by JanieM
Pulling hsh’s question to the front page, if for no other reason than that we’re going to have to be able to walk and chew gum (and a few other things) at the same time if we’re not going down in flames:
Anyone want to guess what sort of newly discovered evidence prompted the select committee to schedule a surprise hearing tomorrow?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | June 27, 2022 at 04:21 PM
I like Michael Cain’s proposal that it might be in response to Ginni Thomas being unavailable during the rest of the summer. I’ve also heard speculation that Alex Holder, the British documentary film maker, might have other commitments and that they want him to testify, with clips of the film, before he has to leave the US. If there is something really dramatic or explosive, do any ObWi people think doing it now, as opposed to after the first week in July (which I think was when they were due to have the next couple of sessions), has any implication timewise for the midterms? In other words, at this stage of the year do a few extra weeks give the Ds any advantage in registration etc?
I like Michael Cain’s proposal that it might be in response to Ginni Thomas being unavailable during the rest of the summer. I’ve also heard speculation that Alex Holder, the British documentary film maker, might have other commitments and that they want him to testify, with clips of the film, before he has to leave the US. If there is something really dramatic or explosive, do any ObWi people think doing it now, as opposed to after the first week in July (which I think was when they were due to have the next couple of sessions), has any implication timewise for the midterms? In other words, at this stage of the year do a few extra weeks give the Ds any advantage in registration etc?
I’ll answer my own question. My guess is some particularly damning footage was in the documentary film they subpoenaed. We’ll know tomorrow!
I’ll answer my own question. My guess is some particularly damning footage was in the documentary film they subpoenaed. We’ll know tomorrow!
Considering the import of previous sessions (and the impact they deserve to have), the mind boggles trying to imagine something that would warrant a surprise (not previously scheduled) hearing.
Certainly a video of TFG personally directing one of the militia types (the Proud Boys, for example) to assault the Capitol and disrupt the procedings would be one possibility — that making it virtually impossible for the Attorney General not to charge him as a participant in the seditious conspiracy. Another would be TFG and members of Congress conspiring to the same end. Or even just the Proud Boys and some members. Doubtless there are others.
But my sense is that “blockbuster” may turn out to be appropriate. Waiting with bated breath.
Considering the import of previous sessions (and the impact they deserve to have), the mind boggles trying to imagine something that would warrant a surprise (not previously scheduled) hearing.
Certainly a video of TFG personally directing one of the militia types (the Proud Boys, for example) to assault the Capitol and disrupt the procedings would be one possibility — that making it virtually impossible for the Attorney General not to charge him as a participant in the seditious conspiracy. Another would be TFG and members of Congress conspiring to the same end. Or even just the Proud Boys and some members. Doubtless there are others.
But my sense is that “blockbuster” may turn out to be appropriate. Waiting with bated breath.
How does Ginni get to say that sorry she won’t be available this summer? DO we all get to respond that way to investigations? Since I am now seventy, I have been daydreaming about doing things that could have serious consequence based on being able to dodge the consequences by dying. If I get myself in the position of being investigated, can I say I’m not available until I’m eighty? That’s when I am planning to depart.
How does Ginni get to say that sorry she won’t be available this summer? DO we all get to respond that way to investigations? Since I am now seventy, I have been daydreaming about doing things that could have serious consequence based on being able to dodge the consequences by dying. If I get myself in the position of being investigated, can I say I’m not available until I’m eighty? That’s when I am planning to depart.
If I get myself in the position of being investigated, can I say I’m not available until I’m eighty?
If you’re in the country, you can be compelled to show up. Not necessarily to testify (for example, if you take the 5th), but you can be taken into custody and compelled to come.
On the other hand, if you are outside the country, I’m guessing (IANAL) that it depends on just what the extradition treaty, if any, says.
If I get myself in the position of being investigated, can I say I’m not available until I’m eighty?
If you’re in the country, you can be compelled to show up. Not necessarily to testify (for example, if you take the 5th), but you can be taken into custody and compelled to come.
On the other hand, if you are outside the country, I’m guessing (IANAL) that it depends on just what the extradition treaty, if any, says.
As a related thought on the apparent scheduling urgency…
I don’t believe there are any additional hearings firmly scheduled after the one tomorrow. This week is the first week of the annual two-week Fourth of July recess, when House members are generally pressured to attend festivities at home. August is the traditional summer recess. The next government shutdown will happen midnight Sep 30 unless Congress passes a budget bill or continuing resolution. October is the pre-election recess because members want to campaign at home. None of that stops the commission from meeting, but it does put pressure on scheduling.
Added thought about the pre-election recess. Three of the majority members of the commission are from California, now a vote-by-mail state. If they need to campaign, they need to start early in October.
As a related thought on the apparent scheduling urgency…
I don’t believe there are any additional hearings firmly scheduled after the one tomorrow. This week is the first week of the annual two-week Fourth of July recess, when House members are generally pressured to attend festivities at home. August is the traditional summer recess. The next government shutdown will happen midnight Sep 30 unless Congress passes a budget bill or continuing resolution. October is the pre-election recess because members want to campaign at home. None of that stops the commission from meeting, but it does put pressure on scheduling.
Added thought about the pre-election recess. Three of the majority members of the commission are from California, now a vote-by-mail state. If they need to campaign, they need to start early in October.
How does Ginni get to say that sorry she won’t be available this summer?
How many witnesses have already managed to stretch the time from when they were subpoenaed until the time they sat in front of the committee to three months or longer?
How does Ginni get to say that sorry she won’t be available this summer?
How many witnesses have already managed to stretch the time from when they were subpoenaed until the time they sat in front of the committee to three months or longer?
CNN hasn’t contacted me yet, which is surprising as I’ve pronounced myself a “House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack Surprise Mystery Guest or Maybe Just Footage” Expert, because I can speculate at least as wildly as the nattering nabobs of no information I’ve heard so far today.
Ok, I got nuthin’. But frankly, I can wait ’til 1PM tomorrow to find out. I just hope whatever it is warrants the hype. The timing is certainly peculiar.
CNN hasn’t contacted me yet, which is surprising as I’ve pronounced myself a “House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack Surprise Mystery Guest or Maybe Just Footage” Expert, because I can speculate at least as wildly as the nattering nabobs of no information I’ve heard so far today.
Ok, I got nuthin’. But frankly, I can wait ’til 1PM tomorrow to find out. I just hope whatever it is warrants the hype. The timing is certainly peculiar.
The timing is certainly peculiar.
I’ll stand by my 6:28 on the timing. The Committee is under enormous pressure to wind up for the summer/fall.
The timing is certainly peculiar.
I’ll stand by my 6:28 on the timing. The Committee is under enormous pressure to wind up for the summer/fall.
I should point out that the “nabob” thing was directed at the 24/7 “news” and not anyone here.
I might argue that the pressure stems more from the desire to get it right, whatever that ends up looking like. And just like the Mueller report, my suspicion is that every rock the Committee turns over reveals a new rat’s nest that requires investigation.
I like to think what has felt like taking their sweet time has been due diligence, which makes the immediacy of tomorrow so odd.
But, yeah, they’re running out of runway, too.
I should point out that the “nabob” thing was directed at the 24/7 “news” and not anyone here.
I might argue that the pressure stems more from the desire to get it right, whatever that ends up looking like. And just like the Mueller report, my suspicion is that every rock the Committee turns over reveals a new rat’s nest that requires investigation.
I like to think what has felt like taking their sweet time has been due diligence, which makes the immediacy of tomorrow so odd.
But, yeah, they’re running out of runway, too.
Enough already. He, Trump is guilty of sedition, and anybody who still needs “evidence” presented at a “hearing” is an Independent(TM) who fits my oft-repeated definition that an Independent(TM) is someone who will vote Republican given the slightest excuse.
If Joe Biden is too squeamish to act like Andrew Jackson, at least Merrick Garland should have the balls to act like Mark Twain’s Captain Ned Blakely.
BTW, a word to wonkie who wrote: …can I say I’m not available until I’m eighty? That’s when I am planning to depart.
I have been claiming for years that if the christianists on the SCOTUS have their way, you will not be free to go until the god of Abraham has had his fill of suffering from you. Hitchens used to say that “At least you can fncking die to leave North Korea”, but North Korea is only ruled by Li’l Kim, not the likes of Alito.
–TP
Enough already. He, Trump is guilty of sedition, and anybody who still needs “evidence” presented at a “hearing” is an Independent(TM) who fits my oft-repeated definition that an Independent(TM) is someone who will vote Republican given the slightest excuse.
If Joe Biden is too squeamish to act like Andrew Jackson, at least Merrick Garland should have the balls to act like Mark Twain’s Captain Ned Blakely.
BTW, a word to wonkie who wrote: …can I say I’m not available until I’m eighty? That’s when I am planning to depart.
I have been claiming for years that if the christianists on the SCOTUS have their way, you will not be free to go until the god of Abraham has had his fill of suffering from you. Hitchens used to say that “At least you can fncking die to leave North Korea”, but North Korea is only ruled by Li’l Kim, not the likes of Alito.
–TP
Tony, the thing is, there is some space between “undoubtedly guilty” and “guilt provable in court.” The point of continued investigation is to get from the first to the second.
When we get to the second (in the opinion of the experienced staff in the AG’s office), we should see an indictment. It appears we aren’t there quite yet.
Tony, the thing is, there is some space between “undoubtedly guilty” and “guilt provable in court.” The point of continued investigation is to get from the first to the second.
When we get to the second (in the opinion of the experienced staff in the AG’s office), we should see an indictment. It appears we aren’t there quite yet.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-riot-panel-promises-new-evidence-surprise-tuesday-hearing-2022-06-28/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-capitol-riot-panel-promises-new-evidence-surprise-tuesday-hearing-2022-06-28/
Two tidbits from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/jun/28/jan-6-hearings-latest-updates-cassidy-hutchinson-mark-meadows-trump-capitol-attack
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/28/january-6-hearings-focus-on-phone-calls-among-trumps-children-and-aides-weeks-before-election
What will come of all this, if anything of real consequence, remains to be seen.
Two tidbits from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/jun/28/jan-6-hearings-latest-updates-cassidy-hutchinson-mark-meadows-trump-capitol-attack
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/28/january-6-hearings-focus-on-phone-calls-among-trumps-children-and-aides-weeks-before-election
What will come of all this, if anything of real consequence, remains to be seen.
nous’s first link contains the phrase “the Trump White House’s chief ethics lawyer” — this made me laugh out loud.
If only it were really just oxymoronic comedy.
nous’s first link contains the phrase “the Trump White House’s chief ethics lawyer” — this made me laugh out loud.
If only it were really just oxymoronic comedy.
Possible duties of “the Trump White House’s chief ethics lawyer”: make sure Trump never (inadvertently) does something ethical. There are standards which must be maintained, after all!
Possible duties of “the Trump White House’s chief ethics lawyer”: make sure Trump never (inadvertently) does something ethical. There are standards which must be maintained, after all!
off to grab a sandwich, then back to listen to the hearing. wondering if I should make some popcorn.
I agree with Tony, there is nothing more obvious to me than that Trump is guilty of sedition, or at a minimum, seditious conspiracy.
It remains to be seen if the DOJ will do bugger-all about it.
I understand that there are political complications to all of this, and even though the DOJ is supposed to be above it all, I also understand that Garland has to be… perspicacious in how he proceeds.
All of that said, the actions of Trump and his crew are such blatant and egregious violations of law, let alone concern for settled practice and institutions, that they kind of transcend political concern.
This isn’t about different points of view regarding public life or the direction of the country. It’s about tearing up the fundamental basis of governance when it doesn’t go your way.
That can’t be allowed to stand without a clear and unequivocal response.
off to grab a sandwich, then back to listen to the hearing. wondering if I should make some popcorn.
I agree with Tony, there is nothing more obvious to me than that Trump is guilty of sedition, or at a minimum, seditious conspiracy.
It remains to be seen if the DOJ will do bugger-all about it.
I understand that there are political complications to all of this, and even though the DOJ is supposed to be above it all, I also understand that Garland has to be… perspicacious in how he proceeds.
All of that said, the actions of Trump and his crew are such blatant and egregious violations of law, let alone concern for settled practice and institutions, that they kind of transcend political concern.
This isn’t about different points of view regarding public life or the direction of the country. It’s about tearing up the fundamental basis of governance when it doesn’t go your way.
That can’t be allowed to stand without a clear and unequivocal response.
I understand that there are political complications to all of this
We should have learned from the Nixon pardon, failing to prosecute an ex-president for clear crimes is a bad mistake.
My only caveat would be that prosecuting with a case which fails would be, if anything, worse. Trump, especially, would take it as proof that he wasn’t guilty of anything, rather than merely a Scots verdict: not proven.
I understand that there are political complications to all of this
We should have learned from the Nixon pardon, failing to prosecute an ex-president for clear crimes is a bad mistake.
My only caveat would be that prosecuting with a case which fails would be, if anything, worse. Trump, especially, would take it as proof that he wasn’t guilty of anything, rather than merely a Scots verdict: not proven.
It seems to me we are living with the absurd notion, held by far too many people, that the standard for January 6th is the POTUS knowing with absolute certainty that his words and actions would lead to what happened in and around the Capitol. It doesn’t matter that he should have known there was a high likelihood of violence given the kind of people he would attract and given the kind of people who ultimately showed up. If he didn’t tell them explicitly and in detail to do what they did, it’s not his fault.
Imagine the same situation with Obama in the role of Trump.
It seems to me we are living with the absurd notion, held by far too many people, that the standard for January 6th is the POTUS knowing with absolute certainty that his words and actions would lead to what happened in and around the Capitol. It doesn’t matter that he should have known there was a high likelihood of violence given the kind of people he would attract and given the kind of people who ultimately showed up. If he didn’t tell them explicitly and in detail to do what they did, it’s not his fault.
Imagine the same situation with Obama in the role of Trump.
hsh — The standard you mention is framed as if Clickbait was just blathering but maybe should be held responsible for unintended side effects. It seems quite clear that the effects were neither unintended nor “side.” He was deliberately fomenting armed rebellion.
hsh — The standard you mention is framed as if Clickbait was just blathering but maybe should be held responsible for unintended side effects. It seems quite clear that the effects were neither unintended nor “side.” He was deliberately fomenting armed rebellion.
The standard you mention is framed as if Clickbait was just blathering but maybe should be held responsible for unintended side effects.
I don’t even give them that much credit. If the sides effects were unintended, there’s no responsibility. And the only way to prove intent is to show clear and explicit commands to violently storm the Capitol, fight the police to the death if necessary, and threaten the lives of members of congress. Anything short of that and he’s a babe in the woods, innocent and pure, full of American virtue.
The standard you mention is framed as if Clickbait was just blathering but maybe should be held responsible for unintended side effects.
I don’t even give them that much credit. If the sides effects were unintended, there’s no responsibility. And the only way to prove intent is to show clear and explicit commands to violently storm the Capitol, fight the police to the death if necessary, and threaten the lives of members of congress. Anything short of that and he’s a babe in the woods, innocent and pure, full of American virtue.
My read on things is that the right is going to wring its hands over what percentage of the crowd actually intended sedition. They will avow that there were people there intent upon sedition, but that the majority were there only out of concern that their country had been stolen. Then they will avow that Tyrannosaurus Rump is a character who has fits some times, but that there was no linkage between him and the seditionists who had just chosen to rid T.Rump of that turbulent priest.
Because a lot of them know someone who traveled to DC for the 6th and wish to preserve the blamelessness of their actions.
In group loyalty is a powerful thing for the right, and hard to go against, especially when they feel complicit.
That’s how I make sense of the conversations I’ve seen from my relatives, anyway.
But all will be fine once God removes King Saul and puts David on the throne.
My read on things is that the right is going to wring its hands over what percentage of the crowd actually intended sedition. They will avow that there were people there intent upon sedition, but that the majority were there only out of concern that their country had been stolen. Then they will avow that Tyrannosaurus Rump is a character who has fits some times, but that there was no linkage between him and the seditionists who had just chosen to rid T.Rump of that turbulent priest.
Because a lot of them know someone who traveled to DC for the 6th and wish to preserve the blamelessness of their actions.
In group loyalty is a powerful thing for the right, and hard to go against, especially when they feel complicit.
That’s how I make sense of the conversations I’ve seen from my relatives, anyway.
But all will be fine once God removes King Saul and puts David on the throne.
I’m not in the group, so going against is not a problem for me.
US Code 115 is the chapter that defines various crimes against the government of the US. Pick whichever one seems the best fit, there are probably multiple that apply.
Lock these mf’ers up, or this country has ceased to exist as a polity operating under rule of law.
If this crap doesn’t do it, I don’t know what will.
I’m not in the group, so going against is not a problem for me.
US Code 115 is the chapter that defines various crimes against the government of the US. Pick whichever one seems the best fit, there are probably multiple that apply.
Lock these mf’ers up, or this country has ceased to exist as a polity operating under rule of law.
If this crap doesn’t do it, I don’t know what will.
The stuff about Trump knowing about all the weapons was particularly damaging, I thought. Also “they’re not here to hurt me, take the f*ing mags away”.
The stuff about Trump knowing about all the weapons was particularly damaging, I thought. Also “they’re not here to hurt me, take the f*ing mags away”.
And, by the way, although in context it’s trivial, I don’t think the stuff about him throwing dishes and ketchup against the wall will do him any good. Even his supporters might have to visualise toddlers having tantrums…
And, by the way, although in context it’s trivial, I don’t think the stuff about him throwing dishes and ketchup against the wall will do him any good. Even his supporters might have to visualise toddlers having tantrums…
From The Hill:
“I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and ‘leaker’), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,” Trump posted.
“Why did she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible? I understand that she was very upset and angry that I didn’t want her to go, or be a member of the team. She is bad news!” Trump added.
then
Two former White House aides indicated they believed Hutchinson’s testimony.
“Anyone downplaying Cassidy Hutchinson’s role or her access in the West Wing either doesn’t understand how the Trump WH worked or is attempting to discredit her because they’re scared of how damning this testimony is,” former deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews tweeted.
“My guess is that before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, Engle, and Meadows,” former Trump chief of staff Mick Mulvaney tweeted. “This is explosive stuff. If Cassidy is making this up, they will need to say that. If she isn’t they will have to corroborate. I know her. I don’t think she is lying.”
From The Hill:
“I hardly know who this person, Cassidy Hutchinson, is, other than I heard very negative things about her (a total phony and ‘leaker’), and when she requested to go with certain others of the team to Florida after my having served a full term in office, I personally turned her request down,” Trump posted.
“Why did she want to go with us if she felt we were so terrible? I understand that she was very upset and angry that I didn’t want her to go, or be a member of the team. She is bad news!” Trump added.
then
Two former White House aides indicated they believed Hutchinson’s testimony.
“Anyone downplaying Cassidy Hutchinson’s role or her access in the West Wing either doesn’t understand how the Trump WH worked or is attempting to discredit her because they’re scared of how damning this testimony is,” former deputy press secretary Sarah Matthews tweeted.
“My guess is that before this is over, we will be hearing testimony from Ornato, Engle, and Meadows,” former Trump chief of staff Mick Mulvaney tweeted. “This is explosive stuff. If Cassidy is making this up, they will need to say that. If she isn’t they will have to corroborate. I know her. I don’t think she is lying.”
So when T. Rump says “take the f***ing mags away” do we take that to mean mag[netometer]s or mag[azine]s (for their weapons)? I’m thinking it is the former, but betting the apologists will try to say it’s the latter and that T. Rump wanted to *disarm* them – never mind that this makes no sense.
So when T. Rump says “take the f***ing mags away” do we take that to mean mag[netometer]s or mag[azine]s (for their weapons)? I’m thinking it is the former, but betting the apologists will try to say it’s the latter and that T. Rump wanted to *disarm* them – never mind that this makes no sense.
Of course the testimony will get distorted and lied about, if not reinvented whole cloth, but she made it pretty clear that she meant the magnetometers. And yes, otherwise his anger makes no sense. “They’re not here to hurt me” — subtext, “And I doing give a flying f who else they hurt.”
Of course the testimony will get distorted and lied about, if not reinvented whole cloth, but she made it pretty clear that she meant the magnetometers. And yes, otherwise his anger makes no sense. “They’re not here to hurt me” — subtext, “And I doing give a flying f who else they hurt.”
No, she was very explicit that that was what they called the magnetometers. Also, “they’re not here to hurt me” – I think we can all imagine which word was emphasised!
No, she was very explicit that that was what they called the magnetometers. Also, “they’re not here to hurt me” – I think we can all imagine which word was emphasised!
Trump believed the election was stolen. So did his followers. Many,if not most, still do. If one believes the foundational principles of the Country are in grave danger, an armed defense is necessary. The President was so upset he tried to commandeer his own vehicle & threw his Chicken McNuggets at the wall.
Yeah, I think the Right Wing Reel is exactly that easy to spin.
I found it interesting that they closed the hearing with the quotes about “influencing testimony” & I wonder if that had something to do with the timing of the surprise hearing.
Trump believed the election was stolen. So did his followers. Many,if not most, still do. If one believes the foundational principles of the Country are in grave danger, an armed defense is necessary. The President was so upset he tried to commandeer his own vehicle & threw his Chicken McNuggets at the wall.
Yeah, I think the Right Wing Reel is exactly that easy to spin.
I found it interesting that they closed the hearing with the quotes about “influencing testimony” & I wonder if that had something to do with the timing of the surprise hearing.
Cross posted! But, obvs, what Janie said.
Cross posted! But, obvs, what Janie said.
I found it interesting that they closed the hearing with the quotes about “influencing testimony” & I wonder if that had something to do with the timing of the surprise hearing.
Excellent point.
I found it interesting that they closed the hearing with the quotes about “influencing testimony” & I wonder if that had something to do with the timing of the surprise hearing.
Excellent point.
“They’re not here to hurt me” — subtext, “And I do[n’t]
inggive a flying f- who else they hurt.”Which is just so Trump.
“They’re not here to hurt me” — subtext, “And I do[n’t]
inggive a flying f- who else they hurt.”Which is just so Trump.
It will be interesting if they call one of the Secret Service agents who were guarding Trump to testify about what was happening and what was said by whom.
And amusing, since the precedent for doing that was . . . Starr calling one to testify about Clinton.
It will be interesting if they call one of the Secret Service agents who were guarding Trump to testify about what was happening and what was said by whom.
And amusing, since the precedent for doing that was . . . Starr calling one to testify about Clinton.
Trump believed the election was stolen. So did his followers. Many,if not most, still do.
Earlier this month the county board of a New Mexico county was going to refuse to certify the primary results. This is a ceremonial duty; they have no authority over election matters except the formal certification. They eventually certified the results 2-1, with the commission chair voting no. His reasoning was “My vote to remain a no isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.”
This is in a county where the voters are very largely Republican, where the chief election officer is a Republican.
Trump believed the election was stolen. So did his followers. Many,if not most, still do.
Earlier this month the county board of a New Mexico county was going to refuse to certify the primary results. This is a ceremonial duty; they have no authority over election matters except the formal certification. They eventually certified the results 2-1, with the commission chair voting no. His reasoning was “My vote to remain a no isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.”
This is in a county where the voters are very largely Republican, where the chief election officer is a Republican.
Not to put too fine a point, but I kinda feel like there was (is) a rather specific list of who they want to hurt, but also care nothing about collateral damage.
Not to put too fine a point, but I kinda feel like there was (is) a rather specific list of who they want to hurt, but also care nothing about collateral damage.
His reasoning was “My vote to remain a no isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.”
Sadly, being willing to admit there was no evidence puts him head and shoulders above a lot of the MAGAt crowd.
Other fun fact, the county board only did its duty after being ordered to do so by the state Supreme Court.
His reasoning was “My vote to remain a no isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.”
Sadly, being willing to admit there was no evidence puts him head and shoulders above a lot of the MAGAt crowd.
Other fun fact, the county board only did its duty after being ordered to do so by the state Supreme Court.
Hutchinson’s former attorney, Stefan Passantino, has deep Trump World connections. Her new lawyer, Jody Hunt, is a longtime close ally of Jeff Sessions and served as his chief of staff when the former attorney general enraged Trump by recusing from the Russia probe.
From Politico. Lots of speculation, apparently, about most of the refuseniks sharing lawyers from Trump World. Wonder if this, combined with Pete’s point above about “influencing testimony”, will make them think twice.
Hutchinson’s former attorney, Stefan Passantino, has deep Trump World connections. Her new lawyer, Jody Hunt, is a longtime close ally of Jeff Sessions and served as his chief of staff when the former attorney general enraged Trump by recusing from the Russia probe.
From Politico. Lots of speculation, apparently, about most of the refuseniks sharing lawyers from Trump World. Wonder if this, combined with Pete’s point above about “influencing testimony”, will make them think twice.
Sadly, being willing to admit there was no evidence puts him head and shoulders above a lot of the MAGAt crowd.
Just shoulders, no head.
He’s not saying there is no evidence, just that he hasn’t seen any confirming evidence or established facts.
It’s a vote for the truthiness of “conscience.”
Sadly, being willing to admit there was no evidence puts him head and shoulders above a lot of the MAGAt crowd.
Just shoulders, no head.
He’s not saying there is no evidence, just that he hasn’t seen any confirming evidence or established facts.
It’s a vote for the truthiness of “conscience.”
Just shoulders, no head.
Acephalous. Makes me miss Scott Eric Kauffman.
Just shoulders, no head.
Acephalous. Makes me miss Scott Eric Kauffman.
Wonder how significant today was? Here’s an analysis from
a famously radical left wing Democratic operative(or something)https://twitter.com/MickMulvaney/status/1541865971593396226?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
See, especially, point 5:
A bad day indeed.
Wonder how significant today was? Here’s an analysis from
a famously radical left wing Democratic operative(or something)https://twitter.com/MickMulvaney/status/1541865971593396226?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
See, especially, point 5:
A bad day indeed.
Trump’s denial of steering wheel story, food-throwing story, crowd-size story and guns story:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWXVqhVXwAQKaZN.jpg
Trump’s denial of steering wheel story, food-throwing story, crowd-size story and guns story:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FWXVqhVXwAQKaZN.jpg
And he wants someone prosecuted for shooting Ashli Babbitt? Dig the hole a little deeper, Clickbait.
And he wants someone prosecuted for shooting Ashli Babbitt? Dig the hole a little deeper, Clickbait.
Not that his acolytes and dupes don’t think she’s a hero…..
Collective insanity.
Not that his acolytes and dupes don’t think she’s a hero…..
Collective insanity.
From today’s NYT:
(Later in the day, Secret Service officials who requested anonymity said that the two men in the presidential limousine with Mr. Trump were prepared to state under oath that neither was assaulted by the former president and that he did not reach for the wheel.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/cassidy-hutchinson-trump.html
From today’s NYT:
(Later in the day, Secret Service officials who requested anonymity said that the two men in the presidential limousine with Mr. Trump were prepared to state under oath that neither was assaulted by the former president and that he did not reach for the wheel.)
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/cassidy-hutchinson-trump.html
His reasoning was “My vote to remain a no isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.”
It’s a vote for the truthiness of “conscience.”
That was the first thing that came to mind.
Truthiness. From the 1st Colbert Report, 2005. Somehow, even the Harriet Miers reference seems relevant again.
“Anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news at you.”
Of course, no sooner had I regained my composure, when along comes Mary Miller saying the Nazi part out loud. Not on my worst day, when my tongue is all thumbs (eww!) and which happens with disturbing frequency, could I have made that substitution. In my own dissent, I suspect that the Venn between “Right To Life” and “White Life” is approximately circular. But clearly, White Replacement Theory is real.
His reasoning was “My vote to remain a no isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.”
It’s a vote for the truthiness of “conscience.”
That was the first thing that came to mind.
Truthiness. From the 1st Colbert Report, 2005. Somehow, even the Harriet Miers reference seems relevant again.
“Anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news at you.”
Of course, no sooner had I regained my composure, when along comes Mary Miller saying the Nazi part out loud. Not on my worst day, when my tongue is all thumbs (eww!) and which happens with disturbing frequency, could I have made that substitution. In my own dissent, I suspect that the Venn between “Right To Life” and “White Life” is approximately circular. But clearly, White Replacement Theory is real.
Also, I’ll put commas wherever I damn well, please.
Also, I’ll put commas wherever I damn well, please.
I’m heading out the door for the day and I don’t have any primary source links for this, but TaMara, one of the BJ front-pagers, posted this comment in the current top thread:
I’m heading out the door for the day and I don’t have any primary source links for this, but TaMara, one of the BJ front-pagers, posted this comment in the current top thread:
Secret Service officials who requested anonymity said that the two men in the presidential limousine with Mr. Trump were prepared to state under oath that neither was assaulted by the former president and that he did not reach for the wheel.
and thus begins the (R) project of discrediting Hutchinson.
an hour and a half of damning first-hand testimony, but they are gonna hammer on one of the few bits of second-hand narrative. and not even a particularly material bit. but it’ll be enough to paint her as a liar, to folks who are interested in seeing her that way.
Some of Trump’s people, including Trump, are looking at criminal charges, possibly including sedition. there aren’t gonna be any pardons coming out of the Biden WH. it’s kind of all or nothing for them at this point, they’ll try on anything to keep their lying behinds out of jail.
if there’s a John Dean in there somewhere, about time for him or her to come forward and resolve this freaking mess.
My vote to remain a no isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.
this is the dawning of the Age of the Perpetual Facepalm.
I’ll put commas wherever I damn well, please.
it was good enough for the founders.
Secret Service officials who requested anonymity said that the two men in the presidential limousine with Mr. Trump were prepared to state under oath that neither was assaulted by the former president and that he did not reach for the wheel.
and thus begins the (R) project of discrediting Hutchinson.
an hour and a half of damning first-hand testimony, but they are gonna hammer on one of the few bits of second-hand narrative. and not even a particularly material bit. but it’ll be enough to paint her as a liar, to folks who are interested in seeing her that way.
Some of Trump’s people, including Trump, are looking at criminal charges, possibly including sedition. there aren’t gonna be any pardons coming out of the Biden WH. it’s kind of all or nothing for them at this point, they’ll try on anything to keep their lying behinds out of jail.
if there’s a John Dean in there somewhere, about time for him or her to come forward and resolve this freaking mess.
My vote to remain a no isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.
this is the dawning of the Age of the Perpetual Facepalm.
I’ll put commas wherever I damn well, please.
it was good enough for the founders.
Secret Service officials who requested anonymity said
This is BS.
First, it’s not even a statement by the two individuals. Let them testify, or at least say it themselves to a reporter.
Second, “not assaulted” does not mean “not grabbed,” or the like.
Secret Service officials who requested anonymity said
This is BS.
First, it’s not even a statement by the two individuals. Let them testify, or at least say it themselves to a reporter.
Second, “not assaulted” does not mean “not grabbed,” or the like.
and thus begins the (R) project of discrediting Hutchinson.
an hour and a half of damning first-hand testimony, but they are gonna hammer on one of the few bits of second-hand narrative. and not even a particularly material bit. but it’ll be enough to paint her as a liar, to folks who are interested in seeing her that way.
Yup.
and thus begins the (R) project of discrediting Hutchinson.
an hour and a half of damning first-hand testimony, but they are gonna hammer on one of the few bits of second-hand narrative. and not even a particularly material bit. but it’ll be enough to paint her as a liar, to folks who are interested in seeing her that way.
Yup.
Let’s see them, or the people she alleges told her, testify under oath. Anonymously saying you’d do it, and doing it, are two different things.
Let’s see them, or the people she alleges told her, testify under oath. Anonymously saying you’d do it, and doing it, are two different things.
they are gonna hammer on one of the few bits of second-hand narrative. and not even a particularly material bit
And this is true, too, so if it is disproved, big deal. But, apart from all the other reasons I don’t want her honesty to be impugned, I think these details, and the throwing of dishes and food at the wall, all add to the picture.
they are gonna hammer on one of the few bits of second-hand narrative. and not even a particularly material bit
And this is true, too, so if it is disproved, big deal. But, apart from all the other reasons I don’t want her honesty to be impugned, I think these details, and the throwing of dishes and food at the wall, all add to the picture.
Second, “not assaulted” does not mean “not grabbed,” or the like.
If I remember correctly from when my ex was in law school, “assault” is basically unpermitted touching.
So on the one hand, “grabbed” is “assaulted” — for normal people. On the other, if the agent in the car didn’t mind being grabbed, I supposed you could say it was permitted. 😉
/quibble
And wrs.
Second, “not assaulted” does not mean “not grabbed,” or the like.
If I remember correctly from when my ex was in law school, “assault” is basically unpermitted touching.
So on the one hand, “grabbed” is “assaulted” — for normal people. On the other, if the agent in the car didn’t mind being grabbed, I supposed you could say it was permitted. 😉
/quibble
And wrs.
That is a pure legalism that will naturally be exploited to allow certain people to effectivly lie under oath but avoid being sentenced for perjury. See Bill Clinton in the Lewisnky case. Another related trope is over-specific denial. And rightwing media will of course throw all disctinctions overboard and accuse HER of perjury.
That is a pure legalism that will naturally be exploited to allow certain people to effectivly lie under oath but avoid being sentenced for perjury. See Bill Clinton in the Lewisnky case. Another related trope is over-specific denial. And rightwing media will of course throw all disctinctions overboard and accuse HER of perjury.
That is a pure legalism that will naturally be exploited to allow certain people to effectivly lie under oath but avoid being sentenced for perjury.
It will certainly be exploited. Watching Cheney yesterday I’m not sure she’ll let anyone do it without making it perfectly clear that that’s what’s going on.
She asked Flynn something to the effect of whether he thought the storming of the Capitol was justified (?) (can’t remember the exact words). She then specified “legally or morally” and asked and asked until he pleaded the fifth for both together and each separately. She made his slithering perfectly clear.
Again, the usual suspects will believe what they want. It’s a big question as to whether anyone else is budge-able. And also, “pure legalisms” matter when prosecutors make decisions. These hearings are theater, yes, but there are also legal decisions that may end up being made based on what is said and revealed.
That is a pure legalism that will naturally be exploited to allow certain people to effectivly lie under oath but avoid being sentenced for perjury.
It will certainly be exploited. Watching Cheney yesterday I’m not sure she’ll let anyone do it without making it perfectly clear that that’s what’s going on.
She asked Flynn something to the effect of whether he thought the storming of the Capitol was justified (?) (can’t remember the exact words). She then specified “legally or morally” and asked and asked until he pleaded the fifth for both together and each separately. She made his slithering perfectly clear.
Again, the usual suspects will believe what they want. It’s a big question as to whether anyone else is budge-able. And also, “pure legalisms” matter when prosecutors make decisions. These hearings are theater, yes, but there are also legal decisions that may end up being made based on what is said and revealed.
And when I say “Cheney” in my 12:49 I really should be saying “the committee.” She’s in mind because she did most of the questioning yesterday.
And when I say “Cheney” in my 12:49 I really should be saying “the committee.” She’s in mind because she did most of the questioning yesterday.
and not even a particularly material bit.
Not sure. Not a lawyer. But this was interesting in that regard. (Not sure about that link; search for “sinedie” on that page.)
*****
Priceless. 🙂
and not even a particularly material bit.
Not sure. Not a lawyer. But this was interesting in that regard. (Not sure about that link; search for “sinedie” on that page.)
*****
Priceless. 🙂
Good point on the Flynn forensics.
Good point on the Flynn forensics.
if there’s a John Dean in there somewhere, about time for him or her to come forward and resolve this freaking mess.
You could make a decent argument (and I’ve seen a couple people doing so) that Ms Hutchinson is the John Dean here.
“Explosive” isn’t too strong a description for her testimony. Which is why TFG and his MAGAts have gone DefCon 1 on her. All their previous dodges got blown up by her. I’m hoping she (and, with these scum, her family) are getting serious protection.
if there’s a John Dean in there somewhere, about time for him or her to come forward and resolve this freaking mess.
You could make a decent argument (and I’ve seen a couple people doing so) that Ms Hutchinson is the John Dean here.
“Explosive” isn’t too strong a description for her testimony. Which is why TFG and his MAGAts have gone DefCon 1 on her. All their previous dodges got blown up by her. I’m hoping she (and, with these scum, her family) are getting serious protection.
Former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann is claiming that a handwritten note regarding a potential statement for then-President Donald Trump to release during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was written by him during a meeting at the White House that afternoon, and not by White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
At Tuesday’s Jan. 6 committee hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney displayed a handwritten note which Hutchinson testified she wrote after Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows handed her a note card and pen to take his dictation.
Sources familiar with the matter said that Herschmann had previously told the committee that he had penned the note.
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a spokesperson for Herschmann told ABC News Tuesday evening.
“All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann,” the spokesperson said.
Former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann is claiming that a handwritten note regarding a potential statement for then-President Donald Trump to release during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was written by him during a meeting at the White House that afternoon, and not by White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.
At Tuesday’s Jan. 6 committee hearing, Rep. Liz Cheney displayed a handwritten note which Hutchinson testified she wrote after Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows handed her a note card and pen to take his dictation.
Sources familiar with the matter said that Herschmann had previously told the committee that he had penned the note.
“The handwritten note that Cassidy Hutchinson testified was written by her was in fact written by Eric Herschmann on January 6, 2021,” a spokesperson for Herschmann told ABC News Tuesday evening.
“All sources with direct knowledge and law enforcement have and will confirm that it was written by Mr. Herschmann,” the spokesperson said.
I have to say, in my experience, it’s a lot harder to tell whose writing it is when it’s all in capitals. However:
Hutchinson also said that Herschmann had suggested changing the statement and to “put ‘without legal authority.'”
In response to Herschmann’s claim, a spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee said, “The committee has done its diligence on this and found Ms. Hutchinson’s account of this matter credible. While we understand that she and Mr. Herschmann may have differing recollections of who wrote the note, what’s ultimately important is that both White House officials believed that the President should have immediately instructed his supporters to leave the Capitol building.”
“The note memorialized this,” the committee spokesperson said. “But Mr. Trump did not take that action at the time.”
Given how useful Herschmann has been to the committee, it’s odd that they would have been trying very openly to disprove his testimony on who wrote the note (they asked Cassidy H to confirm it rather pointedly). I don’t get the rationale of this, does anybody else?
I have to say, in my experience, it’s a lot harder to tell whose writing it is when it’s all in capitals. However:
Hutchinson also said that Herschmann had suggested changing the statement and to “put ‘without legal authority.'”
In response to Herschmann’s claim, a spokesperson for the Jan. 6 committee said, “The committee has done its diligence on this and found Ms. Hutchinson’s account of this matter credible. While we understand that she and Mr. Herschmann may have differing recollections of who wrote the note, what’s ultimately important is that both White House officials believed that the President should have immediately instructed his supporters to leave the Capitol building.”
“The note memorialized this,” the committee spokesperson said. “But Mr. Trump did not take that action at the time.”
Given how useful Herschmann has been to the committee, it’s odd that they would have been trying very openly to disprove his testimony on who wrote the note (they asked Cassidy H to confirm it rather pointedly). I don’t get the rationale of this, does anybody else?
I’d venture that Herschmann and Hutchinson were working on the the note together. Herschmann was dictating the note and Hutchinson was writing it down, so “written by” is ambiguous. It’s her handwriting, but the content came from the lawyer (or were roughed in for Hershcmann by Hutchinson, but he had final edit and authority).
I’d venture that Herschmann and Hutchinson were working on the the note together. Herschmann was dictating the note and Hutchinson was writing it down, so “written by” is ambiguous. It’s her handwriting, but the content came from the lawyer (or were roughed in for Hershcmann by Hutchinson, but he had final edit and authority).
It’s her handwriting, but the content came from the lawyer
I think that’s probably correct.
I never heard of Herschmann before the video so I couldn’t speculate on his motivations. But as a Senior Advisor to Trump, I think he’s probably a sleaze. Admittedly and with full disclosure, that suspicion isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.
It’s her handwriting, but the content came from the lawyer
I think that’s probably correct.
I never heard of Herschmann before the video so I couldn’t speculate on his motivations. But as a Senior Advisor to Trump, I think he’s probably a sleaze. Admittedly and with full disclosure, that suspicion isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.
Yeah, that probably is correct, and partly fits with what she said anyway.
Admittedly and with full disclosure, that suspicion isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.
LOL. Mind you, sleaze or no, I liked his evidence on what he said about Clark:
Former White House counsel Eric Herschmann recalled what he said to Clark when he became aware of his plans.
“When he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said ‘[expletive], congratulations. You just admitted your first step you would take as AG would be committing a felony,” Herschmann said. “‘You’re clearly the right candidate for this job.'”
“I told Clark the only thing he knew was that environmental and election both start with “e,” and I’m not even sure you know that,” he added.
Yeah, that probably is correct, and partly fits with what she said anyway.
Admittedly and with full disclosure, that suspicion isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on any facts, it’s only based on my gut feeling and my own intuition.
LOL. Mind you, sleaze or no, I liked his evidence on what he said about Clark:
Former White House counsel Eric Herschmann recalled what he said to Clark when he became aware of his plans.
“When he finished discussing what he planned on doing, I said ‘[expletive], congratulations. You just admitted your first step you would take as AG would be committing a felony,” Herschmann said. “‘You’re clearly the right candidate for this job.'”
“I told Clark the only thing he knew was that environmental and election both start with “e,” and I’m not even sure you know that,” he added.
“I told Clark the only thing he knew was that environmental and election both start with “e,” and I’m not even sure you know that,”
I really loved that line as well. Especially combined with “‘You’re clearly the right candidate for this job.'”
“I told Clark the only thing he knew was that environmental and election both start with “e,” and I’m not even sure you know that,”
I really loved that line as well. Especially combined with “‘You’re clearly the right candidate for this job.'”
From the WaPo via BJ:
From the WaPo via BJ:
The one thing that surprised me is that Jabbabonk, according to the testimony, actually wanted to take part in the actions at the Capitol. Him gleefully watching the whole thing on TV in the safety of his office seemed to be much more in character.
The one thing that surprised me is that Jabbabonk, according to the testimony, actually wanted to take part in the actions at the Capitol. Him gleefully watching the whole thing on TV in the safety of his office seemed to be much more in character.
@Hartnut — Like Putin (apparently) thinking his army was going to march in virtually unopposed and take Ukraine in 3 or 4 days to the cheers of grateful Ukrainians, I suspect Clickbait thought there wasn’t actually going to be a riot with death and destruction, but something else altogether.
Surrounded by his own personal army, he would make a triumphal march into the chamber where the votes were being counted. The counting would stop, people would bow, the ones who didn’t bow would be taken care of appropriately, and he would go out to a balcony where pictures like some of these or these would be taken for a worshiping posterity.
He lives in part for the adoring crowds. That’s what he expected to find at the Capitol, that and the completion of his plans to take over what used to be the United States of America.
@Hartnut — Like Putin (apparently) thinking his army was going to march in virtually unopposed and take Ukraine in 3 or 4 days to the cheers of grateful Ukrainians, I suspect Clickbait thought there wasn’t actually going to be a riot with death and destruction, but something else altogether.
Surrounded by his own personal army, he would make a triumphal march into the chamber where the votes were being counted. The counting would stop, people would bow, the ones who didn’t bow would be taken care of appropriately, and he would go out to a balcony where pictures like some of these or these would be taken for a worshiping posterity.
He lives in part for the adoring crowds. That’s what he expected to find at the Capitol, that and the completion of his plans to take over what used to be the United States of America.
PS Hartmut — how are you feeling? I had two family members with Covid in April. One never felt too bad, the other, younger one said he was sicker than he’d ever been in his life. He was vaxxed and boosted, but somehow it hit him very hard.
I hope you and your parents get through it without more than a mild bout.
PS Hartmut — how are you feeling? I had two family members with Covid in April. One never felt too bad, the other, younger one said he was sicker than he’d ever been in his life. He was vaxxed and boosted, but somehow it hit him very hard.
I hope you and your parents get through it without more than a mild bout.
Hartmut: what Janie said. Both times!
Hartmut: what Janie said. Both times!
I suspect Clickbait thought there wasn’t actually going to be a riot with death and destruction
I suspect he was more than fine with all of it. It might even have been the best part, from his point of view.
Such a cynic, me.
I suspect Clickbait thought there wasn’t actually going to be a riot with death and destruction
I suspect he was more than fine with all of it. It might even have been the best part, from his point of view.
Such a cynic, me.
I suspect Clickbait thought there wasn’t actually going to be a riot with death and destruction
I suspect he was more than fine with all of it. It might even have been the best part, from his point of view.
I’d say that it’s more likely that he thought that there wouldn’t be any death or injury near him, or at least that came close to injuring him. But fine with death and injury and destruction for others.
I suspect Clickbait thought there wasn’t actually going to be a riot with death and destruction
I suspect he was more than fine with all of it. It might even have been the best part, from his point of view.
I’d say that it’s more likely that he thought that there wouldn’t be any death or injury near him, or at least that came close to injuring him. But fine with death and injury and destruction for others.
I agree with you from that angle, russell. I was only addressing Hartmut’s skepticism about whether he would want to actually be in the midst of ongoing bloodshed and violence.
Since I don’t think he’d want to put his own precious self in any danger, or get near any germs, I figure he either didn’t have the imagination to know what the actuality of blood and gore and gunfire and shit on the walls would be like, or he thought his phalanx of centurion guards would keep him well insulated, or he didn’t think there would be enough of the blood and gore etc. to prevent him from taking his triumphal march.
Or all of the above in his addled brain.
So — two separate questions. Did he care if people got killed? Not in the least. Did he want to be in the midst of a firefight? No again. Did he want to go to the Capitol? Apparently yes. So, squaring that circle……
I agree with you from that angle, russell. I was only addressing Hartmut’s skepticism about whether he would want to actually be in the midst of ongoing bloodshed and violence.
Since I don’t think he’d want to put his own precious self in any danger, or get near any germs, I figure he either didn’t have the imagination to know what the actuality of blood and gore and gunfire and shit on the walls would be like, or he thought his phalanx of centurion guards would keep him well insulated, or he didn’t think there would be enough of the blood and gore etc. to prevent him from taking his triumphal march.
Or all of the above in his addled brain.
So — two separate questions. Did he care if people got killed? Not in the least. Did he want to be in the midst of a firefight? No again. Did he want to go to the Capitol? Apparently yes. So, squaring that circle……
wj said it more pithily. 😉
wj said it more pithily. 😉
Whatever was going on the dark, fetid corners of his so-called mind, he knowingly urged an armed, armored, and rabid mob – one he had summoned to the Ellipse – to march to the Capitol, all while the very thing they were incensed over was going on there and while the people they were enraged at were inside. I mean, what could go wrong?
Whatever was going on the dark, fetid corners of his so-called mind, he knowingly urged an armed, armored, and rabid mob – one he had summoned to the Ellipse – to march to the Capitol, all while the very thing they were incensed over was going on there and while the people they were enraged at were inside. I mean, what could go wrong?
the dark, fetid corners of his so-called mind
This strikes me as a perfect description, hsh.
the dark, fetid corners of his so-called mind
This strikes me as a perfect description, hsh.
My mother is mainly feeling just unwell but without specific symptoms. For myself, it’s like an enhanced version of the common cold with heightened temperature and an unpleasnt dry cough. For my father (who had only 2 vaxx shots) it adds to his other illnesses/ailments. I have the suspicion that he brought it home from his last short stint in hospital. Now he is back there again more as a precaution and because we can’t take care of him properly at the moment. So, luckily, it seems more like an inconvenience at the moment. For me in particular since it is the last regular week of school and there were some other events I planned to go to this week. The way I feel now I would already be able to go but, since the tests are still positive, that is of course not an option.
It’s probably good to go ahead of the expected autumn wave. And being part of a more or less working universal health care system removes the worry about financial troubles resulting from it.
I just hope that I did not spread it in the days before the first test came up positive. As a teacher at a public school around here I have to take at least three tests per week but the mask mandates have been loosened significantly and the current heat wave has led to a majority taking advantage of that, me partially included. But since I believe that I caught it at home, even iron discipline would not have protected me, and I hope that I kept the right balance and distance outside home so no one caught it from me.
My mother is mainly feeling just unwell but without specific symptoms. For myself, it’s like an enhanced version of the common cold with heightened temperature and an unpleasnt dry cough. For my father (who had only 2 vaxx shots) it adds to his other illnesses/ailments. I have the suspicion that he brought it home from his last short stint in hospital. Now he is back there again more as a precaution and because we can’t take care of him properly at the moment. So, luckily, it seems more like an inconvenience at the moment. For me in particular since it is the last regular week of school and there were some other events I planned to go to this week. The way I feel now I would already be able to go but, since the tests are still positive, that is of course not an option.
It’s probably good to go ahead of the expected autumn wave. And being part of a more or less working universal health care system removes the worry about financial troubles resulting from it.
I just hope that I did not spread it in the days before the first test came up positive. As a teacher at a public school around here I have to take at least three tests per week but the mask mandates have been loosened significantly and the current heat wave has led to a majority taking advantage of that, me partially included. But since I believe that I caught it at home, even iron discipline would not have protected me, and I hope that I kept the right balance and distance outside home so no one caught it from me.
These hearings will be interesting:
A British film-maker embedded with Donald Trump and his family in the aftermath of the presidential election claimed he had been “delusional” and “absolutely” knew violence would result from his refusal to accept defeat.
Alex Holder had exclusive access to the Trump family in the weeks surrounding the 2020 election. He amassed more than 100 hours of video, including interviews with Trump and his children, during the turmoil that followed the vote and climaxed with the riot on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol.
Holder’s footage has now been turned over to the congressional committee investigating the attack
***
Holder, who has also testified to the investigation, said that Trump was “incredibly dangerous” because he lived in a “different reality”, incapable of admitting he was wrong and that his election defeat by Joe Biden was legitimate.
“Donald Trump is not a rational player. I mean, he just isn’t,” Alex Holder told a Yahoo News podcast this week. “You can’t have a conversation with him in the same way that you can have a conversation with most other people. He is somebody that lives in a different reality.”
Holder said that in interviews with Trump, he witnessed the former president consumed by his own lies about election fraud, which began even when he won the White House in 2016.
“That is a person who is delusional. That is a person who is incredibly dangerous, because you can’t debate with that person,” Holder said.
***
Holder said that in the days leading up to January 6, when Congress would gather to confirm Biden’s victory, Trump was “absolutely” convinced there would be violence.
“It was so obvious. This was his last hurrah,” Holder said. “He had this ridiculous idea that intervening in this ceremonial process of certifying these results could somehow prevent President Biden being inaugurated.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/delusional-donald-trump-knew-he-was-stoking-violence-before-capitol-riot-says-film-maker-pczmz698w
These hearings will be interesting:
A British film-maker embedded with Donald Trump and his family in the aftermath of the presidential election claimed he had been “delusional” and “absolutely” knew violence would result from his refusal to accept defeat.
Alex Holder had exclusive access to the Trump family in the weeks surrounding the 2020 election. He amassed more than 100 hours of video, including interviews with Trump and his children, during the turmoil that followed the vote and climaxed with the riot on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol.
Holder’s footage has now been turned over to the congressional committee investigating the attack
***
Holder, who has also testified to the investigation, said that Trump was “incredibly dangerous” because he lived in a “different reality”, incapable of admitting he was wrong and that his election defeat by Joe Biden was legitimate.
“Donald Trump is not a rational player. I mean, he just isn’t,” Alex Holder told a Yahoo News podcast this week. “You can’t have a conversation with him in the same way that you can have a conversation with most other people. He is somebody that lives in a different reality.”
Holder said that in interviews with Trump, he witnessed the former president consumed by his own lies about election fraud, which began even when he won the White House in 2016.
“That is a person who is delusional. That is a person who is incredibly dangerous, because you can’t debate with that person,” Holder said.
***
Holder said that in the days leading up to January 6, when Congress would gather to confirm Biden’s victory, Trump was “absolutely” convinced there would be violence.
“It was so obvious. This was his last hurrah,” Holder said. “He had this ridiculous idea that intervening in this ceremonial process of certifying these results could somehow prevent President Biden being inaugurated.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/delusional-donald-trump-knew-he-was-stoking-violence-before-capitol-riot-says-film-maker-pczmz698w
Let’s hope there’s inarguable proof of what Holder says on tape, not just a Brit making a (very understandable) interpretation…
Let’s hope there’s inarguable proof of what Holder says on tape, not just a Brit making a (very understandable) interpretation…
FWIW, I’m not sure it’s accurate to call Trump delusional. That would imply he believes the things he says are true.
My sense is that Trump doesn’t care if something is true or not. If it’s to his advantage to say something, to make a claim or take a position, he’ll do it. If it’s not, he won’t. Whether it’s true or not is beside the point.
He’s basically gotten away with that for 50 years or so. It’s worked for him. IMO it’s less a matter of delusion, and more a matter of him being unable to accept a loss. Not necessarily that he believes he won, more that it doesn’t matter if he actually won or not, he’s just going to yell and scream and break stuff until he gets his way, facts be damned.
Delusion means you think something is true that is not actually true. I don’t think truth or falsity are factors in Trump’s thought process. He has to win, period.
As far as the violence goes, Trump certainly does not want to be in any personal physical danger, but it seems pretty clear to me that he is more than OK with violence as a means to get his way. By “more than OK” I mean he appears to relish it. He appears to see constraints on his desire to physically punish people he considers his enemies to be annoying hindrances that need to be removed.
“Can’t you just shoot them?” – Trump on the BLM protests.
He is a fucking bully, and lives to intimidate others. It’s his preferred way of relating to every other human being on the planet, with the possible exception of a very, very small circle of people. Very, very small, not even extending to all of his immediate family.
Bully, liar, narcissist, crook.
Hartmut, sorry to hear about your family’s bout with Covid. Here is a wish for a speedy and uncomplicated recovery for one and all.
FWIW, I’m not sure it’s accurate to call Trump delusional. That would imply he believes the things he says are true.
My sense is that Trump doesn’t care if something is true or not. If it’s to his advantage to say something, to make a claim or take a position, he’ll do it. If it’s not, he won’t. Whether it’s true or not is beside the point.
He’s basically gotten away with that for 50 years or so. It’s worked for him. IMO it’s less a matter of delusion, and more a matter of him being unable to accept a loss. Not necessarily that he believes he won, more that it doesn’t matter if he actually won or not, he’s just going to yell and scream and break stuff until he gets his way, facts be damned.
Delusion means you think something is true that is not actually true. I don’t think truth or falsity are factors in Trump’s thought process. He has to win, period.
As far as the violence goes, Trump certainly does not want to be in any personal physical danger, but it seems pretty clear to me that he is more than OK with violence as a means to get his way. By “more than OK” I mean he appears to relish it. He appears to see constraints on his desire to physically punish people he considers his enemies to be annoying hindrances that need to be removed.
“Can’t you just shoot them?” – Trump on the BLM protests.
He is a fucking bully, and lives to intimidate others. It’s his preferred way of relating to every other human being on the planet, with the possible exception of a very, very small circle of people. Very, very small, not even extending to all of his immediate family.
Bully, liar, narcissist, crook.
Hartmut, sorry to hear about your family’s bout with Covid. Here is a wish for a speedy and uncomplicated recovery for one and all.
Since I don’t think he’d want to put his own precious self in any danger, or get near any germs, I figure he either didn’t have the imagination to know what the actuality of blood and gore and gunfire and shit on the walls would be like…
I would lean towards thinking he imagined it would be like the things he did with World Wrestling Entertainment.
He wouldn’t have been alone in believing it. Every year people get hurt — up to and including dying — at the national parks in the western states because they think it’s just another Disneyland with domesticated and/or animatronic bears and bison.
Since I don’t think he’d want to put his own precious self in any danger, or get near any germs, I figure he either didn’t have the imagination to know what the actuality of blood and gore and gunfire and shit on the walls would be like…
I would lean towards thinking he imagined it would be like the things he did with World Wrestling Entertainment.
He wouldn’t have been alone in believing it. Every year people get hurt — up to and including dying — at the national parks in the western states because they think it’s just another Disneyland with domesticated and/or animatronic bears and bison.
it’s less a matter of delusion, and more a matter of him being unable to accept a loss. Not necessarily that he believes he won, more that it doesn’t matter if he actually won or not, he’s just going to yell and scream and break stuff until he gets his way, facts be damned.
I don’t think he even cares whether he won or not. What really, really drives him is the possibility that others might think he is “A loser.”
it’s less a matter of delusion, and more a matter of him being unable to accept a loss. Not necessarily that he believes he won, more that it doesn’t matter if he actually won or not, he’s just going to yell and scream and break stuff until he gets his way, facts be damned.
I don’t think he even cares whether he won or not. What really, really drives him is the possibility that others might think he is “A loser.”
My take is that he has the ability to convince himself that his own lies are true. Call it “willful delusion.” He starts off saying whatever is to his advantage to say, regardless of whether he believes it, after which he adopts it as a belief, at least until he needs to say and subsequently believe something else. He has always been at war with Eastasia.
My take is that he has the ability to convince himself that his own lies are true. Call it “willful delusion.” He starts off saying whatever is to his advantage to say, regardless of whether he believes it, after which he adopts it as a belief, at least until he needs to say and subsequently believe something else. He has always been at war with Eastasia.
Thanks for the well-whishing, guys!
Thanks for the well-whishing, guys!
It’s like a magnet. Just do it. Don’t even wait. When you’re a president they let you do it. You can do anything.
Was anyone expecting any different?
It’s like a magnet. Just do it. Don’t even wait. When you’re a president they let you do it. You can do anything.
Was anyone expecting any different?
I also wish for a full & speedy recovery to “@Hartnut” and the rest of his zany kin!
😉
I also wish for a full & speedy recovery to “@Hartnut” and the rest of his zany kin!
😉
Just saw a snippet of Biden at the NATO summit:
Putin wanted the Finlandisation of NATO. Instead, he got the NATOfication of Finland.
Good line.
Just saw a snippet of Biden at the NATO summit:
Putin wanted the Finlandisation of NATO. Instead, he got the NATOfication of Finland.
Good line.
Trump has never been the problem. He’s the symptom. The Republican party has been working on ending representative government for at least thirty years. Unless Biden adds more SC members and unless Congress nukes the filibuster, they will succeed. THey have ended representative government in many red states already.
Trump has never been the problem. He’s the symptom. The Republican party has been working on ending representative government for at least thirty years. Unless Biden adds more SC members and unless Congress nukes the filibuster, they will succeed. THey have ended representative government in many red states already.
The idea that these justices are conservative boggles the mind. They do not wish to leave anything for society to conserve. The locusts have shackled the ants and are consuming everything within reach.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/30/supreme-court-ruling-epa-west-virginia-climate-experts-activists-lawyers
The idea that these justices are conservative boggles the mind. They do not wish to leave anything for society to conserve. The locusts have shackled the ants and are consuming everything within reach.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/jun/30/supreme-court-ruling-epa-west-virginia-climate-experts-activists-lawyers
What wonkie said.
The GOP is out to make sure no Democratic majority is elected ever again; and no Democratic President, ever again.
They have SCOTUS on their side, too.
What wonkie said.
The GOP is out to make sure no Democratic majority is elected ever again; and no Democratic President, ever again.
They have SCOTUS on their side, too.
The GOP is out to make sure no Democratic majority is elected ever again; and no Democratic President, ever again.
They have SCOTUS on their side, too.
Their problem (and their motivation) is that they represent a minority of the population. A shrinking minority. Which means they have only two choices:
They have settled on option 2.
Unfortunately, for our lives and for them in the (not very) long run,
a) maintaining a tyrannical minority rule requires increasingly harsh controls, which generate more opposition, and
b) as the extremism gets more extreme, the minority which is represented gets smaller.
We’re seeing b) already. When some of the crazier positions were just theoretical, those who benefited from other GOP positions could fool themselves that the crazy stuff wouldn’t actually happen. Once those have been implemented, those folks move away.
The GOP is out to make sure no Democratic majority is elected ever again; and no Democratic President, ever again.
They have SCOTUS on their side, too.
Their problem (and their motivation) is that they represent a minority of the population. A shrinking minority. Which means they have only two choices:
They have settled on option 2.
Unfortunately, for our lives and for them in the (not very) long run,
a) maintaining a tyrannical minority rule requires increasingly harsh controls, which generate more opposition, and
b) as the extremism gets more extreme, the minority which is represented gets smaller.
We’re seeing b) already. When some of the crazier positions were just theoretical, those who benefited from other GOP positions could fool themselves that the crazy stuff wouldn’t actually happen. Once those have been implemented, those folks move away.
Probably a few missing from this list (which doesn’t include any of the shadow docket decisions), but it gives a sense of the scale of the radical nihilism.
Rivas-Villegas — SCOTUS reversed the lower court to give a cop qualified immunity for using excessive force
Tahlequah v. Bond — SCOTUS reversed the lower court to give a cop qualified immunity for killing a man
Shoop v. Twyford — SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
Brown v. Davenport — SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
Shinn v. Ramirez — SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
Zubaydah — SCOTUS allowed the Govt to withhold information about torture on CIA black sites
Vaello-Madero — SCOTUS denied SS benefits to residents of Puerto Rico
Cummings — SCOTUS disallowed recovery for emotional-distress damages in civil rights lawsuits
Patel — SCOTUS stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review fact issues in immigration proceedings
Biden v. Missouri — SCOTUS blocked a federal vaccine mandate
Garland v. Gonzalez — SCOTUS denied long-detained immigrants’ access to a bond hearing
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez — SCOTUS denied long-detained immigrants’ access to a bond hearing
FEC v. Ted Cruz — SCOTUS struck down campaign finance restrictions to enable Ted Cruz to pay himself back for loans he made to his own campaign (from donations post election)
Egbert v. Boule — SCOTUS further limited a person’s ability to sue federal officers (Bivens actions)
Vega v. Tekah — SCOTUS weakened enforcement of Miranda rights
Carson v. Makin — SCOTUS undermined the Establishment Clause, forcing states to fund private religious schools
Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. — SCOTUS undermined the Establishment Clause, allowing football coach to have public/publicized Christian prayers at football games
Denezpi — SCOTUS recognized tribal sovereignty just enough to allow an Indian defendant to be prosecuted twice for the same crime (no double jeopardy), then…
Castro-Huerta — SCOTUS undermined tribal sovereignty by making tribal land “part of state” and allowing state to exercise jurisdiction on tribal land
Bruen — SCOTUS struck down NY’s 100yo restriction on concealed carry to expand 2A and limit gun restrictions
U.S. v. Texas — SCOTUS allowed Texas’s “bounty hunter” antiabortion law to go into effect
Dobbs — SCOTUS overruled Roe & Casey, eliminating the federal right to abortion and enabling severe (life-threatening) restrictions on abortion to go into effect
West Virginia v. EPA — SCOTUS undermined the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions and fight global warming
Probably a few missing from this list (which doesn’t include any of the shadow docket decisions), but it gives a sense of the scale of the radical nihilism.
Rivas-Villegas — SCOTUS reversed the lower court to give a cop qualified immunity for using excessive force
Tahlequah v. Bond — SCOTUS reversed the lower court to give a cop qualified immunity for killing a man
Shoop v. Twyford — SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
Brown v. Davenport — SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
Shinn v. Ramirez — SCOTUS made it harder to get habeas relief
Zubaydah — SCOTUS allowed the Govt to withhold information about torture on CIA black sites
Vaello-Madero — SCOTUS denied SS benefits to residents of Puerto Rico
Cummings — SCOTUS disallowed recovery for emotional-distress damages in civil rights lawsuits
Patel — SCOTUS stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review fact issues in immigration proceedings
Biden v. Missouri — SCOTUS blocked a federal vaccine mandate
Garland v. Gonzalez — SCOTUS denied long-detained immigrants’ access to a bond hearing
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez — SCOTUS denied long-detained immigrants’ access to a bond hearing
FEC v. Ted Cruz — SCOTUS struck down campaign finance restrictions to enable Ted Cruz to pay himself back for loans he made to his own campaign (from donations post election)
Egbert v. Boule — SCOTUS further limited a person’s ability to sue federal officers (Bivens actions)
Vega v. Tekah — SCOTUS weakened enforcement of Miranda rights
Carson v. Makin — SCOTUS undermined the Establishment Clause, forcing states to fund private religious schools
Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist. — SCOTUS undermined the Establishment Clause, allowing football coach to have public/publicized Christian prayers at football games
Denezpi — SCOTUS recognized tribal sovereignty just enough to allow an Indian defendant to be prosecuted twice for the same crime (no double jeopardy), then…
Castro-Huerta — SCOTUS undermined tribal sovereignty by making tribal land “part of state” and allowing state to exercise jurisdiction on tribal land
Bruen — SCOTUS struck down NY’s 100yo restriction on concealed carry to expand 2A and limit gun restrictions
U.S. v. Texas — SCOTUS allowed Texas’s “bounty hunter” antiabortion law to go into effect
Dobbs — SCOTUS overruled Roe & Casey, eliminating the federal right to abortion and enabling severe (life-threatening) restrictions on abortion to go into effect
West Virginia v. EPA — SCOTUS undermined the EPA’s ability to regulate emissions and fight global warming
Given what we know about Ginni’s attempts to influence elections (and who knows what we don’t know), does Thomas recuse himself on Moore v Harper?
I bet he doesn’t.
Given what we know about Ginni’s attempts to influence elections (and who knows what we don’t know), does Thomas recuse himself on Moore v Harper?
I bet he doesn’t.
I bet he doesn’t.
you will find no takers here.
I bet he doesn’t.
you will find no takers here.
Well, well.
(CNN)Weeks after the House panel investigating the January 6 insurrection was formed, former President Donald Trump’s political action committee gave $1 million to the non-profit organization that employs his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, campaign finance records filed Monday night show.
Try as I might to resist wj’s optimism, I do find his 01.18 above persuasive, particularly a and b.
I’m still going to try to resist: it’s dangerous to let optimism in.
Well, well.
(CNN)Weeks after the House panel investigating the January 6 insurrection was formed, former President Donald Trump’s political action committee gave $1 million to the non-profit organization that employs his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, campaign finance records filed Monday night show.
Try as I might to resist wj’s optimism, I do find his 01.18 above persuasive, particularly a and b.
I’m still going to try to resist: it’s dangerous to let optimism in.
Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson received at least one message tacitly warning her not to cooperate with the House January 6 select committee from an associate of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/jan-6-hearings-trump-mark-meadows-cassidy-hutchinson-threatened
Former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson received at least one message tacitly warning her not to cooperate with the House January 6 select committee from an associate of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/30/jan-6-hearings-trump-mark-meadows-cassidy-hutchinson-threatened
The fact that the right is losing its members and is busy trying to ratf**k their way to a narrow victory would be more comfort to me if it weren’t for the likelihood that the threat of a loss of power would trigger a violent reaction and attempt at wide-scale political repression.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/
The two things from this report that jumped out at me:
Heightened political competition is strongly associated with electoral violence. Only when outcomes are uncertain but close is there a reason to resort to violence. For much of U.S. history, one party held legislative power for decades. Yet since 1980, a shift in control of at least one house of Congress was possible—and since 2010, elections have seen a level of competition not seen since Reconstruction (1865–77).
So the narrowness of the elections is actually increasing the likelihood of violence, and…:
When law and justice institutions are believed to lean toward one party or side of an identity cleavage, political violence becomes more likely. International cases reveal that groups that believe they can use violence without consequences are more likely to do so. The U.S. justice system, police, and military are far more professional and less politicized than those of most developing democracies that face widespread electoral violence. Longstanding perceptions that police favor one side are supported by Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) data showing that police used far greater force at left-wing protests than at right-wing protests throughout 2020. Despite this conservative ideological tilt, party affiliation and feelings were more complicated: Law enforcement was also a target of right-wing militias, and partisan affiliation (based on donations) had previously been mixed due to union membership and other cross-cutting identities that connected police to the Democratic Party. In 2020, however, donations from individual law enforcement officers to political parties increased, and they tilted far toward the Republican Party, suggesting that the polarizing events of 2020 have led them to sort themselves to the right and deepen their partisanship.
Which means that if the GOP does regain control of the white house, it is likely to try to use its 4 to 1 advantage in law enforcement partisanship to repress and intimidate the opposition through state sanctioned violence, and use the courts to disarm and disenfranchise their opposition.
Losing a majority means nothing if the institutions that enforce shared governance are captured by those with no intention to share.
Natural rights don’t exactly enforce themselves.
The fact that the right is losing its members and is busy trying to ratf**k their way to a narrow victory would be more comfort to me if it weren’t for the likelihood that the threat of a loss of power would trigger a violent reaction and attempt at wide-scale political repression.
https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-political-violence-in-the-united-states/
The two things from this report that jumped out at me:
Heightened political competition is strongly associated with electoral violence. Only when outcomes are uncertain but close is there a reason to resort to violence. For much of U.S. history, one party held legislative power for decades. Yet since 1980, a shift in control of at least one house of Congress was possible—and since 2010, elections have seen a level of competition not seen since Reconstruction (1865–77).
So the narrowness of the elections is actually increasing the likelihood of violence, and…:
When law and justice institutions are believed to lean toward one party or side of an identity cleavage, political violence becomes more likely. International cases reveal that groups that believe they can use violence without consequences are more likely to do so. The U.S. justice system, police, and military are far more professional and less politicized than those of most developing democracies that face widespread electoral violence. Longstanding perceptions that police favor one side are supported by Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) data showing that police used far greater force at left-wing protests than at right-wing protests throughout 2020. Despite this conservative ideological tilt, party affiliation and feelings were more complicated: Law enforcement was also a target of right-wing militias, and partisan affiliation (based on donations) had previously been mixed due to union membership and other cross-cutting identities that connected police to the Democratic Party. In 2020, however, donations from individual law enforcement officers to political parties increased, and they tilted far toward the Republican Party, suggesting that the polarizing events of 2020 have led them to sort themselves to the right and deepen their partisanship.
Which means that if the GOP does regain control of the white house, it is likely to try to use its 4 to 1 advantage in law enforcement partisanship to repress and intimidate the opposition through state sanctioned violence, and use the courts to disarm and disenfranchise their opposition.
Losing a majority means nothing if the institutions that enforce shared governance are captured by those with no intention to share.
Natural rights don’t exactly enforce themselves.
Which means that if the GOP does regain control of the white house, it is likely to try to use its 4 to 1 advantage in law enforcement partisanship to repress and intimidate the opposition through state sanctioned violence, and use the courts to disarm and disenfranchise their opposition.
Agreed. It’s not like they haven’t tried/begun already.
Which means that if the GOP does regain control of the white house, it is likely to try to use its 4 to 1 advantage in law enforcement partisanship to repress and intimidate the opposition through state sanctioned violence, and use the courts to disarm and disenfranchise their opposition.
Agreed. It’s not like they haven’t tried/begun already.
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald J. Trump’s political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.
The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Mr. Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.
She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Ms. Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/trump-jan-6-lawyers-witness-pressure.html
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald J. Trump’s political organization and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses called in the congressional investigation into the Jan. 6 attack, raising legal and ethical questions about whether the former president may be influencing testimony with a direct bearing on him.
The arrangement drew new scrutiny this week after Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide in his White House, made an explosive appearance before the House panel, providing damning new details about Mr. Trump’s actions and statements on the day of the deadly riot.
She did so after firing a lawyer who had been recommended to her by two of Mr. Trump’s former aides and paid for by his political action committee, and hiring new counsel. Under the representation of the new lawyer, Jody Hunt, Ms. Hutchinson sat for a fourth interview with the committee in which she divulged more revelations and agreed to come forward publicly to testify to them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/trump-jan-6-lawyers-witness-pressure.html
The fact that the right is losing its members …
What’s to make of this?
“WASHINGTON (AP) — A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.
More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.”
More than 1 million voters switch to GOP, raising alarm for Democrats
The fact that the right is losing its members …
What’s to make of this?
“WASHINGTON (AP) — A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.
More than 1 million voters across 43 states have switched to the Republican Party over the last year, according to voter registration data analyzed by The Associated Press. The previously unreported number reflects a phenomenon that is playing out in virtually every region of the country — Democratic and Republican states along with cities and small towns — in the period since President Joe Biden replaced former President Donald Trump.”
More than 1 million voters switch to GOP, raising alarm for Democrats
Nigel lays out above (5:24 AM) the Court’s various decisions. Of interest, I think, was United States v. Vaello Madero, involving payment from the SSI (Suplemental Income Security) to residents of Puerto Rico — Congress having specified only residents of the states, DC and the Northern Mariana Islands**, but not residents of the other United States territories, including Puerto Rico. Sometimes Congress is inexplicable.
Note that this was an 8-1 decision. So not, in itself, a particular reflection of the Court’s partisan composition. But there were some interesting bits….
For example, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to call for the overruling of the Insular Cases**, which stated, as he put it, that Puerto Rico and other unincorporated Territories could be ruled by the Federal government “largely without regard to the Constitution”. I wouldn’t have expected to do so in most cases. But in this instance I have to say “Good on Mr Justice Gorsuch.”
* No clue why this territory was explicitly included, but not the rest. Seems like, if they’d left it out, there’d have been a far stronger case for including everybody.
** Insular Cases are series of opinions, from the early 1900s, which held that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico — “even if they are U.S. citizens” — may lack some constitutional rights because they were not part of the United States.
Nigel lays out above (5:24 AM) the Court’s various decisions. Of interest, I think, was United States v. Vaello Madero, involving payment from the SSI (Suplemental Income Security) to residents of Puerto Rico — Congress having specified only residents of the states, DC and the Northern Mariana Islands**, but not residents of the other United States territories, including Puerto Rico. Sometimes Congress is inexplicable.
Note that this was an 8-1 decision. So not, in itself, a particular reflection of the Court’s partisan composition. But there were some interesting bits….
For example, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to call for the overruling of the Insular Cases**, which stated, as he put it, that Puerto Rico and other unincorporated Territories could be ruled by the Federal government “largely without regard to the Constitution”. I wouldn’t have expected to do so in most cases. But in this instance I have to say “Good on Mr Justice Gorsuch.”
* No clue why this territory was explicitly included, but not the rest. Seems like, if they’d left it out, there’d have been a far stronger case for including everybody.
** Insular Cases are series of opinions, from the early 1900s, which held that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico — “even if they are U.S. citizens” — may lack some constitutional rights because they were not part of the United States.
What’s to make of this?
“WASHINGTON (AP) — A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.
The first question that I’d ask is, are they becoming Republicans, or merely (re)registering as Republicans? I am aware of various instances where there are very red districts, so Democrats are registering** as Republicans in order to have some influence what kind of Republican will end up representing them. (I seem to recall that Wyoming is one such.)
In short, panic may be premature. Concern? Sure. But a bit more information may be in order.
** In some case with the encouragement of the local Democratic Party.
What’s to make of this?
“WASHINGTON (AP) — A political shift is beginning to take hold across the U.S. as tens of thousands of suburban swing voters who helped fuel the Democratic Party’s gains in recent years are becoming Republicans.
The first question that I’d ask is, are they becoming Republicans, or merely (re)registering as Republicans? I am aware of various instances where there are very red districts, so Democrats are registering** as Republicans in order to have some influence what kind of Republican will end up representing them. (I seem to recall that Wyoming is one such.)
In short, panic may be premature. Concern? Sure. But a bit more information may be in order.
** In some case with the encouragement of the local Democratic Party.
CharlesWT – What’s to make of this?
Wonder how many of them are, like some of my friends, changing party affiliation in order to vote in GOP primaries against the more MAGA candidate. I know people who have done this in WY (to help Cheney) and CO (failed attempt to knock out younger, dumber Sara Palin).
CharlesWT – What’s to make of this?
Wonder how many of them are, like some of my friends, changing party affiliation in order to vote in GOP primaries against the more MAGA candidate. I know people who have done this in WY (to help Cheney) and CO (failed attempt to knock out younger, dumber Sara Palin).
@CharlesWT —
From deeper in the article:
Nice trick: lead with a misleading number, bury the more complicated reality well along in the article.
Same old same old….
@CharlesWT —
From deeper in the article:
Nice trick: lead with a misleading number, bury the more complicated reality well along in the article.
Same old same old….
The first question I’d ask is, did they even know about it?
The first question I’d ask is, did they even know about it?
@Pete — oh, so many creative ways to cheat and rig the system…..
@Pete — oh, so many creative ways to cheat and rig the system…..
Pete: and a very good question it is too.
Pete: and a very good question it is too.
oh, so many creative ways to cheat and rig the system…..
Seems like rigging the system would involve something more along the lines of changing the registrations of non-cultist Republicans to “Independent” (or “No Party Preference”, or however Florida labels them). That would up the chances of getting a cultist nominee.
But then, maybe they’re just too dumb to realize that.
oh, so many creative ways to cheat and rig the system…..
Seems like rigging the system would involve something more along the lines of changing the registrations of non-cultist Republicans to “Independent” (or “No Party Preference”, or however Florida labels them). That would up the chances of getting a cultist nominee.
But then, maybe they’re just too dumb to realize that.
How do you propose they find out whether any random voter is a non-cultist? I don’t see them wanting their numbers to be seen to go down, anyhow.
How do you propose they find out whether any random voter is a non-cultist? I don’t see them wanting their numbers to be seen to go down, anyhow.
Seems like rigging the system would involve something more along the lines of changing the registrations of non-cultist Republicans to “Independent” (or “No Party Preference”, or however Florida labels them).
I wondered about that as well. I’m sure there are more nefarious reasons than I can think of, but even if there aren’t, the chaos is enough.
“You’re a Democrat? It says ‘Republican’ here. Check his papers.”
Seems like rigging the system would involve something more along the lines of changing the registrations of non-cultist Republicans to “Independent” (or “No Party Preference”, or however Florida labels them).
I wondered about that as well. I’m sure there are more nefarious reasons than I can think of, but even if there aren’t, the chaos is enough.
“You’re a Democrat? It says ‘Republican’ here. Check his papers.”
They may simply be trying to juice the numbers for a district’s expected lean in order to make the results of their suppression seem more in line with the margin of error?
They may simply be trying to juice the numbers for a district’s expected lean in order to make the results of their suppression seem more in line with the margin of error?
I may not understand the terminology, but leaving tactics for primaries aside, if there are x registered Rs, and the R vote (midterm or presidential) is very much less than x, wouldn’t that give them more ammunition to claim fraud? Or maybe that’s what some of you were saying? I know there’d still have to be actual evidence of fraud, but they don’t seem to really need that….Or does this registration stuff only apply to primaries?
I may not understand the terminology, but leaving tactics for primaries aside, if there are x registered Rs, and the R vote (midterm or presidential) is very much less than x, wouldn’t that give them more ammunition to claim fraud? Or maybe that’s what some of you were saying? I know there’d still have to be actual evidence of fraud, but they don’t seem to really need that….Or does this registration stuff only apply to primaries?
And if that comment is particularly idiotic, I wouldn’t mind someone saying that and explaining why….
And if that comment is particularly idiotic, I wouldn’t mind someone saying that and explaining why….
When putting together those election maps, part of what sets expectations is the number of voters who are registered to either party. If the Rs outnumber the Ds by enough, then the district gets listed as a likely R win. If the Rs then just squeak by, no one looks closely at the district.
If the party affiliation is close and the district is a tossup, then the district will be more closely watched.
That’s how I was seeing it.
When putting together those election maps, part of what sets expectations is the number of voters who are registered to either party. If the Rs outnumber the Ds by enough, then the district gets listed as a likely R win. If the Rs then just squeak by, no one looks closely at the district.
If the party affiliation is close and the district is a tossup, then the district will be more closely watched.
That’s how I was seeing it.
You are clearly more nefarious than I, GftNC, cuz I didn’t think of that. But yeah, that could very well be part of the calculus. Anything to fog the issue, and they’ll sink to any depths to do so. Throw enough of anything at a wall and something’s bound to stick.
It’s well-known strategy, if one can call it that. Rs defund education and point to poor outcomes so they can siphon off public funds for their wingnut religious schools. Which seem to create more R voters. It’s deplorable, but it isn’t ineffective.
You are clearly more nefarious than I, GftNC, cuz I didn’t think of that. But yeah, that could very well be part of the calculus. Anything to fog the issue, and they’ll sink to any depths to do so. Throw enough of anything at a wall and something’s bound to stick.
It’s well-known strategy, if one can call it that. Rs defund education and point to poor outcomes so they can siphon off public funds for their wingnut religious schools. Which seem to create more R voters. It’s deplorable, but it isn’t ineffective.
The registration stuff, and what if means, varies from state.
Most (all?) states ask you to pick a party when you register. Generally, there is some provision for Decline to State or No Party Preference — for easy of typing, call them Independents.** Those are the registration numbers being reported. There’s no requirement, in the general election, that you vote for someone from that party.
In some states, you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered with. Period. (Both major parties insist on that for their Presidential primaries. But they don’t get a say in other contests.)
In some states, you can vote in the primary of the party you are registered with. But if you are an Independent, you can pick which party’s primary ballot you get.
In some states, you can pick which party’s primary you want to vote in, regardless of your registration.
California, Washington, and Nebraska (and others?) run what we call a Top Two primary. That is all candidates for an office are available to everyone. The two with the highest vote total, regardless of party, go to the general election. If one party is vastly more popular, or if one fields so many candidates that they divide the primary vote, you can end up with a general election featuring two candidates from the same party. That’s happened several times here in California, usually because the Republican candidates on offer were rwnjs and lots of them.
Finally, Maine, Alaska, and soon Hawaii, do Ranked Choice Voting sometimes called Single Transferable vote. (Janie, correct me if I mess this up.) You vote for several people initially, ranked by order of preference. After the first count, the candidate with the fewest votes gets dropped. The ballots where he got preferred now get split up, with those votes going to the second choices shown. Rinse and repeat until there are only two candidates left — they go on to the general election.
Just to keep things interesting, some places use one system for state and national offices, but a different one for local offices.
** All too easily confused with the American Independent Party. Which actually is a party, albeit a small one, rather than a lack of one.
The registration stuff, and what if means, varies from state.
Most (all?) states ask you to pick a party when you register. Generally, there is some provision for Decline to State or No Party Preference — for easy of typing, call them Independents.** Those are the registration numbers being reported. There’s no requirement, in the general election, that you vote for someone from that party.
In some states, you can only vote in the primary of the party you are registered with. Period. (Both major parties insist on that for their Presidential primaries. But they don’t get a say in other contests.)
In some states, you can vote in the primary of the party you are registered with. But if you are an Independent, you can pick which party’s primary ballot you get.
In some states, you can pick which party’s primary you want to vote in, regardless of your registration.
California, Washington, and Nebraska (and others?) run what we call a Top Two primary. That is all candidates for an office are available to everyone. The two with the highest vote total, regardless of party, go to the general election. If one party is vastly more popular, or if one fields so many candidates that they divide the primary vote, you can end up with a general election featuring two candidates from the same party. That’s happened several times here in California, usually because the Republican candidates on offer were rwnjs and lots of them.
Finally, Maine, Alaska, and soon Hawaii, do Ranked Choice Voting sometimes called Single Transferable vote. (Janie, correct me if I mess this up.) You vote for several people initially, ranked by order of preference. After the first count, the candidate with the fewest votes gets dropped. The ballots where he got preferred now get split up, with those votes going to the second choices shown. Rinse and repeat until there are only two candidates left — they go on to the general election.
Just to keep things interesting, some places use one system for state and national offices, but a different one for local offices.
** All too easily confused with the American Independent Party. Which actually is a party, albeit a small one, rather than a lack of one.
Maine has ranked choice voting for Federal elections, not for state — kind of ironically.
From here:
Ranked choice voting is also called “instant runoff.” I found that that made it easier to understand; otherwise I was getting lost in the weeds about the math. (But that’s just me….)
Maine has ranked choice voting for Federal elections, not for state — kind of ironically.
From here:
Ranked choice voting is also called “instant runoff.” I found that that made it easier to understand; otherwise I was getting lost in the weeds about the math. (But that’s just me….)
Pete: thanks for the answer, and the nefariousness (in my opinion) compliment! It has generally been perceived more as Machiavellian, but I do think (and various lawyers confirm) it makes me quite good at red-teaming, which (as I have previously mentioned) I think is valuable, because forewarned is forearmed.
And thanks all, for other info on registration stuff.
Pete: thanks for the answer, and the nefariousness (in my opinion) compliment! It has generally been perceived more as Machiavellian, but I do think (and various lawyers confirm) it makes me quite good at red-teaming, which (as I have previously mentioned) I think is valuable, because forewarned is forearmed.
And thanks all, for other info on registration stuff.
CharlesWT’s PBS article has been rolling around in the back of my mind all day. Quotes:
But over the last year, roughly two-thirds of the 1.7 million voters who changed their party affiliation shifted to the Republican Party. In all, more than 1 million people became Republicans compared to about 630,000 who became Democrats.
The broad migration of more than 1 million voters…
The article repeats that number … “more than 1 million” … four times, counting the headline. And yet that number rather vague, isn’t it, compared to the more specific 630,000 who went the other way? I mean, how hard would it have been to write 1,330,000, which is the actual (rounded) result of taking 2/3 of 1.7 million…?
Too hard, apparently.
A million is about 59% of 1.7 million — a far cry from 67%.
So which is it? I would wager a lot that it’s much closer to 1,000,000 than 1,330,333 – because if it were the latter, the author would/could/should have made hay out of saying so. That’s not a minor difference.
So there’s some champion fudging going on there. Ordinarily I would snark about innumeracy, but the pounding away at “more than a million” seems too deliberately vague to be anything but purposeful.
Wouldn’t it possibly be a less hair-on-fire article if instead of dwelling on the vague but alarming “more than a million,” the author attempted to address the reality of a net migration of “more than 370,000” voters?
Gee, though, 370,000 doesn’t sound nearly as “dire” as “more than a million.”
As usual, we have to have alarums and excursions about the Ds, with the also as usual cherry-picked interviewees. Any D voters interviewed? I thought not.
At least the article didn’t mention diners.
Also:
L2 uses a combination of state voter records and statistical modeling to determine party affiliation, meaning that the switchers include both those who have formally changed their registration and those who L2 estimates have shifted toward the GOP.
Modeling….
CharlesWT’s PBS article has been rolling around in the back of my mind all day. Quotes:
But over the last year, roughly two-thirds of the 1.7 million voters who changed their party affiliation shifted to the Republican Party. In all, more than 1 million people became Republicans compared to about 630,000 who became Democrats.
The broad migration of more than 1 million voters…
The article repeats that number … “more than 1 million” … four times, counting the headline. And yet that number rather vague, isn’t it, compared to the more specific 630,000 who went the other way? I mean, how hard would it have been to write 1,330,000, which is the actual (rounded) result of taking 2/3 of 1.7 million…?
Too hard, apparently.
A million is about 59% of 1.7 million — a far cry from 67%.
So which is it? I would wager a lot that it’s much closer to 1,000,000 than 1,330,333 – because if it were the latter, the author would/could/should have made hay out of saying so. That’s not a minor difference.
So there’s some champion fudging going on there. Ordinarily I would snark about innumeracy, but the pounding away at “more than a million” seems too deliberately vague to be anything but purposeful.
Wouldn’t it possibly be a less hair-on-fire article if instead of dwelling on the vague but alarming “more than a million,” the author attempted to address the reality of a net migration of “more than 370,000” voters?
Gee, though, 370,000 doesn’t sound nearly as “dire” as “more than a million.”
As usual, we have to have alarums and excursions about the Ds, with the also as usual cherry-picked interviewees. Any D voters interviewed? I thought not.
At least the article didn’t mention diners.
Also:
L2 uses a combination of state voter records and statistical modeling to determine party affiliation, meaning that the switchers include both those who have formally changed their registration and those who L2 estimates have shifted toward the GOP.
Modeling….
https://jabberwocking.com/update-party-defections-are-tiny-and-mostly-meaningless/
Kevin Drum following up on this.
https://jabberwocking.com/update-party-defections-are-tiny-and-mostly-meaningless/
Kevin Drum following up on this.
Sorry for the hasty writing. I would go into Typepad and tighten it up, but that doesn’t seem right either.
First point: Lies, damned lies, and statistics….
Second point: this kind of thing helps to create the attitudes it purports to be merely reporting.
Sorry for the hasty writing. I would go into Typepad and tighten it up, but that doesn’t seem right either.
First point: Lies, damned lies, and statistics….
Second point: this kind of thing helps to create the attitudes it purports to be merely reporting.
and those who L2 estimates have shifted toward the GOP.
It would, one supposes, be just way too much trouble to break out explicitly how many “formal registration changes” there actually were. (In both directions.) Just in the interests of, I don’t know, accuracy…
Or maybe the actual (as opposed to “estimated”) numbers wouldn’t be nearly as alarming. See, also, a debunking at
https://gelliottmorris.substack.com/p/an-analysis-claiming-one-million
and those who L2 estimates have shifted toward the GOP.
It would, one supposes, be just way too much trouble to break out explicitly how many “formal registration changes” there actually were. (In both directions.) Just in the interests of, I don’t know, accuracy…
Or maybe the actual (as opposed to “estimated”) numbers wouldn’t be nearly as alarming. See, also, a debunking at
https://gelliottmorris.substack.com/p/an-analysis-claiming-one-million
Why is it that the press (which we allegedly control) never visits the gambling venues, houses of ill repute, smoke filled cocktail lounges, and opium dens where we real Americans hang out?
What is it about the cheap food and oozing resentment that attracts them so?
Why is it that the press (which we allegedly control) never visits the gambling venues, houses of ill repute, smoke filled cocktail lounges, and opium dens where we real Americans hang out?
What is it about the cheap food and oozing resentment that attracts them so?
From wj’s link:
I know I’m tired, but do I detect a whiff of presuming the conclusion here? Circular reasoning? Outright BS? That people are getting paid for? Nice gig if you can get it.
From wj’s link:
I know I’m tired, but do I detect a whiff of presuming the conclusion here? Circular reasoning? Outright BS? That people are getting paid for? Nice gig if you can get it.
do I detect a whiff of presuming the conclusion here? Circular reasoning? Outright BS?
If you reach a conclusion that is the popular view (in the microscopic where you, and especially your editor) live, you can diddle the data or the explanation and not have to argue. If the data show something different, and you try to report it, you’re faced with a really high hurdle to get it published. And a bad rep if it happens very often.
Of course, if you go against the popular view and get it right, it can be a career maker. (Unless you work for Fox News….)
do I detect a whiff of presuming the conclusion here? Circular reasoning? Outright BS?
If you reach a conclusion that is the popular view (in the microscopic where you, and especially your editor) live, you can diddle the data or the explanation and not have to argue. If the data show something different, and you try to report it, you’re faced with a really high hurdle to get it published. And a bad rep if it happens very often.
Of course, if you go against the popular view and get it right, it can be a career maker. (Unless you work for Fox News….)
Wow, did the editing fail on that one!
Wow, did the editing fail on that one!
This is really scary. Especially if you live in California.
https://digbysblog.net/2022/07/01/liz-in-cali/
To understand why, you have to understand how far into crazy town the California GOP has been the last few decades. And yet, Cheney got a standing ovation when appearing at the Reagan Presidential Library. As opposed to, for example, Wyoming, where an election debate had to be cancelled, due to the number of death threats to Cheney.
When our GOP is a comparative font of sanity, things are really bad for this country.
This is really scary. Especially if you live in California.
https://digbysblog.net/2022/07/01/liz-in-cali/
To understand why, you have to understand how far into crazy town the California GOP has been the last few decades. And yet, Cheney got a standing ovation when appearing at the Reagan Presidential Library. As opposed to, for example, Wyoming, where an election debate had to be cancelled, due to the number of death threats to Cheney.
When our GOP is a comparative font of sanity, things are really bad for this country.
Another editing fail: I copied 1,133,333 (unrounded) to a rounded form of 1,330,000 last night.
It’s still a significant difference, but not as much as I made it seem.
Thanks to the person who emailed me to point it out, who can out himself as my new copy editor, or not, according to personal perference.
Another editing fail: I copied 1,133,333 (unrounded) to a rounded form of 1,330,000 last night.
It’s still a significant difference, but not as much as I made it seem.
Thanks to the person who emailed me to point it out, who can out himself as my new copy editor, or not, according to personal perference.
Wouldn’t it possibly be a less hair-on-fire article if instead of dwelling on the vague but alarming “more than a million,” the author attempted to address the reality of a net migration of “more than 370,000” voters?
When clicks, eyeballs, and outrage are the order of the day, you got some pretty stiff competition this week.
While I’m on about hyperbole, it’s about a million percent humidity out and the gnats are suffocating, so I’m hiding inside with the news going in the background. There are discussions about if rainbows are okay – in Elementary Schools. Governors discussing “safe states” to provide healthcare and potentially asylum to women. A healthcare provider in Alabama is worried about being prosecuted for simply suggesting a state where women might find the services they need. She seems to think it’s okay for existing patients but no-go for anyone new. Yeah, she can’t use words.
So how’s this for sensationalism: A soft fundamentalist coup is happening this 4th of July weekend, and it’s not slowing down.
Wouldn’t it possibly be a less hair-on-fire article if instead of dwelling on the vague but alarming “more than a million,” the author attempted to address the reality of a net migration of “more than 370,000” voters?
When clicks, eyeballs, and outrage are the order of the day, you got some pretty stiff competition this week.
While I’m on about hyperbole, it’s about a million percent humidity out and the gnats are suffocating, so I’m hiding inside with the news going in the background. There are discussions about if rainbows are okay – in Elementary Schools. Governors discussing “safe states” to provide healthcare and potentially asylum to women. A healthcare provider in Alabama is worried about being prosecuted for simply suggesting a state where women might find the services they need. She seems to think it’s okay for existing patients but no-go for anyone new. Yeah, she can’t use words.
So how’s this for sensationalism: A soft fundamentalist coup is happening this 4th of July weekend, and it’s not slowing down.
Pete – Add to that, next term SCOTUS will hear a case that would give state legislatures absolute control over elections (including being able to hand their electors to the candidate of their choice, rather than to whoever actually won). Just in time for 2024.
We have a coup in plain sight. We have a civil war in plain sight.
Pete – Add to that, next term SCOTUS will hear a case that would give state legislatures absolute control over elections (including being able to hand their electors to the candidate of their choice, rather than to whoever actually won). Just in time for 2024.
We have a coup in plain sight. We have a civil war in plain sight.
Thomas shouldn’t be anywhere near Moore v Harper or anything election-related. Quinnipiac has 52% in favor of his recusal on election matters and a petition for his impeachment is nearing 1 million signatures. But since the majority of SCOTUS doesn’t seem to care about what the majority of the citizenry want and “appearance of impropriety” has given way to “you can’t prove nuthin’!”, I fully expect ISL doctrine to be the law of the land.
In fact, I’m betting on it! Introducing…
Prexy™! It’s the first app of its kind to service the retail voter in the new election marketspace! Leverage your ballot choices in today’s ever-changing electoral landscape! Bundle it with other similarly-minded constituents for tranche-like clout or reiterize into synthetic Voter Default Swaps (VDS) to float up to 140% of your actual vote! Totalitarians love this app!
Prexy™! It’s Proxy+Sexy, because it’s also a dating (short for data-mining) and social media app*!
*includes In-App purchases.
I have no idea how anything works.
Thomas shouldn’t be anywhere near Moore v Harper or anything election-related. Quinnipiac has 52% in favor of his recusal on election matters and a petition for his impeachment is nearing 1 million signatures. But since the majority of SCOTUS doesn’t seem to care about what the majority of the citizenry want and “appearance of impropriety” has given way to “you can’t prove nuthin’!”, I fully expect ISL doctrine to be the law of the land.
In fact, I’m betting on it! Introducing…
Prexy™! It’s the first app of its kind to service the retail voter in the new election marketspace! Leverage your ballot choices in today’s ever-changing electoral landscape! Bundle it with other similarly-minded constituents for tranche-like clout or reiterize into synthetic Voter Default Swaps (VDS) to float up to 140% of your actual vote! Totalitarians love this app!
Prexy™! It’s Proxy+Sexy, because it’s also a dating (short for data-mining) and social media app*!
*includes In-App purchases.
I have no idea how anything works.
Wyoming’s Republican primary debate (1.58 mins):
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1542866096537145345
Wyoming’s Republican primary debate (1.58 mins):
https://twitter.com/AccountableGOP/status/1542866096537145345
Aaaand…..let’s hear it for Arizona (2.20 mins)!
https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1543031788188188674
My favourite bit:
“Why can’t we treat human life like we would treat alien life that we discovered on an alien planet?”
Aaaand…..let’s hear it for Arizona (2.20 mins)!
https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1543031788188188674
My favourite bit:
“Why can’t we treat human life like we would treat alien life that we discovered on an alien planet?”
And the terrifying thing is, these people think (and they’re probably not wrong) that they stand a chance of a) winning the R nomination and b) winning the actual election.
In the UK the actual Monster Raving Loony Party sounds a lot saner than these people.
JFC.
And the terrifying thing is, these people think (and they’re probably not wrong) that they stand a chance of a) winning the R nomination and b) winning the actual election.
In the UK the actual Monster Raving Loony Party sounds a lot saner than these people.
JFC.
the actual Monster Raving Loony Party sounds a lot saner than these people.
Probably because the MTLP doesn’t believe the idiocy/satire they are spouting. These days, it has become incredibly difficult to do political satire in the US. The GOP is just so far gone that sane people can’t guess what (if anything) they might consider nuts.
the actual Monster Raving Loony Party sounds a lot saner than these people.
Probably because the MTLP doesn’t believe the idiocy/satire they are spouting. These days, it has become incredibly difficult to do political satire in the US. The GOP is just so far gone that sane people can’t guess what (if anything) they might consider nuts.
That carpenter’s son from Nazareth was crucified, buried, and then resurrected before being taken bodily to heaven by some angel or other. Not to mention that the deity impregnated his mother by some magical means that no one has ever figured out.
Thus it ever was, thus it shall ever be.
That carpenter’s son from Nazareth was crucified, buried, and then resurrected before being taken bodily to heaven by some angel or other. Not to mention that the deity impregnated his mother by some magical means that no one has ever figured out.
Thus it ever was, thus it shall ever be.
Someone who studies this stuff would probably have fun (or “fun”) watching which strands of Q-induced nonsense survive a few decades and harden to become part of the firmly entrenched origin story of the new religion. Or of the new nation that might grow on the smoldering ashes of this one.
Johnny Tremaine, The Sequel! (The story of 1/6/21, retold for children)
Someone who studies this stuff would probably have fun (or “fun”) watching which strands of Q-induced nonsense survive a few decades and harden to become part of the firmly entrenched origin story of the new religion. Or of the new nation that might grow on the smoldering ashes of this one.
Johnny Tremaine, The Sequel! (The story of 1/6/21, retold for children)
Johnny Tremaine, a vivid memory from my childhood.
Johnny Tremaine, a vivid memory from my childhood.
Not to mention that the deity impregnated his mother by some magical means that no one has ever figured out.
Well it’s a good thing there were no exceptions for rape or incest – or rape and incest, I suppose – or where would a billion Christians be right now?
Not to mention that the deity impregnated his mother by some magical means that no one has ever figured out.
Well it’s a good thing there were no exceptions for rape or incest – or rape and incest, I suppose – or where would a billion Christians be right now?
Yeah, I’m in a mood.
Yeah, I’m in a mood.
The tree of liberty…sanitized and Disney-fied.
I believe the guy in the black coat leading the parade is supposed to be Samuel Adams.
Looks so easy, revolution, doesn’t it?
The tree of liberty…sanitized and Disney-fied.
I believe the guy in the black coat leading the parade is supposed to be Samuel Adams.
Looks so easy, revolution, doesn’t it?
Not to mention that the deity impregnated his mother by some magical means that no one has ever figured out.
Probably because they haven’t thought it thru. Jesus never said that this happened. He was asked about God and his relationship to man. As he so often did, he made an analogy: God’s relationship to man is like a father’s relationship to his children. (Which, if you think about it, says something about what an impressive man Joseph was.) Note also how smoothly it fits with the view that we are all “children of God”.
Sometimes I suspect that theologians (especially evangelical ones) have mush for brains.
Not to mention that the deity impregnated his mother by some magical means that no one has ever figured out.
Probably because they haven’t thought it thru. Jesus never said that this happened. He was asked about God and his relationship to man. As he so often did, he made an analogy: God’s relationship to man is like a father’s relationship to his children. (Which, if you think about it, says something about what an impressive man Joseph was.) Note also how smoothly it fits with the view that we are all “children of God”.
Sometimes I suspect that theologians (especially evangelical ones) have mush for brains.
Are there evangelical theologians? That’s a quaint concept.
Are there evangelical theologians? That’s a quaint concept.
Are there evangelical theologians?
Well, there definitely are individuals who are evangelicals, and who pontificate about what their faith requires and what it forbids. Regardless of what their nominal scriptures actually say. (Consider the “prosperity gospel” — which is impossible to square with “man cannot serve both God and Mammon”.)
Are there evangelical theologians?
Well, there definitely are individuals who are evangelicals, and who pontificate about what their faith requires and what it forbids. Regardless of what their nominal scriptures actually say. (Consider the “prosperity gospel” — which is impossible to square with “man cannot serve both God and Mammon”.)
It was an evangelical theologian (biblical hermeneutics) that started me down my path to being a heathen rhetorician.
“Truth must be truth. You cannot search for truth and reserve from examination the things you believe to be true.”
If only he knew.
Francis Schaeffer is probably the best know evangelical theologian, though he seems a lightweight to me. Schaeffer was a big influence on my brother and his slide into evangelical extremism.
It was an evangelical theologian (biblical hermeneutics) that started me down my path to being a heathen rhetorician.
“Truth must be truth. You cannot search for truth and reserve from examination the things you believe to be true.”
If only he knew.
Francis Schaeffer is probably the best know evangelical theologian, though he seems a lightweight to me. Schaeffer was a big influence on my brother and his slide into evangelical extremism.
nous — I was thinking about this all evening yesterday — realizing that my mild snark about evangelical theologians was in part a weird survival of my Catholic upbringing (which, lord knows, I have put as far behind me as I can consciously do). It came in part from my Catholic (and later heathen, to use your term) ignorance about other “Christian” denominations.
But it’s also related to my more recent experience, e.g. on the day of the Maine legislative hearing on same-sex marriage in 2009, 3000 people in attendance at the Augusta Civic Center, the first speaker on the “no” side was a back-country preacher in a leather jacket, who edged out the bishop of the diocese of Portland (much to that arrogant little twit’s chagrin, I suspect).
I don’t think of back-country preachers in leather jackets as potential theologians (in the sense I understood the term in my Catholic youth), or the cultural context in which they thrive as a fertile ground for theology (as an academic sort of discipline).
Nor do I quite understand what the study of theology might be in a context where anyone is allowed to interpret the Bible in their own way. (Of course I know this isn’t true literally, but to the extent that it isn’t, what was the Reformation for? (Rhetorical question.))
Reminds me of the question of whether the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court (heaven help us) or the sovereign citizen sheriffs all over the country (ditto).
This is written in haste, but I’m bemused by the whole topic. I went to Wikipedia to see if I could get a quick notion of what an evangelical actually is, and I know a sliver more than I did before, but I gave up when I got to the difference between biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility.
Hey, it’s Sunday morning, I have plenty of time on my hands (NOT!), since I’m not going to church. 😉
nous — I was thinking about this all evening yesterday — realizing that my mild snark about evangelical theologians was in part a weird survival of my Catholic upbringing (which, lord knows, I have put as far behind me as I can consciously do). It came in part from my Catholic (and later heathen, to use your term) ignorance about other “Christian” denominations.
But it’s also related to my more recent experience, e.g. on the day of the Maine legislative hearing on same-sex marriage in 2009, 3000 people in attendance at the Augusta Civic Center, the first speaker on the “no” side was a back-country preacher in a leather jacket, who edged out the bishop of the diocese of Portland (much to that arrogant little twit’s chagrin, I suspect).
I don’t think of back-country preachers in leather jackets as potential theologians (in the sense I understood the term in my Catholic youth), or the cultural context in which they thrive as a fertile ground for theology (as an academic sort of discipline).
Nor do I quite understand what the study of theology might be in a context where anyone is allowed to interpret the Bible in their own way. (Of course I know this isn’t true literally, but to the extent that it isn’t, what was the Reformation for? (Rhetorical question.))
Reminds me of the question of whether the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution is the Supreme Court (heaven help us) or the sovereign citizen sheriffs all over the country (ditto).
This is written in haste, but I’m bemused by the whole topic. I went to Wikipedia to see if I could get a quick notion of what an evangelical actually is, and I know a sliver more than I did before, but I gave up when I got to the difference between biblical inerrancy and biblical infallibility.
Hey, it’s Sunday morning, I have plenty of time on my hands (NOT!), since I’m not going to church. 😉
PS I know I’m mixing up a lot of things here, like the difference between a preacher or priest and a theologian….
PS I know I’m mixing up a lot of things here, like the difference between a preacher or priest and a theologian….
I don’t think there is currently an Open Thread, so I am posting this obituary of Peter Brook here. He was truly one of the all-time great directors, a man of astonishing and inspiring creativity openmindedness, and capable of creating actual joy in a theatre. I only saw a few of his productions: the unforgettable Midsummer Night’s Dream, which I have written about before, and the extraordinary nine-hour Mahabharata among them. And the experience of both of these were like being in a true world of actual magic.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/jul/03/peter-brook-influential-theatre-visionary-dies-aged-97
I don’t think there is currently an Open Thread, so I am posting this obituary of Peter Brook here. He was truly one of the all-time great directors, a man of astonishing and inspiring creativity openmindedness, and capable of creating actual joy in a theatre. I only saw a few of his productions: the unforgettable Midsummer Night’s Dream, which I have written about before, and the extraordinary nine-hour Mahabharata among them. And the experience of both of these were like being in a true world of actual magic.
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/jul/03/peter-brook-influential-theatre-visionary-dies-aged-97
Priests (at least Christian ones) are expected to be (studied) theologians too. Preachers not necessarily.
Priests (at least Christian ones) are expected to be (studied) theologians too. Preachers not necessarily.
creativity AND openmindedness. Openminded like a child….
creativity AND openmindedness. Openminded like a child….
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/jul/03/peter-brooks-legacy-is-everywhere-in-todays-theatre
https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2022/jul/03/peter-brooks-legacy-is-everywhere-in-todays-theatre
I just tried three times unsuccessfully to post another link about Peter Brook. If anybody could rescue just one of those, I’d be grateful.
I just tried three times unsuccessfully to post another link about Peter Brook. If anybody could rescue just one of those, I’d be grateful.
Done.
Done.
Thanks, Janie!
Thanks, Janie!
And this is the last, I promise, but in case any of you USians saw or heard about the Marat/Sade I thought you might also be interested in this, which might be behind a paywall:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peter-brook-obituary-tq7wl8xlg
From soon after Hall and John Barton (obituary, January 22, 2018) founded the RSC in 1960, Brook had been a director. In 1964, with Charles Marowitz, he recruited a dozen or so of the company for 12 weeks of improvisation and experiment at the Lamda studio theatre. For this he adopted the name “the theatre of cruelty” from Antonin Artaud, the surrealist French director who strongly influenced Brook with his vision of theatre as a form that should profoundly shock, more concerned with ritual and images than with words.
Such explorations led directly to the two most acclaimed and debated of his RSC productions at the Aldwych. The first was Peter Weiss’s The Persecution and Murder of Marat 45 Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade (inevitably shortened to The Marat/Sade), an extraordinary play in which the action, violent in the extreme, included Charlotte Corday (Glenda Jackson) whipping the naked de Sade with her hair. Spectators in London, and in New York, where it won two Tony awards, were enthralled and appalled. The other, US, was devised by a group that Brook led. It shook audiences into a painful awareness of the desperate war in Vietnam and divided the critics — but not before the lord chamberlain had unsuccessfully tried to stop the play, fearing it to be anti-American and pro-communist.
As early as 1957 Brook had cleared the Stratford stage of clutter in a Tempest that showed John Gielgud as an angry, unromantic Prospero relying on rough magic. In 1970 came one of his greatest works, a minimalist staging of A Midsummer Night’s Dream that drew acclaim for bringing out the dark eroticism lurking beneath the play’s humour. Then, having stripped away the scenery and the props, he dispensed with the words in Ted Hughes’s Orghast (1971), a work awash with the universal language of grunts, cries and sighs.
And this is the last, I promise, but in case any of you USians saw or heard about the Marat/Sade I thought you might also be interested in this, which might be behind a paywall:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peter-brook-obituary-tq7wl8xlg
From soon after Hall and John Barton (obituary, January 22, 2018) founded the RSC in 1960, Brook had been a director. In 1964, with Charles Marowitz, he recruited a dozen or so of the company for 12 weeks of improvisation and experiment at the Lamda studio theatre. For this he adopted the name “the theatre of cruelty” from Antonin Artaud, the surrealist French director who strongly influenced Brook with his vision of theatre as a form that should profoundly shock, more concerned with ritual and images than with words.
Such explorations led directly to the two most acclaimed and debated of his RSC productions at the Aldwych. The first was Peter Weiss’s The Persecution and Murder of Marat 45 Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade (inevitably shortened to The Marat/Sade), an extraordinary play in which the action, violent in the extreme, included Charlotte Corday (Glenda Jackson) whipping the naked de Sade with her hair. Spectators in London, and in New York, where it won two Tony awards, were enthralled and appalled. The other, US, was devised by a group that Brook led. It shook audiences into a painful awareness of the desperate war in Vietnam and divided the critics — but not before the lord chamberlain had unsuccessfully tried to stop the play, fearing it to be anti-American and pro-communist.
As early as 1957 Brook had cleared the Stratford stage of clutter in a Tempest that showed John Gielgud as an angry, unromantic Prospero relying on rough magic. In 1970 came one of his greatest works, a minimalist staging of A Midsummer Night’s Dream that drew acclaim for bringing out the dark eroticism lurking beneath the play’s humour. Then, having stripped away the scenery and the props, he dispensed with the words in Ted Hughes’s Orghast (1971), a work awash with the universal language of grunts, cries and sighs.
My general definition is that priests & ministers have studied theology as an academic disciple – comparative religion, philosophy and such – whereas anyone with enough ego to claim to know god’s will can hang out a shingle and call themselves a preacher. When I think of “preacher”, Evangelical is what comes to mind. That’s an admittedly loose and personal definition.
Just as loosely, I tend to think that the former wrestle with morals and ethics and outright contradictions within the framework of religious canon in a scholarly fashion. The latter kinda shoot from the hip, cherry-picking (and/or conveniently ignoring) whatever passages suit the moralizing du jour.
What we’ve got here, in the SCOTUS majority, is a bunch of preachers.
Like most people, when I wanna get my personal Jesus on, I deliberately seek out the quietude of dead center of an arena with thousands of onlookers and glaring spotlights and local tv cameras. I guess the Establishment Clause and the Treaty of Tripoli aren’t “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions”.
My general definition is that priests & ministers have studied theology as an academic disciple – comparative religion, philosophy and such – whereas anyone with enough ego to claim to know god’s will can hang out a shingle and call themselves a preacher. When I think of “preacher”, Evangelical is what comes to mind. That’s an admittedly loose and personal definition.
Just as loosely, I tend to think that the former wrestle with morals and ethics and outright contradictions within the framework of religious canon in a scholarly fashion. The latter kinda shoot from the hip, cherry-picking (and/or conveniently ignoring) whatever passages suit the moralizing du jour.
What we’ve got here, in the SCOTUS majority, is a bunch of preachers.
Like most people, when I wanna get my personal Jesus on, I deliberately seek out the quietude of dead center of an arena with thousands of onlookers and glaring spotlights and local tv cameras. I guess the Establishment Clause and the Treaty of Tripoli aren’t “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and traditions”.
The requirements for someone to be a preacher – to occupy the pulpit of a church as a teacher and/or a small-p prophetic voice – vary widely from denomination to denomination.
At the less structured end of the spectrum, churches may pick whoever the heck they like, without the need for vetting or oversight by an ecclesiastic authority (bishops, presbyters, whoever). It’s not unusual for charismatic individuals to start their own churches, if they can persuade enough people to come listen to them. Whether they know much or not may be immaterial.
Theologian is another skill set, really, although if you’re a church-going person, you’d probably want the preacher to have some idea what they were talking about.
But yes, there are evangelical theologians, some who are preachers, many who are not.
Another topic:
Conservatives often claim that liberals want to tell everybody else what to do, while they just want to be left alone (at least by government) and want to offer everyone else the opportunity to be left alone.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that that claim is bullshit.
The requirements for someone to be a preacher – to occupy the pulpit of a church as a teacher and/or a small-p prophetic voice – vary widely from denomination to denomination.
At the less structured end of the spectrum, churches may pick whoever the heck they like, without the need for vetting or oversight by an ecclesiastic authority (bishops, presbyters, whoever). It’s not unusual for charismatic individuals to start their own churches, if they can persuade enough people to come listen to them. Whether they know much or not may be immaterial.
Theologian is another skill set, really, although if you’re a church-going person, you’d probably want the preacher to have some idea what they were talking about.
But yes, there are evangelical theologians, some who are preachers, many who are not.
Another topic:
Conservatives often claim that liberals want to tell everybody else what to do, while they just want to be left alone (at least by government) and want to offer everyone else the opportunity to be left alone.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that that claim is bullshit.
Conservatives often claim that liberals want to tell everybody else what to do, while they just want to be left alone (at least by government) and want to offer everyone else the opportunity to be left alone.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that that claim is bullshit.
Truer words….
Although my gut feeling is that they go on about their own right to be left alone far more than they go on about mine. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard any of them say I should be left alone to pursue my life as I please. (Romance-wise, at least. And female-wise, for that matter.)
Conservatives often claim that liberals want to tell everybody else what to do, while they just want to be left alone (at least by government) and want to offer everyone else the opportunity to be left alone.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that that claim is bullshit.
Truer words….
Although my gut feeling is that they go on about their own right to be left alone far more than they go on about mine. In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever heard any of them say I should be left alone to pursue my life as I please. (Romance-wise, at least. And female-wise, for that matter.)
Anne Laurie at BJ has some twitter videos of some modern-day Sons of Liberty marching through Boston. I know perfectly well that Boston has a checkered history in relation to, especially, racial issues. But I also know and love it, and have walked in the neighborhoods of the Freedom Trail many times. If I had run across these cowardly masked assholes hogging the sidewalk, polluting the soundscape, and generally sullying a nice summer day in the city, I would have been at serious risk of getting myself killed, given that I’m a bit hotheaded.
I worry about that every time I leave my house. But so far I personally haven’t seen anything worse in Maine than Clickbait 2024 flags in people’s yards, and the hideously ugly flags with black and white stripes interspersed with a blue, a green, and a red. Not even an AR-15 in the grocery store…
Anne Laurie at BJ has some twitter videos of some modern-day Sons of Liberty marching through Boston. I know perfectly well that Boston has a checkered history in relation to, especially, racial issues. But I also know and love it, and have walked in the neighborhoods of the Freedom Trail many times. If I had run across these cowardly masked assholes hogging the sidewalk, polluting the soundscape, and generally sullying a nice summer day in the city, I would have been at serious risk of getting myself killed, given that I’m a bit hotheaded.
I worry about that every time I leave my house. But so far I personally haven’t seen anything worse in Maine than Clickbait 2024 flags in people’s yards, and the hideously ugly flags with black and white stripes interspersed with a blue, a green, and a red. Not even an AR-15 in the grocery store…
And at the same time, I know very well that “it can’t happen here” is the dumbest idea in the history of the world. As we are seeing on a daily basis across the country.
And at the same time, I know very well that “it can’t happen here” is the dumbest idea in the history of the world. As we are seeing on a daily basis across the country.
To paint with one particular broad brush, conservatives are preoccupied with and want to enforce private morals. And liberals are preoccupied with and want to enforce public morals.
To paint with one particular broad brush, conservatives are preoccupied with and want to enforce private morals. And liberals are preoccupied with and want to enforce public morals.
What we’ve got here, in the SCOTUS majority, is a bunch of preachers.
Except that they have done the study, too. To extend your analogy, they are like expert marksmen who have decided it would be fun to go out and spray the countryside with an AR-15. Just because they can.
What we’ve got here, in the SCOTUS majority, is a bunch of preachers.
Except that they have done the study, too. To extend your analogy, they are like expert marksmen who have decided it would be fun to go out and spray the countryside with an AR-15. Just because they can.
“Public morals” = e.g. not driving while drunk? Not polluting the air we all have to breathe? Not pouring poison in the waterways? Not running redlights? Not letting our (collective/community) children grow up ignorant? Not letting people sell adultrated food?
………
“Public morals” = e.g. not driving while drunk? Not polluting the air we all have to breathe? Not pouring poison in the waterways? Not running redlights? Not letting our (collective/community) children grow up ignorant? Not letting people sell adultrated food?
………
The church I grew up in on Long Island sets up a Pride display annually in June on the adjacent Green. One of the pastors is lesbian, my father tells me, but I’ve never met her as I ditched religion long ago. Regardless of my status in the church (which I think might still be officially “good”), it reflects well on the congregation and I’m glad to see it when I drive or walk by. I don’t think any of this would be persuasive to the SCOTUS majority tho, or Conservatives in general, being the johnny-come-lately, not-deeply-rooted-in-history upstart that it is. After all, the new building was erected as recently as 1812 after the original burned down – the one established in the 1660s.
The church I grew up in on Long Island sets up a Pride display annually in June on the adjacent Green. One of the pastors is lesbian, my father tells me, but I’ve never met her as I ditched religion long ago. Regardless of my status in the church (which I think might still be officially “good”), it reflects well on the congregation and I’m glad to see it when I drive or walk by. I don’t think any of this would be persuasive to the SCOTUS majority tho, or Conservatives in general, being the johnny-come-lately, not-deeply-rooted-in-history upstart that it is. After all, the new building was erected as recently as 1812 after the original burned down – the one established in the 1660s.
Conservatives often claim that liberals want to tell everybody else what to do, while they just want to be left alone (at least by government) and want to offer everyone else the opportunity to be left alone.
I’d say that’s more libertarians mislabeled as conservatives. The liberal analogue being anarchists.
A conservative (and even a reactionary) is perfectly comfortable with rules everybody has to follow. They differ from liberals more in which set of rules they want.
Conservatives often claim that liberals want to tell everybody else what to do, while they just want to be left alone (at least by government) and want to offer everyone else the opportunity to be left alone.
I’d say that’s more libertarians mislabeled as conservatives. The liberal analogue being anarchists.
A conservative (and even a reactionary) is perfectly comfortable with rules everybody has to follow. They differ from liberals more in which set of rules they want.
A conservative (and even a reactionary) is perfectly comfortable with rules everybody has to follow.
Well, yeah, but that’s a bit empty, isn’t it? Every group is happy to follow the rules when the rules privilege them.
A conservative (and even a reactionary) is perfectly comfortable with rules everybody has to follow.
Well, yeah, but that’s a bit empty, isn’t it? Every group is happy to follow the rules when the rules privilege them.
They differ from liberals more in which set of rules they want.
Also who sets them and is to be the arbiter.
And I mean that not just in the extreme sense we see to-day where the value of a rule is purely judged based on the the setter (If THEY set the same rule as I would, something must be wrong!).
They differ from liberals more in which set of rules they want.
Also who sets them and is to be the arbiter.
And I mean that not just in the extreme sense we see to-day where the value of a rule is purely judged based on the the setter (If THEY set the same rule as I would, something must be wrong!).
I mean, the default is (or should be): Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t get one. Not: I don’t like it, so nobody else can have it.
That isn’t what I hear from modern Conservatives.
I’m biased, but generally speaking I think Liberal rules tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive, e.g. civil rights.
I’m painting with very broad strokes here.
I mean, the default is (or should be): Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t get one. Not: I don’t like it, so nobody else can have it.
That isn’t what I hear from modern Conservatives.
I’m biased, but generally speaking I think Liberal rules tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive, e.g. civil rights.
I’m painting with very broad strokes here.
I’m biased, but generally speaking I think Liberal rules tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive, e.g. civil rights.
No argument there.
That isn’t what I hear from modern Conservatives.
That’s where I think you go wrong. Because the folks you call “modern Conservatives” are nothing of the kind — for all that they like to use the label. They are flat out reactionaries, with nothing modern about them beyond their use of modern technology to spread their noxious views.
We can argue about the merits of the views of different groups on various issues. But it would help enormously if we were clear(er) about who we are actually talking about.
Just to give one example, I doubt that anyone here would dispute the idea that nous** is more liberal than I am. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this conservative embraced the idea of gay marriage before he did. (For reference, I got there in the mid- to late 1980s, when it was clear the “domestic partnerships” had serious negative unintended consequences. And I said so publicly.)
A reactionary, including today’s reactionaries, would never have gone there. But a conservative could and did. So it’s not just liberals who can be inclusive.
** Sorry to pick one just one individual, but it makes the example easier to follow.
I’m biased, but generally speaking I think Liberal rules tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive, e.g. civil rights.
No argument there.
That isn’t what I hear from modern Conservatives.
That’s where I think you go wrong. Because the folks you call “modern Conservatives” are nothing of the kind — for all that they like to use the label. They are flat out reactionaries, with nothing modern about them beyond their use of modern technology to spread their noxious views.
We can argue about the merits of the views of different groups on various issues. But it would help enormously if we were clear(er) about who we are actually talking about.
Just to give one example, I doubt that anyone here would dispute the idea that nous** is more liberal than I am. But I wouldn’t be surprised if this conservative embraced the idea of gay marriage before he did. (For reference, I got there in the mid- to late 1980s, when it was clear the “domestic partnerships” had serious negative unintended consequences. And I said so publicly.)
A reactionary, including today’s reactionaries, would never have gone there. But a conservative could and did. So it’s not just liberals who can be inclusive.
** Sorry to pick one just one individual, but it makes the example easier to follow.
Nor do I quite understand what the study of theology might be in a context where anyone is allowed to interpret the Bible in their own way. (Of course I know this isn’t true literally, but to the extent that it isn’t, what was the Reformation for? (Rhetorical question.))
Just noting here that this is generally how I feel whenever an open thread about literature pops up around here.
A lot of small evangelical churches and denominations exist as a spiritual analog of the Book Club. Everyone reads it, one person hosts it, asks the questions and leads the discussion. A lot of non-denominational churches look like this.
The next level of organization up is the ones at which there is some notion of ordination. Those usually have something like the equivalent of a liberal arts degree that had a required survey core class. The preacher has some familiarity with some formal textual conventions and history.
A level up from this are the places that have some sort of seminary, which is generally the equivalent of having majored in literature. The pastor understands Greek and has a weirdly non-Jewish understanding of Hebrew texts, and had a bit of training in historicism.
But I wouldn’t call someone a theologian until they had gone through the equivalent of divinity school, done extensive study in hermeneutics and patristics, and worked through the different historical approaches to texts. This is roughly the same level of education as someone with a graduate degree in literature.
I have a Ph.D. in literature from a major university, so I’m the equivalent of a bishop for the purposes of all future literature open thread here. 😉
Nor do I quite understand what the study of theology might be in a context where anyone is allowed to interpret the Bible in their own way. (Of course I know this isn’t true literally, but to the extent that it isn’t, what was the Reformation for? (Rhetorical question.))
Just noting here that this is generally how I feel whenever an open thread about literature pops up around here.
A lot of small evangelical churches and denominations exist as a spiritual analog of the Book Club. Everyone reads it, one person hosts it, asks the questions and leads the discussion. A lot of non-denominational churches look like this.
The next level of organization up is the ones at which there is some notion of ordination. Those usually have something like the equivalent of a liberal arts degree that had a required survey core class. The preacher has some familiarity with some formal textual conventions and history.
A level up from this are the places that have some sort of seminary, which is generally the equivalent of having majored in literature. The pastor understands Greek and has a weirdly non-Jewish understanding of Hebrew texts, and had a bit of training in historicism.
But I wouldn’t call someone a theologian until they had gone through the equivalent of divinity school, done extensive study in hermeneutics and patristics, and worked through the different historical approaches to texts. This is roughly the same level of education as someone with a graduate degree in literature.
I have a Ph.D. in literature from a major university, so I’m the equivalent of a bishop for the purposes of all future literature open thread here. 😉
a weirdly non-Jewish understanding of Hebrew texts
This made me chuckle.
I have a Ph.D. in literature from a major university, so I’m the equivalent of a bishop for the purposes of all future literature open thread here. 😉
This made me chuckle even more. I too have a Ph.D. in literature from a major university, but 1) it was a very long time ago; and 2) it didn’t really stick in the first place.
So I concede the bishopric to nous, and consider my degree to be in effect honorary.
Also, more seriously, the analogy between religious roles and academic ones is very useful.
a weirdly non-Jewish understanding of Hebrew texts
This made me chuckle.
I have a Ph.D. in literature from a major university, so I’m the equivalent of a bishop for the purposes of all future literature open thread here. 😉
This made me chuckle even more. I too have a Ph.D. in literature from a major university, but 1) it was a very long time ago; and 2) it didn’t really stick in the first place.
So I concede the bishopric to nous, and consider my degree to be in effect honorary.
Also, more seriously, the analogy between religious roles and academic ones is very useful.
so I’m the equivalent of a bishop for the purposes of all future literature open thread here.
Maybe. But you gotta up your hat/robe game if you really wanna contend. 😉
so I’m the equivalent of a bishop for the purposes of all future literature open thread here.
Maybe. But you gotta up your hat/robe game if you really wanna contend. 😉
I have a Ph.D. in literature from a major university, so I’m the equivalent of a bishop for the purposes of all future literature open thread here. 😉
Fine. As long as you don’t become the Bishop of Rome. We’re not going for Papal Infallibility here. 🙂
I have a Ph.D. in literature from a major university, so I’m the equivalent of a bishop for the purposes of all future literature open thread here. 😉
Fine. As long as you don’t become the Bishop of Rome. We’re not going for Papal Infallibility here. 🙂
A reactionary, including today’s reactionaries, would never have gone there. But a conservative could and did. So it’s not just liberals who can be inclusive.
In my defense, I did say broad strokes. I guess we need a standard bearer, but I don’t know who that is. I don’t know that the Overton Window still exists. Seems more like an Overton Rift.
So, who? CPAC is squarely in the nutwing column. Liz Cheney finally came around on gay marriage last year, but that’s also an issue she has to deal with quite intimately. And I kinda feel like that’s the thing: It’s (only?) different when it affects me.
The evolution of the small-c conservative looks, to me, like John Tester.
Also, AFAIC, you can pick on nous all you want. 😉
A reactionary, including today’s reactionaries, would never have gone there. But a conservative could and did. So it’s not just liberals who can be inclusive.
In my defense, I did say broad strokes. I guess we need a standard bearer, but I don’t know who that is. I don’t know that the Overton Window still exists. Seems more like an Overton Rift.
So, who? CPAC is squarely in the nutwing column. Liz Cheney finally came around on gay marriage last year, but that’s also an issue she has to deal with quite intimately. And I kinda feel like that’s the thing: It’s (only?) different when it affects me.
The evolution of the small-c conservative looks, to me, like John Tester.
Also, AFAIC, you can pick on nous all you want. 😉
Also, AFAIC, you can pick on nous all you want.
He bears the hammer of Thor, he can take it.
Also, AFAIC, you can pick on nous all you want.
He bears the hammer of Thor, he can take it.
conservatives are preoccupied with and want to enforce private morals. And liberals are preoccupied with and want to enforce public morals.
being that the province of politics is public life, the liberal position seems more sensible.
to me, anyway.
a weirdly non-Jewish understanding of Hebrew texts
LOL
As an aside, and FWIW (which is basically nothing), the most common historical and traditional position on abortion is that it’s fine up until the quickening of the fetus. Typically that happens around 16-20 weeks.
There are traditions that are against abortion full stop, but they tend to be based on religion, and many religious traditions do NOT share that position. Which seems to make the overturn of Roe problematic from a 1st A point of view, in that it necessarily prefers one set of religious traditions over another.
Apparently the SCOTUS also gets to rule on what is and what is not historical and/or traditional. They also appear to have appointed themselves armchair theologians, to boot.
conservatives are preoccupied with and want to enforce private morals. And liberals are preoccupied with and want to enforce public morals.
being that the province of politics is public life, the liberal position seems more sensible.
to me, anyway.
a weirdly non-Jewish understanding of Hebrew texts
LOL
As an aside, and FWIW (which is basically nothing), the most common historical and traditional position on abortion is that it’s fine up until the quickening of the fetus. Typically that happens around 16-20 weeks.
There are traditions that are against abortion full stop, but they tend to be based on religion, and many religious traditions do NOT share that position. Which seems to make the overturn of Roe problematic from a 1st A point of view, in that it necessarily prefers one set of religious traditions over another.
Apparently the SCOTUS also gets to rule on what is and what is not historical and/or traditional. They also appear to have appointed themselves armchair theologians, to boot.
Fine. As long as you don’t become the Bishop of Rome. We’re not going for Papal Infallibility here. 🙂
Fine, I’ll remember not to send you an invite when I declare my crusade against the Sad Puppies.
Indulgences for anyone who brings Vox Day into the loving arms of the Inquisition.
Fine. As long as you don’t become the Bishop of Rome. We’re not going for Papal Infallibility here. 🙂
Fine, I’ll remember not to send you an invite when I declare my crusade against the Sad Puppies.
Indulgences for anyone who brings Vox Day into the loving arms of the Inquisition.
They also appear to have appointed themselves armchair theologians, to boot.
Armchair popes, as well. Bye bye First Amendment.
They also appear to have appointed themselves armchair theologians, to boot.
Armchair popes, as well. Bye bye First Amendment.
being that the province of politics is public life, the liberal position seems more sensible.
After taking a look at what can be considered Public morality, perhaps the distention should be between individual mores and social mores.
On the way I encountered this:
“You can’t adopt a firm stance on public morals in the hope of soliciting votes, while adopting a wide stance in public lavatories in the hope of soliciting blokes.” —Times, Sunday Times
being that the province of politics is public life, the liberal position seems more sensible.
After taking a look at what can be considered Public morality, perhaps the distention should be between individual mores and social mores.
On the way I encountered this:
“You can’t adopt a firm stance on public morals in the hope of soliciting votes, while adopting a wide stance in public lavatories in the hope of soliciting blokes.” —Times, Sunday Times
wj, while I fully agree that ‘modern conservatives’ is a misnomer, I’d still say that a common tenet of conservative view is that in order to keep society functioning, the ‘natural leaders’ have a right and duty to impose traditional rules on society at large. And opposition to e.g. non-traditional marriage, contraception etc. has a very long tradition in Western society indeed. What makes the ‘modern conservatives’ different is that they make up fake traditions as they go or are highly selective in what actual traditions they want to keep while denying that they are doing either.
wj, while I fully agree that ‘modern conservatives’ is a misnomer, I’d still say that a common tenet of conservative view is that in order to keep society functioning, the ‘natural leaders’ have a right and duty to impose traditional rules on society at large. And opposition to e.g. non-traditional marriage, contraception etc. has a very long tradition in Western society indeed. What makes the ‘modern conservatives’ different is that they make up fake traditions as they go or are highly selective in what actual traditions they want to keep while denying that they are doing either.
perhaps the distention should be between individual mores and social mores.
In general, to my eye the distinction is between conservatives telling non-conservatives the they are not allowed to do stuff, and liberals telling conservatives that they aren’t allowed to tell non-conservatives that they aren’t allowed to do stuff.
It can cut the other way when it comes to how people can and can’t use their property, but in general liberals endorse restrictions on property use in areas that they affect other people. And being the crypto lefty that I am, property rights seem to me to be a second-order set of concerns.
Different strokes. But I know where my allegiances lie.
perhaps the distention should be between individual mores and social mores.
In general, to my eye the distinction is between conservatives telling non-conservatives the they are not allowed to do stuff, and liberals telling conservatives that they aren’t allowed to tell non-conservatives that they aren’t allowed to do stuff.
It can cut the other way when it comes to how people can and can’t use their property, but in general liberals endorse restrictions on property use in areas that they affect other people. And being the crypto lefty that I am, property rights seem to me to be a second-order set of concerns.
Different strokes. But I know where my allegiances lie.
a common tenet of conservative view is that in order to keep society functioning, the ‘natural leaders’ have a right and duty to impose traditional rules on society at large.
Here’s my take on what the conservative view is: the world around us changes constantly. So we have to change as well. However, where things have been working well in the past**, we should try to make the smallest change which will allow us to adapt. But if the first, smallest change doesn’t do the trick, then we try some other change. We do NOT try to shut down change. Period.
For example (can you tell I’m particularly fond of this example?), in California circa 1980, we adopted “domestic partners” as a way to give gay couples something like marriage. Was it a step forward? Yes. Was it a complete solution? No. But it was a start.
However, domestic partners proved to have some unintended effects. For one, a substantial majority of all domestic partnerships were not gay couples. They were heterosexual couples who could have gotten married, but opted for something with (as set up) most of the rights, but few of the responsibilities. So it was the conservative approach, as I saw it, to dump an unsuccessful change and go for something else.
And the obvious minimalist change was to simply take the part of the marriage laws which said “A man and a woman may get married, provided…” and revise it to “Two adults may get married, provided…” A handful of words, which seems damn minimalist to me.
** If things were bad in the past, more radical changes may be, from a conservative view, necessary right off.
a common tenet of conservative view is that in order to keep society functioning, the ‘natural leaders’ have a right and duty to impose traditional rules on society at large.
Here’s my take on what the conservative view is: the world around us changes constantly. So we have to change as well. However, where things have been working well in the past**, we should try to make the smallest change which will allow us to adapt. But if the first, smallest change doesn’t do the trick, then we try some other change. We do NOT try to shut down change. Period.
For example (can you tell I’m particularly fond of this example?), in California circa 1980, we adopted “domestic partners” as a way to give gay couples something like marriage. Was it a step forward? Yes. Was it a complete solution? No. But it was a start.
However, domestic partners proved to have some unintended effects. For one, a substantial majority of all domestic partnerships were not gay couples. They were heterosexual couples who could have gotten married, but opted for something with (as set up) most of the rights, but few of the responsibilities. So it was the conservative approach, as I saw it, to dump an unsuccessful change and go for something else.
And the obvious minimalist change was to simply take the part of the marriage laws which said “A man and a woman may get married, provided…” and revise it to “Two adults may get married, provided…” A handful of words, which seems damn minimalist to me.
** If things were bad in the past, more radical changes may be, from a conservative view, necessary right off.
In terms of traditional beliefs, among the nordic pre-Christian societies the child was protected only after two things happened – the father named the child and the mother put it to her breast. Before that, the child was not a part of the community. The parents owed it to the community not to burden it with a child that would damage their communal survival. Once a child was named and sprinkled with water, the part of the soul that connected the child to the clan would enter the body.
Children without names who had not nursed at their mother’s breast could be exposed. Their survival was their own affair. They lacked the part of the soul that connected them to a community.
Conversely, if a parent killed a child that had been named and nursed, that child would come back and haunt them for having committed a crime against the clan.
Wonder if the Supreme Court would look as favorably upon that set of sincerely held religious beliefs? I have a hunch.
In terms of traditional beliefs, among the nordic pre-Christian societies the child was protected only after two things happened – the father named the child and the mother put it to her breast. Before that, the child was not a part of the community. The parents owed it to the community not to burden it with a child that would damage their communal survival. Once a child was named and sprinkled with water, the part of the soul that connected the child to the clan would enter the body.
Children without names who had not nursed at their mother’s breast could be exposed. Their survival was their own affair. They lacked the part of the soul that connected them to a community.
Conversely, if a parent killed a child that had been named and nursed, that child would come back and haunt them for having committed a crime against the clan.
Wonder if the Supreme Court would look as favorably upon that set of sincerely held religious beliefs? I have a hunch.
Wonder if the Supreme Court would look as favorably upon that set of sincerely held religious beliefs? I have a hunch
The Supreme Court (at least this Supreme Court) is both ignorant of the beliefs of any religion other than Christianity and Judaism — those being the faiths held by members. And apparently don’t think that those faiths deserve any consideration under the Constitution.
If you can show them a Biblical text supporting your position, you might have a chance to get to them. But not otherwise, apparently. And if it conflicts with their personal, narrow, view of Christianity, you are SOL regardless.
Wonder if the Supreme Court would look as favorably upon that set of sincerely held religious beliefs? I have a hunch
The Supreme Court (at least this Supreme Court) is both ignorant of the beliefs of any religion other than Christianity and Judaism — those being the faiths held by members. And apparently don’t think that those faiths deserve any consideration under the Constitution.
If you can show them a Biblical text supporting your position, you might have a chance to get to them. But not otherwise, apparently. And if it conflicts with their personal, narrow, view of Christianity, you are SOL regardless.
ignorant of the beliefs of any religion other than Christianity and Judaism
And not all Christian and Jewish traditions, at that.
ignorant of the beliefs of any religion other than Christianity and Judaism
And not all Christian and Jewish traditions, at that.
I think even this SCOTUS will not agree to demands of some of the more extreme evangelicals that claim the right or even duty to kill their own children, if they go out of line (‘become seditious’). What I could imagine is them doing away with most other child protection laws. And there is still a fraction of the GOP (and, or so I assume, parts of the donor class) that wants to have ALL child labor laws overturned as unconstitutional. That too could come onto the agenda. I assume though that this is a second tier item to be left for the time after the GOP has gained control of all branches of government again.
I think even this SCOTUS will not agree to demands of some of the more extreme evangelicals that claim the right or even duty to kill their own children, if they go out of line (‘become seditious’). What I could imagine is them doing away with most other child protection laws. And there is still a fraction of the GOP (and, or so I assume, parts of the donor class) that wants to have ALL child labor laws overturned as unconstitutional. That too could come onto the agenda. I assume though that this is a second tier item to be left for the time after the GOP has gained control of all branches of government again.
However, where things have been working well in the past**, we should try to make the smallest change which will allow us to adapt. But if the first, smallest change doesn’t do the trick, then we try some other change.
This sounds like Biden/Pelosi to me. As conservatives, big or small c, are R voters, vastly, I don’t see who in Republican leadership expresses anything close. Women’s healthcare was working (as much as healthcare in this country can be said to be “working”). Rs, and big/small Cs by inclusion, aren’t conserving anything. They’re rolling back to a fucked up, broken system. And they’re celebrating it.
However, where things have been working well in the past**, we should try to make the smallest change which will allow us to adapt. But if the first, smallest change doesn’t do the trick, then we try some other change.
This sounds like Biden/Pelosi to me. As conservatives, big or small c, are R voters, vastly, I don’t see who in Republican leadership expresses anything close. Women’s healthcare was working (as much as healthcare in this country can be said to be “working”). Rs, and big/small Cs by inclusion, aren’t conserving anything. They’re rolling back to a fucked up, broken system. And they’re celebrating it.
Can anyone explain to me why they might go after contraception, ideologically speaking? I mean I get their general reactionary religious stuff (especially Coney Barrett’s weird brand of Catholicism), and certainly some misogyny (Kavanaugh and Thomas, anyway), but is there anything else that would explain an underlying wish to go back to a time of no contraception? As opposed to any legal issues with Griswold?
Can anyone explain to me why they might go after contraception, ideologically speaking? I mean I get their general reactionary religious stuff (especially Coney Barrett’s weird brand of Catholicism), and certainly some misogyny (Kavanaugh and Thomas, anyway), but is there anything else that would explain an underlying wish to go back to a time of no contraception? As opposed to any legal issues with Griswold?
You’re not supposed to spill your seed or something. God’s will. Seriously, that’s it.
We were founded by religious nuts too crazy for Europe. Whatja expect?
You’re not supposed to spill your seed or something. God’s will. Seriously, that’s it.
We were founded by religious nuts too crazy for Europe. Whatja expect?
As conservatives, big or small c, are R voters, vastly, I don’t see who in Republican leadership expresses anything close. Women’s healthcare was working (as much as healthcare in this country can be said to be “working”). Rs, and big/small Cs by inclusion, aren’t conserving anything. They’re rolling back to a fucked up, broken system.
The Republican leadership (at least the visible portions) are too in thrall to the rabid reactionaries to express anything. Evasion, and dodging questions as much as possible, are the order of the day. The conservatives are mostly still R voters. But fewer and fewer every day — radical change, reactionary as much as progressive radical change, drives them away.
The reactionaries are currently in charge, and they are rolling back a messed up system precisely because they are reactionaries: determined to restore an ancient (and mostly mythical) past.
As conservatives, big or small c, are R voters, vastly, I don’t see who in Republican leadership expresses anything close. Women’s healthcare was working (as much as healthcare in this country can be said to be “working”). Rs, and big/small Cs by inclusion, aren’t conserving anything. They’re rolling back to a fucked up, broken system.
The Republican leadership (at least the visible portions) are too in thrall to the rabid reactionaries to express anything. Evasion, and dodging questions as much as possible, are the order of the day. The conservatives are mostly still R voters. But fewer and fewer every day — radical change, reactionary as much as progressive radical change, drives them away.
The reactionaries are currently in charge, and they are rolling back a messed up system precisely because they are reactionaries: determined to restore an ancient (and mostly mythical) past.
The Catholic church is still officially against any kind of contraception. One of their more out there arguments is that some kinds of contraception destroy a fertilized egg and are therefore forms of abortion. But that’s just for extra adornment; the church still disapproves of any kind of birth control regardless, as far as I know. I believe there has been a carve-out in the ACA that lets Catholic hospitals not pay for birth control under the health coverage they provide to their employees. (Anyone feel free to correct me on the details.)
More importantly and fundamentally, as someone pointed out recently (here or at BJ), Griswold, the decision that made birth control legal, is really, underlyingly, about privacy. The medieval six don’t believe in any right to privacy (except for themselves, no doubt), especially in relation to sex, or for women in relation to anything at all.
Caroline Kennedy (JFK’s daughter) wrote a book about SCOTUS cases relating to privacy — I read it a very long time ago but I remember it aas informative and interesting.
There’s also David Garrow’s Liberty and Sexuality, a very long (and not recent) book that focuses mostly on Griswold and the many decades of work in courts and legislatures that brought the campaign for legalized birth control to that final (?) case.
The Catholic church is still officially against any kind of contraception. One of their more out there arguments is that some kinds of contraception destroy a fertilized egg and are therefore forms of abortion. But that’s just for extra adornment; the church still disapproves of any kind of birth control regardless, as far as I know. I believe there has been a carve-out in the ACA that lets Catholic hospitals not pay for birth control under the health coverage they provide to their employees. (Anyone feel free to correct me on the details.)
More importantly and fundamentally, as someone pointed out recently (here or at BJ), Griswold, the decision that made birth control legal, is really, underlyingly, about privacy. The medieval six don’t believe in any right to privacy (except for themselves, no doubt), especially in relation to sex, or for women in relation to anything at all.
Caroline Kennedy (JFK’s daughter) wrote a book about SCOTUS cases relating to privacy — I read it a very long time ago but I remember it aas informative and interesting.
There’s also David Garrow’s Liberty and Sexuality, a very long (and not recent) book that focuses mostly on Griswold and the many decades of work in courts and legislatures that brought the campaign for legalized birth control to that final (?) case.
The Supreme Court (at least this Supreme Court) is both ignorant of the beliefs of any religion other than Christianity and Judaism — those being the faiths held by members. And apparently don’t think that those faiths deserve any consideration under the Constitution.
I gave this court a snarky nickname elsewhere a few days ago and was reminded that not all of them deserve the opprobrium that’s due to the other six. Let’s give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer the credit they deserve and not lump them in with the rest.
The Supreme Court (at least this Supreme Court) is both ignorant of the beliefs of any religion other than Christianity and Judaism — those being the faiths held by members. And apparently don’t think that those faiths deserve any consideration under the Constitution.
I gave this court a snarky nickname elsewhere a few days ago and was reminded that not all of them deserve the opprobrium that’s due to the other six. Let’s give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer the credit they deserve and not lump them in with the rest.
Can anyone explain to me why they might go after contraception, ideologically speaking?
Most evangelicals, in my observation, are far more easily understood as a weird offshoot of Judaism rather than Christians. That is, they lean far more heavily on the Old Testament than the New.
In this case, their justification (can’t speak to real motivation) would be Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Carefully ignoring, of course, the idea that the next phrase, “replenish the earth”, doesn’t mean “increase without limit.” (Cherry picking from text is a specialty with them. See their approach to the 2nd Amendment.)
Can anyone explain to me why they might go after contraception, ideologically speaking?
Most evangelicals, in my observation, are far more easily understood as a weird offshoot of Judaism rather than Christians. That is, they lean far more heavily on the Old Testament than the New.
In this case, their justification (can’t speak to real motivation) would be Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Carefully ignoring, of course, the idea that the next phrase, “replenish the earth”, doesn’t mean “increase without limit.” (Cherry picking from text is a specialty with them. See their approach to the 2nd Amendment.)
Let’s give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer the credit they deserve and not lump them in with the rest.
Agreed. But when we speak of “the Court” we are necessarily talking about what a majority of the Justices will do/have done.
Let’s give Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer the credit they deserve and not lump them in with the rest.
Agreed. But when we speak of “the Court” we are necessarily talking about what a majority of the Justices will do/have done.
So why aren’t they swayed? Sure, there are AOCs and Ilhan Omars, but there are also Testers and Manchins. There’s another principle at work here & I don’t know what it is. Tribalism?
So why aren’t they swayed? Sure, there are AOCs and Ilhan Omars, but there are also Testers and Manchins. There’s another principle at work here & I don’t know what it is. Tribalism?
what would the founders say about 6 out of 9 SCOTUS justices being Catholic?
originalist minds want to know…
what would the founders say about 6 out of 9 SCOTUS justices being Catholic?
originalist minds want to know…
My 5:32 was intended as a response to GftNC’s 4:59.
Also, the carve-out relating to the ACA and Catholic hospitals infuriates me, as an actual and symbolic example of what I consider to be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. As I had occasion to say and write over and over in relation to gay rights and gay marriage, I should not be a second-class citizen because I do not live by someone else’s religious beliefs.
But the Establishment Clause has no more useful or literal meaning at this point than the Second Amendment. It’s like Humpty Dumpty and words…
My 5:32 was intended as a response to GftNC’s 4:59.
Also, the carve-out relating to the ACA and Catholic hospitals infuriates me, as an actual and symbolic example of what I consider to be a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. As I had occasion to say and write over and over in relation to gay rights and gay marriage, I should not be a second-class citizen because I do not live by someone else’s religious beliefs.
But the Establishment Clause has no more useful or literal meaning at this point than the Second Amendment. It’s like Humpty Dumpty and words…
Per russell’s 5:40: I’m old enough to have vivid memories (as a befuddled child deeply immersed in a Catholic environment, who thought that Catholics were just … folks) of when JFK the candidate had to go on TV to reassure the nation that if he were elected, the Pope would not be running the country. The fact that barely any Protestants end up on the Court these days is a fairly mind-blowing historical reversal.
From Wikipedia:
At the beginning of 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens was the sole remaining Protestant on the Court.[99][105] In April 2010, Justice Stevens announced his retirement, effective as of the Court’s 2010 summer recess. Upon Justice Stevens’ retirement, which formally began on June 28, 2010, the Court lacked a Protestant member, marking the first time in its history that it was exclusively composed of Jewish and Catholic justices.[85] Although in January 2017, after seven years with no Protestant justices serving or nominated, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Court, as noted above it is unclear whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an Episcopalian.[106][81] Following the retirement of Justice Kennedy, the Catholic majority on the Court was extended by the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh;[107] the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett increased this majority to six Catholic members of the Court, or seven if Gorsuch is classified as a Catholic.[81]
Per russell’s 5:40: I’m old enough to have vivid memories (as a befuddled child deeply immersed in a Catholic environment, who thought that Catholics were just … folks) of when JFK the candidate had to go on TV to reassure the nation that if he were elected, the Pope would not be running the country. The fact that barely any Protestants end up on the Court these days is a fairly mind-blowing historical reversal.
From Wikipedia:
At the beginning of 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens was the sole remaining Protestant on the Court.[99][105] In April 2010, Justice Stevens announced his retirement, effective as of the Court’s 2010 summer recess. Upon Justice Stevens’ retirement, which formally began on June 28, 2010, the Court lacked a Protestant member, marking the first time in its history that it was exclusively composed of Jewish and Catholic justices.[85] Although in January 2017, after seven years with no Protestant justices serving or nominated, President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Court, as noted above it is unclear whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an Episcopalian.[106][81] Following the retirement of Justice Kennedy, the Catholic majority on the Court was extended by the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh;[107] the appointment of Amy Coney Barrett increased this majority to six Catholic members of the Court, or seven if Gorsuch is classified as a Catholic.[81]
PS: What, no Buddhists? No Wiccans? ………
From that same Wiki:
Asian American jurists are poorly represented at all levels of federal judicial system, let alone being Supreme Court justices. According to the Center for American Progress (2019),[55] among active federal judges serving on U.S. courts of appeals, only 10 were Asian Americans (5.7%). According to the study by the California Justice Goodwin Liu (2017), of the 94 U.S. attorneys, only three are Asian American; and only 4 of the 2,437 elected prosecutors are Asian American.[56][57]
PS: What, no Buddhists? No Wiccans? ………
From that same Wiki:
Asian American jurists are poorly represented at all levels of federal judicial system, let alone being Supreme Court justices. According to the Center for American Progress (2019),[55] among active federal judges serving on U.S. courts of appeals, only 10 were Asian Americans (5.7%). According to the study by the California Justice Goodwin Liu (2017), of the 94 U.S. attorneys, only three are Asian American; and only 4 of the 2,437 elected prosecutors are Asian American.[56][57]
I know that the Catholic church still opposes it, but I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of Catholics disagree. I wouldn’t be surprised if that did not apply to ACB the handmaiden, but although another four of them (and Sotomayor) are Catholic I didn’t necessarily expect them to vote the Vatican line, which is after all increasingly far out in the modern world.
Although I am completely pro-choice, I can at least understand the moral argument against abortion. It seems absolutely incomprehensible to me to oppose contraception, unless you are a really hardline Catholic.
Just one of the things in today’s US that seems absolutely incomprehensible to me. But if they do indeed go for contraception, that will surely do the Rs even more damage than Roe being struck down. And the prospect of it should help the Ds too.
I know that the Catholic church still opposes it, but I was under the impression that the overwhelming majority of Catholics disagree. I wouldn’t be surprised if that did not apply to ACB the handmaiden, but although another four of them (and Sotomayor) are Catholic I didn’t necessarily expect them to vote the Vatican line, which is after all increasingly far out in the modern world.
Although I am completely pro-choice, I can at least understand the moral argument against abortion. It seems absolutely incomprehensible to me to oppose contraception, unless you are a really hardline Catholic.
Just one of the things in today’s US that seems absolutely incomprehensible to me. But if they do indeed go for contraception, that will surely do the Rs even more damage than Roe being struck down. And the prospect of it should help the Ds too.
in case it’s not obvious from my commenting history here – I have no issue with Catholic people on the SCOTUS or anywhere else in government. just like I have no issue with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Rastafarians and Pastafarians, agnostics and atheists, likewise.
Just pointing out the gaps in how the “originalists” read the minds of the founders.
It’s just an excuse for them to do whatever the hell they want.
in case it’s not obvious from my commenting history here – I have no issue with Catholic people on the SCOTUS or anywhere else in government. just like I have no issue with Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, Rastafarians and Pastafarians, agnostics and atheists, likewise.
Just pointing out the gaps in how the “originalists” read the minds of the founders.
It’s just an excuse for them to do whatever the hell they want.
It seems absolutely incomprehensible to me to oppose contraception
first they came for our jimmie hats…
It seems absolutely incomprehensible to me to oppose contraception
first they came for our jimmie hats…
I didn’t necessarily expect them to vote the Vatican line, which is after all increasingly far out in the modern world.
They are far far far more radical than the Vatican. And the Church isn’t a democratic institution; the hierarchy doesn’t give a flying banana what the overwhelming majority of Catholics think. In fact, I have seen it written (can’t remember where) that the increasing disaffection of especially American Catholics from the Church under the previous pope was considered by him and others to be a feature of their approach, not a bug. Smaller but purer is the way to go, apparently.
And again, it’s about control, and attitudes about sex (from the International Pedophile Protection Ring), and woman. It doesn’t seem that mysterious to me. But then I was raised in that denomination, so……
I didn’t necessarily expect them to vote the Vatican line, which is after all increasingly far out in the modern world.
They are far far far more radical than the Vatican. And the Church isn’t a democratic institution; the hierarchy doesn’t give a flying banana what the overwhelming majority of Catholics think. In fact, I have seen it written (can’t remember where) that the increasing disaffection of especially American Catholics from the Church under the previous pope was considered by him and others to be a feature of their approach, not a bug. Smaller but purer is the way to go, apparently.
And again, it’s about control, and attitudes about sex (from the International Pedophile Protection Ring), and woman. It doesn’t seem that mysterious to me. But then I was raised in that denomination, so……
what would the founders say about 6 out of 9 SCOTUS justices being Catholic?
originalist minds want to know…
Arguably 7 (depending on how you count Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic). And a Jew besides. Not to mention having 2 blacks (one of whom is the only solid Protestant). And 4 women!!! what is the world coming to???
The founders are spinning in their graves!
what would the founders say about 6 out of 9 SCOTUS justices being Catholic?
originalist minds want to know…
Arguably 7 (depending on how you count Gorsuch, who was raised Catholic). And a Jew besides. Not to mention having 2 blacks (one of whom is the only solid Protestant). And 4 women!!! what is the world coming to???
The founders are spinning in their graves!
I wouldn’t be surprised if that did not apply to ACB the handmaiden, but although another four of them (and Sotomayor) are Catholic I didn’t necessarily expect them to vote the Vatican line, which is after all increasingly far out in the modern world.
I’m pretty sure at least Alito and Thomas are right there with ACB, if not far more vicious. These are not remotely what we would see as reasonable or logical people. They are megalomaniacs.
Alito talking to the Federalist Society a couple of years ago (I haven’t listened to it; my sons says it’s very revealing; I’m not sure my blood pressure can stand it.)
More on Alito.
I gave this court a snarky nickname elsewhere a few days ago
I saw that & have been trying to specify “majority” so’s not to contaminate with my broad brush. I still don’t care for the snark on that site, tho. 😉
I wouldn’t be surprised if that did not apply to ACB the handmaiden, but although another four of them (and Sotomayor) are Catholic I didn’t necessarily expect them to vote the Vatican line, which is after all increasingly far out in the modern world.
I’m pretty sure at least Alito and Thomas are right there with ACB, if not far more vicious. These are not remotely what we would see as reasonable or logical people. They are megalomaniacs.
Alito talking to the Federalist Society a couple of years ago (I haven’t listened to it; my sons says it’s very revealing; I’m not sure my blood pressure can stand it.)
More on Alito.
I gave this court a snarky nickname elsewhere a few days ago
I saw that & have been trying to specify “majority” so’s not to contaminate with my broad brush. I still don’t care for the snark on that site, tho. 😉
@Pete: I’ve gotten a lot of my news from that site for several years, and there are commenters and especially front-pagers that I think a lot of. But I find the comment threads pretty much unreadable at this point.
@Pete: I’ve gotten a lot of my news from that site for several years, and there are commenters and especially front-pagers that I think a lot of. But I find the comment threads pretty much unreadable at this point.
the Church isn’t a democratic institution; the hierarchy doesn’t give a flying banana what the overwhelming majority of Catholics think
No, I wasn’t clear: what I meant was that although the church was against contraception, SCOTUS justices might easily be among the vast majority of US Catholics who oppose that particular policy. Because, apart from ACB, I didn’t know how devout any of the others were. But I’m getting the message. Well, if they do go for it, we may be entering another period when the American public turns against Catholics as in the JFK era.
the Church isn’t a democratic institution; the hierarchy doesn’t give a flying banana what the overwhelming majority of Catholics think
No, I wasn’t clear: what I meant was that although the church was against contraception, SCOTUS justices might easily be among the vast majority of US Catholics who oppose that particular policy. Because, apart from ACB, I didn’t know how devout any of the others were. But I’m getting the message. Well, if they do go for it, we may be entering another period when the American public turns against Catholics as in the JFK era.
if they do go for it, we may be entering another period when the American public turns against Catholics as in the JFK era.
I rather doubt it.
For the most part, people ignore what religion someone is. Unless it is shoved in their face. If the opinion allowing a contraception ban is littered with quotes from papal encyclicals, that might be different. But if they just (mis)quote the founders, or misc 14th century philosophers, likely nobody will take note of their religion.
if they do go for it, we may be entering another period when the American public turns against Catholics as in the JFK era.
I rather doubt it.
For the most part, people ignore what religion someone is. Unless it is shoved in their face. If the opinion allowing a contraception ban is littered with quotes from papal encyclicals, that might be different. But if they just (mis)quote the founders, or misc 14th century philosophers, likely nobody will take note of their religion.
For the most part, people ignore what religion someone is.
Unless they’re Muslim, or Sikh, or…..
For the most part, people ignore what religion someone is.
Unless they’re Muslim, or Sikh, or…..
I have no issue with Catholic people
Nice try, russell. I’ve heard about you, with your drumming & your “jazz” friends & “jazz” cigarettes & “warm, welcoming demeanor” & “infectious laugh”. & your Massachusetts home, far removed from anything Catholic. You’re not fooling anyone.
@Janie
I pretty much only go there to see what you’ve written.
I gotta go burn some pizzas on the grill. Happy 4th, ‘Muricans! & thanks to all who contribute here!
I have no issue with Catholic people
Nice try, russell. I’ve heard about you, with your drumming & your “jazz” friends & “jazz” cigarettes & “warm, welcoming demeanor” & “infectious laugh”. & your Massachusetts home, far removed from anything Catholic. You’re not fooling anyone.
@Janie
I pretty much only go there to see what you’ve written.
I gotta go burn some pizzas on the grill. Happy 4th, ‘Muricans! & thanks to all who contribute here!
It seems absolutely incomprehensible to me to oppose contraception, unless you are a really hardline Catholic.
They’re rolling back the entire notion of a secular “right to privacy”. It’s much easier to run an authoritarian state (with secret police and such) if there’s no bothersome right to privacy. Griswold was decided on the basis of a right to marital privacy, so needs to go.
It seems absolutely incomprehensible to me to oppose contraception, unless you are a really hardline Catholic.
They’re rolling back the entire notion of a secular “right to privacy”. It’s much easier to run an authoritarian state (with secret police and such) if there’s no bothersome right to privacy. Griswold was decided on the basis of a right to marital privacy, so needs to go.
Happy 4th to all of you, and may the prospects for confounding the SCOTUS look better next 4th!
Happy 4th to all of you, and may the prospects for confounding the SCOTUS look better next 4th!
Factor into all the birth control arguments that most hardcore anti-abortion activists treat both the pill and IUDs as equivalent to abortion and therefore on the list of things they would seek to ban if possible.
Not sure how barrier methods would fare in a post-Griswold state, except that they would for sure try to make it illegal for minors to purchase any of it, the same way that they try to exclude information about them from all sex ed classes.
Factor into all the birth control arguments that most hardcore anti-abortion activists treat both the pill and IUDs as equivalent to abortion and therefore on the list of things they would seek to ban if possible.
Not sure how barrier methods would fare in a post-Griswold state, except that they would for sure try to make it illegal for minors to purchase any of it, the same way that they try to exclude information about them from all sex ed classes.
Unless they’re Muslim, or Sikh, or…..
The unthinkable… Non.
A lot of this whole right to life thing hinges on the idea of ensoulment.
How many souls can dance on the head of a pin?
Unless they’re Muslim, or Sikh, or…..
The unthinkable… Non.
A lot of this whole right to life thing hinges on the idea of ensoulment.
How many souls can dance on the head of a pin?
The gas on my grill crapped out. Dammit.
The gas on my grill crapped out. Dammit.
More on Alito.
Dear associate justice Alito – show me on the doll where the liberals hurt you.
More on Alito.
Dear associate justice Alito – show me on the doll where the liberals hurt you.
Plus: Patriot Front assholes in Boston today.
Keep that sh*t south if I-40, where it belongs, please. Or else, bring it to my town so we can give you the welcome you so richly deserve.
Everybody’s entitled to their point of view, but I draw the line at Nazis and white supremos. Find yourself another planet to infest.
Plus: Patriot Front assholes in Boston today.
Keep that sh*t south if I-40, where it belongs, please. Or else, bring it to my town so we can give you the welcome you so richly deserve.
Everybody’s entitled to their point of view, but I draw the line at Nazis and white supremos. Find yourself another planet to infest.
wrs, both times
wrs, both times
Everybody’s entitled to their point of view, but I draw the line at Nazis and white supremos.
Entitled to their own opinion — sure. But that’s not a license to act on them where it impacts others.
Everybody’s entitled to their point of view, but I draw the line at Nazis and white supremos.
Entitled to their own opinion — sure. But that’s not a license to act on them where it impacts others.
@Pete —
@Janie
I pretty much only go there to see what you’ve written.
I’m blushing.
To save you some time: I’ve pretty much given up commenting there except for brief (often mildly snarky) moments. I’ve gotten into a couple of spats with people and not been happy with my (as I said elsewhere in this thread) hotheadedness, and the place is so crowded that it doesn’t feel much like a conversation anyhow.
Except — there are the picture threads. You probably know it, but WaterGirl gives the calendar for the week in Monday’s On the Road thread, so you should always be able to tell who’s coming up. This week is all PaulB in Olympic National Park again, I’m pretty sure.
WaterGirl’s ways are mysterious…..but she surely works hard over there.
@Pete —
@Janie
I pretty much only go there to see what you’ve written.
I’m blushing.
To save you some time: I’ve pretty much given up commenting there except for brief (often mildly snarky) moments. I’ve gotten into a couple of spats with people and not been happy with my (as I said elsewhere in this thread) hotheadedness, and the place is so crowded that it doesn’t feel much like a conversation anyhow.
Except — there are the picture threads. You probably know it, but WaterGirl gives the calendar for the week in Monday’s On the Road thread, so you should always be able to tell who’s coming up. This week is all PaulB in Olympic National Park again, I’m pretty sure.
WaterGirl’s ways are mysterious…..but she surely works hard over there.