August 24

I have already been out on the patio watering plants. They didn't need much. As warm as it has been the plants haven't needed much water because it is so humid. The thermometer on the fence is already reading almost 80F. I cut away some of the dead branches on the petunias in the tower. They are not doing as well as the plant in the shadier location. I think I will put something else in that three-level planter next year.

I didn't watch the GOP hopefuls "debate" last night. We figured the news would gives the high/low lights. Low light #1) the abortion question. I remember the euphoria of the RepTHUGlicans when the not-so-Supreme Court ruled and basically erased Roe v Wade. They thought returning the question to the states and the electorate. Not so much now. Tim Scott insisted that such a moral question couldn't be left in a way that allows blue states (like California or Illinois) to provide abortion "on demand" (they don't). My response: you want the freedom to shove your "morality" down my throat without any ability to exercise MY moral choice. Freedom for thee and thine adherents; not for me and any one like me. Screw you Tim Scott. Problematic High Light #1) Nikki Haley calling out her fellow RepTHUGlicans for the spending/deficit problem. That was nice but to simply follow up by saying they SIMPLY had to stop spending and borrowing. But, Nikki, what are you wanting to cut? What is on your chopping block? That is why I say "problematic" high light.

I'll add to that as I see something I think is worth writing about. Brian Rosenwald sums up the whole mess in his post: The GOP Debate That Didn't Matter.

David Dayen has some good remarks on the course industrial "development" in the U.S. over the last 40+ years. He writes about FoxConn in Wisconsin but we saw similar debacles in Indiana and Illinois. The cities, counties, and states absorbed the losses while the companies waltzed away with a lot of money. I wonder if Nikki Haley would cut out such "corporate welfare."

I saw something about this yesterday but didn't seen the details. Ramaswamy thinks resetting the voting age to 25 with 18 year olds would be able to vote if they were in the military (after 6 months), were first responders or passed the same citizenship test immigrants must pass. He thinks a "national service" requirement for those between 18 and 25 would rekindle a sense of civic duty. Nice idea but it ignores history. Such civic virtue was imposed on the lower classes but the upper classes had myriad ways to circumvent the service demanded. During the Civil War those with money could hire a replacement to serve in their place or in place of their sons. During our misadventures in Viet Nam the children of the upper crust  could get married and father a child (Dick Cheney), hire a doctor to give some kind of diagnosis that would exempt their patient (The Former Guy), or stay in college for as long as they and their parents could afford. If you want to revive civic virtue, start at the top.

But reviving civic virtue isn't the main reason to cancel voting rights for young adults. The RepTHUGlicans have had a hard time attracting those voters so eliminating a portion from the electorate sounds good. Just as you gerrymander large parts of the black, brown, and poor (also big parts the Democrat base) into impotence. If you can't get them to join you, erase them.