Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Warned


"The agency I represent,," explained main character Donald Cherkenlagenhagenflagen, "is one of the oldest in the business."

One of the two oldest, along with the divine. In the plot of an episode from 1992 entitled "Zombies in PJ's" of the television series (which unfortunately lasted only one year) "Eerie, Indiana"

The IRS threaten to shut down the World o' Stuff, and in desperation Radford signs a contract with a new partner.... As the new marketing campaign takes subliminal advertising to a new level, sleepwalking customers start buying everything in sight on credit and even Marshall and Simon can't resist signing on the dotted line. But they should have read the small print.

The con man introduces himself with his full name- but adds "you can just call me "The Donald."  The boy who was the main character and moderator of the series laments that he should have realized "not to trust a man with a ponytail whose first name is "The."

Many, if not most, people who lived in the greater New York metropolitan area in the 1980s or the  1990s understood that Donald J. Trump was a co -man.  The mistake many of us made was in assuming that the garishly ostentatious phony was merely a two-bit con man. failing to recognize that much of the rest of the country would not recognize the obvious buffoonery. Or as shopkeeper Radford says, "there's no way to beat the guy. We did it to ourselves, I guess."

The episode ends on a high note, however. An Internal Revenue Service agent goes to the store and confronts The Donald, who throws a tantrum, and is thrown into hell. Given reporting this week by The New York Times and the likelihood that the IRS will have a word or two with Donald Trump if he departs the presidency next year, "Zombies in PJs" certainly looks more than a little prescient.

In Christian theology, God the Son appears on Earth as a man. Yet,  Satan has been depicted through the ages in various ways in literature and visual art, in one common rendering with a "red body. horns, batlike wings, red skin, goatee,  furred legs with hooved feet, and sometimes atrident (pitchfork)."  It is conceivable that the devil may, similarly, emerge (or has emerged) not as a bizarre creature but as a man, one less likely to have red skin than orange hair.



Monday, September 28, 2020

Pure Evil


If Dayid Dayen can put off talking about "Trumpian con artistry in tax planning" for a day, I can do no less. Forbes reported on September 12 that the (New York) Daily News (behind a paywall for me) had

revealed that the Trump administration has siphoned around $4 million from the New York City Fire Department’s fund for its September 11 first responders, drawing outrage on the 19th anniversary of the attacks, but the U.S. Treasury says the money was diverted because of “delinquent debt” owed by New York City to the federal government.

The funds are part of the FDNY World Trade Center Health Program, which was established by the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, a bill passed by Congress that provides healthcare to first responders who have suffered a range of illnesses from exposure to dust and smoke at Ground Zero.

And so it is striking that on September 25, CBS This Morning host Gayle King  remarked to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Tuesday is a big debate. The first debate between the two of them. Between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. You had earlier suggested that you didn’t think Biden should debate. Do you still feel that way?”

“I do,” replied Pelosi. “Not that I don’t think he’ll be excellent. The president has no fidelity to fact or truth, and actually in his comments the last few days, no fidelity to the Constitution of the United States. He and his henchmen are a danger with their comments, are a danger to our democracy. Why bother? He doesn’t tell the truth. He isn’t committed to the Constitution.”

“But Speaker Pelosi, that’s what people say is the problem,” said King. “Your language to some is just as egregious as what they’re saying by calling the president’s people ‘henchmen.’ Some could say that’s just as insulting as what he’s saying about you.”

 

Henchmen? Nancy Pelosi should be applaud for her discretion and diplomacy.  An applicable definition of "henchman" is "a political follower whose support is chiefly for personal advantage."

Of 248 Republicans in either the US House or US Senate, exactly one (1) voted for the impeachment and/or conviction of President Trump. Given our understanding that many of Trump's supporters recognize his threat to democracy but need his support to get through a GOP primary, to keep their cushy jobs, or for financial advantage, "henchmen" fits like a high-end glove.

A medical expert in infectious diseases calls the threat of funds from a fund to treat the living victims of a terrorist attack "pure evil,"  an apt description also of the President behind it all.  That is clear, whatever the bothsiderism from mainstream news anchors.




Sunday, September 27, 2020

Yearning To Be Insulted


According to Olivia Troye, in a Covid-19 task force meeting, the President of the United States of America admitted "maybe this Covid thing is a good thing. I don't like shaking hands with people. I don't like shaking hands with these disgusting people."



We know Donald Trump dislikes journalists, immigrants, Jews, Christians, and veterans.  Lots of the latter two are Trump supporters. However, it was edifying to learn that Trump dislikes his supporters as his supporters and that they, too, lack self-respect.

Nonetheless, those who see Trump's strategy as one of avoidance should take note that this may be one of those instances.  The President truly does see this novel coronavirus as a positive. However, there are two reasons more significant than an excuse not to shake hands.

Though the President's handling of SARS-CoV-2 has been jarring to anyone concerned about human life, it has not been entirely a bad thing for him politically. Not only has it taken attention from a presidency which even otherwise had been a failure, it may be a boon to the Trump re-election effort in depressing the vote.

Donald Trump and his supporters successfully depressed the vote in 2016 by throwing at Hillary Clinton accusations (most of them ludicrous), which the media dutifully reported. By the time the campaign was over, both candidates were stained and tarnished, an impact which significantly boosted Trump.

Now the fear of being infected has propelled fear of voting in person, which improves the re-election prospect of the most evil man in America. Polls indicate that Democrats are far more worried about voting in person than are Republicans, while Trump is aggressively characterizing mail-in voting as fraudulent.

Also: people are dying, which has enervated the Eugenicist-in-Chief.  That is particularly useful for him because Walter Shaub is not only right but particularly insightful as to his first point:



Friday, September 25, 2020

Confronting Reality


One-time Democratic congressional candidate, MSNBC host, Democratic activist and current podcaster Krystal Ball realizes the Democratic Party "panders to identity" rather than addressing issues which affect minorities and struggling Americans. Citing an important study described in The New York Times by authors Ian Haney Lopez and Tony Gavito,  She recommends for Joe Biden

It's time to let go of the identity politics which change nothing substantive and only serves to assuage the consciences of white liberals. Less 1619 Project, more Battle of Blair Mountain. Embrace the class war and see what happens with that black and Latino enthusiasm if only the donor class would let him.

She adds

But all is not lost, my friends. There was a strategy that effectively appealed to Latinos, black and white voters alike. I'll give you one guess what it was. These voters were most persuaded by a message that linked class and race in a broad strategy against elites.

The research is right. The key is to link racism and class conflict. Democrats should call for Americans to unite against the strategic racism of powerful elites who stoke division and then run the country for their own benefit. This is not to deny the reality of pervasive societal racism but it does draw attention away from whites in general and toward the powerful elites who benefit from divide and conquer politics. This, of course, was exactly the approach of Bernie Sanders.....



This begs analysis in three key areas:

1) Good for Ball that she would emphasize racism among elites, rather than among the American people as a whole. Liberal pundits and the mainstream media too often emphasize the latter to the exclusion of the former while the Democratic political class, as Ball has noted, typically simply turns a blind eye to the racism of elites.

2) Bernie Sanders did in fact do extremely well among Latinos in the Nevada caucus.  However, this was the only state among the four which mattered (Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina the others) with a large number of Latinos. Further, we don't know why Sanders proved so popular with that cohort in Nevada, with one theory being that the youth (among whom Sanders was popular everywhere) leaned on their parents, often less conversant in English and American culture generally, to vote for the Vermont senator. It is unclear whether Sanders' appeal to Nevadan Latinos reflected a general popularity throughout the nation with that group.

3) "This, of course, was exactly the approach of Bernie Sanders." No, it wasn't. Bernie's message centered on class and though he always has had liberal views toward minorities, he was led kicking and screaming into showing real concern about blacks or Latinos. The approach Ball approvingly cites was that of Elizabeth Warren, whom Ball, a fervent supporter of Sanders, criticized regularly.

It's only fair to concede, as someone pointing out the disingenuous nature of Sanders supporters, that the inter-sectionalism which Ball describes (but which term she assiduously avoids) was not one of the two reasons I preferred the Massachusetts senator to the Vermont senator. 

But it is now only a few days shy of seven months since the pivotal South Carolina primary and a few days later, Super Tuesday, which effectively ended the contest for the Democratic nomination. And the supporters of Bernie Sanders still can't face reality.

The reality is that black voters crushed the campaign of Senator Sanders.  Exit polls indicate that in South Carolina, Biden won 61% of the black vote while his closest competitor received 17% of that vote.  Exit polls indicated Biden won approximately 63% in Virginia, 72% in Alabama, and 60% in Texas and North Carolina. At his best among black voters, Sanders trailed Biden in Minnesota by four percentage points.

The former vice-president did extremely well, and the Vermont senator very poorly, among blacks for reasons related to both Biden and Sanders. This occurred despite Sanders' strength among blacks who are young- as he was strong with other young voters- which obscured the flat-out dominance held by Biden with middle aged and old blacks. 

That doesn't mean that Biden would be a better President generally than Sanders, that he is a better general election candidate than Sanders would be, or that the issues which most concern blacks are ones Biden will more effectively address.

It means only one thing: Joe Biden owes his nomination to African-Americans. The South Carolina primary was the first in which a majority of primary voters was black (still are black, no doubt). But he wouldn't have surged to the nomination without South Carolina and, specifically, without African-American voters in South Carolina. 

When the South Carolina primary was held, Sanders clearly was in the lead for the nomination.  Recognizing that, those voters, a majority of them African-American, overwhelmingly opted for Joe Biden, for whatever reason. They didn't especially want Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, or Pete Buttigieg and they most emphatically did not want Bernie Sanders. It's difficult for Sanders' acolytes, and somewhat less for those of us for whom he was second choice, to face that reality. But it doesn't erase reality.

 

Wednesday, September 23, 2020

Liar, Liar

 


It's #8 in the Catholic book and #9 in the Protestant book but in the book it's always Exodus 20:16. In two of the most readable, yet literal, translations it is "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor'"; in another, "you shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

Other translations are slightly different but in all it means, in significant part: don't lie. And William Barr has done so, extensively and significantly, with great harm to the country he doesn't love.  Ruling against the Justice Department in March on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeking a full-text version of the Mueller report, Judge Reggie B. Walton, appointed to the Federal District Court in 2001 by President Bush

cited: Mr. Barr’s obfuscation about the scope of the links that investigators found between the Trump campaign and Russia, and how the report documented numerous episodes that appear to meet the criteria for obstruction of justice, echoing the complaints of many critics of Mr. Barr’s summary of the report.

The attorney general issued an initial four-page letter in March 2019 — two days after receiving the 381-page Mueller report — that purported to summarize its principal conclusions. But within days, Mr. Mueller sent letters to Mr. Barr protesting that he had distorted its findings and asking him to swiftly release the report’s own summaries. Instead, Mr. Barr made the report public only weeks later, after a fuller review to black out sensitive material.

Among the issues Judge Walton flagged: Mr. Barr declared that the special counsel had not found that the Trump campaign had conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election, and left it at that.

But while Mr. Mueller did conclude that he found insufficient evidence to charge any Trump associates with conspiring with the Russians, Mr. Barr omitted that the special counsel had identified multiple contacts between Trump campaign officials and people with ties to the Russian government and that the campaign expected to benefit from Moscow’s interference.

Judge Walton also wrote that the special counsel “only concluded” that the investigation did not establish that the contacts rose to “coordination” because Mr. Mueller interpreted that term narrowly, requiring, in the report’s words, agreement that is “more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other’s actions or interests.”

In addition, Mr. Barr told the public in March that Mr. Mueller had made no decision about whether the president obstructed justice, then pronounced Mr. Trump cleared of those suspicions....

The judge also blasted similar “inconsistencies” in public comments made by Mr. Barr hours before he released the redacted version of the report in April.



There are right-wingers in secular society, most notably our anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim President a trifecta!).. Moreover, the NationalCatholic Prayer Breakfast is not an official arm of the Roman Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, its Board of Directors and Founders Circle reveal it to be part of the conservative movement while it dishonestly claims to be non-partisan. It is is a reminder that there are organized, right-wing elements in that denomination as there are in evangelical Protestant Christendom. To such groups, the Ten Commandments, especially that pesky one about not bearing false witness, are a pesky inconvenience.




Tuesday, September 22, 2020

No Permanent Friends Or Enemies, Only Interests


Well, you can hardly blame them:


The Palestinian Authority is referring to the normalization agreements which the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain have signed with Israel in what Al Jazeera refers to as "a strategic realignment of Middle Eastern countries against Iran."

Qatar has ruled out signing a similar agreement because "normalizing relations with Israel" allegedly "can't be the answer" to the conflict between Arab Palestinians and Israeli Palestinians (commonly, the "Israel-Palestinian conflict"). 

Ever hostile toward Israel, Amnesty International, citing killings of Palestinians by Israeli ground forces and airstrikes, charged "Israel continued to impose institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians living under its rule in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories." That echoed widespread condemnation in the United Nations and elsewhere against the Jewish state, portrayed as unilaterally standing between the Palestinian people and the liberty they deserve.

A more objective USA Secretary of State John Kerry (video below) in December 2016 sensibly made the case for the two-state solution in the Middle East. One of its advantages he cited was "as the only way to ensure a future freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people."


 


He may have been right but there are at least two nations (Bahrain and the UAE) - for which the future freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people are largely inconsequential.  And as al-Maliki hints at, there likely are others for whom Arab Palestinians are an afterthought.

So it turns out that Israel is not the Great Satan- or at least no more so than the Palestinians' brethren. It is the greatest myth, perpetrated by Amnesty International and other interests, of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that the nation of Israel is uniquely hostile to the hopes and aspirations of Arab Palestinians. For whatever reason, no one wants any part of the Palestinians.

These anti-Zionists were not aware of their naivete. However, each country of the Middle East has known. And now the Palestinian Authority has acknowledged it.  Perhaps that is one reason two governments of the region have now pulled the rug out from under the Palestinians. They realize that in the somewhat odious regime of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel finally has an attitude toward the Palestinians they themselves can relate to.

 

Monday, September 21, 2020

It's You, Chuck And Nancy


Will Bunch maintains

The thousands of people who spontaneously packed the plaza outside the Supreme Court Friday night and again on Saturday for impromptu vigils show how deeply many Americans cared for Ginsburg’s ideals, and about her replacement. If McConnell appears able to forge ahead with a vote on Trump’s nominee, either in October or during a lame duck session after the election, that energy must be channeled into massive civil disobedience on an unprecedented level.

If McConnell sets a date for a confirmation vote, the American people need to respond with a general strike — to shut down the entire country, maybe for a day or two, maybe a week, maybe longer. This is a tactic that — although it’s succeeded on a municipal level, in a different century — hasn’t ever worked on a national scale. American capitalism can brutally punish displays of courage around work. But there’s a first time for everything, and if an authoritarian power grab won’t do it, then our democracy is beyond saving.

I also see a general strike as a galvanizing tool — both to drag too often cowardly Democratic leaders toward facing the realities of the Trump/McConnell threat, but also to rally strike participants behind longer-term protest measures.

Nonetheless, there are other measures which can be taken within the legislative system, turning "not me, us" on its head. 

The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur outlines a few of the possibilities in the video below.  Two seem to stand out as most practical, ones which Republicans would take if roles were reversed.



Democrats could ask for "unanimous consent" "on every vote there is between now and November 30" because a quorum of 50 Senators would be needed for a quorum to proceed. He notes that the vote for senator from Arizona is a special election, likely to be won by Democrat Mark Kelly over incumbent Martha McSally. (Democrats might have to hold out until January 3, when the new Senate- possibly a Democratic controlled one- is sworn in.)

Alternatively, Democrats could refuse to lift the debt ceiling and/or refuse to agree to a continuing resolution until the GOP Senate agrees to drop consideration of a replacement for Justice Ginsburg.  Senate Democrats don't have enough votes to pull this off themselves, Uygur concedes, but "You need the (Democratic-controlled) House to pass those."

But Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have to demonstrate leadership, though they are fond of playing softball and so may not utilize any of the tactics at their disposal. However, Uygur concludes of ("cowardly," as characterized by Bunch) Democrats that with

all that is on the line, if you can't get it done, then we're going to primary you not just because you're wrong ideologically and you're out of step with Democratic voters ideologically, but also because you're incompetent. You let Donald Trump walk into the White House, you lost a thousand seats over a decade and then on top of that if you lose the Supreme Court for three decades, there is no disputing how epic a failure the Democratic leadership is.

 

Share |

The New Pledge of Allegiance

Last month, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez infamously stated "I have a local city councilman that has this saying 'Woke 1...