Skip to content

Taking the long view

Wednesday, February 26, 2020

You have to hand it to the right wing. It takes the long view. 

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, a hugely consequential case that could fundamentally change the rules governing when people with religious objections to a law may ignore that law.

Fulton asks whether religious organizations that contract with Philadelphia to help place foster children in homes have a First Amendment right to discriminate against same-sex couples. It is also the first case the Supreme Court will hear where a religious group claims the right to violate a ban on discrimination since Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation gave reliably conservative Republicans a majority on the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs in Fulton include Catholic Social Services (CSS), an organization that used to contract with the city to help find foster placements for children but that effectively lost that contract after it refused to comply with the ban on discrimination. CSS claims it has a First Amendment right to continue to do business with the city even if it refuses to comply with the city’s anti-discrimination rules.

The City of Philadelphia argues that it cannot contract out with a third party to behave in a way that the constitution forbids the state itself to behave. That argument makes total logical sense. The city will lose.

It follows as the night the day that if a group or individual can discriminate against a gay person because their religion demands it, then they can discriminate against any other group because their religion demands it, with the possible exception of discrimination against Republicans. My prediction is that even the loathsome Clarence Thomas won’t discuss the obvious ultimate objective when they rule in favor of the plaintiffs in Fulton. To the extent they do, they will airily dismiss the possibility with some sort of specious nonsense they can ignore in future cases.

But, as the Wicked Witch said, “all in good time”. Once the gays have been taken care of the rule will be extended to some other outcast group that is not racial in nature. After that, the ultimate goal, a religious right to discriminate against people on the basis of race. And really, to take it just a bit further, didn’t we go a bit overboard with the incorporation doctrine? What’s the harm in letting the Southern States have established religions. After all, it worked fine before the civil war.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

Bernie angst

Monday, February 24, 2020

A rambling sort of post, but it’s the best I can do.

Sometimes you have to wonder about the memes out there. We are supposed to believe, at the moment, that Bernie is almost a sure thing because he won a caucus in a state in which, if I’m reading the charts right, around 10,000 people participated. Chris Matthews is upset, and has compared Bernie to the Nazis, and the Democratic establishment is scared to death, because only a centrist can win, like one almost did last time! I still don’t think Bernie will get the nomination, but if he does the people who are supposed to be on our side should be good little boys and girls like the Paul Ryans of 2016 and get behind him.

The bitterness from both sides is ridiculous. I’ve even had to cut down on my guilty pleasure at the Palmer Report, which is taking a never Bernie stance, just as I’ve cut back on Down with Tyranny, which pretty much takes a Bernie only position.

I’m not convinced Bernie has any sort of lock on the nomination,but if he were to get it, contrary to the thinking among the punditocracy, I think he can win, provided the Democratic Party gets behind him. Once again, recall that all the experts said Trump couldn’t win, but he did. Bernie ran strong against Hillary in exactly those states that she lost in the general by a whisker, so there are good arguments to be made that he can win the general election. Sure he’s got baggage, but they all do, and if they don’t, the Republicans will make stuff up. I disagree with Krugman, who says Bernie shouldn’t call himself a socialist. It’s a little late for that, as he hung that moniker on himself about 40 years ago. If he disavows it now, it just gives Republicans a talking point. Rather than that, were I him, I’d point out that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment benefits, workers compensation benefits, public libraries, and public schools, to name just a few of the things we take for granted, are socialistic, as the Republicans pointed out about many of them when they were first passed.

Speaking of socialism, now that I’m on Medicare, and my wife and I have navigated the rocky waters of picking a supplemental plan, it has occurred to me to wonder why none of the candidates, including Sanders, has proposed expanding Medicare for people already getting it. Why should I have to get a supplemental plan at all? Why doesn’t Medicare cover dental? Why doesn’t it cover eye exams? Why is the prescription drug benefit so crappy? (We know the answer to that one; it was a giveaway to Big Pharma) Not only would expanding Medicare get you votes from seniors, it would make the idea of Medicare for All more attractive to younger workers, who often rightfully complain about the possibility that they’ll have to trade a better medical plan for Medicare. And of course, it would be cheaper in the long run, though the pundits can’t understand that a dollar paid in taxes is the same amount of money as a dollar paid to insurance companies. Plus, assuming we take the Senate, it’s something that could actually pass, assuming that the Senate bucks Bernie and gets rid of the filibuster.

Bernie’s not my first choice, but I think he can win provided that the Democratic Party doesn’t do to him what it did to George McGovern. Back then, Big Labor, epitomized by George Meany, took a pass on the Democratic candidate, because he was against an unnecessary war. Lots of mainstream Democrats were luke warm at best. McGovern might not have been able to win in any event, but that election marks the beginning of the decline of the union movement and the middle class, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence. This one, if we lose it, will have much more serious consequences. The constitutional order will be destroyed and we will have a dictator in all but name.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

There’s only one issue

Thursday, February 20, 2020

I’m not a Michael Bloomberg fan, though I’ll vote for him if need be, but I give him credit for one thing. He seems, more than any of the other candidates, to understand that the central issue in this election is Donald Trump. Sure, better medical coverage, anti-trust enforcement, Green New Deals, are worth talking about, but Trump should be front and center. In the end, if we’re going to win, it will be by making the election about the stable genius.

Not only do some of the presidential candidate not seem to understand this, but the party nabobs don’t seem to have a clue. It was always a given that the Senate would acquit Trump. Yet to all appearances, the House Democrats appear to have taken that acquittal as proof that they should let up on their investigations, as though beating the drums on Trump’s perfidy should stop now that he’s been acquitted in a sham trial. I don’t seem to recall the Republicans shutting their mouths about Bill Clinton’s peccadilloes, which paled next to Trump’s, and, as an historical reminder, the Democrats lost the next presidential election, or, at the very least, it was close enough to enable the Republicans to steal it.

I very much doubt there will be presidential debates this year, as I doubt Trump would risk debating anyone but Biden. But I have this fantasy of those debates happening, and the Democrat using all of his or her time simply listing, one after the other, all the heinous and criminal things Trump has done. Besides keeping him on defense it would drive him crazy and he might have a meltdown right then and there.

Afterword: The above was written as a draft yesterday, before the debate, during which I understand Bloomberg bombed in response to Warren attacks. That brings up another debate fantasy. It would be nice if every person on the debate stage made opening remarks to the effect that everyone standing on the stage (as well as almost anyone in the audience) would make a better president than the criminal currently occupying the White House, and that whatever happens, he or she will support the person who comes out on top.

Filed in Democrats, Politics, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Can’t we (Democrats) all just get along?

Sunday, February 16, 2020

The rancor coming from all sides in the Democratic field is depressing, to say the least. We have always been good at creating circular firing squads, but this is really getting out of hand. The common stereotype is that the Bernie Bros are the my way or the highway wing of the party, but I’ve seen plenty of evidence that there are folks all over the Democratic ideological map more intent on undermining their disfavored Democratic candidate than defeating the orange monster. I know of two Biden fans here in Connecticut who spend a lot of on line time bashing Bernie, which neither enhances Biden’s chances for the nomination or election, or changes the minds of the die hard Bernie-ites. And of course there are the die hards of all stripes who insist that if their choice doesn’t get it, they simply won’t vote. After all, what could go wrong?

We have a man in the White House auditioning to be America’s Hitler and an entire political party getting fitted for brown shirts, but we spend our time bashing each other, which the press will only gladly amplify. After all, to be fair to both sides the press must point out that the Democrats are in Disarray!, while the Republicans are running an electoral juggernaut, notwithstanding the near record number of Republican Congresscritters who have decided to spend more time with their families.

There’s not a person in the Democratic pack, especially now that Tulsi is an afterthought, that wouldn’t be a better president than the genius. There’s also not a single one of them that can’t win, provided all of us line up behind her or him. I can’t recall an election in my lifetime in which some pundit hasn’t said that it was the most important election in their lifetime. Well, this time it’s true. If we lose this one, we will have a dictatorship.

Every Democratic candidate should, in every speech, emphasize that he or she is with whoever gets the nomination. For myself, when it comes to the primary, a candidate’s failure to do exactly that will weigh heavily in my decision. But once the final choice is made, I’ll be behind the nominee 100%, as should everyone else who would like to see the Republic survive. 

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

It’s bullshit. You know it and I know it.

Friday, February 14, 2020

All three of our morning newspapers this morning headlined Barr’s comments about Trump’s tweets. The New London Day, as per usual, was the worse offender, proclaiming: Barr Angry Over Trump Tweets. 

If I might quote the philosopher Randy Newman, in his incarnation as the Devil, talking to God, in his own version of Faust:

If I might intrude
Just for a moment
If only to inject a note of reality
On this festive occasion

In all my life
I don’t believe I’ve ever heard such bullshit
Even from You
A master of bullshit
You know it
I know it
It’s bullshit
Bullshit

There is no question that Barr holds his office for one reason: because he is willing to do whatever Trump wants. He knows it, and we know it, and anyone who says differently is spouting bullshit. The fact that the White House immediately put out a statement to the effect that the genius is not at all disturbed about Barr’s comments tells you all you need to know.

Barr is saying this stuff for one reason only, to lay a foundation for what will probably be a series of lies about his move to reduce Stone’s sentencing recommendation. In the same interview where he pretended to vent his “anger” he took pains to absolve Trump of any connection to his own decision to corruptly interfere in the Stone case. We are supposed to believe that the fact that Trump’s tweet came before Barr’s announcement was mere happenstance. Even if it was, keep in mind that Barr did what he did, something that is highly improper, not because it was the right thing to do, but because it was what he knew Trump wanted him to do. That is true even if by some miracle it is true that Trump’s tweet was emitted after Barr made his decision but before it was announced.

Barr will be testifying to Congress soon (though not soon enough) and he is just laying the groundwork. More bullshit will be forthcoming.

I’m sure I’m not the only non-mainstream person out there who will call bullshit on Trump. In fact, here’s somebody doing it at Hullabaloo. I took pains not to read this post when I saw it in my RSS reader, as I had already decided to vent on this and I wanted to avoid stealing anyone else’s ideas. I’m sure it’s worth reading. 

Filed in Republican Corruption | | Comments (0)

Another brick in the wall

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Why am I totally not surprised by this:

’Sloppy’ Mobile Voting App Used in Four States Has ‘Elementary’ Security Flaws

MIT researchers say an attacker could intercept and alter votes, while making voters think their votes have been cast correctly, or trick the votes server into accepting connections from an attacker.

A mobile voting app being used in West Virginia and other states has elementary security flaws that would allow someone to see and intercept votes as they’re transmitted from mobile phones to the voting company’s server, new research reveals.

An attacker would also be able to alter the user’s vote and trick the user into believing their vote was transmitted accurately, researchers from the Massachusetts Technology Institute write in a paper released Thursday.

The app, called Voatz, also has problems with how it handles authentication between the voter’s mobile phone and the backend server, allowing an attacker to impersonate a user’s phone. Even more surprising, although the makers of Voatz have touted its use of blockchain technology to secure the transmission and storage of votes, the researchers found that the blockchain isn’t actually used in the way Voatz claims it is, thereby supplying no additional security to the system.

Read the whole article. The company involved has made a generic defense, the same defense that other companies that made faulty electronic voting machines have made. It seems pretty clear that they made only a passing effort at making their system secure. Almost like they were working for someone with an interest in hacking our elections. Hmmmm.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the internet knows beyond doubt that holding elections via the internet is an invitation to outside forces such as, (would you believe!) the Russians to interfere in our elections. The United States Senate Republicans have proven time and again that they are fine with outside interference.

The fact that states like West Virginia are buying into these systems can be explained in only one of two ways: 1) Election officials are monumentally stupid, or 2) the election officials involved have reason to believe that hackers will be on their side. Given Republican resistance to efforts to protect our elections, the preponderance of the evidence would indicate a clear choice between the two possibilities.

Sometimes the old ways are better. It is a no brainer that paper ballots, initially tabulated by machines that are in no way connected or capable of connection to the internet are the way to go. It may take a little longer to get official results, but it’s better than living another four years under the stable genius.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism, Dysfunction, Our Liberties Threatened, Republican Corruption | | Comments (0)

Another blast from the past

Monday, February 10, 2020

I’ve mentioned before that I keep a diary on my Ipad, in which I’ve tried, along with my own pathetically dull life, to chronicle the day to day developments related to the Orange menace. Four years ago the New Hampshire primary had just taken place, and I wrote this:

In other news, there’s no other news, except that the consensus seems to be that Rubio is history. As for Kasich, who came in second, he is now in Bush’s crosshairs. Kasich has no money, so it’s not clear there’s an upside for him in the future. It is interesting how they are forming a circular firing squad, with Trump lobbing projectiles from the outside. They’re scared to take him on, and when they try, they fall flat.

It just occurred to me that there were probably German diarists half laughing at Hitler when he was on his way up. It’s a dangerous time.

They’re still scared of him, and would rather have a Hitler than take him on.

Filed in Republicans, The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Going Full Fascist

Friday, February 7, 2020

I suppose this was inevitable.

For months, congressional Republicans have complained that the impeachment of Donald Trump was delaying important policy, repeating the mantra “get back to work.” Now that the impeachment process is over, they are instead pushing for new investigations in retaliation.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham essentially admitted this plan on Fox News on Thursday, previewing Trump’s remarks set for the afternoon. “I think he’s gonna also talk about how just horribly he was treated and that maybe people should pay for that,” she said.

Full details on the targets at the link. They include the inevitable Hillary, Hunter Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and the anonymous Whistleblower. The Treasury Department has already swiftly sent to the Senate committees precisely the sort of financial information on Biden that they withheld on Trump.

Thankfully, the House is in Democratic hands, but that won’t stop the Injustice Department from bringing phony criminal charges against Democrats.

If we win the election in November it is absolutely imperative that the people attempting to impose fascism pay a price. As an easy example, Rand Paul, who has repeatedly attempted to out the whistleblower should be shown the inside of a prison cell, as his conduct is and was criminal. Bill Barr can be his cell mate. Those pushing fascism must be made to pay a price. It is at least marginally possible that none of this would have happened if Nixon had spent some time behind bars, and the precedent of exempting Republicans from the legal consequences of their crimes had not been set.

If we lose the election, then our only hope is for the sane states to reopen the question of secession. The country will be fully fascist if four more years of Trump are imposed upon us. 

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

Oh, Please dear god that doesn’t exist, grant my prayer!

Monday, February 3, 2020

Ask my better half, this has been one of my fantasies, and now it may come true:

Two Swedish lawmakers have nominated 17-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg for the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize. According to the Associated Press, Jens Holm and Hakan Svenneling—members of Sweden’s Left Party—argue that Thunberg’s pursuit of climate change legislation on a global level, in the face of stubborn and powerful world leadership, is “an act of peace.”

Thunberg has received all kinds of accolades for her work to highlight the issue of climate change and pressure world leaders to prioritize the environment. She has spoken in front of thousands, including directly to world leaders at the U.N. this past September. Like most people in the public eye, Thunberg has had to weather the bullying of our country’s commander in chief, but as Thunberg has shown nothing if not integrity, she has easily disposed of the tiny-handed tyrant every time.

Timing is everything here. I don’t know precisely when these awards are handed out, but if there were a god, and she actually cared to dispense divine justice, she would time that award to be announced just as the networks are calling November’s election for the Democrat. Or maybe the next day. Whatever would irritate the orange one the most.

Of course if there were a loving god looking after us, the orange one would be in jail. Still, we can always hope.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Looking on the bright side

Friday, January 31, 2020

Today the Senate took a prelimary vote that all but declares that, as Richard Nixon said, “when the president does it, that means it is not illegal”. Of course, there’s an asterisk attached, in that the president in question must be a Republican. But this was wholly expected and we must now hope that the Democrats can get there act together and keep this outrage front and center during the coming campaign.

For my own part, I take some small solace in the following. On Monday I wrote a post in which I asserted with confidence what I thought at the time was conventional wisdom: that of course the Republicans would not allow witnesses, for the following reasons:

A. No matter what, the Republicans are going to vote to acquit Trump. This is an absolute given.

B. Allowing testimony would simply make them look worse than they already look and would cost them even more votes in the November election.

The very next day, the New London Day, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe, each of which is delivered to my door each day, all bore headlines to the effect that it was really looking like enough Republicans would vote for witnesses to make it a reality. For a while there I was worried. I’m not always right, but I certainly compare favorably to David Brooks, Bill Kristol, and a host of other highly paid pundits. (But then, who doesn’t).

Anyway, I started composing a follow up post in my mind, acknowledging that I had been wrong. But by the next morning, all was well. I don’t recall if all three papers had similar headlines this time, but it was now clear that Moscow Mitch would prevail, just as was always clear to anyone actually watching. It remained to be seen whether they’d play catch and release with Susan Collins, who will vote for acquittal in any event. So, I breathed easier, knowing I would not have to confess error. So that’s the bright side to today’s vote, from my point of view. 

While composing this post in my mind, I ran across this post at my guilty little pleasure site, the Palmer Report. As I’ve said before, they usually have their facts right, but you can’t place bets on the conclusions they draw from those facts. But their conclusions are not always wrong, and this pretty much tracks the logic of what I said in my own post, so I reproduce it here.

The Republican Senate was never, ever going to convict and remove Donald Trump unless he became so toxically unpopular, the Republican Senators selfishly concluded that their own personal odds of reelection would be improved by ousting Trump. Instead, the Republicans made the calculation that their own careers are better off by acquitting Trump. If anyone in the Resistance thought this was ever going to come down to Republicans “growing a spine” or “not growing a spine,” that’s just not how any of this works. For the Republicans, it was always about math.

It is now up to the Democrats that run against these Trump enablers to constantly remind their constituents that their opponents refused to listen to witnesses and cast a vote for acquittal in the full knowledge that Trump was guilty. Look for Joe Manchin, Krysten Sinema, and/or Doug Jones to make that harder by voting to acquit and rendering it a bi-partisan vote. For Jones, in particular, the vote will make no sense, as he can’t run a campaign without out of state money, and that will dry up if he votes to acquit. But Democrats live in the fantasy world in which they vote against the wishes of their base because doing so will win them more votes from Fox deadheads than they will lose by turning off their own voters. It’s a proven strategy in this fantasy world, but it’s one that never works in the world the rest of us inhabit.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)