https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

All those post-1791 constitutional amendments are just ruining this country

And in another fun bit of Roy Moore trivia, in a 2011 appearance on a whackadoodle conservative radio show, he opined that getting rid of all those amendments to the Constitution beyond the first Ten would “eliminate many problems.”

His spokesfolk have come out and declared that, no, he really only meant the 14th and 17th Amendments. Or maybe more, but those are the ones he’s really peeved at.

It is kind of weird, though, that he’d just be interested in getting rid of two when agreeing with the show host about voiding all the amendments after the first 10 he said, “That would eliminate many problems.” I mean, that would include 17 other amendments, not just two. Why wouldn’t he say, “Well, I disagree with a couple,” so that people didn’t think he wanted to allow slavery again, or undo women’s suffrage, or get rid of extending the vote down to 18, restricting a president to two terms, barring poll taxes, or barring denial of the right to vote based on race?

Anyway, let’s assume for argument that he only has a mad-on about 14 and 17.

17 is a bugbear for conservatives, calling for US Senators to be voted for by a state-wide election, not by state legislators. Moore really dislikes that one, apparently because he doesn’t trust the state citizenry, or else because he liked the problem that progressives sought to fix with this amendment, that state legislators are easily bought off, and therefore by extension so are the US Senators they are selecting.

14 is the real kicker here. That post-Civil War amendment [1] was designed to make it clear that: (a) freed slaves — in fact, all African-Americans — born in the US were US citizens, (b) all US citizens have a right to due process under the law, including state and local laws, and that (as interpreted by the Supreme Court), the provisions of the US Constitution trump those of state constitutions and local laws, and (c) all people in the US must be treated equally by the law: federal, state, and local.

Moore just doesn’t like it because it means states don’t have ultimate rights.

The danger in the 14th Amendment, which was to restrict, it has been a restriction on the states using the first Ten Amendments by and through the 14th Amendment. To restrict the states from doing something that the federal government was restricted from doing and allowing the federal government to do something which the first Ten Amendments prevented them from doing. If you understand the incorporation doctrine used by the courts and what it meant. You’d understand what I’m talking about.

Looking at the quote … I have no idea what he is talking about, except that the 14th Amendment lets the feds restrict what state governments can do. That seems to be a cardinal sin in Moore’s book.

For example, the right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment, freedom of press liberty. Those various freedoms and restrictions have been imposed on the states through the 14th Amendment. And yet the federal government is violating just about every one of them saying that — they don’t they don’t — are not restrained by them.

Yes, how horrible that those Bill of Rights rights have been “imposed on the states through the 14th Amendment.” Yet, somehow, Moore thinks that the federal level is (or is claiming it is) not subject to the Bill of Rights, which is kind of weird given that they are part of the federal constitution and are litigated in federal courts all the time.

But let’s stick a pin in this:

  • Roy Moore doesn’t think the citizens of Alabama should be voting for him; he’d prefer if the Alabama state legislature had that right.
  • Roy Moore thinks that “equal protection under the law” and “due process” should be the choice of each state.
  • Roy Moore thinks that other federal protections in the Bill of Rights should be up to the states, too.

Roy Moore might believe some other things, based on his broad dismissal of Amendments 11-27 … and he said a lot of really interesting things in those radio shows … but I think focusing on the above is sufficient.

——
[1] Because he last felt that America was great at a time when “despite slavery” we were somehow a bunch of united families. That implies that after the Civil War ended slavery (as confirmed by the 13th Amendment), America was no longer great.




Roy Moore in 2011: Getting rid of amendments after 10th would ‘eliminate many problems’ – CNNPolitics
Alabama Republican Senate nominee Roy Moore appeared on a conspiracy-driven radio show twice in 2011, where he told the hosts in an interview that getting rid of constitutional amendments after the Tenth Amendment would ‘eliminate many problems’ in the way the US government is structured.

View on Google+

Just a reminder that Roy Moore has always been terrible

I mean, this isn’t an otherwise cool guy who unfortunately got banned from the local shopping mall because he kept hitting on teen-age girls when he was in his 30s. Roy Moore has always been a dolt and a danger, even beyond leching after and groping and assaulting teens.

Earlier this year, when he was just a zany outsider in the US Senate race in Alabama:

In response to a question from one of the only African Americans in the audience — who asked when Moore thought America was last “great” — Moore acknowledged the nation’s history of racial divisions, but said: “I think it was great at the time when families were united — even though we had slavery — they cared for one another…. Our families were strong, our country had a direction.”

America was last “great” … when we still had slavery … but families were “united” … so chattel slavery doesn’t disqualify a country from greatness (assuming it’s not actually a desired feature).

One presumes Moore would love to go back to those days of “greatness,” regardless of the cost. As would, one must assume, his followers. [1]

And now this dolt has a serious likelihood of becoming a US Senator, has the open support of the President of the United States, and the active financial backing of the Republican National Committee.

[Warning: Autoplaying Video]

——

[1] To be fair, a good chunk of his followers wouldn’t agree. They would simply argue that it’s more dangerous to have a (gasp) Democrat in the US Senate than someone who thinks our country was last great at a time when we (or at least Alabama) had slaves.




Roy Moore said the last time America was “great” was during “slavery”
“Can’t make this up,” a former Obama official tweeted regarding Moore’s comments.

View on Google+

How Trump is Winning Friends and Influencing People … for Iran

Will Trump’s unilateral decision to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem garner some support for him in the US? Maybe, but probably only from people who were already supporting him, and who wouldn’t stop supporting him if he failed to do so.

Will it hurt US interests in the Middle East? Oh, yes.

I’m really not a conspiracy theorist. Really-truly. But if I were, I could easily see Trump as being a plant for a foreign government to tear down US influence abroad and US social fabric at home. He seems to delight in it, unerringly doing just what seems designed to make things worse.

Except it would really have to be an alien government, since his fomenting of war and crippling of US feeble attempts to rein in climate change threaten every human in the world. Or at least our human civilization.




How Trump’s Jerusalem Move Just Helped Iran Win the Mideast
By Juan Cole | (Informed Comment) | – – Some sections of the crazy quilt that makes up the Trump …

View on Google+

NFL looks for a way to side-step the anthem protest issue

Prior to 2009, you didn’t see all the players at NFL games standing the sidelines during the national anthem for prime time games. Prior to that year, NFL players in such games stayed in the locker room, though on Sunday afternoon games the players were out on the sidelines. [1]

In 2009, the NFL set a new policy saying that, nope, players had to be out on the sidelines during the national anthem during prime time, and suggesting (but not mandating) that the players should stand during the anthem.

(There have been reports that the Defense Dept. paid the NFL to do this. The actual DoD actions, that have been documented, were payments to the NFL in 2012 for various patriotic displays at NFL games, itself a sketchy practice.)

The kneeling protests by NFL players during the anthem, protesting racism (esp. law enforcement) in America, have been highly controversial (which, indirectly, is kind of what you want protests to be). The president has been livid about it, fans (some at least) have been angry, the NFL owners have been unhappy about the brouhaha but haven’t been willing to force the issue (perhaps because compelling people to act patriotic is, even if legal, also kind of sketchy).

Well, word is that the NFL owners may try to defuse the whole mess by simply going back to having the players stay in the locker room until after the national anthem. That will probably make all sorts of people unhappy, too, but its also an unhappiness that doesn’t have a weekly set of visuals to go with it.

(Questioning the American compulsion to engage in a communal expression of patriotic fervor before sporting events apparently is not on the table. Why is there a big national anthem at football games and NASCAR races, but not before Formula 1 races or golf tournaments? What purpose of national interest or celebration of liberty does such a mandated display actually serve?)

——

[1] https://www.snopes.com/nfl-sideline-anthem/, http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/25/us/nfl-national-anthem-trump-kaepernick-history-trnd/index.html




washingtonpost

View on Google+

Because “On My Watch” means “Let’s Find Someone Else To Blame”

I don’t particularly blame anything Donald Trump has done for Safullo Saipov’s terror attack in New York City. Honestly, his policies to date have been fairly ineffectual, and there’s little sign that anything he’s done (or could have done) played a role in this attack (or might have stopped it).

Still, there’s that “on my watch” and “the buck stops here” principle of when bad things happen during a president’s tenure in office. And Donald Trump cannot abide any hint that, as President, the buck might stop with him.

So a visa program that was proposed by Chuck Schumer, co-sponsored by a number of Republicans, passed in 1990 with a bipartisan vote of 231-192 in the House, 89-8 in the Senate, signed into law by GOP President George H. W. Bush, has been around for over twenty years, was found to be no particular risk by the GAO under GOP President George W. Bush in 2007, would have been eliminated by Schumer in the 2013 effort for Immigration Reform that was defeated by House GOP, and was allegedly the basis for Safullo Saipov being admitted into the US in 2011 after demonstrating he met established educational / training requirements … has magically become a way to accuse Schumer for being somehow responsible for Saipov’s terror attack.

Because that’s the way Donald Trump and the right-wing punditry and media roll.

(For the record, I think the “Diversity Visa Lottery” program is a fine thing, because, yes, diversity and representation from around the world actually helps the United States, and the folk admitted under it are not useless dregs of society but people with education and/or vocational training.)




‘A Chuck Schumer beauty’: Trump calls for end to diversity visa program
“We need to get rid of the lottery program as soon as possible,” the president told reporters.

View on Google+

Trumpists just want government to work for them … against everyone else

The “politics of resentment” are not about small government per se, as the GOP has ostensibly been fighting for. Rather, it’s a tribalistic demand that government work for the people — but not for all of the people.

The core of the ethnonationalist perspective is that a country’s constituent groups and demographics are locked in a zero-sum struggle for resources. Any government intervention that favors one group disfavors the others. Government and other institutions are either with you or against you.

What FOX and talk radio have been teaching the right for decades is that native-born, working- and middle-class whites are locked in a zero-sum struggle with rising Others — minorities, immigrants, gays, coastal elitists, hippie environmentalists, etc. — and that the major institutions of the country have been coopted and are working on behalf of the Others.

[…] From an ethnonationalist perspective, government overreach is when government tells people like me what to do. The proper role of government is to defend my rights and privileges against people like them.

If government is protecting Them, then it must, perforce, be oppressing Us. Some of this comes from the fact that, yes, as institutionalized discrimination against those other groups has been combated, it has meant that the folk who used to assume the lion’s share of the societal pie and representation of what it meant to be “American” are having to share more evenly. But it’s become particularly acute in the face of prolonged economic downturns and stagnation that have nothing to do with any of this, but which provides the very real (if misplaced) feeling of being oppressed and disadvantaged.

Add in fear-mongering and rabble-rousing by conservative media and pundits (e.g., the truly chilling 2009 Limbaugh quote in the story), and you’ve got a sizable fraction of the population suddenly ready to take up torches and pitchforks to overturn societal institutions — but just for their own benefit.

It is, indirectly, the seeming victory of the Ayn Rand philosophy: I’m going to grab mine, you go pound sand.




This one quote shows what angry white guys mean when they talk about government overreach
Don’t want toxic smoke blown in your face? Move to Sweden.

View on Google+

One reason why Washington doesn’t worry a lot about Puerto Rico

It doesn’t count because it isn’t counted.

PR’s population statistics and its economic statistics (economic activity and inflation rate and unemployment) are tabulated by the US government, but not included in the national figures. So any economic downturn in PR from the impact of the hurricanes won’t be reflected in any national statistics about the economy, and so won’t cause any political headaches for national politicians.

And, of course, they don’t get to vote for anyone in Washington who matters, so they can be even more safely ignored.

Despite this, Puerto Ricans are, in fact, US citizens. For whatever that’s turning out to be worth.




Why Puerto Rico ‘doesn’t count’ to the US government

View on Google+

Donald Trump comments on Indigenous Peoples Day

Well, indirectly. In his proclamation today for Columbus Day, he mentions the Native Americans … by omission. (Emphasis mine.)

Five hundred and twenty-five years ago, Christopher Columbus completed an ambitious and daring voyage across the Atlantic Ocean to the Americas. The voyage was a remarkable and then-unparalleled feat that helped launch the age of exploration and discovery. The permanent arrival of Europeans to the Americas was a transformative event that undeniably and fundamentally changed the course of human history and set the stage for the development of our great Nation. Therefore, on Columbus Day, we honor the skilled navigator and man of faith, whose courageous feat brought together continents and has inspired countless others to pursue their dreams and convictions — even in the face of extreme doubt and tremendous adversity. More than five centuries after his initial voyage, we remember the “Admiral of the Ocean Sea” for building the critical first link in the strong and enduring bond between the United States and Europe.

Trump, like every US President, is required by 1934 law to proclaim this day in commemoration of Christopher Columbus. However, it’s possible to do so and acknowledge that, y’know, there were already some people here when Columbus arrived … and what happened to them for the next 500+ years wasn’t necessarily all that nifty as a “transformative event.” Obama, in 2015, for example, included in his proclamation:

Though these early travels expanded the realm of European exploration, to many they also marked a time that forever changed the world for the indigenous peoples of North America. Previously unseen disease, devastation, and violence were introduced to their lives — and as we pay tribute to the ways in which Columbus pursued ambitious goals — we also recognize the suffering inflicted upon Native Americans and we recommit to strengthening tribal sovereignty and maintaining our strong ties.

Trump, though, has no time for such politesse. He’s too busy praising Italian-American voters listeners.

While Isabella I and Ferdinand II of Spain sponsored his historic voyage, Columbus was a native of the City of Genoa, in present day Italy, and represents the rich history of important Italian American contributions to our great Nation. There can be no doubt that American culture, business, and civic life would all be much less vibrant in the absence of the Italian American community.

Of course, a hundred-plus years ago, Trump would have been one of the loudest voices complaining about all those Italians flooding into our country, with their weird and un-American religious practices, their murderous and lascivious ways, and their lazy work ethic. [1]

[h/t +John E. Bredehoft]

——

[1] That would have included both of my maternal grandparents’ families.




President Donald J. Trump Proclaims October 9, 2017, as Columbus Day
COLUMBUS DAY, 2017 – – – – – – – BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

View on Google+

Why Columbus Day became a thing

This article provides some interesting insight into Columbus and how he was rescued from obscurity to become the subject of a holiday, through an effort by the US to show it was a world cultural power, and to denigrate Spain’s influence in the New World (as Columbus was Italian).

An additional ingredient I’ve heard previously is that Columbus was latched onto by the waves of Italian immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th Century — this same time period — as an example of how they, too, were part of the whole America thing (since there was a lot of push-back against them being here as non-Anglo, swarthy Mediterraneans, and Catholics to boot — some things never change).

Indeed, some overly-earnest Italian-Americans are outraged of discussions about replacing Columbus Day with “Indigenous People’s Day,” seeing it as an affront to them. Let me say, as someone mostly of Italian descent, I don’t at all take losing Columbus Day as an insult.

Sometimes it’s okay for heroes to have feet of clay. It renders them more human, helps us battle our own hubris, and gives hope that even our imperfect selves can do something great. But Columbus, as it turns out, was a hot mess of an individual, noteworthy for one achievement that, in retrospect, was instrumental in widespread death and destruction. And he was kind of a dick, too. A national celebration of him is not only not warranted, actually having it is an affront to Italian-Americans.




How Columbus, of all people, became a national symbol

View on Google+

They always come back

Richard Spencer led a small band of white nationalist zanies back to Charlottesville on Saturday. It wasn’t nearly the size of the “Unite the Right” rally of a few months ago, but it gathered with (snort) tiki torches around the Lee statue in Emancipation Park, and chanted all the familiar tag lines.

“Hello Charlottesville, we’re back and we’re going to keep coming back. You will not replace us, you will not erase us,” a protester on a megaphone said.

“The left wing establishment is built around anti-white policies,” Spencer told the group. The group also chanted “The South will rise again” and “Russia is our friend.”

As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a buncha maroons.”




White nationalists return to Charlottesville
White nationalists returned to Charlottesville, Va., on Saturday less than two months after one person was killed and dozens were injured when violence broke out after the “Unite the Right” rally.

View on Google+

Samantha Bee on Trump and the National Anthem brouhaha

The usual good stuff from Samantha. A couple of additional notes (beyond what I’ve written elsewhere on the matter):

1. There seems to be an unacknowledged conflict between the same people saying …

“I tune into sports to watch sports, not politics, so these athletes expressing political views is really inappropriate”

and

“How dare they disrespect our country, our national values, our military, and all this country represent?!”

In case it’s not clear, standing up and saluting for the national anthem is a political act. It’s declaring allegiance (or at least conformity) to an expression of national identity and patriotism — the very definition of politics.

If you’re not interested in politics at a sporting event, then why are we doing a big national anthem ceremony in front of all our sportsball games?

2. That 2009 thing Samantha mentions? Yeah, that’s an interesting one bit of historical not-so-trivia:

View on Google+

Yes, this is just what Colorado needs in its political future

A Steve Bannon-backed Tom Tancredo GOP candidacy for governor.

Part of me wants to see it happen because I think that not in a million years could Tancredo (my [sigh] former US Representative, two-time failed gubernatorial candidate, and a guy who’s managed to alienate both the state’s Dems and the state’s GOP) possibly win.

On he other hand, I thought the same thing about Donald Trump.




Steve Bannon met with Tom Tancredo about a possible run for Colorado governor, Tancredo says
Tom Tancredo said Thursday that he sat down with former White House strategist Stephen Bannon and hinted that the two hard-right agitators discussed the possibility of Tancredo running for Colorado…

View on Google+

Tweetizen Trump – 2017-10-01: “Again with the Tweeting!”

Donald! It’s been weeks and weeks since I’ve delved into your Twitter stream. Honestly, it stopped being fun repeating the same mantra (“That’s untrue, Donald. That’s a distortion, Donald. You already said that, Donald. That’s silly, Donald. That’s unbecoming, Donald.”) every day.

But, hey, this weekend seems to have been a perfect storm of Twittiness that bears at least some acknowledgment. So let’s remember how we were doing this zaniness and have at, starting with Saturday morning!

PUERTO RICO (and the US VIRGIN ISLANDS)

What remains a deep, dark, terrible mystery in your Presidency, Donald, is how seriously to take you. When you make comments like this, should we assume that you actually believe (maybe because Fox News told you) that the media are actually saying harsh things government relief workers in Puerto Rico? Should we assume that you believe criticism of the magnitude (or lack thereof) of the relief effort is a criticism of the hard, painful, backbreaking work being done on the ground? Or should we read this as a casual ploy to deflect criticism of you, Donald, into being criticism of those relief workers?

In other words, Donald, are you nuts, or simply lying? I look forward to the answers in the history books of the future.

In the meantime, Donald, cite your facts. Tell us where CNN or NBC are “disparaging” FEMA and other relief workers on the ground. What specifically have they said?

In fact, the White House was asked about specific coverage, and didn’t have any answers. And a review of those networks’ coverage shows that they talked about the clear hardships being experienced there, the problems in getting relief to people around the island because of its devastated infrastructure, and criticism of the job that you and your administration (not the boots on the ground) were doing in addressing the problems.

Nobody’s criticizing those “First Responders.” They’re criticizing you.

(By the way, I’m not sure “First Responders” is the correct term here. That is usually reserved for Police and Fire Fighting folk. Disaster relief is a bit different. Again, this could be simple terminology confusion on your part, or could be an intentional effort to make it seem like the media is criticizing Fire Fighters and Police about Puerto Rico.)

Well, I guess that’s better than hanging out in New Jersey over the weekend and playing golf (even if you did nobly dedicate the golf trophy to hurricane victims).

So what are you planning on doing there, Donald? Will this in any way reflect an increase or escalation in government effort to assist the disaster relief efforts? Or just be another photo op?

No, the media are working overtime to show how your authorized efforts are inadequate to the task. They aren’t blaming soldiers, etc., they are blaming you. And you’re trying to dodge it.

Great people, yes. Amazing job, certainly by the individuals there. Adequate job to the task? Really, it seems not.

So when people don’t complain, and instead praise you, then you lavish them with complements. When someone, like Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz of San Juan, says that efforts aren’t happening fast enough and that people are suffering and dying, you criticize their leadership and their people.

That is, perhaps, very human of you, Donald (nobody likes being called out for criticism) — but not very leaderly.

Also, it helps explain in party why some people choose to complement you.

They would respond, Donald, but they have no power or cell phone infrastructure to see your tweet.

Sigh. I would reply to each of your tweets, Donald, but they all fall into the same pattern: complement people who are complementing you, assert that you are doing incredible stuff, pretend that criticism of you is criticism of relief workers on the ground, accuse Fake News of being fake. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So let’s just quote the tweets for effect.

 

That one came with a nine minute video with the caption “KEEP UP THE GREAT WORK & IGNORE THE FAKE NEWS! I want everybody on the ground in PR & USVI assisting in Hurricane Maria relief efforts to know that we are grateful & thankful to all of you! Ignore the FAKE NEWS & keep up the GREAT WORK! THANK YOU!”

I will leave it at that, except to suggest that “all buildings now inspected for safety” in Puerto Rico, an island of 3.4 million, where trucks can’t even bring food and water supplies, is so ludicrous as to not even warrant a snort.

I mean, come on, Donald — at least pretend to be giving us an accurate report.

AND IN OTHER CRITICAL LEADERSHIP NEWS …

You then retweeted:

https://twitter.com/SLandinSoCal/status/912099544975806464

So let me say this about that:

1. Compelled political speech — and, yes, this is political speech — is not only unconstitutional as a government order, but unseemly as a suggestion.

2. Why do you get to dictate what people are actually protesting about?

3. This, this is what you are spending time tweeting about, both these and other messages last week? In what universe is this a national priority that deserves the Bully Pulpit?

Heck, someone might think you were merely trying to rile up some support after, I don’t know, you failed (once again) to repeal Obamacare, had to fire your HHS Secretary, faced mounting criticism over Puerto Rico, and ran out of schoolyard insults toward North Korea.

4. This is pretty much the same hand-waving you did above regarding “If anyone is criticizing me, they are criticizing the hard-working folk on the ground in Puerto Rico.” Asserting that criticism of the how our nation is handling one piece of public policy (albeit a profoundly important piece) is somehow spitting in the faces of military alive and dead and denigrating everything our nation stands for is silly at best, and dangerously offensive at worst.

5. I will throw out to your supporters this particular piece I found online.

If you voted for someone who said he prefers soldiers who don’t get captured, who insulted the parents of a gold star captain, who said he knew more than the generals, who said he always wanted a Purple Heart, who dodged the draft, and who called the US military a disaster, please don’t pretend that you’re angry at those who kneel during the anthem because it’s disrespectful to our military.

And if you voted for that person because he’s not politically correct and he says what’s on his mind, please don’t tell me that kneeling during the anthem is wrong.

And if you voted for a reality show star because he’s an outsider and not a career politician, please don’t tell me that athletes shouldn’t voice their political views.

And if you voted for him because he cares about the Constitution, please don’t tell me that people shouldn’t exercise their right to free speech.

And if you voted for him because, despite his wealth and comfortable life, he was willing to go out there, be made a target, and say what’s really wrong with this country, please don’t tell me that black athletes should just shut up and be grateful to be rich.

In other words, Donald, there’s no reason to listen to you as a moral authority on this subject (or, in my opinion, any subject.)

THAT’S STRANGE …

I’m sure Luther Strange comforts himself with that thought now every night he goes to sleep.

I mean, how freaking insecure do you have to be, Donald, to be saying, “Well, hey, even though I said he’d be elected, even though I campaigned hard for him, even though he lost, at least he rose in the polls because of me”?

Hell, even Breitbart snickered over that one.

It also doesn’t help your case, when you start deleting tweets you made in support of Strange. Yeesh.

AND IN CASE ANYONE HAD STOPPED WORRYING ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR …

That’s just great, Donald. People are really nervous about North Korea, and the prospect of nuclear-tipped DPRK missles landing on Guam … or Hawaii … or Alaska … or the West Coast of the US. Or even Japan, or South Korea, or pretty much anywhere.

And then, after the world watching you and Kim trade insults like gang chieftains in a back alley, we learned, much to some relief, that there were actual diplomatic channels open between Us and Them — nothing guaranteed, but, for the love of God, people actually talking and negotiating, rather than double-dog daring each other. Tillerson, your Secretary of State, even reassured us that “Americans should sleep well at night.”

Which … you then pissed all over, undercutting your own chief of foreign policy. Again.

I’m sure that Americans will sleep even better, knowing you are at the helm.

View on Google+

A look at a truly patriotic act of allegiance

Immigrants being nationalized swear an oath of allegiance, not to the flag, not to the military, not to the national leader, not to a cultural group or historical victory or nationalist value set or symbol or even to a vague “United States.” They swear an oath to the US Constitution.

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

That seems an expression of patriotism we don’t see much of among the native-born population.




Pledging Allegiance to the U.S. Constitution – The Atlantic
How patriotism among American immigrants is uniquely linked to the country’s founding document

View on Google+

So who’s upset because Superman stopped a killing of undocumented workers?

I read the issue. And I actually saw the angry tweets (and bilious Fox News opinion piece) lambasting DC for having Superman stop a mass shooting.

Which sounds insane, but the target was a group of (accused) undocumented workers, and the shooter was a white guy, with a American flag bandana, who had lost his job and was being psychically influenced to act out on his worst impulses.

This scene, it’s posited, is some sort of SJW attempt to make anti-immigration sentiment a Bad Thing, and to make illegal aliens (sort of like Supes himself) Innocent Victims who need to be protected from True Americans.

I presume the objections are to the specific motivation being played on here (“It’s impossible, even with mental influence, for a True American to be driven to murder, even by Evil Illegals Who Stole His Job!”) as opposed to a broader dissatisfaction with Superman stopping a mass slaying. I.e., the objectors would be okay if Supes stopped, say, a generic Bad Guy who was trying to kill some generic Civilians, or even an Evil BLM Antifa Islamic Assassin who was trying slay a group of Innocent White Police Officers (preferably by beheading, so we don’t get any Gun Banning Nuts pointing at this as an argument).

Most fundamentally, I think it’s just anything that portrays immigrants (possibly illegal, but the guy calling them that is a crazy) in a positive sense, or touches on animus toward them, is simply taboo to some people — and any media that does such a thing is meant as a propagandistic attack.

Which ignores, of course, Superman’s long history as a literal Social Justice Warrior, going back to his creation, and popping up at various times that were just as socially fraught as these. Perhaps it’s just more visible now because we’re so close to it.




Superman saved undocumented workers from a racist — and conservative media is mad about it
They argue that the Man of Steel has become a tool of propaganda.

View on Google+

Russia’s efforts to divide and tear down American society

So if I were an anti-immigrant nationalist, I’d like to think I’d be a bit taken aback to discover that Facebook page with all those cool cartoons and memes I shared with my friends turns out to have been put together by a Russian media group working for the Russian Government.

More likely, of course, I’d simply deny that was the case (having been trained by My President to distrust “Fake News”), or, even if I admitted it, just fall back on, “Well, whatever — what they say still makes sense!”

I could probably go along for quite some time without letting myself ask, “So, why would Russia want to be spreading this sort of sentiment in the United States? What’s their motive here? What’s their end-game? Is it to our benefit, or might there be something here that would actually weaken us, make us less of a challenge to them.”

Facebook said last week that the 470 “inauthentic accounts and pages” it had linked to Russia and removed had bought about 3,000 ads between June 2015 and May this year. Though some ads mentioned the presidential candidates or the election, most “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages across the ideological spectrum — touching on topics from LGBT matters to race issues to immigration to gun rights,” wrote Alex Stamos, the company’s chief security officer.

Again, this is not to say (sadly) that Russia invented this nativist sentiment, or an accusation that every meme or protest against Those Darned Furriner Illegals (and other similar causes) originated in the Kremlin. But, clearly, some of them did. And that really does make one wonder: on the assumption that Russia wasn’t doing this for giggles, or to lend a culturally purifying hand to America, why did they do it? Or, as they used to say in old murder mysteries, Cui bono? And once we figure out who benefits, should that cause us to consider those causes in a new, less attractive light?




Purged Facebook Page Tied to the Kremlin Spread Anti-Immigrant Bile – The New York Times
The page, posing as an activist group, was one of hundreds of fake accounts Russia used in an information campaign during the election, a revelation that has put Facebook on the defensive.

View on Google+

On 9-11, sixteen years later

As I look around at posts and shares and tweets this morning saying, “Never forget,” I have to ask, “How could I?”

I’ve started and discarded over a dozen posts on 9-11 over the years, mostly because they got into too-tangled webs of blame and accusation and grief — grief not just over the loss of thousands of lives in the terror attacks themselves, but the hundreds of thousands, millions of lives cut short or crippled by the conflicts since, and the veering of American history (and that of the world) into something darker and more dangerous.

It’s important to remember 9-11, not just for what happened, but for what changed, and continues to change, following it. We won’t have the perspective to appreciate it fully until decades more have passed, but what we can see from within the still-ongoing blast wave is more than sufficient to mourn over.

#911

View on Google+

Trump actually does have a foreign policy. Just not a very good one.

One might think that Trump’s foreign actions are as inconsistent and zany as his domestic ones. But the author says there is one … and, not surprising given its simplicity, it isn’t working very well.

The Trump doctrine, in a nutshell, is that the United States is by leaps and bounds the most powerful country in the world, and by all rights should be taking greater advantage of that power. Any agreement we make, with friend or foe, should favor us absolutely; if not, there’s no reason for us to maintain it. When we tell other countries what to do, they had better listen, and if they don’t, we shouldn’t do business with them. Diplomatic and trade relations with the U.S. are privileges, and the threat of withdrawing those privileges is a shamefully underused lever for shaping other countries’ behavior.

Thus Trump withdraws (or threatens to withdraw) from trade agreements he thinks are not sufficiently profitable to the US, wants an expensive build-up of military force, and suggests that cutting off all trade with China is both doable and desirable if China doesn’t stop trading with North Korea.

The thing is, it’s not based on reality. Not even on past reality. Trump may be following rules that worked in cut-throat property deals, to twist the arms of municipalities or suppliers, but American leverage in military and economic power isn’t nearly that great, wasn’t designed to be used that way, and can’t actually be so used without doing a lot of harm to the US as well.

Could we survive cutting off trade with China? Yes, but it wouldn’t be pretty (for either country), would likely throw the US into a huge economic downturn (we sell a lot to China, you know), and the Chinese have a lot of leverage to strike back. Could we turn North Korea into a glass parking lot? Sure, but aside from the butcher’s bill in doing so, the collateral damage done to North Korea’s neighbors, and to America’s reputation, would be horrific (and that’s even with the assumption that the DPRK can’t yet hit US territory with something nuclear).

Bluster and braggadocio only work if you don’t get called, or if you can back up your bluff. Trump can’t do either — and the nations he is going up against know it.




The Trump Doctrine Falls Flat

View on Google+

Americans want to be heroes, not care workers

An interesting article on an interesting observation: Americans go gangbusters to help in an emergency — throwing donations, giving blood, doing the heavy lifting to help people in crisis survive. Heroic stuff, absolutely necessary, highly laudable.

But when it comes to the proactive steps needed to keep emergencies from happening … welllllll, not so much. Regular donations to disaster relief organizations, vs one-off checks … encouraging zoning laws, rather than dealing with the floods or fires that result when they’re ignored … eating healthy, instead of just getting cardiac surgery when our arteries clog up … taking steps to help prevent homelessness, rather than dealing with the homeless when a winter cold snap threatens lives … maintaining bridges, as opposed to building new ones …

… we all love the beau geste, the heroic response, the one-off effort that takes care of the particular acute problem we face. That’s a lot more fun (or a lot less drudgery) than dealing with chronic early-stage problems that are preventable or can be managed or paid for (even if more efficiently) on a drudging, day-to-day basis.

I’ve seen this over and over in volunteer organizations: if there’s an emergency, a crisis, something huge, people step up to save the day. But try to get them to step up for just the normal ongoing grunt work? You can hear the crickets chirping.

I don’t know if it’s a particularly American quirk, or a human one. It’s not efficient or effective. But it’s how we do things.




How Americans View Natural Disasters
Stephanie Zvan introduced me to Minnesota activist Sigrid Ellis, who put out a series of tweets that are really spot-on. I’d never thought about this before, but she’s absolutely right. Americans love to help when disaster hits — and that’s great — but we don’t want to do the hard work to help in the …

View on Google+

Trump kinda-sorta punts on DACA

While there are serious arguments that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is completely constitutional, the program has always felt like a bit of a kludge that Obama felt the need to create through executive fiat due to repeated inaction and arm-flailing whenever Congress got close to any sort of immigration reform.

Trump’s action, on the face of it, is probably the least-worst thing he could have done (aside from leaving DACA alone): freezing further applications (while allowing for renewals), and setting a time frame of six months before the Administration starts to consider people in the program (whom they happen to have records of, conveniently enough) fair game for deportation (and illegal to work any longer).

That gives Congress time to tackle putting the program back in place as actual law, which is generally preferable. The question is, will Congress (who has failed to pass similar programs previously) actually, finally, do so. If you’ve listened to the GOP congressional rhetoric — with the exception of xenophobes like Steve King — it sounds like it should be a slam-dunk, with numerous GOP congressfolk telling Trump that DACA is good and should be left alone. Or maybe they were saying that to avoid having him put the hot potato in their laps.

Of course, in the meantime, those people in the DACA program — who were brought to the US by their parents illegally, but while they were still minors, and who have been acting as productive members of society — are now in limbo, not sure what their status will be come next March (not unlike transgender troops). And while Trump said in his statement that current DACA individuals will not be particularly targeted, he’s also said that ICE has been focused on deporting hardened criminals when we’ve seen multiple stories of ordinary folk being dragged off by the agency.

And even if Congress does pass law to reinstate the program, there’s no guarantee that Trump will sign it, given some of his rhetoric in his announcement.

Only by the reliable enforcement of immigration law can we produce safe communities, a robust middle class, and economic fairness for all Americans,” Mr. Trump said, calling the DACA program an “amnesty-first approach.”

Before we ask what is fair to illegal immigrants, we must also ask what is fair to American families, students, taxpayers, and job seekers,” the president added.

The implications that DACA folk are making America unsafe, or that they are taking jobs away from Americans who otherwise would be able to have them, manages to be both insulting and slanderous at the same time (and goofy as well, when you consider that these folk are parts of American families, and are taxpayers).

And another factor is his Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who has never liked DACA, and is now clucking sadly that we can’t have the program because “We cannot admit everyone” (and he’d clearly prefer to admit no one). Trump may well be setting up Congress for a contentious fight over legislation that he has no plans of accepting anyway.

 




Trump Moves to End DACA and Calls on Congress to Act
Administration officials said the roughly 800,000 current beneficiaries of the program will not be immediately affected by what they called an “orderly wind down” of the policy.

View on Google+