Author: tristero

You know what this means, right? It means either that (1) Trump and his minions were so sure they’d prevail that they didn’t bother even trying to hide what they were up to; or (2) they’re the dumbest people on the planet:

The White House patched through a phone call to a rioter during the Jan. 6, 2021, violence at the U.S. Capitol, a tech adviser chillingly revealed in an excerpt released Friday from an upcoming “60 Minutes” interview.

“You get a real ‘a-ha’ moment when you see that the White House switchboard had connected to a rioter’s phone while it’s happening,” Denver Riggleman, former senior technical adviser for the Jan. 6 House select committee, told CBS host Bill Whitaker.

“That’s a big, pretty big ‘a-ha’ moment,” Riggleman added.

\\

No kidding.

The full extent of the coordination and collusion between the White House and their mob on Jan 6 will likely never be known. But this should be enough to ensure that anyone who was in the White House that day and who hasn’t spoken to the committee or the FBI should never be allowed anywhere near a federal building again.

Except to take residence inside a penitentiary.

David Ignatius:

“In the event of a threat to the territorial integrity of our country … we will certainly make use of all weapons systems available to us. This is not a bluff,” Putin said in a speech broadcast Wednesday morning. His nuclear umbrella appears to include Ukrainian territory that Russia has seized or plans to annex.

How should President Biden and other world leaders respond to this outrageous blackmail? The answer cannot be to capitulate. That would scar the global future as horribly as this war has already damaged Ukraine. As Biden said Wednesday: “Russia has shamelessly violated the core tenets of the United Nations Charter.”

Leaders must think now with the same combination of toughness and creativity that President John F. Kennedy showed during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. Because that’s the only parallel within most of our lifetimes…

Kennedy succeeded in the Cuban missile crisis for two reasons. First, he showed that he was prepared to risk nuclear war to stop a reckless move by Moscow. Second, through a secret back channel, he found a face-saving way to avoid the ultimate catastrophe. Biden should study both lessons.

Actually, there’s a third reason that the Missile Crisis ended without a catastrophic exchange of doomsday bombs. And by far, this reason is the most important one. According to Ignatius’s own paper:

Have we avoided unwanted nuclear explosions, and nuclear war, because we have adequately managed and controlled weapons and crises … or because we have been lucky?

Luck, in this context, seems to mean the exact opposite of control. It’s all that prevented bad outcomes when things could easily have gone in a different direction, no matter what anybody wanted. The historical policymakers who have invoked “luck” have included Robert S. McNamara, who was defense secretary during the Cuban missile crisis; Dean Acheson, special envoy of President John F. Kennedy at the time; ambassador Gerard C. Smith, chief U.S. delegate to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in 1969; former defense secretary William Perry, former secretary of state George Shultz, former national security adviser and secretary of state Henry Kissinger, former chairman of the Senate’s Armed Services Committee, Sam Nunn, and former head of Strategic Air Command and Strategic Command, Gen. George Lee Butler.

Most people know the Cuban missile crisis was considered by those involved to be “lucky” — as McNamara put it, years later, in an interview with Errol Morris: “At the end, we lucked out. It was luck that prevented nuclear war.” 

If you doubt how important luck was back in ’62, go ahead and read up on the Missile Crisis (Here and here are some good places to start — and btw, RFK’s 13 Days is totally unreliable; skip it). And be sure to Google the name “Vasili Arkhipov.”

Anyone feeling lucky in 2022?

On the day after Biden delivered an impassioned (but woefully tardy) speech about the dangers of Trumpism and “MAGA Republicans,” the Times chose to mention Biden only 4 times on its website’s front page and Trump 6. This is very typical; the amount of unearned free publicity that criminal horrorshow of a president gets is simply staggering.

(BTW, Biden surely knows that “MAGA Republicans” is a redundant phrase. If not, someone please tell him, stat. )

Case in point:

Right-wing media figures have spent more than a week encouraging their audiences to harass healthcare workers at Boston Children’s Hospital for providing care to trans youth, leading to fears that the disinformation campaign could result in acts of violence. After reports surfaced of death threats against hospital employees, some on the right have broadened their focus to other children’s hospitals.

On Thursday evening, Fox News’ top star Tucker Carlson devoted two segments to the topic, interviewing far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and anti-LGBTQ activist Chris Elston, who goes by the moniker Billboard Chris. Carlson repeatedly, falsely described providing gender-affirming care as [a blatant, disgusting lie about compassionate hospital services]*, before asking Elston to elaborate.

“We have the biggest [bullshit mischaracterization of gender-affirming care] scandal in modern medicine history,” Elston said.

“I don’t think there’s any debate over whether we should be allowed – which doctors should be allowed to [lying misrepresentation of medical care for trans] children,” Carlson responded.

They’re about 150,000 trans kids in the US. To be sure, trans healthcare for youth is a major issue for the children, the parents and the caregivers directly involved. Any healthy modern political party would simply facilitate access to appropriate treatment and turn its attention to focusing on other issues — like the genuine potential for a medical catastrophe from the return of polio .

So if this is not about trans kids — and it isn’t — what’s it really about? You can troll for votes without bullying children. No, this is about Carlson and others learning how to control and focus a violent mob. A very useful thing if your goal is to smash American democracy and replace it with a Hungarian-style white man’s dictatorship. Yesterday, it was hospitals — and from the death threats and fear generated, certain lessons were learned. Tomorrow Carlson will find another target which will elicit more death threats from his deplorable followers — and American fascists will learn a bit more about what does and doesn’t work to direct them. The idea, of course, is to find out how little provocation is needed in order to incite violence — helps with deniability when what you’re doing comes to the attention of law enforcement (“hey, just asking questions, voicing my opinion, censorship! cancelling!”).

The only reason Carlson gets away with this despicable behavior is that he knows that it is quite possible to get away with far worse. After all, the obscene orange Hitler who incited a mob to seek out and kill his own vice president is still free. So, because there are no consequences for that guy, every day Carlson learns how to get bolder in expressing his own racist dog whistles, his own anti-semitism, and all his other hatreds and bigotries. It leads in only one direction: more death threats, more physical intimidation, and ultimately more physical violence.

As the photo above makes crystal clear, we already have a civil war, even if at present the deadly political violence is not yet a daily occurrence (but hardly a month goes by…). But if Carlson and others continue to get a free pass and get better at stoking their mobs, the violence will become chronic very, very soon.

There is only one way this country can even conceivably start to walk back from the precipice of sustained civil war. Trump must not be held “accountable” — that’s too weak a word for what needs to happen. Trump needs to be swiftly indicted, prosecuted, and if found guilty, jailed for his numerous crimes against this country.

—-

*I see no reason to repeat lies, bullshit, and misrepresentations by Nazi-wannabes. You can click the link if you would like to know what they actually said, but why bother? Their lies are just lies. Don’t you have something more worthwhile to do?

Of course, the NY Times editorial board is right. It is extremely dangerous to promote right wingers and incompetents for any reason whatsoever, and certainly so when it comes to elected office. As the Times editorial says:

Anyone who proclaims concern about the future of democracy shouldn’t come within a whiff of these democracy-denying candidates, let alone help them win votes…

What if these election deniers actually win?

Exactly. But there’s just one problem. At the bottom of this post is a screenshot of the Times Web site today, the very same day that the Times printed the editorial above. Biden is mentioned exactly one time. T**** is mentioned three times.

This disproportionate number is actually closer than it was during the 2020 election when, on a typical day, I was counting between 4 to 6 mentions of T**** for each Biden mention. The Times did the same thing during 2016, btw, hyping that incompetent racist and misogynist clown over a responsible centrist candidate to the point where it often felt to me that he was running unopposed.

Why does the Times continue to promote dangerous political figures at a level far above reasonable ones? For exactly the same reason that they complain about: it is in their interest. In the case of the Times, articles about extremists sell papers.

The Times would argue that I’m the cynic here. Their business is not politics but the news; they simply print what is newsworthy. That is utterly disingenuous. In this case, when they are printing article after article about an extremist candidate who simply knows how to prey on the press’s bias for attention-getting stunts, the media’s high-minded mission descends to mere publicity and promotion. Seriously, the amount of free publicity that man receives from the mainstream media every year would cost anyone else hundreds of millions of dollars in fees from top PR firms.

So, Mr and Ms Times Editorial Board and General Editor, it’s high time to eat your own dogfood. As you yoursefl have said, don’t come within a whiff (or a woof) of democracy-denying candidates. Stop giving them so much free access to your newspaper.

Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion of the problems with originalism as a doctrine of jurisprudence. Here’s one example:

The paper [the NY Times] annotated the Dobbs majority decision with its own analysis, pointing out that Justice Alito’s argument is grounded in originalism, which it puts “in contrast to the more liberal interpretative method that views the Constitution as a living document whose meaning can evolve with society.” But originalism, as many have noted, is a flimsy legal framework, not a robust legal structure. It can justify anything and nothing at all.

Exactly. But I’m in a churlish, underappreciated mood. So here are some nearly 20 year-old excerpts on the subject of originalism from my now dormant solo blog.

August 7, 2003 —from “Bach and Scalia“

Originalism, like fundamentalism, is a modern movement that selectively chooses which texts to honor over others or which portions of which texts to honor over others. 

All reading, no matter how rigorous, requires interpretation.* One would have thought this was so obvious that it doesn’t bear pointing out. But occasionally, some clown like Scalia claims a mystical access to The Truth and the point has to be made again. 

“Please somebody give me an interpretation doctrine that has objective limits other than originalism and textualism. Scalia’s defense of originalism is otherwise unrefuted. “

No such thing as an “intepretation doctrine.” No such thing as “objective limits…”

Regarding interpretation: interps are useful only to the extent they are contingent (and yes, this assertion is self-contradictory: so what? It’s still true.). Culture, society, consensus, dispute, etc. determine the correctness of an interp, which can, must, and will change as society changes. Very little in human discourse can be decided by fiat once and for all. Even [Leo] Strauss… if you read him carefully, admits as much. Originalism is a doctrine that does indeed argue from a spurious intentionality and tries to reify language, which as Lewis Carroll convincingly demonstrates, is a pipe dream. 

…. Just as there is no definitive interpretation of the Goldberg Variations, there can be no definitive interpretation of the law. There are many valid and invalid interpretations of both and the determination of the status of an interpretation is no more and no less than a contingent one, subject to infinite revision and refinement. 

*Certain scientific texts and theorems may be unambiguous in a way that precludes interpretation. Those texts, however, are written in a specialized language, ie math, and are not relevant to the exegesis of legal or theological texts.

A brief dilation on my assertion (made in response to an originalist in a comment) that there is no such thing as an “assertion doctrine” or “objective limits.” Originalists clearly choose which texts to anoint with their originalist juju and then suppress others. That is clearly as abitrary and non-objective an “assertion doctrine” as any other. Why? Because the limits on which texts get chosen are ones that are set by those who determine the relevance and validity of the texts through an interpretative procedure contingent on their thoughts, concerns, principles, values, training, and ignorance of the full extent of texts available. There is nothing remotely “objective” going on in originalism. In short, originalism is as much based on interpretation as any other approach to reading the law. And it always must be.

It is a source of wonder to me that anyone ever took originalism seriously. It is also a source of wonder to me that no one in a position of authority (law degree, training in philosophy, huge public presence — i.e., not a mere blogger who can simply see the obvious flaws in originalism) ever bothered to publicly and consistently and loudly excoriate originalism’s pseudo-intellectual pretenses when it would have made a difference.

And here we are.

When it comes to determining how and with whom we can be intimate, the most influential people in America are a man credibly accused of multiple sexual misconducts, a woman who actually was a Handmaid in a fanatical religious cult, and an emotionally immature misfit who was obsessed with Long Dong Silver porn videos (one shudders to imagine his current kinks). And they all have the unmitigated gall to describe themselves as upright, moral defenders of Christianity.

Anyone who tried to pitch such a ridiculous cast of clowns as the featured characters in a novel or tv series would never find an agent. Yet here we are.

This morning, I made some lists of the people involved with the planning and execution of J6 and that got me thinking.

By J6, I mean the entire, comprehensive plot in 2020 and early 2021 to install Donald Trump as an American dictator in the manner of Orban or Putin. As far as we know, based on information discussed during the Jan 6 hearings, this enormous plot entailed the following, at the very least:

• Subverting multiple elections
• Subverting investigations
• Subverting the courts
• Subverting state and federal legislatures
• Massive and relentless propaganda and misinformation campaigns
• Subverting law enforcement
• Subverting the military
• Mob-style one-on-one confrontations intended to intimidate
• Murderous violence

As incredible as it sounds, the hearings strongly suggest that none of this was haphazard or unintended. It was all planned. If one piece of the plan didn’t work, there were multiple fall backs. They were planning for all contingencies.

The hearings further suggest that something like six or seven core plotters developed the overarching strategic plan for J6 with Trump. An additional six or seven men (they were all men) were “read in” to most or all of the conspiracy. They provided operational/logistical support, and possibly contributed additional strategic ideas. A wider circle of about ten people was involved on a need-to-know basis for segments of the plan. These were men (and perhaps a few women) who, for example, directly planned and ordered the one-on-one intimidation; they had no reason to know what anyone else was doing).

Additionally, the core strategy depended upon countless mid-level bureaucrats and lackeys who would look away even though they suspected something “very, very bad” was afoot. Many of these “I-see-nothings” were simply protecting themselves from criminal exposure. Others likely needed persuasion to look away.

And then, there were the foot soldiers. These were the people who were sent out to directly intimidate people in person, collect videos (like the one from Fulton County), analyze the electoral counts, plant stories in the media and online — and also wield AR-15s, pepper spray, plastic ties, and spears.

This is a lot of people. It includes roughly twelve to fifteen in the inner circles, perhaps fifty to a hundred in each of the wider need-to-know circles, and also an uncountable number of useful idiots. And that brings up a question:

Who paid for it all?

I think that many of us assumed — if we thought about it at all — that the people involved in J6 participated for free, out of misguided fervor for Trump. But a little bit of reflection exposes this as a naive assumption. Fanatics need to pay bills like everyone else, after all. So it makes sense that at least some of the high-level planners of the murderous insurrection on January 6 were likely well-compensated. And at least some of those underpaid bureaucrats who looked away may have been remunerated for their willful blindness (i.e., bribed to keep their mouths shut).

Most low-level January 6 insurrectionists were pathetic dupes, of course, but some knew exactly what they were doing. And they required funding for transportation, housing, food, weapons, computers, couriers, war rooms, signs, communications technologies, accounting, banking, and planning. Funding was also required to support the non-violent foot soldiers sent out to collect videos, data information, and dirt on poll workers. Where did the dollars come from?

I think many people believe that the violent part of the J6 plot was funded by individuals themselves or through dozens of small donations and that the plans for a non-violent “legal” coup were executed by pro bono lawyers (with Trump possibly paying for some of that himself). While these financial streams surely contributed, I think J6 was so expensive and so carefully co-ordinated that I really doubt that at the core levels of the strategy the funding of this gigantic scheme was left to the vagaries of grass-roots fundraising and the whims of a billionaire with a reputation for stiffing everyone.

It is my sincere hope that the Committee and Justice will, as they say, follow the money. This was an incredibly costly endeavor; uncovering how it was funded will go a long way towards understanding how on earth it happened — and how to plan for the inevitable future coup attempts.

Paul Krugman is exactly right:

…because G.O.P. extremism is fed by resentment against the very things that, as I see it, truly make America great — our diversity, our tolerance for difference — it cannot be appeased or compromised with. It can only be defeated.

I hear a lot from friends that we need to reach out and talk to rightwingers, that we can convince them, persuade them. But, as Krugman says, extremists can’t be mollified. And compromising is preposterous when the retort is: “If your father makes you pregnant at 13, you’re still carrying a baby.” I see no way to compromise with that statement, no way to appease the person saying it. And I see no reason to engage with them. But I do think it makes sense to do whatever I can to make sure that person is never, ever close to a position of political or cultural influence.

And this points to the necessity of effective, evidence-based tactics. What they are — beyond voting, running for office, or aspiring to become a judge — is mostly beyond my skill set. And while, I certainly don’t believe for a second that trying to persuade Trumpists to think rationally or compassionately is remotely worth the effort, I would certainly suggest that we work on our rhetoric. I mean, are you still calling anti-abortion activists “pro-life???” Seriously, folks, these are crazy coat-hanger-fetishizing nihilists. Agreeing to call them “pro-anything” is just gross.

BTW, one thing Krugman is wrong about in the column:

OK, the modern G.O.P. isn’t as bad as the second K.K.K.

Really? How easily we forget the deaths and the confederate flag in the Capitol on Jan 6; state-sanctioned torture; Trump’s violent brown-shirts cracking heads on George Floyd protestors; the use of the MOAB in Afghanistan; and the systematic murder of abortion doctors — only the last wasn’t publicly sanctioned by elected Republicans (with the stress on “publicly”). And back in the day, the KKK merely succeeded in controlling “several states,” as Krugman put it. The extremist GOP controls not only far more states than the KKK could ever lay claim to but also controls the Supreme Court and is once again about to take over the US Congress (unless Democrats change their tactics, stat).

Sorry, Dr. Krugman, but somewhere, in some hell realm, the Grand Wizards of the KKK are chortling wildly and exchanging white power OKs.

Hey, we all do it, give her a break, for goodness sakes!

Illinois Republican Mary Miller told a crowd at a rally held alongside former president Donald Trump that the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade was a “victory for white life”.

“President Trump, on behalf of all the Maga patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the supreme court yesterday,” she said, drawing cheers from the crowd in Illinois…

Miller’s spokesperson said the Illinois Republican had intended to say the decision was a victory for a “right to life”.

Of course, that’s what she meant! It was just a slip, that’s all!! She’d never openly suggest that Republican policies are intended to benefit only white people.

Wait a minute…

The freshman congresswoman, who was among those who voted to overturn the results of the 2020 election, has previously come under criticism for quoting Adolf Hitler.

“Hitler was right on one thing. He said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future,’” Miller said in a speech last year, according to video posted by WCIA-TV. 

That, too, was clearly a slip of the tongue. Of course, it was. She certainly wasn’t suggesting that Republicans should openly emulate Hitler. She’d never suggest such a thing. Not openly.

But that’s exactly what she did.