I hate to defend Donald Trump- even on a technical point-
but I have to do so. On the floor of the Senate, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer
(as seen at 3:58 of the video below) stated
With respect t the Asian-American communities all all
communities, we must condemn rhetoric that is racist. In this case, we must and
condemn any rhetoric that blames the Chinese people for the coronavirus.
President Trump did that- repeatedly.
It is incendiary rhetoric, indulged in by then-President
Trump to whip up rancor and division. However, if it is racist, we need to stop
referring to Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), the Spanish Flu, German
measles, and fourteen other diseases named for a place or a body of water.
That might not be a bad idea, given that use of the term by
the most boisterous, bellicose, and
belligerent of Presidents in American history was intended to be
disputatious, disruptive, and divisive, and may have turned deadly.
Nonetheless- and despite Trump's pervasive impact on the
climate of fear and hate- avoidance of the term "China virus" and the
more incendiary "Chinese virus" must not deflect attention from the
role of that huge Asian nation in SARS-CoV-2.
As Mr. Schumer probably would not concede except under penalty of death, the coronavirus did initiate in one
particular country.
John Oliver devoted his "main story" on Sunday's "Last Week
Tonight" to proving that Fox News' Tucker Carlson is a white supremacist. He is
a particularly dangerous one, Oliver argued (at 2:00 of the video below),
because "he is the most prominent vessel in America for white supremacist
talking points."
That virtually inescapable observation stems from Carlson's
sleight of (verbal) hand, wherein, Oliver notes
conveniently for him (he) doesn't fit neatly into a lot of
people's perception of white supremacist, especially if they share his
definition that it must require burning crosses, Klan hoods, and a name
tag that says "hello, my name is a
racist."
It should require quite a bit, however, most of which Oliver
laid out Sunday. Fortunately for us, Carlson made it even clearer Tuesday in
his own commentary, delivered from El Salvador in San Salvador, one of the
three nations from which a huge number of refugees and prospective immigrants
have traveled to our southern border. Presumably, the piece was about this
crisis, and Carlson railed against the current Administration's
"humane" (curiously, his term) policy which he vehemently maintained
has caused this plight.
Presumably, because Carlson went on to talk about "the
gender studies department at a community college" (don't ask), gold
allegedly being hoarded by the Spanish government, and Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez. Then, after these seemingly disconnected comments, at 7:15 of
the video below Carlson took a sharp, dangerous term upon remarking
We hope the good people of Central America are ready for the
Democratic Party's version of humanity and compassion. They might want to take
a quick field trip to Baltimore just to see how it works out in the end. In
2018 the city of Baltimore recorded a higher murder rate than the nation of El
Salvador or for that matter the countries of Honduras, Guatemala, or
Afghanistan even, and yet no one thought to call FEMA to help the people of
Baltimore. Somebody should have no one from Baltimore was offered asylum in El
Salvador- and by the way if they are offered it they should strongly consider
accepting because it's much safer to live with MS-13 than it is to live in
Baltimore.
It would be far safer to go to Honduras in 2018. Thirty of
the 298 municipalities in Honduras reported no murders at all; same in
Guatemala and in fact here in El Salvador where 14 municipalities reported zero
murders. That is a massive improvement over so many of our cities so here's an
idea if you're telling us that parts of Central America are so dangerous that
crime constitutes a humanitarian crisis and that's exactly what the Biden
administration is claiming, then why not just move the people of El Salvador or
Honduras or Guatemala to safer parts of their own countries. Has that even
occurred to any of the professional compassion merchants in the Biden
Administration?
There was no mention of generations of segregation;
redlining; job discrimination; inconsistent, sometimes racially-biased law
enforcement; proliferation of firearms, often transported into cities; a
regressive tax system in most states; transportation priorities tilted toward suburban/rural areas and
away from the needs of cities (especially Baltimore); a health care system
prioritizing profit over people; and, yes, a denial of reproductive freedom.
Unless he has been living under a rock for decades, Tucker
Carlson knows all these- and more- have played a role in exploding income and
wealth inequality and sequestering America's poor, disproportionately minority,
into major cities.
His was not a commentary about immigration but one focused
on ethnicity. If Carlson is not a charlatan- a highly questionable assumption-
there is one reason he simultaneously slams, with gobs of contempt, immigration
and cities such as Baltimore and (as he also name-checked) Detroit, Gary,
Indiana, and Newark, NJ. Carlson wasted
no effort trying to link Democratic immigration policy to the problems
besetting such cities because he obviously recognizes that there is one thing,
and one thing only, linking them. That one thing is, depending upon one's
characterization, color or race: white vs. non-white.
Of course, Tucker Carlson's wet dream is to chase residents
of Baltimore, citizens of the USA, to El Salvador, home to widespread poverty
and rampant gang violence. They don't belong here, he (un) reasons, because
only some people do. John Oliver's timing was impeccable.
"Once you start silencing critics by arrest or murder,
you're done." -Vladimir Putin
"Once you put ethnic minorities into concentration
camps, you're done." -Xi Jing Ping
The last two quotes are made up. The first, incredibly, is
not.
In March, 2020 Dr. Fauci stated "Right now in the
United States, people should not be walking around with masks."
Notwithstanding Fauci's effort, it became clear to the general public that
masks were necessary. Asked in June why he had advised people not to wear them,
Fauci did not state that he didn't know any better, instead rationalizing
Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the
public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that
it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks
and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure
that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put
themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected
with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected.
Beyond the Trump Administration, that is known as a "lie." Early in the pandemic, Fauci believed individuals should
walk around with masks but stated the reverse. Honesty from public health experts may have prompted swift, decisive action to clamp down on
spread of the virus. By contrast, where "moving the goal posts" is euphemism
for "lying"
On Christmas Eve, the New York Times reported that Fauci had
been raising the estimate he gave in public of the percentage of Americans who
would have to acquire resistance to the coronavirus for the population to
achieve herd immunity. At the start of the pandemic, he had said 60 to 70
percent, but by year’s end his high-end estimate was 85 or even 90 percent.
“Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately
been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science,
and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he
really thinks,” the Times reported. He told the Times that as polls found a
higher proportion of Americans willing to take a COVID vaccine, he felt
comfortable raising the target.
One tweeter responded to Scarborough's tweet about Fauci
with "not buying it, dr. you stood there and you let him go on about malaria drugs, bleach and lysol- you didn't stand up."
That's accurate, of course. However, aside from Olivia Troye and a
precious few others, everyone serving in or about the Trump Administration kept
his or her own mouth shut while tens, eventually hundreds, of thousands of Americans
died needlessly. Some of those government employees even lied for the greater glory of Donald Trump.
What set Anthony Fauci apart from the vast
majority is that he was not in the political shop, was a renowned expert in
infectious diseases, and had a "Dr." in front of his name. He
lied and lied again- yet many opinion-makers remain captivated by him.
The editors of The New York Times deserve credit. On Saturday, The Times called for the resignation of New York governor Andrew Cuomo, whom it acknowledged it had
endorsed for re-election, including for re-nomination. Its twelve paragraph editorial not only
emphasized the charges of sexual harassment against the governor but said
nothing about his nursing home scandal.
The Times thereby avoided egregious disingenuousness. As
policy, the decision to send Covid-19 patients from the hospital to nursing
homes, then hiding statistics about the deaths of nursing home residents, was
atrocious. As scandal, it didn't amount to much.
Without the sex charges leveled against the governor, the
nursing home disaster would be an occasional topic for the Times and even less
often a topic for The Washington Post and other great newspapers. There would have been relative silence except
for a few calls from New York state legislators for Cuomo to step down because
they have their own, generally justified, beefs with the governor.
Neither Majority Leader and New York senator Chuck Schumer
nor New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand would have proposed he resign, nor
would there have been speculation that President Biden would do so, and The New
York Times itself would have been reticent. After an initial uproar, social
media would have gone on to other things and the unnecessary deaths of many
elderly New Yorkers would have been forgotten.
So make no mistake: pressure is mounting on Governor Cuomo
to quit because of terrible behavior toward women and for (virtually) no other
reason. As marketing professor Scott Galloway remarked in a discussion
(in a video no longer available; I've substituted another) on Bill Maher's Real Time
But at the same time, they trigger me because women and
people of color lost one of the most powerful advocates when Kristen Gillibrand
decided to disappear Al Franken so she could have a seven minute run for
President. And we're in the midst of a pile on and here's the reality: voters
get to decide in 18 months. The majority of- of- 48% of white people, 63% of
non whites believe he should not resign. We as Democrats need to be the party
of women but we also need to be the party of due process. We need to slow down,
let those women be heard and let due process occur here and not just pile on.
Twenty-three years ago, during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal,
Democrats understood that sex improprieties were insufficient cause for
dismissal short of an election. That has
radically changed as many, boasting enlightened thought, rush to judgement because
they fear the opprobrium of mainstream media and the outrage of a portion of
their base.
If Democrats continue to succumb to pressure and demand
ouster of their own elected officials, they will not earn respect from
Republicans. They will receive passing praise from the media, which will do
Democrats no good. And that portion of their base demanding the man's scalp
will move on to the next outrage. On a positive note, they could begin wearing
bright blue jerseys reading "patsy."
Senator Ron Johnson tells a friendly "interviewer"
.... on January 6 I never felt threatened because I didn't
because I knew even thousands of people that were marching to the Capitol were
trying to pressure people like me to vote the way they want me to vote. I knew
that those were people that love this country that truly respect law enforcement,
that never would do anything to break the law, so I wasn't concerned
Now, if the tables had been turned, Joe, this could mean
trouble. Had the tables been turned and President Trump won the election and
those were tens of thousands of Black Lives Matter and Antifa protestors, I
might have been a little concerned.
.@RonJohnsonWI says that the people who stormed the Capitol “respect law enforcement.” Respects them so much they assaulted & killed them?! https://t.co/DBNbHeuzwU
The Washington Post's Dave Weigel notes 'Why is 'how the left would have reacted had Trump won' a
hypothetical? Trump won in 2016, there were all sorts of left-wing tantrums,
but there was no storming of the Capitol to get Biden to throw out electoral
results."
Maybe Ron Johnson wasn't concerned, unlike colleague Mitt
Romney and another Republican as a "Hang Mike Pence" chant
was heard in the US Capitol on Wednesday, as a mob incited
by the president attempted a putsch, roaming the halls, confronting law
enforcement and in some cases apparently planning to kidnap lawmakers.
Jim Bourg, a Reuters picture editor in Washington, said on
Twitter: “I heard at least three different rioters at the Capitol say that they
hoped to find Vice-President Mike Pence and execute him by hanging him from a
Capitol Hill tree as a traitor. It was a common line being repeated. Many more
were just talking about how the VP should be executed.”
Five people died as a result of the attack , including a
Capitol police officer reportedly struck with a fire extinguisher and a rioter
shot by law enforcement. Multiple arrests were made, among them men who brought
firearms and explosives to Washington.
Johnson is right about one thing, although not in the manner he intended. If President Trump had won re-election, rioting would have been persistent, considerably worse, and endangered more lives while featuring a triumphant cadre of white nationalists and supremacists.
Don't say you're shocked. Don't say you're outraged or even
surprised. On Wednesday, a Long Island, NY television station reported
Union officials say workers at Tate's Bake Shop are being
threatened with deportation if they try to unionize. The iconic cookie company
in Southampton has become a Long Island favorite over the past 50 years. But
employees disclosed the allegations to News 12 with their identities shielded
for fear of retaliation.
Those who spoke to News 12 spoke through a Spanish
interpreter. They alleged that some employees at Tate's, a majority of whom are
undocumented immigrants, say they're being harassed at work.
"She is not happy there anymore because when she gets
there, everyone is looking at her saying, 'Oh you're with the union so you
shouldn't be here,'" says the interpreter. Employees say they're scared
they'll lose their jobs or even be deported, because they claim management has
threatened to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Eastern States Joint Board President Cosmo Lubrano says once
supervisors at Tate's heard about the employees wanting to unionize, they began
harassing them, which is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.
"They began threatening people based on their immigration status, telling
them that if their documents are not in order and they attempted to join the
labor union they would get deported," says Lubrano.
Tate's was originally owned locally by Kathleen King, who
used to sell her homemade cookies at her father's farm in the 1970s. The
company was acquired by snack food giant Mondelez International in 2018 for
$500 million.
A Mondelez spokesperson responded to the claims, saying,
"Any allegation that the company has violated any aspect of the National
Labor Relations Act is untrue. Tate's prides itself on treating all its
employees with respect, and we have fostered over many years an inclusive,
supportive, caring work environment and culture with our employees."
Employees have until April 21 to vote on whether or not they'd like to unionize.
The only difference between Tate's and hundreds (thousands?)
of workplaces across the country is that the cookie workers have the courage to
consider unionization. Elsewhere, illegal immigrants keep their mouths shut and
take what they get because they have no choice. (And yes, they are illegal immigrants, immigrants with illegal status.)
In the video below, from California, the reporter notes that
an employer can be fined up to $10,000 for each time he or she has been found
by the state's labor commission of threatening an employee. That's beneficial, but a
case of closing the barn door after the horse has bolted. It's probably too
little, and it's clearly too late.
The answer lies in discouraging employers from violating federal law by hiring illegal immigrants. Enforcement should be increased with a greater (than now, and than with other actions) emphasis on workplace raids accompanied by punishment of
employers who hire workers in the country illegally. Exploitation of workers who are in the country illegally illustrates also the danger of legalization and benefit of citizenship for the nation's workers.
That policy choice would of course come with a price. The
cost would be more legal immigrants or native-born citizens working, as well as employees who are paid more and who cannot as easily be
threatened for trying to start a union. These "costs" should be welcomed.
Elite conservatives fear such a situation while their liberal counterparts welcome all immigrants with no consideration as to legal status. It's no wonder the bosses at Mondelez
International believe they can act with impunity.
Del. Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), coincidentally a House impeachment manager, was not amused when
on Wednesday she condemned
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) for saying on the House floor
that Black Lives Matter “doesn't like the old-fashioned family” and called for
his remarks to be stricken from the record.
During debate on Democrats' sweeping $1.9 trillion
coronavirus relief package, Grothman took aim at what he says is a marriage
penalty in the expansion of the earned income tax credit, pointing to the Black
Lives Matter movement while making his case against the bill.
“First, one of the things that hasn't been mentioned, the increase
in the earned income tax credit for single people has a marriage penalty in it.
I bring it up because I know the strength that Black Lives Matter had in this
last election. I know it's a group that doesn't like the old-fashioned family —
disturbed that we have another program here in which we're increasing the
marriage penalty,” he said on the floor.
Second thing, we have loan forgiveness on farms based on
ethnicity," he went on. "OK. Some people are going to get
forgiveness. Some people aren't. I think that's incredibly divisive. I think we
started out with a divisive inaugural speech right off the bat. And to go down
this route is only going to create divisiveness in America.”
Plaskett shot back at the Wisconsin Republican’s comments,
noting the discrimination and hurdles the Black community has faced in the past
and slamming Grothman for alleging supporters of Black Lives Matter aren’t
supportive of families.
“I hope my colleague from Wisconsin will not leave at this
time, as he's talked about Black Lives Matter. How dare you, how dare you say
that Black Lives Matter, Black people do not understand old-fashioned families
despite some of the issues, some of the things that you have put forward that
I've heard out of your mouth in the Oversight Committee, in your own district,”
she said.
“We have been able to keep our families alive for over 400
years, and the assault on our families to not have Black lives or not even have
Black families. How dare you say that we are not interested in families in the
Black community. That is outrageous that should be stricken down.”
It would in fact have been a disgusting remark if Grothman
had said that the black community is not interested in families. Obviously, though, he did not because in addressing the (alleged) marriage penalty in the earned income tax credit in the coronavirus
relief package, he maintained
I know the strength that Black Lives Matter had in this last
election. I know it's a group that doesn't like the old-fashioned family —
disturbed that we have another program here in which we're increasing the
marriage penalty,
Grothman was not referring to the black community but to
Black Lives Matter. Understanding this, Plaskett began her rebuttal "Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that my colleague from Wisconsin will not leave at
this time as he's talked about Black Lives Matter."
And inconveniently, Black Lives Matter is opposed to the
nuclear family- or once was, as I found when viewing the website last summer. The video below, not professionally produced, may be of little value generally but its
creator gets at least one thing correct. Scroll ahead to 2:27 and view from the
"What We Believe" section from the summer's racial bias protests the
following:
We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure
requirement by supporting each other as extended families and
"villages" that collectively care for one another, especially our
children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.
That excerpt, expressing hostility to the nuclear (sometimes
referred to as "traditional") family was removed several months ago
from the BLM website. Plaskett could have maintained that the organization has changed its opinion. Better yet, she could have demonstrated independence from
this (generously speaking) questionable outfit and emphasized that whatever it might advocate, she and the black community in general are
devoted to strong families.
However, she did not.
Plaskett herself is only one individual and as a representative for the
Virgin Islands, of lesser status than a United States Representative. But
Democrats face a choice. They can distinguish between Black Lives Matter and
black lives matter, stressing the importance of the latter while beginning to
separate themselves from the former. Or they can continue on their present path
and accept the consequences. Regrettably, they seem to prefer the latter.
