TWGB: Blame America First

 

It is impossible to overstate how despicable and dangerous Trump's demagoguery is, even if he loses again. It’s blame America first. He surpasses even the far left in calling America a bad actor, irreparably broken, a hellhole that only he can save you from. He’s the anti-Reagan. https://t.co/PT0Bdk5kho

— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) September 24, 2024

It gets worse from here--Trump literally extolls the participation of Soviet Russia in WWII because he was (supposedly) talking to some rando, and literally does not know any better than to think maybe Russia wins all the wars.

Trump on Russia: Somebody told me the other day, they beat Hitler, they beat Napoleon. That's what they do. pic.twitter.com/OCvRTPvP0j

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 24, 2024

They lost the Crimean War, they lost in Afghanistan, they lost against Japan. Russia looks bigger and better than they actually are and project strength because of paranoia. Trump doesn't know anything (a hallmark of conspiracy theorists) and so falls for anything that sounds like a fact. I wonder if he got his "news" from Tucker Carlson hosting a Holocaust denier, who happens to call Churchill the villain of WWII. 

The Un-American Project 2025

 

Heritage Foundation president celebrates Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be" https://t.co/ndMJlNlUKH

— Media Matters (@mmfa) July 3, 2024

Look at this Bond villain bullshit: "which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." What he's saying right there is, will remain bloodless if the left lays back and lets it happen. Because I guess it's fun to threaten a whole Revolution. Tea Party people. I swear. They really want to see themselves proudly fighting to--

Install a monarchy? Undo the first American Revolution? Institute a lot of Christian nationalist and white supremacist rubbish that the majority of Americans don't want? 

Um--exactly. And there are a lot of former Trump Administration officials supporting this blueprint for chaos. 

Anyway, when I saw that term, "bloodless", all I could think of was 1/6 and the testimony of a Capitol police officer that she was slipping in people's blood that day.  They thought they were re-creating 1776. What they were doing was insurrection. What the 'bloodless" Project 2025 document boasts is undoing the American experiment of a government of, for and by the people--unless those people are conservative activists.

Knowing Truth from a Lie

 

BREAKING:

Alexei Navalny’s wife @yulia_navalnaya releases a video announces she will continue her murdered husband’s work.

She says it’s clear Putin murdered Alexei.

“ Iwill continue to fight for our country. And I call on you to stand beside me” pic.twitter.com/evgIGHqBym

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 20, 2024

Yulia Navalnaya has been by her husband's side while Putin's government poisoned him, lied about him, arrested him, imprisoned and tortured him, and finally, murdered him. She knows truth from a lie. Her mother-in-law has gone to collect to body of her son--the authorities would not like to release it, because a body can tell a story. Alexei Navalny's brother is now threatened with new charges. 

The truth is, Putin cannot bear opposition. The flowers left for the martyr are swept away from sight, and so are the protesters. And the flowers return, and sometimes, the protesters will. This is the country Tucker Carlson extolled because of its supermarkets, one where a dual citizen is accused of treason for sending $51 to a humanitarian aid fund for Ukraine. 

This is a country that commits heinous acts against humanity. 

And they are responsible for actual election interference here in the United States with respects to our presidential elections, especially. We know this is actually true about the 2016 election, despite all the right-wing foofaraw. And it's starting to look like there was definite election interference in the 2020 election by Russians just as many former intelligence officials believed. Because now we know from an indicted witness that they had contacts with Russian intelligence who passed on "dirt" on Hunter Biden. Which snowballed into the fucking up of his plea deal, but also was pimped by GOP congresscritters as ammo against Biden. 

So Charlie Kirk's Doing Prophecy Now?

Charlie Kirk warns "God will not honor the challenge and the outright rebellion to his authority here on earth," adding "There will be justice for what they did to this country and it's coming very soon" pic.twitter.com/IgUx4GN2sP

— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) October 28, 2021

Seeing TPUSA's Charlie Kirk threatening about what his big, omniscient and all-powerful sky-friend is going to do while standing in front of a backdrop that reads, "Exposing Critical Racism Tour", reminds me that the way of life in the antebellum period that included slavery was considered a part of God's order and that peculiar institution was defended in the pulpit. And the segregation and degradation of Black people in the US was maintained by white Christian churches. 

Slaveholders were very afraid of "rebellion" amongst their human assets. There is reason to believe that the 2nd Amendment was inspired by fears of slave rebellion. Politicians have used theology as a tool to justify codifying unjust and racially discriminatory laws. And one theory regarding the historical study of how racism was codified into our laws is...critical race theory. Which Charlie Kirk, who has no degree in anything but grifting, is currently on tour being mad about, since it is the well-paid astroturf big concern thing of the moment. 

And now, Charlie Kirk wants to tell us that "they" (Commies, George Soros, Democrats, shitlibs, whoever) will get justice because God says so. And maybe that's a a suggestion was to what God thinks should happen next--? That could might happen eventually wink wink nudge nudge?

It always strikes me as funny that people who say they've read the Bible will go ahead and bear false witness and take the Lord's name in vain on the regular. Like they never considered what "false witness" and "taking the Lord's name in vain" really meant. But "lying about what actually happened" is a good way to say "false witness", and "taking the Lord's name in vain" is a not-very opaque way of saying "God is not your imaginary hype man". Deciding to just say something you think out loud and saying Jesus is your +1 on that is kind of blasphemous, right? Same with false prophecy.

Everything is Teaching the Controversy, Now

 

I was recently reminded, now that we're in the age of "alternative facts" regarding Covid-19 and the 2020 election and climate change and who knows what else, of some of the strategies of disinfo I first encountered when intrigued by the creationism movement.  It still strikes me as interesting that creationism still exists even after we've got oodles of examples of transitional types (as are we all) from the fossil record, and that nothing will ever persuade people who have made it their mission to not be persuaded. 

A book is a mirror: if an ape looks into it an apostle is hardly likely to look out. 

    Georg C. Lichtenberg

One of  the things to understand about humans is we are political animals--we do tribalism. We have a need for belonging, we are not islands to ourselves but members of societies. We tend to consider our "goodness" according to the ideas of our immediate culture.  We identify and signify. And when we see our opposite number, we attack.  People who have found a disinfo tribe will defend their territory. They are defending their very identity. They see defending a thing that might even not be true as being existential for them,

 For many people, it might be necessary to profess untruths to continue in their identity. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the main group of folks who support Trump, creationism, are climate change denialists, and now antivaxxers, are evangelicals. They are basically who the old news media covenant of "both sides" was made for--the habit of mainstream journalism to also include minority views no matter how batshit or miniscule. So as to satisfy a vocal and activist minority.

They are "teaching the controversy" and so long as some kind of controversy exists, even if it is just some ignoramus sticking their tongue out and saying "Nyah!"--that's enough controversy for some to hang a movement or at least, a meaningful sense of tribal belonging on to. You could say that the existence of UFO-enthusiasts is proof aliens are among us, if you don't actually require proof of the aforementioned aliens and only need proof that people are asking questions and looking into it. And that also stands for any other "controversy". 

So, Andrew Wakefield was debunked, but persists. because having existed, one could also say there is a controversy. Just like any tobacco farmer could claim they don't think there's a really for real link between smoking and cancer, and any oil company can deny climate change. Transport ballots hither and yon under the auspices of being contracted by a GOP State Senate and count them and count them and fiddle with machines a bit and stow some ballots in a cabin somewhere and invalidate future use of those election machines and also be really dodgy, and you've got some kind of...election controversy, I guess (Although a goddamn stupid one, because who believes anything this stupid? --Oh yeah! Tribalism!) 

I'd love to believe that as a species we could be better than this especially since recent weather events show the climate crisis foretold by science is really upon our asses, but I also get that for many, tribalism is a form of survival. They depend upon signifiers to tell other people of the tribe they are fit to endure. They need to tell the kind of lies that make their lives worth living. Their belonging is their infrastructure, even if their roads and bridges and potable water and electric grid and other stuff that government should manage, goes to pot. As long as they represent their team, they suppose they have a means to a necessary social end. 

So I view with rank skepticism the idea that vaccine deniers just need someone to talk pretty to them, for example, or that rational arguments will debunk election denialists. I sometimes find myself thinking they just need shunning and gross disapprobation, to understand that neighboring tribes won't harbor their asses. That there is some activity beyond the social pale. This seems far more commensurate with primate psychology. 

Rushmore, Talk Less?

President Trump’s unyielding push to preserve Confederate symbols and the legacy of white domination was crystallized by his harsh denunciation of the racial justice movement Friday night at Mount Rushmore.

My latest report w/ @PhilipRucker https://t.co/rRox4Xin5Y

— Robert Costa (@costareports) July 4, 2020

Because Trump is not actually the president of the entirety of America, having abdicated on several fronts (such as national security against Russia and coronavirus, from the looks of things) and not actually caring about more than the interests of himself at most with some overlapping with a <50% quantity of other Americans at best, I find it useful to look at Trump's remarks Friday night regarding "Americans" versus "them":

"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children. Many of these people have no idea why they are doing this, but some know exactly what they are doing."

"They think the American people are weak and soft and submissive. But no, the American people are strong and proud, and they will not allow our country, and all of its values, history, and culture, to be taken from them."

Does he not know that the people taking up space to correct the public record are mostly American citizens? Does he not understand they are confronting a whitewashed history with a history truer in color to the original cut? They aren't wiping out history; they are gifting us with a perspective that was under-recognized. They aren't defaming heroes; they are demanding we see historical figures, not on pedestals, but in the full context of their actions. They ask that we as a society live up to the values we mean to enshrine. They want our children and their own to know that history is multi-faceted.

"The American people" in his construction are "weak and soft and submissive" if they don't resist what he frames in counter-revolutionary terms--as an undoing of what the founders fought for. But the founders did not fight for this nation to be a graveyard of national monuments to be dusted and cared for anymore than they were themselves made of marble, plaster, or bronze, instead of flesh and blood; they fought for a living Constitution and a vibrant and growing creedal nation. I see the protesting Americans as deposing the idea of the monumental person in the way the founders rejected the right of kings; they come not to destroy the revolution, but to fulfil it, and I'm in favor of it. We can do better, and should, and need to, and the future deserves it.

This was, for Trump, a campaign speech, against a magnificent backdrop that afforded him the opportunity to speak of the shared heritage of a diverse nation in the tones of a uniter--to speak, in other words, as a president, and a person who recognized the legacy he inherited by the grace of the electoral college and the responsibility he held having taken its solemn oath of office. In the grand space of the Lakota lands where the rightful people under treaty were repelled from their protest just hours before, his people bound folding chairs together to create a tight crowd of 3700 close enough to smell each others breath in the midst of a goddamn pandemic.

He is a man both too small and with an ego too large for the place he holds. In turning an Independence Day themed event into a culture-war themed event, he gave away a lot of what occupies his mind. It too, has a monument that needs overturning. Because someone with such a limited worldview can even live in the White House, but isn't ever gonna really be president of all of this.

(Blog title courtesy of having just watched Hamilton, which was awesome.)

The Coup in Turkey Could Mean Democracy Wins?

I have not actively covered how much Recep Tayyip Erdogan is  a minute away from being some kind of dictator, but I think the military coup attempt sort of highlights just how much he isn't especially liked, except for the weird thing, which is that even though he's not greatly popular, the folks in Turkey seem to have come out for democratic ideals.  Now this theory could totally crumble in a minute. but I would very much like to think that if the coup crumbles, it is sort of proof that democracy is only the worst form of government, except for all the others. And it might just remind us of how fragile, after all, is a government build on a certain degree of popular consensus.

It is very terrible when a significant population ceases to believe in the government at all. Which is why a government should take pains to stay believable.

Are they Listening to Him, Now?

I know, coming just a couple days after dragging Carson for his comments on what he would do if faced with a gunman, it might seem like I'm enjoying one of my OCD phases--but the story told on, by, and about Ben Carson about what really (maybe) happened when he was confronted with a gunman is pretty fascinating. In the legend, when a stickup artist put a gun in Carson's ribs, he directed the felon's attention to the person behind the register. Har har har. Not exactly the tale of derring-do of an attempt at physical force to compel a potential shooter to comply, but still a thing one would have to have a certain presence of mind to say. The Daily Beast article is skeptical. I'm skeptical. One might point out that deflecting the assailant's attention from his (valuable) self to the (perceived-less-valuable) fast food cashier's self is sheer classism.

That kind of thinking, that there is a quality of some citizens being lesser-than, is pretty much a trend. He states that some "lifestyles are more valuable than others". Lifestyles, schmifestyles, I come from a country that made the point that all men are created equal (except for the slavery business, and that "men" at the time sort of excluded women). One exceptionally curious bit of reasoning along those lines comes from his assertion that "gay marriage" (we call it marriage equality around here) is like child seats for conjoined twins.

Wow. There is a kind of ableism about that, isn't there? People who grasp the idea that marriage is a state that human beings enjoy and means the same thing for straight or gay couples see marriage as an individual right that confers certain securities to the persons involved in that state of matrimony. It's the same thing because the same needs exist. But take what he's saying--marriage, like car seats, is an accommodation. We can accommodate "normal" people, but if you "don't fit" our definition of "normal", you don't deserve any accommodation because of your differences. A car seat is intended for the purposes of safety for an infant. What this grotesque analogy is saying is that no accommodation should be made to protect the life of infants who are conjoined by arranging some kind of safety mechanism because the accommodation itself is commodified. I realize one of his major achievements was separating conjoined twins, but there are cases where this is not possible, or where some other congenital issue might make accommodating physical differences such that standard measures don't really apply--but the children would still need to be safe if their life is valued right?  Aren't they still people, even if they are different? I'm past objecting to the dismissal of LGBT people's basic enjoyment of equal rights, but the assumption that we shouldn't or wouldn't take extraordinary measures for the "different" among us.

This Saudi Arabia Thing--I Might not be Off, Here.

When I talked about the crackdown that seems to be happening regarding Saudi Arabia and dissidents, like the treatment of Raif Badawi and Ali al-Nimr, I suggested their crackdown on dissidents wasn't without a potential threat to their existence--after all, there are signs, They are pumping oil like mad even if that's like beating a horse you know has a tumor. So reading this prediction of a collapse in Saudia Arabia of the current government is pretty interesting. My basic belief is that, because so many Middle Eastern people today being young and having access to internet through phones and such, they want more access to liberty. And they will find a way.

I felt the same way regarding the idea of a "Green Revolution" for Iran though. I'm very romantic about the idea of a positive democratic wave happening in the Middle East. We aren't so separated in our needs or our likes, once the voice of radicalism is bypassed. I don't think Saudis are so generally fond of their repression than Iranians or any other culture held back by religion.

I know this too, means a destabilization, but the fall of a regime that won't even let ladies drive or be out of the house without male escorts is hard to prop for.

Aspiration Nation

There's something that seems right to me about the celebration of the independence of the original thirteen colonies from the motherland as being based on the date, not of any victory in battle or even the end of the war, but with the date of the airing of the Declaration of Independence itself. The text of this most fiery "Dear George" letter, sounds off on the lack of access of American colonists to the British government they thought they should rightly have had access to, but also states a fairly quaint principle that seems utterly of the Enlightenment and remains an aspirational thought:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--

 The idea of the equality of men (implying also womankind), the idea of the basic rights of mankind, and the idea that government is a man-made machine for the benefit of people, are aspirational goals. At the time this document was written, and even in the fabric of the Constitution, chattel slavery was viewed as a fact of life. The language is centered on men--the idea that women were deserving of the right to vote or serve juries or participate in government did not come until later. We still labor to determine how we partition our voting districts and ensure who has lawful access to the voting franchise of our government to ensure that our government does represent the consent of the governed.

Climate Sunday: Time for a Revolution

There has been a kind of lazy thinking regarding climate change regarding the cost, and as part of my Climate (mostly) Sunday posts, I've often tried to track how the idea that converting our economy to a more sustainable and egalitarian track was proper and necessary.

Oil isn't the future once you've met peak oil--when tar sands or dilbit or whatever you want to call it means more effort and money is put into extracting more polluting fuels. It isn't even the future when you realize burning it is harming the atmosphere. Coal isn't the future when mountaintop removal dumps arsenic into groundwater, and high-sulfur coal produces sickening levels of particulate pollution. Fracking isn't the answer when groundwater is polluted and local farms and residences experience sickness.

The climate science deniers hedge their bets with the refuge that doing something about climate change will cost a lot anyway, so why be out of pocket just for the sake of trees and polar bears and poor people? The answer is that not addressing climate change will cost plenty in the long run. Denialists are basically screwing themselves. It's possible that addressing climate change could very well be beneficial to growth--if we get serious, creative, and on point.

I don't think we have time to waste--I'm enough of a cynic to believe that tipping points are real, and that we could reach a point of no return--but this can not mean that we don't try.

So I have very little time for people who want to blame climate scientists for "being in it for the money".  Seriously? I mean, seriously? Then you can't say addressing climate change is also communism. Sorry. The future might have to be local action, clean energy, water protection, and sustainable food systems. In other words, getting a better quality of life by not supporting pollution and destructive business practices.

And surprisingly, the only ones really hurt by that would be the people disproportionately benefitting from the current tilted and earth-damaging system.

Something has to give.

It's the Pirate Ship that Does it For Me.

The failure to thrive of the economy in Ukraine is no small part of the unrest taking place there, and I will admit, I really haven't followed Ukrainian politics very closely. But I would say that it really does look to me like this President Viktor Yanukovych wasn't even trying to keep his ass from looking shady, because he was practically living in a theme park called "Shady Dictatorland."  I think the big old pirate galleon-looking thing is kind of...apt, in a way, isn't it?

The question then being, well, how is this guy surrounding himself with vintage autos and peacocks and whatnot?--and the answer looks like: pure shadiness.

And what of released political prisoner Yulia Tymoshenko? I don't even know.  I wish the Ukrainian people luck at getting legitimate government, as opposed to a mobbed-up griftocracy.

Mubarak steps down--what's the word of the people in the street?

I think they're pretty happy about it. Congratulations, Egypt. You can have a democracy if you want it--and I really support that.  I wish you the best!

Egypt Protests---images:

I see this as a postive--and no good reason for censorship or denial of access to communications technology--

But that is just my bias.

Iran-- Quds Day.

I'm still following Iran with a lot of interest. Today, reports have mentioned that Mir Hossein Mousavi and former President Mohammed Khatami had been attacked, but not seriously hurt today, which is usually a day of solidarity with the Palestinian cause, but today was more about a renewed protest of the flawed election from June.

As things stand, the more things change, the more they stay the same, or so it seems to me. Although the regime of Ahmedinejad is called into question by the continued questions over his re-election, he is still the same--I note he was very respectfully interviewed by the Today show's Ann Curry. He doesn't seem to think the election is in dispute. He's also repeated his nonsense denial of the Holocaust.

In regard to the relations of the US with Iran, I generally hope they do normalize for both our countries' sakes. I don't think it serves our goals in the region for Iran to be destabilized or hostile to us--and I respect the people of Iran too much after paying so close attention to the bravery and passion about their freedom so many Persians have shown. But on the other hand, with this person they have in charge, I find it really difficult to understand how talks will go anywhere. Can Ahmedinejad be more effective than being a grand stander? (I'd like to think it should be possible that the regime can find common cause with the US in some ways--but the "Marg Bar Amrika" bluster seems to also be a part of his, um, shtick. In other words, can you negotiate on anything with someone who is hostile on principle? With a side thought--why was it Khomeini backed this horse again?)

I don't pretend to know what all this "means" in the long term. Other than to say I'm still paying attention, and I hope others in the west are, too.