Skip to content

Joe Biden semi-goes there

Saturday, August 27, 2022

I have in the past, (too lazy to find the post) bloviated about the Democrats failure to call a fascist a fascist. So, it was with somewhat pleasant to read that Joe Biden found his way clear to go half way there:

“It’s not just Trump,” he said at a fundraiser. “It’s the entire philosophy that underpins the — I’m going to say something: It’s like semi-fascism.”

Oddly enough, when Republicans describe Democrats, they don’t use the term semi-socialism.

What’s funny about all this from a rational point of view, is that with some rare or possibly non-existent exceptions, Democratic politicians are sem-socialists at best, while Republicans are full fledged fascists.

Of course I recognize that if you’re going to use the “F” word, you need to supply context. The “socialist” scare technique is losing, or has already lost, its effectiveness with the persuadable voters, given the endless repetition from the Republicans. The way to keep the “F” word relevant is to illustrate the similarities, such as the worship of the Fuehrer figure, the book burnings, the bigotry, etc. It wouldn’t be hard to get some film clips from the 30s to emphasize the point.

Anyway, here’s hoping some of the other Democrats will run with this. People are worried about our democracy, and it’s an issue they can win on.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

A righteous rant

Friday, August 26, 2022

Okay, this is just a little too much. Biden is just giving away thousands of dollars to people who owe student loans, just because they are a crushing burden on millions of people, particularly the people who’ve been scammed by for-profit colleges like a certain Very Stable Genius University.

Well, I’m on the side of our conservative friends who say that forgiving student loans is totally unfair to the people who have repaid their student loans.

What about us?!!!

I went to a fancy pants college and three years of law school and came out owing TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS! It was a crushing burden, particularly because during law school I had to come up with $300.00 every semester(!) to pay tuition! Now some people might point out that these days that’s about what it costs every week for law school tuition, but they don’t understand math and the shocking effects of Biden’s inflation. There’s no doubt that we’ve had 10,000% inflation since I went to school, so my $2,000 debt, resulting in outrageous monthly payments of almost $40.00 a month for two or three years is totally equivalent to the typical college debt of today.

And don’t go trying to argue that it doesn’t make much sense to argue against a program because it’s unfair to people who would have benefitted by it in the past, had it only existed then. It’s a perfectly logical argument. Imagine where this country would be right now if only we had remembered to never institute a program that is unfair to people who didn’t get to benefit from it. Yes, just imagine:

  • We wouldn’t need to pay for public schools because it was totally unfair to give some kids a free education when older kids’ parents had to pay for theirs.
  • We wouldn’t have had to fund social security, because making sure that old people didn’t starve to death was totally unfair to the old people who did starve to death.
  • We wouldn’t have to fund Medicare, because giving people reasonably priced medical care was totally unfair to the people who had to pay outrageous prices for medical insurance or go without medical care.
  • We wouldn’t have worker’s compensation laws, the cost of which is so unfair to employers, because they are so unfair to the people who got killed or injured at work and got nothing because, as the courts ruled, they had assumed the risk of getting injured in workplaces that employers had no incentive to make safe.
  • We would still have slaves, which would be so convenient for us white people, because freeing the slaves was so unfair to the slaves who had already died and couldn’t be freed.
  • If we had gone and freed the slaves anyway, we wouldn’t have had to pass the Civil Rights laws because treating people somewhat fairly would have been unfair to the people who were always treated completely unfairly.

These examples only scratch the surface. Why throughout history, even before there was a United States, there were some people who insisted on being unfair to those who came before by improving the lives of the living. If you really stop and think about it, every time we improve someone’s life, we are being unfair to those who came before and didn’t benefit by that improvement. This type of thing has got to stop!

Of course, now that I’m on Social Security and Medicare we can’t possibly think about doing away with them! That would be so unfair to …ME!

Filed in Rants | | Comments (0)

Apparently it doesn’t take much to make a (Republican) hero

Thursday, August 18, 2022

All three of the newspapers to which we subscribe ran articles today hyping Liz Cheney, and bemoaning what her primary loss means to the Republican Party. This from the New London Day/ AP:

Liz Cheney’s resounding primary defeat marks the end of an era for the Republican Party as well as her own family legacy, the most high-profile political casualty yet as the party of Lincoln transforms into the party of Trump.

It’s probably fair to say that the Republican Party hasn’t been the party of Lincoln since it sold its soul in order to gain the presidency in 1876, but if you don’t want to go back that far, you can start in 1968 with Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

Liz is now going to be cast as a heroine, and should she decide to run as a third party candidate, the press will surely idolize her, even if by running she risks handing the presidency back to a Republican, for we don’t know who she’ll take votes from, because we don’t know what information the low information voters will be fed by the press.

The Republican Party is the party of fascism, and has been for quite some time. We should not forget, though many of us will, that Cheney was fine with Trump’s lawless behavior and voted not to impeach him the first time he tried to steal an election, voted with him on just about everything he wanted to do, and has shown absolutely no interest in preserving the right of non-Republicans to vote. It’s all well and good that she’s against taking control by coup, if voter suppression fails to do the job, but we’re a poor excuse for democracy if we think that makes someone a hero.

Being against a coup is pretty much the least we can expect from our politicians, and it is frightening that the vast majority of Republicans have no problem with taking power that way. That’s the party that Cheney helped build, and we mustn’t forget that, but here’s an easy prediction: the press will do all it can to urge us to forget just that.

A sort of epilogue: The lionization of Cheney calls to mind the actions of our own senator, Lowell Weicker, during the Watergate hearings. He was properly outraged at what Nixon had done. The thing is, he wasn’t considered a hero, nor had the Republican Party degenerated so low that it felt it necessary to expel him from its ranks. He was just one of many Republicans who, in one way or another, recognized Nixon’s criminality and recognized their own obligation to do something about it. It is a measure perhaps of how low one of our major parties has sunk, and how normalized that sinking has become, that the press feels the need to make a hero out of a person who is simply doing what any right minded person would do. The fact that there are so few right minded people in the Republican Party is the real story, and its the one that the press should be emphasizing.

Filed in Media, Republicans | | Comments (1)

The democratic process in action

Thursday, August 11, 2022

I spent all of Tuesday (5:00 AM through 9:30 PM) working at my local polling place, checking in voters. Thankfully, I was assigned to the table where Democrats checked in, as it was more pleasant than dealing with Republicans would have been.

A few thoughts.

Primaries are one of those things that the Progressives gave us back in the early twentieth century, and in theory they are a good thing, and probably still are when the office in question is high profile enough. But I’m not so sure they’re a good thing in all cases, particularly the primaries that were held here on Tuesday.

I doubt whether the Democratic turnout exceeded 10% in the district in which I worked, and it is a district in which one would expect a relatively high turnout for regular elections. The Republican turnout was about numerically half of the Democratic turnout. Democrats actually outnumber Republicans in our district now, which is somewhat surprising since it is probably the most affluent district in town, but the numbers are such that the Republican turnout by percentage was less than that of the Democrats.

It was clear to me as we handed people their ballots that at least among the Democratic voters, many had no idea who was on the ballot, much less where any of them stood on the issues. That probably didn’t make much difference on the Democratic side, because in truth, there wasn’t much difference among them, as each would have satisfactorily filled the position for which they were running, and none of them are bat-shit crazy. The endorsed candidates were designated by asterisks next to their name, but I’m not sure whether that made much difference in how people voted, as I’m not sure many people realized that’s what a the asterisk meant. Two voters handed their ballots back after confessing they had no idea how to vote, but I’m sure they were far from the only such folks.

The Republicans in our district are, I believe (without any supporting data) mostly mainline Republicans who have not quite come to terms with the direction their party has taken. Keep in mind that very few of them came out to vote. I’m not sure that those who did appear were all whackjobs, but one woman did see fit to decry the awful fact that a certain criminal genius was subjected to a lawfully obtained search warrant the previous day. I suspect that statewide it was the whackjobs that showed up in the greater numbers on the Republican side, leaving them with Leora Levy (who is bat-shit crazy) as their candidate for US Senate, which in all likelihood will make Blumenthal’s task that much easier. Particularly on the Republican side, it appears that nationwide the party is driven to the ever more extreme right by an energized minority of Fox watching, QAnon believing nutcases.

So, I conclude that low turnout primaries are not terribly democratic, and it might be worthwhile considering requiring a non-endorsed candidate to not only win the primary, but to do so in a primary in which a given percentage of eligible voters turn out. This would probably benefit Republicans more than Democrats long term, at least in the sane states, as their nominees could drift back toward the mythical center and appeal to voters that people like Levy turn off. It wouldn’t be a cure-all, of course, and it’s entirely possible that the Republican Party has been so taken over by the fascists and conspiracists that it cannot be rehabilitated. But, for the sake of democracy, it’s not a bad idea to try.

Filed in Modest Proposals | | Comments (0)

Have we really come to this?

Sunday, August 7, 2022

I ran across this today. Nikki Haley is thinking of running for president, and if she does she intends to concentrate on the threat posed by transgender people.

In a way, this is a sign that the Republicans are running out of people to openly hate, which I suppose tells us something somewhat good about the nation, though it’s true that some Republicans have decided that there’s no need to be quietly racist anymore. Still, for the most part, you can’t openly attack blacks for being black, Jews for being Jews, or gay people for being gay. Transgender people are now the new boogie-people.

I recently read a statistic to the effect that, when asked in a poll, the American people responded that about 30% of people are transgender, when the actual number is closer to .6%, which is close to what I would have guessed if asked.

It’s hard to believe that in any sane or rational country that this would be a winning issue for any politician, and I suspect that it will not be even in this country, at least not right away. Still, it is a sign that the Republican establishment, to which Haley clearly belongs, has adopted the fascist playbook. There must always be an “other” to distract from the fact that the fascists aren’t particularly interested in doing anything that helps people with their daily lives.

One has to wonder. If the anti-transgender movement fades as the anti-gay movement largely has, who are they going to pick on next?

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Manchin’s Game

Friday, July 29, 2022

So, when I first heard that Manchin had struck a deal with Schumer, my reaction was: How will Lucy pull the football away this time? Well, it looks like I’ve found the answer.

You see, it seems that Joe really wants to eliminate what is truly a horrendous tax loophole that benefits very rich people, that being the carried interest tax rate that confers a super tax advantage on the already rich private equity managers.

Joe is adamant. If the carried interest loophole isn’t eradicated, then his support dries up.

Guess who opposes getting rid of the carried interest loophole? If you guessed Kyrsten Sinema you’d be right, and if you didn’t guess Kyrsten Sinema, you’re not keeping up with the news.

What are the odds that Sinema, who has not yet committed herself on the bill, will not support it unless the carried interest loophole is preserved? If you guessed there’s a 100% chance that will be her position, your guess is as good as mine.

Finally, what are the odds that Manchin knew when he threw his support to Schumer that Sinema would do his dirty work for him? See the previous paragraph.

I hope I’m wrong about this, but see above for the odds of that.

Filed in Dysfunction | | Comments (0)

Some random thoughts

Tuesday, July 26, 2022

A month ago I speculated that Fox might be abandoning Trump. Since then both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post (both Murdoch properties) have decidedly distances themselves from the genius. As to Fox? Well, as the wicked witch noted while plotting to do in Dorothy, these things must be done slowly. But, as we learn from Crooks & Liars today, Bret Baier is stunned that the January 6th hearings have made Trump look horrific. It is going to be a slow process, as unlike GW, Trump will fight being consigned to the memory hole, but it looks like we’ll be seeing Fox slowly shift its line on Trump. Six months from now, they may have reprogrammed their viewers completely.

On a somewhat related subject, I’ve mentioned before that I’m somewhat addicted to the Palmer report, though I take what they write there with a grain of salt, the grain being particularly large when I’m being assured that some wished for outcome is just around the corner. Still, on some issues they have been more right than your standard pundit, and this post about Liz Cheney is, in my opinion, right on the money. For the most part she’s a despicable human being, which just goes to show how unbelievably despicable are the other Republicans. I give her credit for being against outright fascism, but then, she’s perfectly comfortable with giving legal cover to the vote suppressors who want to make sure that minority rule will continue in this country.

Filed in Ramblings | | Comments (0)

Pick a lawyer that suits your needs

Monday, July 25, 2022

I didn’t practice criminal law, but I do have some insight into basic legal principles, so this left me somewhat puzzled.

The excellent Marcy Wheeler notes here that the Trump appointed judge who presided over the Bannon trial opined that while he was bound by precedent to throw out Bannon’s advice of counsel defense, he wondered if it was still good law.

Back in the days when even judges appointed by Republicans were somewhat sane, the DC Circuit ruled that advice of counsel is not a good defense in a contempt of Congress case. Bannon’s judge has a point: the present Supreme Court may carve out an exception to that precedent for Republicans charged with contempt of Congress when Democrats are in the majority.

So, in the future, future Steve Bannons may merely have to follow the advice Smokey Robinson’s Mom gave to him: “You better shop around”. If the first lawyer you talk to tells you that you have to testify, find someone like Rudy Giuliani or John Eastman, who will tell you that you don’t have to testify. Case closed.

As an aside, and stop me if I’ve made this point before, but Marcy Wheeler’s blog, Emptywheel, is really the best reporting you’ll find anywhere on the various cases related to January 6th, Trump corruption generally, and other politically important prosecutions. If I was involved in representing either the government or the defendants in these various cases, I’d read her religiously. If I were a reporter for a major newspaper I’d do the same, so I could avoid the media screw ups that she constantly exposes.

Filed in Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Those who don’t learn from history…

Monday, July 25, 2022

Here’s a post over at Balloon Juice that once again makes you wonder how our elected representatives manage to continue to live in a fantasy world.

The post is about the fact that we may need up to four new senators to rid ourselves of the filibuster, as there are a couple of others that are hiding behind Manchin and Sinema that will, quite likely, support abolishing the filibuster only in limited circumstances. One of the is Angus King, of Maine:

King argues that with the filibuster gone, Republicans could turn around and ban abortion when they regain power, saying “today’s annoying obstruction is tomorrow’s priceless shield.”

How oblivious do you have to be to actually believe that “tomorrow’s priceless shield” will survive should Republicans regain Congress and the presidency?

True, the Republicans would not get rid of the filibuster if they only had Congress, as anything they passed could be vetoed. But if they get the presidency they will not hesitate to get rid of the filibuster, either entirely, or piece by piece as they vote to carve out exceptions to its use. There is nothing more obvious, particularly given McConnell’s history.

And, just as an aside, while King’s Senate colleague, Susan Collins, might be concerned about getting rid of the filibuster, she will do as she is told should the occasion arise.

Filed in Dysfunction | | Comments (0)

There are 49 other Manchins we never hear about

Tuesday, July 19, 2022

This link should bring you to a number of Letters to the Editor at the New York Times, the first of which makes a point I’ve ranted at my wife about.

The press is once again making Biden’s inability to deal with the climate crisis all about the loathsome Joe Manchin. As the letter writer points out, that approach ignores the fact that there are 49 Republicans who have refused to deal with the climate issue. I’m sure Susan Collins is concerned, but, oddly enough, as so often happens, not concerned enough to actually do anything to address what is beyond a doubt the most critical issue we face.

The lack of Republican engagement on this issue, as on so many others, gets scarcely a mention in the press, because it is now considered simply normal Republican behavior to refuse to deal with the real issues facing the American people. They get a pass because they have established a history of indifference to the needs of the people, so the press concentrates on the one Democrat that follows their lead.

Given recent events, there is now a decent chance that the Democrats can hold onto the House, a chance that would be enhanced if they would learn how to properly convey their message. My own opinion is that there is a better than even chance that they will pick up some Senate seats. If that were to happen they can consign Manchin to purgatory, though he will no doubt anticipate his ostracism by switching parties, which he has already done in all but name. One must wonder if Sinema will follow his lead.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)