tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60741212024-03-14T17:27:37.817-05:00Lotus - Surviving a Dark TimeA nonviolent, radical Left perspective on the news from another ordinary individual struggling to keep hope alive.<br><br>
<b>"Passion and substance are not mutually exclusive."</b>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.comBlogger6356125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-29343900950777612582024-03-14T17:18:00.001-05:002024-03-14T17:27:06.095-05:00Sometimes not losing is enough to celebrate<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9fWeEu657hG3h1OFas4Ob6Zql_xiE_rUCzu6j0n7Ww1-9hwuQQYX5YSmKTWj1UJrG6hvSCaSKK4-XJy4WW9FANZhgjKtgH0_8arzI45J9sjdEFANUIdKudFyNYl1LaoKjOy6pv2NVjK-nUfYmoWOYT9yb2gmYoJXN3xhP3YftcO5gKyaPHvt0/s800/lgbtq.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9fWeEu657hG3h1OFas4Ob6Zql_xiE_rUCzu6j0n7Ww1-9hwuQQYX5YSmKTWj1UJrG6hvSCaSKK4-XJy4WW9FANZhgjKtgH0_8arzI45J9sjdEFANUIdKudFyNYl1LaoKjOy6pv2NVjK-nUfYmoWOYT9yb2gmYoJXN3xhP3YftcO5gKyaPHvt0/s320/lgbtq.jpg" width="320" /></a>During his struggles for the rights of migrant farm workers, <a href="https://www.history.com/topics/hispanic-history/cesar-chavez" target="_blank">Cesar Chavez</a> was quoted as explaining the celebratory nature of the union's gatherings by saying "We have so few victories we have to celebrate our losses." He was joking, but the truth of it remains: the importance of hope and even finding joy in the struggle.<br /><br />Because sometimes, it's enough to not lose. The estimable <a href="https://www.erininthemorning.com" target="_blank">Erin Reed</a>, tireless tracker of LGBTQ+-related legislation, brings an example.<br /><br />She reports that legislative sessions in <a href="https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/the-tide-is-turning-dozens-of-anti" target="_blank">Florida</a> and <a href="https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/over-20-anti-lgbtq-bills-die-in-west" target="_blank">West Virginia</a> have adjourned <i>sine die</i> - that is, without setting a date to meet again. What that means is that any bills that have not passed are dead and must start from scratch when the legislatures get back together.<br /><br />Which is good news for the human rights of LGBTQ+ people and their supporters and allies because the effect is that over 20 anti-LGBTQ+ bills in each state are now dead. At the same time, again in each state, only one such bill passed. This dramatic contrast to the results of the past few years not only represents a victory for the increasing pushback against such bills but also provides a respite from the assault and space to plan for the battles to come.<br /><br />While the passage of any such legislation is yet another attack on basic rights of transgender folks, the failures here are nonetheless heartening. It had already seemed to me that the spread of the legislative bigotry was stalling, with most - not all, but most - of the action this year coming in states that had, as Erin put it, "historically targeted transgender individuals" rather than spreading to new ones.<br /><br />Some have suggested that this has been a case of the bigots and fear-mongers engaging in some CYA in the run-up to the November elections: Anti-LGBTQ+ stands have not been a big winner for them this year, so they want to downplay the issue now, intending to get back to it once the threat of democracy is behind them.<br /><br />Personally, I suspect that this is less related to the elections than to the right wing's practice of "slash, burn, move on," that is, of glomming onto some issue where they think they can get an inflamed, unthinking response, loudly and viciously defaming/decrying/denouncing their target, doing as much damage as they think they can before real resistance sets in, then moving on to the next boogeyman.<br /><br />(After all, how much screeching have you heard about Critical Race Theory of late? Even the general all-purpose smear "woke" has become more of a vapid cliche used ritualistically than a verbal weapon.)<br /><br />That of course doesn't mean those concerned about LGBTQ+ rights can relax; as Clarence Darrow said, "Ignorance and fanaticism is ever busy and needs feeding. Always it is feeding and gloating for more." But it does mean that as part of strategizing we can include going on the offensive to secure rights in some areas rather then solely resisting their denial.<br /><br />So hold to hope, embrace justice, and celebrate victories (even the small ones), because like the song says, "Every victory brings another" so long as we "carry it on."<br /><br /><b>Footnote:</b> Another relevant quote from Cesar Chavez: "<a href="https://www.biography.com/activists/cesar-chavez" target="_blank">Once social change begins</a>, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore."Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-75071955101025552142024-02-09T23:13:00.000-05:002024-02-09T23:13:28.607-05:00Letters, I send letters....<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPvIn-0d9JKlAaz1JMkSSHJhlu7mssmycIl8Dyvx2XeEU37X7dDYsdCBT0vzVqDpYa7Vi6c7haUJPYRNU7dXYNSsP9WE5bSfAeCPPGNnadmdFmY52Yi23oAM_QYBhPix_1L4qfRLdYulCzwuBNA-vI6X5W7SSf-MaNWq58X9kBsye0FYUcPBnD/s800/palestine-israel%20peace.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="706" data-original-width="800" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPvIn-0d9JKlAaz1JMkSSHJhlu7mssmycIl8Dyvx2XeEU37X7dDYsdCBT0vzVqDpYa7Vi6c7haUJPYRNU7dXYNSsP9WE5bSfAeCPPGNnadmdFmY52Yi23oAM_QYBhPix_1L4qfRLdYulCzwuBNA-vI6X5W7SSf-MaNWq58X9kBsye0FYUcPBnD/s320/palestine-israel%20peace.webp" width="320" /></a>The <a href="https://afsc.org/">American Friends Service Committee</a> recently had an on-line letter to Congress. As I usually do in such cases, I re-wrote the text to"personalize" it. This is how it came out.<p></p><p style="text-align: center;">-</p><p>I call on you to demand a cease-fire and humanitarian access in Gaza by endorsing H.Res. 786 “calling for an immediate de-escalation and cease-fire in Israel and occupied Palestine” or a Senate equivalent. </p><p>As part of that, I want you to oppose new military assistance for Israel, including the supplemental funding request under consideration, until there is clear progress toward an ultimate resolution that respects the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians.</p><p>According to data provided by the AFSC, since October 7, over 27,000 Palestinians have been killed, 40% of them children. Another 10,000 are estimated to be buried under the rubble. Over 2 million people have been displaced from their homes, and over 70% of homes and other structures in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed. </p><p>The on-going Israeli blockade of Gaza, described more than once as "the world's largest outdoor prison," worsened by the intensified lockdown and now compounded by the US <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-wont-restart-unrwa-aid-until-investigation-completed-officials-2024-02-09/" target="_blank">ending aid</a> for UNRWA, has lead to shortages of food, water, fuel, and medical supplies. It is estimated that 85% of the population in Gaza is on the verge of famine.</p><p>A cease-fire is needed NOW.</p><p>The vicious, bloody attack by Hamas on October 7 deserves no defense and will get none from me. But neither will I defend Israel’s actions in Gaza that so far have killed <b>more than 20 times</b> as many Palestinians and which have been found by the <a href="https://icj-cij.org/home" target="_blank">International Court of Justice</a> to <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1227078791/icj-israel-genocide-gaza-palestinians-south-africa" target="_blank">plausibly amount to genocide</a></p><p>The lesson of October 7 that should be learned is that further military attacks will bring neither peace nor security for Israel or Israelis. Historically, efforts to militarily "stamp out" a group such as Hamas almost invariably fail, leading instead to decades of suffering for both sides - as this one long since has - that only end when the causes of the conflict are meaningfully addressed.</p><p>With that in mind, I ask you this:</p><p> - Given that our Declaration of Independence claims the right, even the duty, of an oppressed people to resistance, and<br /> - given the existence of Israel is based on the world's recognition of the right of a people to a homeland, and<br /> - given that you are not going to deny Palestinians both the right of resistance and the right to a homeland,</p><p>what is it that you propose Palestinians could and should now do to advance the cause of an independent Palestinian state, particularly now that the Israeli government has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/netanyahu-tells-us-opposes-palestinian-state-after-gaza-war" target="_blank">openly declared</a> it will "never" agree to that?</p><p>Note carefully: You cannot say "No terrorism" because I did not ask what they should not do, but what they should. The lack of a practical answer to that question condemns Palestinians to on-going suffering and oppression and Israelis to continued incidents of terrorism</p><p>But for the moment, for this instant, here is what is most important: Please, please do what’s right. Call for a cease-fire and humanitarian access - NOW.</p><p style="text-align: center;">-</p><p>Some of that, I know, repeats things I have said before. They bear repeating.<br /></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-35384309429863430852024-02-07T22:30:00.005-05:002024-02-07T22:30:36.865-05:00Okay, I feel old<p>So I read that it appears that Kyrsten Sinema <a href="https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2024/02/kyrsten-sinema-sure-looks-like-shes-not-going-to-run-for-re-election/" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">is not running for re-election</a>. The observation is based on her doing what is for a Senate race a minimal amount of fundraising as opposed to previous years. </p><p>That’s no loss, in my opinion, but the point is that after the article saying she is spending "outsized amounts" on security, there was this paragraph:</p><blockquote><p>Security has been an obviously special concern for the senator ever since she hid in a bathroom to avoid a confrontation with activists. “She’s Howard Hughes-level paranoid,” one former staffer told the New York Post, referring to the mentally ill entrepreneur portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in “The Aviator.”</p></blockquote><p>In other words, while I would have deleted everything after the last comma, the author felt it necessary to cite a 2004 movie starring a well-known now-49-year-old actor to make sure the article's audience understood the reference.</p><p><em>:sigh:</em> Best get me my lap robe and cup of Postum. My joints are achin' in this chill.</p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-5314892155778464812024-02-07T22:13:00.001-05:002024-02-07T22:14:08.228-05:00The Rules<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSCXcYsasBol6_m6w2O1S-wchnH68ljmH7zmYzp6AV_sLuWkTELpMPyiZLUrHMM2mbwEREnW63h0jcOS3uDlUdH4EsA0ueKFlfNFk_SA6HETnVKHcML2PS9YzWCfITGc_wXGeUv6m61QUH-IBEgsnBXrMiRSqXVIyllGbhHpcbb-oR0i6jcOKn/s474/rules.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="283" data-original-width="474" height="191" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSCXcYsasBol6_m6w2O1S-wchnH68ljmH7zmYzp6AV_sLuWkTELpMPyiZLUrHMM2mbwEREnW63h0jcOS3uDlUdH4EsA0ueKFlfNFk_SA6HETnVKHcML2PS9YzWCfITGc_wXGeUv6m61QUH-IBEgsnBXrMiRSqXVIyllGbhHpcbb-oR0i6jcOKn/s320/rules.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>Recently, I saw a video about the "Reverse Gish Gallop." The Gish Gallop is a verbal tactic based on the premise that it almost always takes longer to rebut a claim than it does to make it, and, as you likely know, consists of firing out so many claims and charges so fast that there is no way the target can adequately refute of even contest all of them.<br /><br />People came to expect this so tried to prepare rapid-fire responses to expected claims. The "Reverse Gish Gallop" consists of picking out something you said, some error no how minor, and attack that as if it discredited every other rebuttal you made or at least distracting attention from the fact you had presented them.<br /><br />That reminded me of some things in what I call my "Rules for Right-wingers," which I post from time to time as reminders. Since the last time was about four years ago, I figured this presented an opportunity to do it again.<br /><br />The fact is, flakes, nutcases, paranoids, and other assorted bozos are almost the totality of the present right-wing and almost the totality of the national Republican party apart from the bigots and bosses whose only interests are of the self kind. For some time I had observed with varying degrees of annoyance and bemusement the predictable tactics of the wingers in debates - or rather, their tactics in avoiding actual debates. But I finally came to a point where I had had it with the evasions, the dodges, the schemes and slime that make up winger discussions and began assembling a list of those tactics.<br /><br />So here it is, the latest always-subject-to-expansion-or-refinement list of wingnut arguing tactics and operating procedures. They are listed simply in the order in which they got added. Thoughts (and suggestions for new rules) are welcome.<br /><br />= <br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #1: Attack, attack, attack!</span><br />In fact, try to level so many attacks so fast that your opponent never gets to make a criticism of their own because they are so busy trying to catch up to your attacks. However, don't forget to be deeply shocked and offended if anyone on the left responds in kind.<br /><span style="color: red;"><br />Rule #2: Deny, deny, deny!</span><br />Doesn't matter if it's something undeniable, deny it anyway.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #3: When facts are beyond even your ability to deny, change the subject.</span><br />This can be done in various ways, for example:<br />- Introduce irrelevant details on a tangential point.<br />- Pluck out from what your opponent said an individual phrase you think you can attack, even if it's one that was just tossed out offhandedly, and treat that as if it's the focus of the entire discussion.<br />- Tie up the discussion in piles of minutia to the point where everyone, including your opponent, loses track of the actual issue.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #4: Issue a lengthy, ranting denunciation of "the left."</span><br />This often can be initiated with "whataboutism," responding to criticisms by ignoring them and going "Yeah? Well what about" whatever seems most useful at the moment. Try to include the words "hypocrites" and/or "hypocrisy," arguing that the left can't legitimately criticize the right (because any such criticism is by your definition hypocritical) while insisting that the right can continue to criticize the left. (Note: Where possible, include the phrase "you liberals" or better yet, "you libtards.")<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #5: Make the particular stand for the whole.</span><br />Find something offensive or silly some liberal or leftist, somewhere, sometime, said or did and label it as identifying the entire left half of the American political spectrum. Demand that your opponent spend their time denouncing that example rather than discussing the original topic.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #6: Never answer a question.</span><br />When faced with one, ignore it and respond with a question, preferably on a different point. If possible, the question should be accusatory. If you do not get an answer, repeat the question and loudly demand it be answered while continuing to ignore the original question you were asked. If you do get an answer, ignore it. If necessary, drop the matter without acknowledging having gotten a reply; if possible, repeat the question, insisting it has not been answered, even if it has.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #7: No amount of proof is enough.</span><br />Demand every remotely questionable assertion by your opponent be proved in every conceivable detail, right down to dates, times, and places, complete with signed affidavits. Refer to all factual assertions by your opponents as "just your opinion" even if the level of proof you demanded is supplied.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #8: Assert unsourced statistics and facts with great assurance.</span><br />Or, more appropriately these days, assert "alternative facts." Reply to requests for proof by saying some version of "You can look it up." You thereby demand that your opponents do the work of trying to prove your argument for you.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #9: Frame the debate in false choices.</span><br />For example, "Do you support socialism or freedom?"<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #10: Accuse the accuser.</span><br />You could call this "I'm rubber and you're glue" method: Insist, even in the absence of any foundation, that any criticism of you actually applies to your opponent. For example, if someone notes you're avoiding a debate, insist "You're the one who won't debate!" Faced with examples of right-wingers lying, reply "That fits you lefties to a T!" If something you said is challenged as bigoted, say "You're being intolerant!" or better yet, "You're the real racist!"<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #11: When a claim has been debunked, continue to use it nonetheless.</span><br />When it has been debunked so thoroughly and completely that continuing to use it is counterproductive, stop claiming it for a time, after which assert it again as if the debunking had never happened. For numerous examples where this can be found, see climate change denialists.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #12: Never accept responsibility.</span><br />Never, never, <i>never</i> admit any responsibility for the meaning or impact of your own words. If you want guidance, see almost any GOPper statement on January 6.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #13: When all else has failed - and even when it hasn't - lie.</span><br />Just make crap up. Important: Keep repeating it. See Rule #11.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #14: When you fear a contrary point may be raised, shout.</span><br />If that contrary point is a good one, shout very loudly. Your point may not get heard, but neither will your opponent's. (This is primarily for use on television.)<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #15: Seize control of the Clock of History.</span><br />Choose the period of time most advantageous to your argument and insist that any event outside that time frame, either before it or after it, is irrelevant and must not be considered.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #16: "Both Sides Now."</span><br />If the behavior of some rught-wingers is so undeniably bad that it can't be explained away, airily dismiss it with "Both sides do it." Freely employ false equivalencies.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #17: All debate stops when you win - and only when you win.</span><br />Remember that there are only two responses to anything in contention: It's "up for debate" and "We won, the debate is over, shut up." Gun control provides a good example: In the 2008, the Supreme Court, for the first time, held that owning a gun is an individual right. Even since then, the pro-gun claim has been "The Supreme Court has ruled. The debate is over." But for the 69 years preceding that, the controlling precedent was that the 2nd Amendment was about a collective right of collective self-defense, not an individual one. In all those years, no one on the right ever said "The Supreme Court has ruled. The debate is over. We lost."<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #18: If you can't win by the rules, change them.</span><br />A great example of this is the recent attempt by the GOPper-controlled Ohio legislature to toughen the requirements for an amendment to the state constitution in an attempt to head of protection of reproductive rights.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #19: Intellectual consistency and honesty are for wusses and losers.</span><br />Should need no example, as there are new ones every day, but I happen to favor this classic: Late in evening of election day, 2012, it looked for a time that Obama might lose the popular vote to Mitt Romney despite having won the electoral vote handily. Tweetie-pie tweeted that such a result would be "a total sham and a travesty" and the electoral college is "a disaster for a democracy."<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #20: Sitzfleisch.</span><br />It's German for "sitting flesh" and it goes back to the days before chess clocks put time constraints on games and players would sometimes win by simply taking so long to move that their opponent would either give up or become so tired from the wait that they would make foolish moves and lose. More generally it now means winning by virtue of sheer, unmitigated, stubbornness. Right-wingers are past masters at that.<br /><br /><span style="color: red;">Rule #21: Play the victim.</span><br />Whatever it is, the right-wing claims they are the real victims. They are the ones facing discrimination, being oppressed, whose free speech is imperiled, who are being called names, the ones who can't get a decent break.<br /><br />=<br /><br />Okay, that's all the rules I have now, ones which collectively show up right-wingers for what they are: a bunch of selfish, whining, crybabies only interested in their own power and privilege. Which is why playing the victim comes so easily to them.<br /><br />I'll wrap this up with an observation, one I've made before in discussing this: I frankly expect many of us have at some time or another been guilty of one or more of these sins in the course of a debate, especially if it got heated. But occasional sins in the heat of the moment is not what this is about. This is about a consistent pattern by the right of evasion and deceit. It is being an intellectual coward. It is about being a bully. It is about being a liar.<br /><br />It is about being a right-winger.<p></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-52551045283185530282024-02-02T02:55:00.000-05:002024-02-02T02:55:06.092-05:00Watch this!<p> Trust me. I mean it. Watch this.</p><p>It will be worth <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9uf_25BiPc" target="_blank">the 26 minutes</a> of your life.<br /></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-35149190324073935932024-02-02T02:50:00.000-05:002024-02-02T02:50:12.003-05:00Why would I do it?<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA3_OIYsr9dugu1yz4MVLYxUHF0Kktvnu60_l88ByGyXypZFyK3JZbi1ajjciQNoNnBJZxq8Me5cjifnvGBgcmqcKofKxO06G1eB_HIvLr5lrOSVaUzV5G1ydJu6hb6iWCdUR6vnLeVA0XzXZJMadP2TjrZpnJjZS_XqUq2Qy7AfqNray4MuKz/s474/evil%20rich%202.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="316" data-original-width="474" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiA3_OIYsr9dugu1yz4MVLYxUHF0Kktvnu60_l88ByGyXypZFyK3JZbi1ajjciQNoNnBJZxq8Me5cjifnvGBgcmqcKofKxO06G1eB_HIvLr5lrOSVaUzV5G1ydJu6hb6iWCdUR6vnLeVA0XzXZJMadP2TjrZpnJjZS_XqUq2Qy7AfqNray4MuKz/s320/evil%20rich%202.jpg" width="320" /></a>Robert Reich <a href="https://link.sbstck.com/redirect/014addea-a348-4634-b7bc-363c17aa2d6b?j=eyJ1IjoiMnM3ZnUifQ.O9f0IG0RFUQHMpY_MVbsXNcqUmE7gk_on3lnkyeE7lA" target="_blank">had a poll up</a> about the just-passed bill about the Child Tax Credit. He noted that half of the funding would go toward expanding the tax credit and half would got to tax cuts for the rich and Big Business, resulting in an average increase of 0.3% in after-tax income for beneficiaries and 0.5% for the rich. The question was if you would vote for the bill.<p>The choices were Yes, it helps the poor; No, it increases income inequality; and Other (in comments). I voted Other and this was my comment:<br /><br />I would vote for it, but with great and vocal reluctance, using it as an occasion to point out as loudly as I could (not just on the floor but through social media and press statements) the disgusting, stomach-wrenching greed and moral bankruptcy of the rich, those "squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinners" whose only concern is "Gimmie more! Gimmie more!" and often have quite literally more money than they can use and so buy things from apartment-building-sized yachts to private islands to joyrides into the upper atmosphere just to have things to spend it on.<br /><br />That, and just as loudly pointing out that the very fact that an <a href="https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/bipartisan-tax-framework-low-income-wealthy-households-benefit-most" target="_blank">average income increase</a> of $60 <b>a year</b> potentially could make a difference in the lives of number of people is undeniable proof of just how screwed up, sick, and wretched our economy has become.<br /><br />We regard the "gilded age" as a time of ostentatious wealth and extreme poverty. We are facing such a time again, one where being a multimillionaire is to be small fry, billionaires seem ordinary, and centibillionaires (with the arrival of <a href="https://theweek.com/finance/1019328/the-rise-of-the-worlds-first-trillionaire" target="_blank">the first trillionaire</a> in sight) are presented by the media as affable folk heroes. Meanwhile, nearly 40 million among us remain in poverty with the "official" rate varying between 11 and 15 percent for the last nearly 60 years, some among us so poor that, again, $60 a freaking year makes an actual difference, and some legislators propose to deal with this by revoking child labor laws.<br /><br />All in line with <a href="https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2023/05/when-someone-tells-you-who-they-are.html" target="_blank">George Wills' statement</a> "'Back to 1900' is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal."<br /><br />We need to take that sense we have of the "gilded age" as being tacky, distasteful, and apply it to the present and add the moral outrage that radicals and reformers expressed at the time. We need to make possession of that level of wealth something shameful. We need, that is, to stop simply referring to economic inequality and instead make it both a moral campaign and the central economic issue of our age.<br /><br />So why I would vote for this bill? Because for all the moral and ethical faults it represents, it does provide some benefits to the poorer among us. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, it would benefit <a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/about-16-million-children-in-low-income-families-would-gain-in-first-year-of" target="_blank">some 16 million children</a> in the first year and could raise over 500,000 children above the poverty line when fully in effect. (Bear in mind the $60 after-tax figure is an average for everyone eligible to apply for the benefit, including those above the poverty line, with shrinking benefits as income rises.)<br /><br />So I would vote yes for the sake of the small benefit it does give those in need while expressing my thorough disgust at the shameless, immoral, inhumane, avarice of those who put me in the soul-killing position of having to do it.</p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-3682185466434795572024-01-16T00:32:00.006-05:002024-01-16T19:44:52.277-05:00OH-no!<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiIhxjLw-yf2rmLJ3sHAp_oO88RSAqYAhPmboOZ_1eSFfyBEvkKE-99Ja0Mh2gZLGK9yKnCXMSJfTu1UEjZoNhqvJuV-Z517li6YQSBvcU3iSfiVh7ucq9ioI4Oolnbd3_5Rn2yZNoDqD61wCPBBQvCdv4brBpbhjjrO-B-RzJbJtCSUgh59ez/s480/transgender-rights.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="400" data-original-width="480" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiIhxjLw-yf2rmLJ3sHAp_oO88RSAqYAhPmboOZ_1eSFfyBEvkKE-99Ja0Mh2gZLGK9yKnCXMSJfTu1UEjZoNhqvJuV-Z517li6YQSBvcU3iSfiVh7ucq9ioI4Oolnbd3_5Rn2yZNoDqD61wCPBBQvCdv4brBpbhjjrO-B-RzJbJtCSUgh59ez/s320/transgender-rights.jpg" width="320" /></a>Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine recently vetoed an anti-trans care bill, declaring that it's up to parents to make medical decisions for their children. He was applauded by supporters of trans rights.<br /><br />But a few days later he utterly betrayed those transgender people and their supporters by issuing Executive Orders containing proposed rules that cover much the same ground as the bill he vetoed and are in some ways worse. What follows is a blending of my response to a video on the matter and my more formal comment submitted to Ohio on the proposed rules.<br /><br />PS: The veto was overridden. There was speculation that DeWine issued the Executive Orders hoping to head off an override; no word yet on if the override will lead to the rules being withdrawn or if he'll seek to combine the worst of both.<br /><br />For more on what the rules say, check out the invaluable <a href="https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/governor-dewine-uses-anti-abortion?" target="_blank">Erin Reed</a>.<br /><br />Anyway, this is what I said:<br /><blockquote><i>The proposed rules stand in stark contrast to the positions and standards of care expressed by, among others, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Endocrine Society, and WPATH (World Professional Association of Transgender Health) - that is, they ignore, indeed reject, the expert scientific and clinical judgments of those who are the leading experts in the field of gender-affirming care in favor of politically-driven posturing and fearmongering.<br /><br />Rather then protecting anyone's health or safety, these regulations - which are in several ways worse than the bill the Governor vetoed - are a transgender version of TRAP (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers) laws, a method used in anti-choice states to effectively ban abortions without admitting to it by putting more and more restrictions on clinics, often involving medically-unnecessary requirements, to the point where few or even no clinics in a state were capable of meeting them all. That is, don't ban abortions, just make them impossible to get.<br /><br />The goal is the same here: presenting a facade of preserving access to gender-affirming care while in actuality creating a maze of roadblocks, bottlenecks, and pointless requirements with the effect of making obtaining that care all but impossible - that is, to accomplish by regulation what cannot accomplished by law or, more to the point, accomplish by trickery what can't be accomplished legitimately. I label Gov. Mike DeWine a conscious hypocrite, hoping to get away with talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying on one side "I vetoed the bill" and on the other "I made it effectively impossible to get the care," and using a smokescreen of "protecting youth" as a means to cover an attack all transgender people of all ages.<br /><br />These proposed rules are, in sum, uninformed and misguided at best, unethical to the point of outright cruelty at worst.<br /><br />Amend that: It gets worse. Multiple studies have found that obtaining gender-affirming care leads to improved mental health and significant reductions in suicide attempts and actual suicides. Which means that the result of regulations like these is that people will die. We can't say just who, just when, or precisely how many, but based on the data, on the facts, we can say with high assurance that People. Will. Die. Endorsing these rules is endorsing suicide.<br /><br />I urge these proposed regulations be withdrawn in their entirety and any new such rules be drafted only in consultation with WPATH and other professional organizations dealing with the medical and mental health care issues involved.<br /><br />Or at the very least have the sufficient honesty to drop the hypocrisy and admit your goal is the total erasure from society of transgender people.</i></blockquote><p>This was not the first attempt this year to deny health care and human rights to members of the LGBTQ+ community. According to the<a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1x8FDh50ouBldIpxnCdSb745pyYISYLLKp9lJligOQZk/edit#gid=0" target="_blank"> LGBTQ+ Legislative Tracking 2024</a> site, as of January 14 there have been 219 bills introduced across 25 states and Congress related to community issues. Not every one of these is anti-LGBTQ+ in general or anti-transgender in particular, indeed some may be positive, and of those that are negative, many will not pass or will be combined into a package because they are essentially duplicates. And it’s worthy of note that most of the total are being introduced in states that already have laws denying LGBTQ+ rights; for example, Florida, already so hostile to trans folks that it’s listed as “Do Not Travel,” accounts for 21 of the bills. And some of them have been introduced in states such as Maryland and New Jersey where it can safely be said that their chances of passing are effectively nil.</p><p>So the numbers alone do not tell the story, but they do indicate that this onslaught against human rights is not abating. This remains no time to relax - because, remember even if only a small percentage of these bills pass, they still have real consequences for the people affected. But even so, while the infection is not abating, it at least may no longer be spreading.<br /><br />But that begs the question of what is driving the continued attacks, particularly considering many of these bills amount to little more than piling on. So what combination of ignorance, paranoia, (usually religious) fanaticism, and cold, exploitive, cynical, political ambition is driving it?<br /><br />That’s a valid question, but it’s one for another time. Hopefully a soon-type time.</p><p></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-58879484211580029562024-01-16T00:16:00.007-05:002024-01-17T00:49:24.488-05:00Welcome to Fish-Wrapping 101<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8j_tZOk90q54X4zzQfFJQ0hK9T_-jQuyABgPny986XA_5Om01IRvzVtIYkhks_ngWMhqygTM6GtOWO6nq1mcLImRDSNhBZ3QMGVpKnQMjigtdVpIeXOuNEx_b0CpSkITZ1FilZa2H3USutNMxDVZJc-pZ0-EaHUp63TgpDfjBtBS0gEXFvSTM/s200/Media-fish.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="200" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8j_tZOk90q54X4zzQfFJQ0hK9T_-jQuyABgPny986XA_5Om01IRvzVtIYkhks_ngWMhqygTM6GtOWO6nq1mcLImRDSNhBZ3QMGVpKnQMjigtdVpIeXOuNEx_b0CpSkITZ1FilZa2H3USutNMxDVZJc-pZ0-EaHUp63TgpDfjBtBS0gEXFvSTM/s1600/Media-fish.jpg" width="200" /></a>Or maybe 404.<p></p><p>I have written a number of times in the past about how we are uninformed, malinformed, and misinformed by our mainstream news media and on the impacts on our political discourse that result (some examples <a href="https://whoviating.blogspot.com/search?q=malinformed" target="_blank">here</a>).<br /><br />Our latest example comes to us from <i>Newsweek</i>. It’s not as egregious as some, where the bias lies in shading and emphasis, but it is so ridiculous that it deserves mention.<br /><br />One of the things that media outlets, particularly print outlets, know full well is that a good many people never get past the first graph of a news article. That’s why the standard of “the 5 Ws” (who, what, when, where, why) exists; the idea is to get as many of the basic facts as high in the article as possible, if possible in the first graph, to ensure that the greatest number of readers will have them - because that’s often all many readers see and so form the impression they take away from it.<br /><br />It’s also why the headline is important, as it should (and in practice does) frame the substance of the issue in a single line or two. One thing as readers we should be wary of is that the headline we see on an article from an outside source, for example on a news aggregator or a reprint of a wire service report, may not be the one the original source put on it and so may have a different slant or emphasis than was intended or even present in that original.<br /><br />So know that in this case, that is not an issue. <i>Newsweek</i> is the original source and the headline involved is theirs.<br /><br />Okay, the story.<br /><br />On January 9, there were a series of 13 special elections in Virginia, two for state Senate seats, 11 for ones in the state House of Delegates. How did Newsweek report the results? Here is the headline and first paragraph:<b></b></p><blockquote><b>Republicans Annihilate Democrats in Virginia Election Sweep</b><br />Republicans scored massive victories in elections held in Virginia on Tuesday, returning two GOP politicians to local legislature following the departure of the incumbents.</blockquote>So what, beyond the hyperbole, is wrong?<br /><br /><i>Not one of those 13 races flipped a seat! Not one!</i> The magazine took advantage of two large wins by GOPpers, one in the Senate and one in the House, to use “annihilate,” “sweep,” and “massive” to describe the overall result and focus the first 13 graphs of a 17-graph story on those two races. Even that overstates it, as the 11 House races were mentioned just once, in the 14th graph, with the final three being about Glen Youngkin, a Biden-Trump poll, and that <i>Newsweek</i> had asked state parties for more comment.<br /><br />As if that wasn’t enough, the two “big” wins weren’t all that big when you consider that one of the winners had run unopposed in his last race and the other was replacing a GOPper who had retired and also had run unopposed last time. (Thank you, Ballotpedia and Wikipedia.) To say these districts are overwhelmingly GOPper borders on understatement, so the size of the victories were no surprise.<br /><br />Such is the state of too much of our national news media, where the search from drama frequently outweighs being informative or even making a stab at balance. There is an old saying among newspapers that “if it bleeds, it leads.” A modern version might be using “tricks for clicks” because “if it shocks, it rocks.”<br /><br />For the moment, though, we have “Newsweak.”<p></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-65819514786932635712024-01-15T19:03:00.005-05:002024-01-16T00:07:20.082-05:00Free Speech: $35,000 and up<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiscmr1fDabyC4Sn8ePc_m1pQLYtNFeVvT02ukSkdMnu4RpBPONg8HkQ7hGQHbYIk0UYAdSzZaQiUkQ3C5NHkPrkiOtR70FbPSxU2dJc_zlLJYxjd7ToTRjeM8IpOThS2YCDYqdvvbPTVspkvw-octkOrBx1kfGYwDSUT9ZkV3OPvP1I73n8ObS/s5472/free%20speech.jpeg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="3648" data-original-width="5472" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiscmr1fDabyC4Sn8ePc_m1pQLYtNFeVvT02ukSkdMnu4RpBPONg8HkQ7hGQHbYIk0UYAdSzZaQiUkQ3C5NHkPrkiOtR70FbPSxU2dJc_zlLJYxjd7ToTRjeM8IpOThS2YCDYqdvvbPTVspkvw-octkOrBx1kfGYwDSUT9ZkV3OPvP1I73n8ObS/s320/free%20speech.jpeg" width="320" /></a><p>A GOPper in the Florida Senate by the name of Jason Brodeur has introduced a bill, <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/1780/BillText/Filed/PDF" target="_blank">SB1780</a>, "that would deal <a href="https://newrepublic.com/post/177920/florida-bill-fine-defamation-racist-discrimination" target="_blank">a devastating blow</a> to freedom of speech in the Sunshine State" in the words of The New Republic.<br /><br />The bill would make calling someone a racist, sexist, homophobe, or transphobe "defamation per se," that is, by definition, making them grounds for a civil suit of "at least" $35,000 plus attorney's fees and court costs. At the same time, it would restrict defenses available to the target of such a suit by, for example, limiting who could be considered a "public figure" and making it easier to find "actual malice" in the accusation.<br /><br />In the case of a transphobic or homophobic bigot, as Erin Reed noted, <a href="https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/florida-bill-would-make-accusations" target="_blank">it's even worse</a>.<br /><br />The bill says that in cases of "sexual orientation or gender identity," a person can't defend themselves against a suit by "citing a plaintiff’s constitutionally protected religious expression or scientific beliefs" (lines 135-145). What that means, in practical reality, is that <i>truth is no defense</i>.<br /><br />Bigot: "Homosexuals should be killed!"<br />You: "You're a bigot."<br />Bigot: "I'm suing you for defamation."<br />You: "But it's true! You are a bigot!"<br />Bigot: "Doesn't matter, that's my 'constitutionally protected religious expression.' Pay up."<br /><br />Upon reading about this bill, I fantasized about someone saying this during debate:<br /><br />"If it please the Chair, I rise to propose a friendly amendment to my esteemed colleague's bill, one to which I'm sure he'll agree as it pursues the same object of his own. The amendment would add to his list of terms to be presumptively defamatory accusations of 'groomer' and 'pedophile' plus claims of connections to 'the deep state,' in each case whether directed at an individual, group, or organization. I will yield to Mr. Broder for his response."<br /><br />It wouldn't be accepted, of course, but it would serve to make the actual purpose of the bill even clearer than it already was.<br /><br />One other thing: The bill is almost a carbon copy of one <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/991" target="_blank">introduced last session</a>, which died in committee. Hopefully this one will meet the same fate.<br /><br />But if this did pass and was challenged in court, don't be surprised if the defense included claiming there is no First Amendment issue because the accusations aren't banned, the state is doing nothing to impede your speech, it's merely a matter of defining the legal meaning of certain terms. If the response is that there's a penalty for using those terms, the comeback would be "Maybe so, but the state isn't the one imposing the penalty, so nothing to do with us."<br /><br />This style of argument - don't actually do it, just enable others to sue over it and so impose self-censorship - is central to the "Don't Say Gay" bill and Florida has become saturated with it even though the roots, if I recall correctly, lie in a Texas bill about abortion.<br /><br /></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-10113540603542169722024-01-14T01:28:00.008-05:002024-01-14T01:28:51.655-05:00Worth repeating<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjafztWBfuhBsoroJt5C_lc0xZsWuiFNKZVMYatRf8iIG1tQENR7TJB2Gz6js_xKz3Ur0ttrMMz-tvVCwajTvhA-7luYfzQG03r4UdFa_niaQNvly0AnOfZspzAc7Kf26uLo7cUqo4Ibd5aLAyn8OIWjPzuf2c9jG73jAODXgnOiXtC0BrqtD6-/s889/agenda.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="717" data-original-width="889" height="161" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjafztWBfuhBsoroJt5C_lc0xZsWuiFNKZVMYatRf8iIG1tQENR7TJB2Gz6js_xKz3Ur0ttrMMz-tvVCwajTvhA-7luYfzQG03r4UdFa_niaQNvly0AnOfZspzAc7Kf26uLo7cUqo4Ibd5aLAyn8OIWjPzuf2c9jG73jAODXgnOiXtC0BrqtD6-/w200-h161/agenda.jpg" width="200" /></a>On a recent video, the poster mentioned how one thing that distinguishes the left and the right is that we want even those we politically oppose to obtain the help they need. That prompted me to pull this out which I know I have said in a few different ways but which I think bears repeating from time to time. This version is from 2011 but the original is from a letter to a friend the 1990s. Here we go:<br /><br />It's the right that says "I," the left that says "we." It's the right that says "gimme," the left that says "we'll give." It's the right that says "compete," the left that says "cooperate."<br /><br />Where the left says "us together," the right says "me first." Where the left says "hope," the right says "fear." Where the left says "you can come for help," the right says "you can go to hell." <br /><br />Time after time after time, the left argues for choices that primarily benefit the needy. Time after time after time, the right argues for choices that primarily benefit the needless.<br /><br />Time after time after time, when folks on the left benefit from their proposals it's because they're part of a broader community. Time after time after time, when folks on the right benefit from their proposals it's because they're part of a narrow clique.<br /><br />It is the left, not the right, that knows that the real answer to Cain's question is "Yes."Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-90857217191985950502024-01-10T02:09:00.009-05:002024-01-10T02:23:16.758-05:00Wise up about "grow up"<p>Some recent polls have indicated a difficulty for Joe Biden's reelection chances in that young people in particular, a major area of support in 2020, are unenthusiastic about voting for him this time because they are upset with recent decisions and policies, particularly around Gaza, the Palestinians, and Israel.<br /><br />And we have seen the thoroughly predictable response from several quarters among the party stalwarts: "Grow up!"<br /><br />Well, I have some advice based on the experience of over 50 years of being one of the unrecognized, uncelebrated millions who have labored in the trenches of political activism.<br /><br />You want to encourage people to vote for Biden despite their misgivings? Okay. First of all, <b>DO NOT</b> tell them to "grow up," you blithering idiot. It is rude, insulting, and condescending. It may make you feel extra-virtuous ("Look at me - I'm voting for Biden despite all my disagreements! See how politically mature I am?") but it won't do a damn bit of good. Put more simply, "Shut up and do what your betters tell you!" is not an argument. This is a mistake the Dems have made repeatedly, perhaps most disastrously in 1980 when they treated Ralph Nader voters as disobedient children to be scolded rather than adults to be persuaded and we got George Bush, AKA "Shrub," and all that entailed as a consequence.<br /><br />The most important thing to do (as opposed to not do) if you want to convince someone overcome their reluctance to turn out for Biden is tell them why they should, meaning why they should vote for him, not just against Tweetie-pie, AKA The Great Orange Messiah. There certainly are positive arguments in his favor you can raise; COVID recovery aid, Build Back Better with its infrastructure and climate funding, the Inflation Reduction Act with its taxing the rich and start of negotiating drug prices, and student debt relief spring immediately to mind. None of them unqualified successes, but all undeniably better than what existed before.<br /><br />Next, yes, compare him to Tweetie-pie but don't make that the sum total or even the focus of the argument. That's exactly the mistake the Dems made in 2016, when most of the campaign seemed to be "We're not that scumball Trump!" and we know how that worked out. Argue the "yes," not (at least not primarily) the "no," because resorting to "lesser of two evils" arguments are not going to fly. <br /><br />At the same time, there are areas where the "lesser evil" can be argued and I am thinking specifically of Israel and Palestinians. Biden has not only failed to call for an immediate ceasefire, he has sent additional military aid to Israel, all as part of his "bear hug" strategy of holding Netanyahu close in the hope of being able to constrain him - a policy that has been a demonstrable, horrific, failure.<br /><br />But where Biden has failed to constrain, Tweetie-pie would actively encourage. It's properly said you should not make the perfect the enemy of the good, but it is quite true that you can make the worse the enemy of the bad, the actively evil the enemy of the cruel failure.<br /><br />Note that none of this addresses what is the biggest threat of this election: Tweetie-pie's unique threat to our ability to continue as a functioning democracy. And absolutely, after arguing for the "yes" and getting to the point of "Yeah, I suppose," then dive in with everything in your arsenal, including his increasingly-bizarre rants, <a href="https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-erickson-report-page-4-outrage-of.html" target="_blank">his repeated praise of dictators</a>, January 6, and Project 2025 and if you don't know what that is, <i>look it up!</i> (A few sources are offered at the end here.)<br /><br />Look, the last major party general election presidential candidate I felt I really could believe in was George McGovern. There is nothing anyone can tell me about strategic voting or tactical voting or lesser-of-two-evils voting or even hold-your-nose voting. I have done them all at local, state, and national levels. For most of my voting life I have lived in one safely-blue state or another, so I usually could opt to vote third party without impacting the presidential outcome. But in 2020 I did and in 2024 I will again vote for Biden despite my disappointments and despite being in a safely blue state because I not only want Tweetie-pie to lose the electoral vote; I want him crushed in the popular vote. I want Johnson-Goldwater levels. I won't get them, but that's my target.<br /><br />And sneering at those reluctant to vote for Biden to "grow up" is not going to get us anything toward that goal.<br /><br /><i>Some sources for Project 2025</i><br />https://www.youtube.com/hashtag/project2025<br />https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2024/01/07/analysis-of-the-project-2025-plan-for-the-next-conservative-president/72008293007/<br />https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/conservatives-aim-to-restructure-u-s-government-and-replace-it-with-trumps-vision<br />https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/09/19/project-2025-trump-reagan-00115811<br />https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/what-is-project-2025-the-political-plot-to-destroy-america-s-freedoms/ar-AA1gWxfK</p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-13160972344666611872023-12-28T21:58:00.000-05:002023-12-28T21:58:02.057-05:00Going out on a limb<p><span style="font-size: medium;">I always thought the idea of barring Tweetie-pie, aka The Great Orange One, from presidential ballots was a long shot. Recent events brought a flicker of hope, but only that.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Okay, the prediction.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I
expect SCOTUS to rule that a finding in a case involving access to a
primary ballot is not sufficient and lacking an actual criminal trial
convicting Tweetie-pie of insurrection, there hasn't been a
legally-relevant finding that he did so. Thus the suits must fail.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I have rarely more strongly hoped to be wrong, but I don’t think I am.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-32968040006576787762023-11-25T22:23:00.007-05:002023-12-26T22:22:17.315-05:00Footnote to the preceding: A not-so-easy question<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4enP0x5z3Ej9sme5VIxTIkaBPZuIS2SiPX3xIG2cnXbAMm6zxzXps2-Q3JPOv8nHUjjfaF_4ntyFV_0Zw5hOWf5i3jloSGqoqDlTaKGHv7I2G_2ZOiCAwbZUsmwIxjAciT781uQmlyYe2kFwQC0xaoiTzxH2Rub9zLj8z46T4nbMqot_J8LWA/s1150/question-mark.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="980" data-original-width="1150" height="171" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4enP0x5z3Ej9sme5VIxTIkaBPZuIS2SiPX3xIG2cnXbAMm6zxzXps2-Q3JPOv8nHUjjfaF_4ntyFV_0Zw5hOWf5i3jloSGqoqDlTaKGHv7I2G_2ZOiCAwbZUsmwIxjAciT781uQmlyYe2kFwQC0xaoiTzxH2Rub9zLj8z46T4nbMqot_J8LWA/w200-h171/question-mark.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><p><i>[Welcome, John Swift Roundup readers! If you want to see the post to which this is a footnote, it's <a href="https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2023/11/end-it.html" target="_blank">here</a>.]</i></p><p> There is no way to say this without appearing to endorse or at a minimum condone terrorism, but I will ask it anyway.<br /><br />Bear in mind first that Palestinians have been and are living under illegal occupation by an apartheid state (Israel has been found to be such by <a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/israels-apartheid-against-palestinians-a-cruel-system-of-domination-and-a-crime-against-humanity/" target="_blank">Amnesty International</a>, <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/10/04/time-recognize-reality-israeli-apartheid-persecution" target="_blank">Human Rights Watch</a>, and <a href="https://wwwhttps://www.btselem.org/publications/fulltext/202101_this_is_apartheid" target="_blank">B'Tselem</a>, among <a href="https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/03/1114702" target="_blank">others</a>), their people killed, their land stolen, their right to statehood denied.<br /><br />Bear in mind second that the Gaza Strip has been described more than once as <a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/06/14/gaza-israels-open-air-prison-15" target="_blank">the world's largest outdoor prison</a>.<br /><br />And bear in mind third that our nation, the United States, was born on a principle of <a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript" target="_blank">a right to revolution</a>.<br /><br />With all that in mind, here is the question: If Israel has a right to self-defense, do the Palestinians?<br /><br />Put another way, does an oppressed, occupied people have a right to resistance, a right to rebellion?</p><p></p><p>If not, why not? Why do they lack the right were have declared for ourselves?</p><p>And if they do, just what is it you say the Palestinians should have done and should now do to that end? Don't say "stop terrorism," because I didn't ask you what you would have them <b>not</b> do, but what you <b>would</b> have them do. What effectual means of resistance are open to them which you would accept?<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-45067190588382914112023-11-25T20:39:00.003-05:002023-11-29T16:46:40.420-05:00End It<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHyyt0N-DQ22kb4jKPxU0WS_L2pZbxZr473WU5HVRmnEHv8njY4DbB2W4NxF7ue4e1wIbcKWTmB8acenRb2C14C9h_YkIYyxeZF-aUIY_AEpCRK0k0JcM_WfAIsKqPFJPQyz3ArMEmtrb3QM_imN3FxDAZ71dPTiSsQwCL24MVUJ0D4gNOaOmA/s1356/Gaza.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1356" data-original-width="1080" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHyyt0N-DQ22kb4jKPxU0WS_L2pZbxZr473WU5HVRmnEHv8njY4DbB2W4NxF7ue4e1wIbcKWTmB8acenRb2C14C9h_YkIYyxeZF-aUIY_AEpCRK0k0JcM_WfAIsKqPFJPQyz3ArMEmtrb3QM_imN3FxDAZ71dPTiSsQwCL24MVUJ0D4gNOaOmA/s320/Gaza.jpg" width="255" /></a></div>Recently, Bernie Sanders released a statement on the war against Gaza followed by an expanded version as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/22/opinion/bernie-sanders-israel-gaza.html" target="_blank">a New York Times op-ed</a> a few days later.<br /><br />On the whole, it was surprisingly good coming from a US politician, even one so avowedly progressive, as it<br />- included justice for Palestinians an explicit goal,<br />- called for future aid to Israel to be conditioned on behavior, and<br />- expressed a commitment to a two-state solution.<br /><br />I could have wished for a direct and overt call for an immediate end to all military assistance to Israel until an actual agreement is reached, but I'll take what I can get.<br /><br />While I'm sure there are other area of emphasis or even disagreement I could find by going over the statement in detail, I did see two shortcomings I wanted to note.<br /><br />First, I was quite disappointed in the parts about how Hamas "must be" removed from power and "new Palestinian leadership will be required," which together endorse the Israeli war while claiming to be calling for an end to it. More to the point, it raises a question which demands an answer: If there is a free election in Gaza (which I assume is how such "new leadership" is to be chosen) and Hamas wins, would Israel and the US accept that? Or would they use that as an excuse to do nothing toward justice for Palestinians "so long as the terrorists remain in power?"<br /><br />Don't ignore the question. It's based in history. After Yassir Arafat died in November 2004, the US and Israel demanded elections among Palestinians for "new leadership." Those came in January 2006 and resulted in Hamas winning seats, leading to months of conflict between Hamas and Fatah and finally, in early 2007, a painfully worked-out coalition government between the two factions - upon which Israel and the US flatly refused to deal with this "terrorist government." That is, they demanded elections but when they didn't like the result, they rejected them even though they knew, they <i>had</i> to know, the outcome would be continued conflict.<br /><br />Their rejection resulted in the coalition fracturing and renewed civil war, leading in short order to the present situation where Hamas controls Gaza and Fatah controls the West Bank.<br /><br />So the question stands: Will the US and Israel pledge to support the outcome of any elections for "new leadership" even if they don't like the outcome? Any answer other than "Yes" translates to "You will choose the government we tell you to" and marks such "new leadership" as a mask for continued oppression.<br /><br />The second shortcoming was a matter of let's call it incomplete comparisons. Sanders writes that Hamas killed about 1200 Israelis, adding that "On a per-capita basis, if Israel had the same population as the United States, that attack would have been the equivalent of nearly 40,000 deaths, more than 10 times the fatalities that we suffered on 9/11."<br /><br />Which is absolutely true.<br /><br />However, while he notes the estimate of 12,000 Palestinians killed by the Israeli military, he fails to make the same comparison as before. So let's do that here:<br /><br />Population of Israel: 9,812,480.<br />Israelis killed: 1200<br />That is .012% of the population.<br /><br />Population of Gaza: 2,375,259<br />Palestinians killed: 12,000<br />That is .50% of the population.<br /><br />Population of US: 334,233,854<br />.012% of US population: 40,110<br />.50% of US population: <b>1,671,000</b><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWk98N1jCPG3tltSzZbKoP5_P9NNd42Jddr_Ow7L4YTFELKZ8XLDJzv6vCEIWwaXY30ISegxYbs8si4-odBJB0Ac_mUGBShydDnC2ZSR1znpjBUoXm8dRCblK3g7UPBLkj4RN6KdqC-xGj2KuFFkDSvwW0Izz0LzUVdx6Se3RQfDELWMBbeDON/s992/Gaza%20Nov%2021.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="558" data-original-width="992" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWk98N1jCPG3tltSzZbKoP5_P9NNd42Jddr_Ow7L4YTFELKZ8XLDJzv6vCEIWwaXY30ISegxYbs8si4-odBJB0Ac_mUGBShydDnC2ZSR1znpjBUoXm8dRCblK3g7UPBLkj4RN6KdqC-xGj2KuFFkDSvwW0Izz0LzUVdx6Se3RQfDELWMBbeDON/s320/Gaza%20Nov%2021.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>So by the per capita basis Sanders used, the Israeli military has killed FORTY-TWO TIMES as many Palestinians as Palestinian militants killed Israelis.<br /><br />Forty. Two. Times.<p>We can properly call what what Hamas did "slaughter." But then what description can we apply to <b>42 times</b> as many killed by those who have sworn to continue killing more? Who forced half the population of Gaza to abandon their homes, demanded they run to the south, and then began bombing the very area to which they told them to flee?<br /><br />End all aid to Israel. Now. Immediately and totally. Because while it can be argued that we may not be able to stay the hangman's hand, we can damn well stop paying for the rope.</p><p></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-69272756780577077942023-11-25T19:32:00.007-05:002023-11-25T20:41:15.580-05:00On Patriotism<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsCdggGtYZlFS6lAA1Ad8BOym2-Zy0ZmRYG99hw8qqVbIMCzCHJE7-HRoidXtwpNSNHVCalRVsKQXTFW_zAAK3dDjrarqA01wOeBoAj_IrrYrwCufoWKsFDElHTqzQDYjJpXWf4A3pkbd9ISQcZg9Ne0qqVaDH-4FpB2QwEwNb7dMdIyhcPIns/s600/patriotism%20is.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="411" data-original-width="600" height="274" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsCdggGtYZlFS6lAA1Ad8BOym2-Zy0ZmRYG99hw8qqVbIMCzCHJE7-HRoidXtwpNSNHVCalRVsKQXTFW_zAAK3dDjrarqA01wOeBoAj_IrrYrwCufoWKsFDElHTqzQDYjJpXWf4A3pkbd9ISQcZg9Ne0qqVaDH-4FpB2QwEwNb7dMdIyhcPIns/w400-h274/patriotism%20is.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: large;">I intended to post this over Veterans' Day weekend but obviously I didn't. But late being better than never, I decided to put it up anyway. This is a report of something I wrote in 2013. It still seems appropriate.<br /><br />---<br /><br />I want to talk about patriotism.<br /><br />When I've talked or written about this general subject before, I've always noted at the beginning that know that what I say will be misunderstood by some and deliberately twisted by others - and I've never been disappointed in that expectation. So I say it again here. I will try to be clear but I know that no matter how hard I try, for some I will fail.<br /><br />To start: I am not a patriot.<br /><br />And right away, I have to amend that. I am not a patriot in the shallow way the term is usually understood. I do not wear a flag pin. I do not put my hand over my heart during the national anthem (which, I’ll note in passing, I was taught as a child was something that some folks did but was not required). I do not sing along with the national anthem. In fact, I don’t even stand up for the national anthem. I will note that I certainly don't intend to give offense that way, so I usually manage to be out of the room at the time.<br /><br />And I don't celebrate soldiers, nor do I, as candidate Barack Obama called on us to do, "always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period," thus exempting those folks from any and all moral judgment. I can and do celebrate individual soldiers - but not "soldiers" as a category. As I have said and written several times, soldiers are not heroes. They can be heroes, they can act heroically, they can do heroic things - but the act of putting on a uniform does not make you a hero, it does not make you or your life more worthy of honor or respect than anyone else's.<br /><br />Joseph Darby, the soldier who revealed the abuses at Abu Ghraib, is a hero. The soldiers in his unit who in response threatened him to the point that he had to be shipped out early for his own safety, are not. Bradley [now Chelsea] Manning, the man [sic] who revealed war crimes committed by US troops in Iraq, is a hero. The soldiers who committed those crimes, such as those in the video called "Collateral Murder," are not.<br /><br />So, I say again, I am not a patriot.<br /><br />Except that I am.<br /><br />How? Let me explain.<br /><br />Patriotism that consists in, that is measured in terms of, wearing flag pins, singing the national anthem, and the like is worthless and even dangerous. It is a shallow, a hollow, “patriotism,” a shell that prefers form to substance and too easily, as we have seen over the last years, slides from “patriotism” into jingoism. If, as someone said a while back, “patriotism requires no apologies,” neither should it require conscious demonstration.<br /><br />And to try to head off some of that misunderstanding I expect, don’t bother claiming I said wearing a flag pin or whatever is itself “hollow.” I said that a patriotism measured or defined in those terms rather than by a deeper commitment is hollow. And it is.<br /><br />But that obviously raises the immediate question of "what deeper commitment." What does it consist of - or, more exactly here, what do I think it consists of?<br /><br />Well first, saying it consists of a commitment to "flag and country" is meaningless, empty, it's the vapid patriotism of bumper stickers and needlepoint homilies. It doesn't mean anything.<br /><br />Saying it's based on the supposed fact that "this is the greatest country in the world" is nothing short of absurd - unless, that is, you want to tell me which country is the 7th greatest or the 14th greatest or the 63rd greatest. Because to say this is the greatest country means you must have some objective standard by which countries can be judged and ranked. I can't imagine what such a standard could be since on so many social scales - inequality, poverty, child poverty, access to health care, the list goes on - we rank so embarrassingly low and even on some of our proudest achievements, such as the Bill of Rights, we are losing ground.<br /><br />And a patriotism based on calling out Stephen Decatur's famous line "my country, right or wrong" is downright dangerous. Unless, that is, you want to amend it to the version of then-Senator Carl Schurz, who said in the 1870s "Our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: Our country - when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right."<br /><br />(BTW, look up Carl Schurz. Interesting guy.)<br /><br />His quote about "true patriotism" points toward my own convictions.<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE8Nbu40HK3F9l6OYhHNZ6W_AcXUkxxlk8W1D5esTqD01-ZpId2HUM1gX_rAYSGRzfFjXa1nObnhMKzx3YQp0J9KZ7BAxgxYT_roEc74Fcoxs63bo5PLrDmbDxz_9GMyKVGnR7lKuHFnGqhokULnPiydhiyDfvi3fU19Cyts6IdWbcamMScmGi/s500/MS131_DissentIsTheHighestFormOfPatriotism.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="444" data-original-width="500" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhE8Nbu40HK3F9l6OYhHNZ6W_AcXUkxxlk8W1D5esTqD01-ZpId2HUM1gX_rAYSGRzfFjXa1nObnhMKzx3YQp0J9KZ7BAxgxYT_roEc74Fcoxs63bo5PLrDmbDxz_9GMyKVGnR7lKuHFnGqhokULnPiydhiyDfvi3fU19Cyts6IdWbcamMScmGi/s320/MS131_DissentIsTheHighestFormOfPatriotism.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>In addition to embracing the comment I read some years ago that “it is natural to have an abiding affection for the land of one’s birth,” I say being an US patriot means being dedicated to the ideals on which the country was supposed to have been founded and which, at its best moments, it strives to uphold to as full a measure as possible: Ideals such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” as the right to rebellion against oppression, as “promot[ing] the general welfare,” as political freedoms, as representative government “of, by, and for the people” - the ideal of, to sum up in a single phrase, an intent to “establish justice,” a justice I say must include the economic and the social as well as the political if it is to have real meaning.<br /><br />Patriotism means embracing those ideals; it means striving to hold this country to the highest of those ideals instead of the lowest of its prejudices, as committing to a notion of what the US, of what we as a people, can be and have at times approached being.<br /><br />Patriotism, that is, lies in the devotion to the ideals, not in any symbolic outward expression of it. Further, patriotism thus does not lie in support for or opposition to any particular administration or any particular policy except insofar as that support or opposition is an expression of that internal commitment to those ideals.<br /><br />Someone who during the Bush administration who opposed the Iraq War and was angered by Bush's usurpation of power was much more patriotic than the war supporters who kept referring to Bush as “the commander-in-chief” as if we were all soldiers expected to obey orders rather than citizens with an obligation held by any free people to “question authority.” And someone during the Obama administration who denounced his unprecedented attacks on whistleblowers and was outraged by his mad claim that he could on his own authority order the assassination of Americans without trial or charge is more patriotic than the Obamabots who stand silent in the face of the drone war and were incapable of seeing the very obvious distance between dissent based on political rejection and dissent based on racism.<br /><br />So on that basis, on that understanding of patriotism, I submit to you that I am as patriotic as they come. And I have neither patience with nor tolerance for those who would make patriotism a matter of gestures and decorations rather than conviction. And I have even less of either patience with or tolerance for those who would try to prove their patriotism by impugning mine.<br /><br />I am not a patriot. Except that I am.</span><p></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-74547241953528639282023-05-09T22:59:00.001-05:002023-05-09T22:59:11.064-05:00May is not a merry month<p><i>May is not a merry month</i></p><p>I'm coming to hate May.<br /><br />I used to enjoy May; it seemed to me to be the month with the most flowers in bloom. But not anymore.<br /><br />Next week is three years since my wife, Donna, died. I like to say that she died in "the COVID spring" even though it wasn't from COVID. Instead, it was from a massive bacterial infection that her compromised immune system (diabetes, heart condition) could not fight off. In about 11 hours it went from "I don't feel well" to "I'm sorry, your wife has passed."<br /><br />And now May, this day in May, has taken Helios.<br /><br />Helios was 15 years old and some indeterminate mixture of hound and Jack Russell terrier. He was, as were seven of the nine dogs I've had as an adult, a rescue. (The others were puppies gifted from litters.) And he was, by as universal an agreement as such a thing ever is, the sweetest dog people had ever met. Sweet not only with people but with squirrels, deer, cats, and other dogs.<br /><br />He'd been failing for some time, which was not unexpected considering his age. The usual frailties: couldn't get around as easily, had to occasionally be carried up or down the porch stairs, had to wear doggy diapers, that sort of thing. But to the end he liked being outside and loved attention and as long as he continued to appear to enjoy life I would deal with the hassles.<br /><br />But today, today, he hit the wall. He could not stand up, he just lay sprawled on his side with his legs out straight. He refused to drink or eat (even his treats) and seemed to drift in and out of awareness of our presence. It was his time. So I called the vet and had the deed done.<br /><br />"The deed." What do you call that? "Killed," which is literally true, is too harsh for me to deal with. "Put to sleep" is dumb: He's not asleep, he's dead. And I really, really despise "put down." He was a 13-year companion, not a goddam suitcase, some sort of burden I'm glad to be rid of.<br /><br />Which leaves me with "euthanized," which I use for lack of a better term, even though it seems so coldly clinical.<br /><br />And now, no more expense for dog food or treats or new collars or whatever, no vet bills, no dealing with wet diapers or messes on floors, no more having to go out in the snow or pouring rain. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zC3E9_zlb8" target="_blank">Like the song says</a>, I really should be glad but, well.., <br /><br />No. I'm really really not.<br /><br />I really am coming to hate May.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-46141668889721275722023-05-09T21:22:00.002-05:002023-05-10T00:44:09.879-05:00When Someone Tells You Who They Are, Believe Them The First Time<p><i> When Someone Tells You Who They Are, Believe Them The First Time</i><br /><br />The title of this post is a quote from Maya Angelou that seems especially appropriate these days, and I'm reminded of a letter-to-the-editor I wrote some time ago in response to a syndicated column by George Will, at the time regarded as pretty much the definition of a right-wing intellectual.<br /><br />"Some time ago," indeed: The date of the letter is January 3, 1995. This is the unedited text:<br /></p><blockquote>To George Will (Boston <i>Globe</i>, January 2) goes the honor of being called an honest man. Cutting through the nonsense of Newt and company, he opens the heart of his cohorts' agenda: "'Back to 1900,'" he says, "is a serviceable summation of the conservatives' goal."<br /><br />"Back to 1900." Back to a time before legal labor unions or effective anti-monopoly laws, a time of child labor and twelve-hour work days. Back to a time before consumer or environmental protection laws, before regulations requiring safe working conditions, a time when being killed at work was a major cause of death. A time before Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment or disability insurance.<br /><br />"Back to 1900." Back to when poor people were considered genetic defectives who deserved their condition. Back before civil or voting rights laws, when wives were chattel, blacks were either "good n*****s" who got called "boy" or "uppity "n*****s" who risked being lynched, when racism (against Irish, Italians, and others as well as blacks) was institutionalized, sexism the norm, and gays and lesbians, as far as "polite society" was concerned, didn't exist.<br /><br />Back, in short, to a time when the elite were in their mansions and the rest of us were expected to know our places, live lives of servitude without complaint, and then die without making a fuss. "Back to 1900" is indeed "a serviceable summation" of the right-wing's goal, which is to undo a century of progress toward economic and social justice in order to selfishly benefit their morally stunted lives.<br /><br />And if anyone thinks I'm too harsh, remember that Will's "summation" was offered as a moderate alternative to Christopher DeMuth of the American Enterprise Institute, who proposed we "go back to the Articles of Confederation and start over." One wonders what, given the chance, they'd do with the Bill of Rights.</blockquote>They told us. Believe them.<p></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-39868294425936475722023-03-01T18:49:00.005-05:002023-03-01T18:49:29.437-05:00071 The Erickson Report for March 1-14<p> </p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qfhLffztX10" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />
<em>071 The Erickson Report for March 1-14</em><br /><br />
Episode 71 of The Erickson Report has -<br />
- some Good News about the death penalty;<br />
- A Longer Look at Jimmy Carter;<br />
- a reminder about Democrats;<br />
- news on more attacks on transgender rights; and<br />
- an update on Gigi Sohn's nomination to the FCC.<br />
Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-71333271629179884532023-02-15T15:48:00.005-05:002023-02-15T15:48:25.240-05:00070 The Erickson Report for February 9 to 22<p> </p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kJXyxpQfCJs" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe><br /><br />
<em>070 The Erickson Report for February 9 to 22</em><br /><br />
Episode 70 of The Erickson Report covers just two topics, the two we said last time we were going to address:<br />
- guns, and<br />
- attacks on Social Security.<br /><br />
[Sources used to follow shortly]<br /><br />The Erickson Report is news and informed commentary. It is advocacy journalism, using facts and logic while never denying it has a point of view. We proudly embrace the description "woke" (“aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues, especially issues of racial and social justice" - Merriam-Webster dictionary).<br /><br />
Comments and responses are welcome either here or at whoviating dot blogspot dot com.<br />Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-8774907220927283842023-02-02T18:37:00.003-05:002023-02-02T18:37:45.206-05:00069 The Erickson Report for January 26 to February 8, Page Five: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrage]<p>Now for the Outrage, which can be summed up in a single word: Florida. There is a lot there, so much that for now I'm going to focus on one aspect.<br /><br />The College Board has been for several years developing an AP, an advanced placement, course for high school students <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-blocks-high-school-african-american-studies-class/ar-AA16x9Ds" target="_blank">on African-American studies</a>. An AP course, if you don't know, is an elective students can take in high school that can be used as college credits.<br /><br />As part of the process, the College Board sends the courses to various places around the country to get input and reactions and then for approval. <br /><br />Unfortunately for the students there, one of the places they approached was Florida.<br /><br />The administration of Ron DeSantis, without even seeing the syllabus, rejected the program entirely, saying “the content of this course is contrary to Florida law and significantly lacks educational value.”<br /><br />Having gotten his "Don't Say Gay" bill and his "Stop Woke Act" through a legislature dominated by drooling, mouth-breathing, acolytes, he and they have gotten to the point where <i>they aren't even pretending any more</i>.<br /><br />What they want, what they're after, is to <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/ap-african-american" target="_blank">totally bury any discussion</a> of discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, any discrimination against BIPOC, any discussion of homophobia or transphobia or racism, they want ultimately to make any of it illegal. They want to make it a crime to recognize the existence of bigotry in their fiefdom.<br /><br /><i>They're not even pretending any more!</i> They'll as much as openly admit it. <br /><br />The end of December there was <a href="https://floridapolitics.com/archives/574045-in-andrew-warren-suspension-trial-gov-desantis-officials-answer-what-does-woke-mean/" target="_blank">a hearing in a suit</a> brought by Hillsborough County Forida State Attorney Andrew Warren. He had been suspended by DeSantis for signing a pledge to not prosecute abortion-related crimes.<br /><br />Warren's attorney noted that DeSantis, who gleefully declared Florida is where "woke goes to die" after being re-elected, had called Warren "a woke ideologue" in announcing the suspension. So his attorney asked some DeSantis officials what "woke" means.<br /><br />The answer he got was that "woke" is, <i>quoting the witness</i>,"the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”<br /><br />That's what they're against! <i>By their own words</i>, what they're against is even admitting to, much less doing anything about systemic injustice. That witness even said that DeSantis doesn't believe such systemic injustice exist.<br /><br />Which means that Ron DeSantis is exactly what you suspected all along: a garden variety ignoramus, racist, and bigot. He's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox" target="_blank">Lester Maddox</a> with a good speechwriter instead of a pickax handle.<br /><br />(Look it up.)<br /><br />What's more, he is also a plain old schoolyard bully, something else he has in common with Lester Maddox.<br /><br />He uses all his powers - including those given him by his legislative minions for just this purpose - to attack and punish anyone who crosses or displeases him. Andrew Warren was one, but hardly the only one. And I have to tell you, one of the reasons bullies get away with as much as they do is because too many people are unwilling to say "Screw you."<br /><br />As an example, consider the NHL. <br /><br />The League itself estimates its total full-time workforce is <a href="https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-releases-results-of-diversity-and-inclusion-report/c-336511848" target="_blank">84 percent non-Hispanic white</a> and a coupe of years ago USA Today said <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2018/11/09/racism-lingers-for-nhl-players-60-years-after-oree-landmark/38451681/" target="_blank">97 percent of actual players are white</a>.<br /><br />The league has been making some efforts, seemingly sincere, to have more diversity both on the ice and off it. As part of that, <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/desantis-hockey/" target="_blank">it scheduled what it called</a> a Pathway to Hockey on February 2 in Fort Lauderdale. It sought participants who were, quoting, "female, Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino, Indigenous, LGBTQIA+, and/or a person with a disability. Veterans are also welcome and encouraged to attend.”<br /><br />So Ronnykins, spluttering like a six year-old spoiled brat stamping his feet and whining "Not fair!" issued a statement calling the event "discrimination against a politically unpopular demographic" - that is, white people, who are of course so discriminated against by the National Hockey League - and that the league should "remove and denounce" the announcement.<br /><br />Within hours, instead of telling him to "buzz off," the league had <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nhl/nhl-backtracks-after-florida-gov-ron-desantis-office-blasts-league-for-discriminatory-job-fair/ar-AA16kkpL" target="_blank">completely capitulated</a>, deleting the posting, saying it was "not accurate" and that oh my yes, white people, please do come.<br /><br />That is not going to help them or protect them in the future and they damn well did or should know it and if they don't they are fools.<br /><br />One last thing on Florida - for now, that is, there's more, but time is fleeting.<br /><br />When I quoted DeSantis's office as rejecting the College Board AP program because “the content of this course is contrary to Florida law," they didn't quite say that. The actual quote was that it is "<i>inexplicably</i> contrary to Florida law." [Emphasis added.]<br /><br />What the hell does that mean? What kind of mental gnomes are we dealing with here? "Inexplicable" means "can't be explained." So if that quote means anything at all, it means that "this course is against the law but we are incapable of explaining how or why."<br /><br />Which doesn't give you a lot of confidence in their intellectual standing to evaluate any academic program.<br /><br />But, let's be fair, nearly two weeks later, he managed finally to come up with <a href="https://www.queerty.com/florida-flop-ron-desantis-manages-show-off-anti-blackness-queerphobia-one-sentence-20230124" target="_blank">a reason</a>: As part of this avowedly interdisciplinary examination of African-American history and experience, it has a section on Queer Theory - that is, the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/11-black-lgbtq-history-makers-you-should-know-n848631" target="_blank">history</a> and <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/article/black-lgbtq-individuals-experience-heightened-levels-discrimination/" target="_blank">experience</a> of LGBTQ+ American blacks.<br /><br />And so according to DeSantis himself, any discussion of the experience of those people, any acknowledgement even of their existence, is illegal in Florida schools. There is no other rational interpretation of this.<br /><br />It is monstrous, it is despicable, it is frightening, it is an Outrage.<br /><br />But while monstrous, it does accomplish one thing: Those of who were wondering if he is more of an anti-LGBTQ+ bigot or more of a racist now some have reason to think it's the former.</p><p>But only by a little.<br /><br /></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-7406767584638608392023-02-02T18:22:00.003-05:002023-02-02T18:38:15.286-05:00069 The Erickson Report for January 26 to February 8, Page Four: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Clowns]<p> Next, it's the much-anticipated return of Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages.<br /><br />We start, as we usually do, with the Clowns, of which we have three.<br /><br />First up, we have GOPper Representative Jim Banks of Indiana, <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/jim-banks-plans-anti-woke-caucus-bolster-gops-war-wokeness-1773778" target="_blank">who has vowed</a> to start an "anti-woke caucus" to fight what he calls a "woke agenda" in Congress.<br /><br />He said that the move would help crush the "doctrine" of "wokeness," necessary because, he whined in the most unintentionally-revealing remark in quite some time, "we no longer live in normal America."<br /><br />Jeez, and they call us snowflakes.<br /><br />He should call it the "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L6KGuTr9TI" target="_blank">Send in the Clowns</a>" caucus. You know, "Don't bother, they're here."<br /><br />=<br /><br />Next, we have a twofer. Two infamous anti-LGBTQ+ preachers, each of who has called for gay people to be executed, want their male followers <a href="https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/01/hate-pastors-now-speaking-beer-say-makes-men-feminine/" target="_blank">to give up beer</a>.<br /><br />Steven Anderson, founder of the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement and pastor at the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona, and Jonathan Shelley of the Stedfast Baptist Church in Watauga, Texas, posted unhinged rants about how drinking beer is risky for men.<br /><br />Why? Because beer has hops, of course. Uh, what? Y'see, hops contain a minute quantity of a phytoestrogen mimicker and so, according to our two Clowns, drinking beer will make you effeminate.<br /><br />Friends, that is champion level Clown. And paranoia.<br /><br />=<br /><br />The third one requires some background. COP, or <a href="https://sdg.iisd.org/events/2022-un-climate-change-conference-unfccc-cop-28/" target="_blank">Conference of Parties</a>, is an annual multinational confab to see who has the best PR campaign claiming to be really really we really mean it committed to staving off climate change. COP28 is to take place in Dubai in late November.<br /><br />Our clown here is US climate envoy John Kerry, who <a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-united-states-government-only-on-ap-john-kerry-b5d6482d465dcc8fa5063af9a0e44041" target="_blank">expressed his approval</a> of the selection of Sultan al-Jaber, the CEO of the Abu Dhabi National Oil company, to preside over the meeting. Kerry justified his approval of al-Jabar by citing a recent speech al-Jaber gave.<br /><br />Not very convincing, because in that very speech al-Jaber talked about how COP should “get it done across mitigation, adaptation, finance, and loss and damage” - which is less about preventing climate change than about learning to live with it - and the company he heads plans to increase its output of crude oil.<br /><br />Activists rightly equated al-Jaber's choice to asking “arms dealers to lead peace talks.”<br /><br />With John Kerry's approval. The act of a Clown.</p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-63649883230013061202023-02-02T18:20:00.000-05:002023-02-02T18:55:13.464-05:00069 The Erickson Report for January 26 to February 8, Page Three: Turning Medicare into a corporate piggy bank<p>I'm going to talk briefly about two programs relating to Medicare, one of which you likely have heard of and one which you may well have not unless it affected you directly.<br /><br />The first is Medicare Advantage. If you are older, that is, of Medicare age, you may even be on one of these programs. Approaching half of us are. I am, in fact. For me, personally, it seemed the best option I had. And if you're a senior in overall good health, as I am, it may well be for you too.<br /><br />But it's a scam, a cheat, a rip-off - not necessarily of anyone in the program, but of the taxpayers, of the people as a whole. <br /><br />Who says so? Among others, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/is-medicare-advantage-a-scam" target="_blank">Wendell Potter</a>, former vice president for corporate communications at insurance giant Cigna and someone who helped design the PR campaign that convinced Congress to go along with the scheme.<br /><br />He now says: "Medicare Advantage is a money-making scam. I should know. I helped to sell it."<br /><br />The first thing to know here is that Medicare Advantage <i>is not Medicare</i>. It is a separate corporate health insurance industry program established under Medicare Part C. And it stands, bluntly, as a step on the road to a total privatization, that is, the destruction, of Medicare.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/09/08/medicare-advantage-profit-scam-time-end-it" target="_blank">Here's how</a> Medicare Advantage works: Insurance corporations, unlike real Medicare, don't deal on a person-by-person, procedure-by-procedure basis. Instead, every year, Advantage providers submit a summary to the federal government of the aggregate risk score of all their customers and, essentially, are paid in a massive lump sum based on that figure.<br /><br />This is all done under the notion that being private capitalist corporations, they'd be more efficient that any government agency could be, and so the whole programs would save taxpayers money. It doesn't, as repeated audits have shown.<br /><br />Instead it has become an enormous cash cow for insurers, in large part because of the way they have rigged the risk-scoring system to maximize profits.<br /><br />Your risk score is a measure of how much the company thinks you will cost in benefit payouts. Simply put, the sicker you are, the higher the score. And the higher your score, the bigger the payout to the company from the government. Which creates a clear incentive for the corporations to inflate their risk scores.<br /><br />Consider how this could happen in my case. Again, I am in overall good health. But I'm getting older, I'm in my 70s, and as folks get older some issues can arise just in the course of ageing.<br /><br />For example, I've developed a tremor in my left hand. It's something that sometimes happens to older folks. It's an annoyance, especially because I'm left-handed. It can make it difficult to type and I sometimes have trouble when I try to write things down and yes I do still write in cursive sometimes. It's an annoyance.<br /><br />The point here is that I had a neurological exam and it was negative. It's what's called an essential tremor; it just is. There is no neurological involvement.<br /><br />But in my medical records, under diagnoses, it says "hand tremor," not "essential hand tremor." An insurance company could look at that and despite the exam say "Ooh, so there is still a risk of neurological involvement. Raise his risk score."<br /><br />I've had surgery on both shoulders due to osteoarthritis. Even though there has been no other issue before or since, nothing that has required any medical intervention, still the corporation could say "He's got a history, there could be more in the future. Up his score."<br /><br />I've had in some past some digestive issues. Again, this is a matter of annoyances, not something that impacted my day-to-day life. But under diagnoses, it says Irritable Bowel Syndrome. "Oh my," says the insurance company, "that's serious. Higher score."<br /><br />The point being that you can take someone in overall pretty good health and make them seem much sicker, with a higher score, depending on how you want to interpret the record.<br /><br />Which is exactly what has been happening.<br /> <br />The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) estimated that “net overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans by unconfirmed medical diagnoses" came to <a href="https://www.cms.gov/files/document/fy-2022-medicare-part-c-error-rate-findings-and-results.pdf-0" target="_blank">$11.4 billion</a> in fiscal year 2022 alone.<br /><br />And on top of all that, the program is designed such that once you're on it, you're pretty much stuck. There are significant financial obstacles to switching to real Medicare, making it as a practical matter almost impossible for a lot of people. Which means that over time the portion of Medicare-age people on these so-called Advantage programs grows and the fear is that once that figure is over 50%, which it almost is, that will be used to justify shutting down real Medicare, leaving these programs the only option.<br /><br />The whole thing is, as Thom Hartmann called it, a Trojan horse to privatize Medicare. The entire program should be shut down - now.<br /><br />Oh, and if you're on traditional, that is, real, Medicare? You are still being thrown into the clutches of grasping insurance companies.<br /><br />Which is <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/11/30/congress-asleep-switch-biden-continues-trump-era-ploy-privatize-medicare" target="_blank">that other program</a> I mentioned, the one you might night know about. It was set up under Tweetie-pie under the name Direct Contracting Entities as what amounts to a for-profit corporation acting as a benefits manager contracted by Medicare to sit between you and the health care provider. That is, instead of Medicare in that space, dealing with claims in and benefit payments out, there is a private corporation contracted to do that. <br /><br />These DCEs are paid monthly by the CMS to cover a specified portion of a patient's medical care instead of Medicare dealing with reimbursing providers directly. The issue is, these companies are paid that contracted amount and anything they don't spend on care they keep as profit.<br /><br />Which clearly gives these corporations an incentive to skimp on Medicare patients, including finding ways to deny claims or only approving the cheapest treatment methods even if a more expensive one is called for.<br /><br />This began as pilot program and was deliberately designed with the idea of being another step to privatizing Medicare and another way to rip off the public even as it was being sold with the traditional mantra "private enterprise efficiency."<br /><br />Virtually <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G8B012QNk9rzEJvfYaLcPwr2HJdZe_hcrR7KU_mAibk/edit" target="_blank">any company can apply</a> to be a DCE, including investor-backed startups - that is, even with no prior experience in insurance, health care, or medicine - along with other Wall Street types and insurance corporations already doing Medicare Advantage programs. <br /><br />And if you're on Medicare, you can be assigned to one of these profit-hungry outfits without your approval or even knowledge.<br /><br />Okay, but that was under Tweetie-pie, right? We have a Democrat in there now, so it's okay, right?<br /><br />Dream on. <br /><br />Not only is the Blahden Administration continuing the program, the CMS announced in January a <a href="https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-announces-increase-2023-organizations-and-beneficiaries-benefiting-coordinated-care-accountable" target="_blank">significant expansion</a> of the pilot program with the goal of making it universal - of having everyone on Medicare assigned to one of these outfits - by 2030.<br /><br />About the only thing Blahden did was re-brand the program as, get this, ACO REACH - Accountable Care Organization Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health. Because turning over administration of our health insurance claims to private corporations whose goal is, never forget, maximizing profit, increases accountability - somehow.<br /><br />Bear in mind that the $650 million in Medicare Advantage overcharges discovered by federal audit back in 2013 and 2014 still have not been recovered from the corporations that claimed them.<br /><br />Medicare and Social Security overall are about the most popular, most successful federal programs in US history and the right-wing and reactionaries hate them for precisely that reason and have been trying to shut them down from day one. We cannot let them succeed.<br /><br />One last thing on this, a question all this raises: If we as a people, through our taxes, can in these programs pay - as is happening - for Medicare <i>and</i> Medicaid <i>plus</i> corporate profit <i>plus</i> the cost of illegal overcharges, how in hell can anyone continue to claim we could not afford a national health care plan?<br /><br />I intend next time to look at the renewed attacks on Social Security, including the calls for a new version of a cat food commission.<br /><br /></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-61521878864605491632023-02-02T18:12:00.000-05:002023-02-02T18:12:10.187-05:00069 The Erickson Report for January 26 to February 8, Page Two: The anniversary of Roe v. Wade<p>January 22 marked the 50th anniversary of <i>Roe v. Wade</i> - and the first such anniversary without it.<br /><br />Years of fanaticism, years of lies about abortion and about the people who get them, and particularly years of lies by Supreme Court nominees swearing that <i>Roe</i> is "settled law" even though they knew damn well SCOTUS has the power to overturn such "settled law," and perhaps most egregiously equal years of failure by Democrats to call those nominees out on those lies and evasions, together have brought us to the point where for the first time in US history a protected, recognized right has been stripped away.<br /><br />And the fanatics, busily chanting "<a href="https://hymnary.org/text/onward_christian_soldiers_marching_as" target="_blank">Onward Christian Soldiers</a>," have no intention of stopping.<br /><br />So let's mark the day by noting some recent headlines on the topic.<br /><br />For example, Alabama has a near-total abortion ban which targets abortion providers but exempts the people who get abortions from being prosecuted. That creates a loophole for folks who want an abortion to do a self-administered, chemically-induced one.<br /><br />Well, State Attorney General Steve Marshall doesn't like the idea that people actually have an option. So two weeks ago his office issued a statement that people who use an abortifacient could be <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3809346-alabama-ag-says-women-could-be-prosecuted-for-taking-abortion-pills/">charged with a crime</a> under a chemical endangerment law.<br /><br />Originally passed to protect children from exposure to chemicals and fumes from home meth labs, this law has been expanded in practice to apply to pregnant people who took any drugs while pregnant or exposed their fetuses to drugs. Now they want the term "drugs," until now referring to illegal drugs, to refer to legal ones that the Alabama official fanatics don't like. <br /><br />Meanwhile, there's a method of doing an abortion called "<a href="https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin" target="_blank">dilation and extraction</a>," or D&X, which involves dilating the pregnant person's cervix and drawing the fetus out through the birth canal. In 1995 the fanatics at the National Right to Life Committee dubbed it "partial-birth" abortion, a medically-meaningless and deliberately misleading term used by the fanatics ever since.<br /><br />In floor debate in the Minnesota legislature on January 11, State Senator Bill Lieske <a href="https://www.alternet.org/minnesota-lawmakers-partial-birth-abortion/" target="_blank">showed the level of actual understanding</a> of the issue so common among his ilk, which is why this is important.<br /><br />He said "We have born alive individuals and we must protect the born alive. In this case, a partial-birth abortion. The child is in part born alive."<br /><br />In other words, Lieske thinks the aborted fetus is "partly alive!" He didn't specify which part that was. This would surely deserve a Clown Award for utter stupidity if this level of ignorance wasn't so serious and so common among the men making these laws.<br /><br />What has even greater potential impact is that some states are even looking to prosecute people <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/freedom-speech-mississippi-abortion-rights/671202/">simply for providing information</a> on openly-available, entirely legal options for people who want to obtain an abortion but live in a state where such rights are being destroyed. Even just telling someone "You could go to such-and-such a state and get it done legally there" would be a crime, aiding and abetting a crime, and free speech be damned.<br /><br />This is no joke and no exaggeration. The South Carolina legislature is considering <a href="https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_2021-2022/bills/1373.htm" target="_blank">legislation to do exactly that</a>*, based on draft legislation from those fanatics at the National Right to Life Committee. Meanwhile, Mississippi is investigating a group called Mayday Health over a billboard advertising a website providing some of that sort of legal information.<br /><br />And this doesn't even touch on the <a href="https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control" target="_blank">intensified campaigns</a> to restrict or even ban <a href="https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/13/23505459/supreme-court-birth-control-contraception-constitution-matthew-kacsmaryk-deanda-becerra" target="_blank">birth control</a>. Because as we told you many times, overturning Roe was not the goal - it was just a step in the process of achieving the fanatics' vision of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale" target="_blank">Republic of Gilead</a>.<br /><br />And the efforts are not limited to the state level, because despite their decades-long screeching that regulations on abortions should be "returned to the states," now they have that they have it they are looking for <a href="https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-nationwide-ban-abortion-introduced-us-senate" target="_blank">federal legislation</a> to ban abortion after 15 weeks and to block states that try to preserve access to reproductive care from doing so. "Return it to the states" was just another lie.<br /><br />Now, not all the news is bad, of course. I mentioned before suits in Indiana, Kentucky, and three other states arguing that abortion restrictions in those states are a violation of the plaintiffs' religious freedom, taking the fanatics' recent practice of making every attempt to combat bigotry into a First Amendment violation and turning it to a good end.<br /><br />A new example is <a href="https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-01-19/religious-leaders-sue-to-block-missouris-abortion-ban" target="_blank">a challenge to Missouri's ban</a>, one filed on January 19 by a group of 11 religious leaders of varying faiths. As part of their argument, they note that during debate on the bill, several lawmakers, including the bill's primary sponsor, specifically invoked their religious beliefs while drafting the bill, marking it a clear violation of church-state separation and the Missouri state constitution.<br /><br />The fact is, we face a moment when every aspect of reproductive health care from birth control to post-natal care is under attack and the fanatics seem ascendant, a moment that arose in part because despite the signs, for too many among us, including those most directly affected, the loss of those rights didn't seem "real" until the <i>Dobbs</i> decision actually came down. Fortunately, the resistance lives and continues and hopefully will grow.<br /><br />https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023%3A27-28&version=KJV<br />As for our opponents, the fanatics who proclaim their "freedom" but deny it to others, who proclaim "love" for the fetus but deny it to the mother, who claim to pursue "justice" but deny it to your victims, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023%3A27-28&version=KJV" target="_blank">Matthew 23:27-28</a> has the words for you, you who are the embodiment of the truism that for the right wing and its acolytes, the right to life begins at conception and ends at birth.<br /><br />Enjoy your time while you have it - because in the long run, we will not let you win.<br /><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">*At the link, scroll down to Section 44-41-860. But don't stop there. It gets worse.</span><br /><br /></p>Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-10861775311461558712023-01-27T23:06:00.099-05:002023-02-01T16:48:24.146-05:00069 The Erickson Report for January 26 to February 8<div style="text-align: left;"> </div><p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tl9JAMT6CJg" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe><br /><br />
Episode 69 of The Erickson Report notes the anniversary of Roe v.Wade with some recent news on abortion rights, goes over how Medicare Advantage programs are actually backdoor ways to privatize Medicare, and reintroduces Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages, with three Clowns and the Outrage that is Florida.</p><div style="text-align: left;">The Erickson Report is news and informed commentary from the radical nonviolent left. It is advocacy journalism, dealing in facts and logic but having a point of view. Sometimes serious, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes even flip but always with the intent to inform and inspire,The Erickson Report strives to be a tool for justice</div><div style="text-align: left;">Reactions and comments are welcome.</div><div style="text-align: left;">SOURCES:</div>Guns<br />https://www.wbur.org/npr/1150667373/monterey-park-shooting-what-we-know-californi<br />https://www.gunviolencearchive.org<br />=<br />
Abortion rights<br />https://hymnary.org/text/onward_christian_soldiers_marching_as<br />https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3809346-alabama-ag-says-women-could-be-prosecuted-for-taking-abortion-pills/<br />https://www.npr.org/2006/02/21/5168163/partial-birth-abortion-separating-fact-from-spin<br />https://www.alternet.org/minnesota-lawmakers-partial-birth-abortion/<br />https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/freedom-speech-mississippi-abortion-rights/671202/<br />https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess124_2021-2022/bills/1373.htm<br />https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and- analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/05/19/some-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control<br />https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/13/23505459/supreme-court-birth-control-contraception-constitution-matthew-kacsmaryk-deanda-becerra<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Handmaid's_Tale<br />https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-comment-nationwide-ban-abortion-introduced-us-senate<br />https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-01-19/religious-leaders-sue-to-block-missouris-abortion-ban<br />https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2023%3A27-28&version=KJV<br />==
<br />Medicare Advantage / ACO HEALTH<br />https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/is-medicare-advantage-a-scam<br />https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/09/08/medicare-advantage-profit-scam-time-end-it<br />https://www.cms.gov/files/document/fy-2022-medicare-part-c-error-rate-findings-and-results.pdf-0<br />https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/11/30/congress-asleep-switch-biden-continues-trump-era-ploy-privatize-medicare<br />https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G8B012QNk9rzEJvfYaLcPwr2HJdZe_hcrR7KU_mAibk/edit<br />https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-announces-increase-2023-organizations-and-beneficiaries-benefiting-coordinated-care-accountable<br />=
<br />Clowns<br />
https://www.newsweek.com/jim-banks-plans-anti-woke-caucus-bolster-gops-war-wokeness-1773778<br />https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/01/hate-pastors-now-speaking-beer-say-makes-men-feminine/<br />https://sdg.iisd.org/events/2022-un-climate-change-conference-unfccc-cop-28/<br />https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-politics-united-states-government-only-on-ap-john-kerry-b5d6482d465dcc8fa5063af9a0e44041<br />=<br />
Outrage<br />https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-blocks-high-school-african-american-studies-class/ar-AA16x9Ds<br />https://www.commondreams.org/news/ap-african-american<br />https://floridapolitics.com/archives/574045-in-andrew-warren-suspension-trial-gov-desantis-officials-answer-what-does-woke-mean/<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_Maddox<br />https://www.nhl.com/news/nhl-releases-results-of-diversity-and-inclusion-report/c-336511848<br />https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2018/11/09/racism-lingers-for-nhl-players-60-years-after-oree-landmark/38451681/<br />https://www.rawstory.com/desantis-hockey/<br />https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nhl/nhl-backtracks-after-florida-gov-ron-desantis-office-blasts-league-for-discriminatory-job-fair/ar-AA16kkpL<br />https://www.queerty.com/florida-flop-ron-desantis-manages-show-off-anti-blackness-queerphobia-one-sentence-20230124<br />https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/11-black-lgbtq-history-makers-you-should-know-n848631https://www.americanprogress.org/article/black-lgbtq-individuals-experience-heightened-levels-discrimination/Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6074121.post-34089559318747675472023-01-14T23:30:00.002-05:002023-01-14T23:31:07.121-05:00068 The Erickson Report for January 12 to 25<p> </p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oDnGQ98eS_s" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br /><br />
Our first show of 2023 looks at two issues we expect to continue to be issues throughout the year:
<br />- the war in Ukraine<br />- bodily autonomy, including reproductive rights (including abortion) and transgender rights.
<br /><br />We intend to repeat this for the next show or two, giving some attention to other issues that we think will be persistent ones.<br /><br />
We also anticipate the return of our most popular feature, Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrges.<br /><br />
Finally, a head's up: I am in the process of moving to another state. Don't be surprised (or dismayed) if sometime in the next four to six weeks I have to skip a show. I will try to let you know in advance.Lotushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16774266443353774752noreply@blogger.com0