« To see a World in a Grain of Sand | Main | In the beginning: some Bereshit parsha thoughts »

October 05, 2018

Comments

another victory like this and we are undone

Oh, from your lips to God's ear, lj.

But for those of us with a melancholy bent, this seems like a very black day, and one that will have terrible repercussions for years.

But for those of us with a melancholy bent, this seems like a very black day, and one that will have terrible repercussions for years.

Even for those of us of an optimistic bent, this is a bad day which will have negative repercussions. Probably for decades . . . unless we get to the point where a Supreme Court "Justice" can be impeached and recalled. Which, sadly, isn't a good bet -- even with someone as manifestly unfit as Kavanaugh.

As always, should have done my reading before I posted

Senators Fist-Bump and Trumpworld Gloats as Kavanaugh Sprints to Supreme Court

It isn't just Trump who is a thug. It's the whole party--including the voters.

What laura koerber said.

WTF is a "Pyrrhic victory" when the whole and only point is victory?

When you play chess by The Rules, you can lose all your pieces except a rook and still checkmate your opponent even though he has most of his army still on the board. Your "Pyrrhic" victory is still a victory because your opponent accepts The Rules, not because your opponent is physically incapable of sweeping the pieces off the board and smashing it over your head.

You can't save The People from themselves. If The People are willing to put up with a rabid minority ruling over them by The Rules, then that's the ball game.

--TP

I'm hoping that this is a Pyrrhic victory for Republicans and they are going to be toast. They got their perjurer on the USSC, I hope it gets shoved down their throats.

Kavanaugh's To Do List:

- make sure Trump cannot be indicted
- make sure Trump can pardon himself
- destroy the remnants of the voting rights act
- hollow out roe so that it's meaningless

And after lunch?

--TP

Heh. Then on to dinner...

Env. Protection Act is unconstitutional
Find the Wagner Act unconstitutional
overturn Civil Rights Act
Rule Social Security Unconstitutional
Reverse Brown v Board..
Overturn the Sherman Anti-Trust Act

uh oh....

I was on the "Apocalypse Now" set on the east coast of Luzon in the Philippines working as an extra the week Duvall's speech was filmed.

Wish I was there now.

What bums me out most is that I have friends who think this is all great, that the Democrats are just terrible people for doing anything to stand in the way of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, and who can’t see the damage being done to this country and the world. It’s all just winning.

It's possible that Kavanaugh will be an excellent associate SCOTUS justice. It's just highly unlikely.

Good bad or indifferent, he is the (R)'s golden boy.

Enjoy your win. Wait until you see what it brings you.

It's possible that Kavanaugh will be an excellent associate SCOTUS justice. It's just highly unlikely.

He's a liar, and a disgrace.

vote her out.

Send ten bucks. You can find ten bucks.

I pick on Collins because she wants to have it both ways. There is no both ways.

I pick on Collins, not so much for her vote, but for the mealy-mouthed lameness of her whole "I hope Kavanaugh will be a bridge blah blah blah" spiel.

Kavanaugh has never been a bridge. He is a partisan.

I don't mind an opponent, but I hate a coward.

Send these folks a couple of bucks and encourage Collins to find a new career.

And after Collins, the rest of them.

Collins is disgusting.

I have a Republican friend and I am not rude when we discuss things.But he is a fascist. He's a lesson on how people fail to notice evil in themselves: he really is in most respects a very nice, warm, kind and reliable person. So that's what he sees about himself. He does not recognize that the part of him that vicariously enjoys bullying other vis the R party...he doens't recognize that part of himself for what it is. I tel him often that he is acting and saying things agsints his own values.

Imagine the chortles and guffaws when the op-ed writers of the Wall Street Journal had when they thought of this headline (via LGM)

Susan Collins consents

It's only Pyrrhic, if it hits them personally. A lot of the guys are old men that can be confident that all the harm will come to others, all the bad things will happen only after they got out one way or the other. What does the mayfly care for a bill due in June?
The party is a means for their own benefit and their religion and morals a sham for public show.
Ms. 45 is out of town, unlikely to return in time and RBG is too much of a lady to put brucine in BK's coffee when he shows up for work.

Posted w/o comment

https://www.theroot.com/people-arent-divided-on-kavanaughs-confirmation-white-1829524632?

Good point, Hartmut, but I wonder if Grassley, Flake, Collins and the other merry band found they couldn't eat a meal in peace, or they had to worry about the cooks spitting in their food from now until they were voted out (and maybe even after), if they would think about what they have done. Maybe Grassley could do his Granpa Simpson impersonation for the crowd on those times.

Maybe like this

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/410158-manchin-drowned-out-by-protesters-as-he-explains-vote

Feel free to list other possibilities that come to mind.

I think such tactics might be counterproductive. (I’m not againt them, but they tend to be more effective in situations where most people haven’t already taken sides.)

Whereas...
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/05/susan-rice-susan-collins-2020-876185

Good point, Hartmut, but I wonder if Grassley, Flake, Collins and the other merry band found they couldn't eat a meal in peace, or they had to worry about the cooks spitting in their food from now until they were voted out (and maybe even after), if they would think about what they have done.

I think such tactics might be counterproductive. (I’m not againt them, . . .

Is this representative of the thinking here? Open and focused harassment including low-level assault on political opponents?

Who thinks it would stop there? Would this be a valid tool for the right as well as the left?

Here's a timely article, for those with the time to read it, that speaks, albeit indirectly, to what I think I'm reading here: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/

Nigel, you may be right, but I'm wondering, maybe the purpose of such displays is to keep in mind what has happened and what they have done. As such, it's not for people who haven't taken sides, it is to remind people who have.

wj, in the last thread, wrote this
Previous non-voters are great, if you can get them. But only a tiny fraction of those are folks who didn't vote at all because neither party was left enough for them.

I wanted to respond, but the thread moved on, but I'll take a whack here. The whole question of what the 'majority' wants has been with us since Nixon's Silent Majority and the argument is that we should go along with what the majority wants. But given what Paul Campos observes here, I'm wondering if a little counter-productivity is what is needed.

I don't think the article at McKT's link is what he thinks it is. However, since he's a lawyer who knows how to play lawyer games, not an academic who knows how to play academic games, and the article feeds into all his biases, I suppose that's not surprising.

Then again, maybe McKT, like Marty, has no biases. It's just that it's so much fun prodding people with loaded questions.

This story was reported to me by a friend who was involved. Keep in mind while reading it that Maine is very small in population, and you're never more than a degree of separation or two away from ... practically anyone else in the state. Including the top politicians, though that's not the point of *this* story.

Some years ago, right after one of the many statewide votes we had in Maine on the question of full citizenship for people like me, a group of folks who had worked hard on my side of the campaign were sitting somewhere in the State House complex, mourning. (That's the phase before organizing for next time.)

The most visible public face of the opposition, a guy named Jasper Wyman, came up to the table and said to them, "Hey guys, no hard feelings, right? It's just politics."

I hope they called him what he was, right out loud to his face.

Asshole.

For us it wasn't and isn't "just politics," it's our lives. It's our mental health, our ability to live open, healthy lives -- just like Jasper Wyman -- our right to hold a job, to have children, to marry, to access the same social services (such as they are) as straight people.

Now is no different, but it's not just the lives of gay people at risk (it never has been just us, of course), it's the lives of millions, and in fact that life of a nation of laws. The children in camps in Texas, the women who can't and/or won't be able to control their own lives because of Kavanaugh, the people who won't be able to vote, as is their right, because of the blocks that have been put in their way…yet again, the cruel treatment of people who are disabled and unable to care for themselves in dignity.

And that was before the court took a turn toward the Federalist Society's wet dream.

I'm reminded of an incident that happened just after Clickbait was elected, when most of us here were in mourning, and russell wrote eloquently of his fear for people he knew -- all the sorts of people that Clickbait immediately set about hurting, openly and gleefully.

And Marty showed up to gloat talk politics, and called russell "unhinged."

That was a turning point, I would guess for russell, but certainly for me.

This is an even starker one.

It’s not “just politics.” It’s our lives. I'm not playing that game anymore.

Would this be a valid tool for the right as well as the left?

you mean like maybe 'the right' wouldn't bake cakes for people it didn't like?

It’s not “just politics.” It’s our lives. I'm not playing that game anymore.

Assuming this is a valid assessment of the new normal, what are the new rules?

Assuming this is a valid assessment of the new normal, what are the new rules?

The new rules are tax cuts, concentration camps, environmental degradation, as well as liars, rapists and fraudsters in high offices. Where have you been?

I don't think the article at McKT's link is what he thinks it is.

Also this:

http://crookedtimber.org/2018/10/03/move-over-sokal-hoax/#comment-739574

The new rules are tax cuts, concentration camps, environmental degradation, as well as liars, rapists and fraudsters in high offices. Where have you been?

Understood. Let me be more clear: what are the new rules for resisting the new normal? What are the legitimate tactics to be employed in the name of social justice?

you mean like maybe 'the right' wouldn't bake cakes for people it didn't like?

This is probably a different topic, for several reasons, not the least of which is that the baker was sought out by a specific individual intent on fomenting a confrontation, not the baker seeking him out to confront in some fashion. And, the baker bakes for anyone, just not for weddings that conflict with his religious views. It's actually a very narrow issue. That aside, I glean from your answer that you are generally on board with LJ and Nigel. Thanks.

Low-level harassment of elected public officials (and people they appoint) is OK with me. Emphasis on the low-level.
Threats or acts of violence are right out. And targeting their families as proxy too.
Spreading lies about them is also not encouraged.
To tell them in no uncertain ways and words to their face what one thinks of them on the other hand should be the favorite first step.

If they are members of mainstream religious groups, maybe their preachers should be encouraged to hold more sermons on what Jesus thought of hypocrites and the self-righteous.

Thanks Hartmut. Any thoughts if it doesn't stop there, i.e. at the "low level harassment" level? If right wingers are confronted in restaurants, then soon enough, left wingers will face the same unpleasantness. I see and fear mutual escalation, with each side blaming the other.

McKinney, I know you're trying to get us to describe the ways we think it's legit to fight this stuff, in ways which won't make the downward spiral worse (I well remember the Sarah Huckabee Sanders in the restaurant conversation), but what I don't know is whether you want it so you can contemptuously dismiss us and our proposed remedies, and our general worldview (Social Justice! Laughable idea!), or whether you think any of the developments which so freak us out are at all regrettable, let alone deplorable.

You opposed Trump's nomination, and didn't vote for him. You despise Cruz. You can't say (understandably) what you think about Kavanaugh. But you seem on board with most of what these people want to accomplish (e.g. loosely speaking, and allowing for definitional bias, joel hanes's and bobbyp's pre- and post-prandial agendas above). I also fear mutual escalation, so I ask you, what methods do you think would be likely to achieve the agenda of most of the people here, which seems more like the agenda of most of the US population?

the baker was sought out by a specific individual intent on fomenting a confrontation, not the baker seeking him out to confront in some fashion

the baker refused to bake the cake, correct?

i have no further questions.

If right wingers are confronted in restaurants, then soon enough, left wingers will face the same unpleasantness.

Unfortunately, there are enough examples of that already without any leftist provocation.
And that does not even include the traditional "we no likes folks like you around here" that especially rural backwaters* are infamous for.

*worldwide, I assume

What are the legitimate tactics to be employed in the name of social justice?

People fighting for social justice shouldn't be the only ones held to a standard of using "legitimate tactics."

"Legitimacy" has been undermined by the Republican Party. Obviously, it would be great to use the electoral system to gain ground, although Russian and dark money interference, along with the rest of the illegitimacy that Republicans throw into the mix, make it difficult to have much faith in that.

Legitimacy doesn't work when this kind of illegitimacy has become the norm. I know you can't say mean things about Bart O'Kavanaugh since your firm might have a case before him some day, but putting him on the Supreme Court has undermined the legitimacy of the legal system.

We're doing what we can with lawsuits, elections, disciplinary committee referrals, etc., but when the ultimate refs are mobsters, "legitimate tactics" are not going to work. I've long considered myself a patriotic citizen of the United States who deeply believes in its Constitution and system of justice, despite its flaws. Even though the system is far from perfect, its integrity seemed to be important to people, especially lawyers, who worked within it. Republicans undermined this before, especially with Bush v. Gore, but I held on. Not anymore.

By doing this to the court, Republicans are saying that there are no rules. So, yeah, we (people interested in justice) need to keep fighting for it the traditional ways. But I don't blame people for coloring outside the box. Play by the rules when there are no rules? Rules are for both sides. So, no. There are no rules.

GFTNC, I refer you to the LJ/Nigel exchange which prompted my question, followed by Cleek's comments and Hartmut's.

Either the LJ/Nigel exchange is or is not a legitimate means of responding to the Kavanaugh proceedings. I'm trying to find out which. I think it's fair to assume that I am not on board with confronting anyone, anywhere, anytime when they are trying to live their private lives. In the public sphere, have at it, peacefully.

It is of interest to me to learn where folks here fall between my views and what I think are fairly explicitly stated views by LJ and Nigel.

I think their views speak for themselves. I will bend over backwards not to contemptuously dismiss anyone who responds as I believe my comments above demonstrate.

You are correct that I am a conservative, or classical liberal, in most respects. I will answer your last question, but I request, in fair exchange, that you answer mine.

My answer: you win, or not, by substantive engagement, reason, logic and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time. Shouting down, calling out, public harassment, etc. is ineffective, counter-productive and almost certain to produce an in-kind and indistinguishable response which will escalate. So, that's my answer.

you win, or not, by substantive engagement, reason, logic and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time.

These tactics work in a liberal (small l) democracy. The US isn't one.

And Marty showed up to gloat talk politics, and called russell "unhinged."

and my friends sucked. they were spreading hate.

That was a turning point, I would guess for russell

damned straight.

what are the new rules for resisting the new normal?

the rules are what they have always been.

Yelling at a senator who just cast a vote such as Manchin's seems... perfectly fine. To me.

And, FWIW, I'll probably send Manchin some money. Even though I would probably have been yelling right along with the folks in the video.

Substantive engagement, reason, logic, and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time did not end slavery, did not win women the right to vote, did not win working people a 40 hour week, did not bring about the end of Jim Crow, did not win gays the right to simply exist.

Yelling was involved. Breaking the law was involved. Getting in the way was involved. Going to jail was involved. In some cases, literal warfare was involved.

Sometimes debate is sufficient. Sometimes - often - it's not. And, as Janie so clearly points out, quite often these issues are not mere matters of simple intellectual disagreement.

People - many many people - have lost their lives, their homes, their livelihoods, their health, their families, all their worldly goods, due to the consequences of one public policy prevailing over another.

So hell yeah, people are gonna yell.

I'll also point out that anyone on "the left" who has engaged in any kind of dialogue or contact of any kind with their political opposites at any time over the last 15 or 20 years, has had the more or less daily experience of being threatened with physical violence.

Comically and ludicrously so, most often. But, one never knows, does one?

People on "the left" are, as these things go, profoundly restrained.

This - the political environment we are living in - is not a debating society. People are fighting for their lives.

you win, or not, by substantive engagement, reason, logic and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time.

Does that advice extend to conservatives as well? Because that certainly does not describe their tactics over the past few decades, or specifically over the Kavanaugh nomination .

Those tactics have mostly consisted of naked power grabs, outright lies, vote suppression, fomenting bigotry, anger and hatred in their base, etc.

If people on the right want to move away from the extreme partisanship there are things they can do without abandoning any legitimate principle.

1. Renounce the rabble-rousers. Call Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, etc. what they are - dishonest grifters who make a very healthy living lying and sowing discord.

2. Renounce bigotry. Want tighter immigration limits? OK. Make the case. A real one, not MS13 bogeymen. And don't take it out on honest decent people just because they happen to be hispanic, or Muslim, for that matter.

3. Try honesty. Do you really think climate change isn't happening? That tax cuts pay for themselves? The contempt for truth, your "reason, logic and evidence" on the right is astonishing.

I assume that you've been reading what I've written previously. I refer you to this comment

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2018/09/kavanaugh-where-we-are-now.html?cid=6a00d834515c2369e2022ad39619d9200d#comment-6a00d834515c2369e2022ad39619d9200d

In addition, I'm specifically talking about confronting the Republican members of the Judiciary committee. Just in case you missed it

I wonder if Grassley, Flake, Collins and the other merry band found they couldn't eat a meal in peace, or they had to worry about the cooks spitting in their food from now until they were voted out (and maybe even after), if they would think about what they have done.

It seems relatively clear that no amount of testimony, substantive engagement, reason, logic, presented concerning Kavanaugh would have been considered. So, where does that leave those who wish to protest this?

It is of interest to me to learn where folks here fall between my views and what I think are fairly explicitly stated views by LJ and Nigel.

Earlier, you asked me how you could reset this relationship between us, as you wanted to be able to discuss these matters on this list. Assuming that you are serious about that request and it isn't some rhetorical move to assure the peanut gallery of your status above it all, one way to do it would be to stop with the gotcha reasoning and rather shitty questions and try and ask my opinion directly and have the stones to present yours instead of trying to score points. Setting this up a match between me and Nigel, when I answered him by addressing his points and suggesting some alternative thinking is a world away from the way you try to cast this as two sides and you 'just want to find out where everyone is'. If you agree with Nigel, answer my question rather than trying to start another discussion. You aren't going to express an opinion about Kavanaugh, fine, but don't try to slide in on the back of that conversation and try and score points if you don't have the stones to set out your opinion on it.

I request, in fair exchange, that you answer mine.

The following was written before russell and byomtov posted, but I agree with their every word, particularly the following:

Substantive engagement, reason, logic, and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time did not end slavery, did not win women the right to vote, did not win working people a 40 hour week, did not bring about the end of Jim Crow, did not win gays the right to simply exist.

Yelling was involved. Breaking the law was involved. Getting in the way was involved. Going to jail was involved. In some cases, literal warfare was involved.

I'm all for fair exchange, and civility, and substantive engagement using reason, logic and evidence presented forcefully and consistently. But in circumstances where a minority attempts to stage a coup (whether fast and dramatic or slow and incremental) against the wishes of the majority, as in numerous cases historically and geographically, this approach is no longer sufficient (rendered ineffective, for example, by gerrymandering, intervention by foreign adversaries impersonating patriotic voters, false and biased reporting which purports to be fair etc etc ad infinitum). As to what are, as against are not permissible tactics unlikely to descend into a spiral of undesirable and counter-productive escalation, personally I cannot at the moment say. I have no objection to shaming and calling out people when they're living their "private lives" in public, as I made clear with SHS, and in fact as we all pointed out these tactics have been used against lefties, gay people, people of colour etc for decades, but as to what will actually work when the decks are so clearly stacked against one side, the jury is out. We shall have to wait and see.

the civility and desire for honest debate among the folks who stand in from of Planned Parenthood locations is a model for all of us on the left.

A bit of creativity should be involved.
E.g. awaiting them every morning in front of their house with a chorus singing
"It's an asshole we see|that has just stepped outside..." (tune: Star-spangled banner) or "Embrace the jerk and close your eyes to reason/In lockstep march with the mighty GOP" (tune: Horst-Wessel song) or (once the immigration topic becomes hot again) "See this vile troll|cager of children" (We are the world) etc.
Each day something new.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/this-is-a-good-point

One of the most remarkable features of the Kavanaugh vote hasn’t been remarked upon enough in my opinion: the red state Democratic senators dared to come out against Kavanaugh. Heitkamp, Donnelly, McCaskill, Tester, and throw in Nelson as well: all extremely vulnerable, all past the primaries and facing red-state general election voters, and all stood firm against Kavanaugh. (One can quibble about Manchin. My take is that he will always be there when the Democrats really need him (except on coal).)

This is pretty amazing. And it may yet turn out to be disastrous. And the odds are that the best outcome will be one or two of them losing. But it says something about the nature of the parties today that they would take this stand. And if they (all?) survive, it will send a powerful message that party solidarity and faithfulness with the party’s core supporters are the reigning elements in today’s politics — for both parties.

From one standpoint, it may be that loud and angry targeted protests are needed to let these red state dems know that they made the right choice. As I noted, their function may be more to assure the people who do hold the same opinions rather than try to convince those who are wavering.

And if you say it isn't going to make a difference, just remember the look on Flake's face when he was confronted. Or the bs Grassley tries to pull by claiming he is sympathetic to Ford, but gosh darn, that Feinstein should have told him sooner.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/why-doesnt-grassley-get-more-grief-for-lying-like-this

As to what to say,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/27/brett-kavanaughs-version-high-tech-lynching-speech-annotated/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2f9deb53d77b#annotations:15466071

This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election. Fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons. and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

If folks make prepared statements in the same vein and yell them at Grassley, Collins, Graham and Flake, but apologize for getting emotional in a post event op-ed, is that ok? Or does that mean that they/we are paid by George Soros?

one way to do it would be to stop with the gotcha reasoning and rather shitty questions and try and ask my opinion directly and have the stones to present yours instead of trying to score points.

You clearly state that public harassment of certain senators while living their private lives up to and including contaminating their food is acceptable. Now you say that your view is limited to just those senators who would not see reason and vote against Kavanaugh. But, there is no reason to believe it would stop there or that, even with your proposed limitations, that there wouldn't be reaction and escalation. What happens the next time there is a contentious national debate and your side loses? More accosting and food contamination? And when the Repubs lose, do they get to run that play?

Feel free to quote directly any "gotcha reasoning" or "shitty questions". I'll address your comments on the merits when you make them.

Substantive engagement, reason, logic, and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time did not end slavery, did not win women the right to vote, did not win working people a 40 hour week, did not bring about the end of Jim Crow, did not win gays the right to simply exist.

Actually, "Substantive engagement, reason, logic, and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time" was instrumental in each of these. The Civil War began because the South was losing the argument. Women got the vote in 1920 via constitutional amendment. Jim Crow ended in large part because it could not withstand "Substantive engagement, reason, logic, and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time." The forty hour work week, i.e. the Fair Labor Standards Act, was passed prior to WWII. By congress. I grant that there were protests, marches, etc. that were the necessary catalyst to many of these movements, but standing alone, if unsupported by "Substantive engagement, reason, logic, and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time", none of those would have succeeded.

And today is not 1860 or 1914. So, I ask the question again, is publicly harassing political opponents as they live their private lives fair game up to and including spitting surreptitiously in their food?

GFTNC doesn't have an answer, which is fair. Implicit in not having an answer is that the answer can go either way, given circumstances yet to materialize.

By doing this to the court, Republicans are saying that there are no rules.

Having no intent or desire to relitigate Kavanaugh's merits as a SCOTUS justice, what did the Repubs do "to the court", whether as a matter of process or something else, that says "there are no rules"? Thanks.

E.g. awaiting them every morning in front of their house with a chorus singing
"It's an asshole we see|that has just stepped outside..." (tune: Star-spangled banner) or "Embrace the jerk and close your eyes to reason/In lockstep march with the mighty GOP" (tune: Horst-Wessel song) or (once the immigration topic becomes hot again) "See this vile troll|cager of children" (We are the world) etc.
Each day something new.

And if they have children? And when others, not so constrained, encourage their children to harass the children of those whose views you do not approve, how do you stop that train?

You clearly state that public harassment of certain senators while living their private lives up to and including contaminating their food is acceptable.

FWIW:

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with confronting and yelling at a US Senator when they appear in public to discuss why they may have voted one way or another.

If it's over-used as a tactic, it'll lose it's effectiveness. And, if it's simply used as a way to prevent people from speaking publicly, anyplace, ever - see also Tea Party strategies in the run-up to the ACA vote - it becomes simple bullying. Which is unlikely to be helpful in the long run, although I think the Tea Partiers and their pals with the AR-15's found it useful short-term.

I absolutely and unequivocally am opposed to spitting in people's food, poisoning them, harassing their families. Also SWAT-ing.

In general I'm opposed to doxing. In the case of the C-ville Nazis who were outed, in some cases at loss of their jobs, I have no problem. March publicly with torches and Nazi armbands, you know what you're signing up for. If you don't, I have no problem with people pointing it out to you.

I'm not supportive of provocative violence a la antifa and black bloc kids. Conversely, I have no problem with people defending themselves if they are assaulted while they are publicly assembled.

I'm not really that bothered by Sarah Sanders being politely denied service in a restaurant.

Hopefully that gives an idea of my own, personal boundaries.

My old man was once somewhere or other with another geezer, both of them at that time probably about as old as I am now. For some reason or other, Ted Kennedy was scheduled to appear, and my dad's buddy was supposed to shake his hand. It was some work-related dog and pony.

My dad's buddy would not shake Kennedy's hand. Didn't care for the man.

FWIW, I don't share the guy's politics, but I have no problem with his refusal.

I'm sure Kennedy lost no sleep over it. It comes with the gig.

what did the Repubs do "to the court", whether as a matter of process or something else, that says "there are no rules"?

Briefly, I would say the refusal to make Kavanaugh's paper trail from his time in the White House available, and the extremely constrained conditions under which the FBI findings were made available, both qualify.

Not as "no rules" necessarily, but as obvious bad faith and abuse of power.

My two cents.

and i'll prefer calls for First Amendment incivility over calls for Second Amendment terrorism any day of the week.

what did the Repubs do "to the court", whether as a matter of process or something else, that says "there are no rules"?

Do I have to start writing Merrick Garland over and over again, again?

and wrs.

How about the comment that I pointed to? No acknowledgement of that?

Not that I expect you to, you have the urge to put the liberals in one big box, as can be see with the way you quote Nigel. Go up folks and see where that McT sticks that ellipsis.

Here's what I said
I wonder if Grassley, Flake, Collins and the other merry band found they couldn't eat a meal in peace, or they had to worry about the cooks spitting in their food from now until they were voted out (and maybe even after), if they would think about what they have done.

Here's how McT interprets it
You clearly state that public harassment of certain senators while living their private lives up to and including contaminating their food is acceptable.

I was referring to the observation, made after this:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/19/kirstjen-nielsen-homeland-security-secretary-mexican-restaurant-protest

wondering why she didn't think that wasn't going to be a possibility whenever she goes into a Mexican restaurant. I also had in mind the scene in Monuments Man where Cate Blanchett has her French assistant spit in the glass just before they are used for wine by the German officers. I leave it to the reader to determine what is hyperbole and what is not,

But beyond the pearl clutching over 'food contamination', given the rush to dismiss Ford's and other claims against Kavanaugh, why precisely should their private lives be sancrosanct. It seems clear that the people pushing Kavanaugh's nomination did their level best to ignore any kind of privacy constraints on those women and they stood by and ignored it?

In case you missed it, there was
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/prime-beta/time-for-leonard-leo-to-speak-up

Where they tried to incriminate the former boyfriend of Ford as the rapist.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/03/julie-swetnick-sex-life-detailed-republican-senators/

In an unprecedented move, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday released an explicit statement that purports to describe the sexual preferences of a woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of misconduct.

The statement, which was circulated to the hundreds of journalists on the Judiciary Committee’s press list, was from Dennis Ketterer, a former Democratic congressional candidate and television meteorologist who said he was involved in a brief relationship with Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick in 1993.

Why is their privacy sancrosanct, but Ford and Swetnick's isn't? Funny how that works out...

And today is not 1860 or 1914.

However, the situation in 2018 is deteriorating rapidly.

LJ, I'm sorry, I don't follow most of what you say at 12:16. That's ok. I did glean this: why precisely should their private lives be sancrosanct.

I'll stand on what I said.

Russell, thanks.

Do I have to start writing Merrick Garland over and over again, again?

No. I understand your position. I think he should have been given a vote too, but I don't think it was constitutionally mandated that the senate act. Shitty maybe, but within the plain language of the document. But explain how not allowing a vote on Garland justifies, if it does, accosting people while they eat or spitting in their food. And if this is acceptable, is there a line you would draw and, if so, where would you draw it? Thanks.

But explain how not allowing a vote on Garland justifies, if it does, accosting people while they eat or spitting in their food. And if this is acceptable, is there a line you would draw and, if so, where would you draw it? Thanks.

McKinney, I am not here to obey your orders to explain things, or to play in your cross-examination dog-and-pony show, or to say "how high" when you say jump. I am not going put my thoughts into boxes, the definitions and dimensions of which are prescribed by you, with your disapproving tut-tut about "the left" hiding behind the pretense of reasoned discourse. (AKA cross-examination.)

Other people's mileage obviously varies.

Janie, you are under no obligation to respond. I did answer your question and posed a question in return. That's all.

what did the Repubs do "to the court", whether as a matter of process or something else, that says "there are no rules"?

What Russell said.

Deliberate concealment of relevant facts may not be strictly "against the rules," but it's very bad behavior, as was the treatment given Garland.

GFTNC doesn't have an answer, which is fair. Implicit in not having an answer is that the answer can go either way, given circumstances yet to materialize.

I don't have an answer answer, but as an interim measure I have no problem with these people (Collins, Grassley, Lindsey Graham, SHS, Rush Limbaugh and many more) being called out when in public (not just when speaking in public), so that they understand viscerally the opprobrium in which they are held. I do not favour physical assault by sputum or otherwise.
Shorter me: what russell said, passim.

McKinney, a minority party in this country is exercising raw power over the majority of the people, including engaging in gross human rights violations. They are able to do so because because they accepted the assistance of a hostile foreign government to win the 2016 election. Those who accomplished the coup are rewarding themselves by looting the US Treasury.

Enjoy your tax cuts, but don't expect civility from people who would prefer justice for all.

Ok, thanks everyone. Have a nice weekend.

explain how not allowing a vote on Garland justifies, if it does, accosting people while they eat

The "accosting people while they eat" thing was Nielsen, having dinner at a Mexican restaurant.

She works for a man who began his run for office by stating that Mexicans are, as a group, rapists and murderers.

She runs an organization that separates Mexican and Central and South American children from their parents, and incarcerates both, in conditions that approximate a dog pound, for either the protected action of seeking asylum, or the civil violation of entering the US without proper authorization.

I would say that being accosted while eating dinner *in a freaking Mexican restaurant* is within the bounds of reasonable reaction.

Immigration policies aside, some 10 or 11 percent of the US population - citizens - are of Mexican heritage. What would be an appropriate reaction to the POTUS claiming that all Germans are Nazis, or all Italians are in the mafia, or all Irish are drunken brawlers?

These policies are not matters of intellectual debate. They are cruel, and harmful. People held in these conditions have killed themselves, and some families have been separated with slim chance of ever being reunited.

If you did that to me or people like me, and all I did in response was to yell at you while you were eating dinner, I would say you had come out of it pretty well.

People in the current administration are, knowingly and willingly, pursuing policies that harm people. Unnecessarily. And in some cases, *that is the point*. The unnecessary harshness and cruelty is intentional. It's meant to be a deterrent.

In my opinion, that behavior is shameful, and being publicly shamed for it is not a violation of any kind of boundary of civil discourse.

The SCOTUS will soon contain a perjurer along with the pervert and the receiver of stolen goods that Republicans have foisted on to it.

I think somebody should spit in somebody's food somewhere, at some time, just to placate McKinney's fixation on food-spitting-into.

I would not spit in anybody's food myself, but if I found myself at a restaurant with Mitch McConnell, I would walk up to his table and ask him: "Excuse me, Senator, are you actually an asshole or do you just act like one?" The plain language of the Constitution doesn't forbid such a breach of decorum, any more than it forbids stealing SCOTUS seats.

Would I still do it if McConnell was with his kids? If they're Jared Kushner's age, you bet. If they're young and innocent I'd still do it, because Republicans have taught us that hurting children to "send a message" to their parents is acceptable. I would not, of course, grab the kids and lock them up in tent prisons, for I am emphatically not a Republican.

In the musical "1776",the John Adams character utters the immortal line: "This is a revolution, dammit! We have to offend somebody." McKinney labors under the delusion that only private acts can be offensive; Adams, trying to get the Declaration of Independence approved, knew better.

McKinney's "where does it all stop" question reminds me of Lindsey Graham's complaint that if Kavanaugh went down then nobody accused of sexual assault could ever again aspire to a Senate-confirmable position. There's an obvious stopping point: when public officials start acting like decent human beings at work, they can count on being treated like decent human beings in private life.

--TP

what are the new rules for resisting the new normal? What are the legitimate tactics to be employed in the name of social justice?

Let me take a shot at this as well -- as (I think) one of the more conservative folks here. I'm all for "Substantive engagement, reason, logic, and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time." And for extensive electoral efforts.

But I have no problem at all with confronting people involved, including while they are "going about their private lives" -- "people involved" being both politicians and those working for political think tanks. Hey, they chose their jobs. Their families? Right out. Violence? Out . . . for the moment, although the way the right looks to be going I'm not sure I would bet on that lasting.

Does that help?

More about civility.

So, I ask the question again, is publicly harassing political opponents as they live their private lives fair game up to and including spitting surreptitiously in their food?

The former? Yes. The later? No. For the simple reason that they need to know, they can see, the protest of their actions.

So, it's the server's job, as she or he places the dish in front of the customer?

Before or after the offer of cracked pepper?

Depending upon time constraints and my mood, that might a part of a larger riff on the subject of the chef spitting in a customer's bouillabaisse, which will cover the subjects of regulation, states' rights, and global warming.

Their families? Right out. Violence? Out

People's families should be left out of it.

Violence is, perhaps, justified, as self-defense, or as an absolute last resort. Our history as a nation, however, has few examples of positive change by violence, and in fact many examples of positive change through being willing to *accept* violence without responding in kind.

So for both moral reasons, and tactical ones, I'm opposed to violence as a strategy.

Hopefully all the talk from the right about "2nd Amendment solutions" and "we have all the guns" will never amount to more than talk, and the issue of force as a matter of pure, survival level self-defense won't come up.

All things considered, I'd rather vote.

And all of that said, he said, I find McK's basic question to be one well worth asking.

It's easy to break stuff, and hard to put it back together. There's a time and place for expressing anger, and this is arguably one such occasion. But there's not a lot of value in making enemies you don't need to make.

but wait, one more thing.... does this guy ever shut up?

Actually, "Substantive engagement, reason, logic, and evidence presented forcefully and consistently over time" was instrumental in each of these.

Instrumental in all, sufficient in none. And in fact, for slavery and basic worker's rights, warfare was required.

May it not come to that point again.

I find McK's basic question to be one well worth asking.

Me too.

In my opinion, that behavior is shameful, and being publicly shamed for it is not a violation of any kind of boundary of civil discourse.

Seconded, with vehemence.

Instrumental in all, sufficient in none.

Seconded, thirded even, and with the maximum possible emphasis, possibly even with extreme prejudice (in the Clint Eastwood sense), if self-defense ever does become necessary.

There's no point making enemies you don't need to make, but again: you have to offend somebody.

Or, if you want real power, you have to offend everybody except Vladimir Putin, Neo-Nazis, and "Values Voters".

--TP

does anyone know is what kind of countertops Sarah H Sanders has?

cleek: so important to be reminded of stuff like that, and the shamelessness of the people we are talking about shaming....

Re: cleek's link. Let's not forget, it's just terrible if "the left" makes noises about maybe possibly being uncivil to public officials in public places.

But as usual, the standard it is double. It's okay to run smear campaigns against injured children and Gold Star families and all the rest of it, because ... wait for it ... IOKIYAR.

Violence is, perhaps, justified, as self-defense, or as an absolute last resort. Our history as a nation, however, has few examples of positive change by violence

I should probably have been more explicit. I'm not particularly optimistic that we get thru this without violence. Not because I expect the left to follow the Count's call to arms. But because I will be unsurprised if, when (and I definitely think it's when, not if) the far right's gains start to be reversed, the right resorts to violence to try to hold on. And, just as with the Civil War, they won't be stopped without violence. There won't be the nice geographic divisions we had then. And I expect the US Army to do the bulk of the counter-violence.** But counter-violence I expect there to be.

** As we have see in Afghanistan and Iraq, even when massively outgunned guerrillas can make it a tough fight. On the other hand, the far right's areas where they dominate the total population tend to be tactically, but not strategically, strong. Elsewhere, they don't have a secure population base to hide among. IMHO.

"the Count's call to arms."

I fully expect the Right to start the violence.

Whites of their eyes and all that.

Elements of their base, including some of their elected representatives and financial benefactors, have made it clear, repeatedly, for decades, that the Second Amendment will be used and was indeed included in the Constitution, to force implementation of their agenda, while standing athwart us, should civil, rational, reasoned discourse, which now includes, in their, though not in McKT's, opinion, irretrievably breaking all political norms, Merrick Garland, being one among many, but only the latest, lugies spat into the national hotpot.

The political norms, even if not specified in the Constitution, are the lubrication that keeps the political machinery from going full metal on metal and seizing up, which we are close to realizing.

Spit might work as a temporary replacement, like sawdust in a gearbox.

At the moment, I conceal carry only saliva glands, but the spittoons have been removed from the public square.

But not the gun clips.

"should civil, rational, reasoned discourse as they define it .. fail ..."

I find McK's basic question to be one well worth asking.

Sure, but does McT ask it? Or does he merely deploy it as a way to say 'U libz, ur doing it wrong?' Seems to be the latter, which is why I'm happy to have a conversation with Nigel about it (or wj, for that matter), but with McT, he can go pound sand. Or shorter, what Janie said.

When apprised of the fact that the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee (i.e. the people I complained about) released a letter that smeared one of Kavanaugh's accusers has him leave like a squid, shooting out a jet of ink and retreating into his lair. (an analogy someone, maybe Jackmormon, memorably assigned to Josh Treviño, another person who hung around here with McT's propensities)

The squid analogy is even more apt when you think it doesn't have a spine. Yes, lj, your example means that we should protect everyone's privacy, even if the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee don't give a shit about it. But I do cause I'll call all of you out when you talk about how people might react to this and tut tut when anyone suggests hurting the other side, (as long as that side is Republican).

If I were to give another measure of psychoanalytic bs, I might observe that McT coming here to get the strokes of us idiot liberals here could be because he doesn't get warm fuzzies IRL, just cold pricklies. So, to reassure himself that he is open minded and fair because he can't get it in his everyday existence, he wanders over here where he can get us dumb liberals to say 'don't worry, you're a nice conservative, you aren't like all those others'. McT may want to consider, given the pomposity he displays here, whether the wait-staff has already spit in in frijoles multiple timess.

Provechito, Señor

McTx owes us all an explicit explanation of EXACTLY how extreme a Nazi should be, before they can be justifiably summarily gunned down.

Otherwise he's just avoiding the issue.

Sadly, the question is relevant.

For the simple reason that they need to know, they can see, the protest of their actions.

Having my druthers, I'd prefer not to, but have them wonder if it was done. This is why you should always be nice to the waitstaff.

Twenty-four-hours later, musing on Collins.

People suggest that her vote was in trade for contracts for Bath Iron Works and the Portland Naval Shipyard. (This assumes that she really gives a shit about the pro-choice cause. I don't buy it.)

People suggest that Mitch McConnell wrote her speech.

People suggest...okay, Jon Meachem suggests...that the BK she painted was more like herself than it was like the actual BK.

As for the latter, that notion refutes itself. I find it hard to believe that she's stupid enough to believe the whitewash she spewed, so if she's willing to go up there and pretend she does believe it, ignoring the entire other side of the reality of the man, then she is as much of a liar as BK.

What I've come around to, in any case, is that the performance was a sort of ritual abasement. For weeks she did her usual attention-sucking performance of pretending she didn't know how she was going to vote, and though the people in charge knew she would come around as she always did, she had to pay the penalty for even pretending to buck the party line. She had to (plausibly to someone, apparently) mouth the thought trains of how she had concluded that she could come down off the fake fence.

Bah.

by pretending she was wavering, she lent legitimacy to the process. she was unsure! doubts! concerns! but then, finally, her questions were answered. her conscience was cleared. we can all rest easy knowing someone involved in the process came to her conclusion after much soul-searching.

hahahhahahahahhhhhaaaa!

the deed is done. 50-48

Murkowski votes "present" and Daines was absent.

It would be highly satisfying to reenact an infamous event from the pre civil war era ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner ) with McConnell at the receiving end but I am well aware that this would be highly counterproductive (btw, remarkable that senators then could bring firearms into the chamber).
Tactical emetic use by a senator on the other hand...*

*ideally to enable vomiting into the turtle's face

Word to the wise:

Don't order the soup in the Senate's Republican Commissary again.

"..... Daines was absent."

I was looking forward, as a kind of matching bookend, to the Senator's last-minute flight back to Washington D.C. on Rep. Greg Gianforte's private aircraft, The USS Physical Assault.

The reporter Gianforte was found guilty of assaulting, I believe, would have survived charges in the State of Montana for using deadly armed force in self defense of Gianforte's attack, unless he had been a woman or a black.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court in various eras has been referred to by the name of the Chief Justice. Thus the Warren Court, the Rehnquist Court, etc. But I already seeing references to the Kavanaugh Court.

Quite the legacy for Mr Chief Justice Roberts. Unless, of course, he figures out how to minimize Kavanaugh's influence making this a massively reactionary court....

JanieM: Twenty-four-hours later, musing on Collins.

Remember, Janie: Collins is what passes for a Reasonable Republican(TM).

Meanwhile, Joe Manchin -- our Latter Day Lieberman.

I want him to win re-election, vote to make Schumer Majority Leader, and promptly be assigned to the Janitorial and Toilet Committee. If it doesn't exist, Schumer can create it for him.

As I have pointed out many times, the operative definition of party affiliation is: who do you vote for to lead your branch of the legislature. So I can accept that we "need" Manchin in that respect.

However: while the Democratic party has to rely on such marginal DINOs as Manchin or (in a previous outbreak of the disease) Lieberman, it can not deliver on its promises but must settle for watered-down Republican-lite facsimiles of them. The minute there are 52 Dem Senators in his caucus, I want Schumer to invite Joe Manchin to go full jihadi and change parties.

Politicians like Manchin should be made to stand outside the tent pissing in, as soon as convenient. Public urination is frowned upon, but it has to be visible before the public can frown upon it.

--TP

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mcconnell-wont-commit-to-holding-scotus-vacancy-open-during-election-year

I'm calling it the McConnell Court.

The Boston Strangler strangled IN Boston.

The Turkish Genocide of Armenians in which Turks murdered Armenians.

The Japanese Rape of Nanking, in which mass rape was done in Nanking by the Japanese Army.

If English is going to be the mandated language of the land, let's call (sh)it what it is, like everything else.

Are we going the way of Hungary?

From the Count's link:

“Who controls the Senate when you have a vacancy that close to an election makes a big difference,” McConnell said at a press conference Saturday after the Senate narrowly confirmed to the Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh. “There’s not a doubt in anybody’s mind, I am sure, that if the shoe was on the other foot in 2016, and it had been a Republican president making the nomination to a Democratic Senate, it wouldn’t have been filled.”

Oh, wait, people here came along and told us that there was a "tradition" of not appointing justices during an election year. Of course, the "tradition" was a fiction, and now we find that even the fiction is more nuanced than we were told.

IOKIYAR.

If you want to win, heed the words of Howard Zinn.

Hungary is going the way of America, more like it.

Now, Romania has a jump on us with respect to this:

https://www.newsweek.com/romania-seeks-banning-same-sex-marriage-where-does-rest-europe-stand-1119011

But America's conservative requirement for exception won't let Romania stay in the asshole lead for long.

Understand that the conservative, nationalist, nativist movement is a worldwide phenomenon/disaster and mp and the republican party wish America to be the May-Pole around which all celebrate their athwartist revanchism.

Preceding, and now we are witnessing, also FOLLOWING every social justice movement is a social injustice movement.

William F. Buckley was a Social Injustice Warrior.

bobbyp - Are we going the way of Hungary?

I don't think that the US will go the way of Hungary, but only because our demographics are far more diverse than theirs. I can state with some certainty, though, that the alt-right and the frothy fringe of it where the MRAs and the Islamophobes etc. meet and rub memes against each other are pretty high on Orban's intent. Stieg Larsson would recognize it all quite well.

So I don't think that we will go the way of Hungary, but we may well find ourselves opposing very similar political maneuvering.

Salander/Blomkvist 2020.

You may well be right, Nous. I certainly hope so. But I look around and see what the GOP has done in places like Wisconsin, where they definitely are engaging in "similar political maneuvering", and I fear for our democracy.

Collins iswas what passes for a Reasonable Republican(TM).

Fixed that for you. She may have been once, but no longer. (Try Murkowski, if you want to see someone more like one at a national level.)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad