Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

Archive for April 12th, 2021

Why Is Clarence Thomas Attacking Google? — and more

leave a comment »

Matt Stoller has several interesting reports in his current BIG column:

Last week, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued two statements attacking Google’s concentrated market power. Thomas is an unusual justice, almost never speaking during oral arguments, but also quite influential on the right. So today’s topic is how, and whether, the right’s views about big tech are evolving.

Also short pieces on:

  • Why Amazon beat organized labor in Alabama
  • Why Logitech just killed the universal remote control industry
  • Google’s Eric Schmidt goes full Communism against telecoms
  • Why the big dumb ship in the Suez was Bill Clinton’s fault
  • How razor blade companies negotiate with Amazon and Walmart
  • How Google’s fancy lawyers screwed up and jeopardized Sheryl Sandberg, at $1500/Hour

And now…

Realignment Strain

Last month, in a little noticed House Antitrust Subcommittee hearing on big tech, conservative stalwart Congressman Jim Jordan and Republican FTC regulator Noah Phillips went back and forth over how to address the internet giants. Jordan and Phillips had, until recently, been quite aligned, as fellow Republicans.

But this time, something was different.

Jordan was disturbed about the power of big tech to remove important political voices, like Donald Trump, from the public square. He asked Phillips, as a regulator, what can you do about this? Phillips responded, “I’m afraid I don’t have a good answer.”

It was a shocking moment. Normally, parties defend their own, but in this case, much of the hearing was Republican members of Congress training their fire on their own commissioner. Phillips had voted against bringing the Facebook antitrust suit, and was the only witness who didn’t want to do anything about big tech. His own side wasn’t having it.

There’s an argument on the right, known as “the realignment,” which is that the GOP will break with big business and become a party of the working class. There are reasons to be quite skeptical of this possibility, because the conservative movement has been intertwined with large corporations since the 1970s. I’ve watched some Republican members shouting publicly about big tech, but when it comes to legislating, these same members will oppose any actual changes.

But being totally dismissive isn’t reasonable either. Trump, after all, did launch antitrust suits against tech giants, as did Ken Paxton, the right-wing Texas Attorney General. Wyoming, led by Republican state Senator Tara Nethercott, just strengthened its state antitrust law, and Arizona Republicans nearly pulled off an anti-monopoly coup against Apple’s app store monopoly. And Senator Josh Hawley just introduced an antitrust bill that would not only address big tech’s market power, but would block mergers for firms worth $100 billion or more.

Moreover, there’s also a push factor at work, as big businesses fight against Republican priorities, most recently an election bill in Georgia passed to restrict voting. To protest the law, Major League Baseball moved the All-Star game from Atlanta to Colorado, and Delta and Coca-Cola, among others, publicly criticized the state GOP. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell pushed back, warning that “corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order.” McConnell’s warning had little effect. On Saturday, 100 corporate leaders in media, airlines, tech, retailing, etc held a phone call to discuss how to coordinate in opposing conservative voting rights legislation.

This ferment has now reached the pinnacle of the Republican Party, the conservative legal movement, which sets the legal philosophy of the party. Clarence Thomas, who is deeply embedded in these conservative legal networks, is beginning to mark out a different path.

Thomas: Google Is a Monopoly

Last week, Thomas issued two remarkable statements criticizing the concentrated power of Google and tech platforms. In one decision, Thomas mused on a long-running battle between Oracle and Google, where Google copied certain parts of Oracle’s software under the guise of fair use. The specifics of the decision are heated and interesting in and of themselves, but what I’m interested in here is that Thomas called out Google as a monopoly.

“If the majority is worried about monopolization,” he wrote, “it ought to consider whether Google is the greater threat.”

Thomas noted that Google copied Oracle’s work without licensing it, and then develop a monopoly in mobile phone operating software. Whatever the other merits of the case, it was a stark, and accurate, observation.

In his second claim, Thomas went even further. In a case involving Trump’s right to block people on Twitter, Thomas issued a statement on the threat to free speech by dominant tech platforms. “We will soon have no choice but to address how our legal doctrines apply to highly concentrated, privately owned information infrastructure such as digital platforms,” he wrote.

Noting Google’s control over search, Amazon’s control over books, and Facebook and Twitter’s control over social media, Thomas observed these firms aren’t merely private, but are clothed with a public interest. He called for treating tech firms like public utilities, forced to serve all comers, citing precedents involving railroad, telegraph, and telephone regulation. He dismissed the idea of network effects as leading to inherently large firms, noting that network systems don’t need to be contained within the corporate form. While Facebook, Google, Amazon, and so forth are run by a few people, that’s not inherent to technology. “No small group of people,” Thomas wryly observed, “control email.”

The deeper you go into the opinion, the more extraordinary it becomes. Thomas tied big tech dominance to monopoly power, citing “astronomical profits” and a lack of new entrants as evidence of a lack of competition. These observations might seem obvious to you and me, but in the antitrust world, that’s a significant intellectual concession, because the law and economics movement has traditionally held that high profits are a sign of efficiency and not barriers to entry.

One can read these opinions as in some ways an endorsement of the 2020 Democrat-led House Antitrust Subcommittee Report, which called for treating big tech firms as common carriers, a sort of net neutrality for Google, Amazon, and Facebook. Thomas’ opinion marks a big shift for Republicans, who have generally been unfavorable to the idea of such public utility rules.

More fundamentally, Thomas’ recent work is a rebuke of the economics-heavy thinking that both conservative and liberal judges have prioritized. None other than Clarence Thomas, in fact, two years ago penned the notorious Ohio vs American Express decision, which essentially gave special antitrust immunity to big tech firms solely because economists said that network businesses are special. For Thomas, what was in 2018 network economies of scale, has now become tyranny.

Are These Shifts Mere Rhetoric?

For decades, the conservative movement has had a ‘fusion strategy,’ with white social conservatives and big business libertarians as close allies. The deal was that the social conservatives would supply the votes and the corporations would provide the money. . .

Continue reading. There’s more. The Suez Canal report is particularly interesting.

Written by LeisureGuy

12 April 2021 at 4:46 pm

Hearing Aids for the Masses

leave a comment »

Full disclosure: I wear hearing aids, and they did cost several thousand dollars for the pair, but they also greatly improved my quality of life. My step-father, who worked around (loud) power tools most of his life had fairly severe hearing loss, and at the time hearing aids were fairly bulky and uncomfortable. When we were in a group conversing, he smiled a lot, and when my own hearing worsened, I noticed I was doing the same: if you can’t quite make out what people are saying, you tend to just smile and nod.

Shira Ovide in the NY Times discusses some developments that are promising. Emphasis added by me:

Today, let’s talk about relatively simple technology and a change in government policy that could unleash more innovation for Americans who have difficulty hearing.

I’ve been speaking with audiologists, consumer advocates and technology companies about what could be a revolution for our ears — hearing aids at a fraction of the cost and hassle of conventional devices.

Here’s how things stand now: Hearing loss is a pervasive and serious health problem, and many people are reluctant or can’t afford to get conventional hearing aids. Nearly 38 million American adults report some degree of hearing loss, but only a minority of people who could benefit from hearing aids have ever used them.

Hearing aids typically cost thousands of dollars, require multiple visits to specialists and often aren’t covered by health insurance. Untreated hearing loss is associated with cognitive decline, dementia and other harms. Overcoming barriers to hearing treatment may significantly improve Americans’ health.

The federal government is poised to help. Congress in 2017 passed legislation that would let anyone buy hearing aids approved by the Food and Drug Administration without a prescription from an audiologist. The F.D.A. has missed a deadline to release draft guidelines for this new category of over-the-counter hearing aids.

Experts told me that when the F.D.A. moves ahead, it’s likely to lead to new products and ideas to change hearing aids as we know them.

Imagine Apple, Bose or other consumer electronics companies making hearing aids more stylish and relatively affordable — with people having confidence that the devices had been vetted by the F.D.A. Bose told me that it’s working on over-the-counter hearing aid technology.

Barbara Kelley, executive director of the Hearing Loss Association of America, an advocacy organization, told me that she can’t wait for more affordable and accessible hearing help. “I’m really excited for the market to open up to see what we got and see how people are reacting,” she said.

It is already possible to buy a hearing helper — they can’t legally be called hearing aids — without a prescription. These devices, called personal sound amplification products or PSAPs, vary wildly in quality from excellent to junk. But when shopping for them, people often can’t tell the difference.

(The Wall Street Journal also recently wrote about hearing helper technologies, including earbuds that can amplify quiet sounds. And Consumer Reports has a useful guide to hearing aids and PSAPs.)

Nicholas Reed, director of audiology at the Johns Hopkins Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, told me that the F.D.A. process should provide a path for the best PSAPs to be approved as official over-the-counter hearing aids. He expects new companies to hit the market, too.

You may doubt that a gadget you buy next to the toilet paper at CVS could be a serious medical device. Dr. Reed’s research, however, has found that some hearing helpers for $350 or less were almost as good as prescription hearing aids for people with mild-to-moderate hearing loss.

Dr. Reed described the best lower-cost devices as the Hyundai of hearing help. (This was a compliment.) They aren’t flashy, but they will get many people safely and effectively where they need to go. He also imagines that the F.D.A. rules will create the conditions for many more people to buy hearing aids — both over the counter and by prescription.

Over-the-counter hearing aids won’t be able to help everyone, experts told me. And the traditional hearing aid industry has said that people are best served by customized devices with expert help.

There is also more technology brewing at  . . .

Continue reading.

Written by LeisureGuy

12 April 2021 at 4:13 pm

Toilets – what will it take to fix them?

leave a comment »

Josie Glausiusz has an interesting book review in Nature:

Pipe Dreams: The Urgent Global Quest to Transform the Toilet Chelsea Wald Avid Reader/Simon & Schuster (2021)

Waste: One Woman’s Fight Against America’s Dirty Secret Catherine Coleman Flowers The New Press (2020)

Since the sixth century BC, when the Romans began building their Cloaca Maxima (“Greatest Sewer”), a safe sewage system has epitomized civilization. More than two millennia later, one Victorian novelist called a good sewer “nobler” and “holier” than the most admired Madonna ever painted. For sound reasons: the construction of a massive London sewer network in the 1860s ended waterborne epidemics of cholera that had killed tens of thousands of people. In 2007, more than 11,300 readers of The BMJ chose the sanitary revolution — the introduction of clean water and sewage disposal — as the most important medical milestone since 1840.

The need for innovative toilets is enormous. In 2017, two billion people lacked a minimally adequate toilet, and 673 million people still had to defecate in the open. Poor sanitation is linked to the transmission of diseases including cholera, typhoid, polio, hepatitis A and trachoma. Access to clean water and sanitation for all by 2030 is one of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but the cost of achieving this is tens of billions of dollars per year, as two new books explore: Pipe Dreams, by Chelsea Wald; and Waste, by Catherine Coleman Flowers.

Today, “toilets no longer look quite so miraculous as they once did”, writes Wald in her deeply researched, entertaining and impassioned exploration of sanitation ancient and innovative. As cities grow, their aged sewage infrastructures become overwhelmed, especially during storms. Once-noble conduits are now frequently clogged by fatbergs, vast accretions of grease and wet wipes with the consistency of concrete and the weight of several elephants.

“Modern sanitation infrastructure has created the illusion that our excreta just disappear like magic,” Wald writes. “But poop doesn’t just drive down the highway into the sunset.” Often, it remains untreated, poisoning people and ecosystems. A new generation of toilets is needed, she argues: one that squanders less water, nutrients and energy. And so Wald travels from Alaska to Indonesia and many places in-between, interviewing scientists, public-health officials and toilet entrepreneurs.

Many countries are edging their way towards the SDGs by implementing inventive sanitation projects at minimal expense. In the town of Sneek in the Netherlands, Wald visits a company called DeSaH, which has put vacuum toilets into more than 200 apartments, whooshing away waste and treating it in a small local facility. Each toilet uses 1 litre of water per flush, compared with the usual eight. Vacuum systems are in use at sites in wealthy nations including the Netherlands and Sweden, and at Bloomberg’s European headquarters in London. But scaling up this water-saving technology on a global scale is challenging, Wald notes, given financial and other hurdles.

In Kenya, a social enterprise named Sanivation collects human faeces, treats it and presses it into “poop briquettes” for fuel, Wald writes. The company has sold 1,500 tonnes of the small spheres so far, saving 88 trees for every tonne. In Indonesia, where there are few sewers, Wald shadows “sanitation entrepreneur” Koen Irianto Uripan, who put thousands of fibreglass septic tanks in the yards of homes in the city of Surabaya. With jokes and a papier-mâché poop prop, Uripan markets a cheap, easily installed indoor toilet connected to one of these tanks, in which bacteria break down waste. The work is part of a much larger, countrywide campaign to reduce the number of people who have to defecate in the open.

Our universal disgust over excretion inspires both humour and anxiety. The ancient Babylonians recognized a privy demon called Šulak that could trigger bad luck, injury or illness. In the Jewish tradition, rabbis composed blessings for angels who accompanied a person to the “house of the chair” and waited outside, and a blessing is recited on exiting the lavatory.

But fear is all too real for those without secure and hygienic toilets. Women who must share with strangers, or go outdoors, are at greatly increased risk of being raped, studies in South Africa and India have shown1,2. Toilets with doors that lock from the inside, and have shelves for clean menstrual products, can help women and girls — cisgender and transgender — to feel safe and dignified; and those still at school will be less likely to skip classes. In Durban, South Africa, among other places, city planners have refitted shipping containers for the purpose. . .

Continue reading. There’s more.≠

Written by LeisureGuy

12 April 2021 at 4:02 pm

“Less is more” is intrinsically difficult for the human psyche, which seems always to want to add

leave a comment »

Joe Dominguez, in his (invaluable) book Your Money or Your Life: Transforming Your Relationship with Money and Achieving Financial Independence, pointed out that one route to financial independence was to accumulate enough money to satisfy all your wants and needs, but an easier route was to trim your wants and needs to fit with a smaller amount of money. In either case, financial independence is achieved, but one way is faster and easier. (The book describes the tactics he used.)

Written by LeisureGuy

12 April 2021 at 3:53 pm

Suicide and impulse

leave a comment »

Suicide can be a considered choice — for example, an elderly person in the grasp of a painful and incurable terminal illness might decide to end his life early rather than suffer — or it can be a passing impulse — for example, a person with clinical depression who encounters a temporary setback and impulsively makes a suicide attempt.

In the US the most common suicide method is with a firearm. Consider this chart (source):

If a person has a suicidal impulse and has easy access to a firearm (not unusual in the US), the firearm is likely to be used in an attempt at suicide, and the outcome is almost always fatal. Indeed, in looking at gun deaths in the US, suicide outnumbers homicide (source):

In discussing deaths due to gun violence, some object to including suicides in the total because (they believe) “if a person’s going to commit suicide, they’ll find a way to do it, with or without a gun.” That belief is false for as impulsive suicide, and impulsive suicide is much more common than considered suicide.

If a person experiencing a suicidal impulse picks a method that requires several steps and involves time and effort, the impulse is likely to dissipate before the attempt is made, and if the method is not instantly fatal so that recovery is possible (as in taking an overdose of medicine), the person may possibly be saved and not reattempt suicide.

Years ago I read an account by a man who, walking across the Golden Gate bridge and feeling depressed about his current situation (as I recall, he had just lost his job), decided to kill himself by jumping off the bridge. He was, as he later wrote, fully committed, but he wanted to face the city lights when he jumped, and he was on the side of the bridge away from the city, so that he would be facing only darkness.

He could not cross immediately to the other side because of traffic and traffic barriers, so he decided to walk to the end of the bridge, cross there, and return to jump, facing the city. By the time he reached the end of the bridge, however, the impulse had dissipated, and he simply continued on his way home (which is why we know the story). The impulse never returned.

The Harvard School of Public Health has an article that speaks to this:

Nine out of ten people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die by suicide at a later date. This has been well-established in the suicidology literature. A literature review (Owens 2002) summarized 90 studies that have followed over time people who have made suicide attempts that resulted in medical care. Approximately 7% (range: 5-11%) of attempters eventually died by suicide, approximately 23% reattempted nonfatally, and 70% had no further attempts.

Even studies that focused on medically serious attempts–such as people who jumped in front of a train (O’Donnell 1994)–and studies that followed attempters for many decades found similarly low suicide completion rates. At least one study, published after the 90-study review, found a slightly higher completion rate. This was a 37-year follow-up of self-poisoners in Finland that found an eventual completion rate of 13% (Suominen 2004).

This relatively good long-term survival rate is consistent with the observation that suicidal crises are often short-lived, even if there may be underylying, more chronic risk factors present that give rise to these crises.

The relationship between suicide attempts and completions is a complex one.

  • Most people who die by suicide in the U.S. did not make a previous attempt. Prevention efforts that focus only on those who attempt suicide will miss the majority of completers. An international review of psychological autopsy studies found that approximately 40% of those dying by suicide had previously attempted (Cavanagh 2003). The proportion was lower (25-33%) among studies of youth suicide in the U.S. (Brent 1993, Shaffer 1996). A history of previous attempts is lower among those dying by firearm suicide and higher among those dying by overdose (NVISS data).
  • Most people who attempt suicide will not go on to complete suicide. [Though if a gun is used, the suicide attempt almost always results in death. – LG]
  • Still, history of suicide attempt is one of the strongest risk factors for suicide. 5% to 11% of hospital-treated attempters do go on to complete suicide, a far higher proportion than among the general public where annual suicide rates are about 1 in 10,000.

Footnotes and sources are found at the link. The big problem with guns is that a suicide attempt using a gun is almost always successful.

This came to mind this morning as I read a New Yorker article by D.T. Max, which includes this passage:

Suicide is often a response to extreme personal struggles, but the immediate catalyst can be little more than a bad grade on a test or a weekend when a student’s friends have gone out of town. A widely cited 1978 study of some five hundred people who were stopped from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge suggests how impulsive the urge to kill oneself can be: only about five per cent of the subjects later died by suicide [that is, 95% did not later commit suicide – LG]. (Studies such as this helped lead to the now ubiquitous signs on bridges with the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline number: 1-800-273-8255.)

In the past two decades, the suicide rate in the United States has risen by some thirty-five per cent, and the problem is especially acute among the young. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, by 2018 suicide had become the second most common cause of death among Americans between the ages of ten and twenty-four, exceeded only by accidental death. Experts describe as precipitating factors everything from mounting economic pressures to the broadcasting of distress on social media. At the University of Pennsylvania, more than a dozen students have died by suicide since 2013, and in late 2019 the director of the school’s mental-health services jumped from the seventeenth floor of a building. A 2018 study by researchers affiliated with Harvard University found that one in five American college students had had suicidal thoughts the previous year. Will Newman, a professor of forensic psychiatry at Saint Louis University, told me, “The percentage of freshmen seeking mental-health services is on a steady incline, and universities have to quickly adjust to keep up.” Meanwhile, the covid-19 pandemic has deepened the isolation of many Americans. More than ten per cent of respondents to a C.D.C. survey last June said that in the previous month they had seriously considered killing themselves.

Written by LeisureGuy

12 April 2021 at 3:08 pm

Americans are still spanking their kids. A new study shows how harmful that is.

leave a comment »

I have long maintained that parents should not strike their children, and now research backs up that idea. Caitlin Gibson reports in the Washington Post:

When developmental psychologist Liz Gershoff began studying the effects of spanking and harsh parenting discipline in the 1990s, the topic was still the subject of intense debate in scientific circles: Was physical punishment actually harmful to kids?

In the decades since, a growing body of research has offered a clear and resounding answer. Spanking and other forms of severe discipline — such as verbally berating or humiliating a child — have been repeatedly linked to behavioral, emotional, psychological and academic problems, a conclusion that prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics to issue a new policy statement in 2018, strengthening its stance that parents should not use physical punishment.

But spanking is still prevalent in American families, and legal in all states. Though it appears to be steadily falling out of favor among younger generations, the 2018 General Social Survey — a long-running biennial national survey of American adults — found that 66 percent of Americans agreed that “a good, hard spanking” is sometimes necessary to discipline a child.

Why you just can’t choose: Parenting through pandemic decision fatigue

And one common argument in support of spanking has lingered: How can we be sure that a child’s lack of achievement or antisocial behavior can be traced back to physical punishment specifically, versus an innate or genetic factor?

Gershoff, a professor of human development and family sciences at the University of Texas at Austin, set out to settle the question of nature vs. nurture with her newest study, published in the March volume of Psychological Science. Gershoff and her research team analyzed more than a thousand pairs of twins — including more than 400 identical twins, who share the same DNA — many of whom were disciplined differently by their parents. The researchers found that the child who was hit or yelled at more often was consistently more likely to display delinquent or antisocial behavior.

“Identical-twin studies are sort of the classic way that psychologists have of differentiating what is innate behavior from what is learned behavior, so this study follows in a long tradition,” says Robert Sege, a pediatrician at Tufts Children’s Hospital and director of the Center for Community-Engaged Medicine at Tufts Medical Center who co-authored the American Academy of Pediatrics’s 2018 statement. “This is yet another, different way of looking at this, but all the data points to the same direction. As a scientist, when you see that, no matter how you do the experiment, no matter how you ask the question, you get the same result — that’s conclusive.”

Gershoff spoke with The Washington Post about her decades of research into physical discipline in parenting, and the implications of her newest study. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: You’ve been studying the effects of spanking for a long time. How has the scientific understanding of this issue changed over your career?

A: When I began studying physical punishment, there was a lot of resistance to the idea that it might be harmful. I went into this with an open mind, thinking, ‘Well, maybe parents are right, maybe it does work, maybe that’s what the research shows.’ By then we had several-hundred studies that had been looking at it, but no one had taken an overview to say, ‘What did we find overall?’ So that’s what I did in 2002. There have been many, many more studies since then, and they have all continued to show that the more children are physically punished, the worse their behavior, the worse their mental health. Now we also have research showing they do worse in school, they have lower achievement.

Q: It seems like those conclusions are generally accepted among scientists and pediatricians, but what have you observed about our social and cultural perceptions of spanking?

A: It used to be that we only learned how to parent from our own parents, that was it, and maybe a couple friends. I think in the last 20 years we’ve seen more parents have access to parenting information from parenting books, from the Internet. Now we can talk to people across the world and find out how they’re parenting, what works for them. There has been more public discussion about physical punishment that we hadn’t really seen before — you started seeing figures like Oprah talk openly about how she was physically punished, and how harmful she thought that was. That was a big deal.

But there are still many parents who are under the impression that you have to hit children in some circumstances. That pattern cuts across cultural groups and racial groups and different areas of the country. So yes, there are still some parents to convince.

Q: Tell me about your new study, and why you focused on twins specifically. .. .

Continue reading. There’s much more. Later in the interview:

. . . parents see twins as individuals, they’re not parenting them as a set. And that much is good, but it’s just too bad that one kid is getting singled out for the harsh parenting. We didn’t ask them about the circumstances, so we don’t know why. But what we found was that the twin who was spanked more or yelled at more within each pair, they were the ones who had more antisocial behavior. It was the same for the kids who were identical twins and for kids who were not identical twins. The amount of genetic material they shared didn’t matter. It came down to how much harsh parenting they received.

And the interview concludes:

Q: Do you think this study settled that question then, of whether a child’s innate characteristics might be to blame for their behavior, rather than harsh discipline?

A: We are pretty convinced that this is definitive. There is just absolutely no evidence for a genetic component.

Q: You mentioned earlier that there are still clearly some parents left to convince. In light of these results, what would you most want those parents to know?

A: To me, it’s just further evidence that the way we parent our children really does impact them. And if parents are on the fence about physical punishment, this is just additional evidence that it’s not doing any good for the children, and in fact it seems to be making their behavior worse. And that in turn makes our jobs harder as parents — that’s the irony. People are trying to improve their children’s behavior when they’re using physical punishment, but they’re in fact making it worse.

See also the book Hunt, Gather, Parent: What Ancient Cultures Can Teach Us About the Lost Art of Raising Happy, Helpful Little Human.

Written by LeisureGuy

12 April 2021 at 11:17 am

Republicans going off in all directions

leave a comment »

Heather Cox Richardson has a post that’s worth reading because it sets out a variety of developing issues, including a serious conflict within the Republican party regarding the direction it should take. She writes:

Congress has been on break since March 29, and tomorrow members will go back to Washington, D.C., to resume work. The next weeks are going to be busy for the lawmakers, not least because the political ground in America appears to be shifting.

In the two weeks the lawmakers have been back in their districts, a lot has happened. The Biden administration released the American Jobs Plan on March 31, calling for a $2 trillion investment in infrastructure. The plan includes traditional items like railroads and bridges and roads; it also uses a modern, expansive definition of infrastructure, including support for our electrical grid, green energy, and clean water delivery, as well as the construction of high-speed broadband to all Americans. The plan also defines childcare and eldercare as infrastructure issues, an important redefinition that will not only help more women regain a foothold in the economy, but will also help to replace manufacturing jobs as a key stabilizer of middle-class America. The administration is selling the infrastructure plan, in part, by emphasizing that it will create jobs (hence “American Jobs Plan” rather than something like “American Infrastructure Act”).

President Biden has proposed paying for the plan by raising the corporate tax from 21% to 28% (it was 35% before Trump’s 2017 tax cut) and by increasing the global minimum tax from 13% to 21% (so that companies cannot stash profits in low-tax countries). He has also proposed saving money by ending the federal tax breaks for fossil fuel companies and by putting teeth in the enforcement of tax laws against corporations who have skated without paying taxes in the past.

The president also put together a blue-ribbon, bipartisan commission to look at the question of adjusting the Supreme Court to the modern era. While people are focusing on the question of whether the number of justices on the Supreme Court should be increased—it has held at 9 since 1869, even as three more circuits have been added—the commission is also looking at “the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court.” It is only very recently that justices grimly held onto a Supreme Court appointment until death; the positions used to turn over with some frequency. The commission is an astonishingly distinguished group of scholars, lawyers, and judges.

Nonetheless, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed the establishment of the commission displayed “open disdain for judicial independence.” And yet, the Supreme Court itself undermined his position in favor of a nonpartisan judiciary late Friday night. It issued an unsigned opinion in which the court decided, by a vote of 5-4, that state restrictions on private religious gatherings during the pandemic infringed on people’s First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the minority.

Biden has also asked Congress to take on the issue of gun control, after yet more mass shootings in the country. And overshadowing all is the Democrat’s demand for the passage of voting rights legislation that would protect voting, end gerrymandering, and curb the influence of big money in U.S. elections.

While the legislative world has been rocking, so has the world of the Republicans. The party is torn between the Trump wing and the business wing, and in the course of the past few weeks, that rift has widened and destabilized.

On March 25, Georgia passed a sweeping new voting restriction law. Legislators argued that they were simply trying to combat voter fraud, but the law, in fact, significantly restricts voting hours and mail-in voting, as well as turning over the mechanics of elections to partisan committees. The Georgia law came after a similar set of restrictions in Iowa; other states, including Texas, are following suit.

But this attack on voting rights is not playing well with the corporate leaders who, in the past, tended to stand with the Republicans. Leaders from more than 170 corporations condemned the new Georgia law, saying, “We stand in solidarity with voters 一 and with the Black executives and leaders at the helm of this movement 一 in our nonpartisan commitment to equality and democracy. If our government is going to work for all of us, each of us must have equal freedom to vote and elections must reflect the will of voters.” Major League Baseball grabbed headlines when it decided to move this summer’s All-Star game out of the state.

Following the corporate pushback over the Georgia law, the leader of the business Republican faction, Mitch McConnell, said that it was “stupid” for corporations to weigh in on divisive political issues, although he specified he was “not talking about political contributions.” Republican lawmakers have said that corporations should not take political stances, a position that sits uneasily with the 2010 Supreme Court Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which said that corporate donations to political candidates were a form of political speech and could not be limited by the government. The so-called “Citizens United” decision opened up a flood of corporate money into our political system.

Yesterday, more than 100 corporate executives met over Zoom to figure out how . . .

Continue reading. There’s much more, and some interesting aspects are discussed later in the column.

Written by LeisureGuy

12 April 2021 at 10:47 am

A Bay Rum morning — I love the Omega Pro 48 (10048), and the vintage Merkur white bakelite slant’s not bad either

with 2 comments

My Pro 48, now well broken in, delivers delightful lather while massaging my face lightly: a knot that has a long loft and strong resilient fibers, once loaded with lather, does a wonderful job. I do, of course, wet the knot well under the hot-water tap and let it stand, dripping wet, while I shower, so when I go to load the brush the knot has been soaked.

Meißner Tremonia’s Bay Rum has a fine fragrance and lathers easily and well. Though it contains clay, I did not have to add any water during loading, perhaps because the Pro 48 contains ample (but not excessive) water even after a couple of good shakes.

Merkur’s vintage white bakelite slant has plenty of blade feel but for some reason does not thereby seem threatening — and it does a wonderful job. As I think about the shave, I wonder whether there was not a little to much blade feel — perhaps it’s time to change the blade to make the slicing smoother. I think I’ll do that and honor it with one my Astra Kermik Platinum from a small stash that was gifted to me by a kind and generous reader. (I use those blades sparingly. I imagine the razors consider getting such a blade a badge of honor.)

A splash of Dominica Bay Rum and a new week begins well. (I’m sure some of the softness of my skin is due to Grooming Dept Moisturizing Pre-Shave.) The day is very bright, without a cloud in the sky.

Written by LeisureGuy

12 April 2021 at 9:50 am

Posted in Shaving

%d bloggers like this: