Datasets:
Recag
/
C4_7

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
1
text
stringlengths
12
61.1k
"For instance," the release continued, "Federations participating with more than one delegate in the Congress, must now include at least one representative of each gender.
"Regarding future elections of the three vice presidents there must be at least one candidate of each gender elected"
International Gymnastics Federation FIG Congress Baku parkour Gymnastics Ethics Foundation.
Bengaluru FC have not been themselves post the winter break. The mistakes are creeping in their matches and piquing the focus on their on-pitch struggles. The league-toppers will be keen to put the recent results behind them when they play hosts Delhi Dynamos in the Hero Indian Super League at the Jawaharlal Nehru stadium on Sunday.
Bengaluru need a win to become the first team to qualify for the play-offs. With 31 points from 15 matches, they are perched on the top of the table. However, it is their form at the business end of the tournament, which is becoming an increasing cause of worry. The Blues have just one win from four matches and are coming off a 1-2 reverse against arch-rivals Chennaiyin FC, where their frailties in midfield and defence were left exposed.
Bengaluru are also hampered by poor starts and in their last two games were found trailing at the half time. Coach Carles Cuadrat has been testing the bench strength in the last four games. He is expected to stick to the rotation against the Dynamos too, in a bid to keep his key players fresh for the remaining matches against FC Goa and Jamshedpur FC.
"Of course, there are always problems on the pitch. You have to rotate the players. Our position on the table gives us the privilege to make some changes and afford some mistakes. We are lucky in that regard," said Cuadrat.
The last time these teams met in Bengaluru, Josep Gombau's side ended up on the losing side. Still, the last four matches (2 wins, 2 draws) have been good for Dynamos, who have already been knocked out of the play-off race. With an improved defence, they will be eager to finish their home season on a high. For them, Lallianzuala Chhangte, who is back after a short stint with Norwegian outfit Viking FK, is expected to feature on Sunday.
"They (Bengaluru) are on top of the table and have very good quality players. It will be a tough game for us like every single team in the ISL which plays against Bengaluru. I think we are doing quite well in the last four games. I think that the team is performing very well and we want to put on a good show since it is our last home game," said Gombau.
This is what an alternative agreement might look like.
British Prime Minister Theresa May just suffered the most crushing defeat in modern United Kingdom political history when Parliament voted down the proposed Withdrawal Agreement under which Britain would exit the European Union. Although May survived a subsequent no-confidence vote proposed by Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labour Party, the UK has been plunged once again into political chaos. Predictions are a fool’s game in this super-charged moment, but I suspect that some form of leave agreement looking not too different than May’s seemingly-dead proposal is still the most likely outcome for Britain.
Here’s why. While the original deal is no one’s first choice, it is perhaps the only available option that is not completely toxic to one or another of the key political groups. The alternatives are to leave with no deal; remain in the EU; or to come up with another deal. Yet another deal must be good enough to be accepted by all the major players in the UK and then by all twenty-seven member nations of the EU. None of the alternatives seem remotely likely.
By default, Britain will leave the EU without a deal on March 29. But this would almost certainly lead to economic and social chaos, with disruptions to trade, food distribution, healthcare, and power supplies. A significant number of Brexit supporters, lead by the European Reform Group faction of Tories, would accept such disruptions, either dismissing the predictions as scaremongering or considering them a price worth paying for restored sovereignty. But No-Deal is anathema to business leaders and, more importantly, a large majority of Members of Parliament (MPs), who are trying to find ways for Parliament to block it.
There are only three ways Parliament can prevent a No Deal exit. One would be to remain in the EU, legally possible by revoking Article 50. But the European Court of Justice has ruled that such a revocation must be permanent, meaning Britain must agree to remain in the EU forever, an outcome completely unacceptable to May, most Conservative and many Labour MPs, and of course the majority of the country who voted Leave. The second option would be to extend the March 29 deadline, which the EU has signaled it would be willing to grant only for a specific purpose such as to hold a second referendum or a general election. Embarking on either of these routes would need parliamentary approval, which is very unlikely given the hostility of the executive and the majority party. Moreover, neither is likely to produce a clearer or more generally acceptable outcome.
An election would at best produce a new prime minister who would be in the exact same dilemma as May is now. What cunning new plan would she or he have? Corbyn promises he could get a better deal but says nothing about how. A second referendum would be extraordinarily divisive and difficult to pull off. Even the choice of questions would be hostage to deadlock. And it wouldn’t necessarily result in a different outcome anyway: the numbers of leavers and remainers have not changed much since the referendum. Also, I sense that there is little enthusiasm for a second referendum outside the Westminster bubble: many people seem completely sick of the whole process, angered that other problems such as NHS funding or the housing crisis have been left unattended for too long. For instance, my father, an avid follower of politics, just declared his house a Brexit-Free Zone.
Which means that the only real way to stop a no-deal Brexit is to agree to another deal more acceptable to all parties. What would such an agreement look like? First, it would have to guarantee that there would be no “hard” customs border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, which all sides fear could lead to a breakdown in the fragile peace won by the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Without such assurances, the EU would never sign on. Second, it must allow the UK to control immigration, without which the Conservative Party would never sign on. In practice, this means the deal would have to keep the UK out of the EU's Single Market, which mandates freedom of movement across borders.
May has decided to push ahead and will be consulting with all parties and the EU. A new deal, probably including changes to the language of the Northern Irish "backstop" agreement, is arguably the best possible deal which Britain and the EU could agree to which comes even close to meeting all of the essentials while at the same time delivering relatively smooth trade relations in the short and medium term. There are plenty of alternative plans out there which may make more economic sense (Norway plus, Switzerland, etc.), but none are more politically feasible.
A final factor which makes May’s deal more likely is that despite her recent crushing defeat; May is still the most powerful political player in the UK. Having survived the No Confidence vote in Parliament and a recent Party leadership challenge from the hard-Brexit right, she cannot be forced out of office unless something drastic changes. Other groups can wield effective veto power but none have the resources and support needed to push through a mutually acceptable alternative proposal. Labour is the only party large enough to challenge the Conservatives, but they are themselves deeply divided, led by a pro-Brexit leader who has consistently prioritized becoming prime minister over articulating alternative policies to May’s.
Brexit: Uncivil War caused a stir when it aired last month. The TV movie, soon to air on HBO, tells the story of Leave’s shock victory in the 2016 Referendum from the perspective of Dominic Cummings, campaign director for Vote Leave. Cummings is played by none other than thespian heartthrob Benedict Cumberbatch, better known to TV viewers as Sherlock. Many remainers were furious at the casting selection, which seemed to lend a patina of benign genius to someone they regard as pure a Moriarty. But the coincidence at least reminds us of one of Sherlock Holmes’s best-known aphorisms: once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth, no matter how improbable. Passage of anything like May’s deal certainly looks highly improbable. But it may be the only politically possible option left.
Henry C.W. Laurence is an associate professor of Government at Bowdoin College and is from the United Kingdom. He received a Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University and a BA from Oriel College, Oxford University. His current research is on media and politics in Britain, Japan, and the USA.
Doha: beIN SPORTS, the global sports broadcaster, will show an exclusive documentary titled ‘How Football Changed' this Thursday 28 March at 22:00 Mecca Time (GMT +3) on beIN SPORTS HD 1, which viewers across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) can enjoy exclusively on the leading sports channel.
The documentary will feature former and current legendary players, managers and referees such as Marcel Desailly, Ruud Gullit, Peter Schmeichel, Andy Cole, Tarak Dhiab, Mohamed Abutrika, Gilberto Silva, Nigel de Jong, Paul Clement, Jose Mourinho, Arsene Wenger and Pierluigi Collina all take part and give their opinions on the transformation of players, managers, sports science and referees in the game.
The documentary highlights how football has changed in the past 30 years with discussions on modern day players, managers, sports science and referees.
In the documentary, former Italian referee Pierluigi Collina discusses the benefits of technology in football and how it improved referee performances during the 2018 FIFA World Cup in Russia.
Legends Arsene Wenger and Jose Mourinho also discuss the difficulties of managing modern day players, the importance of a well balanced structure in a football club and how a change in society has affected player's attitude.
Following hugely successful interviews with football legends Arsene Wenger, Jose Mourinho and many other sport figures, beIN SPORTS continues to deliver the best content for its viewers and fans with the very best in the world of sport.
For more information about beIN's sports and entertainment schedule, visit www.bein.net/en/tv-guide.
March 8 (UPI) -- Google recognized International Women's Day 2019 with a new Doodle on its homepage Friday.
The colorful graphic features the word "woman" in various languages.
Clicking on the play button that replaces the second "O" in "Google" activates a slideshow of inspiring sayings from prominent women from around the world, starting with, "Never be limited by other people's limited imaginations," which is attributed to Dr. Mae Jemison, an American astronaut and physician.
The salute also includes the words of Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, Japanese artist Yoko Ono, French novelist George Sand and British-Iraqi architect Zaha Hadid, among others.
"Connecting to the larger theme of 'women empowering women,' the quotes were also designed by a talented group of female guest artists from around the globe," Google said. "The process of choosing the 13 quotes was extremely difficult, but we aimed to include a diverse representation of voices on a day which celebrates the past, present, and future community of diverse women around the world."
The oppressive impact of the myriad charges on the transactions of every owner of a bank account in Nigeria was the subject of discussion in this column in recent weeks. Media reports have also suggested that these charges may contribute trillions of naira in income to banks annually. Indeed, the income from retained stamp duty charges, alone, may have exceeded N6 trillion, if figures bandied by NIPOST and agents are ultimately verified.
The substantial incomes from bank charges, invariably, supplement hundreds of billions of naira income from the regular and extremely profitable business of granting loans to the Central Bank of Nigeria, the states and Federal Government and several businesses and account holders nationwide.
“The above statement, which corroborates views regularly canvassed in this column, was Sanusi’s defence of the CBN’s Monetary Policy Committee’s decision to raise the existing Cash Reserve Ratio of 12 per cent to 50 per cent on all public funds, domiciled in commercial banks, in order to reduce the inflationary threat from aggressive credit expansion by banks.
“Thus, this latest requirement for banks to hold higher cash reserves is really an admission that the existing 12 per cent CRR, unduly, instigated credit expansion and drove higher inflation rates.
“Some critics may however, regard the much higher CRR as inappropriate, since it would also further reduce the already inadequate credit to cash beleaguered businesses.
“This column has consistently drawn attention to the patently reckless strategy of banks lending their so-called surplus funds (excess liquidity) at atrocious interest rates to the same CBN, which ironically, induced the systemic excess cash supply!
“Thankfully, Sanusi may have finally recognised, according to him, that “If you want to discourage such perverse behaviour, part of it is to basically take away some of this money; a reserve requirement is therefore, supposed to make sure that the excess liquidity in the banks’ balance sheet, is evenly distributed”. Nonetheless, if CBN fails in practice, to ensure strict compliance with the new 50 percent CRR policy, systemic surplus cash will persist and expectedly drive higher inflation rates with disastrous consequences for cost of loans, consumer demand and economic growth.
“Nevertheless, Sanusi’s fear that even the higher CRR may not adequately cage inflation is probably embedded in his warning that ‘if spending continues and we are concerned about the liquidity conditions, we foresee in the nearest future, continued increase in the CRR across board….’ Consequently, if surplus cash deposits persist, despite the new measure, the CBN would further increase its already oppressive CRR beyond 50 per cent for both public and private sector deposits; predictably, this may drive interest rates beyond 30 per cent!
“This writer has consistently decried the foolhardiness of government’s borrowing back its own cash deposits with banks at extortionist interest rates and consequently advised instead that it would be more businesswise for ministries, departments and agencies to domicile their monthly naira allocations, internally with CBN. Regrettably our external debt strategy also follows the same self-oppressive model of borrowing what one has in undeniable excess! (see www.lesleba.com) for Will you borrow back your own money and pay 17 per cent Interest? …Ask CBN! – 27/12/2004 and MPR hike: Failure of CBN’s monetary framework, 01/08/2011).
“All the same, Sanusi’s new directive of 50 per cent CRR for government deposits, is clearly, an uneasy half way measure, and critics may wonder why the CBN Governor cannot, in his characteristic style, take the bull by the horns, and demand that ALL government funds should be banked with CBN.
“Invariably, total domiciliation of government revenue in the CBN will lead to a significant contraction in systemic cash surplus and thereby, restrain inflation. Regrettably, however, the cost of funds to businesses may not fall significantly if government remains actively in competition with the real sector for both long and short term loans.
“Ultimately, an enduring cure to the high cost of funds and unyielding inflationary push is to tackle the root cause of excess liquidity; i.e. to first recognise excess liquidity as the direct product of CBN’s monthly substitution of naira allocations for dollar revenue and secondly, to also ensure that beneficiaries of the federation pool receive dollar certificates for their share of monthly allocations of foreign distributable income. This arrangement would finally exorcise the, seemingly, perennial ghost of systematic cash surplus and its train of adverse consequences on our economy and peoples’ welfare.
“In its place, minimal, socially and industrially supportive, inflation rates will evolve with lower single-digit interest rates in tow. The naira will become much stronger, and eliminate any remote possibility of subsidising fuel prices, thus achieving the erstwhile seemingly impossible task of benignly deregulating fuel price, so that, hundreds of billions of naira saved can be ploughed into critical social infrastructure and positive social welfare programmes.
Postscript, April 2019: The Treasury Single Account, which consolidated all g overnment funds in CBN was ultimately implemented in August 2015, based on an earlier framework developed overtime by the Obasanjo and Yar’Adua/Jonathan Administrations.
Regrettably, TSA implementation and 50 per cent CRR still did not remove the perceived liquidity surfeit in commercial banks, as the secluded government funds filtered into the open money market the moment MDAs made expenditures from their treasury allocations. Indeed, the Bankers’ Committee chairman had even declared that banks’ liquidity position was not seriously affected by the reductions in CRR.
Inexplicably however, after the MPC No 103rd meeting on September 23, 2015, CRR was reduced to 25 per cent for all public and private sector deposits and later to 22.5 per cent in March 2016. Thereafter, the CBN’s CRR, MPR and liquidity ratios remained unchanged for well over 24 months, despite the attendant disruptive economic impact, until after the MPC 123rd meeting in 2019 when the MPR alone was singled out for marginal reduction from 14 per cent to 13.5 per cent.
Despite these subsisting harsh policy rates, the CBN has continued to mop-up perceived naira liquidity surplus at a rate which often correlates with government’s annual fiscal plans. Consequently, the CBN may have been compelled to pay high counterproductive double-digit interest rates to banks, in order to remove close to N9.0tn perceived surplus liquidity from the system in 2018. Invariably, the banks may have earned close to N1tn from such interest payments in 2018.
Instructively, however, banks have continued to post humongous profits annually with the prevailing business model; inexplicably, however, businesses in the productive sector have continued to wail.
Each Wednesday throughout the regular season, Kevin Weekes will be offering his pluses and minuses for the teams competing in the NBCSN Wednesday Night Rivalry game in his Weekes on the Web blog. Weekes also will assist fans with three must-watch elements of the game.
In a game between two Original Six teams, it's fair to say that neither the Boston Bruins nor the Detroit Red Wings are playing as well as they'd like, or are where they'd like to be a little bit more than halfway through the season.
The Bruins (23-19-5) are in second in the Atlantic Division but one point ahead of the Toronto Maple Leafs and Ottawa Senators, and are hoping not to miss the Stanley Cup Playoffs for the third straight season. The Red Wings (19-19-6) are 14th in the Eastern Conference and have an extremely tough task if they want to make the Stanley Cup Playoffs for the 26th consecutive season.
Boston is coming off a 4-0 loss to the New York Islanders on Monday. Detroit is looking for its third straight win, something it hasn't done since winning six straight from Oct. 17-27. It should be a good one at Joe Louis Arena on Wednesday (8 p.m. ET; NBCSN, NHL.TV).
Pluses: A good thing for the Bruins is forward Brad Marchand is back to scoring for them. He scored two goals and three assists in a 6-3 win against the Philadelphia Flyers on Saturday and was named the NHLs Second Star of the Week with four goals and four assists in four games. David Pastrnak has had a really good season but you can make the case that Marchand is Boston's most pivotal offensive player based on his production rate the past few seasons (he's scored at least 21 goals in each of his past five full NHL seasons).
Goalie Tuukka Rask has been really good (22-10-3, 2.03 goals-against average, .923 save percentage, five shutouts). Rask has single-handedly kept them in many games and despite not playing as well recently as he did earlier in the season, he is still in the conversation for the Vezina Trophy.
Rookie defenseman Brandon Carlo has played first-pair minutes and been very calm. He's also helped his partner Zdeno Chara have a resurgence in his game.
And this game is on the road, where the Bruins have played better this season; they are 13-8-5 away from home and 10-11-0 at TD Garden.
Minuses: As good as Rask has been, the Bruins have relied way too much on him. On Monday, they were unable to score against the Islanders, a game where Rask allowed three goals on 15 shots before getting pulled to start the third period. He wasn't sharp but the Bruins didn't support him either. They also rely on him because they don't have a solution at backup. Anton Khudobin was 1-5-1 before being waived, Zane McIntyre is 0-3-1 and Malcolm Subban lost his only start this season. That's one win and 11 losses in games where Rask hasn't played or figured into the decision. I didn't think they should have let Chad Johnson go after the 2013-14 season, and we see how well he's doing with the Calgary Flames.
Then there is the lack of consistency. The Bruins play some games where it looks like they've turned the corner but then they have a poor effort like Monday. They have three three-game winning streaks but other than that they haven't been able to string many wins together. Boston is tied for 20th in goals (115) and 23rd in power-play percentage (16.4 percent), which also has contributed to the inconsistency.
Pluses: The Red Wings have had three goalies this year, and I always liked the tandem of Jimmy Howard and Petr Mrazek since last season. With Howard hurt and Mrazek's game dipping, Jared Coreau has stepped in and played well. He's won his past four decisions and has given Detroit a chance to win almost every game he's started.
Forward Thomas Vanek, who Detroit signed on July 1, is playing really good hockey (12-18-30, 33 games) and has points in six straight games and in 10 of 11. Not to mention Anthony Mantha (22 points in 29 games) and Andreas Athanasiou (14 points in 29 games), who the Red Wings are counting on, and the young players have been producing.
Defenseman Mike Green recently missed eight games because of an upper-body injury but he's back in the lineup. He may not be the same player he was with the Washington Capitals but he was a difference maker prior to getting hurt and Detroit doesn't get much production on defense besides Green.
Minuses: The Red Wings probably wish they could play more games on the road because they have not played well on home ice at all. In their final season at the Joe, they're 9-10-3, although they've won their past two games.
They're also not getting enough production and consistency from most players, which is why they come into this game six points behind the Senators for the second wild card into the playoffs from the Eastern Conference, putting their quarter-century consecutive playoff streak in jeopardy.
The Red Wings power play has been a real struggle. They're 30th in the League in power-play percentage (11.5) and 29th in power-play goals (17).
1. If Coreau starts, will he continue to play as good as he has thus far?
2. Can the Red Wings finally get their power play going?
3. Will Marchand pick up where he left off last week?
Back in January, when Johno and I did our talk, we were talking about findings that suggested that once freed up to do so (by being in freer societies), women tend to adopt gender-normative roles, which seems to make a mockery of the liberal push to get to freedom, and away from misogyny around gender roles. I’d like to make a few points on this to start a discussion in the comments.
There are numerous studies that have found (or interpret their findings as showing) that, once a person (or a society) has the means by which to fulfill basic needs (Physiological, Safety), that they tend to look for ways to express other needs – so far, so Maslow – and that, per Maslow, those needs would be increasingly more individualistic. As such, once free to do so, individuals should look for Love and Belonging, (Self-) Esteem, and Self-Actualization. An example of such a study, is this one, by Falk and Hermle (2018), in Science (but see also the discussion of that article, here).
Image from ‘BunnyGotBlog.com’, however, image no longer visible on the blog.
When these findings arise, it’s not uncommon for people who believe more strongly in the importance of traditional gender roles to point to the results, and say, “See? Gender roles are what people naturally gravitate to once they are free to do so.” I don’t think that this is correct, as it misunderstands what liberals are attempting to achieve and why, the influence of nurture over nature, and the recursive and interconnected nature of the human brain and thus, finally, it actually makes a stronger argument to reduce the enforcement of gender roles.
The idea that people naturally gravitate to traditional gender roles and as such that liberals should stop trying to move away from such traditions misunderstands what liberals are trying to do with regard to a freer and more equal society (though, of course, the conservatives and libertarians will say that is what they are trying to achieve – more on that later). Even if it were true that, once free, people reverted to more traditional gender roles, it would only be somewhat true. There would still be women who want to be footballers and engineers, and men who want to be nurses and teachers. (Right, Johno? ;) In a free society they can be, without fear of judgment (which is not to say without judgment, just the fear of it). In an un-free society, one that imposes gender norms, those people would not be free, and those people, whilst not a majority (maybe) are not inconsiderable in number, making society less free.
Regarding nature and nurture, I mentioned in my piece about African-Americans and intelligence, there is a need for several generations of well-fed, well-educated African-Americans to be genuinely (somewhat) free from the effects of slavery (including the ongoing influence of the KKK on GOP voting patterns), Jim Crow (including the ongoing influence of Confederate monuments), Red Lining (including unequal access to finance – and the blame put on minorities for the banking crisis). Likewise, there is a need for generations of equality to have elapsed in order to move away from traditional gender norms to personally “selected” behaviour. By “selected” I mean, both genetically/hormonally (and thus not a matter of personal choice, per sé) and personally selected, in the more common sense of the word. Then again, there is a third sense of “selected” which is a combination of the two, and which is, in some ways, the most germane here. What is it to be female (because, of course, I do not know), and to have a choice between a gender-normative (and thus culturally prescribed) behaviour and that which feels most right to you as an individual?
It’s likely that traditional gender norms started out as descriptive before becoming prescriptive, but what requiring those norms to continue ignores is that those behaviours were in response to a particular social context that traditional norms perpetuate, even whilst failing to fully perpetuate the context, and as such, the norms are increasingly maladaptive.
On the matter of the recursive and interconnected human brain, the environment in which we learn becomes embedded as our understanding of normal (even when we disagree with the socially constructed elements of it), but that doesn’t stop us from (mostly unconsciously) perpetuating those things. Has any parent of teenagers ever not recognised their own behaviour, as parents, being like that which they despised in their own parents? Couple that back to the epigenetics of parental environment having a forward-reaching effect, and you have a strong reinforcement of both nature and nurture, each affecting the other, and certainly no ability to undo any damage in the space of one generation.
If more equal societies end up reinforcing the very norms that conservatives would want to see be the case (that prescriptive gender norms are, in fact, still descriptive), then liberals are actually right to move towards greater equality, because that gives rise to greater freedom (which should placate the libertarians), and that freedom allows women to be women (which should placate the conservatives), and that gives rise to a self-perpetuating society, rather than one that requires strenuous reinforcement.
It seems likely that, as per my second point (and the point made in the aforementioned analysis of the Falk and Hermle, 2018, article, here), the freedom inherent in more equal societies will eventually lead to more (and more different) deviations away from those prescriptive norms, which would placate the libertarians and annoy the conservatives. That having been said, I think it likely that, on average, society would broadly still fall into those gender norms (thus bringing the conservatives back in to the fold). However, in a freer, more equal society, those that deviate from those norms would not be persecuted for deviating, and conservatives would just have to learn to live with that.
"South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had all already seceded by the ..."
"'I think there is a world market for about five computers.'Thomas J Watson head of ..."
"Rob Natelson isn't telling the truth. Delegates clearly exceeded their authority and James Madison admitted ..."
"It wasn't intended to be exclusive, but I do believe there is some sort of ..."
President Trump and his Republican allies are losing the fight over the longest government shutdown in American history. Badly. That is undeniable to anyone who can read polls, which show the president's approval dropping sharply and the public blaming Trump for the fiasco.
For Democrats, buttressed by the voters' clear preference for their strategy, this fight has become about much more than the Mexican border wall. For the first time in years, they feel like they might have an opportunity to break the GOP's decade-long addiction to using the federal government's basic operations as leverage to resolve policy disagreements.
Both voters and the leadership of the Democratic Party see this sordid episode for exactly what it is: attempted extortion. Republicans couldn't get the wall built when they controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, because the president was too stupid to take yes for an answer. So following their midterm drubbing, Trump capriciously shut down the government, thinking he could checkmate incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by using an unpopular tactic to achieve an unpopular policy goal that the voters had just rejected. And with his ongoing refusal to offer Democrats something that would get them to the table, Trump continues to prove he cares more about the wall's political value than about getting it built.
How can you tell Trump isn't serious about making a deal? Last year, panicked that the Trump administration was going to start deporting DREAMers — undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children — en masse, Democrats offered terms that lopsidedly favored Trump's position. They offered $25 billion in wall funding in exchange for a long path to citizenship for the DREAMers and new restrictions on family reunification.
Egged on by immigration hardliners, Trump scoffed at the offer, then proceeded to decisively lose a branch of government to his critics. After a destructive, economically ruinous month-long standoff, he consulted exclusively with allies, and on Saturday offered a crummier deal (basically the BRIDGE Act, which contains no path to citizenship at all, as well as massive new restrictions on asylum) to a much-empowered adversary.
Democrats are having none of it.
Imagine trying to sell your house and someone offers you $250,000 for it. Thinking you could do better, you say no. Then the market crashes, your crib bleeds out half its value, and now you decide to call up the prospective buyers and tell them you'll accept no less than $300,000. That's the Trump shutdown strategy in a nutshell.
If Trump really wanted the wall, if he truly believed that this dumb stunt — which lacks even bare majority support from the general public — would fix a serious national problem, he would offer a clean DREAM Act in exchange for the wall funding. Doing so would force Democrats to choose between achieving a long-sought policy goal and the principle of not negotiating with terrorists. But Trump, accustomed to ripping people off and getting away with it, only offers and believes in one-sided agreements.
A deal involves the exchange of value between two parties. The doomed immigration compromises of 2007 and 2013, whatever you think of them as policy, were examples of what real bargaining between equals looks like. Democrats signed on to things that many of them didn't believe in, including the wasteful securitization of the border, in return for provisions that Republican immigration hardliners really didn't want, including a path to citizenship for many undocumented immigrants.
The immolation of the 2007 deal at the hands of Senate Republicans marked the beginning of this long, nightmarish period we now find ourselves in, during which Republicans have refused to negotiate in good faith about much of anything. The only thing they ever offer is to let the hostage use the bathroom. The captive never gets freed.
For more than 10 years, Republicans have talked themselves into believing they can get something for nothing. Former President Obama spent ages fruitlessly seeking the contours of a grand bargain to bring the debt ceiling and spending standoffs to an end, yet Republicans never once were willing meet Democrats even a quarter of the way. They wanted to balance the budget exclusively with spending cuts, just like they wanted an immigration "compromise" that consisted only of fencing, enforcement, and deportation. And now Trump is offering Democrats a "deal" that gives them nothing but temporary relief in the DACA crisis — which he caused in the first place. Like a mobster extracting cash payments from a local restaurant, all he is offering is protection from himself.
Pelosi is taking a hard pass. From the beginning of the current crisis, she has understood that there is only one way to put an end to these ransom games until at least 2020, and that's to humiliate Trump and to force him to retreat. This is the tactic Obama belatedly discovered during the shutdown crisis of 2013.
Back then, House Republicans shut down the government for 16 days as they attempted to force Obama to delay implementation of his signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act. The public immediately blamed the GOP and never wavered. Republicans weren't seeking compromise — they were attempting an extra-systemic, hostile takeover of the policymaking process. To return to the analogy, it was as if the buyers offered the seller zero dollars and then pitched a tent in the kitchen. It was a tremendously dimwitted gambit, the absurdity of which was obvious from the get-go.
Obama had a very simple strategy to deal with the extremists who forced that shutdown: He told them to go pound sand until they caved. "Go out there and win an election," he told them. Blame was not difficult for most people to assign — while ObamaCare was still being rolled out, it was by then over three years old. Even those with little interest in policy were able to grasp that one party should not hold the functioning of American government hostage to litigate policy disputes that should either be negotiated between the branches or settled one way or another by elections.
It's sort of mind-boggling that they don't understand this, but every time Republican extremists plunge a knife into some painstakingly constructed compromise, they are forfeiting policy gains they might otherwise have locked in. And every day that they refuse to govern the country, they increase the odds of handing total power back to Democrats, who are not going to be in a forgiving mood.
Yet here we are again. What Republicans should really be asking themselves this morning is whether they can name a single substantive thing that these tactics have actually achieved. The country is running trillion dollar deficits. What Republicans derisively call "entitlement" spending has not been meaningfully curtailed. Voters in deep red states are clamoring for Medicaid expansions. While Republicans were losing interest in governing the country and falling madly in love with politics as an empty spectacle, the center of policy gravity in this country stampeded to the left. Republicans lost America's youngest voters by a 37-point margin in November, which presages imminent political cataclysm.
For now, Senate Republicans aren't wavering, and Democrats look even more united in their resolve not to be drawn into the president's elaborate protection racket. The longer President Trump keeps the government shuttered, the more likely he is to invite real tragedy or economic ruin. And if he thinks the blame is going to land anywhere but on his desk, he's even more delusional than we thought.