Skip to content

Month: October 2022

Now they’re “protecting” hypothetical fetuses

You never know when someone might get pregnant

I think they’ve given away the game here. They really do believe that women are simple birthing vessels whose bodies are only valued for their ability to gestate fetuses. Nothing else matters. It’s not enough that you must be forced into childbirth against your will even if you are raped by your own father, you must suffer and possibly die for any hypothetical fetus that doesn’t even exist yet:

Rheumatoid arthritis. Osteoporosis. Debilitating cluster headaches. Crohn’s disease. Acne.

These are just a few of the conditions going untreated in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade because the medications used to treat these conditions—some of which women and girls had already been taking for years—can cause pregnancy complications are abortions. Except many of these patients aren’t even pregnant and don’t plan to be any time soon.

A local news outlet in Arizona reported this weekend that 14-year-old girl in Tucson was denied a refill on her prescription for methotrexate, a drug she’d been taking for arthritis and osteoporosis, because a judge recently allowed a Civil War-era abortion ban in the state to take effect, and the drug in question is also used to induce abortions in cases of ectopic pregnancies. The Arizona law, passed in 1864 before it even officially became a state, bans all abortions and threatens two to five years in prison for anyone who would provide them. There are no exceptions for rape and incest—only for life of the mother, an exemption that often forces women to prove they are actually dying in order to get the medical care they need.

Following a tweet about the 14-year-old’s situation, another Tuscon mom weighed in and claimed the same had happened to her daughter.

Jezebel just reported last week that a woman in New York, who said her cluster headaches were so debilitating that she had contemplated suicide, was denied medication by her doctor because she is of childbearing age and the medication she needs poses risks to a hypothetical fetus. She recorded her conversation with the doctor, because she didn’t think people would believe her.

Jack Resneck, president of the American Medical Association, told Politico they are seeing examples like this across the country. “These are not just rare anecdotes,” said Resneck. “The quantity we’re hearing — and we know we’re only hearing a tiny fraction of what’s going on — is significant.”

This is insanely dangerous and proves just how ridiculous it is for backwards Republican yahoos in state legislatures to be deciding anything about medical procedures. They are very stupid in any case but they are beyond ignorant when it comes to this.

A “law and order” state

Is vigilantism legal in Florida?

According to the Governor it seems to be:

At a press conference on Friday, DeSantis spoke approvingly of a “You Loot, We Shoot” sign he had witnessed while touring a devastated area. 

“We are a law and order state, and this is a law and order community,” the governor said. “So do not think that you’re going to take advantage of people who’ve suffered misery.”

At another press conference on Friday he said Florida was a “Second Amendment state.”

“I can tell you in the state of Florida, you never know what may be lurking behind somebody’s home,” he said. “And I would not want to chance that if I were you.”

Good times. This is where we are. DeSantis is issuing an official approval for civilians to shoot looters.

There was a time in America when the law was that people could only kill someone in self-defense. Now, according to government leaders, you can kill anyone you think might be stealing property. Vigilantism is no longer illegal.

I’d say “welcome to the wild west” but in any place where there was “law and order” in the old west, vigilantism was illegal. In fact, they used to confiscate firearms in the city limits. But those were the bad old days. Now the second amendment gives you the right to kill anything that moves, apparently.

Brazil on the Trump model

Hips do lie…

As I write this I don’t know what’s going to happen in Brazil’s election today. The polls show the leftist Lula with a comfortable lead. But then there’s this:

A simple but alarming question is hanging over Brazil’s election as voters head to the polls on Sunday: Will President Jair Bolsonaro accept the results?

For months, Mr. Bolsonaro has attacked Brazil’s electronic voting machines as rife with fraud — despite virtually no evidence — and Brazil’s election officials as aligned against him. He has suggested that he would dispute any loss that showed signs of cheating. He has enlisted Brazil’s military in his battle. And he has told his tens of millions of supporters to prepare for a fight.

“If need be,” he said in a recent speech, “we will go to war.”

With its vote, Brazil is now at the forefront of the growing global threats to democracy, fueled by populist leaders, extremism, highly polarized electorates and internet disinformation. One of the world’s largest democracies is now bracing for the possibility of its president refusing to step down because of fraud allegations that could be difficult to disprove.

Yet, according to interviews with dozens of Bolsonaro administration officials, military generals, federal judges, election authorities, members of Congress and foreign diplomats, the people in power in Brazil feel confident that while Mr. Bolsonaro could dispute the election’s results, he lacks the institutional support to stage a successful coup.

Brazil’s last coup, in 1964, led to a brutal 21-year military dictatorship. “The middle class supported it. Business people supported it. The press supported it. And the U.S. supported it,” said Luís Roberto Barroso, a Supreme Court justice and Brazil’s former elections chief. “Well, none of these players support a coup now.”

Instead, the officials worry about lasting damage to Brazil’s democratic institutions — polls show more than half the country trusts the election systems a “little” or not at all — and about violence in the streets. Mr. Bolsonaro’s claims of fraud and potential refusal to accept a loss echo those of his ally Donald J. Trump, and Brazilian officials repeatedly cited the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol as an example of what could happen.

In the days leading up to the vote, misinformation that claimed falsely that Mr. Bolsonaro was leading in the polls spread in some WhatsApp and Telegram groups. In interviews, some of his supporters said they were convinced that leftists would try to steal the election — and that they were prepared to protect the country’s democracy if Mr. Bolsonaro called them to the streets.

“The only thing that can take victory from Bolsonaro is fraud,” said Luiz Sartorelli, 54, a software salesman in São Paulo. He listed several conspiracy theories about past fraud as proof. “If you want peace, sometimes you need to prepare for war.”

“How do we have any control over this?” Flávio Bolsonaro, a senator and Mr. Bolsonaro’s son, said in an interview with the Brazilian newspaper Estadão in reference to potential violence. In the United States, he said, “people followed the problems in the electoral system, were outraged and did what they did. There was no command from President Trump, and there will be no command from President Bolsonaro.”

On Wednesday, Mr. Bolsonaro’s political party released a two-page document claiming, without evidence, that some government employees and contractors had the “absolute power to manipulate election results without leaving a trace.” Election officials fired back that the claims “are false and dishonest” and “a clear attempt to hinder and disrupt” the election.

A day later, in the final debate ahead of Sunday’s vote, Mr. Bolsonaro was asked if he would accept the election’s results. He did not answer.

The Big Lie has gone viral globally.

I’m sure it must be Hillary’s fault somehow. It must be.

Threats are on the rise against politicians

It’s only a matter of time.

That tweet from Donald Trump says it all. As CNN’s GOP analyst Scott Jennings put it whan asked about that threat: “It’s hard to know where to start — with the assassination instructions or the blatant racism? “

I don’t think you have to look much further than that to see why this is happening:

Members of Congress in both parties are experiencing a surge in threats and confrontations as a rise in violent political speech has increasingly crossed over into the realm of in-person intimidation and physical altercation. In the months since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, which brought lawmakers and the vice president within feet of rioters threatening their lives, Republicans and Democrats have faced stalking, armed visits to their homes, vandalism and assaults.

It is part of a chilling trend that many fear is only intensifying as lawmakers scatter to campaign and meet with voters around the country ahead of next month’s midterm congressional elections.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if a senator or House member were killed,” Ms. Collins, a Republican serving her fifth term, said in an interview. “What started with abusive phone calls is now translating into active threats of violence and real violence.”

In the five years after President Donald J. Trump was elected in 2016 following a campaign featuring a remarkable level of violent language, the number of recorded threats against members of Congress increased more than tenfold, to 9,625 in 2021, according to figures from the Capitol Police, the federal law enforcement department that protects Congress. In the first quarter of 2022, the latest period for which figures were available, the force opened 1,820 cases. If recent history is any guide, the pace is likely to surge in the coming weeks as the election approaches.

Despite the torrent of threats, few cases result in arrest. A spokesman for the Capitol Police said officers have made “several dozen” arrests — but fewer than 100 — in response to threats against members of Congress over the last three years, adding that the majority come from people with mental illness who are not believed to pose an immediate danger.

“The goal is to de-escalate this behavior,” said Tim Barber, the spokesman. “Most of the time getting mental health treatment may be more successful than jail in order to keep everyone safe. When we don’t believe that is plausible, or the threat is serious and imminent, we make an arrest.”

In a review by The New York Times this year of threats that resulted in indictments, more than a third were made by Republican or pro-Trump individuals against Democrats or Republicans deemed insufficiently loyal to the former president, and nearly a quarter were by Democrats targeting Republicans. In other cases, the party affiliation could not be determined.

Security concerns have grown so pressing that many members of Congress are dipping into their own official or campaign accounts to protect themselves. They have spent a total of more than $6 million on security since the start of last year, according to an analysis by The Times of campaign finance and congressional data.

The data suggest that the threats are particularly acute against lawmakers of color — Hispanic, Black, Asian American and Pacific Islander and Native American — who outspent their white colleagues on security by an average of more than $17,500. Democrats spent about $9,000 more than Republicans did. And members of the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 assault spent over $5,000 more than the average amount spent by members of Congress as a whole.

Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, who has been a frequent target of Mr. Trump’s verbal attacks, spent more than any other Republican in the House, according to the data, pouring close to $70,000 into security measures since the Capitol riot.

Representative Cori Bush, Democrat of Missouri, who has spoken out about the death threats she has received as a Black woman on Capitol Hill, spent the most in the House: close to $400,000.

That number pales in comparison to that of Senator Raphael Warnock, Democrat of Georgia, one of only three Black men in the Senate and the highest spender in Congress. He has doled out nearly $900,000 for his own protection since being sworn in in 2021; Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, was the second highest spender, at nearly $600,000.

[…]

Many members of Congress say the process of getting extra support from the Capitol Police has been opaque and inconsistent.

It took two and a half years for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who is among the most threatened members of the House, to receive additional security from the Capitol Police, she said in an interview. The decision was made after the department flagged a tweet that it found to be threatening toward her.

“When I saw what it was, I was like, ‘I’ve gotten so much worse,’” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said. “Why now?”

She said her office can hardly keep up with the “astronomical” amount of threats she receives in a day — more than any other member except House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, and Representative Ilhan Omar, Democrat of Minnesota, according to what party leaders have told her. The onus is on the aides who answer the phones in her office — some as young as 19 — to determine what constitutes a threat.

So Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has taken matters into her own hands. Her office has a daily morning routine of creating a document with photos of the men who have made threats against the congresswoman, so that she can recognize and avoid or report them. Since 2021, she has spent more than $120,000 on security services, according to the data analyzed by The Times.

According to the Capitol Police, the department follows the Supreme Court definition of a threat, which is “statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”

The force declined to disclose how it decides which members get additional protection.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said the system is unfair to less-senior members, including women and people of color, who face serious threats and have less means to pay for protection.

The Capitol Police has struggled to adjust to the rise in threats, rushing in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 assault to ramp up its response amid severe strains on the department. J. Thomas Manger, the Capitol Police chief, testified in January that his force needed to double the number of agents who work threat cases against lawmakers.

A police spokesman said the department had met that goal.

The department has since opened two field offices in Florida and California, which have the most threats against members of Congress. It also has hired a new intelligence director tasked with improving data collection and sharing. And it now provides security assessments on members’ homes and district offices.

Still, the potential for violence has continued to mount.

“We sign up for a lot of things when we sign up for this job,” Ms. Jayapal said in an interview. “But having someone show up to your door with a gun, scaring your neighbors, scaring your staff, and clearly trying to intimidate me — it’s hard to describe.”

The Washington Democrat, who heads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, had grown accustomed to verbal harassment. But starting in April, she began receiving visits from a man in a car who would yell obscenities in the direction of her house.

Brett Forsell, 49, had sent Ms. Jayapal a “nasty” but “well thought-out” email back in January, which made clear that he disagreed with her, she said, but gave little indication that he intended to confront or harm her. Then around 11 p.m. one night in July — the third time he had come to her neighborhood — Mr. Forsell returned, revving his car engine, making U-turns in her street and parking near her driveway.

Ms. Jayapal’s husband, who took video of the encounter, reported hearing two male voices shouting obscenities and suggesting that they would stop harassing the neighborhood if the representative killed herself.

Mr. Forsell was arrested, and police reports said he planned to obtain a semiautomatic assault rifle and continue to return to Ms. Jayapal’s residence until she “goes back to India.” He pleaded not guilty in August and was ordered to pay $150,000 bail and submit to GPS monitoring to ensure he stayed away from Ms. Jayapal.

After the incident, she said it was a struggle to get the Capitol Police to grant her additional protection.

“It took an enormous amount of pressure for me to feel like I was getting attention from Capitol Police,” Ms. Jayapal said.

She now has round-the-clock protection from the Capitol Police, but says the sound of loud cars in her neighborhood still strikes fear in her. When she is home, Ms. Jayapal constantly checks her phone, which has been programmed to alert her if Mr. Forsell comes within 1,000 feet of her, and plans her driving routes to avoid his neighborhood.

The incident transformed Ms. Jayapal into something of an activist on congressional security. She requested a caucus-wide meeting about the issue, which took place over the summer. And the congresswoman has been pushing for additional funding for extreme threats and information and resources about how best to secure one’s home and more transparency from the Capitol Police, who conduct threat assessments on members of Congress but do not share all the details with the members, she said.

In the case of Ms. Collins, the incident at her home was a notable escalation after years of verbal threats. In 2018, after she announced she would support the confirmation of Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, she received a message that included footage of a since-deleted video of a beheading.

“We will c-t off your l-mbs and sl-ce off yo-r faces. We will t-ar out your tongues and dism-mber your org-as and sl-t your thro-ts while you watch,” the letter read.

It contained her personal phone numbers and addresses, as well as those of her staff and their relatives of her staff.

Three people are currently in jail and another few are awaiting some kind of action as a result of threats against her, Ms. Collins said.

The window-smashing incident was of particular concern, she said, because it occurred on a secluded side of her house, suggesting that the area had been “studied and chosen.”

“There’s been a sea change in that we now see this constant escalation and erosion of any boundaries of what is acceptable behavior, and it has crossed over into actual violence,” Ms. Collins said.

Huh. I wonder how that happened? It couldn’t be because the Republicans went fascist and enabled a bunch of violent insurrectionist and there’s been a (small) backlash from the left? Nah. #Bothsides

A Special Prosecutor for the E. Jean Carroll case

It’s the best way to protect the Mar-a-lago case

This piece in the Daily Beast brings up a potential roadblock in the stolen documents case:

The Justice Department’s decision to take former President Donald Trump as (essentially) its client, defending him in the writer E. Jean Carroll’s defamation suit, has put DOJ in the awkward position of not only investigating its own client for potential criminal conduct—but also contradicting its client’s other lawyers.

This is a mess of DOJ’s own making, and one that should be self-remedied, quickly.

Carroll is suing Trump for defamation over his denying having raped her in 1995—and plans also to sue him directly for the alleged rape under New York State’s Adult Survivor’s Act, which opened a one-year window for the filing of lawsuits over sexual assaults, even if the usual time limits for bringing a lawsuit have expired.

Despite the fact that this alleged crime would have occurred decades before Trump became president, former Attorney General Bill Barr—always on the lookout to use DOJ to help Trump—decided to intervene in Carroll’s defamation suit, under a law that allows the federal government to substitute itself as the defendant in a case against a federal employee who gets sued for acting within the scope of their job.

Barr’s theory was that since Trump made the denials while he was president, then he must have been acting within his official capacity when he denied raping Carroll. Given the chance to disavow this strained reading of the law, Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DOJ, instead, doubled-down on it. It even fought for the right to defend Trump up to the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with DOJ’s position on the matter.

Have you ever heard anything more fatuous than that? Apparently, Garland was persuaded. (Paula Jones and her elves must be chuckling to themselves right now.)

Garland’s decision to side with Bill Barr—presumably made while Garland was wearing his institutionalist cape—might have been merely distasteful if not for the Mar-a-Lago search warrant and ongoing criminal investigation. But critical to DOJ’s rationale that it can represent Trump—and what the Second Circuit agreed about—is that Trump was a federal employee when he made the allegedly defaming statements.

But that is not what Trump’s other lawyers think, as evidenced by a May 25 letter from Trump lawyer Evan Corcoran to DOJ denying that the President of the United States is a federal employee. Corcoran argued to DOJ that Trump could not possibly be criminally liable for mishandling classified information, because DOJ would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump was an “officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States” and “The President is none of these.”

This inconsistency carries with it more than just embarrassment for DOJ.

As already noted, it may afford Trump defenses in other civil actions brought by victims of the violence on Jan. 6, but it also creates potential problems with DOJ’s criminal investigation into the removal and handling of national security information involving Trump’s actions at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump and his lawyers have already cast aspersions on the integrity of DOJ and the FBI, suggesting evidence may have been planted, and raising the possibility that various investigators may have to be disqualified if they were tainted by exposure to information that the special master assigned to the case may decide they should not have seen.

The fact that DOJ is, at once, defending Trump and potentially investigating him for criminal charges is a no-brainer conflict of interest argument, and one which Trump’s legal team may use in his defense.

And from a legal analysis, the difference in opinion between Trump’s lawyers over whether Trump is a federal employee is no mere esoteric legal issue. Rather, the question of whether Trump is a federal employee is critical to whether DOJ can defend him in the Carroll suit and critical to whether Trump might face criminal exposure under federal criminal law.

Of course, DOJ has likely been thinking this through as well. AG Garland is, after all, a former federal court of appeals judge, and likely has good arguments about why this awkward but rare situation is not a true conflict of interest.

One solution might be for DOJ to appoint a special counsel to handle the Carroll defense, since that is an easier case to segregate than the investigation involving Mar-a-Lago. Another solution would be for DOJ to disavow former AG Barr’s decision, and withdraw from defending Trump in Carroll’s defamation suit.

Either of these solutions—as well as simply doing nothing—will likely be subject to challenges and the inevitable delays accompanying litigation of the issues.

But withdrawing from the Carroll case is the best option—because it erases one of Barr’s attempts to use DOJ as a political weapon.

I don’t know how the DOJ can defend the idea that a president can defame an individual citizen over a personal matter that happened years before he became president under the presumption that he was just doing his job. It’s ridiculous on his face.

Heffalumps and woozles

Postcards from the eve of destruction

Donald Trump is missing a golden opportunity by not marketing Trump-branded grape “Kool-Aid.”

Doug, don’t forget to ban human sacrifice, cannibalism, and mating with aliens from elementary schools. Plus whatever other heffalumps and woozles dance in your freaky head.

“That lap dance I got in third grade really changed my life.” — Jeff Tiedrich

“The giveaway is the penultimate word.” — Rick Wilson

It’s in your lower right molar, Mike.

Where exactly does she teach economics? Weekend workshops at the Airport Ramada?

I’m flogging a dead horse.

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us

Dangerous but not suicidal

Both Vladimir Putin and his wannabe American fanboy?

For the longest time it seemed as if Donald Trump fancied himself a Vladimir Putin knock-off, as if Trump wore a secret WWVD bracelet. Lately, one might interpret the Russian president’s moves in Ukraine through a Trumpian lens. Putin is in a fix, for sure, as is Trump. Is either a reflection for the other?

For Trump, threats and intimidation are reflex. But delay is his go-to move. His battles are fought in courts where he sees time and deep pockets as allies. He fights wars of legal attrition hoping to exhaust his enemies’ ability to fight.

Vladimir Putin’s declared annexation of parts of eastern Ukraine is not a sign of strength, but weakness. Now what? He has deeper pockets than Ukraine, but not a NATO-supported Ukraine. And Ukraine has — call them spiritual — resources Putin’s not-so-formidable army lacks.

Putin thought he could blitz his way to victory over Ukraine’s defenders with “lunkhead masculinity.” Instead, he’s found himself losing a war of attrition. His decision to “annex” areas of Ukraine under his control is a desperation move, a way of upping the ante for NATO countries supporting Ukraine with equipment and ammunition. Somthing to improve his military and political leverage and to make credible his threats to go nuclear, if necessary.

Those threats are failing him, too. They “appear only to have strengthened Western resolve to continue sending weapons to Ukraine,” explains the Washington Post.

Russian allies India and China are “growing uneasy” about Putin’s attempts at building a greater Russia:

“No one knows what Putin will decide to do, no one,” said a European Union official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive subject. “But he’s totally in a corner, he’s crazy … and for him there is no way out. The only way out for him is total victory or total defeat and we are working on the latter one. We need Ukraine to win and so we are working to prevent worst case scenarios by helping Ukraine win.”

The goal, the official said, is to give Ukraine the military support it needs to continue to push Russia out of Ukrainian territory, while pressuring Russia politically to agree to a cease-fire and withdrawal, the official said.

The problem is neither his conscription of troops or threats to use nukes will help Putin, says a senior fellow with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London:

Despite some wild predictions on Russian news shows that the Kremlin would lash out at a Western capital, with London appearing to be a favored target, it is more likely that Moscow would seek to use one of its smaller, tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield to try to gain advantage over Ukrainian forces, said [Franz-Stefan] Gady.

The smallest nuclear weapon in the Russian arsenal delivers an explosion of around 1 kiloton, one fifteenth of the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, which would inflict massive destruction but on a more limited area.

Because the war is being fought along a vast, 1,500-mile front line, troops are too thinly spread out for there to be an obvious target whose obliteration would change the course of the war. To make a difference, Russia would have to use several nuclear weapons or alternatively strike a major population center such as Kyiv, either of which would represent a massive escalation, trigger almost certain Western retaliation and turn Russia into a pariah state even with its allies, Gady said.

“Even though Putin is dangerous, he is not suicidal, and those around him aren’t suicidal,” said Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army Europe. In that, Putin and Trump align.

Susan Glasser writes in The New Yorker:

Again and again, Putin has profited from the application of military force to achieve otherwise unattainable political gains. He came to power by promoting war in the separatist Russian province of Chechnya. He sent Russian troops to Georgia and Syria and, in 2014, to Ukraine. Each time, there were endless rounds of speculation in Western capitals about how to create an “exit ramp” that would finally entice Putin to end his incursion. Putin just kept barrelling down the highway.

So, yes, I’m skeptical when I hear the latest round of “exit ramp” talk. If there’s one thing I’ve learned from watching Putin all of this time, it’s that he is not one to walk away from a fight or back down while losing—escalation is his game, and by now he is very, very practiced at it. As the Moscow Times put it, in a fascinating piece of reporting from inside the Kremlin, “Putin always chooses escalation.”

Russia expert Fiona Hill tells Glasser she believes we are already fighting a Third World War and simply fail to recognize it:

Moscow’s bogus annexation of more Ukrainian territory seems likely to produce only more Western sanctions—and the possible extension of the war that Putin looks increasingly like he is losing. “The problem is, of course, us misreading him, but also him misreading us,” Hill observed.

Beltway pundits, Democrats, and Republican leaders misread Trump for years. They treated him as a rational actor, an aberrant corrupt politician but essentially sane one. We know Trump will sacrifice averyone around him to save his own skin. WWVD?

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Request a copy of For The Win, 4th Edition, my free, countywide get-out-the-vote planning guide for county committees at ForTheWin.us

Saturday Night Soother

The Washington Post reports:

As the storm approached this week, spoonbills and cranes in addition to Odette were gathered from free-flight aviaries at ZooTampa at Lowry Park. Anoas, a type of diminutive water buffalo, were loaded into a trailer towed by a John Deere tractor. Critically endangered red wolves — fewer than 300 still exist — were hauled onto a box truck to be brought indoors.

“Obviously, living in Florida, hurricanes are something we have to be prepared for,” said Chris Massaro, ZooTampa’s senior vice president of zoological operations, noting that zoos write detailed plans to deal with disaster.

Inland at the Central Florida Zoo and Botanical Gardens near Orlando, zookeepers made sure rare Florida black bears, leopards and PJ the greater one-horned rhinoceros were bunkered safely in barns.

Meanwhile, macaws, hornbills and hawks were brought into the zoo’s ballroom, with handlers on hand to ride out the storm. Two bald eagles and a caracara were stored in the facility’s bathroom. During the commotion, birds of prey were draped with sheets.

“It just helps keep them quiet and relaxed,” zoo director Stephanie Williams said.

All of the zoo’s animals were accounted for, both Williams and Massaro said.

That isn’t the case after every hurricane. When Hurricane Andrew smashed Miami in 1992, locals reported unusual birds, deer and even an African lion wandering South Florida, forcing officials to go on patrol to round up the escapees.

Bonus:

What’s happened to the cute cat rescued by that nice guy in Bonita Springs?

A video of Mike Ross, 29, saving a tabby stranded outside his parents’ home went viral after his girlfriend posted it on Twitter this week.

Floridians across the state have rescued stray animals during hurricanes over the years, and the scene of Ross gently plucking the cat from atop an air conditioning unit resonated with animal lovers across the country.

For now, Ross and his family are sheltering the cat, and they plan to keep it if they cannot find its owners.

Yay!

I promised to put up any animal rescue efforts here. I can’t vouch for the personally by you can check out the web-sites and see if you’d like to help out. I’ll add more as I come across them.

Peggy Adams Animal Rescue League

This West Palm Beach-based organization is taking part in the urgent transfer of cats and dogs from the Florida’s Gulf Coast. To support their efforts, you can make a donation by going to PeggyAdams.org/hurricaneian.

Big Dog Ranch Rescue

This Palm Beach County-based operation will provide pet supplies to shelters and families. You can donate wet or dry dog and cat food, blankets, crates and/or cash. Big Dog Ranch Rescue founder and CEO Lauree Simmons says she will send the first trucks within 48 hours, so time is of the essence. Drop off donated supplies from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Big Dog Ranch Rescue, 14444 Okeechobee Blvd., Loxahatchee Groves, or make cash donations by calling 561-791-6465 or going to BDRR.org.

FUR Hurricane Ian Disaster Relief

Florida Urgent Rescue is assisting with disaster relief for animals impacted by Hurricane Ian. FUR helped evacuated 49 dogs and cats from rural Florida shelters in advance of the storm. 

Animals are still in danger after the storm has passed, though. An expected wave of strays and owner surrenders will put animals already in the shelter at risk.

Best Friends Animal Rescue

Right now, Best Friends’ disaster response teams are actively  working to identify needs to best support impacted animal shelters and rescue groups in Florida. 

Best Friends has reached out to shelters and rescue groups in the area to assess the impact and support the safety and well-being of pets.  

Visit Best Friends’ Facebook page for updates and to follow our work on the ground. Working with our local partners, we are committed to providing support and safety to the animals in Florida.  

American Humane

HURRICANE IAN RESPONSE: OUR RESCUE TEAM IS RUSHING TO RESCUE ANIMALS!

Our American Humane Rescue team is rushing to the state of Florida to assist with time-sensitive water search and rescue operations under Code 3 Associates and alongside ASAR Training and Response. Catastrophic Hurricane Ian barreled into Florida Wednesday and left in its wake a staggering scale of damage, destruction, and horrific loss of property, people, and pets.

Based on early assessments, we anticipate multiple deployments throughout the disaster area as the response needs are overwhelming. With your support, we can help ensure that our highly trained team of first responders and volunteers can help animals struggling during this crisis.

Thank you in advance for your generosity in helping these scared, suffering animals. We will keep you posted as our team arrives in Arcadia, DeSoto County, FL, and report on the situation on the ground as it develops.

Perlstein vs. Truss

Perlstein FTW #LizCantRead

I was shocked to hear that the UK’s idiotic new Reaganite PM Liz Truss considered Rick Perlstein to be her favorite historian? What???? That makes no sense at all.

Perlstein is not amused. This from Nick Cohen in the UK Spectator:

As I reported this summer, Liz Truss’s favourite historian is Rick Perlstein, the great chronicler of the rise of the new right in its Nixonian and Reaganite forms between 1960 and 1980.

She told journalists that she read ‘anything’ he wrote. Interviewers noticed Perlstein’s books on her shelves. In a strange compliment to the American historian, Truss or sources close to her briefed The Spectator‘s Katy Balls with precise (if unacknowledged) quotes from his account of the rise of Ronald Reagan.

I sent Perlstein my piece and asked for his thoughts. Let me put it like this: he may be her favourite historian, but she is not his favourite politician. Not even close. Not even in the top 1,000.

‘Liz. Can’t. Read.’ he replied, and began a long – and for British readers frightening –  account of how and why our new government of wannabe Reaganites have crashed the economy.

Perlstein said that, if she read his books with the attentiveness she claimed, she would not have risked our pensions and mortgages with a naïve belief that tax cuts would stimulate economic growth and raise revenue for the Treasury. Far from paying for themselves, Reagan’s income and capital gains tax cuts in the early 1980s sent public debt from 26 per cent GDP in 1980 to 41 per cent GDP by 1988.

More pertinently, he added, she would have noticed that serious conservatives in the 1970s never supported his plans.

Perlstein told me via Twitter:

In the late 1970s, the US’s economy in a cocked hat and conventional Keynesian – ‘liberal’ – solutions failing, all sorts of intellectual entrepreneurs on the right came forth with their solutions to the problem, as I narrate in Reaganland, a volume Liz claims to have read.[Of the] many solutions on the table, the one that prevailed was the one that all the actually half-way qualified experts on the right knew was nothing but a fairy tale on par with Jack in the Beanstalk. (Do Britty kiddies read that?).[It was] devised by a dude whose only economic training, in his own description, came from learning to count cards at the blackjack tables in Las Vegas. I wish I were making this up, but I am not.

He is referring to Jude Wanniski, a journalist who did indeed coin the term ‘supply-side economics’ in the 1970s after a spell working in Las Vegas. He attracted the attention of Reagan, Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes with his promise that the Laffer curve guaranteed that, if conservative politicians cut taxes, the economy would boom.

As Perlstein notes, Wanniski’s first piece promoting the idea in a 1975 issue of the Conservative journal Public Interest ‘lacked almost everything that made economic arguments convincing to other economists’. There were only four footnotes. No data. No formal models. Economists thought supply-side economics was a joke. It would take decades to recoup the money lost in tax cuts to wealthy people, they argued. To them, true Conservatives were like Rishi Sunak and George Osborne: they believed in lean budgets and tax rises to balance them. Their first aim was to ensure public debt did not pile up.

In an article for the Wall Street Journal in 1976, Wanniski said the problem with the right was that it wanted to be Scrooge when it should be Santa Claus. It should deliver tax cuts, forget about the national debt and sit back as a grateful citizenry repaid the favour at polling stations.

Perlstein quotes the objection of Milton Friedman, who was hardly a socialist. The inflation that unfunded tax cuts would produce meant that supply-side economics was merely a ‘proposal to change the form of taxes’ rather than lower them. Alan Greenspan, who once again was a man of the right, said he knew of no one who believed that Arthur Laffer’s curve would magically turn tax cuts into increased government revenues.

And so it has proved again and again. Reagan’s tax cuts, George W. Bush’s tax cuts, Donald Trump’s tax cuts all failed to deliver. 

[…]

Perlstein cannot believe that Truss read what he wrote on the birth of Reaganomics and thought ‘Jolly good! Let’s give it a go!’ Nor, if the opinion polls are to be believed, can a staggeringly large majority of British voters.

Here’s a thread from Perlstein:

Actually, it’s been done. By MAD Magazine’s Mort Drucker and Paul Laikin!

I’m guessing Liz Truss wouldn’t get the joke. After all, #LizCantRead.

What to learn from Central Park Karen losing her lawsuit against her former employer @spockosbrain

Here is a clip from the Young Turks that I find especially relevant.

It is a follow up on the woman who called the police on a black man who was bird watching. You probably saw the clip when it went viral. Her company saw it, investigated it and fired her. She then SUED the company for defamation. Well, SHE LOST the case.

This is another case of how the RW always has to be the victim EVEN after they face justifiable negative consequences for their actions. The good news is because there was DUE process and an investigation when they fired her, the company was on solid ground and proved even MORE so that she was fired for a justified cause.

This is why when I talk about giving the people making threats a chance to do the right thing before we go to their boss or bring in the law. Because they WILL turn around and say they are the victim or go on to attack others even more!

When they do that we can then use our evidence of offering them an out and them not taking it to incriminate them further. If, say for example, we find the people making death threats to Boston Children’s Hospital and it looks like they made them “on the clock” while at work. We need to provide evidence and the employers should investigate before they act. Maybe they were on a lunch break when they sent vicious death threats. Or maybe they did it on company time via a company phone.

Besides being the right thing to do, another reason we want due process is that anything that we do in good faith they will do in BAD FAITH. They love to flip the script so they are the REAL victims who were “just stating an opinion!” They want to turn any legitimate push back against them saying or doing horrible things into, “It’s all a big witch hunt just because I’m a conservative!”

Many intentionally refuse to get it. We can say, “You had a chance to be better, but you doubled down on racism and threats of violence. Now you have double the loses. Just stop it. You lost. You were wrong.” That is the kind of message that others need to see.

I found this comment under the YouTube video very interesting, because it shows the thought process that many people go through:

In kind of two minds when it comes to firing someone for what they did off of the clock. For certain jobs I can see it, like if you are a cop or a judge or a teacher; But what if you are a roofer? a plumber, or store clerk? There should be a certain amount of freedom allowed people who mess up and still keep a job.

I dont know. I havent decided yet which is the correct way to be. Personally what she did was abhorrent, but it wasn’t while she was at her job. Should we just fire all racists? What if you were on one side of covid or another and your employer had the opposite side and just decided to fire you because you went to a rally, but you complied with whatever orders the employer decided was best?

Its not as cut and dry as we think. I can see many instances of me wanting to fire someone because they are horrible and I want the revenge of seeing them fired, but I can also see where it would be unfair to do so.

The only conclusion I can come to based on those facts is that it is a bias to do so, therefore free speech is NOT the overriding principle here.

With that said she did do something wrong, but being fired for that alone should not have happened.

I responded.
This follow up story of the case is important. The woman was given a chance, IN THE MOMENT, to do the right thing. She didn’t. She intentionally lied to the police. She is the perpetrator.

When the company saw this, they investigated. That is the right response, because they needed to know the context, see the whole video and talk to people. (She was first put on administrative leave, then fired.)

Now in most situations companies don’t HAVE to do this because in most states people are at will employees, but doing an investigation is the right thing to do because people do make false accusations, and employees can turn around and sue for wrongful termination. )
(This is one reason we have unions and tenure, it gives people due process for false accusations.)

But notice here how you put yourself in her shoes for being fired for what she said and did “off the clock” and then faced negative consequences for it.

Now please put yourself in the shoes of the black man who was falsely accused of threatening her.
Police could come and it could be a death sentence for him. He was “off the clock” too. Was it fair that he might end up dead?

Christian Cooper is a prominent bird-watcher and works in communications Credit Brittainy Newman The New York Times

These days, people who make racist comments, or threaten violence to others, often face NO consequences for their actions. In this case, she did. In a civil society if your “off the clock” peers accept your racism we don’t have a way to ensure negative consequences for that. But corporations can have guidelines for employees. Sometimes an employee’s actions are public and their association with the company is made known. If it is a GREAT thing, they are fine with that, they might even promote it. “After hours these employees save sick kittens!”

But in this case they didn’t want their brand to be associated with this woman’s racism and the actions that came from that. To NOT do anything about it (after the investigation) would be to condone it.

But the woman didn’t accept that she was wrong, even after it was proved she was wrong. Society’s impression of her racism was already out there, she didn’t “walk it back” immediately. She got hit with a fast, massive response condemning it. Then afterward, when she didn’t recant, she got hit with modern day shunning which can follow you around forever. That can be done to people unjustified and is a problem that needs to be addressed, but in her case it is now more clearly shown it was justified.

One way that we enforce norms in our our capitalist society is to use financial leverage. Sometimes even that doesn’t work. We are seeing now how racists RAISE MONEY on their racism or bigotry “I got fired just for trying to protect my life!”
(Forgetting to mention the lie, the racism and the knowledge that her actions could lead to great bodily harm to the man.)

You worry about the fairness to HER for losing her job because you identify with her. You think, “what if that happened to me? What if I was unfairly accused?” (Of course some people know they would be FAIRLY accused, and are afraid of it coming out!) Your desire for fairness is a GOOD thing, We SHOULD work for equal justice for all. What we are seeing is how today’s modern bullies try to use our compassion, empathy and fairness AGAINST us.

We need to prepare for when they do this. Then we use their clearly shown horrible words and actions against them for further negative consequences.