Skip to content

Trying hard to lose

Wednesday, May 8, 2024

Sometimes I think our big name Democrats stay awake at night trying to figure out ways to lose elections. What issues can they ignore that people care about? What arguments can they fail to make that would work? Who can they alienate who would otherwise vote for them?

Case in point discussed in this article, the headline for which reads: “Biden attacks ‘ferocious surge of antisemitism’”. He was speaking to a group at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.

There has not been a ferocious surge of antisemitism in this country, and it is both factually wrong and politically stupid to imply that the protestors at various universities are anti-Semites. They are speaking out against a government that is committing what is almost universally recognized as a form of genocide. The fact that Jews were themselves the victims of genocide does not in any way justify what the government of Israel is currently doing. There are plenty of Jews in this country that have made it clear that they oppose what the Israeli government is doing, Bernie Sanders being one. Are they anti-Semites?

This really got to me:

“This ancient hatred of Jews didn’t begin with the Holocaust,’’ he said. “It didn’t end with the Holocaust, either.’’

…

But, he added, “there is no place on any campus in America, any place in America, for antisemitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind.’’

Biden also denounced attempts to minimize the Hamas attack last October, which killed some 1,200 people in Israel and sparked a war that has killed an estimated 34,000 people in Gaza.

“Now here we are, not 75 years later, but just 71?2 months later, and people are already forgetting,’’ Biden said. “They are already forgetting. That Hamas unleashed this terror. It was Hamas that brutalized Israelis. It was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages.

I’m sure there are some anti-Semites among the demonstrators, but hate speech and threats of violence have not been a particular feature of the demonstrations. This sounds an awful lot like the Republican lies about Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

Just as it is unfair to equate the government of Israel with all Jews, it is unfair to equate all Palestinians with Hamas, but that is what he is doing by making the “they started it” argument. Indeed, the people of Palestine have less control over Hamas than the citizens of Israel have over their government. Biden is essentially arguing that Israel is entitled to take vengeance on an entire group of people because some of them committed war crimes. The underlying logic is clear: anti-Semitism is bad, but anti-Palestinianism is okay. It’s okay to engage in mass murder of people who did nothing to you if someone of their ethnicity did something you don’t like. Just don’t try that argument in reverse when in comes to Israel.

I suspect that Biden’s actual feelings about what Israel is doing are a bit more nuanced, but for some reason he feels its a political necessity that he engage in this sort of rhetoric. It may come back to haunt him, and could be a factor in the overthrow of democracy here in this country. Those kids that are demonstrating are, most of them, potential Democratic voters, as are those who agree with them. The numbers are not trivial. Biden is pushing them toward voting third party, which means they will functionally be voting for Trump. The upcoming election is too important to throw away be attacking people who are simply calling for an end to a campaign of violence toward an entire group of people.

Filed in Democrats, Foreign Affairs | | Comments (0)

A few predictions

Saturday, April 27, 2024

A few observations resulting from legal developments this past week.

First, it appears increasingly likely that Trump will be convicted in his New York trial and that said conviction will take place within a few weeks.

Also, and somewhat to my surprise (but not totally, given the corruption on the Supreme Court) it appears likely that the court will find a way to grant Trump some form of immunity while not granting him full immunity. Just enough to lay the groundwork for endless interlocutory appeals that will delay the federal trials until after the election, thereby setting the stage (the corrupt judges hope) for him to pardon himself, something about which no one can make a legal case because after all, who has standing to complain about that? Of course, if he loses the election they don’t care if he ends up in jail. They simply see him as the only hope to return to the good old days when the courts were being stocked with right wing ideologues. It goes without saying that the Founders, whom they claim to channel, would not be particularly enthusiastic about changing the terminology from “the king can do no wrong” to “the president can do no wrong”, but they have never let intellectual honesty or actual historiography get in the way of their political objectives. Also, look for terminology in the decision that leaves it open for them to explain later that the decision does not apply to Democrats. You know, like Scalia did in Bush v. Gore.

That leaves them having to figure out a way to block the New York case somehow. First, a few basics:

  1. The case in New York is based on state law, not federal law. Therefore, the New York courts should have the final say on interpreting those laws.
  2. The only appeal from a state court conviction to a federal court would have to involve a claim that the criminal law in question was unconstitutional, or that the defendant was denied due process in the course of the trial.
  3. Whatever immunity they extend to Trump in the case they just heard should not apply to the New York case because the criminal acts took place before he was president.

It will be interesting to see what Alito and the gang come up with to reverse the conviction or order a new trial. My guess is that they’ll go with some sort of due process argument. After all, the judge did make a $25.00 or so donation to the Democratic Party, which raises significant issues about his impartiality (this rationale not applicable to judges that donate to Republicans and especially not to judges that take bribes from big political donors). Also, Trump was denied his sixth amendment right to confront the witnesses against him because he was asleep! They do have a bit of a conundrum facing them, in that simply delaying until after the election doesn’t, or shouldn’t, stave off eventual conviction. Trump can’t pardon a state crime, though who knows, maybe they’ll decide that he (and only he) can.

I fervently hope that each and every one of these predictions turn out to be wrong. I am firmly convinced that they won’t.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Dysfunction, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (1)

Yet another rant

Saturday, April 20, 2024






Sometimes I think elected Democrats are subjected to some sort of brain damage on their way to assuming office. This article at the New London Day sort of set me off:

As Connecticut municipalities bear the financial load of early voting, legislative leaders and state officials are split over whether the state should help fund the program and if failing to do so would put elections at risk.

With a presidential election looming, House Speaker Matthew Ritter indicated Thursday that cities and towns should not expect the legislature to fund early voting this session.

Ritter said that early voting “was not widely used” by Connecticut voters during the April presidential primary.

The speaker said the state should hold off on funding decisions until after the 2024 presidential election when more data on early voting participation will be available.

“If we find the municipalities are grossly underfunded and are unable to carry out their constitutional responsibilities, we’ll talk to them,” Ritter said.

In the meantime, Ritter suggested that cities and towns in need of funds pull from their share of municipal aid from the state.

Ritter said that for most municipalities, the costs associated with early voting are “probably” in the “tens of thousands of dollars … not hundreds.”

“Let’s just see where we are next year,” Ritter said. “No municipality’s going to go bankrupt.” (Emphasis added)

Okay, three points. First, I think it is widely agreed that making it easier to vote helps Democrats. Second, the State of Connecticut, meaning the legislature of which Ritter is a member, imposed the early voting requirement on the towns, so it seems only fair that the state should cover the costs of complying with the state’s mandate. Third, and this is the one that really boggles my mind, there is no way you can draw any legitimate conclusions from the recent primaries. Turnout, of course, was low, since there was no question about how each would turn out and both primaries were, not to put too fine a point on it, virtually meaningless. I worked as a poll worker for that primary, counting absentee and early votes, and from what I could see, there was a decent argument that early votes were a fair percentage of the total votes, though I would repeat that you can’t draw any legitimate conclusions from that data. One thing we do know is that turnout in November will likely be very high, unless Donald is in jail by that point and the polls have swung heavily to Biden.

Not only is Ritter wrong on the merits, but he gave the Republicans an opportunity to take a position against him that is actually on the right side of rationality:

House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora said he “strongly disagrees” with Ritter’s offer.

“It’s a risk to democracy,” Candelora said. “It’s allowing for the integrity of the system to break down without the proper funding.”

Candelora said he would like to see the legislature allocate at least another $3 million to assist municipalities with early voting expenses, but said that number could grow to upwards of $10 million.

Candelora suggested that the state should use its remaining American Rescue Plan Act funds to cover the bill.

Now don’t get me wrong. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that he’s taking that position only because it’s the opposite of what Ritter is saying, and that he’d oppose giving the towns a penny if Ritter was proposing exactly what he says he would support. But we’re in a sorry state when Democrats give the Republicans the ability to take a stand on an issue when they’re actually on the right side.

Filed in Democrats, Rants | | Comments (0)

Rant of the Day

Friday, April 19, 2024

I don’t have a television, and even if I did I doubt that I’d spend much time watching the television “news” shows, but I think my general impression is correct.

The more of a whackjob you are as a Congressperson, the more chance you have of getting yourself on television. Latest example I’ve run across is here, where we find that one Anna Paulina Luna (R, of course) essentially made up facts about Ukraine’s attempt to join NATO. We also learn, of course, that the person interviewing her only mildly corrected her, and when she insisted her lies were true, he, of course, backed off. This is hardly a rare occurence. Republican liars and idiots are featured constantly, and not only on Fox.

It is asking too much, I guess, to expect even the so called mainstream (non-Fox, non-Newsmax, etc.) media to simply deny airtime to these congenital liars. Meanwhile, and again of course, responsible politicians (almost all D, of course) are rarely interviewed.

Filed in Media, Rants | | Comments (0)

One law for me, another for thee

Wednesday, April 17, 2024

This story (more here and here) hasn’t gotten much mainstream attention, so far as I know, but it presages a monumental change in the law. There will soon be, if there not already is, one set of laws for the right and another for the left, one set of laws for right wing “Christians” and another for all other religions, one set of laws for the rich and another for everyone else (I know there already is, but it will be more explicit) and, any day now, one set of laws for white people and another for everybody else. After all, was separate but equal really such a bad thing? We will soon return to the nation envisioned by Founding Fathers such as John Taney, Jefferson Davis, and modern incarnations such as George Wallace.

To get to the point: DeRay McKesson is being sued by a cop who was injured by a rock thrown by a person unknown at a Black Lives Matters demonstration McKesson organized in Louisiana. The issue was summarized at SCOTUSBlog as follows:

[Does] the First Amendment and this court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. foreclose a state law negligence action making a leader of a protest demonstration personally liable in damages for injuries inflicted by an unidentified person’s violent act, when it is undisputed that the leader neither authorized, directed, nor ratified the perpetrator’s act, nor engaged in or intended violence of any kind.

The relevant case law says NO!, but that case law was written long ago in a galaxy far far away, and the Fifth Circuit, packed with right wing ideologues says that the relevant case law doesn’t prevent it from holding against McKesson, who, after all, is black and pushes an ideology (you know, equal rights for everyone) that they don’t like. So:

Instead, in its most recent opinion in this case, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Claiborne’s “three separate theories that might justify” holding a protest leader liable are a non-exhaustive list, and that the MAGA-infused court is allowed to create new exceptions to the First Amendment. It then ruled that the First Amendment does not apply “where a defendant creates unreasonably dangerous conditions, and where his creation of those conditions causes a plaintiff to sustain injuries.”

As the dissent pointed out (remarkably, there is at least one Fifth Circuit judge that is not completely bonkers) the decision could make protest organizers liable for “the unlawful acts of counter-protestors and agitators”, and as they point out at Vox, “a Ku Klux Klansman could sabotage the Black Lives Matter movement simply by showing up at its protests and throwing stones.” Some might argue that it would follow that a Black Lives Matter follower could sabotage a Klan rally in the same way, but have no fear, the 5th Circuit would find a way to nix that idea.

These kinds of decisions are becoming more common. It’s particularly hard for people my age to wrap their heads around this sort of thing, because we grew up in a sort of golden age as far as the Supreme Court and most of the lower courts were concerned. We thought cases such as Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson were things of the past, but in fact we simply lived in a brief intermission.

We now have courts that will bend the facts and the law to arrive at their preferred conclusion. They believe, to paraphrase Orwell, that all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

The Supreme Court has declined to review the 5th Circuit’s decision. It is still marginally possible that they will reverse it after the McKesson case goes to trial if McKesson loses. The case was before the 5th Circuit after a sane lower court judge dismissed it. Personally, the fact that they didn’t reverse it immediately fills me with dread that we’ll soon be seeing a decision explaining that while Trump is immune from all criminal prosecution don’t expect the same rule to apply to a Democratic president. On that subject, I really wish the Biden administration would weigh in and tell the judges that if presidents are in fact immune, he’s seriously considering sending some special ops guys to visit certain justices in their chambers and let off a few rounds, after which he will pardon the special ops guys and he will get to appoint new judges.

Look forward to cases similar to the McKesson case in the future. Certainly it should be legal to refuse to serve black people in my restaurant if my closely held religious beliefs compel me to refuse said service. (This decision not applicable if the person refused is white.) It should be perfectly legal for a college or university to prefer the sons and daughters of rich (overwhelmingly white) alumni over far more qualified applicants, despite the fact that those same colleges and universities are barred from considering race when choosing among qualified applicants. It’s perfectly fine to gerrymander to increase white voting power but don’t try doing the opposite. The list goes on, and under our current system of government there’s nothing much we can do about it, as the minority controls both in our courts and in our legislatures.

On a sort of unrelated but related note, I’m proud to say the McKesson is an alum of my Alma Mater, Bowdoin College. Back when I was working, I would listen to his podcast as I drove back and forth to work. Those were pre-pandemic days when office workers still worked in their offices, at least on occasion. I met him at the most recent reunion I attended. He’s a loyal alum, so Bowdoin must have treated him well. Based on what I’ve read about this case, he’s not letting it deter him from continuing his work.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff, Rants | | Comments (1)

Am I being nit picky?

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Very well then I’m being nit picky. (For those who don’t get the reference, I’m riffing off Walt Whitman)

To get back to the nits.

Crooks and Liars has a post up in which they report on an interview with Nancy Pelosi in which she ably excoriates the stable genius for his latest spewings about abortion. I agree with most of what she has to say:

PELOSI: The way the press wrote it up just cracked me up because it said, ‘Donald Trump believes that’ — he doesn’t believe anything. He believes in his political survival, and that’s what he is trying to accommodate. But you can’t be a little bit pro-life. You are there or you’re not there, and people see that.

So, he may have outsmarted — well, I hate to say outsmarted because, what? Doesn’t seem to apply. but why would the press say ‘he believes?’ He doesn’t believe anything.

There’s more, and the entire thing is well worth reading.

Now for the nit picking.

I continue to be amazed at the willingness of Democrats to call anti-abortion people “pro-life”, as Nancy does in the quote above. There is no way in the world that Republicans would use a similar term that Democrats adopted for themselves. Who isn’t “pro-life”.Well, actually lots of Republicans aren’t, since they do support policies that have a negative effect on life, such as making sure that health care is unavailable for people. In addition, using the term implicitly concedes the validity of their argument in support of their position.

But I digress. There are plenty of terms one could use to characterize the Republican position on abortion, and I’m sure there are some creative people out there that could come up with some that don’t immediately come to mind. They’re not “pro-life” they’re anti-abortion, anti-reproductive freedom, anti-woman and any other appropriate term one cares to use.

Filed in Democrats, Language, Rants | | Comments (0)

Biden does it again

Friday, April 5, 2024

It’s my understanding that there were two earthquakes today, both in the New Jersey area, and if the folks over at the Palmer Report are correct, the center of one was quite close to one of Trump’s golf courses.

I’m hoping that I’m the first to point out where responsibility lies, though for all I know the folks at Fox have beaten me to it.

Once again Joe Biden has done his country wrong, in the process continuing his war on a certain very stable genius. Not only is he personally directing the prosecutions against an obviously innocent stable genius, but he’s exposing the rest of us by his nefarious deeds.

Ever since he took the oath of office the weather has been terrible, since he doesn’t understand what a sharpie is for, but imposing an earthquake on us is really beyond the pale.

I hope Matt Gaetz and Jim Jordan see through this and get the impeachment process restarted. Expose senile Biden’s nefarious manipulation of the weather and the earth and the whole country will support his impeachment!

Filed in Rants | | Comments (0)

It’s that time again

Friday, March 29, 2024

Almost forgot to keep up the tradition.

This year I am going to dedicate this video to a certain very stable genius whose followers keep comparing him to Brian be claiming he’s being crucified. Maybe he should follow Eric Idle’s advice instead of constantly confessing to his crimes on his failing twitter rip-off.

As to the rest of us, Happy Easter if you celebrate it.

Filed in Hypocrisy, Music | | Comments (0)

Joe gone

Thursday, March 28, 2024

Joe Lieberman has left the planet. Mindful of the aphorism that one should not speak ill of the dead, I shall write not a word about what some people might say ( like the person here) about a man who was so incensed about losing a primary just because he backed a senseless war that he took it into his head to undermine the party of which he had been a member, doing his best to siphon off votes to assure Republican victories, caring not a whit that he was assisting the rise of fascism, though he surely knew what he was doing. Nor will I say, as some radical leftist types might, that the world is a better place without him.

On an entirely different subject, totally unrelated to the preceding paragraph, I sometimes wish I could still believe in a heaven and hell, and a just god who assigns the departed to their rightful place for all eternity, since it often happens, as in the recent departure of Henry Kissinger, and another recent departure whose name I will not mention, that I think how much I would savor the opportunity of watching said individuals being consigned to the eternal torment they so richly deserve.

Filed in Lieberman | | Comments (0)

Looking on the bright side

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

I recall years ago that one of my readers noted that I rarely spread any good news on this blog, despite my yearly reminders to all (see Good Friday posts) that one must always look on the bright side.

But today I am looking on the bright side, at least the hopeful side. Yesterday a Democrat won a special election for a state legislative seat in an historically Republican district by a fairly large margin. She did it by campaigning against the Republican position on abortion and IVF. This election did not take place in a blue state, or even in a purple state. It took place in Alabama. She won by 25 percentage points.

Democrats have been doing extremely well in special elections in the past couple of years, but this is a real shocker. Turnout was low, and if you want to look on the not so bright side, you might put a negative spin on it for that reason. However, looking on the bright side, it means our people are motivated to come out to vote, and those on the dark side, maybe not so much.

This will not get the attention it deserves from the media, but it is an extremely hopeful sign. If a Democrat can win in a Republican district in Alabama it has to bode well for the future. Looking further on the bright side, it appears that Democrats are finally learning how to campaign against Republicans, by relentlessly emphasizing their unpopular positions and inability to get things done that actually help normal people.

Filed in Good News | | Comments (0)