Since it’s happening where I live and thus seems to be “my business” in a way that something I had merely seen on the news might not be, I’ll offer some observations on some elements of the current situation.
Your comments, Dan, I thought were reasonably balanced. Today there was a 3 1/2 hour hearing in the US Congress to hear from some of the victims of the ICE and CBP masked agents who act with impunity and "absolute immunity" for their actions. It is compelling to watch.
The budget for the Federal Government is now 96% funded, with the DHS funding to be decided by February 13. Now we will see whether Republicans will agree to take the masks off ICE and CBP and hold agents responsible for their actions.
Thanks, Pat. I did notice there was some talk about requiring agents to begin wearing bodycams, at least in the Twin Cities. That's a positive development, I think.
One thought on the phrase “deep state”. What this means has always been vague and I wish someone would take time and space to objectify who such folks are and what are their motives. Is it possible to identify some of the individuals who are participants? Does the phrase have a common meaning among those who use it?
You're right, it is one of those terms we should "come to terms" about, as Adler might say. I take it to mean permanent, often unelected agencies and structures of administration and control. In many cases, these need not be scary or suspicious; we need career professionals. The problem arises when these professionals USE a lack of oversight or public understanding of their roles to increase the scope of their activities into unauthorized areas, self-deal, or try to subvert elected representatives from enacting the people's wishes.
I sympathize with professionals who get frustrated that the people are often capricious and lack the information they need to choose wisely. But I don't think the answer is a secret coup, which I think only poisons the well of public trust that needs to continue to operate.
Note: Kristi Noem was Governor of South Dakota before she became DHS Secretary, so the idea of her being a "spokesmodel" or "disruptor" is a bit of a stretch.
Disrupter seems appropriate. Noem is confrontational and dismissive. Spokesmodel is as good a descriptor as any. Trump has a clear preference for a certain “physical type” in the women he appoints.
I'm going to stick with "disruptor". Her autobiography, No Going Back, describes itself as "former congresswoman tells eye-opening stories of DC dysfunction". As for spokesmodel, maybe that was a bit ad hominem. I apologize for venting, but I think an argument could be made that the carefully crafted image, the flowing hair, etc., are more about style than substance.
Your comments, Dan, I thought were reasonably balanced. Today there was a 3 1/2 hour hearing in the US Congress to hear from some of the victims of the ICE and CBP masked agents who act with impunity and "absolute immunity" for their actions. It is compelling to watch.
See them here: ["No License to Kill" – Rep. Garcia & Sen. Blumenthal Slam ICE Violence](https://youtu.be/8REZ2ckG4f8?t=725).
Also see: [Not a Single Republican Showed Up to Hear Them Testify](https://newrepublic.com/post/206100/republican-skip-hearing-renee-good-brothers-testify).
The budget for the Federal Government is now 96% funded, with the DHS funding to be decided by February 13. Now we will see whether Republicans will agree to take the masks off ICE and CBP and hold agents responsible for their actions.
[House narrowly passes bill to end shutdown, but divisive DHS funding fight remains](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/house-narrowly-passes-bill-to-end-shutdown-but-divisive-dhs-funding-fight-remains)
Thanks, Pat. I did notice there was some talk about requiring agents to begin wearing bodycams, at least in the Twin Cities. That's a positive development, I think.
One thought on the phrase “deep state”. What this means has always been vague and I wish someone would take time and space to objectify who such folks are and what are their motives. Is it possible to identify some of the individuals who are participants? Does the phrase have a common meaning among those who use it?
You're right, it is one of those terms we should "come to terms" about, as Adler might say. I take it to mean permanent, often unelected agencies and structures of administration and control. In many cases, these need not be scary or suspicious; we need career professionals. The problem arises when these professionals USE a lack of oversight or public understanding of their roles to increase the scope of their activities into unauthorized areas, self-deal, or try to subvert elected representatives from enacting the people's wishes.
I sympathize with professionals who get frustrated that the people are often capricious and lack the information they need to choose wisely. But I don't think the answer is a secret coup, which I think only poisons the well of public trust that needs to continue to operate.
Note: Kristi Noem was Governor of South Dakota before she became DHS Secretary, so the idea of her being a "spokesmodel" or "disruptor" is a bit of a stretch.
Disrupter seems appropriate. Noem is confrontational and dismissive. Spokesmodel is as good a descriptor as any. Trump has a clear preference for a certain “physical type” in the women he appoints.
I'm going to stick with "disruptor". Her autobiography, No Going Back, describes itself as "former congresswoman tells eye-opening stories of DC dysfunction". As for spokesmodel, maybe that was a bit ad hominem. I apologize for venting, but I think an argument could be made that the carefully crafted image, the flowing hair, etc., are more about style than substance.