The Daily Parker

Politics, Weather, Photography, and the Dog

Beautiful Friday afternoon

Cassie and I have gotten a full hour of walks today with the promise of more to come, as it's our third sunny day in a row, but today got above 19°C (though only up to 16.5°C at Inner Drive Technology WHQ). I had two minor bugs to fix at Weather Now, but mainly I've had meetings today, so getting outside with the dog felt great. And tomorrow: a 42-kilometer walk.

Meanwhile, with 18 days left before the election:

Finally, the last Chuck E Cheese in Chicago has gotten rid of its animatronic band, opting for video screens instead. The youth of America weep.

Now if the crew repairing every single stair in my courtyard (which seems to involve hitting them all repeatedly with a hammer) would just go the f--- home, I could get some more work done.

Two in the Times

Two guest essays in yesterday's New York Times caught my attention. The first, by Tony Schwartz, the ghostwriter who wrote the "unintended work of fiction" The Art of the Deal, pivots off the new XPOTUS biopic to warn us, once more, about the psychopath topping the Republican ticket:

What struck me from the first day I met Mr. Trump was his unquenchable thirst to be the center of attention. No amount of external recognition ever seemed to be enough. Beneath his bluster and his bombast, he struck me as one of the most insecure people I’d ever met — and one of the least self-aware. He’d crossed the bridge from Queens to Manhattan but he remained the product — and even the prisoner — of his childhood experiences. As he told a reporter in 2015, “When I look at myself in the first grade and I look at myself now, I’m basically the same.”

I buy that.

The past is prologue and, as Mr. Trump has said, he’s essentially the same person today that he was as a child. That is the central warning “The Apprentice” poses, and it comes just weeks before the election.

Ever since Mr. Trump announced in 2015 that he was running for president, I’ve argued publicly that the only limitation on his behavior as president — then and now — is what he believes he can get away with. Mr. Trump has made it clear that he believes he can get away with a lot more today. If he does win back the presidency, it’s hard to imagine that he’ll have much more on his mind than revenge and domination — damn the consequences — in his doomed, lifelong quest to feel good enough.

The second comes from Harvard Law professors Nikolas Bowie and Daphna Renan, arguing that the legislature should take back the power that the judiciary have essentially stolen from it:

“Make no mistake about it: We have a very strong argument that Congress by statute can undo what the Supreme Court does,” Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, said recently as he announced the introduction of the No Kings Act. The measure declares that it is Congress’s constitutional judgment that no president is immune from the criminal laws of the United States. It would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to declare the No Kings Act unconstitutional. Any criminal actions against a president would be left in the hands of the lower federal courts. And these courts would be required to adopt a presumption that the No Kings Act is constitutional.

It might seem unusual for Congress to instruct federal courts how to interpret the Constitution. But the No Kings Act follows an admirable tradition, dating back to the earliest years of the United States, in which Congress has invoked its constitutional authority to ensure that the fundamental law of our democracy is determined by the people’s elected representatives rather than a handful of lifetime appointees accountable to no one.

In recent years, however, the court has seemed particularly uninterested in forbearance, as five or six justices routinely upend Congress’s longstanding interpretations of the Constitution. For example, nearly 50 years after Congress and the president first decided that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was appropriate legislation and after several more Congresses, presidents and Supreme Court majorities agreed that the law was constitutional, five justices in 2013 invalidated a crucial provision of the law.

Congress could pass a statute declaring that when asked to apply a federal law, a judge must do so unless the judge believes the law is unconstitutional beyond honest dispute. To ensure there is no honest dispute, Congress could require the judge to enforce the law unless the Supreme Court certifies by a supermajority or unanimous vote that there are no reasonable grounds to defend it. In this way, Congress would require the justices to show, by their votes, that the incompatibility of the law with the Constitution is beyond honest dispute.

The No Kings Act is well grounded in our constitutional tradition. Rather than allow any president or justices to hold themselves above the law, Congress should force them all to live by it.

Bowie and Renan only hint at something obvious to anyone who has read our Constitution: in the document, the legislature comes first, the executive second, and the judiciary a distant third. I agree with them that Congress needs to remind the other two branches of that fact.

Forgot to do this yesterday

My day got away from me yesterday afternoon, so all this shiznit piled up:

Finally, it turns out the principal difference between the 12-year-saga to replace the Ravenswood train station and the 15-year-saga to build the Peterson/Ridge station was that the Ravenswood station actually started construction 13 years ago. Streetsblog explains in detail why Chicago can't have nice transit things, and why I may never get to ride on a fully-electrified express train from Evanston to the Loop.

Corruption, corruption, corruption

For once, Chicago's legendary corruption isn't the biggest news story of the day.

Let's start with New York, where the Adams administration seems determined to set new standards for public corruption, going so far as to float the "we're only a little bit criminal" defense:

The indictment alleged that, for years, starting during his tenure as Brooklyn borough president, Adams had cultivated a relationship with a representative of the Turkish government who arranged for him to receive some $123,000 worth of illegal gifts, such as discounted business-class tickets on Turkish Airlines and a stay in the Bentley Suite at the St. Regis in Istanbul. When Adams ran for mayor, his Turkish supporters allegedly channeled illegal donations to his campaign through straw donors with the connivance of Adams himself. In return, prosecutors say, Adams performed a number of favors as a public official, most notably pressuring FDNY inspectors to certify that the new Turkish Consulate near the U.N. was safe without conducting the necessary inspections.

The mayor’s defenders described all this as a whole lot of nothing. His defense attorney, Alex Spiro, ridiculed the indictment, calling it the “airline-upgrade corruption case,” and filed an immediate motion to dismiss the bribery charge, citing a recent Supreme Court decision that enlarged the bounds of acceptable gift taking. (He had less to say about the foreign donations.)

At the other end of the Acela, retired US District Court Judge Nancy Gertner and Georgetown law professor Stephen Vladeck warn the US Supreme Court that they are losing credibility, and thus, farther down the road, the power to do their jobs:

We have both been critical of the current justices for how their behavior, both on and off the bench, has undermined public faith in the court. Too many of its most important rulings can be chalked up to nothing more than the fact that Republican presidents appointed six of the justices, and Democrats appointed only three. And then there are the alarming ethical lapses of two of the six justices in the majority — lapses that have close connections to their relationships with right-wing megadonors.

A court that loses its institutional credibility is a court that will be powerless when it matters most.

A court without legitimacy is a court unable to curb abuses of political power that its rulings may well have enabled. It is a court that will be powerless when the next Chip Roy calls for disobedience because it will have long since alienated those who would otherwise have defended it. It would become a court powerless to push back against the tyrannies of the majority that led the founders to create an independent judiciary in the first place.

Will Republican Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch heed the warnings? Probably not. At least Special Counsel Jack Smith seems to have figured out how to get around some of their illegitimacy:

Smith’s filing tries to slice through the Court’s security shield regarding the insurrection. Skillfully quoting from or alluding to language in the Court majority’s own opinion, the filing demolishes the notion that Trump’s activities, culminating on January 6, deserve immunity. Outwardly, Smith’s filing respects the Court’s dubious ruling about the immunity of official presidential acts. Legally, Smith had no choice but to operate within that ruling, a fact that sharply limited how far his filing could go. But even though it never challenges the conservative majority directly, the filing makes a case, incontrovertible in its logic and factual detail, that the core of Trump’s subversion involved no official actions whatsoever. It persuasively argues, with fact after fact, that Trump was the head of an entirely private criminal plot as a candidate to overthrow the election, hatched months before the election itself.

The crucial point to which the filing unfailingly returns is that none of Trump’s actions listed in the revised indictment, even those that the Court cited as “official,” deserves immunity. As Smith makes clear, the Framers of the Constitution deliberately precluded the executive branch from having official involvement in the conduct of presidential elections. The reason was obvious: Any involvement by a president would be an open invitation to corruption. To make the case that any such involvement falls within a president’s official duties would seem, at best, extremely difficult.

It is here that Smith turns the Court’s Trump v. United States ruling to his own advantage.

Only 28 more days until what I think we can comfortably predict will be the XPOTUS's last election—one way or another. But I think we'll be stuck with corruption for a very long time, until people get fed up with it enough to demand and enforce real anti-corruption laws.

End-of-quarter news pile-up

Because I had a busy weekend, I had quite a full inbox this morning. After deleting the 85% of it that came from the Democratic Party and the Harris-Walz campaign (guys, you've already got my vote, FFS), I still had quite a few items of interest:

Finally, astronomers have found a rocky, Earth-sized planet orbiting a dying main-sequence white dwarf star, seemingly having survived the star's expansion during its red-giant phase. This suggests that our planet may last until the end of time itself. Life on Earth probably won't last more than a billion more years, but that's someone else's problem.

Last office day for 2 weeks

The intersection of my vacation next week and my group's usual work-from-home schedule means I won't come back to my office for two weeks. Other than saving a few bucks on Metra this month, I'm also getting just a bit more time with Cassie before I leave her for a week.

I've also just finished an invasive refactoring of our product's unit tests, so while those are running I either stare out my window or read all these things:

Finally, the New York Times ran a story in its Travel section Tuesday claiming Marseille has some of the best pizza in Europe. I will research this assertion and report back on the 24th.

Debate reactions

Oh, my, the morning newspapers were not kind to the geriatric demented convicted-felon XPOTUS.

Frank Bruni: "Trump made a raving, rambling fool of himself on Tuesday night, and while Harris by no means did everything right, she had the good sense to alternately call him out on that and simply watch him unravel. She had the discipline to shake her head sadly and smile dismissively when he made laughably false accusations against her. She had the skill — here, on full display, was the prosecutor in her — to needle him into maximal seething."

Josh Marshall: "[W]hat Harris had to do in this debate was show she could handle Donald Trump, even dominate him if possible and do so in a way that was steady and forceful. She did that. And that puts her on a path toward sealing the deal with that small fraction of voters who will determine the outcome of the election. Not a done deal but she took the critical first step. She also managed a bonus, which wasn’t absolutely necessary, which was to set Trump off, rambling, incoherent and angry. He was practically yelling by the end of the debate. She baited him into acting out the role of her foil."

Michelle Norris: "The vice president clearly got under Trump’s skin when she suggested that people were leaving his rallies early out of boredom. We knew ahead of this that she knows how to throw a punch. She confirmed this when she turned to him and calmly said, “Donald Trump was fired by 81 million people. ... Clearly he is having a very difficult time processing that.” One last thing, in their closing arguments, Harris aimed hers at the audience. Donald Trump gave up the moment by going on the attack one last time. A missed opportunity for him."

Michael Tomasky: "Kamala Harris was really good Tuesday night—really, really good. She accomplished everything she needed to accomplish. She sliced and diced him. She dangled bait, and he leapt at the hook. But as good as she was, Trump was more bad than Harris was good. Or maybe he was bad because she was good: That is to say, she wrong-footed him time after time after time in ways that President Joe Biden did not, throwing him off his game, staring him down, speaking directly to him, challenging him, saying “you” and pointing right at him. She spanked him. Said Stephanie Ruhle, in a judgment Trump would consider crushing: “She beat him at the business of television.” "

The Guardian's David Smith: "In the old days candidates might have riposted by saying Nelson Mandela or some other moral paragon was on their side. Trump reached out for the Hungarian autocrat Viktor Orbán. “He said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president.” But Harris had more ammunition: “It is well known that he admires dictators, wants to be a dictator on day one according to himself ... And it is absolutely well known that these dictators and autocrats are rooting for you to be president again because they’re so clear, they can manipulate you with flattery and favours.” A dictator like Putin, she added, “would eat you for lunch”."

The Economist: "Ms Harris baited hook after hook for Mr Trump over the course of their 90-minute debate and each time he lunged for it. Whether she was invoking his old business school, Wharton, in attacking his economic plans, or implying his business success was due to a gigantic inheritance, or claiming world leaders did not respect him, Ms Harris repeatedly provoked Mr Trump to defend his self-image and his own record in office, rather than mount a sustained attack on her. Call it catch-and-decrease: she made the former president look small and angry and out of his depth. For most of the debate, she made herself appear the challenger, while he became the beleaguered incumbent with a record to defend. ... Ms Harris surely did not convert any supporters of Mr Trump—who could?—but she may have assured some of the few independent-minded voters left that she is up to the job."

John Scalzi: "[L]ast night, Donald Trump was at the best any of us will ever see him again. This was the one place and time where he was meant to be prepared, coherent and presidential, where he was not surrounded by handlers, coddlers and sycophants. This was meant to be the one place and time where he was meant to keep his id and his ego in check, put voters and Americans first, and make a case for a second shot at the presidency. This was the one place and time where his worst and most self-indulgent impulses were supposed to be reined in. This was Trump on his best and most decent behavior, or at the very least, the best and most behavior he is capable of. We see how that went."

Half an hour after the debate ended, singer Taylor Swift made an Instagram post that has 8.8 million likes so far: "I will be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz in the 2024 Presidential Election. ... With love and hope, Taylor Swift, Childless Cat Lady"

And, of course, Alexandra Petri deserves a link.

Fifty-five days left.

Debate live-blogging

Well, here we go: the only real debate between the candidates for President of the United States during this election cycle. We have 8 weeks to go until November 5th. Both candidates are, for reasons passing understanding, neck and neck in the polls. (Don't read the polls!) Just remember what President George HW Bush said during the 1988 campaign: "It's no exaggeration to say the undecideds could go one way or the other."

I'll update this post throughout the event. I'm watching the PBS broadcast on YouTube, if it matters.

All times are local to the event site, Eastern Daylight Time:

21:03: "We're looking forward to a spirited...debate."

21:04: "Are we better off than four years ago?" You mean, during the darkest time of the pandemic?

(I'm adjusting my monitor, because those two people can't possibly have the same skin color. One of them might be wearing way too much makeup.)

21:05: Harris labels the 20% tariffs a "sales tax," which it is.

21:05: The XPOTUS really doesn't understand how tariffs work. Tariffs are paid by the country imposing them.

21:07: "Inflation like no one has ever seen before." Harris is laughing at him. Then "Jobs are being taken from African-Americans" and she rolls her eyes, which I almost missed because I was rolling mine.

21:08: "What we have done is clean up [the XPOTUS's] mess. ... You're going to hear from the same old tired playbook."

21:10: Maybe appealing to the authorities of the Wharton School and Morgan Stanley might not be her best appeal to the voters. But then again, he doesn't actually know the name of the school where he got his MBA.

21:11: WTF is "run, spot, run?"

21:12: He just does not get what tariffs do. It's sad, really.

21:13: OK, he's starting to yell now. (DUDE, HE'S NOT THE PRESIDENT.)

21:14: Harris is controlling this debate. He's completely on defense. She's openly laughing at him now.

21:16: Hey, XPOTUS, what about your complete flip-flop on abortion? "They have abortion in the 9th month! The baby will be born and we'll execute the baby!" Whaaaaa? "Execution after birth is OK!" What in the name of hell...?

21:19: "There is no state in the country where it is legal to kill a baby after it's born. VP Harris?" Linsey Davis isn't having his bullshit either.

21:21: Why is he harping on the lie that everyone wanted abortion back in the states?

21:23: "I didn't discuss it with JD. ... She'll never be able to get [the abortion law]. So it doesn't matter." And back to the lie about going back to the states.

21:25: "What you are putting her through is unconscionable." True. "I have been a leader on IVF!" False.

21:28: "The people of this country need a leader. ... Attend one of his rallies. He'll talk about Hannibal Lecter, about windmills. People leave out of exhaustion and boredom."

21:29: Oh, marvelous, he took the bait on the rallies.

21:30: "They're eating the dogs, eating the cats, eating the pets!" Whaaaaa...?

21:31: "This is one of the reasons why I have the endorsement of 200 Republicans. ... When we listen to this kind of rhetoric, when the issues are not being addressed, the people deserve better."

21:34: How would you deport 11 million undocumented immigrants? "They allowed criminals! Terrorists! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!"

21:36: According to the FBI, the "murder rate fell by 26.4%, reported rapes decreased by 25.7%, robberies fell by 17.8%, aggravated assault fell by 12.5%, and the overall violent crime rate went down by 15.2%" in the first 3 months of 2024.

21:37: "They're the ones that made them go after them! Joe Biden was found guilty on the documents case! My hand-picked judge, that I appointed after I lost the election, threw my case out!"

21:39: NYT Pitchbot: "Harris seems a little overprepared for this debate."

21:42: "A true leader understands the value of building people up, not beating people down." "My father only gave me a small fraction of that $400 million..." Wow, he's chasing every dog treat she throws at him. "I'm talking now. Does that sound familiar?" And there go the suburban women.

Wow, does this old man need a nap:

21:45: A long-time Daily Parker reader texts, "He's making faces like an orangutan." And the entire island of Borneo lodges a complaint.

21:47: My entire Facebook feed is about people eating their pets.

21:48: "I was in the capitol, bub. Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining." And let's not forget Charlottesville, and "fine people on both side." "We're not going back. It's time to turn the page."

21:50: Using Laura Inghram and Sean Hannity to say something is debunked? They build the bunks. They are bunkies. But whatever.

21:51: Old man is getting angrier. It's at this point where the bouncer comes over and says, "OK, Donnie, keep it down or we're going to have to go outside for a minute."

21:52: "I got more votes than any sitting president!" Yes, but your opponents got more votes both times.

21:53: Now he's shouting at the moderators. The bouncer looks at the bar manager and shrugs, but moves closer.

21:54: "World leaders are laughing at [the XPOTUS]. ... It leads one to believe [you] do not have the temperament, and the ability not to be confused." And he responds with Victor Orbán's endorsement.

21:55: "I ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline!" Uh, no, Ukrainian Special Forces did. Unless...was he in the Ukrainian Special Forces?

21:59: Cassie has a comment about the debate:

22:02: Apparently, I don't get half of what he's saying because I don't read 4Chan.

22:09: OK, we're back, with a drink, because oh my god. "It's worse than the numbers you're getting and they're fake numbers." Whaaa...?

22:10: He still doesn't understand how NATO funding works. It's always transactional, and always someone else pays, and always it's not his fault.

22:11: Did he just admit to a violation of the Logan Act by meeting with Putin? And wow, his jaw is working hard. 

22:12: "Tell the 800,000 Polish Americans right here in Pennsylvania how you would give up to the dictator who would eat you for lunch."

22:14: "Putin would have been sitting in Moscow, and he wouldn't have lost 300,000 men. ... And maybe he'll use [nuclear weapons]." WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK. WHAT. THE. FUCKING. FUCK. But he didn't say whether he wants Ukraine to win.

22:17: "I agreed with President Biden's decision to pull out of Afghanistan. ... The first time this century no American soldier is on combat duty anywhere in the world."

22:19: "And this...[meaningful pause]...former president invited [the Taliban] to Camp David." Wow.

22:22: "Let's remember he was investigated for not renting to Black families. ... The Central Park Five full-page ad. ... Birther lies about the first Black president. The American people want better than this." And he defended his choice to slander the Central Park Five.

22:24: I'm just going to leave this Tweet from Betty Bowers right...here.

22:29: "So, just a yes or no, you still do not have a plan?" Oh, Linsey, you are wonderful.

22:32: "Access to health care should be a right, and not just a privilege for those who can afford it."

22:34: I have to say, as someone who lived through the 1980s and 1990s, there's some frission hearing that an American presidential candidate has the endorsement of Sinn Féin. Sorry, Sean Fain. See what I mean? (Gerry Adams could not be reached for comment.)

22:36: What is the old man yelling about now? Joe Biden getting paid by the mayor of Moscow's wife? OK, viejo, time to pay your tab and go home.

22:41: "Two visions ... the future, and the past ... and we're not going back. ... Having a plan. Understanding the aspirations, the hosts, the dreams ... Giving hardworking folks a break and bringing down the cost of living ... Sustaining American's standing in the world ... Protect our most fundamental rights and freedoms ... "

21:43: "They've had 3½ years ... why hasn't she done it? She should leave right now ... You believe in things like 'we're not going to frack' ... Germany tried that and within one year they were back to building normal energy plants ... We're a failing nation ... serious decline ... all over the world they're laughing at us ... we're not a leader ... we don't have any idea what's going on ... Because of nuclear weapons, the power of weaponry ... allowing millions of people to come into our country ... the worst president." Literally nothing at all about what he would do.

Well, the XPOTUS's campaign did not get Uncle Fluffy today, did they?

And will someone let that poor deranged old man have a nap?

Thanks for wasting my time, ADT

I spent 56 minutes trying to get ADT to change a single setting at my house, and it turned out, they changed the wrong setting. I will try again Friday, when I have time.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world:

Finally, Slow Horses season 4 came out today, so at some point this evening I'll visit Slough House and get a dose of Jackson Lamb's sarcasm.

Last work day of the summer

A few weeks ago I planned a PTO day to take a 25 km walk tomorrow along the North Branch Trail with pizza at the end. (I'll do my annual marathon walk in October.) Sadly, the weather forecast bodes against it, with scattered thunderstorms and dewpoints over 22°C. But, since I've already got tomorrow off, and I have a solid PTO bank right now, I'll still take the day away from the office. And autumn begins Sunday.

Good thing, too, because the articles piled up this morning, and I haven't had time to finish yesterday's:

Finally, Washington Post reporter Christine Mi spent 80 hours crossing the US on Amtrak this summer. I am envious. Also sad, because the equivalent trip in Europe would have taken less than half the time on newer rolling stock, and not burned a quarter of the Diesel.