Tuesday, August 20, 2019

George McGovern. Jesse Jackson.

The Democratic left loves a loser.

Always has.

Still does.

Sometimes, some of them know their preferred candidate can't win, but they don't care.

Not if it helps permanently move the party toward the left.

And that is their perverse thinking: nothing will persuade the Democrats to permanently shift left like nominating a leftish sort of guy and watching him and the party's down-ticket candidates, too, get crushed in a devastating Republican landslide, as happened in 1972 when Nixon buried McGovern more deeply than anyone ever before in American political history.

Right now, the Democratic left pretty much prefers any loser on their love list to the one Democrat most likely to deny Bozo a second term.

Who said the Republicans are the stupid party?

Jill Biden: "You may like another candidate better, but you have to look at who is going to win"

Jill Biden laid out the political calculus of her husband’s presidential campaign in extraordinarily blunt terms on Monday, directly acknowledging that some voters may prefer other candidates but urging them to support Joseph R. Biden Jr. anyway, in an effort to defeat President Trump.

As Mr. Biden, the early poll leader, works — and sometimes struggles — to excite a Democratic base that has moved left since he last ran for office, Dr. Biden, campaigning in New Hampshire, called on Democrats to prioritize perceived electability over enthusiasm for individual contenders or their policies.

“You may like another candidate better, but you have to look at who is going to win,” she said, addressing a gathering of educators. 

Not how things should be

For years, my leftier friends told me only foolish people bought bottled water as city water, all over America, was much safer.

Nobody says that, anymore.

Not after Flint.

And now this about Newark.

Lead in the Water and a City in Crisis

Thursday, August 15, 2019

They are shocked, shocked!

Five senate Democrats are shocked and appalled that Republicans' readings of the constitution reflect their politics and sometimes favor the interests of Republican constituencies or donors.

And they warn darkly that, if the Supremes don't rule as they desire on a Second Amendment case now before them, the already wavering trust of the American people in the judicial integrity of the court will be further compromised and the public may demand it be restructured to reduce the influence of politics.

They threaten court-packing, in other words.

The opening salvo, the first of many to come, in a barrage of propaganda aiming to soften up public opinion and prepare it for just such a move, that many Democrats, including me, think the Dems ought to do if they can, as soon as they can?

Maybe.

And I suppose it was inevitable that such Dem propaganda would have to pretend, as Republican propaganda about interpretation of the constitution always does, that there is a single reading, or a narrow range of readings, of the constitution that any honest and objective student of the thing would arrive at, sufficient to decide all or damned near all cases or controversies, and especially cases in which the political, social, cultural, legal, or economic stakes are greatest.

But that is a fantasy suitable for children, like Santa Claus and the Elf on the Shelf.

The truth, entirely contrary to that notion, is that the constitution is so riddled with obscurity, generality, and imprecision of language and so undermined by glaring lacunae that nothing at all can get to readings sufficiently lucid and apposite to decide controversies but the political, moral, religious, or other personal and somehow relevant beliefs, commitments, or even interests of the reader.

Even the question whether and how far judges must feel themselves bound by what they admit to be, as there will be in many but by no means all cases, the evident meaning of some key passage of the thing, can be decided on no other basis than these.

And it is also a fantasy that people do not understand all that very well, and that just that is why the parties' choices of not only judicial philosophies or constitutional interpretations but of judges are entirely and necessarily a function of the political, moral, religious, or other somehow relevant beliefs, commitments, or interests of their members, constituencies, or donors.

But the broad masses include the massively stupid and naive.

And so the multiple and manifold lines of propaganda brought forth for this fight must include threads variously addressed to diverse elements of the constituencies involved.

To Save a Bad Gun Law, Democratic Senators Threaten the Supreme Court

It is a bad gun law, by the way.

Update 081819.

It's also possible this will, and may have been intended to, warn off the Supremes from overturning Roe or anything significantly related to it.

So The Times is too conservative?

People say that a lot at Dem sites where both "socialism" and socialism are popular, and capitalism is not.

In recent weeks, The Times' front page has been relentlessly hammering Trump, the GOP, the USA, white men, and white people in general for racism, sexism, homophobia, and other sins too numerous and too diverse for me to recall them all right now, featuring multiple attacks above the fold (online edition, of course) every single day.

At least half the links and stories above the fold, and often more than that, are such attacks, nearly all of which at least include if they are not limited to the charge of racism.

But the ever more conspicuous Zinnite influence on The Times, actually more strident some days than The Guardian, shows increasingly in anti-capitalism, too.

As in this story, in which hammering the US for racism and slavery (ended by white people at the cost of some 700,000 dead, 154 years ago) provides a natural segue into hammering the US for capitalism.

In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation.

And yet, in this editorial - from the board, the publisher, and the editor, however, and in no way representing the newsroom or op-ed section - we see a defense of the Hong Kong rebels and a clear loathing of the red dictatorship of Beijing.

Hong Kong’s Challenge to Xi Jinping’s Iron Rule

All the same, most of the news stories concerning the situation have been sympathetic to the protesters and their aims.

Wednesday, August 14, 2019

Both parties, but not the president, to China: Stay out of Hong Kong.

Pelosi: Trump's comments on Hong Kong 'invite miscalculation' by Beijing

“We urge President Trump to walk away from his recent statements, which invite miscalculation, and to work to advance peace, justice and democracy in Hong Kong,” she said.

She is among several congressional leaders who’ve unequivocally sided with the protesters who’ve clashed with police in a simmering fight to preserve their quasi-autonomy mainland China.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said a crackdown on protesters would be “completely unacceptable,” while Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, warned any suression would be a “grave mistake” on part with the Tiananmen Square massacre.

The leaders of the House Foreign Affairs Committee are warning China against military action amid ongoing massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, and denied Beijing’s charges that the U.S. was fueling the protests.

. . . .

The strong Hill reaction left Mr. Trump as a cautious outlier on U.S. policy toward the crisis.

“I hope it works out for everybody, including China,” he said Tuesday, as protesters clashed with police at the Hong Kong airport. “I hope it works out peacefully. I hope nobody gets hurts. I hope nobody gets killed.”

He later warned, via Twitter, that Chinese soldiers were amassing near the Hong Kong border. He urged everyone to be calm and safe, though didn’t cast blame.

The president is not entirely alone in his apparent hands-off approach.

Commerce secretary says Hong Kong protests are an 'internal matter'

Appearing on CNBC, Ross was pressed on whether the US had relinquished its role as a supporter of democracies around the world. 

“What would we do, invade Hong Kong?” Ross asked with a laugh.

“The president has made it clear that he is watching very carefully what’s happening,” Ross added. 

Trump said yesterday that the protests were a “very tough situation” but refrained from criticizing China over the demonstration. 

“I’m sure it’ll work out,” Trump said. “I hope it works out for everybody, including China.”

Ross went on to tell CNBC, “He talked about the possibility of troop build-up and it’s not that we are not watching it, it’s a question of what role is there for the US in that matter. This is an internal matter.”

Is it OK for the black majority to make laws governing the choices of the white minority in South Africa?

I ask because of this guilt-tripper doing her level best to stoke outrage that white people will make abortion laws impacting the choices of nonwhites.

Oh, dear me.

White conservative women have played key role in abortion policy changes this year

The main storyline on reproductive rights for months now has been this: Men, many of them conservative, have moved to curtail access to legal abortion and even ban it, imposing their will upon women.

That would be the main guilt-tripping misandrist propaganda line that we are so disgusted by and so used to.

The truth, however, is more complicated.

White women have joined men, mostly but not exclusively in the Deep South, in using their conservative majorities in multiple state legislatures to make sweeping changes to abortion policies this year.

Those laws that survive legal challenges will most deeply affect women too poor to travel or move to a state with better access to abortion services. 

That’s a group that is disproportionately black and Latino — and, in the case of black women, a group that tends to support access to legal abortion. 

This gap between those making the decisions and those affected by them, experts say, is a dynamic with deep roots in American history.

And it happens the other way 'round in every American city or county where a black and overwhelmingly Democratic majority makes the rules for whites, often much more Republican, and other minorities.

Oh how awful!

Wait, is it racist to deplore black majority rule over a white minority? White nationalist? White supremacist, even?

Oh, golly.

The role of white women — long key players in dictating and constraining the reproductive choices of others — is too often discounted and overlooked, experts say. 

In 2019, new abortion restrictions were passed in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana after white women co-sponsored them, many voted for them and in one state, signed the changes into law. 

(In those four state legislatures, 48 women — almost all of them white — voted for the restrictions.)

When Democrats get like this they just make me want to puke all over them.

And regret that the Republicans want to kill me, so I can never vote for them, no matter how revolting the Democrats get.

The poem presupposed racism, when written, says Cuccinelli

Probably true.

And now he's being fried for it as the Dems seeking nomination and desperate to win the hearts and minds of the party's primary voters and the entire left wing noise machine all blast him, Trump, the GOP, and the new policy for racism, racism, racism.

He also pointed out the poem was written one year after the first public charge rule was imposed.

Not going to matter.

Cuccinelli: Statue of Liberty poem was about 'people coming from Europe

I guess 2020 will tell us who was right about who wins when the Dems turn up the volume, yelling about racism.

They think it turns out their anti-racist voters and helps them win.

Steve Bannon thinks it fires up the GOP base in just the right swing states to give Trump another Electoral College victory.

Tuesday, August 13, 2019

Oh, no. You are so wrong.

Jill Muller's 2003 introduction to the Barnes and Noble Oliver Twist.

The myth of "gentility" as an inborn trait may have helped the author to come to terms with the social humiliations of his youth, but it severely undermines the effectiveness of Oliver Twist as social criticism.

If Oliver is to arouse readers' indignation at the plight of children in workhouses, it is essential that they view him not as a specimen of unique virtue and sensitivity, but as a typical case.

Pshaw.

Her introduction is intelligent and helpful but marred, here and there, with twaddle.

On the right side, sure, but . . . .

Cotton: ‘It Would Be a Grave Mistake of Historic Proportions’

Tuesday during an appearance on the Hugh Hewitt’s nationally syndicated radio show, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) warned China against acting on protesters in Hong Kong with a show of force, especially with armed police and the People’s Liberation Army.

The Arkansas Republican said any action could further damage China’s relationship with the United States.

“Let me reiterate my message from your show last week,” Cotton said. 

“It would be a grave mistake of historic proportions if Beijing were to flood into Hong Kong with the people’s armed police and the People’s Liberation Army to crack down on Hong Kongers. 

"If Beijing cracked down on Hong Kong, it would require a fundamental reassessment of our relation with their country, the kind that should have happened after Tiananmen Square.”

But apparently not war, anyway.