Facts Are Non-Negotiable

Welcome to the Facts Irrelevant Age. First, the inconsequential, in which the controversial Bud Light individual is criticized:

Dylan Mulvaney calls for the arrest of people who call him a man. Do you still think I’ve been too mean to this guy?

pic.twitter.com/SpRHMffqDF

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) April 28, 2023

Actually, in this clip Mulvaney does not call for the arrest of anyone. She complains that identifying an individual by the wrong gender should be illegal. Sometimes an individual is believed to have committed an extremely minor infraction, in some states referred to as a petty misdemeanor, and is merely given a summons. This is nor a trivial distinction.

Nonetheless, it is ironic that Mulvaney says "using 'he' pronouns and calling me a man over and over again- I feel that should be illegal."   According to Wikipedia- which refers to Dylan as "she"- "in December, 2922, Mulvaney confirmed on Instagram that she had undertaken facial feminization surgery. She posed an image of her face....."

Dylan now looks like a woman, as do many men I've seen in my decades on this earth. They, too, were men, however they looked. Dylan identifies as a woman, as Dylan is entitled to do. That does not make Dylan a man when the biological determinant is that of a man. The policy implications of that are up for debate; the reality of the gender should not be.

Not surprisingly, Republicans are at least as dishonest on the issue. As Politico explained last week

House Republicans approved their measure to restrict transgender students from playing on women’s sports teams on a 219-203 vote Thursday morning.

The legislation — H.R. 734 (118) — is a key part of the GOP’s education agenda and mirrors more than 20 laws that have been adopted in states across the country. It bars transgender women from playing on teams consistent with their gender identity and amends Title IX, the federal education law that bars sex-based discrimination, to define sex as based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.

The sex of 99%+ of us is determined at birth. The sex of a man who has undergone gender transformation surgery is female. That's simply a fact, Jack. The Republican definition is biologically, scientifically inaccurate. (I know you're shocked.)

But if we may- uh, transition- to a far more significant matter, the characteristically brave and sincere Olivia Troye unfortunately misses the point:

Nikki Haley saying Biden will likely die within five years is vile. Will she apologize for saying this about a sitting U.S. President?

— Olivia of Troye (@OliviaTroye) April 27, 2023

On Fox News on April 26, the former South Carolina governor had stated

I think we can all be very clear and say with a matter of fact that if you vote for Joe Biden, you really are counting on a President Harris because the idea that he would make until 86 years old is not something that I think is likely.

First off, stop with this apology stuff. It has been all the rage for several years now to call for an apology by someone who says something one doesn't agree with. An "apology" is very rarely offered, replaced by something like "I apologize if what I said may have offended you." Moreover, we're all big boys and big girls, and this is politics. Please get over your hurt feelings.

Joe Biden was born on November 20, 1942. As of 2020, the life expectancy for an 80-year-old male is 7.8 years. The good news is that would put Biden beyond the (86-year-old) point at the end of a second term. Additionally, this is for an average male and given that Joe is affluent, white, has been generally healthy, and has access to excellent medical care, he is above average. The bad news is that this appears to be the mean, a figure pushed upward by men living to be 90 or older, and the median- which would be a more relevant statistic here- is obviously lower. The bottom line is that we simply don't know (also, SHARE!)

Nonetheless, it's telling that Haley would raise this issue and add "President Harris."  She evidently believes this is salient with GOP primary voters, although there would have to be an earthquake in Republican party politics for her (or Mike Pence; especially, Mike Pence) to get the nomination.

And not only Republican voters.  Biden is significantly less liked by members of his own party than is the norm, and Harris is even less popular among Democrats than he.  

This is a major problem, one largely ignored by Democratic politicians and power brokers. It is analogous to Democratic senators ignoring the problem of Dianne Feinstein not immediately retiring, and is far more difficult to contend with. Colleagues could tell Feinstein to call it a day because her absence is clearly harming the Party in the Senate and she could be feted- justifiably- as having had a long and distinguished career in the chamber, following a short and distinguished career as an elected official in California.

Not so with Harris, whose career in the Senate was short and whose work as Attorney General in the same state was fairly miserable. Moreover, political reality would require her to be replaced by someone black, preferably female, which narrows the field. The best replacement already is on the United States Supreme Court, so that is a no-go. Another suitable substitute would be Florida's Val Demings or perhaps Ohio's Emilia Sykes, but dropping Harris for anyone would be controversial and would have to handled delicately.

Yet, the truth must be faced. It must be faced with Kamala Harris; with individuals being of the same gender as they are (or, rarely, have become) biologically; and with age, as with Dianne Feinstein, who does not show up for work and with Joe Biden, who does.  Sooner or later public policy and party strategy will have to reckon with reality, and that starts with facts.

  

Share |

It's Called "Bias"

I like Anand Giridharadas and his criticism here of Fox News and the National Rifle Association for destroying the trust of Americans in their neighbors is accurate and vitally important.  And this is no Benjamin Crump-level bias. However, he leaves out a critical example when on Morning Joe he remarked

Ralph Yarl, Kaylin Gillis, Payton Washington in Texas. What's the thread between these stories? I was so struck by the fact that these different places, different histories, different situation. Two young people of different backgrounds, different outcomes, and yet the beats of the story were the same. You approach someone's house and you are shot and in one case killed for driving up a driveway, knocking on a door, these basic things that people do in a free society.

What really struck me was that a friend of mine told me a while ago. We were talking about India and the United States. He was talking about the hallmark of American societies is anonymous trust. You don't have to know people to tract. You write checks to them....

We have built societies on the notion of anonymous trust. It's allowed so much of modern life. It occurred to me we're not just dividing us as a country. We are de-developing. We are moving backwards with millions of people, their brains now addled by this propaganda, feeling hat you are in danger, everywhere is a threat. We're going back to this "Game of Thrones" where a lot of our fellow citizens feel like they live in a castle and if anyone crosses your moat they need to be murdered because they are coming to murder you. It is national brain damage and it is deadly and it is eroding the foundation of what makes this a functional, free modern society.

It's a good point he has about "anonymous trust."  Yet somehow he mentions Ralph Yarl, Kaylin Gillis, and Payton Washington without even name-checking William and Kinsley White, evidently shot by Robert Louis Singletary

when a basketball rolled into Singletary's yard from a group of local children playing basketball in the street. Singletary allegedly fired a gun at a neighbor before approaching a father and daughter, William James White and 6-year-old Kinsley White, who were both seriously wounded.

One woman was grazed by a bullet and a second man was shot at but not injured, police said.

William White remains in serious condition, according to police.

"Why did you shoot my daddy and me? Why did you shoot a kid's dad?" Kinsley asked in an emotional interview, stitches visible on her cheek from the bullet fragments that hit her.

Family members said William White tried to draw gunfire toward himself to protect his family as Singletary unloaded an entire magazine toward his neighbor. White was shot in the back in his own front yard, according to his partner, Ashley Hilderbrand.

"He looked at my husband and my daughter and told them, 'I'm going to kill you,'" Hilderbrand said.

Singletary is charged with four counts of attempted murder, two counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon.

Obviously, this crime would have fit neatly into  Giridharadas' narrative of "if anyone crosses your moat, they need to be murdered." It would have fit the narrative- but not the preconceived notion of  Giridharadas or of the network on which he was appearing. There is only one explanation for that:

There is no reason to fixate on race here, although the contrast with coverage of the shooting in Kansas City, Missouri is stunning. There, where Andrew D. Lester is appropriately charged with shooting Ralph Yarl, the refrain is "old white man shoots young black man."

I 'll spare readers the tired buzzword "cancelled." Call it "erased."  It's not only Giridharadas who displayed a little cultural insight while he ignored a shooting. Take it from here, Dan Abrams:

 

 

This incident- crime, apparently- is receiving remarkably, though unsurprisingly, little attention from the race and gender left cable news networks. They need to address this if they wish to recover much of their dwindling credibility. They won't, however.

Share |

Fun While It Lasted

Come back, Phil. They didn't really mean it. Fox News (online, where it usually is accurate) reported a couple of days ago that

Jalen Rose, a former NBA star who currently serves as an analyst for ESPN, took issue with Phil Jackson’s comments on the state of professional basketball and why he does not watch anymore.

Jackson said on "Tetragrammaton with Rick Rubin" podcast the game has become too political and was catering to a certain audience when the NBA plastered social justice slogans on the court and on the backs of jerseys during the bubble portion of the 2019-20 season in wake of the death of George Floyd.

Rose responded in a video Sunday.

Jackson explained what turned him off to the game when the league went to the bubble format in Orlando, Florida.

"They went into the lockout year, and they did something that was kind of wonky. They did a bubble down in Orlando, and all the teams that could qualify went down there, and stayed down there," he said. "And they had things on their backs like ‘Justice.’ I made a little funny thing like, 'Justice just went to the basket and Equal Opportunity just knocked him down.’ … So, my grandkids thought that was pretty funny to play up those names. So, I couldn't watch that."

Jackson continued, "They even had slogans on the floor, on the baseline. It was catering. It was trying to cater to an audience, or trying to bring a certain audience into play. And they didn’t know it was turning other people off. People want to see sports as non-political.

Of course, sports have (has?) always been intertwined with politics, inevitably. After Russia invaded Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter inserted the USA into politics by ordering the boycott of the Olympics in Moscow. If Carter had not done so, the USA still would have imposed its politics by offering de facto support of the invasion. It was the right decision because some things are more important than sports.

Therefore, if Jackson was appalled at the National Basketball Association mixing politics with sports during the 2020-2021 season, he was being, at best, naive.  Naive and oblivious. Evidently, he made the same mistake the vast majority of us made in those heady days: he took the players seriously.

Phil Jackson apparently believed guys with slogans on the back of their jerseys and a league with slogans behind the baselines were protesting. No doubt a few players, notwithstanding the absence of evidence, really are concerned with issues of police reform and of racial justice, beyond how the latter directly affects them and their teammates.

Nonetheless, most are not, and were not. It doesn't take holders of doctorates in psychology (of whom few would be so candid) to recognize as primary motives virtue signaling, team camaraderie, and the feeling that the player was one with his colleagues. Those were good times, and few dared criticize the greatest athletes on the planet.

It is now two-plus years later. More municipalities have increased their police budgets than have decreased them. Relatively few politicians of note have aggressively pressed for replacing money for law enforcement with money for essential social services, while Republicans attack Democrats for their imagined advocacy of "defund the police." Police still too often shoot unarmed black men unjustifiably and civilians are arming themselves at a frightening rate. The President who once was a prime supporter of the war on drugs is expected to face off in the next presidential election against the guy who has proudly encouraged police violence against suspects. Progress?

And what of all those slogans, sometimes accompanied by linking of arms, which so antagonized Phil Jackson? They are gone. They are gone because most of the players and the league which sported them never were more than minimally sincere.

So, Phil, come on back to the NBA! It was all for show, and things are back to normal, where the league and its owners are even wealthier than previously, and the players don't want to make a scene less it jeopardize their multi-million dollar contracts.

 

Share |

Then and Still, Abortion

Lindsay Graham made a telling claim about abortion rights to Dana Bash on Sunday's "State of the Union" on CNN.

Pursuant to the Hyde Amendment, no federal funds can be used for abortion unless the pregnancy occurs because of rape or incest or endangers the woman's life. Thus, there is something impressively slick- and tactically significant- about "abortion up to the moment of birth, taxpayer-funded." On Sunday's State of the Union on CNN, Dana Bash interviewed South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham and this exchange about abortion transpired:

BASH: Senator, I have heard you say both on this issue, that it is a state issue, but now you do support a federal ban. So who's right here?

GRAHAM: Right.

Well, I have been supporting a limit on late-term abortions for -- since 2015. I had a bill to limit abortions at 20 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. Seventy percent of Americans support limiting abortion when the -- when the unborn child can feel pain; 50 of 53 European nations limit abortion at 15 weeks or less.

BASH: But my question is, is it a federal issue or a state...

GRAHAM: The modern Democrat -- yes, it's a human rights issue. Does it really matter where you're conceived?

At 15 weeks, you have a developed heart and lungs. And to dismember a child at 15 weeks is a painful experience. It's barbaric. It's out of line with the rest of the civilized world. Only North Korea and China allow abortion demand up to the moment of birth, except the Democratic Party.

Of course, there is no "abortion on demand." No one can walk into the office of a doctor, even one who performs abortions, and "demand" an abortion. It's not only a brazenly dishonest claim, but one which trivializes both the heightened stress of asking for termination of pregnancy and the risk undertaken by the medical professional in performing the procedure.

Aside for that, the Democratic bill, which passed the House of Representatives on July 15, 2022, only indirectly addresses the issue of when termination of pregnancy would be permitted.  The Poynter Institute's Politifact analyzed the veracity of the remark of U.S. Representative Marianette Miller-Meeks, two days after passage in her chamber of  the Women's Health Protection Act of 2022, "I also spoke this week against the radical left’s abortion bill that would permit abortion up until delivery." It noted  

Miller-Meeks’ newsletter comment has a point that the bill "would permit abortion up until delivery." However, she glosses over a crucial qualifier: The bill would allow such abortions only under extreme circumstances, in which medical professionals determine that the mother’s life or health is at risk.

It’s worth noting that late-term abortions — the kind that would need to be approved under these circumstances — are rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in its latest count from November 2021 that of the 629,898 abortions performed in 2019, almost 93% of them were at or before 13 weeks of pregnancy. About 6% were performed between 14 and 20 weeks, and less than 1% were performed at or after 21 weeks of pregnancy.

The figures are based on reports by health agencies throughout the U.S., although California, Maryland and New Hampshire did not report.

So under the Democratic bill which died, women would have been allowed to terminate their pregnancy up to the time of birth- but only if their physician determined that continuation of pregnancy would have jeopardized her life or health. And such late term abortions constitute far fewer than 1% of all abortions.  Federal funds could be used only if the woman's life is threatened.

Personally, I would have preferred a bill focused on reproductive health of women without language satisfying the id of LGBTQIA and anti-racist advocates:

The terms “woman” and “women” are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority of people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services, and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which are rooted in misogyny. However, access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others—who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services...

Reproductive justice seeks to address restrictions on reproductive health, including abortion, that perpetuate systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white supremacy, and anti-Black racism. This violent legacy has manifested in policies including enslavement, rape, and experimentation on Black women; forced sterilizations; medical experimentation on low-income women’s reproductive systems; and the forcible removal of Indigenous children. Access to equitable reproductive health care, including abortion services, has always been deficient in the United States for Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) and their families.

It's striking that the Republicans evidently lack a political strategist who would tell them how to target references to "people with the capacity for pregnancy- cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals" and "enslavement, rape, and experimentation on Black women," language which could not have been more off-putting if it were specifically phrased to alienate voters. Nonetheless, this was ignored by the GOP.

Thus, on Monday morning, in an interview unrelated to the 2022 bill, South Carolina's Nancy Mace told CNN's Kaitlan Collins that Democrats support abortion up to the moment of birth. Most voters, if they were made aware of the language of the proposal, would have recoiled at this wokiest of woke depiction of American society and indictment of Americans themselves. Instead, Republicans reinforce their image as the anti-choice party in a country now decidedly pro-choice.

It is telling that Mace, whose views of reproductive rights are the most moderate of nearly any GOP member of Congress, would repeat the grossly misleading claim that Democrats are fine with abortion as the baby comes through the birth canal. Lindsay Graham did the same 24 hours earlier.  Meanwhile, Ron DeSantis chooses a different emphasis, brags that "Florida is where woke goes to die," and his prospects of becoming the party's 2024 presidential nominee plunge.  It's a testament to the power of the evangelical base of the Republican Party that GOP politicians, offered a tempting political target, instead distort Democratic views of abortion whenever and wherever they can.

Share |

Do Your Job

It's probably a coincidence that Gavin Newsom and Dianne Feinstein represent the same state. California is an overwhelmingly Democratic state and a huge one. Still, it bears noting that, despite dramatically different motivations, the governor and the senator are doing something similar, and it's not good in either case.

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, noting that the governor of the state which in recent years has undergone devastating drought and now faces a large budget deficit and the possibility of crippling floods, has been spending a lot of time out-of-state. He has formed a  PAC called the Campaign for Democracy, has rented billboards and taken out television advertisements in GOP-dominated states, and pledges "we're going on the road to take the fight to states where freedom is most under attack." Friedersdorf observes

Taking “the fight to” authoritarians turns out to mean staging PR events in their jurisdictions. So far this month, Newsom has traveled to Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, criticizing Republicans at every stop....

But why? Newsom has no political power in those states. He is so sufficiently unpopular among their voters that his presence there is as likely to help as hurt GOP governors. And, most important, his travels are a dereliction of the job he sought and won, because governors have a responsibility to focus on the problems that afflict their own state.

In the video below, after Krystal Ball notes that Democrats have only limited ability in the absence of Feinstein to investigate the thoroughly corrupt Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Saagar Enjeti notes (at 3:11)

You're 89 years old; you're not showing up for work; you're holding up the process. You're an active thorn in the side of ongoing efforts that are vitally important- allegedly- to the Democratic Party....

The worst defense I saw was, well, sometimes we have colleagues that have been gone for a year and we didn't kick them out. I'm like- well, why not, that's one-sixth of your job!

Ball adds "that's the question, is do we know if she'll even be able to return to do the job whatsoever."

Even if Feinstein does return, there is a question of whether she will be able to do the job adequately, given the Senator's apparent mental decline of recent years. Nonetheless, there appears to be only two (Democratic)  US Representatives- the progressive Ro Khanna of California and the center-right Dean Phillips of Minnesota- who have publicly urged Feinstein to resign. Even the blunt and reportedly bold Senator Bernie Sanders has stated (at 1:55 of this link)

Well, I have not talked to Senator Feinstein in several weeks. My hope is that she'll be back as soon as possible. The decision as to whether somebody should resign rests on that individual themselves. I don't think that she should be forced out. I think she should take into consideration her health status and whether she should be back.

Contrary to this viewpoint, Democratic leaders should consider her health status. As Ball asks rhetorically

The other thing I can't help but think of listening to (presidential Press Secretary) Karine Jean-Pierre there is can you imagine the Republicans allowing something like this to happen and hamstring their ability to push judges through? You think Mitch McConnell would allow anything to get in the way of getting his judges on the bench? Not a chance in hell.

Friedersdorf recognizes that "governors have a responsibility to focus on the problems that afflict their own state"

used to go without saying. Now, however, leaders of organizations as varied as state governments, corporations, universities, museums, and theater companies have convinced themselves that good leadership entails issuing virtuous pronouncements on matters outside their realm of authority, often to denounce ills that have little to do with their job and its actual challenges.

In a phenomenon increasingly common, individuals ignore the role to which they're entrusted in favor of assuming the role they prefer- or fail to perform the job at all.  When it is Democratic officials, they help foster the impression that Democrats aren't governing, can't govern and don't deserve to govern.

 

Share |

In Defense of DeSantis

Well, not entirely. Florida governor Ron DeSantis is right about one of his two points, John Fugelsang the other.

And Ron DeSantis is a fascist who "identifies" as a Christian. https://t.co/CpDbs5ykUp

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) April 19, 2023

Fugelsang correctly decries the Florida governor for putting quote marks around the word "identifies." Such an individual- whom I'll call "Chris"- really does identify as a woman and is entitled to do so.

Nonetheless, immediately after the statement quoted by Fugelsang, DeSantis remarks "part of this is are we going to have a society that's rooted in truth?" Leaving aside the observation that DeSantis and "the truth" are generally not close acquaintances, the governor asks an excellent question.

And the truth is that while "Chris" can identify as a woman and one can call oneself a woman, a man, or a creature from the sea, that does not in and of itself make Chris (or a similarly situated individual) a woman, a man, or a creature from the sea.  Note that we recently had a President who, looking skyward, stated "I am the Chosen One." He never was, and claiming that as his identity, no matter how many of his followers think of him in that way, did not make him the Chosen One.

"Chris" can transition surgically to a woman, which often comes with considerable costs, be they physical, emotional, economic or any combination of the three. "Chris" then would be a woman and deserving the rights and responsibilities of being female. 

If government, acting upon the consent of the governed, chooses to extend sans surgery to "Chris" the privileges- not right- of a woman, it obviously can do so. But just as a free populace can do so, that same free populace owes itself the responsibility of acknowledging the truth.  And the truth is that a man is as biology defines him and a woman is as biology defines her.

Share |

Victory is Theirs

News quiz: Which best describes the outcome for Fox News yesterday in the lawsuit filed by Dominion Voting Systems?

a) a victory

b) a huge victory

c) a phenomenal victory

A usually sober congressman, evidently not sober at the moment he hit send or "tweet":

I don’t think much about Tucker Carlson. But I guess he spends a lot of time thinking about me. So it’s pretty goddamn sweet that the day Tucker’s employer confessed that Tucker is a 24 karat liar Tucker goes on to spend his first post-confession show lying about me.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) April 19, 2023

The press release in question reads

We are pleased to have reached a settlement of our dispute with Dominion Voting Systems. We acknowledge the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.

Fox News therein did not specify any particular host or which claims they were talking about. It did not admit that either the network and/or any particular host was responsible for the claims. They did not concede that any claim was knowingly inaccurate and merely acknowledged the court's rulings- not that they were accurate. Other than that, it was a true confession.

Jeremy Peters and Katie Robertson of The New York Times reported

Fox News abruptly agreed on Tuesday to pay $787.5 million to resolve a defamation suit filed by Dominion Voting Systems over the network’s promotion of misinformation about the 2020 election, averting a lengthy and embarrassing trial just as a packed courtroom was seated in anticipation of hearing opening statements.

Particularly important to the American people

Fox News’s last-minute settlement with Dominion Voting Systems on Tuesday earned banner coverage on every television news network but one: Fox News.

The $787.5 million settlement was covered only three times by Fox News in about four hours after the settlement became public, amounting to about six minutes of coverage. For most of the day, including during the network’s prime-time shows, hosts appeared to be focusing on other issues, like illegal immigration and Covid-19’s possible origins.

And the figurative bottom line is

Under the terms of the settlement, Fox News will not have to apologize or admit to spreading false claims on network programming, according to a person familiar with the details of the agreement.

The question thus arises as to why Dominion would have agreed to a settlement which allows Fox News to continue to do what it does best, manipulate its viewers.

CNN and MSNBC punditry, though inclusive of lawyers, journalists, and others, is dominated by lawyers, especially on matters related to the law.

Few of them will tell the truth. In some cases they are not lying but really, truly believe in their profession. In this case, several have said that the deal has now revealed that Fox News was lying. This is intentionally misleading because they are aware that consumers of MSNBC, CNN, or a national newspaper already knew the network was fabricating. Most viewers of Fox News, whose coverage of the matter was virtually nonexistent, didn't know and still don't. 

A welcome exception, Elie Mystal gets close to divulging the bias of civil litigators.

They had Fox by the absolute neck and let them go for 787.5 million dollars. WHICH IS A LOT OF MONEY for a corporation. But also not a lot of money when weighed against Fox's damage to American democracy.

I get it. And it's bullcrap. Two things can be true at the same time.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) April 18, 2023

 

If I were their lawyers, I probably would have told them to take the money. The preference of most civil litigators is to take the money and run. In some cases- not this one- there is a significant chance that the jury would rule against them if the case were taken to trial. 

But even in this case, in which there was little chance that the defendant would win at trial or that the decision would be overturned on appeal, there is serious pressure for the plaintiff to settle. Their attorneys get their cut and they get it relatively promptly. The plaintiff usually believes there is a principle involved, in this case that their business should not be irrepairably harmed  but that motivation can be overcome because a media company lies about it in order to promote a myth about a presidential election.

Understandably, however, their attorneys, who themselves were not slandered, don't care about viewers being intentionally misled. Given the common approach for litigants, it wouldn't be surprising if Dominion's attorneys convinced their client that the only real principle involved is that the offending party be penalized severely for damaging the company- and that the better part of a billion dollars would go a long way toward that.

So you can call it a "huge" or a "phenomenal" victory. But unless you're Representative Swalwell (not coincidentally, a lawyer) or take at their word some of the shills for the legal profession on cable news, you'll know it as a very good day indeed for Fox News and its parent company.

            

 Share |

The New Eleventh Commandment

I suppose it was fairly predictable.  After Governor Ron DeSantis signed his signature "Stop Woke Act," he blasted the "myth" that "Florida schools have been directed to 'empty libraries' and 'cover classroom books.'"

However, as Judd Legum has pointed out, a regulation issued by the state's Department of Education has created sufficient confusion and fear that a few districts such as Manatee County School District have

instructed teachers to "remove or cover all classroom libraries until all materials can be reviewed." In addition, a librarian must "vet every classroom library book" and

In Escambia County for example, there have been challenges filed to remove 175 books from school libraries. 148 of those books have been removed from library shelves during the challenge process, which includes multiple reviews and appeals. But thus far, the Escambia County school board has considered and made a final decision on just four books. It voted to remove all four. The other 170 challenges are still pending. But, in DeSantis' intepretation of the data, Escambia would have only removed four books.

Large numbers of books have been removed pending appeal in Clay County and other school districts as well.

These challenges of individual books is entirely separate from the reviews of classroom libraries, which must be performed by librarians, mandated by the DeSantis administration. That process is why, according to data released by Duval County, more than 1.5 million books remain inaccessible to students.

Confused?  I am, and I'm writing about it, although Legum is thorough. Confusion probably is the intent, ambiguity the means for the governor. Far less ambiguous is the six-week ban on abortion approved by the legislature in Florida and signed by DeSantis which

will take effect only if the state’s current 15-week ban is upheld in an ongoing legal challenge that is before the state Supreme Court, which is controlled by conservatives.

The policy would have wider implications for abortion access throughout the South in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade and leaving decisions about abortion access to states. Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, while Georgia forbids the procedure after cardiac activity can be detected, which is around six weeks.

A woman often does not know prior to six weeks that she is pregnant but the punitive ban, as the cliche goes, is "a feature rather than a bug," which more properly would be phrased "a benefit rather than a bug."

Supporters of DeSantis' expected candidacy for the GOP nomination for President have supported his legislative initiatives, however cruel or authoritarian, or both (here again, benefit rather than bug). However, so have his critics, whether supporters or skeptics of Donald Trump's bid for the nomination. 

In the latter category would be former New Jersey governor Chris Christie. The Guardian reports

DeSantis accused Disney of perpetrating a legally unsound “sham”, which he said he would dismantle. He also threatened to build on state-owned land next to Disney World.

“What should we do with this land?” DeSantis said. “Maybe create a state park. Maybe try to do more amusement parks. Someone even said, like, maybe you need another state prison. Who knows? I just think that the possibilities are endless.”

Christie said: “I don’t think Ron DeSantis is a conservative, based on his actions towards Disney.

“Where are we headed here now, that if you express disagreement in this country, the government is allowed to punish you? To me, that’s what I always thought liberals did. And now all of a sudden here we are participating in this with a Republican governor.”

As well as questioning why DeSantis attacked Disney, Christie blasted how he did it.

“For him … to not have foreseen that Disney was going to do what they did in response, which was to completely take over the millions and millions of acres and the zoning decisions on that … well, I’ll tell you this much: that’s not the guy I want sitting across from President Xi.”

 

BREAKING: Former Republican Governor, Chris Christie has just spoken out against Ron DeSantis and his attacks on Disney World:

“I don’t think Ron DeSantis is a conservative, based on his actions towards Disney. I mean, where are we headed now, that if you express disagreement… pic.twitter.com/tig5dz3ysw

— Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) April 18, 2023

 

Christie is not alone in his criticism, for former Vice President Mike Pence is doubling down on attacks against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis:

The latest salvo came during a Yahoo! News interview Tuesday, when the potential Presidential candidate likened “government activism” from DeSantis to that of California’s Gavin Newsom, comparing Florida’s handling of Disney to how California dealt with abortion pills.

“I’m a limited government conservative, and I believe in private property, free enterprise. My concern more broadly was just simply about taking action against a company in the wake of a political dispute, where the company had taken a different position than the state,” Pence contended.

“I have concerns about that in Florida. I had the exact same concerns about California, pulling a $54 million contract from Walgreens because Walgreens announced that they’ll not be distributing the abortion pill in 20 states where it would be illegal to do so. To me, it’s the same kind of government activism — one on the right, one on the left, and both are wrong.”

Ronald Reagan said the 11th Commandment is "Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican."  He first said that, though, well over a half century ago. No, it is more like "Thou Must Not Antagonize Corporations."

Share |

Wild Scene in Chicago

I was very pleased that Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson defeated school "reformer" Paul Vallas to succeed Lori Lightfoot as the next mayor Chicago. Johnson  A former teacher, Johnson supports neighborhood public schools while Vallas has been (in)famous for being hired by major cities and others to implement "school choice" programs, which undermine the traditional public school.  Not coincidentally, it appears Johnson, who will be sworn in on May 15, is going to be a pro-labor mayor.

However, this past weekend was a violent one as

Chicago police responded to massive crowds of teenagers Saturday night at Millennium Park, one day after a similar gathering took place at 31st Street Beach, prompting police to heighten their presence along the lakefront.

Video taken Saturday night showed a massive presence at the park, along with large groups of people in the area. A similar gathering took place Friday night near 31st Street Beach and eventually came to an end after a teenager was shot.

One witness, who asked not to be identified, said he saw a chaotic scene unfold.

"It’s heartbreaking, kids fighting, chasing each other, some of them got guns," he said. "It's really heartbreaking when one of them actually gets hurt, and that’s unfortunate, happened last night."

Hundreds of teenagers, possibly even thousands, gathered at the beach after seeing flyers posted on social media for a meetup of teens.....

"It was a car, they were standing on multiple cars, standing on cars, and one of the cars just kept driving in circles, which I believe that’s the one that caught on fire, they set on fire," the witness said.

Police didn't release additional specifics on the incident, but did say it "continually monitors and adjusts resources as necessary so residents and visitors can safely enjoy the city, including our beaches and lakefront area."

"Last night, CPD monitored activity happening across the city and officers were in place to quickly respond to active incidents and large gatherings," the statement added. "We will continue to have sufficient resources in place as we work to strengthen safety in every neighborhood."

Police say a squad car was also damaged, but no officers were injured. Police did arrest one person Friday night, a 17-year-old boy, who has been accused of multiple gun crimes.

Demonstrating how not to respond to a riot, Mayor-elect Johnson tweeted

In no way do I condone the destructive activity we saw in the Loop and lakefront this weekend, It is unacceptable and has no place in our city. However, it is not constructive to demonize youth who have otherwise been starved of opportunities in their own communities.

Our city must work together to create spaces for youth to gather safely and responsibly, under adult guidance and supervision, to ensure that every part of our city remains welcome for both residents and visitors. This is one aspect of my comprehensive approach to improve public safety and make Chicago livable for everyone.

This was not the time to consider carefully the root causes of crime and the systemic changes needed to curb it. Johnson's statement was a triumph of bad timing.  When a riot breaks out in your city, the response "I don't like it, but...." is an empty gesture. Claiming you're not condoning criminal behavior, and then offering an excuse for it fools no one.

And an excuse it was.  Johnson attributed the violent mayhem to "youth who have otherwise been starved of opportunities in their own neighborhoods."

These were not young people rioting because they were hungry, ill-housed, or unemployed. They were not stealing a loaf of bread to feed their family or exaggerating their work experience to get a job, nor because they have nowhere to gather safely and responsibly.  They were not looking for "adult guidance and supervision." Though the mayhem featured property damage

Two boys—aged 16 and 17—who were standing in a crowd the 100 block of East Washington Street were wounded when shots were fired at around 9 p.m., Chicago police said. The 16-year was shot in the right arm, while the 17-year was shot in the left leg.

Both were taken to Northwestern Memorial Hospital in a fair condition, police said. No one is in custody in connection with that shooting, and an investigation is ongoing.

It was only a few weeks ago when, following mass murder at Covenant School in Nashville, a Democratic state senator, channeling a half-brother of Jesus and son of Mary, stated "prayers are good, but faith without works is dead. Let's not let another preventable tragedy unfold without this legislature taking real action." Two members were expelled from Tennessee's other chamber for raucously demanding gun safety legislation.  Just last week, the New Hampshire Democratic Party slammed Governor Chris Sununu, headed for Indianapolis to speak at the annual NRA convention, because Sununu "values his NRA rating more than the safety of granite staters. His record on gun safety is abhorrent...."

So it goes, with Democrats denouncing gun violence after every mass shooting, thus exceeding whatever little concern Republicans muster. However, violence everywhere must be condemned and not excused as a spontaneous, harmless outburst by bored youth. If the residents of Chicago have any luck, Mayor Johnson will quickly come to that understanding.

Share |

Grooming

It was twelve months ago but Republicans, characterized by political ADHD (this today, that tomorrow, something else, the day after) shouldn't be allowed to forget this. From The Washington Post at the time:

When Michigan Democratic state Sen. Mallory McMorrow stood on the chamber floor to take on a Republican colleague who had accused her of wanting to sexually groom children, she was denouncing not just an isolated incident, but an onslaught of GOP attacks on the LGBTQ community....

The rapid escalation in public support for the LGBTQ community’s rights in recent years had quieted much of the blatant homophobia in the nation’s political discourse. But, in recent weeks, Republicans have reverted to verbal and legal assaults on the community, sometimes employing baseless tropes that suggest children are being groomed or recruited by defenders of gay rights. The efforts ahead of the midterm elections are intended to rile up the Republican base and fill the campaign coffers of its candidates, without offering evidence that any Democrat had committed a repugnant crime....

In Michigan, McMorrow had been one of three Democrats to walk out of an invocation that GOP state Sen. Lana Theis gave on the Senate floor a week ago, during which she prayed for children “under attack” from “forces.” After the walkout, Theis accused McMorrow by name in a fundraising email of wanting to “groom and sexualize kindergartners.”

Theis and McMorrow got into it on the Senate floor, after which

Theis did not respond to a request for a comment. But her characterization was in keeping with other attempts to portray Democratic supporters of gay rights as, at minimum, aiding pedophiles.

The new thrust counters the decision by most Republican politicians in recent years to largely avoid the subject of LGBTQ rights given widespread support from Americans. The party in 2004 had mounted multiple state campaigns against same-sex marriage in an effort to boost turnout for President George W. Bush’s reelection effort, but the nation’s views have changed sharply since that time.

Republicans recently have used language similar to Theis’s to attack their critics who speak out against the ramped-up efforts to restrict protections for LGBTQ youth. They have specifically referenced the notion of “grooming,” which is used to denote adults sexualizing children.

Several weeks ago, as Florida Republicans were pushing legislation to ban discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in classrooms up to third grade, Gov. Ron DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, made an audacious claim on Twitter about the measure Democrats referred to as the “don’t say gay” bill.

“If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children. Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the rules,” Pushaw said. In response to a request for comment, Pushaw said Wednesday that she had not singled out LGBTQ people as groomers “because groomers can be of any orientation or identity.”

Critics responded in outrage while other Republicans made similar accusations.

“The Democrats are the party of pedophiles. The Democrats are the party of princess predators from Disney,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga,) said in an interview she posted on Twitter. “The Democrats are the party of elementary school teachers, trying to transition their elementary-school aged children and convince them they’re a different gender. This is the party of their identity, and their identity is the most disgusting, evil, horrible things happening in our country.”

The language echoes that of QAnon conspiracy theorists, who Greene regularly endorsed during her time as a conservative provocateur before she ran for Congress. QAnon followers believed powerful Democrats were running a secret child sex trafficking ring and that President Donald Trump would expose it.

“We’re seeing the recycling of tropes; there are go-to tropes that people use and this notion that somehow a child being taught in school is “grooming” them to have a particular sexual orientation,” said Sharon McGowan, legal director of Lambda Legal, a national LGBTQ advocacy organization. “I do think we saw a complete disregard for some of the norms during the Trump era, there was a brazenness packaged as, ‘I’m not afraid to say the hard truths;' now they’re wearing the more outrageous, more offensive as a badge of pride.”

This "grooming" thing always had the small of psychological projection and now the conservative New York Post unironically reports

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem raised eyebrows Friday when she said that her granddaughter, who is just a year old, already has a shotgun and a rifle.

Speaking at the annual National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis, the conservative firebrand told the crowd that her granddaughter, “Little Miss Addie” is already “set up” for her future with the weapons — and a pony.

“Little Miss Addie, who is almost two, and Branch who’s just a few months old, they have brought us so much joy. They’ve brought us purpose,” Noem told the crowd, video of her remarks shared on social media shows.

“’Now Addie, who you know — soon will need them [guns]. I wanna reassure you, she already has a shotgun and she already has a rifle and she’s got a little pony named Sparkles too. So the girl is set up,” the conservative added.

Well, isn't that just the sweetest thing, especially coming from arguably the leading candidate to join Donald Trump on a presidential ticket in 2024. Nor was it merely performative and/or an effort to curry favor with the Republican Party's most deadly interest groups because

Noem, a staunch supporter of gun rights, took time during her 24-minute speech to sign an executive order for her state to “further protect the 2nd Amendment rights of South Dakotans.”

The order would prohibit government agencies from contracting with businesses that discriminate against “a firearm-related entity,” according to KELThis isn't going to become the face of G.O.P. all by itself, nor even with the legacy media's help. 

“The girl is set up.” Republican South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem reveals her one-year-old granddaughter has a shotgun and a rifle. How cute. pic.twitter.com/NgjYxuO8iV

— Mike Sington (@MikeSington) April 15, 2023

This should become the face of the Republican Party and it has to be Democratic officials who maintain, loudly and clearly, that Republican politicians such as Kristi Noem are the very backbone of her Party.

Share |

Feminism Misplaced

Nancy Pelosi has been down this road before, such as on November 14, 2012, when NPR reported

There was a bit of laughter but also a lot of seriousness, when NBC's Luke Russert asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi if her decision to seek the House minority leadership again prevents a younger leadership from taking her place.

Pelosi was flanked by the Democratic female members of House and as soon as the question flew out of Russert's mouth, groans filled the room. "Age discrimination," one person was heard screaming.

"Oh, you've always asked that question except to Mitch McConnell," Pelosi said with a laugh.

Russert, 27, pressed his case, saying that she, and Reps. Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn, who round out the House leadership, were all older than 70.

"Let's for a moment honor it as a legitimate question, although it's quite offensive, but you don't realize that I guess," she said. "The fact is that everything that I have done in my decade of leadership is to elect younger and newer people to the Congress.

Age discrimination, my posterior.  If she were concerned with that, Pelosi wouldn't have said "Oh, you've always asked that question except to Mitch McConnell." Pelosi's response had nothing to do with age. It was about gender, and gender alone.

And so it shouldn't have been surprising that Representative Pelosi on Thursday (video below) remarked

Senator Feinstein has been a champion for California for twenty years. I have been the leader or the Speaker of the House fighting for California and I have seen up close and firsthand her great leadership for our country but especially for our State of California. She deserves the respect to get well and be back on duty and, uh, I just, it's interesting to me. I don't know what political agendas are at work that are going after Senator Feinstein in that way. I've never seen them go after a man who was sick in the Senate that way.

It's just a guess but it may be because we've never had an 89-year-old absent Senator whose vote on the Judiciary Committee was pivotal, a vote without which the President (one of her own party) cannot gain approval of any of his judicial appointments. Since returning to California for surgery for shingles in early March, Feinstein has missed 58 votes and the worst is yet to come.

The "political agendas" are obvious: gaining a recommendation by the committee for full Senate approval of federal judges.  It has nothing to do with gender- nothing.  If a man were in Feinstein's position, the pressure upon the Senator to resign would be as great; probably greater because Democrats would not then have to overcome their fear of being accused of sexism or misogyny.

Hopefully, Feinstein will recover fully from her bout with shingles, a disease striking primarily the aged. Nevertheless,, the clock can't be turned back, she will never recover from being 89 years old and is, as with many elderly people, someone who has exhibited signs of mental decline. It's deeply unfortunate, but it happens with a significant portion of the very elderly.  She cannot do her job, which is more common than not for men and women of her age.

Senator Feinstein reportedly has asked Majority Leader Schumer to replace her temporarily on the Judiciary Committee, which Schumer has agreed to pursue. However, Republicans would have to agree and the price they would exact, if they are willing at all, would be enormous. California's Ro Khanna of California was justified in tweeting

It’s time for @SenFeinstein to resign. We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty. While she has had a lifetime of public service, it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties. Not speaking out undermines our credibility as elected representatives of the people.

Khanna is a Democratic member of the House but unlike Nancy Pelosi, is uninterested in making life far more difficult for the Democratic Senate. There also is an element of California politics involved because, in the race to replace Feinstein (who already had announced her retirement), Khanna supports the bid of Representative Barbara Lee while Pelosi is partial to the less progressive wing of the state party.

Still, given the former Speaker's history, there is an arguably more odious motivation. That would be good old-fashioned bias or what might be called "reverse sexism" which, of course, is simply sexism.. Whether or not he was thinking of Nancy Pelosi, this MSNBC host is right:

I’m sorry but “it’s feminist to stay in a critically important job long past when you are capable of doing it” is a ludicrous argument. I can’t tell if people are really making it or just kinda trolling.

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) April 14, 2023

" 

Share |

Donald Trump, Man of Love and Nuance?

I think the word Tucker is looking for is "unbelievable."

Tucker Carlson on his conversation with President Trump: "His understanding of world affairs is so much more nuanced and sophisticated and pro-American than the moronic neocons currently in charge. It was remarkable." pic.twitter.com/BYKfLBjUoE

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) April 12, 2023

At 4:24 of the video below, the former President can be seen stating

First of all, Ukraine's been obliterated. O.K., let's not even talk- nuclear. But let's say it wasn't, let's say they were doing better than anticipated, uh, if he decided to use his second form of destruction, which is nuclear, that's the end of the world. You understand?

Trump then remarked that, of course, Carlson understands, which only makes sense because both he and his interviewee are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russian.

So, let's "talk nuclear," which Trump argues here is never done, although it is.  In October, CBS News explained

Tactical nuclear weapons are sometimes referred to as "small nukes," even though they still cause devastating fatalities and destruction. They are designed for limited strikes against relatively close specific targets, like command posts, instead of destroying cities from afar.

The explosive yield of tactical nuclear weapons can range from under one kiloton to about 100 kilotons, whereas strategic nuclear weapons can have a yield up to one thousand kilotons. The bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were between 12 and 21 kilotons. The one dropped on Hiroshima weighed 9,700 pounds and a 10,800-pound bomb leveled Nagasaki. 

Tactical nuclear weapons can have a similar yield or greater — up to several times as powerful as the Nagasaki bomb — but they are often smaller and more portable. For instance, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union developed devices small enough to fit into a suitcase-sized container....

There is a wide range. Over 70,000 people are estimated to have died immediately when the U.S. bombed Hiroshima. Thousands of others later died due to poisoning from the radiation.

However, that wouldn't necessarily occur if Russia were to launch a nuclear weapon against Ukraine because

Tactical nuclear weapons, by design, do not have as much radioactive fallout, since they are used against a specific target, but there is still some fallout.

Nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein has built a simulation called NukeMap to estimate the effects of nuclear strikes. According to NukeMap, if the Davy Crockett, the smallest U.S.nuke ever produced, were to be used on a neighborhood in Washington, D.C., it would kill 3,270 people and injure 3,620. Other tactical nuclear weapons are larger and would result in a more devastating death toll.

Consequently, we don't know what impact a tactical nuclear weapon would have. Yet, Donald Trump says "that's the end of the world" if one is set off  He's either ignorant or wants people to believe that the world will blow up unless Ukraine caves to Russia.  Or both.

Carlson's claim that Trump's understanding of world affairs is more pro-American than that of neocons is possibly even more ludicrous than his characterization of it as nuanced and sophisticated. Lest we forget, Biden's immediate predecessor last Halloween tweeted on his Truth Social "our country is rigged, crooked and evil." That wasn't "Joe Biden" or "this Administration." It was "our country" which is evil.

Donald Trump obviously hates the United States of America. He wouldn't have called it "evil" otherwise. On second thought, in tweeting "our country,"  Trump might not have been referring to the USA. It's hard to believe, however, that he'd ever refer to Mother Russia as corrupt or evil.

 

Share |