Skip to content

First rant of the year

If you’re like me you get about a hundred or more emails a day asking for your money in support of some good cause. Needless to say the senders are aware that they are just one of many clogging the nation’s in-boxes, so they try hard to have a subject line that attracts.

This rant is about one particular strategy used to draw views and eventually pry money from the wallets of dedicated Democrats that I find particularly galling: the Republican glorification strategy.

Today, for instance, I got an email from the Vote By Mail Pac, an entity about which I know nothing. Some of these PACs are surely just money vacuums. (See, e.g., the Lincoln Project). But, I am straying from the main point of my rant.

This particular email tells me that “Senator Romney is stepping Up!”, adding in parentheses “Do you Agree?”. Reading further we are told that we should sign a statement so that we can show “MASSIVE” ( all-caps in original) public support for Romney’s “brave” stance of calling a spade a spade, for this is what he had to say about the insurrection:

What happened was a violent effort … It was an insurrection against the constitution.

I have gotten tons of similar emails praising Liz Cheney’s courage, which also consists of stating the obvious. Somehow, these people expect to pry money from me using this strategy, and judging by its ubiquity, it must work on a lot of people.

I’m old enough to remember sitting through Watergate. Back in those days a Republican who stated the obvious about Richard Nixon’s criminality was not cited for bravery. They were, once the evidence was in, merely average Republicans. It was more or less expected that they would acknowledge his criminality. After all, he resigned precisely because Republican Senators told him he was doomed. It was Republicans like Sandman, the Congressman from New Jersey who made a jackass of himself defending Nixon on the judiciary committee, who were singled out for scorn and derision.

Romney, especially, gets no credit for bravery. His is a safe seat. You can make an argument that Cheney’s seat is now in peril, but if she loses she will spend the rest of her life as a highly paid commentator on MSNBC or CNN, and she is fully aware of that fact.

What further pisses me off about this type of thing is the fact that the brave Republicans we are supposed to love are unalterably opposed to doing anything to make sure that this sort of thing truly never happens again. That can be avoided only by maintaining the Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, and that can be accomplished only if people are allowed to vote. The Vote by Mail PAC tells me it is “working day and night to ensure every American has easy access to vote by mail”. How many days or nights has Romney worked to ensure those rights? The answer, in a very round number, is none. Maybe I’ll give some Republicans credit for something if they actually do the right thing, instead of merely saying the right (and always obvious) thing.

This rant is officially over. I know it’s not much, but it’s the best I can do.

The Year Ahead

In the past, as the new year approached, I’ve often posted predictions for the coming year. I haven’t always been right, but I think I have a pretty good track record.

This year I’ve got almost nothing.

There are some things that are a given.

The media, particularly the broadcast media, will, by and large continue to both-side current events, ignoring the fact that there is only one party that is seeking to establish a fascist state. The Supreme Court will strip away abortion rights without making abortion technically illegal, as that can wait for a later date. The federal courts will also, when asked, give the green light to voter suppression tactics.

The elections in 2022 may very well be the most consequential since the election of 1860. If the Democrats can maintain their majorities in Congress and render Manchin and Sinema irrelevant, then they may be able to save the Republic. It will be an uphill battle, given the voter suppression that the courts will uphold, and the constant media assurances that of course the Republicans will take over both the House and the Senate, because 1) Democrats are always in disarray, and 2) the president’s party always loses in the mid-terms. Yada Yada Yada.

If the Democrats can’t pull it off, then the presidential election of 1860 will fall to second place behind that of 2016 so far as its impact on American history. It will go down as the beginning of the end of the American experiment in representative government. There is no way the Democratic candidate can win in 2024 if the voter suppression laws enacted this year are in force. It’s easy to win elections if you get to choose who gets to vote.

On a related note, it would be nice to think that the denizens of the Trump White House and their congressional co-conspirators will pay a price for inciting an insurrection, but I’m doubtful.

Of course it’s always possible that something good will happen in the coming year. Maybe the Red Sox will win the pennant.

Anyway, Happy New Year!

If they accuse us of doing something, that means they are doing it

Basically just passing this along, though I’m willing to bet it will get no notice from the mainstream press.

Rand Paul emitted this tweet:

“How to steal an election: ‘Seeding an area heavy with potential Democratic votes with as many absentee ballots as possible, targeting and convincing potential voters to complete them in a legally valid way, and then harvesting and counting the results,’” Paul wrote.

To translate even more succinctly:

How to steal an election: Engage in legal and common campaign tactics while being a Democrat.

This says all you need to know about the modern Fascist Republican Party. So far as they are concerned no Democrat elected to any office is legitimate. It follows, of course, that it is perfectly acceptable for them to actually steal elections, as they intend to do in both 2022 and 2024. Thanks to Manchin and Sinema they will be successful, and Ben Franklin’s observation will never be more salient.

Somewhat related observation: When I did a web search for Franklin’s quote, almost all of the results were from right wing web sites, warning of the threat to the Republic from the left. Projection never ceases.

Don’t expect consistency from this court

Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, is planning to turn the tables on the Supreme Court, using the same dodge Texas used to abolish abortion rights to abolish the already bogus gun rights.

In their rush to permit the state of Texas to deputize private citizens to bring lawsuits against women seeking abortions and their abortion providers, the U. S. Supreme Court left the door open to some deliciously unexpected payback. California Governor Gavin Newsom now wants to take that legal precedent and use it to allow private citizens to sue manufacturers of assault weapons and ghost gun providers. When New York Attorney General Letitia James heard about Newsom’s plan she went to her team and told them, “We need to follow his lead.”

It won’t work, though it’s certainly worth doing if only to expose the hypocrisy of the current Supreme Court.

Back in law school the professors used to talk about “distinctions without a difference” and “result oriented” decision making. The current court is quite adept at making the former, and is certainly infected with the latter. The court will find a way to distinguish the two situations, and gun nuts will have no problem getting what they need to shoot up schools, shopping malls, or other venues of their choice. I can think of a bunch of bogus distinctions, though I won’t bother to set them down, as I don’t want to decrease the court’s workload.

It is also the case that there is something to be feared if the court upholds Newsom’s proposed law. You can likely use the same dodge to undermine any constitutional right, not that I’m conceding that owning a gun is in fact a constitutional right. Why not allow private citizens to sue any newspaper that prints something that offends the right wing sensibility in some fashion. How about allowing suit against any church or individual who refuses to accept Our Lord Jesus Christ as his or her personal savior? When the court upholds the Texas law it will essentially be rolling back all the precedent that held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Recall that prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, individual states were free to impose any limit on free speech they wanted, to have an established church, etc. As a side note, the Second Amendment is one that should obviously not have been incorporated, given it’s introductory clause, since it clearly envisions regulations by the states.

The right is already planning to use the tactic to squelch speech it doesn’t like. Expect more of the same.

Update: Elie Mystal agrees with the gist of what I said above.

Rock and Roll legend and first class asshole

I’d like to think that this, along with his anti-vax shenanigans, is simply a sign of oncoming senility, but from what I’ve read in the past few days, Eric Clapton has apparently always been an asshole:

What with all this recent COVID crap coming from Eric Clapton one almost forgets that he’s been a dick for many years. In this instance, suing a German woman for putting an old bootleg CD that her husband bought in a department store up on eBay. So, for a €9.95 ($11) CD the woman was found to be infringing on copyright and now has to pay legal fees of about $3500. And, “if she continues to keep the listing of the bootlegged recording up on eBay, she’ll face a fine of about $283,000 or six months in prison.”

The woman said her late husband bought the CD in a department store in 1987 and she had no idea it was a bootleg.

I have several Cream albums, a Blind Faith album, and even a Clapton Christmas album, and now I can’t bring myself to listen to any of them. It’s hard to conceive on anyone being so petty.

Democracy is at risk and Democrats are largely silent

According to at least one poll, reported at Hullabaloo, more Republicans than Democrats think that democracy is in trouble and that the next elections will be stolen. It is not clear whether the Republicans are elated at the possibility or whether they are projecting, but digby rightly asks why Democrats are so sanguine.

I think the answer is obvious. When there’s a fire, someone has to ring an alarm, and it has to be someone you trust. At the moment, only Republicans are accusing Democrats of election theft. Democrats are rightly tuning them out. Top Democrats are, of course, not ringing the alarm. It is clear as day that Republicans are in fact planning to steal the next presidential election, and probably the next congressional election, and I’m not just talking about gerrymandering. Democratic office holders should be ringing the alarm. If they did, more Democrats would accept the reality.

Religion Lesson

I have mentioned before that I have an advanced degree in theology from Our Lady of Sorrows Grammar School, but it’s been a while since I passed on the fruits of the knowledge I acquired during those eight years of diligent study. This article (behind a paywall), from Free Inquiry Magazine, which I read in the bathroom while answering a call of nature, impels me to pound my keyboard yet again to explain the ways of god to men.

First, the woefully sad story with which the article begins:

It seems that Father Matthew Hood, associate pastor of St. Lawrence Parish in Utica, Michigan, watched a video of his 1990 baptism and was thunderstruck to discover that Deacon Mark Springer, the officiating clergyman, had used improper wording while performing this sacrament. Hood’s baptism had therefore been (gasp of horror) invalid!

As the article goes on to explain, that means that not only was “Father” Hood not a Catholic, he wasn’t a priest either, because only Catholics can be priests.

Totally logical so far, right?

But it gets even more logical. As we all know, sex is a sin unless you are married, and you’re not really married unless you are married by a priest, which means most people sin every time they have sex, but for most of them it doesn’t really matter because they’re committing so many other mortal sins (not being Catholic, and all) that the sex sins are just one more brick in the wall.

But, spare a tear for the actual Catholics who thought they were married by Mr. Hood (we can’t call him Father Hood, after all) but actually weren’t, because he wasn’t really a priest. They all went off on their honeymoons thinking they could have all the sinless sex they wanted, but in fact they were committing mortal sins without number and stamping their tickets to hell. And this is just one small example of the virtual pandemic of sin resulting from Deacon Springer’s fatal error.

Now, I am going to digress here, and note that in criminal law there is a doctrine that absolves one of a crime if the alleged criminal lacked the mens rea to commit the crime. That is, for many crimes, a person cannot be guilty of a crime unless he or she intended to commit a crime. Apparenlty, according to both Hood and the Church, God doesn’t see things that way.

So, as all my classmates from Our Lady of Sorrows could tell you, Hood has, despite his lack of mens rea, caused innumerable people to commit mortal sins, despite their lack of mens rea. For instance, it’s a mortal sin to take communion unless your soul is sin free, and the only way to get your soul sin free is to go to confession and get your sins wiped off your soul. But only a priest can say the magic words with efficacy, so all those people who walked out of Hood’s confessional believing their souls were clean still had dirty souls and further dirtied them by eating Jesus the next time they went to Mass! And spare a tear for the dying sinners who called Hood to their deathbeds to give them extreme unction, which would have given them a ticket to heaven, no matter the number of sins on their souls, had it been validly given. Imagine their surprise when Saint Peter informed them that they were going to Hell on a technicality!

The article notes that the church, which is taking all this seriously, is trying to do what it can for the unfortunates it can identify who have unknowingly led lives of sin as a result of Hood’s acts, but how many will remain blissfully unaware that they are not, in fact, baptized or married, or that their souls were not wiped clean that time they confessed to “Father” Hood? By the way, Hood himself should have no problem. All he has to do is confess all of his mens rea free wrongdoing and he’s off the hook. He has to get baptized first, of course. You have to do these things in order. Come to think of it, he doesn’t even have to confess, because the baptism alone cleans his soul completely.

Now you may wonder, what did Deacon Springer do wrong when he screwed up Hood’s baptism. Prepare to be shocked:

And why was Hood’s 1990 baptism invalid? Springer had changed a single word in the formula that priests are required to utter when administering this sacrament. Instead of “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,” Springer said, “We baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Yes, changing the pronoun from first-person singular to first-person plural gummed up the whole works.

Personally, I’m amazed that God didn’t express his displeasure by striking Springer down with thunder and lightning. Some people might say that the pronoun you use shouldn’t make a difference, unless, of course, your talking about some transgender person assuming the right to choose their own pronoun. Some might even ask whether we can be sure the approved language in its English version is an accurate translation of whatever language in which God first set it forth, which of course opens up the possibility that the English speaking world is totally bereft of honest to God Catholics. But what do those questioning people know?

Now, there’s another principal in the law, that looks with disfavor upon actions that are arbitrary and capricious and some people (see the previous paragraph) might argue that God himself is pretty arbitrary and capricious when it comes to consigning people to hell and damnation. But, as god tells us in Randy Newman’s Faust:

My ways are mysterious! …Sometimes even to myself!

But, as this blog reminds us every Easter, we must always look on the bright side, For every person who has led a good life who ends up in hell, there’s an inveterate sinner who gets into heaven due to the same sort of technicality that sent the good guy to hell. It all evens out! Who can ask for anything more?

People who will never be president, part 1

The reigning king in this category is definitely Chris Christie, and if it wasn’t for the fact that the alternatives on the Republican side are all – and this should be unbelievable – even worse, that would be a great thing.

It’s still a good thing, by the way.

Christie is trying to walk a fine line that only the media wants to buy, just like nobody wants to buy his book that the media has endlessly hyped.

He actually (says he) thinks it would have been a good idea to put Jim Jordan on the January 6th committee, which is like-how does it go- putting the fox into the henhouse. That’s unfair to foxes, which are all smarter than Jordan, but you get my drift. His reasoning? Why it affects the credibility of the committee in the eyes of the Republicans who would never accept factual findings in the first place:

“It does affect to some extent in my party the credibility the committee has,” he opined. “In the end, the facts are going to come out. But let’s not kid ourselves, this was a driven-from-the-top process executed by C-team players and that’s why it looks like a Keystone Cops operation because it was.”

Do I detect a strategy on Christie’s part to avoid directly accusing Trump of having a hand in the insurrection, given that it was “executed by C-team players”?

He’ll never be president because he is looking to be the anti-Trump Republican while trying to appeal to the Trumpists, or as many of them as he can seduce with gobbledegook.

It still never ceases to amaze that he can go on television as the voice of Republican reason, and is never confronted with his history of Trumpist sychophancy.

The Deep State Goes Even Deeper!!!

This is really scary:

In Pittsburgh, Memphis and Los Angeles, massive billboards recently popped up declaring, “Birds Aren’t Real.”

On Instagram and TikTok, Birds Aren’t Real accounts have racked up hundreds of thousands of followers, and YouTube videos about it have gone viral.

Last month, Birds Aren’t Real adherents even protested outside Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco to demand that the company change its bird logo.

The events were all connected by a Gen Z-fueled conspiracy theory, which posits that birds don’t exist and are really drone replicas installed by the U.S. government to spy on Americans. Hundreds of thousands of young people have joined the movement, wearing Birds Aren’t Real T-shirts, swarming rallies and spreading the slogan.

It might smack of QAnon, the conspiracy theory that the world is controlled by an elite cabal of child-trafficking Democrats. Except that the creator of Birds Aren’t Real and the movement’s followers are in on a joke: They know that birds are, in fact, real and that their theory is made up.

What Birds Aren’t Real truly is, they say, is a parody social movement with a purpose. In a post-truth world dominated by online conspiracy theories, young people have coalesced around the effort to thumb their nose at, fight and poke fun at misinformation. It’s Gen Z’s attempt to upend the rabbit hole with absurdism.

At the center of the movement is Peter McIndoe, 23, a floppy-haired college dropout in Memphis who created Birds Aren’t Real on a whim in 2017. For years, he stayed in character as the conspiracy theory’s chief believer, commanding acolytes to rage against those who challenged his dogma. But now, Mr. McIndoe said in an interview, he is ready to reveal the parody lest people think birds really are drones.

“Dealing in the world of misinformation for the past few years, we’ve been really conscious of the line we walk,” he said. “The idea is meant to be so preposterous, but we make sure nothing we’re saying is too realistic. That’s a consideration with coming out of character.”

A parody, really? I think not! The New York Times is so easily deluded.

Think about it.

Isn’t it obvious?

Lets say you are a deep state actor who has just replaced all the birds with drone replicas. Let’s say you wanted to make sure that your nefarious act was not discovered and you wanted people to go on believing that birds are real. What could work better than getting the word out through someone who claims he’s just goofing on conspiracy theorists? That way, no one would believe the truth because the guy revealing it would upfront say he is lying. It’s fiendishly clever.

So, as we all sit back, secure in our mistaken belief that birds are real, the drones can go about their business spying on us and tracking our every movement! If you think I’m paranoid, then explain why there are constantly flocks of birds in my yard, hanging around with every opportunity to use their secret electronic sensors to report my movements to the deep state! Some people might say that they are real birds and are swarming around because of the birdfeeders, but those are the same people who will tell you that Ivermectin won’t cure COVID. Besides, there’s always crows out there too, and they don’t feed from birdfeeders, and they’re big enough to contain a vast amount of high tech surveillance systems. It all couldn’t be more obvious, so long as you engage in the type of critical thinking that the situation demands.

McIndoe is clearly a government agent, running a highly sophisticated disinformation program by pretending to run a disinformation program. He is spreading lies by telling the truth! He may be able to fool the New York Times, but he can’t fool me. Now I know for sure that Birds Aren’t Real!

A sure fire prediction

It’s a great thing that the parents of the school shooter in Michigan are being held to account, or, more accurately, that the state is seeking to hold them to account. Based on the facts that have been put out there by the prosecution, there were warning signs aplenty about this kid. The fact that he had a gun was known to the parents, and not made known to the school as the parents were shown proof of his serious mental imbalance and the direction that might take him.

But, alas, this is the United States of America, the land in which Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder after he committed murder. I don’t think the Crumbleys need worry that much. They’ll likely get off, though who knows, maybe they will be victimized by having a judge not clearly biased in their favor.

They each have to come up with a $500,000.00 cash bond. Red Painter at Crooks & Liars doubts that GoFundMe will let them use its platform to raise the money, but, unless I’m mistaken, that’s how Rittenhouse raised his bail money and his lawyers fees. It would seem that one sorely needed reform in our judicial system would be modifications to bail requirements that would assure that the defendant has his or her own money at risk in any bail setting.

In any event, to make myself clear, the sure fire prediction is that the parents will eventually walk, though at least their son will do time. I earnestly hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.