Quandary Unnecessary

In the video attached to the tweet below, Marjorie Greene is seen remarking

You have to accept the fact that the government totally wants to provide surveillance on every part of your life.  They want to know when you're eating. They want to know if you're eating a cheeseburger, which is very bad because Bill Gates wants you to eat his fake meat that grows in a peach tree (sic) dish.

So you'll probably get a little zap inside your body and then say "no, no." Don't eat a real cheeseburger. You need to eat the fake burger, the fake meat from Bill Gates.

Um, they probably also want to know when you go to the bathroom and if your bowel movements are on time. I mean, what else do these people want to know?

 Sounds pretty crazy, huh? This person would agree:

I’m in such a quandary. I can’t decide if crazy or stupid is the more dominant trait here. https://t.co/hDaEIuUcNE

— Mattie Timmer (@MattieTimmer) May 30, 2022

 

Recall when on April 23, Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia testified in an administrative lawsuit brought by five voters who charged that she "voluntarily aided and engaged" in the 1/6/20 insurrection and thus is ineligible to run for federal office.

Greene put on a spectacular performance and thus defeated the bid to disqualify her.  She admitted to nothing other than forgetting everything but oh, no, she couldn't possibly have believed whatever she was accused of. Approximately ten days after her testimony, an unavoidably cynical columnist from the Holland (MI) Sentinel would post this snippet:

Questioner: “Did you like a (social media) post that said it’s quicker, that a bullet to the head would be a quicker way to remove Nancy Pelosi from the role of speaker?

Greene: (Smiles and hesitates) I’m not answering that question. It’s speculation.

Questioner: You have said, Ms. Greene, that she’s a traitor to this country.

Greene: No, I haven’t said that.

Questioner: OK. (Then speaking to a clerk) Show Exhibit 5, please.

Greene (immediately): Oh no, wait. Hold on, now. (Pause) I believed that by not securing the border, that that violates her oath of office. (Apparently Greene remembers better just before exhibits are about to display evidence contradicting her statements.)

Later in the hearing …

Questioner: Had you ever advocated for martial law to be imposed in a conversation with the chief of staff …

Greene: I don’t recall.

Again, I’m pretty sure I would remember advocating, or not advocating, for something so notable, so horrific, as declaring martial law in America. Wouldn’t you?

The congresswoman demonstrated that she could teach a law school class entitled "How to Avoid Admission of Guilt When Your Hand is Caught in the Cookie Jar" by deftly avoiding responsibility for any actions taken or words spoken.

And she could. Greene may be trolling the left, hoping the antagonism and ridicule she incurs will stir up would-be donors among extreme conservatives. Or she may be seeking publicity, to gin up those donations, raise her national profile among GOP voters, or simply for the benefit of publicity. She may be having a ton of fun.

The exhortation to eat a "real cheeseburger" instead of a "fake burger" brings to mind the adage "real men don't eat quiche" of the 1980s, which was meant as satire but widely interpreted as a demonstration of masculinity. Additionally, the substitution of "peach tree" for "petri" may have been a nod to the voters in the Peach Tree state of Georgia. It's speculation- but we sell the Georgia congresswoman short at our peril.

Greene's intent is not clear, yet it's likely she is fully aware of why she is doing what she is doing.   Asked whether she considered Speaker Pelosi a traitor,  tried to claim that she never said that Nancy Pelosi is a traitor. Confronted with proof to the contrary, the congresswoman skillfully pivoted, her memory restored by the possibility she otherwise would be charged with perjury.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is characterized by extremism, bigotry, and deceit.  But only at our peril do we mistake that for craziness or stupidity.

 

Share |

The Right To Be Vile In Church

For some really serious right-wing hatred, you can travel to something called the Global Vision Bible Church in Mount Juliet, Tennessee. Or maybe you can't listen there to pastor Greg Locke, present at the Capitol on January 6, 2020,  who has said "said that those who wore masks to his church would be asked to leave and discouraged his congregation from getting vaccinated.."

On May 15, Locke stated

You cannot be a Christian and vote Democrat in this nation. I don't care how mad that makes you.... They are God-denying demons, butcher babies, and hate this nation.....

 You cannot be a Democrat and be a Christian. You cannot. Somebody say "amen." The rest of you get out. Get out. Get out in the name of Jesus. I ain't playing your stupid games. ...

They want to talk about this insurrection. I'll tell you something. You ain't seen an insurrection yet. You keep pushing our buttons. You go down, sorry compromisers, you God-hating Communists. You'll find out what an insurrection is.

Now, however:

UPDATE: Greg Locke said today that he "dissolved" his church's 501(c)(3) status. “IRS, we don’t need your stupid tax exempt status! You can put it in a bag and burn it your front yard for all we care! I renounce 501(c)(3) communism in this church!” https://t.co/4FZBHbClHG

— Brian Tyler Cohen (@briantylercohen) May 23, 2022

I doubt that a fellow who calls all Democrats "God-hating demons," urges members of his congregation to get themselves killed, and tells people who don't say "amen" to leave his church will voluntarily surrender tax-free status. And contrary to the implication of the tweeter above, it's very unlikely that, in the absence of specifically asking for a vote for or against a specific candidate, it would be yanked from his church. As NPR explained in 2017

The Johnson Amendment regulates what tax-exempt organizations such as churches can do in the political arena.

Under terms of the 1954 legislation (named for its principal sponsor, then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson), churches and other nonprofit organizations that are exempt from taxation "are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office," according to the IRS website.

Organizations claiming tax-exempt status cannot collect contributions on behalf of political campaigns or make any statement for or against a particular candidate. Clergy are not allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit.

As this document from the Internal Revenue Service suggests, the IRS grants wide latitude to 501(c)(3) organizations without yanking their tax-free status. (See especially situation #5.) Good thing, too, because

A 2016 survey by the Pew Research Center found that black Protestants have been more likely than other Christian groups to report having heard their clergy speak out clearly on the merits or faults of a particular candidate. The study found that 28 percent of black Protestants heard their clergy speak in support of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign, while about 1 in 5 black Protestants, about 20 percent, said they had heard their ministers denounce Donald Trump.

By comparison, just 4 percent of white evangelicals reported having heard their clergy speak in favor of a presidential candidate (2 percent each for Trump and Clinton), while 7 percent heard their clergy speak against a candidate (mostly Clinton).

Many churches, from the right or the left, get involved in political advocacy.  It appears that short of recommending a vote for or against a candidate, a church can be nearly as involved in political causes as it wishes without seriously endangering its tax-exempt status. So we may have a great deal more of ostensibly religious figures like Greg Locke in a dystopian future.

 

Share |

A Strategy Without Guns

There are dirty little secrets and dirty big secrets, and this is in the latter category.

Igor Volsky, Executive Director of Guns Down America, has been justifiably angry at the passive response of Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and President Joe Biden to the massacre in Uvalde. He told (beginning at 2:32 of the video below) Zerlina Maxwell of MSNBC

Don't let him tell you the choice is either to have those negotiations or to have a quick vote that will fail. No, what the President can do is bring Senators, key stakeholders, survivors to the White House and begin the process while they're all in D.C. now while this tragedy is fresh in everybody's mind of having negotiations to get us to some kind of solution.

The fact that they are unwilling to do so and are talking- listen to the way they tweet about this issue. "We should do something. Congress should take action." You are the President of the United States of America. You are elected because you promised us that your thirty years of Senate experience, of bringing lawmakers together to get tough things done. Where is that experience now? Put it to the test, Mr. President.

In contrast to Volsky, I believe that having a quick vote that will fail would have the salutary effect of putting Democratic senators and Republican senators on record at a time of maximum impact of the massacre upon public opinion.

Democrats like to like their Democratic president and, notwithstanding the state of the world, generally like this one. Volsky's strategy is a sound one, and calling the President out is both necessary and courageous.

However, Joe Biden's strategy does not require him to bring together these varied stakeholders, nor to take action directly on gun safety. As Maxwell noted, Volsky has said that the President must "get caught trying to do something"- and that's exactly what he has done.  The Guardian reported

Joe Biden signed an executive order he promised would usher in the “most significant police reform in decades” on Wednesday, the second anniversary of the murder of George Floyd.

With Congress deadlocked, Biden said he was using the powers of the presidency to advance his campaign promises and deliver police accountability and reform “that is real and lasting”.

As to whether the President was caught trying to do something

Biden was joined at the White House for a signing ceremony by Floyd’s family as well as relatives of Breonna Taylor, who was killed when police executed a no-knock warrant at her apartment in 2020. In remarks preceding the signing, Biden praised them for their efforts to push for change even as they grieve.

“It’s not about their death but what we do in their memory that matters,” he said.

The measure, signed in response to congressional (read: Republican) inaction in responding to blacks being killed by police officers, is the racial justice analogue to the "sensible" gun safety legislation urged by liberals and progressives, who recognize more meaningful legislation is unrealizable. Biden's

executive order signed on Wednesday directs federal agencies to revise use-of-force policies, banning tactics such as chokeholds, restricting practices like no-knock warrants and promoting de-escalation techniques.

It also calls for the creation of a new national standard for accrediting police departments; establishes a national database to track police misconduct; further restricts the transfer of military equipment to police departments; and requires agencies to implement new tools to screen for inherent bias among officers as well as recruits, including those who promote unlawful violence or harbor white supremacist views.

It is not law but merely an executive order, and thus likely to be rescinded if a GOP president is elected in 2024. Moreover, it applies only to federal law enforcement officers, who rarely are the individuals most likely (justifiably, sometimes unjustifiably) to shoot black, brown, and white citizens.  Nonetheless, Biden's was "caught trying to do something" because his intent, though with limited consequences, is clear and proper. 

And if it is still not clear that the President's intent was to appear to be "trying to do something," he said the order

was “a measure of what we can do together to heal the very soul of this nation, to address profound fear and trauma, exhaustion that particularly Black Americans have experienced for generations”.

Order signed; country healed; paradise looms. In light of the history which racial justice advocates are determined Americans learn, it is unclear- if not concerning- what the "very soul" of this nation is. Nonetheless

When the ceremony concluded, Biden invited Floyd’s young daughter, Gianna, to sit in his chair and handed her the pen he had used to sign the order. Remarking how tall she’d grown since the last time he saw her, Biden turned to the audience and recalled that Gianna told him the first time they met: “My daddy is gonna change the world.”

It doesn't appear to have happened. But not to worry. Biden signed an order, with family of George Floyd and of Breonna Taylor, to enhance accountability of law enforcement in light of its racial bias. Biden strained to link it to the massacre of the previous day.  The Guardian noted

Biden began his remarks by addressing the massacre of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas on Tuesday. “We’re here today for the same purpose – to come together and say, ‘Enough,’ ” he said.

As everyone understood, that was not the purpose of the Executive Order. 

Joe Biden very likely wants to be re-elected, and to do that he must be re-nominated which, if things don't turn around in the next 18 months, will not be a slam dunk. He is a Democratic President. It is helpful to be is caught responding in some way or another to the events in Texas.

But it is necessary to be caught doing something, anything, to respond to racially disparate treatment. He gets extra credit for doing so in the presence of family and/or relatives of victims of that injustice.

Whatever Biden's long-ago record of promoting gun safety legislation, it is not the reason he was endorsed for his party's nomination by Jim Clyburn, given a standing ovation by the largely African-American primary electorate in South Carolina, and driven to victory in the campaign. Sad, but true: he need not do anything about gun safety to be the party's standard-bearer in 2024.

President Biden was caught trying to do something. If interest in gun safety fizzles after a while, his disinterest now will hurt him little while seeking re-nomination. If instead the March for Our Lives demonstrations nationwide on June 11 reinvigorates the movement, there will be plenty of time for him to be caught again trying to do something.

Share |

Now, It's Lockdowns?

For conservatives, there are many boogeymen, whether in the field of entertainment, media, or politics, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi being the most obvious in the latter. For liberals and progressives, too, there is a range of highly-disliked individuals, including Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, Meghan McCain, Marjorie Taylor Green, and hundreds of others.

In the vast majority of instances, it's impossible to confirm their sincerity because there are so many reasons, which may include a lust for financial well-being, attention, or political ambition, Elise Stefanik being the most obvious of the last. Typically, a right-winger does not say or do something reprehensible primarily out of stupidity.

Nonetheless, some individuals are well-meaning, which should lead one to ask: are you actually serious? That's a reasonable question to pose upon reading a tweet from a serious, otherwise thoughtful writer at The Intercept:

The fact the last two mass shooters were 18 years old exactly makes me concerned about the psychological impact of the years of lockdown on many who were children at the time. At least one of them spent two teenage years getting completely radicalized at home online.

— Murtaza Hussain (@MazMHussain) May 27, 2022

The fact the last two mass shooters were 18 years old exactly makes me concerned about the psychological impact of the years of lockdown on many who were children at the time. At least one of them spent two teenage years getting completely radicalized at home online.

Print journalist turned MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan responded "the dark irony: the lockdowns were the only time we didn't really have any mass shootings in schools in this country!"

Severe restrictions would have been more accurate. American citizens never experienced a lockdown- confinement to a particular place- during the pandemic.  In no state was there a lockdown and in Texas, headed by a right-wing governor and state legislature, restrictions were less than in most. People would howl- beyond anything we heard- if officials in any state had imposed anything even approaching a lockdown. That would be mainland China.

Calling restrictions, even significant one, a "lockdown" has been stretching the meaning of the word well beyond its original meaning.  If conservatives- as is quite plausible- intentionally had decided to invoke the term "lockdown" and propagate its use, they couldn't have chosen a more effective messaging strategy.

Hussain fell into the trap of using the word, as did Hasan, neither of whom anyone would consider a conservative.  Additionally, Hussain didn't consider that Salvador Ramos appears to have been a loner and high school dropout.

The proposition that closing schools even helped create mass murderers is a very dubious notion. Ramos bought on his 18th birthday two AR-15 firearms, military-grade weapons which likely gave police pause to confront him.  It appears he did so without a permit because in September 2021 Governor Abbot signed a bill rescinding a permit requirement. And shortly before that the governor had signed into law a measure allowing carrying without a permit.

There are many possible reasons for mass slaughter in the USA. Here are three: guns, guns, guns. Also, this:

 

  

 

Share |

Mental Health Dodge

At a news conference on Wednesday headlined by Texas governor Greg Abbott (without Costello)

"The gunman was 18 years old and reportedly a high-school dropout. Reportedly, there has been no criminal history identified yet," Abbott said. "He may have had a juvenile record, but that is yet to be determined."

He added: "There is no known mental-health history of the gunman."

But minutes later, when asked a question about the role that Texas gun laws might have played in the gunman's ability to purchase the weapons he used in the massacre, Abbott pivoted the conversation away from guns and back to mental health.

The Republican governor began by emphasizing that the ability of an 18-year-old to purchase a long gun had been a Texas law for more than 60 years.

"Why is it for the majority of those 60 years, we did not have school shootings? And why is it that we do now?" Abbott said.

Despite acknowledging that he didn't have any easy answers, Abbott continued, offering an explanation.

"What I do know, in talking to the leaders here, as well as leaders around the state, one thing that has substantially changed is the status of mental health in our communities," he said. "We, as a state, we, as a society, need to do a better job with mental health."

He added: "Anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental-health challenge, period."

Well, no. And no. And did I mention "no?" Fortunately for Texans, Greg Abbott, who presides over "the worst state in the U.S. for access to mental health care," doesn't believe what he said.

Neither does Sunny Hostin of The View, who on Thursday applauded the interruption of that news conference by the  state's Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Beto O'Rourke, by noting (at 3:09) in part

They're trying to blame it on mental illness. Let's remember that people that have mental illness are ten times more likely to be the victims of crime, not the perpetrators of crime. I am so sick of this freakin' narrative about mental illness....

The assailant was so mentally ill and so impulsive that he knew to wear a tactical vest, evidently in an (unsuccessful) effort to avoid being shot.  The per capita firearm ownership in this nation is almost twice as high as in any other, No evidence suggests that mental health problems are far greater in the USA than in any other. But, it must be mental illness.  Abandoning tact for truth, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy explained

Spare me the bullshit about mental illness. We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world. You cannot explain this through a prism of mental illness, because we don’t — we’re not an outlier on mental illness. We’re an outlier when it comes to access to firearms and the ability of criminals and very sick people to get their hands on firearms. That’s what makes America different.

 

Share |

Tweet of the Day- Blame Where Blame Belongs

Some tweeters recognized both the depth of the calamity which unfolded Tuesday in Uvalde, Texas and the manner in which Democrats need to respond to the need for action. 

We tried Republican gun policies for 20 years now and all we have to show for it are lots of dead bodies.

— Rachel Bitecofer 📈🔭🇺🇲🇺🇦 (@RachelBitecofer) May 24, 2022

We need common sense gun laws & we won't get them until we roll over the Republicans at every level of office.

— Rachel Bitecofer 📈🔭🇺🇲🇺🇦 (@RachelBitecofer) May 24, 2022

Democrats technically "control" Congress. Of course, they aren't really in control because the will of possibly two Democrats and 50 of 0 Republican senators has obstructed the effort of a Democratic House of Representatives to enact meaningful change. 

There are many Americans who are not solidly left or right, most (not all) who pay limited attention to politics and thus do not realize that Congress is effectively controlled by Mitch McConnell with periodic assistance from conservative Democrats. They understandably confuse de facto control with de jure control.

Mitch and his gang are aided and abetted by the extent to which MSNBC- and more consistently, CNN- talk of "Congress" instead of Republicans. (MSNBC at least features as a guest one truthteller, video below). This tweeter understands:

Attention @MSNBC @CNN and your hosts and guests: it’s not “lawmakers” and “Congress” who are failing to do anything about gun violence, it’s Republicans. Put the blame where it belongs. Ask @SpeakerPelosi and @ChrisMurphyCT

— Phyllis Kupferstein (@pkdof) May 24, 2022

Only in rare moments of boldness will Democrats actually hold Republicans responsible name or by party. Even more rarely will they name names.  They must call out specific Republicans who not only obstruct passage of firearm safety legislation but receive large sums of money from the gun lobby. While senators come and go, as of mid-2019, the #1 recipient was Utah senator Mitt Romney.

That would be the same Mitt Romney who expressed "grief" which "overwhelms the soul" because of the murders in Texas. It's the same Mitt Romney who joined George Floyd protestors two years ago while  ostentatiously posting a photo to "make sure that people understand that black lives matter."  He has gone on to oppose federal gun safety legislation, and a measure to make infant formula more available. Black lives matter, though only when convenient..

Now it is Ted Cruz who collects the most blood money. However, Democrats will avoid upsetting their GOP colleagues or cause them discomfort by naming names. Voters will be denied an opportunity to recognize Republicans whose passion for the proliferation of deadly weaponry may be prompted by the financial generosity of the industry of death featuring the NRA and firearms manufacturers.. It is late, but not too late for Democratic collegiality to give way to the importance of highlighting GOP indifference to slaughter.

 

Share |

Breaking News- Joe Biden Is President!

Booking a liar can be useful for a journalistic purpose but Whoopi Goldberg had nothing of the kind in mind, as this tweeter points out:

The Kellyanne Conway segment on The View today was disgraceful. Whoopi gave a lying, conspiracy theorist, who still thinks the election was stolen..,airtime..airtime that put America back to the trump days. Shame on them at the View.

— Barb (@BarbL219) May 24, 2022

Oh, Sunny Hostin tried (video unavailable; thanks, Disney!). She asked (at 23:23) "Let me ask you this. Can you agree that Trump lost both the popular vote and the Electoral College and that there was a free and fair election?  Conway responded "I think it's pretty obvious that Joe Biden is the President. I can't believe we're still talking about this, respectfully."

Of course,we're still talking about it, and that's because people such as Kellyanne Conway will not admit that Joe Biden won a free and fair election. As other Republicans do periodically, Conway would say only "it's pretty obvious that Joe Biden is the President."  That is so obvious that even Liar-in-Chief Donald Trump acknowledges it with his condemnation of the President.

"Alternative facts" Conway continued " I write extensively in this book that I am the closest person to Donald Trump to tell him the earliest that he came up short." Not that he lost the election, mind you; rather, that he "came up short" among the votes which were counted.

If she is sincere, Conway can barely believe that her guy "came up short" because the election

broke my heart; I wanted him to get re-elected and I wish- I only wish that people who were in charge of the 2020 campaign with the $1.4 billion that they wasted had won outright and overwhelmingly.  He should have won huge. He had all these accomplishments. He's running against the guy who's stuck in the basement....

Hostin attempted a follow-up, which was drowned out by a couple of The View panelists speaking over the questioning along with a smattering of boos, enough that the host believed that Alternative Facts woman might not have the opportunity to continue her shtick.  Thus Goldberg admonished the crowd, remarking "listen, this is The View and this is her view, and she's talking about how she views and what she knows. Please don't boo her." She then went to break.

Kudos to Goldberg for the clever turn-of-a phrase with "this is The View and this is her view." But we don't know that Bowling Green massacre woman really believes this. She seems much too intelligent and much too dishonest.

Hostin tried twice more stating, as a question, to Conway "it's a year later, he's still lying" and "he's still lying."

But it was to no avail.  Conway wouldn't give a straight answer because host Goldberg had no interest in her audience getting an answer to Hostin's question(s). 

The segment featuring Alternative Facts woman did not have to be disgraceful.  Journalism could have been practiced had one of the panelists had her way and the host permitted it. Instead, it was simply "a lying, conspiracy theorist who thinks the election was stolen"- or won't acknowledge what she knows is reality.

.

Share |