Skip to content

Pence goes off the reservation

Sunday, June 27, 2021

You have to wonder if Pence has plans that might prove somewhat disruptive in 2021:

During a speech at Ronald Reagan Library Thursday, former VP Mike Pence publicly broke with Traitor Trump’s unconscionable lies about so-called “voter fraud” in the 2020 election.

He did that liberal thing where you remember the past accurately: “January 6 was a dark day in history the United States Capitol,” Pence said.

…

He continued, “We reconvened the Congress the very same day to finish the work of counting electoral votes from every state in the union. Now, there are those in our party, who believed that, in my position as presiding officer over the joint session, that I possess the authority to reject or return electoral votes, certified by the states.”

“But the constitution provides the vice president with no such authority,” Pence stated.

“The truth is, there is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.”

“The presidency belongs to the American people, and the American people alone.”

It has been put about that Pence actually thinks he has a future in politics, and given the reception he got at a recent whackjob conference, it may be the case that he has concluded that no amount of sychophancy to the former guy will restore him to the good graces of either said former guy or his adherents.

If Pence really wants to run for president in 2024, he will have to do it as a sort-of-anti-Trump. That is, never directly attacking Trump, but pushing back at the Big Lie and presenting himself as a true conservative who supports the constitution.

It won’t work, particularly if Trump runs again, but if Pence does make such a run, it may roil the Republican Party somewhat. If Liz Cheney, by that time former Congresswoman from Wyoming, runs as a third party candidate, Pence’s failed candidacy may have the effect of pushing his followers (if there are any) into the Cheney camp. A third party run, in the words of the Bard “ ’tis a consummation devoutly to be wish’d”. It would guarantee a Democratic victory on the presidential line, despite the fact that a number of traditionally red states will be stolen as a result of voter suppression and outright theft. What effect it would have on the Senate is, unfortunately, an open question. Odds are that if Congress hasn’t passed a voting rights law by 2024 the Republican Party will have effectively created one party states in those states in which it has suppressed the votes. There’s not much doubt that the Supreme Court will give a thumbs up to the voter suppression laws, so states such as Georgia and North Carolina, where an electorate allowed to vote would likely vote for Democrats, will be safely in the Republican camp.

AFTERWORD: It’s interesting that Bill Barr, arguably the most sycophantic of them all, is putting distance between himself and the former guy. Given his willingness to abuse his office for the genius while he held it, it may say something about where these people think things are heading. Of course, in Barr’s case, he may just be trying to head off obstruction of justice charges.

AFTER THE AFTERWORD: As usual, Driftglass has a perceptive take on Pence.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

An easy prediction

Thursday, June 24, 2021

I have ranted on several occasions about the inability of Democrats to get their message across and their tendency to undermine themselves by their inept communications strategy. The Republicans, by contrast, have done a great job of manipulating the media and their base, enabling them to pursue policies that hurt their own voters at least as badly as they hurt everyone else, moreso in some cases. But the Republicans are not perfect, and I hereby predict that they are about to embark on a public relations disaster.

The Republicans are nonentities in cities, and are rapidly losing the relatively affluent suburbs, maintaining maximum strength in those places where folks are losing intellectual capacity through extensive inbreeding. That’s why they need to suppress votes, but they wouldn’t have to suppress quite so many if they could pump up their numbers back to where they were when they once ruled in the suburbs. One of the many things driving suburban types away from the Republicans is their attempt to transform the insurrectionists into a band of harmless tourists. It will work on the brain dead, who they already own, but it won’t work with people who saw it live at the time and whose brains have not been thoroughly Foxified. Not everyone lives in an Orwellian world in which, despite the evidence of their own senses, they believe whatever they are told to believe.

Which brings us to the news that Nancy Pelosi has announced that she is going to form a special committee to investigate the attack on the Capitol. Kevin McCarthy will presumably decide which Republicans will be on that committee. He could appoint people who would sit quietly through the hearings and investigative process, neither helping very much nor impeding. If he did that it would not rankle any of those former Republican leaning types who might, properly coddled, return to the fold. But he won’t do that. He will appoint folks in the Jim Jordan/Devin Nunes mode, maybe even the more extreme nutcases (seemingly impossible, yet true) like Lauren Boebert. They will proceed to argue incessantly that nothing happened that day; that they weren’t hiding out from a rampaging mob, and those conspirators testifying to the contrary in the hopes of getting their sentences lowered are actually Antifa or FBI plants. That sort of thing will simply solidify Democratic gains among the suburban demographic, a demographic that, for the most part, the Republicans have not marked for suppression and which would be harder to suppress if they tried.

It is to be hoped that Pelosi will appoint a chair who is a skilled media manipulator, but that may be asking too much.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Theological Ruminations

Tuesday, June 22, 2021

Oddly enough no one has asked me to weigh in on the Biden communion controversy, despite the fact that I’ve made known on several occasions that I have an advanced degree in theology, strictly of the Roman Catholic variety, from Our Lady of Sorrows Grammar School, late of Hartford, Connecticut.

As has been reported, the Bishops are proposing that Biden be denied communion, because while he is personally opposed to abortion, he has not seen fit to impose his views on others.

First a little background. Communion is a “sacrament”, allegedly instituted by Christ at the last supper. During Mass, the priest waves his hands over some foul tasting wafers, says some magic words, and presto-chango, the wafers become Jesus, and every good Catholic gets to eat him. (The magic doesn’t change the taste at all) Well, you don’t exactly eat him, as you’re not allowed to chew. You have to wait until he sort of melts in your mouth, then get him down in a single swallow. You get used to it.

You are supposed to be free from sin before receiving communion. The easiest way to get free from sin is to go to confession right before Mass, as regardless of what you’ve done, as long as you say a sincere act of contrition, and the priest buys into it by saying the magic words, you’re sins are washed away. But the truth is, generally, everyone’s on the honor system, all you have to do is walk up to the communion rail and stick out your tongue, and the priest is going to give you your wafer. But, the priest can always just walk on by a really notorious sinner, say, someone who has been divorced multiple times and has more or less publicly committed adultery while married to one of the women he eventually divorced. Or someone who, for another instance, publicly supported a political leader who tore innocent children away from their parents and put them in a concentration camp. The priest could do the same thing to a politician, who supported the death penalty, something the church now opposes, though truth to tell, there was a time when the church spent a lot of time imposing that sort of penalty. But that was long ago in a continent far away and it is not convenient to remember such things at the moment, nor should we dwell on the abuses in which the Church engaged here in North America, not to mention the odd sexual predilections of so many Catholic priests. In any event, politicians who are all in favor of doing terrible things to people who have actually been born have nothing to fear from the Bishops or the priests, the theoretical right of the priest to pass them by notwithstanding. They can get their wafer, no questions asked. Despite some offhand remarks by Jesus, the church establishment has no problem with whited sepulchers.

It is also the case that the Church has always put its own interests ahead of some narrow minded principles of equity or fairness, and right now it sees itself in competition with the evangelical right for the ever more dwindling stock of sectarian adherents in this nation These people need red meat and the Church has every right to serve it up. Whether it will ever be able to compete in the whackjobbery department with the more experienced fundamentalists is quite another story, since it may have trouble disassociating itself from its troubling past, such as its recognition that the Earth may actually be more than 4,000 years old, humans may in fact have evolved from monkeys, and the earth actually does orbit the sun.

So my considered opinion is that what the Bishops are doing is thoroughly consistent with Catholic doctrine and the Church’s historical mission. Some might argue that the Church could gain more adherents by trying to appeal to the non-Foxified who might still be interested in a religious affiliation consistent with reason and mutual respect, but the Catholic Church has a long history of rejecting the rational until it’s far too late to derive any benefit from accepting it. So while the Bishop’s obnoxious proposal is thoroughly consistent with Catholic theological teachings, we OLS graduates (most of whom, of which I’m aware, have made the transition to agnosticism, if not atheism) can take some comfort in the fact that it will likely drive more of today’s Catholics into our ranks.

AFTERWORD: Speaking of my Alma Mater, Our Lady of Sorrows School, once located on Grace Street (how did they get the city to give it that name?) in Hartford: it is with mixed emotions that I learned that the convent in which the nuns who taught at OLS resided is being converted into housing units for anyone who wants to buy or rent them. You don’t even have to be Catholic! The few remaining nuns are getting a “modest portion…for their housing, offices and a worship space”. The actual chapel is being converted into a gym!

I lived a block away from the convent when I was a very little kid. At the time, there were lots of nuns and they even had cows that they milked. That part was sort of neat, and truth to tell, while the net effect of their teaching was pretty horrible, individually some of the nuns were good people. The truth is that nowadays women have more options, so they are less inclined to follow Hamlet’s advice and get themselves to a nunnery. I often wonder if, and hope that, the nuns I liked escaped the convent, but I’ll never know. Anyway, one more brick torn from the wall.

Filed in Religion | | Comments (0)

What we have here is a failure to communicate

Tuesday, June 15, 2021

This article at Hullabaloo should be required reading for the folks currently running the Democratic Party, but there’s little question that while it correctly identifies a fairly obvious problem with the Democrats, it would be completely ignored.

The article, which refers initially to a New Republic article by Alex Pareen, relates that the Democrats are sort of stuck in a prior error, and have failed to adjust to the realities of the modern age.

The Republican Party does not control the conservative propaganda network that keeps it relevent despite the party’s failures. Conservative media drives the party. But the two are at least symbiotic. Democrats rely on an outdated model of staging events and votes designed to get corporate mainstream media to tell their story for them for free (“earned media”). It is a strategy, Pareene suggests, that dates to when there were only three network news outlets. But after decades of the right “working the refs,” the media’s framing of Democratic narratives often goes sideways.

One thing the article notes would be effective, and which of course the Democrats don’t do, is sell the party as an entity, rather than solely individual candidates:

Some political science professors summarized a recent research experiment in Politico Magazine earlier this month. Alexander Coppock, Donald P. Green, and Ethan Porter “conducted a series of randomized experiments to test whether parties can win over new loyalists” with ads that promoted a party rather than a particular candidate. What they found was that, with repeat exposure, “people changed their partisan identification ever so slightly after seeing the ads,” and that “higher doses of party-promoting ads” could influence people’s voting decisions and feelings about Donald Trump. “Partisan identity is usually understood as a root cause of political behavior,” the political scientists wrote. “By moving it, we also appear to have moved real-world political decisions.”

Here at this humble blog I’ve been arguing forever that the Democrats have to come up with a narrative that they repeat like a drumbeat. Everyone should be singing from the same page, as the Republicans do, with those not inclined to sing obediently sitting quietly on the sidelines, doing what they’re told when the time comes. Right now, Republicans are actually trying to sell themselves as the party of the working class, and they’ll be successful if the Democrats don’t effectively counter them, and they can’t rely on MSNBC or CNN to do that for them. As the article notes, there are plenty of skilled writers who would be more than happy to help craft a message to shape the Democratic Party’s brand.

The article implies what appears to be the case with the Democrats who have seized control of the national party apparatus: they care more about keeping the money flowing and directing it to their favored recipients than in winning, much less actually effectively governing.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Worth reading

Friday, June 11, 2021

The Boston Globe is in the process of publishing a series of editorials containing its recommendations to prevent future presidents from engaging in the criminality in which the former guy engaged. It is well worth reading. Oddly enough, while the daily paper is only up to the fourth editorial, you can read all of them on-line already. The recommendations all make sense, though for some of them to work we would have to rely on the good behavior of future Congresses and future courts, both of which have themselves become deeply corrupted for a number of reasons, each of which is directly attributable to the Republican Party in one way or another. Still, the editorials have identified an urgent need. If we went to avoid another corrupt attempt at democracy destruction by a future president, a necessary if not wholly sufficient precondition is a change to our laws to clearly bar the most egregious acts in which the former guy engaged. So give it a read.

DISCLAIMER: By no means am I suggesting that one should read these editorials because my Pulitzer Prize finalist son may (he never tells us these things) be the author, or one of the authors. That possibility is merely coincidental.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

No threat to society

Tuesday, June 8, 2021

Those of us paying attention were aware that much of the violence taking place at Black Lives Matters protests was fomented by right wingers who rightfully expected it to be blamed on the left, primarily the almost non-existent Antifa. While there was substantial evidence that this was happening, it got very little notice from the press, either that of the right wing such as Fox (predictably) or the allegedly neutral press, such as the New York Times.

However, when part of your violence fomenting involves killing cops, it’s a good bet that even the cops will decide to take you down, right wing or not, which is what happened to one Steven Carrillo, who killed one cop and tried but failed to kill another.

But he didn’t act alone. He was part of a group that called itself the Grizzly Scounts, who organized via WhatsApp:

The men created a so-called “Quick Reaction Force” intended to perpetrate acts of violence against their perceived enemies, and sent one member to scout a protest in Sacramento. They also cooked up an “Operations Order” document describing police officers as “enemy forces,” and described taking some law-enforcement officers prisoner: “POWs will be searched for intel and gear, interrogated, stripped naked, blindfolded, driven away and released into the wilderness blindfolded with hands bound.”

On May 26, three days before he shot Underwood, along with another federal officer who survived, at a Black Lives Matter protest in Oakland, Carrillo had messaged Ybarra that he wanted to conduct a “cartel style” attack on police, and the two men then met in person in Ybarra’s van to discuss the idea. Before leaving his home in Ben Lomond for Oakland on May 29, Carrillo had texted Ybarra that he was heading out to “snipe some you know what’s.”

His co-plotter have been indicted, but would you believe it:

Even more disturbing, according to the San Jose Mercury-News, most of these conspirators, following their arrests for destroying evidence in the case, have been released on bond by federal magistrates who have deemed them not a risk to the community.

Of course you’d believe it! And wouldn’t you also believe that had they actually been Antifa they would very much be deemed a risk to the community?

Filed in Inequality | | Comments (0)

An infrastructure story

Saturday, June 5, 2021

As I write this I’m sitting in a house we own in Vermont. It is at the end of a dirt road, just down the road from the piece of land Michael Douglas owns, which explains why on some maps this road, properly known as Ethan Allen Road, is misnomered Michael Douglas Road. Even Garmin uses the name, though it is not official by any means.

But this post is not about Michael Douglas or the road. It’s about infrastructure, in this case broadband.Apparently the state of Vermont did something very smart some time ago, and required internet providers to actually provide high speed internet. You know-the kind of internet the providers in Connecticut all promise (they’re each and everyone the fastest you can get) but never deliver. Here in the middle of nowhere my Speedtest App tells me I’m getting 72.3 Mgbs download speed and 84.9 Mgbs upload speed. That’s right, I can upload faster than I can download. And I know that the app is not leading me wrong, because when I’m up here, I can upload pictures to Flickr or another cloud service I have for photos in a fraction of the time it takes in Connecticut.

Which leads to the point of this post. We would get the same type of service in Connecticut if we demanded it, and by “we” I mean the government of the state of Connecticut and the relevant regulatory agencies. We’re not paying any more for internet here in Vermont than we are in Connecticut, but we’re getting a whole lot more. The internet truly is a vital part of our infrastructure, and it’s about time that those we allow to bleed us dry to provide that infrastructure at least deliver a quality product.

I should add that all is not perfect here in the Green Mountain State. Cell phone service is horrible. Apparently whoever made sure that Vermonters got good internet dropped the ball when it comes to cell service.

Filed in Issues | | Comments (0)

The Second Most Powerful Person in the Country

Thursday, June 3, 2021

After Mitch McConnell:

.A new ruling from the Senate parliamentarian could make it harder for the Democratic majority to pass legislation, including measures to improve access to affordable health care.

Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, whose role is to advise the Senate on interpretations of the body’s rules and procedures, reportedly has determined that under the Senate’s complicated rules, the Democratic majority can circumvent a filibuster on fiscal policies only one more time this year.

It is a fact that if the Republicans were in charge she would make no such ruling, as her job would be at risk, since Republicans fire parliamentarians that don’t do their bidding. Alternatively, the Democrats could overrule her ruling.

Of course the Democrats would never think of doing such things! Better to let the country slip toward fascism than do something so unseemly! Besides, what would Joe and Kyrsten say?

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

People for whom my heart doesn’t bleed

Wednesday, June 2, 2021

We liberals are reputed to have bleeding hearts, but mine appears to be blood free, at least when I read about people like this:

“I am not going to be vaccinated. I’m going to be one of the survivors. I’m going to survive the genocide,” right-wing pastor and universal bigot Rick Wiles proclaimed on Friday, April 30th’s episode of his TruNews television program.

We shall see. On Sunday, TruNews sent a letter to its “friends and ministry members” informing them that Wiles, along with his wife, Susan, are both in desperate need of prayer because they had fallen seriously ill.

“Today, he was taken to the emergency room, and under medical advice, was admitted to the hospital. He is currently on oxygen and is expected to remain there for a number of days. Susan remains ill, but also needs your prayers as well. We would request that you would pray for healing for her body, but that you will also pray that the Lord will give her peace regarding Rick’s condition,” the letter states.

I believe the various missives his scam group has sent out have avoided acknowledging that it’s COVID, but it is. It is also the case, as the link above documents, that he has claimed that the COVID deaths of others who he dislikes were God’s judgments, so what are we to conclude about his impending demise?

And then there’s this:

Betsy Hargreaves wanted to save a few bucks on health insurance a couple of years ago so she switched to a religious-based plan.

For a while it worked, cutting her monthly premium by hundreds of dollars.

Then, in March, she had double hip-replacement surgery to relieve acute pain, followed by a four-day stay in the hospital and extensive physical therapy.

The surgery was successful, but Hargreaves’s “insurer” refused to cover any of the costs, saying her surgery was the result of a preexisting condition. She was saddled with nearly $75,000 in medical bills.

Wait!, you may be saying. It’s illegal for an insurance company to fail to cover people with pre-existing conditions! But hold on there! You didn’t read the fine print on the OneShare Health website, where it says quite clearly where you’d never notice it that they’re not an insurance company. Nor did you remember that “nonprofit” “health care sharing ministries” are exempt from covering preexisting conditions. In fact, as the article makes clear, they’re pretty much exempt from covering anything unless they feel like doing so.

Now, one might argue that my heart should still bleed a little for Ms. Hargreaves, since she says she opted out of her former insurance policy and went with the religious plan “without understanding all the ramifications”, but frankly I have no sympathy for people who get sucked in by charlatans, whether they be conspiracy peddlers, religious frauds, very stable geniuses, or folks who claim to talk to the dead (and that the dead talk back). If you’ve reached the alleged age of reason then you have an obligation to recognize a scam, and these days, any outfit that wants your money and claims to be religiously based is almost by definition a scam.

Purely as I side note: I’ve mentioned before that I have an advanced degree in theology from the late, but not at all lamented, Our Lady of Sorrows Grammar School, and I can tell you authoritatively that Jesus saw fit to cure anyone who came to him. No exceptions for pre-existing conditions. Funny how “Christians” these days don’t pay much attention to what he either (according to their Bible, I’m not saying it’s historically accurate) said or did.

Filed in Rants | | Comments (0)

Oh Ye of Too Much Faith

Thursday, May 27, 2021

There may be something to the “Ivory Tower” thing:

Dozens of legal scholars have come together for a new letter to congressional leaders detailing why "there is no constitutional barrier" to D.C. statehood legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last month and federal lawmakers should not avoid establishing a 51st state "because of meritless threats of litigation."

"As scholars of the United States Constitution, we write to correct claims that the D.C. Admission Act is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge in the courts," says the letter (pdf), first reported on Monday by NBC News and addressed to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

It is legal to allow the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth—the name proposed by House-approved H.R. 51, in honor of abolitionist Frederick Douglass—to enter the union through a congressional joint resolution, "just like the 37 other states that have been admitted since the Constitution was adopted," the letter continues.

"Furthermore, Congress’s exercise of its express constitutional authority to decide to admit a new state is a classic political question, which courts are highly unlikely to interfere with, let alone attempt to bar," the letter notes.

Reading the above made me think that these people have had their heads in their books reading old case law while being blissfully ignorant of the real world around them.

I’m not saying they’re wrong on the law, and they’re certainly not as far off base as the Harvard Law Professor who thought that he could get a popular vote constitutional amendment by getting the court to rule that it was legal for electors to vote for anyone, rather than the presidential candidate to whom their vote was pledged.

I’ve written about this issue here and here, and I won’t repeat myself too much, but suffice to say that under the present Supreme Court precedent, logic and reason are totally irrelevant. If there are five “justices” that want to keep Joe Manchin in power, then they will find a way to declare DC statehood unconstitutional. This court is beyond even caring about its reputation in the legal community. It’s aim is to hand the country over to a permanent Republican “majority” and DC statehood would interfere with that.

I was especially amused by the claim that the court would decline to interfere because DC statehood is a “political question”. The “political question” dodge has typically been used by courts to decline to interfere with legislation they like, even though it’s constitutionally suspect. The present Supreme Court used the political question dodge when it legalized partisan and racist gerrymandering recently. You can bet your bottom dollar that case would have turned out differently had the gerrymandering been done by politicians with a D after their names. If this court wants to prevent DC statehood it will brush the “political question” argument aside and proceed to write an elaborate fictional history proving that our sainted Founding Fathers would be aghast at the prospect of enfranchising a largely black electorate.

Now, to be fair, these law professors may be just as cynical as me and fully realize the chances are slim that this Court would let the people of DC have two senators. They may figure it’s worth a try, and that means convincing Joe Manchin of something, alas, of which he has no interest in being convinced.

Filed in Uncategorized | | Comments (0)