So I said... for February 14-23

So herewith another collection of random bits and pieces drawn from comments I’ve made on various topics at various places, with context added where needed.

2026-02-14
[A trans woman was identified as committing a mass shooting, leading various right-wingers to declaim on the “violent nature” of trans people. A reply noted that the same rhetoric is never directed against white male mass shooters.]

That’s because what we’re seeing here is classic, definitional, bigot behavior, whether the bigotry is racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-trans, antisemitism, anti-Muslim, whatever.

If you are someone who is in some way “othered,” you are every person othered in the same way. If you do wrong or behave badly in any way or context, the bigot will say “That’s what those people do, that’s who they are.” But if you are not othered, the bigot will say “That’s what that one individual does, that’s who that one person is.”

So of course they don’t say the same about white men. White men are not “the other.” That’s why a trans shooter generates talk of “trans people are violent and dangerous” while every white male shooter generates talk of “one lone wacko.” It’s what bigots do. (And yes, I am aware of the irony there. But I will stand by my othering of bigots.)

==

2026-02-15
[About as non-political as something could be, this was from a YouTube discussion about “7 British Phrases That Completely Baffle Americans.” Not everyone was baffled. :-) ]
 

Coupla comments:

From one Larry to another, “Happy as Larry” [meaning “very happy” or “extremely content”] is very unlikely to have been for [Australian boxer] Larry Foley because there is a use of “happy as Larry” in print in an Australian newspaper in 1857 in a manner that indicates it’s a common phrase (The Illawarra Mercury, November 23, 1857) - at which time Foley, born December 12, 1849, was a month short of eight. Other options have the same difficulty of having the supposed source arise after first use. I expect the OED got it right: “Etymology uncertain.”

“Do the washing up” always to me meant doing the dishes.

I always thought “happy as a clam” referred to clams looking like they are smiling, but as others have noted, the original form was “happy as a clam at high tide,” that is, when it was most secure from predators.

I used to think the Mickey in taking same [i.e., in “taking the Mickey”] referred to a Mickey Finn, with the idea you were befuddled by what the other person was saying. Turns out the Mickey Finn originated in Chicago [and had nothing to do with the phrase, which means something like “pulling your leg”].

“Bob’s your uncle” always confused me, although I’d come to think it meant “You’re okay, everything’s fine, situation dealt with.” Which I suppose is close enough [to “and just like that”]. An apparently unresolved question is who the heck was Bob.

==

2026-02-16
Kristi No-one announced at a presser the DHS aims to take a major role in the midterms. “When it gets to Election Day, we’ve been proactive to make sure we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders to lead this country.”

Re-read that sentence very carefully and think about what she’s saying. The DHS intends to “make sure” the “right people” are the ones who vote and “the right leaders” are the ones they elect.

They’re (again and again) showing us who they are. Believe them.

==

2026-02-17
[Quoting ID state rep Clint Hostetler on passage of an extreme anti-trans bathroom bill.]

“I think is a noble and right cause…”

...said the slave owners in support of the Civil War.

Oh, and PS:

“protect our children and our ladies.”

“Our ladies?” The 1950s called; they want their sexism back.

==

2026-02-17
[CBS censored Stephen Colbert’s interview with TX candidate for US Senate James Talarico.]

This happened after [FCC chair Brendan] Carr said he was thinking about extending the Equal Time rules to cover late-night TV.

In other words, CBS censored the interview on the grounds of a rule that didn’t exist yet [and which Carr could not unilaterally impose].

This is what’s known as “obeying in advance,” or, in my own way of expressing it, “preemptive capitulation.”

==

2026-02-17
[A YouTube host referred to an article in The Independent describing Americans selling blood plasma to make ends meet.]

The Independent’s article notes that this rise is over the past four years, meaning it predates Trump 2.0, aka The Orange Overlord. And this is by no means the first time I’ve seen stories like these.

The point here being that this is not the result of Trump policies but of the structure of our economy, with a continuing increase in economic inequality spanning decades. Over the period 1980-2021, the average income of the poorest 20% among us grew by 31% while that of the richest 1% (not counting the richest .01%) grew by 574% and those of the richest .01% grew by 832%.

This is not a Trump issue. This is an economy issue. And we should always remember that - or we will fall into the old pattern of “If we just get rid of so-and-so, everything be fine” and then wondering another election or two down the line why “things” aren’t “fine.”

==

2026-02-18
[Comment: Since ‘68, Boomers have blamed the left for what the right does, bothsiding us to death. “Biden didn’t fix it so we’ll let Trump keep screwing up.”]

That’s utter BS but I suppose should be filed under “every generation blames the one before.”

But fact: Men over 65 voted for Harris (2024) at the same rate they voted for Biden (2020). Women over 65 voted for Harris a little more than they did for Biden. Together, those over 65 were about 2 points more supportive of Harris than they had been of Biden. Meanwhile, young (18-44) women supported Harris, but by five points less compared to 2020, while young men swung 16 points in The Orange Overlord’s direction, supporting him by an 8 point margin.

Blaming Trump on the all-purpose snide dismissal “boomer” will not wash.

==

2026-02-19
Democracy Docket reports that “Trump claimed that Republicans will never lose an election ‘for 50 years’ if they pass the SAVE America Act, which critics have called the most repressive anti-voting law in U.S. history.”

I don’t see any disconnect between the two clauses.

==

2026-02-20
1. According to our Orange Overlord, if SCOTUS ruled against his illegal, unconstitutional tariffs it would be “a body blow to the economy,” an utter disaster.

2. SCOTUS strikes them down, and the Spray Tan Who Would Be King says “No big deal, we’ll just do it this way instead.”

Some reporter willing to lose access should ask which of those two statements is a lie. Because one of them is.

Amend that: At least one of them is.

==

2026-02-21
[A commenter asked for background after another said Muslims fought in the US Revolution]

I did some looking and didn’t find anything definitive, but I did find one source, a Congressional resolution (H. Res. 276, April 1, 2019), that specifically named two Muslims who fought in the US Revolution and another source that named the same two as appearing on muster roles.

Beyond that, there are multiple sources about there being perhaps thousands of Muslims in the colonies at the time of the Revolution, mostly brought over as slaves. It doesn’t seem much of a stretch to suggest that certainly some (and more than two) fought in the war.

==

2026-02-21
[A commenter said one of his US Senators told him they would refuse to respond to any of his communications because he isn’t MAGA.]

I certainly hope in that letter [to newspapers] you described his refusal to respond.

I, however, would prefer that to my own burning-coal red Rep, who just doesn’t respond at all. The only two times I’ve ever heard back from his office was once when he wrongly thought I agreed with him on Israel’s genocide in Gaza and once with a one-size-fits-all attempt to defend the OBBB (the Obnoxious, Bilious, Bombastic Bill). Other than those two, total silence, nada, zilch.

At least your way gives you a means to publicly show his silence is a deliberate conscious snub by a partisan extremist, not just a case of not bothering to answer.

Footnote, purely as an irrelevant sidebar: I was trying to pick an adjective to apply to “red” in the second sentence. I thought of “ruby, but a ruby is a lovely gem and he most certainly is neither lovely nor a gem. I then thought of “fire engine,” but I think of fire engines as relating to rescue and genuine public service. Nope, that doesn’t fit him, either.

Then I thought of a glowing red goal, something that would burn you if you tried to deal with it directly. Right. Better. That will do.

==

2026-02-22
[A Louisiana law requiring posting the 10 Commandments in schools included the Mayflower Compact in a list of “optional” documents to be posted alongside the other.]

Personally, I’m tired of hearing the Mayflower Compact described as if it was some kind of founding document.

The VERY short version of the story is that they had a patent for Virginia but wound up beyond its northern border, which meant that technically there was no government. To avoid anarchy, they essentially agreed to govern themselves as if they had a patent until they got one, which they did the following November.

It was a wise decision, but the Compact broke no new political or philosophical ground.

[See this post for a more complete version of the story.]

==

2026-02-22
[A meme addressed a claim about hormones for transition causing violence by noting the same hormones are used to treat conditions among cis folks.]

Okay, read the following and then I have a question.

Ooh! Ooh! I see it now!

All those men committing all those school shootings must be on testosterone supplements!

Ban testosterone! OMG SAVE THE CHILDREN!

Okay, the question: I was going to post that as a sarcastic remark about how something intended as an attack on trans folks could be twisted into paranoia against cis folks.

Then I wondered if I should not, for fear that people wouldn’t get the sarcasm and think I was intending to mock the point being raised.

So should I have been worried or could I have just posted it without the explanation?

==

2026-02-23
From Chris Geidner (Law Dork) we get the latest brag from the regime of The Orange Overlord about its campaign of murder on the high seas.

It just (not for the first time on this) raises another of those questions that could be asked by some reporter prepared to break their addiction to the sweet, sweet narcotic of access.

Mr. President, just where do these “known narco-trafficking routes” lie? Show us a map so we can see that these routes aren’t being used for any legal activities. You can’t say it’s classified, because you can’t expect us to believe that these “narco-terrorists” don’t know where the “known narco-trafficking routes” these same “narco-terrorists” are using, are.

When you’re talking about bombing boats on open waters without offering any evidence, “Trust me, bro’” just isn’t good enough.

After that reporter is thrown off the plane while it’s still in the air, someone could ask about the deliberately dehumanizing language of “lethal kinetic strike.” Oh, and just what “Designated Terrorist Organizations” are we talking about? Name them. Speaking of which, why the plural? Is this some sort of joint enterprise? Why won’t you actually offer proof of your claims?

I really wish the media was as aggressive and (deservedly) hostile as the reactionaries and court jesters of the court of King Donald the Self would have us believe. 

So I said... for January 26 - February 13

Another collection of comments on various topics at various sites, with context added as needed to make sense of what was said.

2026-01-26
The White House gangsters, including Greg Bovine (not a typo) and Kristi No-one, have made much of the claim that Alex Pretti was not carrying ID while armed, which meant, they claim, he was breaking the law and that somehow proved he intended to “slaughter” the DHS thugs and deserved to be shot down.

YouTuber Jesse Dollemore bothered to look up the actual law. It turns out the penalty is a max fine of $25 and if you later show the court or the arresting officer your ID plus permit it goes away.

Truly a major crime worthy of instant death.

==

2026-01-27
So the face of The Orange Overlord’s repression regime in Minnesota is going to go from Greg Bovine (not a typo) to Tom Homan, well-named because he’s almost human.

Color me unimpressed.

==

2026-01-27
According to journalist Ron Filipkowski, John Fetterman says he’d like to see DHS funding separated from the mini-bus and voted on separately. But it it’s not (and it won’t be), he’ll vote for the full bill anyway. He ended by saying he’s “committed to being a voice of reason and common sense.”

A worthwhile goal. I hope someday he achieves it.

==

2026-01-29
[Background: Julia Serano did a video essay on “marked” vs. “unmarked” (that is, “othered”) people]

I watched the essay with appreciation. Thank you for doing it. I gave a little fist pump when you referred to part of being “unmarked” is not just what others think about you, it’s what they don’t think about you - having made the same point a couple of years ago in discussing white privilege.

Related to that is the idea that if you are “marked” and in some way misbehave, it’s taken as “that’s what ‘those people’ do” - but if you are “unmarked,” it becomes “that’s what that one individual does.”

Again, thanks for the essay.

==

2026-01-30
[A collection of 47 groups - including faux-Christian ministries, anti-choice twits, and state-based far-right outfits - have started something they’re calling the “Greater Than” campaign to push for overturning Obergefell based on the vacuous claim that children of same-sex parents have been “failed” by marriage equality.]

So I just checked out their website and three things struck me:
One: The first person they picture and quote is Charlie Kirk and they quote Barack Obama as if he is a supporter.

Two:  There is no hint they oppose divorce, which would be required to be consistent with "mother and father are never optional, they are essential." (Then again, when has ethical or logical consistency ever been a requirement for this crowd?)

Three: They equate children's "needs, rights, safety, [and] development" with no same-sex parents without a word about prenatal care, WIC, SNAP,  health care, educational and housing programs, the list would be quite long. (Repeat previous parenthetical.)

Conclusion: Exactly what you'd expect. A concoction of bigots, bozos, and buffoons united in their homophobic paranoia.

==

2026-01-30
[A poll cited by Erin Reed says voters prefer Democrats to GOPpers on trans issues, suggesting there is no need for Dems to shy away from defending trans rights. An objection was raised that trans issues rank low on lists of voter concerns, so extremists dominate on the issue.]
The answer, then, is to be loud. To show it matters to (the generic) you.

Political parties don't just look for voters, they look for motivated voters, not only because they're a source for campaign volunteers but more importantly because they're the ones most likely to turn out if they think the party is on their side and also are the ones most likely to say "the hell with it" and not vote at all if they think you're not.

That "extremely radical vocal minority" you cite fits that description: loud and motivated. So should we.
-
2026-01-30
[In response to a different person’s comment on the same poll.]

I expect the coming campaigns to be even more vicious than those to date and the wave of continuously more evil legislation to continue - in spite of the diminishing returns in elections.

Why? Because the most fanatical among the reactionaries know, they can't NOT know - that they are in the long run losing. They'll even say it; their constant desperate whining about the approaching collapse of civilization unless unless unless - it's not just posturing, it's a primal scream and they will fight to hold off the denouement as long as they can.

But at the same time, the rest of the right wing knows that's the only thing they've got. They are so far underwater that they have already essentially surrendered the House and are getting twitchy about the Senate. They can't hope to run and win on issues that people care most about and they know it, so they have to exploit our all-too common discomfort about anything elated to sex to arouse fear and then ride a social panic.

Combine the most fanatical with the merely ordinarily fanatical and you've got a recipe for a very very bad several months.

==

2026-01-31
[A post with a link I failed to record described anti-trans legislation as genocide.]

A bit under three years ago I compared what the right wing wants to do to trans folks with an oubliette (from the French oublier, “to forget”), a type of Medieval prison cell in which people would be stuffed and then, well, forgotten.

That’s what the right wing wants to do to trans people in this country. Not physically, at least not yet, but legally, socially, politically, psychologically, wants them to be disappeared and forgotten as if they simply do not exist, do not have the right to exist, do not even have the right to say "I exist."

I didn't use the word "genocide," but damn, it fits.

=

2026-01-31
CBS network news just this moment, on its Sunday evening broadcast, referred without comment to the new DHS policy that its agents can enter private homes without a judicial warrant.

NO THEY CAN’T! PERIOD TRIPLE-EXCLAMATION POINT ALL CAPS!!!

The masked thugs are claiming an administrative warrant is sufficient. T’S NOT! End of argument.  But I guarantee you there will be more smashed-in doors as a result.

Why why WHY do our major “news” media treat any claims to powers and authorities claimed by The Orange Overlord and his Brownshirted underlings as if they actually had them? Cowardice? Sloppiness? Incompetence? Indifference?

It really doesn’t matter. It’s just another example of how we are uninformed, misinformed, and malinformed by corporate media.

==

2026-01-31
[The following involves an exchange with another commenter. As always in such cases, I have edited their remarks to the points to which I was responding. If you suspect I may be being unfair, I urge you to check out the unedited exchange, which can be found at this link.

It began with a comment that defended the arrest of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort by citing 1 Corinthians 3:17: “If anybody should destroy the temple of God, God will destroy that person, because God’s temple is holy; and you are that temple.”]

I think I'm going to remember that quote. The next time some transphobe wants to deny needed health care to a trans person, I will tell them that they are destroying the temple of God.

As for its use here, I recall the line from "Pilgrims Progress" that says "The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose."
-
2026-02-01
[Reply: “Let’s be clear about targets and responsibility. I quoted Scripture to talk about physical intrusion into holy space and natural law fundaments of the Western legal tradition.” He also laid healthcare issues faced by trans folks on insurance companies, not the laws.]

Macbeth may have been referring to life, but he could just have well meant your argument.

So let's skip the attempts to change the subject (to "Who is REALLY to blame for trans people being denied care: profit-mongering insurance companies or the right-wing fundamentalist Christian Bible-thumpers behind the drives to legislate trans folks out of existence?") and get back to the point.

That point being that you quoted the Bible - you know, that book that "has been debated for two thousand years" without even reaching a consensus as to what should be included in it but with a plethora of sects claiming their particular interpretation of their preferred translation is THE TRUTH - as expressing "natural law" and therefore as the foundation of common law and the Constitution.

Which says at minimum that you don't understand the concept of natural law while indicting strongly that you would have our secular laws be "Bible-based," thereby rejecting the very Constitution you claim as backing - all in service of justifying the arrest of Don Lemon and Georgia Fort in contravention of the social contract that allows journalists to bear witness to and report on events.

That contention is given weight by you choice of of closing [Bible] quote [about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah], which bears no connection to anything certainly I and as far as I know anyone else has said but seems to be just a random rant threatening divine retribution for, well, for something from your imagination but not for anything here.

And since you brought up Sodom and Gomorrah, I'll reply with Ezekiel 16:49 (NIV): “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."

I believe I've given you as much time as you deserve. Last licks are yours if you want them.
-
Except for this, which I separate to a reply to myself because it's more of a sidebar than part of the actual argument.

Would your contention that Lemon was an "appendage of the protest mob, an added feature ... part and parcel of the intimidation" and therefore deserves punishment be the same if the site had been, say, the HQ of one of those insurance companies you consider "the real enemy of trans people in health-care disputes?"

If yes, your argument about "sacred spaces" goes out the window.

If no, should it be assumed that you would likewise demand punishment for ICE or CBP agents who entered a "sacred space" to arrest a so-called "illegal immigrant?" (Note that the answer "yes, with the permission of those in charge of that space" by definition gives those same authorities the power to absolutely bar entry.)

Finally, who and what gets to define what is a "sacred space?" Does it include all Christian (including Catholic) sects? Does it include synagogues, mosques, Native American sacred lands, various shrines around the world where entry is only by permission? And note that using "a house of God" as a reference point only throws you back onto the already-rejected "'cause the Bible says so."
-
2026-02-02
[I got a reply but it didn’t address the first question and the answer to second was "societies define what is sacred."]

I said I wouldn't reply and it's taking considerable will to keep to that, but I can't resist noting your statement "The moment you redefine reporters as 'appendages' of a mob, you’ve justified the baton," etc.
That "redefinition" of Don Lemon was yours. No one else's. By your own words you have "justified the baton, the cuff, and the cell - forever."

And "societies" don't define sacred spaces - the dominant forces in a society do. Consider as illustration the cavalier treatment still accorded to sacred spaces of Native Americans.

One of the roles of government is - or, rather, should be - to protect the rights of those lacking the economic, social, or political power to protect them on their own. Which will of necessity at times involve a use of state power in a way that inconveniences the powerful or privileged.

==

2026-02-01
[Still defending Lemon’s arrest, this same person in a different thread cited Owen Shroyer, who pled guilty to trespass on 1/6 and was sentenced to 6 months: “He never entered the Capitol; he was there as a journalist” so Lemon deserved the same.]

I looked up Shroyer.

First, by trespassing he violated an earlier agreement he made after he disrupted an impeachment hearing.

He made speeches endorsing the claim the election was stolen.

On Jan 5, he put out a video saying "Are we just going to sit here or are we going to actually do something about this?”

On Jan 6, he joined a crowd in shouting "We aren’t going to accept it."

While he could have had some claim to being a journalist (even if it was for Infowars), the fact is, he was not there as a journalist. He was there as an advocate and a participant.

Equating the two cases - Lemon and Shroyer - is flatly false.

==

2026-02-05
["If you can't see a trans person without sexualizing the, that's your sin."]
Geez, how long have I been saying this? So much of the bigotry and social panic about trans folks is driven by our cultural discomfort with, our cultural immaturity about, anything in any way related to sex and for the transphobes, it’s all about sex. They can’t look at, hear about, or even consider a trans person without thinking about “how they ‘do it’” and “what’s in their pants” and desperately needing to reject the guilty fantasies such thoughts arouse.

==

2026-02-06
[In reacting to TOO's saying he'll release the money for a major NJ-NY project if Penn Station and Dulles Airport are renamed for him.]

He is acting like an Egyptian pharaoh, building monuments to make himself appear greater than all who came before and so in a sense immortal. He should check out the poem "Ozymandias."

==

2026-02-08

It's not proper to dismiss Niemöller as an antisemite; his story is much more complex than the single label.

He did indeed embrace that sort of presumptive antisemitism with which we are still afflicted but was even worse then - but he came to regret it and alter his views (while in a concentration camp for being insufficiently pro-Hitler) and the poem was intended not just as a warning but to express his own guilt and shame for his own silence in the face of oppression of others.

==

2026-02-10
From the Meidas Touch "Today in Politics" for Feb. 10 we learn that Binance now holds 87% of the total circulating supply of a stablecoin issued by a crypto outfit affiliated with the Trump family. That's a $4.7 billion investment. The partnership comes after Trump pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao in Oct 2025.

The degree of corruption in this administration is truly phenomenal, phenomenal to the point that I just can't keep track of it.

If there is someone who is trying, please point me in their direction!

==

2026-02-10
[Idaho is considering the harshest anti-trans bill yet, making bathroom bans apply everywhere with violations for a 2nd offense a felony punishable by 5 years.]

I'd push back on one point or perhaps more on how a point is expressed. I'd say Idaho doesn't want to run trans folks out of the state. They're quite willing for you to be there - so long as you remain completely invisible.

So long as they can tell themselves you don't exist.

So long as they can smugly declare "there ain't none of that stuff here, not like [insert preferred locale for sneers]."

So long as you commit emotional suicide and live so locked in the closet that you can't see the handle.

There was a time, not that long ago in historical terms, when being gay or lesbian was "the love that dare not say its name." Now we might say the goal here is "the self that dare not admit it breathes."

I know it's small comfort, but know both that you are not alone and that the bigots and haters are so intent on their attacks because they know - they can't not know - that history says they are losing and, like King Canute in the popular version of the story, it will wash over them.

In the meantime, keep fighting and take care of yourself whatever way seems best to you.

==

2026-02-12
[A coalition of religious organizations has filed suit in federal court charging that TOO's "Religious Liberty Commission" violates federal law.]

According to the World Religion Database at Boston University, the world's five largest religious traditions by number of adherents in 2020 were, in order, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, agnosticism, and Buddhism.

Meanwhile, according to a 2023 The Economist/YouGov poll, the top five in the US are Christianity, "nothing in particular," atheist, agnostic, and Mormon.

I'm sure Trump's "Religious Liberty Commission" of 13 Xian nationalists and one Conservative Jew can be trusted to take a truly unbiased approach to the issue of religious freedom in the world.
-
2026-12
[Reply: I'm not sure about Hinduism, but Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all have multiple divisions, so lumping them together isn't really valid. Perhaps all the animist religions should be combined as well.]

That's how they were grouped in the source, apparently by general overall theology. The list also grouped "Chinese folk religions" and "ethnic or tribal religions (mostly in Africa)" seemingly in the same manner.

OTOH, decided by sects, according to the same source the top five are Sunni, Roman Catholicism, agnosticism, Protestantism, and Chinese folk religions (note the last is still a grouping).

Either way, it makes the same point: A panel of 13 Xian nationalists and one Conservative Jew cannot be trusted to approach world religious freedom on an unbiased basis.

Just as a footnote and not relevant to the issue at hand, I'll note that if we were to combine all the animist beliefs based on the single commonality of everything having a spiritual essence, to be consistent we'd have to combine all theistic beliefs as well, based on the single commonality of believing in a god or gods, which I'm not sure would yield a useful category.

==

2026-02-12
So in "a deliberate act of erasure," the administration of The Orange Overlord has removed the rainbow Pride flag from the Stonewall Monument, having already removed the Trans Pride and the Progress Pride flags.

Hey, all you "LGB without the T" dunderheads: We told you so! We told you that you would be the next target. DO YOU GET IT YET?

==

2026-02-13
[A post wrote about US weapons used by the IDF in Gaza.]

Damn. I don't get shaken easily but I should have taken your advice about skipping the section about the, let's call it "the mist."

The thing is, I already knew about thermal bombs. I already knew what they do, I knew about the effects and what they're used for. I even already had a decent sense of just how they do it even if I couldn't lay out the chemical reactions involved.

Even so, I didn't catch on until you actually said "Israel used thermal bombs" - and oh god I sat with my head in my hands for what must have been 30 seconds before I could carry on to read the rest.

Unconscionable. Just unconscionable.

So I said - bits and pieces

Another gathering of random comments on various things posted by others, arranged chronologically. 

2026-01-08
Everything you need to know about today’s GOPpers in one headline: “House fails to override Trump’s vetoes of 2 bills that passed unanimously.”

Not every GOPper voted against overriding the veto, but quite enough to generalize. Craven weaklings unworthy of public office.

==

2026-01-09
ICE has become little more than an armed, masked, secret police, increasingly populated with Tonton Macoute wannabes.

If we’re not going to have open borders (which I do think is an arguable position*) we have to have some kind of border control and some way to enforce it, roles for which both ICE in particular and DHS in general have proven incapable of fulfilling in a humane or even Constitutional manner.

Thus my new slogan, deliberately intended to tweak the MAGAs:

“ICE: Repeal and Replace!”

==

2026-01-09
[Background: An attorney was fined $400,000, upheld on appeal, for informing a school that one of their staff was previously involved in sex with a minor on the grounds that it violated a confidentiality agreement regarding a bankruptcy case. The judge said the fine was based on the cost of the investigation.

The question was are the courts at in any way at fault for what seems to be an injustice or were they just constrained by the law.]

Of course both the district and appeals courts at least potentially bear some of the blame.

Is there a law saying that the fine must be based on the “cost of the investigation?” If so, the courts should have required a proof of that cost - meaning receipts, detailed accounts, and not vague items like “hours billed.” If there is not such a law, the court should have ignored that cost as a basis for the fine. In either event, the district court could have withheld judgment for the moment while encouraging the sides to negotiate a lesser amount.

So unless there is both a law specifically stating that the fine is to be based on the cost of the investigation and a detailed proof of those costs, then either court could have at the least found the fine excessive and even included in their rulings (even if it didn’t affect the judgment) some reference to the potential harm avoided by [attorney Richard] Trahant’s actions.

I’m reminded yet again of Joni Mitchell’s lyric (in “Sex Kills”): “Is justice just ice/Driven by greed and lust?/Just the strong doing what they can/And the weak suffering what they must?”

=

2026-01-12
I will not forward, “like,” or discuss memes or vids or whatever that do not source the claim made.

I’ve had more than enough experiences of asking for a source (which you’d think the poster had) only to be told some version of “find it yourself” to have confidence in the conclusion that they don’t have one, they either just made it up or, more likely, are just reposting something that itself had no source.

==

2026-01-12
[Background: Responding to Congressional Democrats failing to oppose an anti-trans law, someone asked “Do they still expect trans people to vote for them despite this harm they’re causing us?”]

The answer to your question is yes.

This, bluntly, is SOP, par for the course, choose your cliché, but in any case long-standing policy for the institutional Democratic Party. It’s not just trans rights, it’s a range of issues where they figure that as long as they can be or at least present themselves as any degree to the left of the GOPpers, it’s “Hey, whadda you gonna do? Vote for that crowd? It’s us or nuthin’.” They see no downside to taking the left flank of voters for granted.

And if you dare to mutter phrases like “won’t vote” or worse yet “third party,” you’ll be treated as a child to be scolded and shamed rather than an adult to be engaged.

==

2026-01-14
In discussing oral arguments before SCOTUS on two suits relating to bans on transgender students in sports, Chris Geidner (Law Dork) suggested they revealed a shift in tone toward avoiding a wide-ranging decision with Constitutional implications, so that while the bans in question would be upheld, it would be done in a manner that it only applied to those particular cases and would leave open the option for other jurisdictions to allow students to participate according to their gender. That is, states could have such a ban but allowing participation based on gender would not violate Title IX, despite the plaintiff's claims.

Now, this of course was oral arguments so is no guarantee of the shape of the ultimate ruling, but according to Geidner the Justices seemed interested in avoiding basic questions about trans rights under the Title.

Which leaves me feeling if there is such a word quasi-optimistic, which is about as good as it gets on this topic these days. There are undoubtedly hard - make that even harder - times ahead but I still believe in the line about the arc of the moral universe.

So I take hope in the shift in tone represented by Kavanaugh’s remark that “one of the themes of your argument has been the more people learn, the more they’ll agree with you.“ I do it both because that is true and because perhaps that, again, shift in tone is the result of some members of the Court starting to think “um this whole business is more complicated than I originally thought.”

And consider that in the period 1998-2008, 26 states added to their state Constitutions provisions banning same-sex marriage at tine when opposition to those rights ran at about 60%. They did it because support was slowly rising and the reactionaries, aware of that fact, pushed these amendments to lock in their bigotry at a time when they could still get people worked up over it.

Despite that, it continued to be an issue, support continued to rise, in 2015 SCOTUS struck all of them down, and polls over the past two years show 67-69% of the public supporting same-sex marriage.

It’s unclear who originated the saying “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes” (no, it wasn’t Mark Twain). No matter; with some recent polls saying that a clear majority of Republican voters think their party is way too concerned with trans rights issues, I don’t feel it remiss to listen for the perhaps faint but still perceptible sound of rhyming chimes.

==

2025-01-14
The Democratic-controlled New Jersey legislature has broken a promise to enact a trans shield law in the post-election session, generating a sense of betrayal.

It's a well-justified reaction, yet we should for the moment recall that NJ has an Executive Order in place that functions as a shield and that stays in force until it's overturned or superseded by law.

I have urged [out-going] Gov. [Phil] Murphy to call on the legislature to turn his EO into law without success, so now we have to push [Governor-elect Mikie] Sherrill to do it.

I rather suspect the lack of post-election action arises from a feeling of “We’ve got the shield EO, why raise what might be a contentious issue?” More specifically, I suspect the reason for the idea of a post-election vote was intended as a backstop against the possibility of a win in the governor’s race by Trump-lover Jack Ciattarelli, who certainly would have revoked Murphy’s EO. Since the moderate Mikie Sherrill, who has a pretty good record on LGBTQ+ (including transgender) issues, won, the members of the legislature felt no urgency to deal with it.

None of which changes the fact that there should be a law, not just an EO, and we should be pressing for that.

==

2026-01-16
[Background: In response to a 2015 TikTok from John Cena about what makes an "average American," someone asked "WTF happened?"]

WTF happened is that we got lazy, we thought those issues were pretty much settled, that the bastards, bigots, and buffoons had shrunk far enough away that we could coast to the finish line, ignoring or ignorant enough of the fact that the diverse America we saw emerging that was so pleasing to us - one with a “non-majority majority” in which no racial/ethnic group is a majority of the population - was instead terrifying to many of the existing majority whose internal conception of what it means to be “American” is being undermined by that reality.

 *See, for example, https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-erickson-report-page-4-longer-look.html

Sometimes pushback works

Nice to know some people still believe freedom of expression does not require universality of opinion.

The board of the Adelaide [Australia] Festival runs as part of the overall event Adelaide Writers Week, the nation’s largest free literary festival .

On January 8 the board announced that they had disinvited Australian-Palestinian writer Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah from the event. They cited “her previous statements" and the "cultural sensitivities“ surrounding the antisemitic mass shooting at Sydney’s Bondi Beach - even as they admitted her writings don't “have any connection with the tragedy.”

They didn’t cite any specific statements by Abdel-Fatah, but we can safely assume they are to referring to her support for Palestinian rights and her denunciation of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, especially given that her exclusion came as the result of lobbying by the Jewish Community Council for South Australia and South Australia state premier Peter Malinauskus.

The upshot? By January 13, 180 speakers - amounting to about 70% of those invited - had withdrawn as had some sponsors of the event, the Festival’s director had quit, the whole event had been canceled, remaining board members were to resign, and the future of the wider Adelaide Festival was in question.

There is to be a new board, hoping to keep the wider festival, now in its 40th year and a major draw for the state of South Australia, going.

Footnote: The statement announcing the cancellation offered Abdel-Fattah a non-apology apology referring not to the actual decision but only to “how the decision was represented” while claiming "this is not about identity or dissent."

Yeah, sure. Whadevah you say, Mac.

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30, Page Five: A Longer Look: Julian Assange Closer to Being Extradited

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30, Page Five: A Longer Look: Julian Assange Closer to Being Extradited

Okay, this is something I keep meaning to talk about, keep thinking to include but for one reason or another keep not doing. This time I'm doing it. It's time for A Longer Look.

On March 14, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom rejected the request by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to appeal an earlier decision permitting his extradition to the United States, where he faces espionage charges and up to 175 years in prison for publishing classified documents that exposed war crimes.

There is one more option, which is the hope that UK Home Secretary Priti Patel will decline to authorize the extradition. The hope is probably a vain one since three years ago, the then-Home Secretary Sajid Javid was the one who greenlighted the extradition in the first place.

This business actually dates back to Bush administration, through Obama and Tweetie-pie up to today. For well over a decade the US government has been out to destroy Julian Assange and through that to destroy WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to revealing what governments across the world don't want their citizens to know.

The reason for this long campaign is because WikiLeaks dared to release hidden information that was embarrassing to US foreign and military policy, most particularly release in 2010 of what was called the Iraq War Logs, which documented numerous US war crimes including killing of unarmed civilians and torture of Iraqi prisoners. Something that drew particular attention was a video taken from a US helicopter gunship showing its crew shooting down a group of civilians including two journalists, a video that became known by the title "Collateral Murder." Look it up; you can still find it on YouTube.

The problem, of course, was that by prosecuting Assange or WiiLeaks for release of classified information the government risked involving outfits like the Washington "Post" and New York "Times," which published stories based on those documents - in some cases in consultation with WikiLeaks. That, the government was not prepared to do.

That doesn't mean they wouldn't try to find a way around it. I still recall Eric Holder, The Amazing Mr. O's Attorney General, stating that the DOJ would find something with which to charge Assange even if they had to change the laws in order to do it. (And so much for the Constitution's ban on ex post facto laws.)

During the Obama administration (Remember how they came into office pledging a new birth of transparency only to imprison more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act of 1917 than all previous administrations combined?) the idea was floated to relabel WikiLeaks as an “information broker,” something to be declared as entirely separate from journalism and publishing and therefore not deserving of any special First Amendment protection available to the news media. That didn't fly because how then do you separate WikiLeaks from any news aggregator such as, for example, Google News or Yahoo! News.

The Tweetie-pie gang was a little more creative. They got a provision inserted into the Intelligence Authorization Act for 2018 which called WikiLeaks "a non-state hostile intelligence service," a term invented for the occasion by Mike Pompeo, Tweetie-pie's CIA director and Secretary of State and a label subsequently used in proposals from the CIA and the Orange Wig Stand himself to kidnap or kill Assange, then taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

Julian Assange

This, by the way, is why Chelsea Manning for several months was held in solitary confinement - torture under international law - by the US military and denied treatment and care for her gender dysphoria: It was an attempt to emotionally or psychologically break her so she would testify against Assange in a charge of conspiracy to release classified documents.

You see, the issue of freedom of the press still hung over the case, but conspiracy - nicknamed "the prosecutor's darling" - was a way around that. But to make it work, they needed Manning's testimony. Because if she initiated contact with WikiLeaks by providing the documents, the government has no case. But if she'd testify that he actually talked her talked her into giving up the information, then two people were involved and ta-da! it's a conspiracy.

That this was the intent became even clearer when not long after her court-martial sentence of 35 years in prison was commuted after seven years - still more time in prison than any other whistleblower in US history - she was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury about her dealings with Assange. She spent two months in prison for contempt of court for refusing - and immediately upon her release she was called before another grand jury on the same thing. She again refused and was imprisoned, this time for 10 months plus accumulating $256,000 in fines.

Chelsea Manning

But while it appears the government has given up on trying to break Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange is for the moment still free, the government has been able to pretty much cripple WikiLeaks' ability to act. That can be seen from its website by the drying up of new releases since around 2017, with only one release in over two years, that one about two right-wing hate groups in Spain.

This case has sparked on-going concern from press freedom and human rights groups around the world who warn that prosecution of Assange would have far-reaching impacts on journalists and publishers who dare to challenge powerful governments by exposing their secrets.

For example, in January, the Committee to Protect Journalists stated that the US's prosecution of Assange would set "a deeply harmful legal precedent that would allow the prosecution of reporters for news gathering activities" and called on the DOJ drop both the extradition request and charges against Assange.

Meanwhile, Julia Hall, Amnesty International's deputy research director for Europe called the UK Supreme Court ruling "a blow to justice" and said "the US should immediately drop the charges against Julian Assange."

She noted the lower court ruling the UK Supreme Court overturned had recognized that extradition could present a threat to Assange's life or mental health, a risk the Supreme Court airily dismissed based on breezy US assurances that "don't worry, he'll be fine", which Hall dismissed as "empty promises." Considering the US's record of CIA black sites, Gitmo, along with the conditions to be found in almost any US prison, not to mention the treatment inflicted on Chelsea Manning in pursuit of this case and that the US government has a been pursuing Assange for a dozen years across three presidents, the description "empty promises" is extremely hard to deny.

Reporters Without Borders said it was "deeply disappointed" by the court decision and called on the Home Office to refuse extradition and release Assange without further delay.

So why have you heard so little about this? Why has this case not been bigger news? Well, for one reason, major media outlets are convinced that whatever is done to Assange and WikiLeaks will be carefully defined in such a way that it won't affect powerful interests like them. Put more bluntly, they figure they're safe so they don't care what happens to him. "He was useful when he was around, but if he's not, well, so it goes." It's the "He's not really a journalist, so the idea of a free press doesn't apply to him" dodge.

Which is actually quite astonishing, because a key part of what Assange is accused of amounts to working with Manning to conceal her identity, that is, remain anonymous to avoid being caught and prosecuted. But if that is criminal, those outlets are equally at risk. Consider the screen shot from a page of the New York "Times" website: nyt.com/tips. It openly invites people to send tips and information to the "Times" and goes on to discuss ways for the tipster to remain anonymous, including SecureDrop, a system set up by the "Times" for just that purpose.

Screenshot of nyt.com/tips

Which really means that the major media's essential ignoring of this case is based less on "He's not really a journalist" and more on "We're too powerful, they don't dare come after us."

Which may be true of the publishers but not of their reporters, without which the publishers can't get the scoops that bring in the eyes and ears of the public: After the government lost the famous Pentagon Papers case against the NY "Times," the government tried to go after reporter Neil Sheehan on exactly the same charge Assange now faces, using exactly the same "It's a conspiracy!" argument, but failed to get an indictment.

Okay, even leaving all that "can't touch this" corporate attitude aside, you'd think the progressive left would keep pushing it - or even the libertarian right, usually on the correct side when it comes to things like press freedom. Well, some on the left did try - heck I've at least mentioned the case more than 20 times over the years - but the major voices of what passes for the left in the US these days, the faux-progressives, those whose progressive and radical proposals expand and contract with the ideas prominent in current intra-Democratic Party debates, have fallen largely silent. And frankly, we can even pinpoint when that happened. And why.

When Wikileaks released documents embarrassing to the Bush administration, when it released footage useful in opposing the Iraq War, Wikileaks was the hero.

But as soon as Wikileaks first released documents embarrassing to Barack Obama's administration, those faux-progressives started to attack it and stood by silently as the Amazing Mr. O tried to bankrupt WikiLeaks by blocking its access to donations and desperately searched for a way to imprison Assange.

The final break came when WikiLeaks invoked the unforgivable curse in 2016 by releasing emails embarrassing to Hillary Clinton, emails showing that during the primaries, her campaign and the DNC had colluded to the detriment of the Bernie Sanders campaign. Well, that was it, criticize the Democratic presidential nominee, and Assange and Wikileaks instantly became part of some anti-American cabal.

Indeed, on one of the and possibly the biggest of the faux-progressive sites, DailyKos, Assange became routinely described by the homophobic term "Putin's butt-boy" with the frequent addendum that he always has been about, that WikiLeaks has always been about, pushing pro-Russian, anti-American propaganda, probably under the direction of the Kremlin.

The fact that this also amounted to an admission that they had been useful idiots during the time they had celebrated WikiLeaks was, naturally, passed over without comment.

This case is something that I have let slide too long and which too much of the supposedly progressive left have simply ignored or even dismissed. That silence can't be allowed to continue. The case against Julian Assange presents a genuine threat to journalism as a principle. This silence must stop. The case should be dropped. Julian Assange should be freed.

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30

 

050 The Erickson Report for March 17 to 30

Good News: Relief for the USPS
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/03/08/usps-senate-biden/

Ukraine: "The War Drags On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeH5rVUgios
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/10/2085119/-Ukraine-update-A-war-on-the-concept-of-civilization-itself
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22967674/russia-ukraine-no-fly-zone-limited-nuclear-war
https://twitter.com/MMazarr/status/1501688603042361346
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/03/no-fly-zone-test/363099/
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-kyiv-europe-congress-058c8b72b81044f861b30b7ceb500a15
https://www.politico.eu/article/zelenskyy-peace-talks-russia-realistic-accept-compromise-nato/

Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages
Clowns:
    DC "truckers convoy"
    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/11/2085314/-D-C-freedom-truckers-threaten-to-abuse-911-system-if-Washingtonians-don-t-stop-flipping-them-off
    US Senate
    https://www.aol.com/news/u-senate-approves-bill-daylight-184244252-204613821.html

Outrage:
    Illegitimate "state secrets privilege" used to conceal torture and spying
    https://freedom.press/news/supreme-court-entrenches-state-secrets-privilege-dealing-a-blow-to-accountability/
    https://www.aclu.org/other/background-state-secrets-privilege
    http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2004/04/must-read.html

Julian Assange closer to being extradited
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/03/14/uk-top-court-rejects-assanges-request-appeal-extradition-decision
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/06/13/worlds-most-powerful-imprison-julian-assange-his-virtues-not-his-vices
https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-home-secretary-gives-green-light-extradite-julian-assange-us
https://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/06/wikileaks.investigation/index.html
https://collateralmurder.wikileaks.org/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2010/12/once-more-into-breach.html
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/28/assange-kidnapping-wikileaks-cia-senate/
https://news.yahoo.com/kidnapping-assassination-and-a-london-shoot-out-inside-the-ci-as-secret-war-plans-against-wiki-leaks-090057786.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2010/12/once-more-into-leak.html
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2017/06/245-news-on-chelsea-manning-and-julian.html
https://rsf.org/en/news/uk-rsf-calls-home-office-block-assange-extradition-following-supreme-court-refusal-consider-appeal
https://freedom.press/news/appeals-court-says-that-nixons-attempt-to-prosecute-pentagon-papers-reporter-must-stay-secret-50-years-later/

The Erickson Report, Page 6: Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]

Two Weeks of Stupid: Clowns and Outrages [the Outrages]

Finally we have the Outrages and there are three of them, all related to court decisions.

I'll do this first because I can do it quickly. Last month, I discussed the morally depraved ruling by the Supreme Court to allow the "public charge" rule to go into effect while appeals against it continue. This is the one that allows denying green cards to potential immigrants if some official thinks they might at some point in the future need any one of a variety of types of public support.

The rule is expected to cut legal immigration by up to two-thirds and obviously it will be the "tired, the poor, the huddled masses" who will be affected.

The Outrage this time is that there was a second suit related to the public charge rule, which as the result of a stay had resulted in the rule not being in effect in Illinois.

On February 21, SCOTUS doubled down on its xenophobic depravity and lifted that stay, meaning the rule is now in place nationwide.

Which is a sickening Outrage.

=

Next is that on February 28, we continued our march toward centralized authoritarian rule as the Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, agreed with the Tweetie-pie gang that the courts can't force former White House Counsel Don McGahn to testify before the House Judiciary Committee because in the absence of proof of damage to some entity beyond the federal government, then quoting the decision, "any dispute remains an intramural disagreement about the ‘operations of government’ that we lack power to resolve."

In other words, for all practical purposes the executive branch can simply and with impunity refuse to provide information or testimony to Congress even if the specific letter or the law says it must - remember the thing about how Treasury "shall" provide requested tax information to Congressional tax committees - because there is no legal mechanism to force them to do so.

It's a dubious position given the court system's traditional role of arbiter of disputes but it does show how easy it is to let more and more power and control to flow to the Executive. That is not only an Outrage, it's frightening.

=

But the big Outrage this time is yet another court action.

The ACLU is asking the Supreme Court to take up the case of DeRay Mckesson, who is being sued by a Baton Rouge cop.

What happened, in brief, is that there were protests in the city after two white police officers shot and killed Alton Sterling, a black man, in July 2016. Police responded, as you would expect, with riot gear, excessive force, and illegitimate arrests.

At some point during one protest outside police headquarters, someone (it's not known who) threw something (it's not clear what) that hit some cop (whose name is unknown). That cop sued DeRay Mckesson, who was one of the organizers of the protest, on the grounds that as an organizer, he was liable for anything done by anyone present if violence was "forseeable."

A district court threw out the suit as clearly violating a core tenet of the First Amendment: In the context of a protest, individuals cannot be held liable for the unlawful, unintended acts of others. 

The Supreme Court

Then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals - the same one that upheld the Texas and Louisiana abortion laws - took it up. The court concluded that Mckesson was not the person who threw the object, which indeed no one, not even the cop, had suggested he was, that he had no control over the individual who threw the object, and that he had not intended for the object to be thrown. Despite that, the judges concluded that Mckesson could be liable for the officer's injuries and overturned the district court ruling.

Huh? How? Because, the court said, during the protest, Mckesson (according to the cop) directed others onto the street in front of police headquarters, which supposedly violated some Louisiana law. Therefore, it was foreseeable that police would get involved and therefore foreseeable that violence could occur and therefore Mckesson could be liable for any harm that followed.

This is insane and insanely dangerous. Not only for the not unreasonable but still disturbing assumption that any time police are involved you can expect violence, but also that it literally could destroy the right of public protest by laying the risk of personal or organizational bankruptcy over any protest.

Quoting the ACLU:

Under the Fifth Circuit's theory, a police officer - or, equally, a counter-protester - need only allege that a protest organizer directed or enabled other protesters to do any illegal thing, from overstaying a permit in order to pack up, to pumping the volume up a little too loud, to conducting a sit-in that obstructs access on a sidewalk or constitutes a trespass. Countless potential plaintiffs could argue that their injuries - sprained ankles, broken windows, extreme stress - probably would not have occurred had the protest not been at that place at that time, or had police or counter-protesters not responded as they did.

With these costly risks, who would be willing to lead a protest?

In fact, it's even worse than that, because by the 5th Circuit's logic, the likelihood of police presence is itself enough to make violence "foreseeable" and therefore make protesters liable for any violence that occurs.

But police presence at protests is routine, especially in the case of large crowds or a focus on issues of public controversy. So essentially any organizer of any protest is running the risk of financial ruin for what some fool - or agent provocateur - does even in the absence of any illegal act.

Happily the Supreme Court dealt with this back in 1982 in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., making it clear that the Constitution limits the government's ability to place responsibility for violence onto peaceful protesters. Interestingly, one of its recent uses was to protect Donald Trump against a suit over violence at one of his campaign rallies and another was to protect protesters of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

But it looks like this battle is going to have to be fought all over again. Since 1982, the composition of the Supreme Court has changed for the worse, but at least we can, indeed must, hope the members still believe in the First amendment.

Because if they uphold this insanely outrageous ruling, we are completely screwed.

31.2 - Outrage of the Week: threats to the rights of assembly and free press

Outrage of the Week: threats to the rights of assembly and free press

The Good News, unhappily, leads directly to the Outrage of the Week.

Our First Amendment rights, our rights to protest, are under attack. As protests increased and continued, so too did the efforts to shut them down entirely or at least scare people off from taking part.

This spring's state legislative sessions have seen at least 30 bills introduced across 20 states either to limit the right of public protest, to increase punishments for civil disobedience, or both, doing so by measures such as, for example, banning wearing of masks, by declaring some areas "critical infrastructure" forever off-limits to protest, or by changing a charge of blocking a highway from a misdemeanor to a felony. Bills in two states - South Dakota and Tennessee - even proposed to protect drivers who run over protesters blocking streets.

A particular danger lies in use of mass arrests and charges without probable cause.

Back on October 1, 2011, during the Occupy protests, 700 people were peacefully marching across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City. Police had closed the bridge to vehicular traffic and began walking in the roadway. Protesters, reasonably assuming the police were trying to have the march get over the bridge as quickly and efficiently as possible, followed them into the street - only to have the police stop the march, trap the group from behind, and arrest all 700.

Police claim they told the marchers to stay out of the roadway but there is no way anyone other than those at the very front of the crowd could even have heard them; even assuming police did make such an announcement, those further back could not possibly have known about it. No matter - mass arrest, all guilty of "blocking traffic" - even though there was, again, no traffic to block.

A suit arose, Garcia v. Bloomberg. The Supreme Court recently refused to hear the protestors' appeal of their loss at the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. By doing so, the courts have legitimized mass arrests without proper warning and without giving people an opportunity to disperse.

It gets worse:

On January 20, Inauguration Day, police in Washington, DC followed, by their own account, a group of about a couple hundred protesters for about one-half hour. During that time, there were a few people in the group who broke windows. Instead of going in and arresting the people they had probable cause to arrest (because they had observed those people committing a crime), the police waited and then trapped 200 people with police netting, sweeping up demonstrators, journalists covering the event, and even some passers-by, anyone who happened to be there at that moment. Again, a mass arrest without warning, without an opportunity to disperse, and without probable cause to believe most of those arrested had committed any crime.

But those people - all 214 of them - were charged with a crime: felony rioting, which carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. In April, additional charges of property destruction, inciting or urging to riot, and conspiracy to riot, with penalties of up to 75 years in prison, were added.

While some of those arrested have cut plea bargains, many of the cases are still pending, including against at least one of the journalists - who, remember were there doing their job as reporters.

But here is the point: To indict and try someone, it takes, or at least is supposed to take, probable cause directed to that individual, not some unnamed someone. If these arrests are allowed to stand, if this is accepted by the courts, it means that if you are are at a demonstration, no matter how peaceful and legal, and someone in that group commits some illegal act - breaks a window, say - you and everyone else there could be charged with that crime or, even more likely, conspiracy to commit that crime with no need on the part of police or prosecutors to be able to say you did anything wrongful at all. Guilt - criminal guilt - by association in the purest form, a tool to suppress public protest at its most blatant..

The potential chilling effect on the right to protest is hard to overstate. The potential chilling effect on the right of a free press to cover such protests, when journalists may be held to be participants simply by being present, may be less immediately obvious but just as serious.

Because there is more: On July 25, a group of about 95 disabled people disrupted the vote in the Senate on the motion to proceed to debate about a health insurance bill - the debate that came to nothing - by shouting "Kill the Bill, Don't kill us" and "Shame!"

Capitol police dragged them from the gallery into the hall - the Senate chambers being a First-Amendment-free zone - and then blocked the media from covering the arrests, demanding there be no photographs and no videos and in fact ordering reporters present to delete those they had taken. Why? Because, get this now, "It's a crime scene." And if that makes you go "So what." it should.

In the eyes of the Capitol police, they have the power to say "You will not cover this protest. You will make no record of the protesters. You will make no record of their arrest." Which bluntly is one short step away from being able to say "This event did not happen."

Meanwhile, Jeff "I'm not a racist, really, really!" Sessions darkly intones about press subpoenas and how press freedom "is not unlimited."

No one ever said it was, of course, although it is also true that Thomas Jefferson said - and this is a real quote, not one of those fake ones that keep circulating - "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

The truth is, we are much more threatened by the power of the government to restrict and conceal than we are by the power of protesters and the press to resist and reveal. And as those threats to our rights increase, so does the outrage.

What's Left #31

What's Left
for the week of August 11 - 17, 2017

This week:

Good News: protest and resistance continue
https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/erica-chenoweth/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.98de205445f8
https://sites.google.com/view/crowdcountingconsortium/home
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/26/1684152/-Public-protests-soared-higher-in-June-than-in-any-month-since-the-January-Women-s-Marches
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/07/25/more-people-protested-in-june-in-the-u-s-than-in-any-month-since-the-january-womens-marches/?utm_term=.91ed65d4c3f7

Outrage of the Week: threats to the rights of assembly and free press
https://www.environews.tv/051017-aclu-reveals-bills-20-states-aiming-criminalize-peaceful-protest-state-list/
http://fair.org/home/theres-an-effort-around-the-country-to-curtail-peoples-fundamental-1st-amendment-rights/
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-06-19/supreme-court-wont-touch-legality-of-mass-arrests-without-warning
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-06-09/journalist-arrested-during-trump-inauguration-arraigned-on-new-felonies-carrying-decades-in-jail
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/7/26/1684110/-Salon-Capitol-Police-Forced-Journos-to-Delete-Footage-of-AHCA-Protesters
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2017/07/25/capitol-hill-staff-prevent-journalists-reporting-health-care-protesters/217376
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/893492385094615041
http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/1289

Noting August 6 and 9: the start of the nuclear weapons age
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/08/2156-70th-anniversary-of-bombings-of.html
(See that post for a full list of sources)

255.5 - Outrage of the Week: Chelsea Manning faces charges for attempting suicide

Outrage of the Week: Chelsea Manning faces charges for attempting suicide

Speaking of war crimes brings us to one of our regular features. This is the Outrage of the Week.

A couple of weeks ago, I reported that Chelsea Manning, the war crimes whistle-blower now in prison for 35 years for the heinous crime of letting the American public know the nature of the war we were fighting in Iraq; Chelsea Manning, who had survived months of solitary confinement - considered torture under UN treaty; Chelsea Manning, who proved herself stronger than the government ever knew, nonetheless had hit a wall and tried to commit suicide.

I was able to report that she survived and described herself as well and glad to be alive.

What the government has put her through - with, we can and must assume, the full knowledge and approval of the Amazing Mr. O - is outrageous enough, but this latest news goes beyond the bounds of even minimal decency.

According to the ACLU, which is representing her, on July 28 she was informed that she is facing serious new charges based on her attempt to commit suicide. In other words, having brought her to a moment of such despair that she tried to kill herself, the Army is now talking about punishing her for that very act.

These so-called "administrative offenses" include:

- resisting a group of prison guards called "the force cell move team," which is truly odd because she remembers nothing of the night and was unconscious when they got to her cell;
- having "prohibited property," with no indication of what that "property" would be; and
- "conduct which threatens" because she apparently threatened someone or something by trying to kill herself.

Chelsea Manning

If she is convicted of these "offenses," she could be reclassified into maximum security, have an additional nine years in medium custody added to her sentence, or even be placed in solitary confinement indefinitely, up to and including the rest of her 35-year sentence.

This is not the first time the Army has tried this: Last year, she was threatened with solitary for possession of LGBTQ reading material and - I'm serious - an expired tube of toothpaste.

Chelsea Manning is a transgender woman being forced to serve out her sentence in an all-male prison who has been subjected to long stretches of solitary confinement and denied medical treatment related to her gender dysphoria - the anxiety and depression connected with the stress of experiencing a conflict between one's physical characteristics and their gender identity - a denial that has continued even after her suicide attempt.

Chelsea Manning had a moment where her emotional pain had grown to such an extent she couldn't bear it - and now the Army wants to punish her for being in such pain.
      
It is indecent, it is unconscionable, it is an outrage.

Sources cited in links:
https://www.aclu.org/
https://www.aclu.org/news/chelsea-manning-faces-new-charges-indefinite-solitary-confinement-related-suicide-attempt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chelsea-manning-faces-possible-charges-for-suicide-attempt_us_579a7c94e4b0e2e15eb52a11?
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/gender-dysphoria

219.4 - Outrage of the Week: new Pentagon manual could allow for indefinite confinement of journalists

Outrage of the Week: new Pentagon manual could allow for indefinite confinement of journalists

Now for our other regular feature, which is called the Outrage of the Week.

The Pentagon has just released a new version of its Law of War manual, updated to apply to all branches of the military for the first time. It pulls together all international laws on war applicable to US armed forces, and is designed to be a reference guide for the military.

And it includes a vaguely worded provision that would allow local commanders to treat journalists as "unprivileged belligerents," a variation of that weasel phrase "unlawful combatants," if such a journalist is believed to be sympathizing or cooperating with the enemy, with the terms "sympathizing" and "cooperating" open to interpretation - and experts in military law and journalism both say that military commanders could interpret the terms broadly.

Bear in mind that a person deemed an "unprivileged belligerent" is not entitled to the rights afforded by the Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, so a commander could do anything to a reporter considered to be such an "unprivileged belligerent" from restricting them from certain coverage areas which are available to others up to holding them indefinitely without charges .

Defense Department officials said the reference to "unprivileged belligerents" was intended to point out that terrorists or spies could be masquerading as reporters. Well, duh. But it doesn't say that.

Another provision says that "relaying of information" could be construed as "taking a direct part in hostilities." Officials said that is intended to refer to, for one example, passing on to an enemy information about locations of troops or other classified data or for another acting as an artillery spotter. But it doesn't say that.

Army Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, a Pentagon spokesman, said it was not the Defense Department's intent to allow an overzealous commander to block journalists or take action against those who write critical stories.

But it's already happened, long before there was a manual telling some "overzealous" commander that "relaying of "information" which he or she doesn't want sent out is justification for a journalist to be accused of "taking a direct part in hostilities" or "spying, sabotage and similar acts behind enemy lines." For one example, journalists working for The Associated Press and other news organizations have been detained or thrown out of embed arrangements for stories, video, or photographs that the military found unflattering.

And during the Iraq war, the US military detained several Iraqi journalists, some of whom worked for established international news organizations like the AP, Reuters, and AFP. Fortunately, ultimately, all were released without being prosecuted, though one, Pulitzer-winning photographer Bilal Hussein, was held without charge for two years.

Reporters Without Borders called the language in the new manual "dangerous," while others in the media used terms like “threatening,” "disturbing,” "speculative," and "hostile."

Oh, but don't worry, the manual also has helpful suggestions as to how journalists can avoid being dumped in some version of Gitmo because some "overzealous" commander takes a dislike to their reporting. First, they should always gain permission for their reporting from "relevant authorities" - without, we should not be surprised, providing guidelines about what to do in conflict zones, which are often chaotic. And second, they should submit all their relevant work for review and censorship, so the military can have total control over what is reported to the public.

In short, just go when and where the military tells you and report what the military wants you to and you'll be fine.

Which I'm sure the Pentagon would regard as the best of all possible worlds, a dream world.  A dream that is an outrage.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-dod-manual-journalists_55dd6b14e4b0a40aa3acc576?cps=gravity_2425_-1752368580054525173&kvcommref=mostpopular
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/images/law_war_manual15.pdf
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/11/pentagon-war-reporters-unprivileged-belligerents-spies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301208.html
https://cpj.org/2008/04/-ap-photographer-walks-free-after-twoyear-detentio.php
http://en.rsf.org/