Abbott and Audacity

 

INBOX: ⁦@GovAbbott⁩ slams ⁦@JoeBiden⁩ ⁦@POTUS⁩ for providing baby formula to undocumented immigrants during a national shortage #txlege #tx2022 pic.twitter.com/OGhLYVl1Q5

— Evan Smith (@evanasmith) May 12, 2022

It seems to me that the complaint Gov. Abbott makes that the Biden Administration is feeding babies in immigrant detention is an obvious example of Adam Serwer's axiom: "The cruelty is the point."  There isn't an option here--you feed the kids or they die of starvation. Texas Governor Greg Abbott understands that, but he also understands that there are people who really don't care if that happens. And those are his people. He doesn't have a solution to the issue of fixing the food supply or actually taking care of these children.

What? Greg Abbott, concerned about the supply chain or child welfare? 

It really feels like he doesn't care if children are endangered so long as he is making a culture war point.  He comes up with complaints about things, not real solutions even while real people can be harmed. So of course he has something to say about even the babies of undocumented immigrants--he has made the border his business, and threatening babies I guess makes him look tough. 

Or it makes him look like a sick SOB. I know how I see it. 

The Vandals

 

This is Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. She is a Federalist Society judge who worked for Clarence Thomas. The American Bar Association said she is unqualified to hold office, but Republicans confirmed her anyway after Trump lost.

She just ruled the CDC can’t require masks on planes. pic.twitter.com/EWMNumytaQ

— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) April 18, 2022

The funny old thing about American individualism and "freedumb" and so on is that people who were sitting on crowded planes cheered the decision when advised they could take their masks off as if they had won something. They didn't. What really happened is that they received confirmation that they were no longer obliged to do the least thing to protect themselves and those around them, and it felt like freedom.

Judge Mizelle's decision to strike down the mandate is a small act of vandalism. Putting her on the bench to make dodgy decisions and partisan decisions for decades, was a big act of vandalism.

UPDATE:

 

Trump’s Surgeon General speaks out against court overturning mask mandates on airplanes. pic.twitter.com/Ov5wbKwZlz

— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) April 20, 2022

Some people think she misunderstood public law regarding the definition of sanitation, and it's very possible she deliberately misunderstood.  The dual function of undermining public trust in the law and the expertise of health professionals alike is at play in this decision--but the stupid thing is not even being sure this person is capable of foreseeing that ramifications beyond this one decision, now that she's made a precedent, obtain. 

Can't Get No Satisfaction?

What's the matter guys? No one got "bingo" yet?

You know, I'm still trying to work out how this is going to turn into a win for the House GOP.  I think the answer is--it doesn't. A government shut down is a funny old thing--as time wears on, so does it. It wears on people's nerves. And they don't seem to be able to make this look exactly like a bipartisan "failure to communicate", no matter how butt-hurtedly Boehner moans about President Obama being able to talk to Iran's president, but not him, or when the assembled uptight, white, and none-too-bright he-men government-haters' club gathers across from empty chairs to remind us--um. That nobody even wants to hear from them at this point unless they're talking about a clean CR? One clean CR, by the way.

I really don't know what kind of schmuck thinks a bunch of little resolutions to fund different agencies to draaaaggggg this thing out even more would be an improvement.

What Happened with Wall Street

Via Moveon.org:



When we talk about "we the People"--are we talking about corporations, or us?

Paul Ryan faces more sad but still makes a "funny."

What happened, if you can't see the video, is that an older gentleman who exclaimed that he paid into the "entitlement programs" that Paul Ryan was decrying as being so expensive, was led out of the townhall meeting and was treated somewhat brutally.  He was also handcuffed. Rep. Ryan's charming quip?  "I hope he's taking his blood pressure medication!"  Because old people need lots of expensive medications sometimes to live! And because stress can be a real killer! Oh, what a funny, charming man that Paul Ryan can be!

Of course, this is probably more funny to you if you are a relatively young and healthy man with a taxpayer-provided healthcare plan given to you as a congressman, than it would be for someone who has paid into a so-called "entitlement program" (which I would say one is certainly entitled to if one has paid into it, yes?) and were of retirement age and possibly facing some degree of health crisis.  That latter person wouldn't find it funny at all, and for that matter, I don't find it especially funny.  It was kind of callous and ageist and you know what?   Having one's staff call the police because you're too big a baby to answer questions from your constituents is pretty weak.

Sometimes this stuff stops being funny--

You know, it just occured to me that in my recent "Haterade" post, where I just vented about all the horrible people in the news who I felt really needed some venting about, I made a throw-away line that if Rand Paul was truly unhappy with his opponent over the "Aqua Buddha" ad, he might as well just hire thugs, since Joe Miller aparently did. I at the time was thinking that it was really peculiar that some paranoid guy running for Senator from Alaska could be so overtly high-handed and un-Democratic as to think himself so above answering questions that he'd have his own people there to "take out" trouble-makers.

It hadn't occured to me that things had gotten so cranky out there that Rand Paul supporters, like Tim Profitt, a former (as of really recently, you can imagine) campaign volunteer, would be thugs for free. And if you follow the link, you'll find the perfectly plausible reason why he put his own actual foot on a young woman's own actual head:

Because his back hurt, and he could not bend over. Because even he knows it would have looked better to smash a person's head to the ground with one's own hands. Feet are so impersonal. But, what are you gonna do? Getting old's a sonofagun.

And as for the candidate, his office spoke about this actually twice. Once, to pretend that this was a "crowd-control" issue, and then later once they realized one of their own volunteers was in on it. Because they really, really don't condone thuggery when it can be directly connected to the candidate. That just looks bad!

Is it any more peculiar when we have a candidate like Sharron Angle using decoys to dupe the press in her attempts to avoid them? Who does that, seriously? (Don't Gooogle "Saddam Hussein" and "decoys" or "Kim Jong Il" and "decoys" or you will just depress yourself silly. )

But fine. There are some "Tea Party" candidates that don't really care for freedom of the press, or freedom of speech, and resort to paranoia and sometimes violence....

And of course, they don't actually even understand "freedom of religion"--like Ken Buck, the CO GOP Senate hopeful that I last mentioned as having the odd notion that being gay was like being an alcoholic, who is revealed to, Christine O'Donnell-like, not be aware of what is in the First Amendment.

"I disagree strongly with the concept of separation of church and state," said Buck at a forum for GOP Senate candidates last year. "It was not written into the Constitution. While we have a Constitution that is very strong in the sense that we are not gonna have a religion that's sanctioned by the government, it doesn't mean that we need to have a separation between government and religion. And so that, that concerns me a great deal."

I will boil this down even further for Buck than I did for O'Donnell:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

An "establishment" of religion doesn't mean that there can't be a government-religion. Oh, it means more than that. If it meant that, it would have said, "The Government will establish no religion." It doesn't. The government is specifically not to make a law regarding an establishment of religion.

The difference? I like to loosen up at an establishment of drinking. Other people unwind by going to an establishment that features fine dining. Others may choose an establishment of fine arts--such a museum, for their personal pleasure. Various religions have been "established" over time--Judaism, Christianity (in all its derivations), Islam, and the law (the state) is not to be involved with any one of them (the churches). See? Separation of church and state! No word tricks--the words just mean what they mean and then you read them.

This guy went to law school and the big word "establishment" threw him. (But then again, he apparently blew off a case where an alleged rapist confessed just because he felt like "slut-shaming" a victim, so he has some faults, with respect to his concepts of justice, for example. Or common sense, for another.

These Tea Party candidates? They do not understand the Constitution, they don't have common sense, they do bad things to further their ambition, and I think instead of just chuckling at their antics, I'm at the point where I am very much creeped out by too many people who carried signs indicating a fear of Fascism--that don't see the problem with this. The people who last year were screaming at townhall meetings for accountability from their elected officials--should be screaming bloody murder now about the gutless, guiltless unaccountable jackasses dodging the press now. Where did they go?

If they love the Constitution so much--why do they hate the 17th amendment, or value their odd construction of the Tenth Amendment over the actual powers given to Congress in Article One? And if they wanted better government, why are their candidates so awful? And if they wanted to take their country back from anyone--why would they want to hand it to dumbasses with lots of corporate funding who will doubtless do as bad or worse? Is there any logic at all to the stupid shit the media foisted on us as a "movement"?

Oh, people were angry--but this tea nonsense was colorful, but not the answer. It was the cry for help of confused people who were gathered together by cynical interested jerkwads with money. There are serious issues and actual hard work that has to be done by serious politicians who want to make constructive policy, not just block it to try and get a GOP POTUS elected.

Anyone who is a registered Democrat who wouldn't crawl across broken glass and swim through vinegar and then pedal their guts out on a bike with a Ginsu knife for a seat to get to the polls to preserve our republic from truly awful people who will make everything absolutely worse in the triathalon of my darkest imagining, is also not funny to me now. Enjoy the shut-down of our government. Enjoy watching Darrell Issa bang a gavel on C-SPAN in hearings on any perpetrated nontroversy that can be made up. Expect your gains to be reversed. Expect more secrecy, and more militancy.

It would give me a lot to snark about--but it wouldn't be funny, anymore.

This is a little bit wacky, a little bit tacky.

Ginny Thomas and the Phone Call

Here's the message Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. left on the work voice mail of Anita Hill after nearly 20 years:

Good morning, Anita Hill; it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK have a good day.

The gall of this woman. She would love an apology and full explanation. I'm sure she would! That would be appropriate if Ms. Hill lied, but she hadn't. She did not merely testify, she passed a polygraph test. And she was not alone in her accusations about Thomas' sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior towards female colleagues. A "full explanation" sounds like Mrs. Thomas wants a plausible back story to convince herself of something.

Here's a pretty full explanation: Anita Hill let her reputation be dragged around, submitted herself to derogatory comments about her sanity and personal life, and did it with a calm honesty that did not admit of victimhood but made Clarence Thomas seem a little ridiculous and creepy, because it was true. He behaved in ways that were ridiculous and creepy to other women.

And I really think the line "give it some thought and certainly pray about this" is just fly-paper grade tacky. Oh, please. She's had a lot of time to think it over. But to say "pray about this" is just an affront because this deluded woman is basically saying "get right with God about this." As if Virginia Thomas and God were talking about this and that, and God said, "You know, I never got an apology out of Anita Hill either. Why don't you go and have a little 'woman-to-woman' on that?" (And then Clarence Thomas muttered "Woman-to-woman? All right.....")

Anyway, there's been speculation about what brought all this on, whether it was just lingering resentment, a case of drunk-dialing, a distraction from the ethical implications of her Tea Party work and his meeting with the Koch brothers in relation to the Citizens United decision, or what. All I can say is,

I still believe Anita Hill.

And Angela Wright.

And Lillian McEwan.

I can remember at the time of the confirmation hearings, I was almost irritated that the sexual harassment "angle" was the story. His credentials, I thought then, were the story. He hadn't tried cases at a federal level, he was new as a judge, rumor had it he might have "Borkian" tendencies. Also, I didn't think the Senate Committee handled the line of questioning very well at all--at times badgering Ms. Hill. I thought the SNL skit of the time captured the "Boy's Club" attitudes on display pretty well but I'll be damned if anyone ever uploaded it to Youtube. As others have said, the one thing this does is introduce this story to a new generation of people to be somewhat grossed-out by. Pubic hairs on a Coke can! Long Dong Silver!

But that was then, this is now, a generation and a few presidents away.

I don't really think the decision to reach out and touch someone the way Ginny Thomas did was appropriate no matter what her intentions were, and certainly not with the words she used. You can't set things right with someone by talking down to them.

Violatin' Godwin

Now, this picture over to the right is a clear violation of Godwin's Law, and of course, it would be utterly inappropriate for anyone to use this kind of image if one were the sort of blogger given to throwing red flags over the Teahadist's use of similar images with respect to President Obama. It's symptomatic of the kind of mindset that the right characterizes as "Bush Derangement Syndrome."

It becomes very hard, however, to refrain from comparisons (which are, as noted by the Bard, "odorous") when reading a story like this:

Reporting from Washington — A prominent human rights group accused the CIA of conducting illegal human experiments and unethical medical research during interrogations of high-profile terrorism suspects under the George W. Bush administration.

Physicians for Human Rights charged Monday that CIA doctors and other medical personnel collected data to study and calibrate the use of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, severe pain and other "enhanced" interrogation techniques, but did so under the guise of trying to protect the detainees' health.

It's very hard not to make the comparison. So I won't in so many words.

Bad people Stole the Mojave Cross. I said, "Bad, people."

The Mojave Cross memorial to WWI veterans, recently the subject of a Supreme Court ruling that decided that the image of the cross, which was the implement upon which the Savior-God of a specific religion that will naturally remain nameless since it's not about them! tragically and apotheosistically (dude, that is a word or if it's not, it should be) died, was actually not an endorsement of any particular religious creed at all, at all--was stolen! Totally ripped off. They took it down and away.

I'm going to say this as a message to the people who did this: "You are bad people." If the Supreme Court says the thing is legal and you disagree, while you may look on what you are doing as simple civil disobedience, what you're really doing is being a little bit of a jerk. So what if a religious display on public land is probably not the sort of thing the government should be endorsing; the over-arching sentiment that the soldiers who fought in WWI deserve to be memorialized is still valid, and the act of theft and vandalism is still wrong--two wrongs don't make a right. The act is only a good statement of civil disobedience if it raises consciousness about what you're trying to say. If it just pisses people off, it isn't effective and even hurts what you have to say.

A more audacious solution, like a big-ass Magen David or Buddha (I really have no damn figures on Buddhists having anything to do with WWI) or even a big old Out Campaign "A" being raised in the vicinity might have got some brain cells working about how the monument could be more inclusive. But I don't think that just taking it down does the trick. I think it revelatory that people might see the area as "desecrated", which is a word we use regarding "holy" things being distrurbed--but that itself isn't going to raise the consciousness of someone who really thinks the cross is for everybody.

George W. Bush 'knew Guantánamo prisoners were innocent

From The Times (UK):

Colonel Wilkerson, a long-time critic of the Bush Administration’s approach to counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq, claimed that the majority of detainees — children as young as 12 and men as old as 93, he said — never saw a US soldier when they were captured. He said that many were turned over by Afghans and Pakistanis for up to $5,000. Little or no evidence was produced as to why they had been taken.

He also claimed that one reason Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld did not want the innocent detainees released was because “the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were”. This was “not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD [Mr Rumsfeld at the Defence Department]”.

Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.”

He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”.

The Cheneys would maintain, of course, that the people still at Guantanamo are still the "worst of the worst" and it would be impossible to try them or even hold them in the mainland US. But it's not too diffucult to recognize that the Bush/Cheney administration swept people up in great numbers to make it look like there was a great threat, and then held them because they never had any forethought regarding giving them due process.

That would probably be why Liz Cheney yammers on to this day that the foreign or enemy combatants don't have the same Constitutional rights as US citizens. Which may even be, but they do have protections under the Geneva conventions. And even our most dire enemies, such as the Nazis, got military tribunals. So?* as Mr. Cheney might say.

But the point is, we can't establish guilt or innocence without a trial--this isn't Wonderland, where the Red Queen can just cry "Off with their heads" without a trial. It strikes me as inhumane and injust.

*So! Holding innocent people doesn't make us more safe, but it should make everyone in the US just feel a bit less safe because there is a precedent for the government deciding to lock people up and throw away the key. Also, the Iraq war wouldn't have happened but for its being associated with the terrorism of 9/11 and the greater war on terror. So! When do we look at Cheney, who got bids for Halliburton to all kinds of things, including building a new facility at Gitmo-- as being more than unusually self-interested, that being his old company and all?

*shrug*