Biden’s Cabinet and Cabinet-level nominations and appointments are complete. He didn’t ask me, but I think overall he gets a ‘B+.’ An ‘A’ for diversity (especially if you include Vice President Kamala Harris!), and definitely an ‘A+’ in categories we should be able to take for granted, like honesty, intelligence, experience, commitment to the citizens and not the president, and, actually understanding the mission of the agency or position. (It is unbelievable that has to be pointed out, isn’t it?)

Were it up to me, I’d name a cabinet full of people from the Sanders-Warren-Brown-Merkley wing of the party.  But I never expected him to name a whole team of progressives, so I tempered my expectations, and am trying to be realistic in my review.

Least favorite picks

I am most troubled by him putting a general in charge of the Pentagon (George Austin), which I think is a terrible idea, and also puts Democratic senators who opposed Trump’s appointment of a general there in an awkward position. I also dislike the nomination of Tom Vilsack at Agriculture. He is competent and experienced, but is not what is needed right now. A more dynamic appointment, such as Congresswoman Marcia Fudge would have been an excellent choice. She has served on the House Agriculture Committee and would give much needed attention to the often-overlooked nutrition-related responsibilities of the department. She also is Black, which Black farmers had been understandably hoping for.  Instead, Biden pigeon-holed Fudge into HUD, where she has little relevant experience.

Good choices that could have been better

I was rooting for Julie Su, California’s Secretary of Labor, for the Labor Department because the United Farm Workers supported her, and it would be nice to see more prominent Asian Americans, who will be under-represented in the Biden Administration. Biden appointed Boston Mayor Martin Walsh instead.  Walsh does have a strong labor background and was supported by the AFL-CIO, so at least he will be strongly pro-labor, which is so much needed after four years of Trump’s anti-labor goons who headed that department.

It is great to see a classroom teacher, Connecticut commissioner of Education Miguel Cardona, nominated to lead the Department of Education. I would have preferred a Black person like former Massachusetts Governor Patrick Duval as Attorney General at the Justice Department, although Judge Merrick Garland will be excellent, too. “Mayor Pete” Buttigieg at Transportation is sort of a weird choice, but I guess Biden thinks he will be a good salesperson for his infrastructure plan. I thought Buttigieg would have been better for Veterans Affairs, where Biden appointed non-veteran Denis McDonough.

Foreign policy and security: Solid

Biden’s foreign policy and security team at the State Department, United Nations, Homeland Security, and intelligence and trade agencies all seem well-qualified and extremely knowledgeable and are a diverse demographic group— all in contrast to the destructive group that reigned under Trump. Most importantly, they are all committed to Biden’s determination to bring the United States back into the world community. It is critical for the US to once again be a leader in peace treaties, trade agreements, and international alliances, instead of the globe-wrecking embarrassment we have been for the past four years.

Financial team: On the watch list

The Biden financial team is OK—some Wall Streeters but apparently they are reform types, and Janet Yellen at Treasury and Jared Bernstein on the Council of Economic Advisors are particularly good. But that’s the group I am most wary of. I hope that Biden does not follow Obama’s pattern of being too friendly to Wall Street and corporate interests, and I am depending on Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and others in Congress to keep him on the right path.

The best

I saved the best nominations for last: environment and health. The inauguration will bring with it a lifesaving, critical breath of fresh air. What a change! A president who places supreme importance on science, and medicine, and the environment. This may be Biden’s most important legacy.

Biden’s environment and climate team is excellent.  John Kerry, Jennifer Granholm, Michael Regan, Gina McCarthy, and Brenda Mallory are all strong and proven environmentalists and will make fighting climate change and reversing the disastrous war on the environment of the past four years the highest priority. Especially notable is Rep. Deb Haaland leading the Interior Department—which is exciting and groundbreaking. As the first Native American to be Interior Secretary, she will restore respect for our national parks and wilderness areas, and certainly will make the Bureau of Indian Affairs an honorable and respected agency that will earn the trust of American Indians.

I don’t expect his healthcare team to push for single-payer or Medicare for All but I hope they will implement major improvements. Xavier Becerra, a former Congressman and currently the California Attorney General, seems like a good choice at Health and Human Services. He has worked on healthcare issues and will also be the first Latino to direct the department.

The most exciting appointees

Going hand in hand with environment and health care are science and medicine, and this is perhaps the best and most exciting area of Biden’s nominations.  It is clear we will have an administration that actually believes in science!  Biden announced he is making his science advisor, Eric Lander, a member of his Cabinet.  The group he has appointed to lead the critical medical team that will take on Covid-19 are all respected doctors with literally decades of experience fighting epidemics. Doctors Anthony Fauci, David Kessler, Vivek Murthy, Marcella Nunez-Smith, and Rochelle Walensky, will all ensure that our government finally has a plan to stop and reverse the spread. Along with Coronavirus Response Coordinator Jeff Zients and Chief of Staff Ron Klain, who both have experience on the administrative side of health crises, Biden has a team that will address the pandemic for the public health emergency that it is. Hundreds of thousands of lives will be saved, quite literally.

And at the DNC..

Not in the realm of government, but related to Biden appointments, is his pick to head the Democratic National Committee. I think Jaime Harrison is an excellent choice. Stacy Abrams would have been great, too, but I am sure she will be doing her desperately needed thing wherever she is!

The post The Incoming Biden Team: A Review appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The “Better Together” plan for the re-consolidation of St. Louis City and St. Louis County is being released, and the initiative drive is about to begin. These are my thoughts about it. (There are ten points, but they are not inscribed on two tablets.)

1.  I definitely support some kind of merger or consolidation of St. Louis City and County. I don’t need to be convinced that something must be done. I understand that many people like their local governments and are worried about losing that connection, but at the minimum, the city and county must somehow be brought together.
2.  I am open to ideas on the best way to do this— form of government(s), taxation and financing, timetable, etc.— I will consider all options. I don’t have any preconceived notions.
3.  I am determined to ignore County residents saying they don’t want any part of the city and its crime, bad schools, etc. I will also look beyond City residents worried that this is all just a power grab. And I am happy to pay no attention to government officials who are just protecting their own fiefdoms. (I do understand that many in the black community are concerned that any kind of consolidation will weaken their political clout, but I don’t think that is automatically true.
4. I am not going to be swayed by “We’re stuck in 1904 (or 1876) and we must move forward” kind of slick PR slogans. I know we must do something. What is the best way to do it?
5.   I am not going to be swayed by arguments along the lines of “we have to do something now and this is the proposal that’s out there so it is this or nothing.” We are talking about taking steps that will have a huge impact on the region for the next century or two. As frustrating as the current situation is, I’m not going to vote for a bad plan just for the sake of doing something. I’d rather wait and do it right.
6.  I will not support anything that opens the door to privatization of government services.
7.  I will not support any plans, proposals, or campaigns that in any way limit full public disclosure of discussions, information, decisions, etc.
8.  I am not convinced that this is something the whole state must vote on—at least not before city and county residents come to an agreement.
9.   Nothing against the five people who developed the plan, but there is already one strike against this because there was no public discussion of the plan before it was released and presented to the public. (I know they had hearings and public sessions, but the plan was developed behind closed doors.) The Better Together campaign has gotten off on the wrong foot.
10.   The fact that Rex Sinquefield is investing massive amounts of money in this means the proposal already has two strikes. Sin-Q has proven that he does not care about the well-being of our region’s residents. He only cares about protecting his own wealth and forcing his libertarian philosophy on everyone. It is very tempting to oppose the plan on this basis alone. His involvement puts a very negative cover over this whole thing.

So— the Better Together plan has two strikes against it. It has a lot of work to do to not strike out. And in the mean time, I am open to competing ideas.

What do you think?

The post Proposed St. Louis City – County merger: Better together? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The post On-line comments: Where racism reigns appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I have been following several different threads on Facebook and other online places about the Mueller investigation. I am not surprised that there are many people defending Trump and his people, or that they try to undermine Mueller or make light or deny that there was anything illegal.

But what I am stunned at is that I have not read a single comment by any of these folks, presumably conservatives and/or Republicans, who will admit there was anything wrong with the acts that brought this up in the first place.

Even if there was no collusion during the election campaign, it is clear that Trump’s team, before he was president but during the transition period, bargained with Russia to undermine official US policy, one that was strongly supported by both parties, to punish Russia for hacking in the USA.

Apparently, this is all fine with these pro-Americans who up until a year ago thought Putin and Russia were evil.

This post from Lawfare summarizes it:

“The most important revelation here is that contrary to Cobb’s statement Friday morning, Flynn is saying clearly that he was not a rogue actor but was operating at the behest of the presidential transition team. He states that a “very senior member of the Presidential Transition Team,” a “senior official of the Presidential Transition Team” and “senior members of the Presidential Transition Team” were involved in directing his actions. The stipulated facts also make clear that Flynn reported back to the transition on his conversations with Kislyak.

“Second, take a moment to remember the context in which Flynn’s underlying conduct took place: He and apparently the Trump transition team were working to undermine U.S. foreign policy goals endorsed by both parties. In December 2016, President Obama authorized sanctions against Russia in response to cyber-enabled election interference. He did so with broad bipartisan support to deter such activity in the future against the U.S. and its allies. The shared bipartisan—even nonpartisan—goal was to protect foundational elements of democracy and legitimacy. To the extent that there was mainstream criticism of the action, it was for being too weak, not for being too aggressive with respect to Russia.”

The post Why aren’t Republicans outraged by Flynn’s pro-Russia activities? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I know people who have blasted Obamacare from the beginning, and refused to even acknowledge that there is anything good about it.

When I would mention all the positive things, like a ban on exclusion for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime limits, no more being kicked off your plan because you get sick, children staying on the plan until 26, an expansion of Medicaid, a prohibition on charging women more than men, free preventive healthcare, and millions of people getting insurance for the first time with the uninsured rate dropping to the lowest ever, they would brush off the importance of those and complain about increased deductibles and rising costs– which in most (not all) cases have been less than before Obamacare went in to effect.

To those of you who kept complaining about wanting the “free market” to rule, you are getting your wish. Here’s the rundown, via the Washington Post:  “Obamacare is probably toast. And a lot of poor, white Trump voters will get hurt by it.”

..the likely end result (again, at best) is that a lot of the 20 million people who would lose coverage due to repeal will remain without coverage, and protections for those with bad medical conditions will be eroded.

And if you are lucky enough to have insurance through work or can afford it on your own, enjoy watching others lose theirs. If you have any decency, I assume you will strongly support increasing taxes to pay for the rising cost of health care for poor and working class people.

The post Obamacare is probably toast: Trump voters will get hurt appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of many great ironies of Trump is that after the Republicans spent eight years blasting Obama for disgracing the presidency and criticizing him and his family for being unfit for the White House, they put into office a man and family whose personal lives have been filed with scandal and are a total embarrassment.

Matt Taibbi, who has been highly critical of many of Obama’s policies, comes to this conclusion in an article entitled, “President Obama’s Last Stand” in Rolling Stone:

There are a lot of people these days wondering if the election of the race-baiting Donald Trump will end up staining or outright repudiating the legacy of Barack Obama. I think it will be the other way around. Trump’s presidency is almost sure to throw the best qualities of this unique and powerful historical figure into relief. . .

It’s Obama who has been the great model for young men of his generation. And ten years from now, when the millions of young people who grew up during his presidency start to enter the workforce and become leaders and parents, we’ll see more clearly what he meant to this country. . .

Donald Trump may have won the White House, but he will never be a man like his predecessor, whose personal example will now only shine more brightly with the passage of time. At a time when a lot of Americans feel like they have little to be proud of, we should think about our outgoing president, whose humanity and greatness are probably only just now coming into true focus.

The post Taibbi: Obama’s legacy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It is amazing to see Trump voters complaining about peaceful protests. How many of them were silent when Trump spewed his hatred, and encouraged his followers to beat up people who were peacefully protesting at his rallies? How many of them spoke out when Trump silently watched his supporters kick the wheelchair of a young boy? Did any of them ask Trump to stop his racism, or misogyny, or xenophobia, or anti-Semitism, or his blatant hatred of Mexicans and Muslims? Did any of them get angry watching Trump smile as his supporters yelled “Lock her up” and he promised to have Clinton prosecuted?

The post The hypocrisy of protesting about peaceful protests appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Republican primary commercials in Missouri are incredible.

Apparently one candidate supports bringing Islamic terrorists to Missouri, because he supported a plan by the mayor of St. Louis (Democrat! Black people live there!) to welcome immigrants from Syria.That candidate, however, clearly knows how to shoot an AK-47.

Another candidate brags about how proud he is that he locked up a child murderer, while his opponent had the nerve to work for a law firm that defended the right of a Muslim to practice his religion in prison.

All of them are TOO LIBERAL FOR MISSOURI!!!!!

Meanwhile, any discussion of important issues in our state? Naaaaah.

The post Missouri primary ads: All guns, Islamophobia, no issues appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What happened at the Nevada Democratic Convention is awful and inexcusable, and Sanders needs to apologize; demand that his supporters stop such terrible, hateful, stupid, counterproductive behavior; and then carry on campaigning and talking about issues until the convention, by the end of which he should strongly endorse Clinton.

All that being said, a lot of what Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, Koz, and Paul Krugman are saying is overwrought, and I don’t pay much mind to them anyway, because they made it clear from the start they don’t like Sanders. All of them have been beating up on him for months.

I am going to engage in some you-tooism here. Not on the behavior of some of his supporters, which is despicable, but on “feeling sorry” [as Krugman said about some Sanders supporters]—for Clinton supporters. I am truly shocked and disappointed by people who call themselves strong left-wing liberals who have been reduced to defending Clinton’s positions and actions on a wide range of things on which they would never have defended anyone else.

I appreciate Clinton supporters who say, “I agree with Sanders on the issues but I don’t think he can win.” I understand that. But I have seen way too many Clinton supporters who defend her blatant changing of positions depending on who she is talking to (as we just saw last week with coal miners), her being buddies with people like Kissinger and Blankfein, her multi-million dollar contributions and speaking fees from Wall Street interests, her hawkishness on foreign policy, her actions in Honduras, her refusal to support Elizabeth Warren on major issues like breaking up banks and reinstating Glass-Stegall, her opposition to an immediate moratorium on fracking, her turning back decades of Democratic support for single-payer health care by saying “it will never, ever happen” and chastising people who support it, and several other items.

For those of us who care about issues, this has all been a very sorry sight. We will vote for Clinton in November because the alternative is too awful to contemplate. But don’t sugar-coat her poor position on issues.

None of which is to excuse Sanders for not forcefully condemning the actions of his supporters and demanding that those behaviors stop. It is extremely maddening and disappointing that he has not done that.

I do want to add one addendum here, lest I be accused of being a fraud and hypocrite this fall: I did not mean to imply that I will vote for Clinton only because Trump is worse. In spite of my many and major policy differences with her, I also admire her in some ways. I think she has good experience, I like her strength on other issues including guns and reproductive rights, and I admire her for standing up to all the phony scandals and other crap that the Republicans have thrown her way. And I am excited to vote for the first woman president!

Much like I feel about Obama– I strongly disagree with him on some issues and on some things he has done, but overall I greatly admire him and think he has been an excellent president. I am optimistic that Clinton can be the same.

And I also recognize that this mainly a fight between liberals, albeit moderate liberals and left liberals. It’s not like we’re all conservatives!

The post Sanders, Clinton, Nevada and squabbling liberals appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I rarely comment on matters of faith, especially Christianity. I don’t consider myself in any way qualified to comment on the theology of other faiths, and usually avoid even hitting “like” on Facebook when the topic comes up, even if I personally agree.

But this commentary on Jimmy Carter, posted on the Patheos website (not sure of the author) and shared on Facebook by friend Patrick Harvey, really hit home. It has always been interesting to me that Carter, in so many ways the most openly religious of our presidents, drives conservative Christians crazy. (Can you name another politician who so knowledgeably quotes the Bible and has actually taught it almost every Sunday, in an actual church, for decades?):

“I’ve seen too many over too many years who proclaim their forgiven state by faith, but who in both their personal and political lives do little more than put their boots on the necks of those who have nothing while licking the boots of those with everything. It is at best unseemly, and at worse a condemnation of the Christian religion.

“Jimmy’s religion is different. His faith was something one can respect, a faith that demands everything, a transformation of one’s life, not through a narrow adherence to some medieval idea of moral rectitude, mostly involving sex, but rather a transformation into something new and generous, and which has to be lived in to.
“And that, whatever else may be said, Jimmy Carter has done.

“His life and his religion have been one thing, and that one thing has been a witness to the possibility we can be something better seeing ourselves as united in something good.

“The amazing grace that made Jimmy Carter…”

The post Jimmy Carter: Driving conservative Christians crazy appeared first on Occasional Planet.