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.

Liars figuring

I am sick to flaming death of our senile buffoon president claiming that in the wake of COVID we had “the highest inflation in the history of our country” and nobody ever, ever, calling out that transparent lie. I know it's a lie because remember, I saw, higher inflation than during Biden’s term.

Start with the fact that the peak year-over-year (YOY) inflation rate during Biden’s term was 9.1% in June 2021.*

In 1974, YOY inflation was 12.3%.

In 1978, it was 9.0%.
In 1979, it was 13.3%.
In 1980, it was 12.5%.

The highest in any year since 1929 was 18.1% in 1946.

Okay, next: For the year 2022 as a whole, (based on December end of year figures, the standard method) YOY inflation was 6.5%.

In the period 1941-2024, there have been 12 years with YOY inflation rates above 6.5%.**

Third: Over the course of his presidency, average YOY inflation under Biden was 4.95% - lower than under Nixon (6.10%), Ford (8.11%), or Carter (9.85%) and just a bit higher than Bush the elder (4.8I).

Has inflation been a struggle recently? Is it still a struggle, especially with slow growth and stalled real income growth? Absolutely freaking yes.

But “the highest in the history of our country?” Not even close. And dammit, some one of the White House reporters should have the guts to say it out loud to his face.

I may be considered old, but I damn well can remember 1974. And so can the Orange Overlord - unless his dementia has erased that part of his memory. Either that or he’s just a damned liar.

Actually, I suspect it’s both.

*All data via Investopedia.com.

**The years were 1941, 1942, 1946, 1947, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 2021.

Does Sarah McBride speak for the trans community? "Moderates" sure hope so.

Updated I suppose this could be considered a type of full disclosure: This was was prompted by Erin Reed’s piece on Rep. Sara McBride’s “New York Times” interview with Ezra Klein.

I admit to a good deal of sympathy for Sarah McBride in that when she first entered Congress, she indicated she wanted to be seen as "the Gentlelady from Delaware," not "the transgender member of the House." That, of course, while understandable was nonetheless impossible and the first thing she encountered as soon as she passed through the door was the bathroom business, followed by daily humiliations like repeated references to "Mr. McBride." So yes, it's a tough path she's negotiating. Credit her with trying to do it with grace.

The problem here is that with her interview with Ezra Klein she now has allowed herself to be presented as some sort of voice of the community, the "most politically powerful transgender official in the country" (says Faux News), someone who is not merely expressing some personal opinions about tactics (some of which she clearly has not thought through) but communicating Significant Views worthy of Serious Consideration by the Serious People. The choruses of "But Sarah McBride said" and "As Sarah McBride said" are already emerging.

If she now wants to be seen as a community leader, she damn well should have pushed harder on behalf of, as she herself put it (referring to Delaware), the people she represents. If she doesn't, if her goal is just to be "the Gentlelady from Delaware," perhaps in hope of quietly normalizing her presence and that of those who may follow, then she should have refused the interview.

Not only because McBride shows serious signs of already falling into old-style Washington insider ways (such as referring to advocates by the dismissive epithet "the groups"), but because she betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the dynamics of social change. Specifically, she says fighting across a broad front "regardless of whether the public is ready ... misunderstands the role that social movements have in maintaining proximity to public opinion."

That is utter nonsense. Being where the public is not, being where the public is not immediately ready to go, is exactly the role of social movements. It is their whole purpose.

Indeed, in writing this I recalled writing some years ago that in an odd sort of way, the goal of any movement for social justice is to lose because you should always be somewhat unpopular, somewhat beyond where the public is prepared at that moment to go - and if you do succeed in moving them to where you are, such that they are raising their own voices and you are no longer speaking to them or to power on their behalf, it's time either to shift to a different issue or to a sharper position on the same one. Because there is always more to do.*

The point here is that no movement for justice ever gained broader acceptance by the self-defeating strategy of "follow[ing] the polls." That is a road not to progress but to irrelevance and at best stasis. And whatever it's uses in military campaigns, "strategic retreat" in a political movement is simply giving up ground and at best losing more slowly.

The history of gaining rights is one of leading, not following; is one of struggle, not of settling; is one where compromises follow campaigns, they do not precede them - and, importantly, where such compromises are found only in gains, not losses.

I could go on about this for some time - I certainly have in the past - but to save myself some typing and repetition, I'm going to refer you to my piece called "Newsom and Moulton: A Tale of Two Trimmers" (I'm sure you can guess the topic) which contains some discussion related to "compromise" actually meaning slow-motion surrender.

Instead, I'll repeat something I've said so many times that I should have it tattooed on my forehead to save time:

The movement for peace and social justice in this country has been at its strongest and most influential when we have spoken the truth without giving a flying damn if anyone was "offended" or not. We didn't build a movement against the Indochina War or for civil rights, women's equality, or a cleaner environment by worrying about how we'd be received by the bigots, sexists, or greedy corporate bosses - or how we'd "look" or who we'd "turn off" if we labeled the discriminators and despoilers for what they were.

And while that referred to movements of the dreaded '60s, it has remained true through all the movements since it was first written about 35 years ago. And, I suspect, will continue to be so.

Which Sara McBride does not understand. Know this clearly: I do not fault her for this. As I said above, she may well see her role is to do her job as a congresswoman and to fit in such that being transgender is no longer remarkable. If so, I wish her the best but I am also old enough to remember the Mattachine Society, which adopted a very similar "we're just like you" strategy only to have to wait for decades until such as Stonewall and Act Up! actually get the needle moving.

No matter; Sarah McBride has to decide how she personally will deal with her own situation. But she is not cut out to be - and may well not want to be - a community voice or leader. And she should not be made into one.

Updated to make note of the fact that this post has been viewed over 8000 times, which makes it one of my most popular posts ever. I'm small-time, always have been, always will be, so this is kind of a big deal for me and in the hope they'll see it, I waned to express gratitude to whoever and however it came to so many people's attention. (I just wish a few of those folks had left a comment. Oh, well.)

*I used to enjoy telling people my political philosophy was that of a “socialist-anarchist-communalist-capitalist-eclectic-iconoclast.” Part of the point was the “iconoclast” - because I’d say that there ever was a society designed along the lines I imagine, the first thing I’d do is to examine it for its shortcomings that needed to be addressed. The I Jing says “the only thing that doesn’t change is that everything else changes.” My version is “the only ultimate answer is that there is no other ultimate answer.” There’s always more to do.

Another comment worth repeating

On July 23, the estimable Erin Reed posted a piece about a recent column by NYT columnist David Leonhardt in which he proposed that Kamala Harris should be a trimmer on gender rights in order to appear more "moderate."

I replied in a comment which I thought was worth repeating; this is (a very slightly edited and expanded version of) it:

Two points need to be noted about Leonhardt's political, uh, "advice."

One is that it is not driven by either real conviction or the merits of the case but by an underlying attitude of "Well, this doesn't matter to ME, therefore it shouldn't matter to anyone else other than a few flakes who don't count."

Perhaps more to the point, though, is that it presents a line of argument that's been used at some point or another against every liberal, every Democrat, every progressive, every radical, every individual anywhere on the entire left half of the US political spectrum, one that says your arguments must not be couched in the words of conviction or conscience, the words of justice or moral necessity, but rather must be framed by fear, fear of what "they" might say about it, what nasty name "they" might call you.

In fact, unless what you propose is overwhelmingly popular (and even if it is), if "they" can say something nasty, it's likely best not only to not mention it at all, but to openly attack it.

It's a far too common practice that at times has been called "duck and cover" (and if you know what that means without checking, you are older than you look), of politically curling into a defensive position. But I prefer my own name for it: "preemptive capitulation," surrendering before the battle has even been joined.

That is exactly what Leonhardt has proposed Harris do on gender rights: don't mention it and when asked, hold it as far away from you as you can get away with. And I guarantee you there will be a good number of "old hands" among the political jibber-jabberers and the consultant coterie who will regard that as wise counsel.

At moments like this I can't help but draw a comparison to the right-wingers, who, when they are called on their latest lizard-brain inanity will double- and triple-down and after a round or three the media gets bored with asking and the issue fades from the headlines and then from memory. It's sitzfleisch as political strategy¹ while we, when pressed, usually act like we're playing rapid transit², rushing from one mumbled evasion and backtrack to another. I still have memories from a few decades ago of pollsters telling people that their problem with Democrats was less what they stood for than that they didn't seem to stand for anything.

Personally, I'm tired of it. This doesn't mean we don't pay attention to how we say things; in fact, one of my all-time favorite compliments was when after a debate I learned that someone in the audience said I had the ability "to make the most radical positions sound like a voice of sweet moderation." So yeah, I paid attention to how I said things, but there was never any doubt about what it was I was saying. What it does mean is that we should speak the truth as we understand it and when challenged on what we have said, Don't. Back. Down.

That's the message for Kamala Harris and for all of us: If you've changed your mind about something, say so, say "I was wrong about that." Own it. But if you haven't, own that, too. Don't. Back. Down.

¹"Sitzfleisch" is German for "sitting flesh." See my "Rules for Right-wingers," specifically #20.
²Rapid transit is a form of chess where each player has five seconds per move.

Welcome to Fish-Wrapping 101

Or maybe 404.

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 here).

Our latest example comes to us from Newsweek. It’s not as egregious as some, where the bias lies in shading and emphasis, but it is so ridiculous that it deserves mention.

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.

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.

So know that in this case, that is not an issue. Newsweek is the original source and the headline involved is theirs.

Okay, the story.

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:

Republicans Annihilate Democrats in Virginia Election Sweep
Republicans scored massive victories in elections held in Virginia on Tuesday, returning two GOP politicians to local legislature following the departure of the incumbents.

So what, beyond the hyperbole, is wrong?

Not one of those 13 races flipped a seat! Not one! 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 Newsweek had asked state parties for more comment.

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.

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.”

For the moment, though, we have “Newsweak.”

064 The Erickson Report for October 27 to November 10, Page 3: The CPC letter

064 The Erickson Report for October 27 to November 10, Page 3: The CPC letter

So. On October 24, 30 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to the White House that in effect suggested trying to open a conversation with Russia about a potential diplomatic end to its war on Ukraine.

The result was what Politico called a "firestorm" of hostile reaction, one fueled to no small degree by how the Washington Post described the letter, as one urging Blahden to "dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war," calling it a break with official policy and a rupture in the party.

The reaction was swift enough and hostile enough that by that evening caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal was issuing a "clarification" and by the next day it had been withdrawn altogether.

But it wasn't a break; in fact the letter was quite anodyne, including praise and reasserting support for Blahden and insisting that no agreement can be reached without the approval of Ukraine.

So what got it in so much trouble? It comes down to this sentiment, quoting the letter:

[I]f there is a way to end the war while preserving a free and independent Ukraine, it is America’s responsibility to pursue every diplomatic avenue to support such a solution that is acceptable to the people of Ukraine. The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.

In other words, as The Intercept put it, "That the letter was met with fierce opposition is a measure of the space available for debate among congressional Democrats when it comes to support for the war and how it might be stopped before it turns nuclear: roughly zero."

So invested have the Democratic hierarchy and particularly its hack sycophants become in the glories of war and the shimmering image of outright military defeat of Russia that simply proposing the idea of talking about the possibility of a settlement is beyond he pale.

Indeed, it often seems those hack sycophants are more intested in "decisive victory" through "overwhelming force" than that hierarchy is. Bluntly, I believe that's because they see such a victory as proper retibution for Russia's having, in their minds, been single-handedly responsible for inflicting Tweetie-pie on us.

Among the worst of those hack sycophants is Markos Moulitsas, founder of DailyKos, someone fond of calling people "tankies," a 1950s-era anti-communist smear accusing people of maintaining blind support of the Soviet Union even after its invasion of Hungary in 1954. Referring now to the letter, he charged the signers "are now making common cause with Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Green, JD Vance, and the rest of the MAGA crowd. Which Ukrainians do these ‘progressives’ want abandoned to mass murder and rape, in their attempt to prop up a flailing Russia?"

Thus in one statement accusing them both of lining up with the worst of the GOPpers and of being on Russia's side in the war - siding with enemies both domestic and foreign.

But there is another point, which is that part of the reason for the "firestorm" is not what was said but who said it, that at least part of the response was the desire of the party hierarchy to smack down party progressives, who have gradually been gaining in influence.

The letter noted that Blahden himself has echoed some of what it said, having repeatedly expressed that only negotiations can ultimately end the conflict, that nuclear war is more imminent now than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis, and that he's worried about the fact that Putin "doesn’t have a way out right now, and I’m trying to figure out what we do about that.”

What's more, on October 15, Saint Barack said during an interview on the podcast “Pod Save America,” that he is concerned about the fact that, quoting, "lines of communication between the White House and the Kremlin are probably as weak as they have been in a very long time. Even in some of the lowest points of the Cold War, there was still a sense of the ability to pick up a phone and work through diplomatic channels to send clear signals."

And precisely because Putin has so centralized decision-making, quoting again, "us finding ways in which some of that communication can be reestablished would be important."

Which is hardly different from what the letter said, just without the reference to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, just under a week earlier, retired Adm. Mike Mullen, former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said during an appearance on the ABC show “This Week” that the possibility that Russia might use battlefield nuclear weapons "speaks to the need to ... do everything we possibly can to try to get to the table to resolve this thing," adding that it’s up to Secretary of State Blinken and other diplomats “to figure out a way to get both Zelenskyy and Putin to the table.”

Which in some ways goes beyond what the letter said.

Even former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who was one of Obama’s key advisers and a staunch supporter of Ukraine, said he agreed with the idea of making the effort, doubting only it would get very far.

None of those statements - from Biden, from Obama, from Mullen, from McFaul, produced anything like the reaction seen here, in fact hardly any reaction at all beyond some tut-tutting that Biden may have overstated the probability of Putin actually going nuclear.

But no matter. It was members of the CPC that said it and they needed to be smacked down. So effective was that smackdown, so complete the capitulation, that not only was the letter withdrawn, the announcement of the withdrawal included the statement "Every war ends with diplomacy, and this one will too after Ukrainian victory." (That is, of course, my emphasis because it definitely needed to be emphasized.)

And the hierarchy smiles and the hack sycophants go back to scanning for hints of dissent.

Finally something not directly related to the letter and the reaction but something related to Ukraine and something you should be aware of.

Note that Biden said he's worried that Putin "doesn't have a way out." Well, a legitimate question is, once Ukraine didn't collapse immediately upon the invasion, did they ever want him to have one.

First, never forget that the US alone has to date given Ukraine $17.5 billion in direct military aid since the invasion. You can argue that every penny of that was fully justified, but point here is that you can't say we are passive observers of events or merely moral backers of Ukraine. The US and rest of NATO are directly involved. This is not a war of Russia versus Ukraine, it is a proxy war between Russia and NATO, with Ukraine the battlefield on which it is being fought.

With that in mind, recall that back in mid-March, as I noted at the time, there were some negotiations going on between Ukranian and Russian officials with some expressions of optimism coming from both sides. Not that a settlement was imminent but the progress toward one was being made.

Then on April 9, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a surprise visit to Kyiv, where, according to the Ukrainian news outlet Ukrayinska Pravda ("Ukranian Truth"), he brought two simple messages to the capitol:

One: Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with.
Two: Even if  Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements with Putin, NATO is not.

Three days later, Putin said negotiations were at a dead end.

Maybe the timing was coincidental, but the fact that Zelenskyy also lost all interest in negotiations right around the same time, a time, remember, well before Ukraine's recent battleground successes, gives a rather obvious interpretation at least some weight, further bolstered by the fact that at the same time - the first week of April - the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft was reporting that

there are several lines of evidence that suggest that the U.S. is inhibiting a diplomatic solution in Ukraine,

including, significantly, it's total absence from those very March negotiations, lending no assistance, offering no support.

Now, it's not certain the conclusion this points to is true but there is reasonable cause to believe it, a conclusion that creates the image not of the US and NATO causing the war, one of the US inviting or perhaps more accurately baiting Putin to attack - although that would not be unprecedented in US foreign policy - but one of the US and NATO allowing it to continue to take advantage of an opportunity to "pressure" Putin.

But "cause" versus "allow to continue" is somthing I would call a distinction without a difference. It surely makes difference to the homeless and the refugees; it even more surely makes no damn difference at all to the dead.

So we don't know if this idea is true, and in fact you have to hope it's not true because it would be quite heinous if it is.

Then again, war usually is.

 

064 The Erickson Report for October 27 to November 10

064 The Erickson Report for October 27 to November 10

This episode of The Erickson Report looks at what and who is behind the attacks on transgender youth before discussing the reaction to the letter from the Congressional Progressive Caucus about trying to talk to Russia about Ukraine.

Sources:

- transgender youth
https://www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/doctors-agree-gender-affirming-care-is-life-saving-care
https://transhealthproject.org/resources/medical-organization-statements/
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
https://theintercept.com/2021/04/01/trans-kids-rights-arkansas-gop/
https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1558596561461968900
https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/3607955-marjorie-taylor-greene-introduces-bill-to-make-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-youth-a-felony/
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/13/anti-trans-bill-michigan/
https://michiganadvance.com/2022/10/13/parents-providing-gender-affirming-care-for-their-kids-could-get-life-in-prison-under-gop-bill/
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/assets/static/trevor01_2022survey_final.pdf
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/11/2115986/--Groomer-rhetoric-s-toxic-spread-on-social-media-revolves-around-10-key-far-right-influencers
https://hrc-prod-requests.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/CCDH-HRC-Digital-Hate-Report-2022-single-pages.pdf
https://twitter.com/anthonyLfisher/status/1539335893189804034
https://www.csusb.edu/sites/default/files/2022-08/Report%20To%20The%20Nation8-4-22.pdf

- footnote
https://www.prri.org/research/americas-growing-support-for-transgender-rights/

- the CPC letter
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/25/house-progressives-letter-russia-ukraine-diplomacy/
https://theintercept.com/2022/10/26/obama-ukraine-congress-progressive-caucus/
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/10/26/23423574/congressional-progressive-caucus-ukraine-russia-letter-diplomacy
https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1584921101020209152?s=20&t=nkp2E8WfEDpUTxTvcuHLEA
https://www.state.gov/625-million-in-additional-u-s-military-assistance-for-ukraine/
https://whoviating.blogspot.com/2022/03/050-erickson-report-for-march-17-to-30_69.html
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/05/06/boris-johnson-pressured-zelenskyy-ditch-peace-talks-russia-ukrainian-paper
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/04/09/is-the-us-hindering-much-needed-diplomatic-efforts/

The Erickson Report is informed news and commentary from the radical nonviolent American left. Comments and questions are welcome. Please observe rules of courtesy.

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19, Page 3: False claims about the future of Social Security

Oh, guess what! It's "Social Security is going bankrupt!" Season again!

At least every couple of years we experience a spate of articles on how Social Security is on the verge of some sort of catastrophe. It's running out of money! Or it will in a few years! It's unsustainable! Huge benefit cuts are just around the corner! We have to DO SOMETHING! OMG OMG OMG!

And it's always the same old, same old: the same old arguments and the same old predictions and the same old false comparisons. Several years ago someone said debating some climate change deniers was like debating a well-trained parrot that had learned about a dozen phrases it would spew out at random. It really is much the same here except there is even less variety in the arguments.

Our latest example comes from one John Csiszar, a financial planner writing on the "10 biggest problems facing Social Security."

Several of the problems are, frankly, temporary and based on conditions of the moment - for example, low interest rates. Those that aren't, are those same old, same old things that sound drastic but really mean little or nothing. But it's worth going through them so you can arm yourself against them when they come up, which they will because they always do.

One is that "life expectancy is rising" - actually, it hasn't these part few years, but let that pass as another hopefully temporary phenomenon - which makes for longer retirements and a bigger drain on the system. Except that greater life expectancy has also lead to people working longer and even putting off retirement voluntarily, not due to economic need. And many retirees work part time - I do - and so continue to contribute something to the system even during retirement and may even, if they earn more than a certain amount, see some of their benefits taxed back, as some of mine are.

A really deceptive argument is the one that goes "too many beneficiaries" due to the baby boomers. But the demographic bulge represented by that group was seen coming and in 1983 the tax rate for social security was raised specifically to create a surplus to deal with that coming bulge. Baby boomers were in effect pre-financing their own Social Security benefits.

So when you hear about the SS account "going to zero" around 2034, it's that surplus that will have been spent, returning SS to the pay-as-you-go status it has been on for most of its existence, which now extends back over 80 years.

And let me here address something subtle: The talk about looming "massive benefit cuts" that are always part of these discussions. Your social security benefits are calculated on a number of your highest-earning years, which for most people are ones nearing retirement, simply assuming they have been getting raises during their working years. When you hear about the benefit cuts, they are cuts from projected benefits. But over time, wages tend to rise a little faster than inflation, which in turn means that over time, the initial benefits for new retirees, measured in real terms, that is after accounting for inflation and so a measure of how much stuff you can actually buy, those initial benefits gradually provide a somewhat higher standard of living that the initial benefits for previous retirees.

Which means that by the time these benefit cuts come, the result could easily mean that new retirees have the same standard of living - can buy as much stuff - as people retiring now can. That's not something to be welcomed, certainly, but it is even further from the disaster it's intended to sound like by making you think they are cuts from the current level of benefits, not from the higher projected ones.

Getting back to the arguments in this article, another deceptive one is the "not enough workers" claim. This is that the worker-to-retiree ratio is shrinking. Sixty years ago there were five workers for every person receiving SS.  More recently it had been down to 2.8 workers per beneficiary and now, according to Csisza, it's down to - gasp! - just 2.1.

Sounds dreadful - except that the figure itself is useless. Workers don't just support retired people, they support all non-workers, including their children and their spouse or partner if they don't work and in some cases others. Even as the number of retirees is growing, family size is shrinking. So over these decades, even as the ratio of workers to retirees is expected to go down, the ratio of workers to non-workers is expected to go up: more workers per non-worker.

Sixty years ago, there were 1.05 workers per non-worker; by 2030, demographic trends say there will be 1.27. So by the logic of the argument, we will be better able to support Social Security in the future than we are now!

The burden on workers will be much that same, it's just that in effect, some portion of that burden will have shifted from supporting their children to supporting their parents.

But then of course, the real issue is Congressional stalemate, the refusal of politicians to do what's needed to fix this!

It is true that there hasn't been significant Social Security legislation since the 1980s, but a good part of the reason for that is that the only solutions usually offered - and the only ones offered here - are ones that just dump the burden on workers: Raise the retirement age (which in fact has already been done)! Cut benefits! Raise the payroll tax!

Want to know how to protect SS for the next 75 years, which is as far out into the future the trust fund managers' projections go? And do it without harming the interests of workers? First, remove the cap on the SS wage base. Right now, any earned income you make over $142,800 a year is not subject to SS payroll taxes. So someone making, say, 1.4M a year pays the same SS tax as someone earning one-tenth as much. Such a move would only affect the richest 8% of Americans. Which is why, of course, it hasn't been done.

But I'd go even beyond that. Remember, that tax applies to earned income. Income from passive sources, such as dividends, interest, pensions, or income from a business in which you don't have an active role, are not subject to payroll taxes. Frankly as far as I'm concerned, if you can spend it the same, it can be taxable the same. Which again would primarily affect the richest among us - which is why it isn't even on the table.

Bottom line - an appropriate expression here - SS may need some tweaks and fiddles - and it has been tweaked and fiddled with a number of times over its history - but it is not going bankrupt, not about to collapse, not in need of major surgery, and for young folks, yes it will be there for you when the time comes so long as we don't let the economic elites screw you over.

063 The Erickson Report for October 6 to 19, Page 2: Follow Up on the shooting of Shireen Abu Akleh

Back in May, I addressed the killing of Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, shot while she was covering an operation by the IDF, the Israeli Defense Forces, near the occupied West Bank city of Jenin.

Now, a new report, the result of a collaboration between the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and a UK-based research agency called Forensic Architecture, has concluded that Abu Akleh was deliberately and repeatedly targeted by Israeli snipers who shot her down despite her being clearly identified as a member of the press.

The new report confirms the findings of half a dozen earlier independent reviews of the incident, which have found that Israeli forces were responsible for Abu Akleh’s killing, including one from the United Nations that described the killing shot as “well aimed.”

But the new report goes beyond those earlier by having produced a detailed digital reconstruction of the shooting based on previously unseen footage recorded by Al Jazeera staff at the scene, open-source video, eyewitness accounts, and a drone survey of the area, and so offers the most conclusive account yet of what happened.

The Israeli response to this issue has been from the beginning both despicable and typical. The first, immediate response, including from then Israeli PM Naftali Bennett, was to say it had to be Palestinian militants. I mean, it just stood to reason. The IDF Chief of Staff, Major General Aviv Kochavi, said it surely was Palestinians because Palestinians shoot "wildly and indiscriminately in every direction" while IDF soldiers "carry out professional and selective firing."

The Israeli Ministry of Defense then produced a video it claimed depicted what it called "Palestinian terrorists" who "likely" killed Abu Akleh - only to have it turn out that the video was shot several hundred yards away in the wrong direction and there was neither any shooting nor any militants around where she was.

Right around that same time, the military declared "there was no need to open a military police investigation" because, they said in effect, there was a lot of shooting and stuff going on and so who knows what really happened.

Oh, but Israel did promise a full investigation, and on September 5 its official review was issued. It actually admitted that Abu Akleh was probably killed by IDF forces, but hey, it was "accidental," so, y'know, hey, they things happen. Get over it.

And so much for Major General Kochavi's "professional and selective firing," as by the official account either that statement is a lie or what happened was a deliberate murder.

The reconstruction in the new report gives every reason to think it was the latter.

It clearly shows that, again, there were neither armed gunners nearby nor were there shots fired in the minutes leading up to Abu Akleh’s killing and during the actual incident the only shots fired came from an IDF position. Moreover, the reconstruction shows that Abu Akleh’s and her colleagues’ “PRESS” insignias were clearly visible from the position of the IDF shooter; that the shooter had a “clear line of fire,” that the pattern of shots indicated “precise aim,” and that the firing continued as the journalists sought shelter. After Abu Akleh was hit, a civilian attempting to provide aid to her was fired upon each time he tried to approach her: When he hid behind a wall, no shots were fired; when he emerged to try to reach Abu Akleh, he was shot at.

So multiple reports had already come to the conclusion that Shireen Abu Akleh - and in case you didn't catch it, she was Palestinian-American; she was an American citizen - Shireen Abu Akleh was deliberately targeted by the Israeli military. And this new report, with the strongest proof yet, renders the same judgment as the rest.

Sadly, also like the rest, I expect it won't make a damn bit of difference.

There have been calls both in and out of Congress for the US to make its own investigation of what is at the least the extrajudicial killing of one of its citizens, all to no effect. US officials claim to have reviewed the findings of Israeli and Palestinian investigators but failed to reach a “definitive conclusion” as Secretary of State Anthony Blinken wistfully says he wishes someone could do an independent investigation - deliberately ignoring the string of such investigations by human rights organizations that have indeed reached a conclusion along with the fact that the US could do its own such independent investigation, but is deterred by the fearful knowledge of what it would be forced to conclude if it did so.

And so it goes on, without consequences, as the US continues to finance Israel's military to the tune of $3.8 billion every year and our policy wobbles between evading responsibility and making excuses for the crimes against human rights that aid helps to enable, also thereby helping to perpetuate a political atmosphere that holds Israel, whatever its policies, whatever its behavior, whatever its crimes, essentially exempt from criticism and speaking the most literal and simple truth, even if carefully expressed, can and if your voice is loud enough to be heard likely will generate charges of antisemitism.

Consider that there is a movement known as BDS. It stands for boycott, divest, and sanction; it's aim is to bring economic and cultural pressure on Israel to change policies, particularly with regard to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories but also Palestinian citizens of Israel.

And the very fact that it calls for such actions, the very fact that it is aimed at Israel, has resulted in it's being labeled antisemitic. Indeed, there are so-called "anti-BDS laws" on the books in 35 states that in some way seek to constrict speech by economically penalizing, through loss of government investment or contracts, any company that might consider joining the boycott.

Shireen Abu Akleh

Consider, too, the recent example of Rep. Rashida Tlaib, who, speaking at a Palestine Advocacy Day event on Sept 20, said (and this is an exact quote) “I want you all to know that among progressives, it becomes clear that you cannot claim to hold progressive values yet back Israel's apartheid government.”

It took precisely one day for Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, to twist Tlaib's words into her having made a declaration that progressive "American Jews need to pass an anti-Zionist litmus test" and "doubled down on her antisemitism," that antisemitism consisting of "slandering Israel as an apartheid state.”

The same day, Rep. Jerry Nadler said “I fundamentally reject the notion that one cannot support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state and be a progressive,” a statement even further removed from what Tlaib said than Greenblatt's.

Other members of Congress, including Reps. Ted Deutch, Haley Stevens, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Juan Vargas, and others, made similar public comments, conflating opposing, quote, "Israel's apartheid government" with rejecting Israel's right to exist altogether and declaring that calling Israel an apartheid state is by definition both slander and antisemitic.

Major media outlets, including CNN, picked up and amplified the message: criticize Israel and you will be labeled an antisemite.

Now beyond the fact that Tlaib said nothing referring to Israel's right to exist, only to it's governing policies, the brutal truth is that Israel is an apartheid state. It has found to be one by Human Rights Watch, by B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, by Amnesty International, and by United Nations human rights experts.

For clarity, Amnesty International says, quoting,

The crime against humanity of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute and customary international law is committed when any inhuman or inhumane act (essentially a serious human rights violation) is perpetrated in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention to maintain that system.

Apartheid can best be understood as a system of prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment by one racial group of members of another with the intention to control the second racial group.

That is apartheid. And that is what leading human rights groups have found Israel is guilty of.

And it won't change, not until there are consequences. Palestinians in the Occupied Territories will continue to see discrimination, continue to see their homes demolished, their lands seized, their human rights denied, until there are consequences. And they will continue to be killed without recourse and that also applies to journalists, bringing us back full circle to where we started, as Abu Akleh was not the first: There have been at least 45 journalists killed by the "professional and selective[ly] firing" IDF since 2000.

Under US policy, those consequences should include a declaration the US that it will no longer use its veto in the Security Council or its influence in the General Assembly to defend or protect Israel from any UN sanctions, that the DOJ takes the position, which it will pursue in court, that all anti-BDS laws are unconstitutional violations of the rights to free speech and free association, and most importantly, there will be no more military aid to or military cooperation with, and no more security guarantees to, Israel until there is a final and just settlement to guarantee Palestinian rights, including the right to statehood.

Those are the consequences that we, that the US, should impose to end the injustice, end the occupation, end the apartheid. But I confess I have no faith that it will happen, at least until the current generations - including my own - die off.