perhaps he’s evolved. We should be kind, forgiving people and give him a chance. Perhaps this is the beginning of the very remarkable things that Judge Chutkan envisioned.
Have a great day,
Glenn
