Don’t argue with fools

As I said yesterday I didn’t watch the debate last night between Joe Biden and the nasty guy. I would be able to learn all I needed to in the morning news. From the reviews I’m glad I didn’t watch. Daily Kos had a whole series of reports, starting from 9:50 last night, before the debate was over (in addition to four posts of live blogging during it, which had the moment by moment and I didn’t need). Here are some of them. Walter Einenkel wrote about Joe Biden getting annoyed with the nasty guy’s constant talking, saying, “Will you shut up, man?” In response to that Jill Filipovic tweeted:

I so feel for Hillary right now because I’m positive she wanted to say that and couldn’t.

Clinton replied:

You have no idea.

Meteor Blades reported the nasty guy said America should manage its forests like Europe does – they don’t have wildfires (yes, they do). Einenkel reported the nasty guy didn’t condemn white supremacy. Instead, told white supremacist group Proud Boys to “stand back and stand by.” They tweeted they’re ready to go. Some news sources are saying that the phrase was “stand down,” which, I think, means don’t get involved. But what I think the nasty guy said was be ready, I’m going to call on you soon. How do we tell the phrase was racist? Proud Boys were delighted. Within minutes they were selling shirts with their new slogan, “Stand back and stand by.” They claimed a surge in recruitment. On NPR this morning host Rachel Martin talked to Democratic strategist Karen Finney and Republican strategist Scott Jennings about the debate. Martin asked about the nasty guy not condemning racist groups and Jennings – the Republican strategist – said:

There's only one answer to that question, and that is I condemn them. I condemn anyone in our cities who's causing violence, and nobody comes in my name and causes violence and should expect me to support that. There's only one answer. You're the commander in chief. And if you want to look strong on public safety and law and order, as he calls it, you have to condemn all of these groups no matter what form they come in. He failed it. He missed that question last night, and it's going to be the most talked about issue coming out of the debate because he whiffed it.

Finney, who is black, added:

Well, if I may, I mean, as a Black woman, I mean, I was sickened and terrified, just terrified. It literally made me think his - particularly given the tone of the way he was saying it made me think of those old stories from the '60s about dealing with the Bull Connors of the world.

I heard this evening that the debate commission is considering changes before the next debate, including adding a mute button. The nasty guy campaign complained about changing the rules in the middle of the game. Sorry, no. With that performance the nasty guy has already changed the rules. Laura Clawson described how the nasty guy steamrolled Chris Wallace, the debate moderator.

Moderator Chris Wallace fought to get Trump under control, but couldn’t succeed for more than about two minutes at a time in the face of Trump’s relentless barrage of lies, insults, and petulance. At times the debate devolved into Trump arguing with Wallace, the moderator, with Wallace looking and sounding very irritated at times.

Jessica Sutherland wrote a “blow-by-blow” recap of the “nightmarish” debate. I didn’t read through it, though scanned to read the tweets of those commenting on the action. Including this from Jim Gaffigan:

My children behave more civilly when I take their screens away than Trump tonight.

Christopher Hale, running to unseat an incumbent for a House seat in Tennessee tweeted he is already selling a shirt with the words “Will you shut up, Man?” Antonio French tweeted:

My grandmother used to say, “Don’t argue with fools. Because from a distance, people can’t tell who’s the fool.” Donald Trump is a fool. He wants to bring everyone down to his level.

Dave Brown tweeted a quote from Jake Tapper:

Jake Tapper: "That was a hot mess. Inside a dumpster fire. Inside a train wreck. That was the worst debate I have ever seen"

Einenkel quoted Biden when the topic turned to race and he responded to the nasty guy’s claim that he’s been best president for black people. Here’s a bit of it:

This is a president who has used everything as a dog whistle to try to generate race hatred, racist division. You talk about helping African Americans, 1 in 1,000 African Americans has been killed because of the coronavirus. And if he doesn't do something quickly, by the end of the year, 1 in 500 will have been killed. One in 500 African Americans. This man—this man?—is the savior of African Americans? This man cares at all? This man's done virtually nothing.

Kos of Kos quoted Sarah Chamberlain, president of Main Street Partnerships, which supports Republicans in Congress, who said that women want a president with integrity. And suburban women have had enough of the nasty guy. His performance at the debate only reinforced that opinion. Greg Dworkin, in his pundit roundup, quoted several opinions about the debate, starting with the Washington Post headline, “Trump plunges debate into fiery squabbling”. Along the way Dworkin wrote:

So, Susan Collins, did Trump learn his lesson from impeachment? No he did not. That’s why you and your fellow Republican enablers need to go. And that’s why the Republicans are losing, and losing badly.

Mark Sumner wrote that Wallace tried to get the nasty guy to commit to accepting the results of the election and not engage in civil unrest. He didn’t. Sumner wrote:

But Trump had already stated: “It’s a rigged election.” He’s not waiting to see how badly he loses on Nov. 3. He knows that’s no longer in doubt. Trump is no longer even concerned about winning. He is focused on holding on to power, which is something completely different. Trump repeatedly claimed that it could be “months” before there was an outcome, and agreed readily to the idea that he was trying to seat Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court because he expects that court to protect his power. “Yeah,” said Trump. “I think I’m counting on them to look at the ballots, definitely.” Trump has already declared the election “fraudulent” and “rigged.” He’s already instructed his followers not to accept the outcome of the vote. And, of course, he’s told white supremacist militias to “stand by.”

Leah McElrath gets the last word. She tweeted:

Biden survived and maintained his empathy. In the context of being targeted with rage by a malignant narcissist, that constitutes a win. This was not the bottom. For malignant narcissists, there is no bottom. Trump can and will get worse, as long as he’s in power. To defeat a malignant narcissist, you must either become more powerful than them or remove the source of their power. That’s the only way it stops.

Unequal power and airtight roles within the family

A big online discussion topic continues to be the state of the nasty guy’s finances and how much he paid in taxes. Yesterday Bette Midler tweeted:

I think at tomorrow night's debate, #JoeBiden should start every response by looking at the moderator & saying, "Well, that's the 750 dollar question, isn't it?"

That debate had begun before I posted this. I have no interest in listening to the nasty guy lie, no matter how comforting it will be to hear Joe Biden talk sense. Besides, it will end at my bedtime. So I’ll read summaries in the morning. Kos of Daily Kos discussed what the nasty guy’s tax returns show. He started with a tweet from Jason Kander.

To summarize the NYT story: Trump got a bunch of $ from his daddy. He lost it all, but then he got paid hundreds of millions to play a billionaire on TV. He tried to use that $ to become a real billionaire, but he lost it all again. Now he's starting over, but we're his daddy.

Yeah, he made $427 million as a TV star on The Apprentice. That show portrayed him as a billionaire who cut fabulous deals. And he was neither a billionaire nor a fabulous dealmaker. Kos related one deal. A property development deal fell through. The other investors sold out. The nasty guy went to court and was awarded 30%. Someone else managed the properties and the nasty guy made $176.5 million. Kos summarized:

Got it? Everything Trump has managed has failed and is deeply in debt. He somehow lucked into this 30% share of this one project that someone else took over, and it made him $176.5 million. When he had control, it was a failure. When someone else took over, it made a ton of money.

Mark Sumner of Kos reviewed the consequences of that fake portrayal of the nasty guy as a billionaire. He concluded:

It’s what allowed Trump to run for president. Donald Trump was never a successful businessman, but thanks to Mark Burnett, he did play one on TV. Burnett and MGM sold the nation on a product that was Trump, real estate tycoon. And it didn’t matter to them that the real Trump was clueless, racist, misogynist bastard who lost more money in a month than most people saw in a lifetime. They simply did not care. Because if Trump made money from this image, it’s a small fraction of what Burnett and MGM made selling the lie of Trump.

Adam Davidson, author of The Passion Economy, tweeted about the tax story. In 2011 the nasty guy clearly had a new source of funds. These appear to be oligarchs with ties to Putin. All of them are known to be laundering money through golf courses, which are one of the best ways to launder money. Rather obvious why the nasty guy has a string of golf courses. But do they make money? Frank Figliuzzi of MSNBC’s Deadline White House retweeted a quote from the show’s feed:

From a counterintelligence operator's standpoint, if we saw a target with this kind of debt, this kind of possible fraud and tax avoidance at his country, we would be on him like crazy to recruit him.

Then Figliuzzi tweeted another quote:

The counterintel concerns about Trump’s taxes and debt don’t just go away when he goes away.

House Republicans are demanding an investigation. Not into the wreck of the nasty guy’s finances and how that exposes him and the country to foreign pressure and how he paid so little in taxes. Oh, no. Not that. The want an investigation into how the New York Times got a hold of the tax returns. Joan McCarter of Kos says it’s a ploy to change the subject away from how little tax the nasty guy has been paying. Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to House Democrats about what would happen if the Electoral College was tied. If that happens the House chooses. But it isn’t a simple vote. Each state delegation gets one vote. And even though Democrats have a big lead in representatives, there are more states with a Republican majority than a Democratic majority. Some examples: Michigan has 14 representatives, 7 D, 6 R, and one independent who is retiring. The Michigan delegation could be tied. Then there is Alaska, which has one representative (currently R) but still gets one vote of 50. So Pelosi’s letter was to urge colleagues to flip a few more seats to get a few more Democrat majority delegations. Marissa Higgins of Kos discussed a story by British Channel 4 News that reported a huge effort in the 2016 election to deter about 3.5 million black voters. Wrote Higgins:

You might be thinking: Well, doesn’t everyone use data on voters? Sure. But, as Jamal Watkins, the vice president of the National Association for the Advanced of Colored People (NAACP) told Channel 4 on the matter, the idea is to use voter data to encourage people to vote, not to suppress them. “We don’t use the data to say who can we deter and keep at home,” Watkins told the outlet. “That just seems, fundamentally, it’s a shift from the notion of democracy.”

The method of suppression was ads through Facebook, which can finely target who sees which ads. Jason Kint, CEO of Digital Content Next, tweeted a series of videos that might explain more. Meteor Blades, as part of his Sunday Night Owl for Kos quoted an essay by driftglass. Here’s a part of it:

And the reason that this gang of Republican criminals and monsters feel so free to commit their atrocities so openly and proudly—the reason that they boast about it—is because so much time, money and effort was expended last time to make sure that the last gang of Republican criminals and monsters and their media enablers were never brought to book for a god damn thing.

Blades included a quote of the day:

However sugarcoated and ambiguous, every form of authoritarianism must start with a belief in some group's greater right to power, whether that right is justified by sex, race, class, religion or all four. However far it may expand, the progression inevitably rests on unequal power and airtight roles within the family. ~~Gloria Steinem (1980)

In order to maintain a veneer of legality,

This is Banned Book Week, a way to inform the public about censorship in libraries and schools. The American Library Association keeps track of the books that are challenged – documented requests to remove materials from schools and libraries. There were 377 such challenge in 2019 and only a few of those reported by the media. Of the top ten most challenged books last year eight of them, including the top six, are LGBTQIA related. A complaint for the top book, George by Alex Gino, said libraries should not “put books in a child’s hand that require discussion.” I think a book that requires discussion is a fine book! The two in the top ten not gay related are The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood, and the Harry Potter series by JK Rowling. Dartagnan of the Daily Kos community wrote about what William Barr of the Department of No Justice is doing with the rule of law. We’ve long understood that to be everyone is treated equally under the law – the law applies to everyone. But under Barr and the nasty guy it has become “rule by law”

in this case, the act of deliberately weaponizing existing law as a vehicle to punish Donald Trump’s political opponents while rewarding his supporters. … In other words, in order to maintain a veneer of legality, a regime dedicated to “rule by law” selectively applies existing law in order to achieve its political ends and intimidate any opposition, but not to reach a “just” result. The distinction is important because of the ramifications it holds not only for the regime’s immediate targets and victims, but for the profound damage it does to the public’s perception of “the law” as a system to achieve equal justice. If allowed to continue, as [former federal prosecutor at the DoJ Ankush] Zhardori notes, this transformation has the potential to result in a despotic, oppressive society, one that is a far cry from what most Americans would expect or want. … The corruption of the legal process as a bludgeon to be wielded against Trump’s political enemies sends the tacit signal to individuals and corporations that if they break the law, their support or opposition of the administration will be a defining factor in whether they are prosecuted. That is the very essence of corruption.

Ian Reifowitz of the Kos community reviewed a few cases of Congress or a president affected the Supreme Court. For example, John Adams, just before he left office, reduced the number of Supremes from six to five and created 16 new circuit court judgeships. Once Thomas Jefferson was inaugurated he went about undoing what Adams had done. Andrew Johnson, the racist who became president when Lincoln was shot, had an opportunity to fill a vacant seat – except Congress eliminated it. They added it back when Ulysses Grant became president. There have been times that the Senate rejected a candidate. That happened when Reagan nominated Robert Bork. Even so the Senate confirmed another Reagan nomination and did so in an election year. The big change in 2016 wasn’t that the Senate rejected Obama’s nominee, it was that they ignored him. It is this misdeed that Reifowitz says gives Democrats sufficient justification for adding two more seats to the Court. Laura Sullivan of NPR reported on plastic recycling. This story has a four minute audio, though what I’m working from isn’t a transcript, but the information written as a news article. Back in the 1970s people were getting upset with all the plastic trash. So the plastic industry began campaigning on the benefits of plastic. In the late 1980s they campaigned to get almost 40 states to mandate recycling symbols be put on plastic containers. Consumers responded, throwing their plastic into recycling bins. Except… This was purely a public relations move. Yeah, used plastic can be collected, sorted, melted down, and turned into a fresh product. But that process is much more costly than making new plastic and the recycled stuff is never as good. Only about 10% of recycled plastic is actually recycled. The rest is sent to landfills. The profit is in generating new stuff. This was known way before the recycling campaign was started. There’s a new plastic plant in Sweeney, Texas. Company officials say it will recycle 100% of the plastic it makes by 2040. Recycling is much more efficient. This time it’s different. Industry insiders say, yeah, we’ve heard that before.

Successful billionaire

The New York Times is reporting that they now have 15 years of the nasty guy’s taxes. I haven’t read the Times article, so don’t know how they were able to get these documents, and do so now when there has been a clamor for them for five years. I’m working from a summary from Kos of Daily Kos and I’ll summarize even more. * In both 2016 and 2017 he paid $750 in taxes and no taxes at all in 10 of those 15 years because his businesses lost more money than they made. * Within the next four years more than $300 million in loans come due. Which is why he susceptible to lobbyists and foreign officials waving cash and seeking favors. That means he needs to stay in the Oval Office to keep collecting those bribes. So much for the “successful billionaire.” The nasty guy’s response to the story was predictable, “Fake news.” Turning to the Supreme Court, Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post, tweeted:

The problem with rolling out a nominee is that if the nominee has a paper trail of extremism every R including swing state R's will have to run on it.

I hope The Ds are very clear in saying this is what this nominee believes and this is what your R senator also believes by supporting her. Mark Sumner of Kos delved into one of those things nominee Amy Coney Barrett believes. She says the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is illegitimate. This is important because the 14th Amendment is the one that says people of color and children of immigrants have equal rights to everyone else. It is the bedrock of all civil rights laws (including LGBTQ rights). About that illegitimate part, Sumner wrote:

For some Republicans, the 14th Amendment was viewed as being only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved, and not applicable to future generations. This view has become common in right-wing media, and sorry as that sounds, it’s not even the most radical view. The even uglier approach has been to outright challenge the validity of 14th Amendment because members of Confederate states were not seated in Congress when the amendment was proposed just after the end of the Civil War. Because of this, say the deniers, the Congress itself was illegitimate, and so anything it recommended—including the 14th and 15th Amendments—are illegitimate. This is not even worthy of being called a “myth.” There is not the least bit of justification under law to support this position. There never has been. However, this claim has become deeply embedded in the whole Lost Cause, South Shall Rise Again, Back to the Cotton Fields culture of conservatives—especially Southern conservatives. And just like Confederate statues, this mythology has found admirers in the modern Republican Party.

This white supremacist mythology (as Sumner put it) dates back to 1957 and the close of the Jim Crow era as Southern states were looking for ways to hold on to it and to segregation. Yeah, it is hard to swear to uphold the Constitution when one is declaring that part of the document is illegitimate and shouldn’t exist. That’s how dangerous she is. That’s what every GOP senator is also saying by supporting her.

People are ready to do what is hard

Kos of Daily Kos did a rundown of the current polls showing Joe Biden with a comfortable lead (but keep fighting anyway) and that Texas – Texas! – is now considered a tossup by the Kos election team. I’ll let you read the polls and study the map. I’ll quote one paragraph Kos wrote, something many others have been saying and I’ve probably quoted frequently:

No, he’s not trying to win the election, he’s trying to stay in power. He’s not even hiding his goal anymore. So keep that in mind every time he opens his mouth. Nothing he does is geared toward winning a majority of the vote. Rather, it’s all geared toward sowing doubt, division, inviting foreign meddling, and installing a friendly judiciary that will allow him to steal the election. The quicker everyone understands this, including the media, the better we’ll be able to handle this serious threat to our democracy—a democracy that is far more fragile than we could’ve ever believed.

Mark Sumner of Kos reviewed what the nasty guy has been doing to make people think democracy is fragile. Though the White House issued statements that the nasty guy would go along with a “free and fair election” we know who defines “free and fair” and how they’ll define it, so this is no reassurance. If the nasty guy leaves, just escort him out – that’s a phrase much discussed (I’ve probably written about it too). Who will do the escorting? He and Barr, head of DoNJ, have already demonstrated they control the thugs in the Border Patrol, ICE, US Marshalls, Dept. of Prisons, and Park Police. The actual military? Yeah, senior military leadership is pondering what to do if the nasty guy pulls out the Insurrection Act and orders them to fire. The top leadership may resign. Then … what? The nasty guy has been making a big deal of fraudulent elections for quite a while now. He’s been feeding his supporters fake polls showing him way ahead with the line that the only way he can lose is if there is a “big scam.” He could order his armed supporters to harass election officials while blaming Biden for trying an “antifa coup.” A Biden win is not the same as wresting power from the nasty guy. People, including ourselves, should plan for a hostile transition. Heather Caygle of Politico tweeted:

PELOSI on Trump's transfer of power comments: "That the president of the United States would place in doubt the idea of the peaceful transfer of power, well it’s not a surprise. But I have confidence in the American people."

Bree Newsome Bass responded:

What does this mean? The American voter does not dictate whether there is a peaceful transfer of power. They have no response to the coup that’s happening.

I take “they” to mean Pelosi and Democratic leadership. It certainly sounds like she is saying, I don’t have a plan, you’re on your own. I hope I’m wrong about that. David Neiwert of Kos reported that Proud Boys, one of those groups of armed nasty guy supporters, will “invade” Portland, Ore. this weekend. Local police are scrambling to keep the Proud Boys and counterprotesters in separate parks a few miles apart. Proud Boys applied for a permit for their rally. They were denied because virus restrictions limit groups to 50 people. They’re going to gather anyway. One slogan used in their advertising is “No bag limit on antifa scum.” Oregon State Police tweeted:

At 9:00 A.M. this morning, members of @PortlandPolice Rapid Response Team were deputized as Federal Marshals. This will allow federal prosecutors to charge allegations of assault on a federal officer to anyone who attacks Officers.

Alex Zielinski responded:

This means anyone arrested today may be charged with a felony.

Kerry Eleveld of Kos is more upbeat.

The New York Times' Michelle Goldberg is right: Trump wants you to think you can't get rid of him. He's successfully scaring us, but he's also giving away the game so we can prepare. Ultimately, he's a bully and I feel certain that if he is stood up to, he will back down.

I like your optimism, though I’m not convinced he’ll do that. It would require a significant crowd to stand up to him and that crowd would face his gun toting supporters itching for an excuse to pull the trigger. There’s also the GOP leadership and their donors who have been working towards this moment of one party rule for 40 years and won’t want their bully to back down. Back to Eleveld and those standing up to the nasty guy. Primarily it would be military leadership, state election officials, and us. We are the ones who would prevent the nasty guy from claiming he has the people behind him. We need numbers in the streets. Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation tweeted:

Right now, a majority of the country is pissed off and motivated against Trump. Most people see 200,000 dead Americans, and unprecedented attacks on our democracy. We are ready to DO the hard things. We’re being told “go vote.” And we will. We absolutely will do that. But if there was ever a time to massively reform our system of justice, it is NOW. The murder of George Floyd, the death of RBG, people are READY too look at a new way of doing things. People are ready to do what is hard.

Yeah, some of my browser tabs hang around for a while. A month ago Gwen Snyder tweeted towards the end of a long thread:

If you're paying attention and mad, you're Antifa now. If you're thinking about protesting racism, you're BLM now. If you just live in a major Democratic city at this point, you're one or both. Congratulations. Welcome to life as an "extremist." … If you're anti-Trump and willing to act on it, Barr now has you in his "extremism" sights. This is what makes security & surveillance statism so dangerous, even to folks in the mainstream. It only takes one fascist to launch you on the world's s***tiest cruise. Welcome aboard.

And from three months ago, Kelly Hayes tweeted (in response to a private company taking over COVID data reporting):

All of this time I have been trying to explain to you all, a war with fascism is a war over reality. Fascism itself requires the obliteration of the truth. The erasure of the impacts of a plague that is devastating the country is the kind of thing only an authoritarian could do.

Jen Hayden of Kos listed all the ways you can help on this election. She gives details on how. The categories are vote, encourage others to vote (a variety of ways), protect the results, become a poll worker, be a part of election protection. This isn’t a good time to sit out.

Alarms, flares, fireworks, klaxons, bugles, accordions, tubas, and more

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos reported that Senate Democrats have started slowing down the business of the Senate to slow down the confirmation of whatever nominee there is for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court. Here are a few ways they can do that. There are various Senate rules about how the chamber runs, including such things as hearings can’t start until two hours after a daily session starts. When a session starts there is usually a unanimous consent to waive these rules. One Democrat can object, but it takes 51 Republicans to override. Also, to achieve a quorum 51 Senators are required. If Democrats don’t show up, 51 Republicans must. Democrats can force debate on everything. An example is frequently asking whoever is speaking to yield to a question. A good question: Why haven’t they passed a bill to help with coronavirus relief? A cool thing is this takes only one Democrat. They can rotate who is on the floor to object. But it takes 51 Republican senators to override. Every time. That means they can’t be off raising money or campaigning. I’ve now seen several mentions that GOP senators appear to have fallen into line yo vote for a Supreme Court nominee who hasn’t been named yet. Lea McElrath tweeted:

Trump’s answer should concern everyone who values our democracy. Everyone regardless of political party or belief: “Get rid of the ballots...there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There’ll be a continuation.”

Kerry Eleveld of Kos supplied details. The nasty guy said this to answer a question by White House correspondent Brian Karem. He said this was “The most frightening answer I have ever received to any question I have ever asked.” Eleveld wrote:

Trump’s answer should be taken both literally and seriously by every media outlet in the country. Trump is overtly and indisputably using every tool in his box—in every branch of government—to undermine our nation’s free and fair election and disenfranchise American voters nationwide.

Yeah, it should. Alas, most corporate media outlets will ignore the seriousness. And maybe the answer too. Eleveld then reviewed many of the other things the nasty guy is doing to sabotage the election and keep himself in power, then wrote:

We are in for one hell of a battle, folks, particularly if this election is close and not called on Nov. 3, which is very likely given all the mail balloting this cycle. Trump doesn’t know the meaning of the word integrity and he gives no f***s about anyone else in this entire world but himself. So, even if he loses, we can be assured that he will go to any and all lengths to rip this country to shreds or die trying before he surrenders his powers as president.

Rick Hasen, professor of law and political science at UC Irvine, tweeted a link to his article on Slate:

I’ve Never Been More Worried About American Democracy Than I Am Right Now; The pre-emptive attack on the vote count is a five-alarm fire.

Hasen lists several things we can do, including:

11. If there are attempts to try to thwart the people's will by ignoring votes or failing to count or report them accurately, be prepared for massive, constant, peaceful protests aimed at preserving the rule of law.

David Folkenflik of NPR responded:

Noted election law scholar sets off alarms, flares, fireworks, klaxons, bugles, accordions, tubas, banshees, panjandrums, stuck pigs, stuck pugs, scrimmage-line audibles, Hail Marys and more.

Jasmin Mujanović, a political scientist focusing on Southeast European affairs, tweeted:

You know, most strongmen at least pretend that they will abide by the results of their (usually fraudulent) democratic elections. Even they know better than to openly say: yes, I’m thinking about clinging to power through the use of force - next question?! ... To be clear: he’s not joking. He’s openly stating that he will continue to make the (false) case that mail-in-ballots are fraudulent/cheating, and attempt to enact a “continuation” of his admin on that basis. That’s called a coup. He’s talking about a coup. And here’s the thing: even a failed, or just incompetent, attempt at overthrowing the constitutional order of the U.S. would be catastrophic for social and political stability in this country. His ploy doesn’t even have to work to be destructive to civil peace.

Mark Sumner of Kos said the nasty guy’s comments are not a fantasy because of everything the nasty guy has been doing to make it real. Much of this post is again a list of things the nasty guy is doing. He concluded:

This isn’t a nightmare scenario … or rather, it is a nightmare. It’s just one that Trump’s teams are working to make real. They are already putting in place the legal groundwork and public perception to appeal any outcome unfavorable to Trump. As Mother Jones notes: “The question won’t be whether American democracy can survive Trump. We’ll already know that it hasn’t.” All that remains to find out is whether democracy can be renewed. For that to happen, everyone needs to go into this election with their eyes open, knowing that the more decisive Trump’s loss, the less likely he is to be successful in his all but certain attempts to deny that defeat. Everyone is going to need to work like hell to get as many people to the polls as possible on Election Day, to see that mail-in ballots are counted, and to hold responsible every official, at every level, who gets in the way of allowing people’s votes to be counted. You can’t push back a threat if you won’t admit it’s real, and you better not go into a fight without a plan. Donald Trump will absolutely cheat to hold onto power. He’s demonstrated that again and again. He’s been impeached for it. He will not stop now. And everyone, including Joe Biden, better have a plan for what to do when it happens.

A reminder I’m writing this so that you are prepared, that you know what is and could happen, that you can make decisions on how you want to respond. In another post Sumner reported on plans that the nasty guy campaign is talking about with state legislatures with GOP majorities. The Constitution says states may appoint members to the Electoral College in a manner they see fit. For the last hundred years states have agreed that their members to the EC follow the vote of the people. So it seems the nasty guy campaign is talking to these legislatures to override the voters and choose electors loyal, not to the people or the party, but to the nasty guy. Michigan is one of six critical states where both chambers of the legislature are held by the GOP. What happens if one of these states reassigned their electors? Well, yeah, it would go to the Supremes – where the GOP and the nasty guy are working hard to get a 6-3 majority. Dan K of the Kos community says not so fast. In some of the critical states (he names eight), the legislature isn’t in session. In others, like Michigan, there is a Democratic governor who, supposedly, has a veto over such action. In addition, these lawmakers would have to answer to voters – though, I add, if the nasty guy is reinstalled, there may no longer be votes to answer to. So, Dan wrote, pay attention but don’t panic. Joan McCarter of Kos implores traditional media to not try to be first to call the election.

That would mean no reporting on exit polling on election night. No big boards. No presidential calls until all the ballots are counted. Donald Trump cannot be given the opportunity to declare victory based on premature results. … All of the networks, cable news broadcasters, wire services, and major papers need to decide now that they won't give Trump any ammunition based on incomplete returns, and they need to start setting expectations with the public about it. It's not just me saying it. The National Task Force on Election Crises wants a plan, too.

David Neiwert of Kos reported:

Remember those hoax rumors, concocted by right-wing extremists, about “antifa buses”—supposed busloads of violent leftists from urban areas eager for destruction organized to descend on unsuspecting rural towns to engage in violent protests—and how it inspired a flood of armed vigilantes to roam those towns? Those rumors, of course, eventually morphed into similar hoaxes about “antifa arsonists” setting wildfires on the West Coast, inspiring a similar vigilante response from armed “Patriots.” These rumors weren’t simply hoaxes: they were also pure projection. Because for the past three years, busloads of right-wing thugs eager for violence from rural and exurban areas have been organizing to descend on unsuspecting liberal urban centers—primarily Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco—in order to engage in faux “protests” primarily designed to spark violence.

Neiwert then described many of those events and how some of them were not as peaceful as their organizers intended – other groups intent on violence had invited themselves to come as well. Neiwert concluded:

Perhaps most ominously, the “Cruise for Trump” and other pro-Trump rallies in Oregon featuring Proud Boys and other far-right extremists have become more than mere attempts at intimidation—they are becoming massive conduits for the full absorption of extremist politics into the mainstream Republican Party. Indeed, whatever line existed between them appears to have vanished with a flourish of semiautomatic weapons and camo gear. The stakes could not be higher in 2020, and the Trump-loving right—seeing the polls manifesting their leader’s massive failures, particular in mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic—is increasingly sounding desperate and angry. If this is a strategy that has worked in Oregon, we can probably count on it being applied in many other locales before the year is out.

The more unabashedly they abuse power

Adam Jentleson, former Chief of Staff of Harry Reid, tweeted:

This generation of elected Democrats is being called on to reform the system so it can continue to function. Minority rule by white conservative judges and senators wielding veto power over the will of a diverse majority is not a healthy or sustainable dynamic for democracy.

He then quoted Conor Sen:

The McConnell strategy is optimized for a world where Dems are unwilling to break norms. If they are, it’s not unreasonable to say you could undo a decade of McConnell’s work in one congressional term.

Then continued:

This is essential. Republicans are relying on Dems to be constrained by norms that Republicans defy at will. Norms are important but they must serve fair rules. When they cease to, both must be reformed through the democratic process. To be healthy, democracy must be responsive.

Hunter of Daily Kos reviews the ways in which the nasty guy and the GOP are increasing their overtly fascist rhetoric. * The nasty guy casts doubt on the election process and has said he may not abide by the results of the election. * He praises violence against opponents and protesters. * He praised his rally crowd for their good genes, meaning their whiteness. * He calls the press the enemy of the people. * He has called for “patriotic education” (which I’ve mentioned before). * AG William Barr said he has sole authority to decide which cases to bring against which Americans. * Fox News declared Democrats to be “the party of antifa” and repeatedly suggested extralegal or violent means might be necessary to defeat them. * Voting has begun in Virginia and a group of nasty guy supporters staged a rally, disrupting the voting. The Virginia GOP celebrated. Hunter concluded:

We are now in a dire position. The supposed president is now suggesting that he will use the tools of government to block Americans from voting. His party is now embracing voter intimidation as valid tactic, legal or not. His favored pundits are warning that his opponents will be "crushed," if not at the voting booth than "otherwise." Federal judges are being threatened. And the movement, en masse, is engaged in an orgy of misinformation that makes Russian efforts look microscopic and pathetic in comparison, all devoted toward painting a new picture of reality in which the pandemic has not killed 200,000, the economy is not suffering from catastrophic pandemic mismanagement, Trump's most corrupt actions are patriotic and his opponents are by definition criminal. It is likely to get worse, and in direct proportion to Republican reelection prospects. And if Trump, Fox News, and the various crawling things of the internet are all nodding that violence and extralegal acts may be necessary to defend their victory, violence appears all but certain.

Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported William Barr, the head of the Department of Not Justice, has declared three cities of permitting violence and the destruction of property and refused to counteract these criminal activities. He hopes these cities will become serious about protecting their citizens. The three cities anarchist jurisdictions are New York, Portland, and Seattle. The declaration includes telling other federal agencies they should find ways to cut off funds to these three cities. Eleveld included a tweet from Michael Edison Hayden, which includes photos:

Instead of using a months-old image of a flaming police van, @NBCNewYork should just take a picture outside of their window and show people how utterly insane Bill Barr's designation really is.

Yeah, this is a fascist ploy. Twitter, of course, responded. Marissa Higgins of Kos included several in her post. Here are a couple of them. One from Molly Jong-Fast:

This morning in my Anarchist jurisdiction, I enjoyed a skim milk cappuccino in the bike lane and then I bought a few Bouquets of overpriced flowers.

And from JP Brammer

riding my bike with a wicker basket full of fruit thru the anarchist jurisdiction of NYC

Higgins added a few photos of police confronting protesters and that burning police van that were used in media stories that don’t at all reflect the current situation. Windsor Mann tweeted:

The closer Republicans get to losing power, the more unabashedly they abuse power, which is why they should lose power.

Margot Sanger-Katz of the New York Times tweeted a chart of the weekly difference between the measured deaths this year and the expected deaths in a normal year. She tweeted:

The real toll of Covid-19 is even higher than 200,000. Between mid-March and late August, 259,000 more Americans have died than would in a normal year. … Not all of these deaths are necessarily from the virus itself. But they appear to be related to the pandemic and the ways it is changing our lives and health.

Walter Einenkel of Kos reported the nasty guy said the COVID-19 virus “affects virtually nobody.” Yeah, that trivializes the deaths of 200,000 people because of the way he handled the government response. Einenkel lists several of these “nobodies.” He also included a photo of a field full of small American flags and noted each flag represents ten dead. The New Yorker tweeted an intro to one of its articles:

According to one estimate, each person who dies of COVID-19 leaves behind an average of nine surviving family members. If this is right, then there are now at least 1.8 million Americans mourning the loss of kin.

That is not nobody. Aysha Qamar of Kos has photos of today’s ceremonies at the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s casket was carried in while 120 of her former clerks lined the steps. There was a service inside for the clerks, the other justices, and a few friends. Afterward the casket was placed on the Supreme Court’s porch so the public could pay respects without having to go inside. One mourner held up a sign with RBG’s picture with the words, “Not all superheroes wear capes; some wore neck collars.” Her casket will remain in the Court building tomorrow, then move to the Capitol on Friday. It is fitting she be there – the first woman so honored – but I don’t think visitors will be allowed inside.

We expected candidates of this quality

There has been a lot of talk that if the nasty guy and Moscow Mitch nominate and confirm a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s seat on the Supreme Court that the Democrats (assuming they gain power in January) should expand the Court to counter the conservative majority. NPR Host Mary Louise Kelly talked to Judge Glock, who wrote for Politico about the previous attempt to add justices. Franklin Roosevelt proposed that in 1937. It didn’t happen. Glock and Kelly talked about some of the reasons why this would be a bad idea. * It would turn the Supreme Court into a partisan body. I add it is becoming that already. * If President Biden adds more seats to the court, whenever the next time the GOP comes into power they could also add seats, a “potentially bottomless exercise.” Even RBG didn’t like this idea. * Public opinion could turn against the idea. That’s what happened in 1937. So, yeah, it’s possible. The Constitution doesn’t define the number of seats. Though I like the idea it may not be a good one. Noah Bookbinder, Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, tweeted a thread about the process to confirm a Supreme Court nominee. It is a rigorous process, and should be. It includes an FBI check with time for senators to look at issues raised, such as conflicts of interest. It includes discussion and debate.

Giving the Senate the opportunity to do a genuine, thorough review of the President's nominee for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is a key part of our system of checks and balances. It is important, and it takes time. If there is not time to do it right, in a way that preserves democratic checks and balances, before an election recasts the wishes of the American people -- and there most certainly is not -- it should not be done. Period.

Those who replied to this thread said such things as Moscow Mitch doesn’t believe in checks and balances and that such a careful scrutiny wasn’t done for Brett Kavanaugh. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos reviews a couple of the women on the nasty guy’s short list of replacements for RGB. Amy Coney Barrett, who is reportedly on the top of the list, is a member of the People of Praise, a sect within the Catholic Church, who inspired The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. The picture at the top of McCarter’s post is of women protesting while wearing the costume of the TV version of the novel. Spoiler alert: The novel is about women whose rights have been taken away. And Barrett agrees with that. She says the court should not be bound by prior precedents, such as Roe v. Wade. The other candidate McCarter mentioned is Barbara Lagoa. She’s the daughter of Cuban immigrants. She’s been ruling on cases in favor of GOP causes, such as agreeing that in Florida former felons need to pay off debts before being allowed to vote again. This is a modern poll tax. Since the nasty guy is nominating these people and GOP think tanks have done the vetting we expected candidates of this quality. Still, it is dispiriting. McCarter concluded:

These are dumpster fire candidates, neither worthy of Ruth Badger Ginsburg's seat. They're not worthy of their current seats, Barrett by virtue of her lived rejection of the establishment clause and Lagoa over a proven disregard for ethics.

Elie Mystal, referring to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, tweeted:

I just realized the ACA is toast. The case is in front of the court the week after the election. The lower court ruling (5th circuit) kills the ACA. With RBG gone, even if Roberts votes to uphold it, it's 4-4. In the event of a tie, the lower court ruling stands.

Leah McElrath responded:

Yes. We are going to lose the ACA as soon as the week after the election, given the cases coming before the Court and the current make up of the Court. (We will also lose the ACA if Trump is allowed to fill the seat vacated in the event of RBG’s death.) I’m sorry. I know this is a lot to take in. The only thing we don’t know yet is the timeline in terms of how the Trump administration will dismantle the ACA.

Yup, during a pandemic. There has been lots of talk, but no actual movement on what would replace the ACA. He and the GOP are trying to increase the death count. A correction – the case will be heard in November. It might be several months after that before the court rules, and the dismantling might begin. That could very well still be during a pandemic. Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported that there is nothing to suggest the coming confirmation battle will help the GOP in this election. The makeup of the Court used to animate conservatives more than progressives, so it was an issue more helpful to the GOP. Not this year. And some have argued that it stopped being true when Kavanaugh was nominated and confirmed. Eleveld looks at the signs that the court is animating progressives as much or more than conservatives. * Donations to Democratic candidates has soared. I’ve mentioned it a couple times. Donations have even gone to races in Alaska. * Polling shows 62% of Americans think the next president should choose the next justice. That includes half the Republicans. * The open seat gives Democrats a message advantage. Now they can say the ACA is in danger and the GOP put it in danger.

It’s doing what it is designed to do

I listen to the NPR show Freakenomics, hosted by Stephen Dubner. when I go out on Sunday to pick up lunch from a restaurant. Yesterday the episode was titled America’s Hidden Duopoly. This episode originally aired in 2018. A duopoly is when two companies take up most of a particular market. An example is Coke and Pepsi. The rivalry between the two is beneficial to both. The rivalry advertises both and is fairly good (or good enough) to prevent smaller companies from getting very big (and when they do one of the behemoths will usually try to buy them out). There is another duopoly that we don’t usually think of as one because we don’t see them as part of an industry or market. This duopoly is Democrats and Republicans in their control of American government. As I was listening to this (and kept listening once I got home) I remember a comment I said to my niece last summer: I am against everything the Republican Party stands for. Their ideals and goals are totally opposite of mine. They are my enemy. But that doesn’t mean I consider Democrats to be my friends. I have issues with them too. The show had a series of clips of various politicians saying Washington is broken. But what if that is a line and Washington is working as intended? Katherine Gehl had been the CEO of Gehl Foods in Wisconsin. To get advice on how to improve her company she turned to Michael Porter, a professor at Harvard Business School, working with strategy and competitiveness. In 2007 Gehl joined Obama’s national finance committee. Then she joined the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which gave her an idea of life in Washington. She didn’t like what she saw. Gehl said:

It became really clear to me that this fight was not about solving problems for the American people — this fight was about one party beating the other party, and that the parties were more committed to that than to actually solving problems or creating opportunities. Eventually, I understood that it didn’t matter who we elected. It didn’t matter the quality of the candidates. And so, once it became clear to me that it was a systems problem, I switched from investing my time in searching for the next great candidate and turned an eye to the fundamental root cause structures in the political system that pretty much guarantee that as voters we are perpetually dissatisfied.

She turned to non-partisan efforts, only to find people wouldn't donate to non-partisan causes. They were too used to the two-party lens. Gehl and Porter began to realize the business issues they talked about also applied to our political situation. Politics was an industry. They wrote up their ideas for the Harvard B School. The key findings had this sentence in bright red: “The political system isn’t broken. It’s doing what it is designed to do.” The two parties divided up the industry, including media, consultants, and lobbyists. Also policies, think tanks, voter data, and talent. When an industry starts doing things for itself instead of its customers (the citizens) an upstart can usually come in, based on the strength of its customer support. But the two parties have colluded over time to create rules and practices that keep out the competition. A new party can’t get a campaign manager or voter analytics, Can’t get the attention of the media. A new party faces partisan primaries, gerrymandered districts, and winner-take-all elections. One result is they don’t compete for voters. They don’t work to attract the middle. If those in the middle are unhappy, they have no alternative. The election is based on each party portraying themselves as much less hated than the other. The two parties maximize the benefit to their institutions but don’t actually serve the public interest. Solutions… Start with a non-partisan primary. All candidates, no matter the party, are voted on by all the people. The top four candidates go on to the general. Second, in the general, go to ranked-choice voting. The voters rank the four candidates first, second, etc. The first choices are counted. If no candidate gets 50% the bottom candidate is removed and of those who listed him first, take their second choice and add to the others. Repeat until one gets 50%. That eliminates “wasting” votes on third-party candidates. Third, get rid of gerrymandering. Fourth, in Congress and state legislatures get rid of the enormous power the controlling party can wield. Fifth, restructure money in politics to boost the power of small donors, such as the government matching small donations. Of course, the duopoly will fight these reforms with all they have. I see a bit better why Democrats aren’t always my friends. Yes, I see much of this no longer applies as Republicans work to make America into a one party state.

She left it for us to finish the job

Speaking about the process of nominating and confirming Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement on the Supreme Court, Will Saletan tweeted that Sen. Coons (D) intends to reach across the aisle and try to persuade some friends to respect the precedent they set in 2016. Adam Jentleson responded:

This is useful insofar as it will prove the uselessness of these relationships in the face of the larger forces of polarization and negative partisanship. It’s fine to try it, but when it fails, it becomes Democrats’ responsibility to recognize the failure and act accordingly. It’s always useful to build relationships across the aisle. But in the year 2020, it is unforgivably naive to expect those relationships to overcome the structural forces shaping our politics. And it’s an abdication of governing to not have a plan for when the relationships fail.

Julian Zelizer added:

Imagine if POTUS and the Senate GOP had worked as fast on an effective national testing system for #COVID19 as they will for this SCOTUS confirmation.

Phil Mattingly tweeted:

SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI: “For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed."

Based on statements like that I’ve heard NPR report that Murkowski and Collins will vote no and there only needs to be two more GOP senators to also vote no. But Leah McElrath responded:

IMPORTANT Murkowski does NOT make a commitment in terms of action. She does NOT state she would not vote when McConnell brings a vote to the floor. These words are a statement of sentiment, nothing more. Same as with Collins.

Will Bunch, an opinion columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer tweeted a link to his recent column with:

RBG's dying wish: Keep Trump from picking her successor. She left it for us to finish the job, by any means necessary. With Trump, McConnell taking democracy to the brink, it's time for massive civil disobedience, including a general strike.

From Bunch’s article:

The thousands of people who spontaneously packed the plaza outside the Supreme Court Friday night and again on Saturday for impromptu vigils show how deeply many Americans cared for Ginsburg’s ideals, and about her replacement. If McConnell appears able to forge ahead with a vote on Trump’s nominee, either in October or during a lame duck session after the election, that energy must be channeled into massive civil disobedience on an unprecedented level. If McConnell sets a date for a confirmation vote, the American people need to respond with a general strike — to shut down the entire country, maybe for a day or two, maybe a week, maybe longer. This is a tactic that — although it’s succeeded on a municipal level, in a different century — hasn’t ever worked on a national scale. American capitalism can brutally punish displays of courage around work. But there’s a first time for everything, and if an authoritarian power grab won’t do it, then our democracy is beyond saving. I also see a general strike as a galvanizing tool — both to drag too often cowardly Democratic leaders toward facing the realities of the Trump/McConnell threat, but also to rally strike participants behind longer-term protest measures. These could and should include massive economic boycotts of the companies that are funding GOP authoritarianism, as well as future acts of civil disobedience. We must demand that the November election winner pick Ginsburg’s replacement. And if we don’t get it? Shut it down.

Garry Kasparov tweeted, with the second part added a day later:

When one group fights for power at all costs vs a group fighting for the rule of law, the second group had damned well better mobilize while it still can, because it only gets harder. Trust me on this one. Wow, this obliges me to remind you that likes and retweets don't count as mobilization! Make sure you're registered, help register others, march, make calls, donate, canvass. Fight the fair fight like hell while it's still fair, or soon it won't be.

No, it's the judges, stupid

Speaking about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Marion Teniade tweeted:

That woman died with so much pressure on her shoulders, and she won’t even be mourned like a human. She’ll be mourned like a defense wall that crumbled.

This morning on NPR’s Weekend Edition Sunday host Lulu Garcia-Navarro talked to political correspondent Mara Liasson about the battle over the Supreme Court seat Ginsburg left empty. Here’s a few things Liasson said, first with a response to Moscow Mitch’s differing rules about confirming a Supreme Court nominee in 2016 and now:

But this isn't about principle or consistency or avoiding charges of hypocrisy. This is about power. … Remember changing the - cementing a conservative majority on the court has been a 40-year project for Republicans. So this isn't a Trump thing. This is a Republican conservative thing. And that's why it's an advantage for the president because all of a sudden, the presidential campaign is no longer about COVID and his leadership. It's about the courts, and it can potentially remind many Republican voters of why they held their noses and voted for Trump in 2016. No, it's the judges, stupid. So they can do it again. For Democrats, this could also be a rallying cry for younger women who idolized Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It could energize suburban female voters because the ACA, Obamacare, is in the balance. Democrats have already broken fundraising records since Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. So we'll see who this energizes more. … Well, this will have a major impact on American life if we have a 6-3 conservative majority. They - in the short term, they can overturn the ACA. They can eviscerate Roe. Also, it has the potential to put the court at odds in the long term with majority public opinion on many issues - climate change, school prayer, gun safety, the structure of government, voting rights. And then you have the big debate about minority rule - you know, president elected without the popular vote majority, Senate where 53 Republican senators represent less than 50% of Americans. I mean, these are the kinds of debates that this will spark.

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos started a post showing the vigil at the Supreme Court building last night. Then he reviewed the three part plan Hillary Clinton offered to keep another nasty guy nominee off the Court. 1. Win over the senators who talked a lot back in 2016 about not confirming a nominee in an election year. 2. Pressure senators in tight re-election bids. A solid majority of Americans want to wait until after the inauguration. 3. Grind Senate business to a snail’s pace. There are various ways senators can do that. Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Democrats have options, though she won’t divulge most of them. She did reveal one: Vote to impeach the nasty guy (or William Barr of the Department of No Justice) which would preempt confirmation hearings. There are plenty of reasons to impeach both of them. Marissa Higgins of Kos reported there are now two murals in Washington, DC showing Ginsburg. One was painted in 2019, the other painted in the 24 hours after Ginsburg died. Higgins has pictures, plus a few more of the vigil at the Supreme Court building (which was huge) and one in San Francisco. I had mentioned yesterday the huge amount of money donated to Democrats since Ginsburg’s death. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported that has now passed $100 million. The article says it was raised in less than 72 hours. It’s actually less than 48.

Some base level of integrity

A few days ago Blogger, where this blog is hosted, forced me to use their new post editor and denied me a way back to the old one. I have a big issue with this new editor (and told them about it). When I write these posts I use a document editor (I use LibreOffice, not Microsoft Office) and use a blank line to separate paragraphs. I copy the text into the Blogger editor and enter the formatting things like block quotes and italics. The old editor honored the blank lines that mark paragraphs. The new one does not. What I wrote appeared in a page preview as one gigantic paragraph. Not acceptable. That was the reason I stuck with the old editor as long as I could. The editor allows me to work in html a computer language for web pages. I’ve been trying various html commands to keep my paragraphs distinct. The first was to enter a paragraph marker for each paragraph, but that’s tedious. A little less tedious was to switch to a compose view where instead of showing the html commands it showed me the effects of the commands – text marked for italics were shown in italics. In that view I could press “enter” a couple of times and it would add the paragraph markers. But I still had to do this all over again for each paragraph. I tried to copy my text straight into the compose view and saw that for every paragraph it inserted formatting instructions before and format canceling instructions after, which it inserted again before the next paragraph. I didn’t like that. I searched online for another possible html command and found one to say treat blank lines as new paragraphs. I put this short command at the top and cancel command at the bottom and things look good! Then my friend and debate partner, who receives postings through email, commented on one of yesterday’s post by return email. It showed what I had written as one gigantic paragraph. We exchanged a bit more and I figured what Blogger sent to him was nicely split into paragraphs, but what he emailed to me was one gigantic paragraph. This is a long way of saying if what you receive through email is a formatting mess, please let me know. And please describe what you see because the mail system might change the formatting too. For those of you in Michigan the Between the Lines gay newspaper with other progressive organizations have released the 2020 version of their progressive voter guide. Enter your zip code to get a guide appropriate for your districts. For each candidate it shows which organizations have endorsed them. There are broad categories of LGBTQ, women, environment, labor, gun (which looks like it from Gun Sense Voter, put out by Everytown for Gun Safety), and conservative. Remember to turn your ballot over and vote for judges. Jen Hayden of Daily Kos reported that early in person voting has already begun in Virginia. And the lines were long. Minnesota also started voting, though lines there weren’t as long. The post has pictures. Hunter of Kos reported the US Civil Rights Commission is to investigate civil rights issues and recommend remedies. They started a report on how to better protect minority voting rights in a pandemic. The GOP half of the commissioners have voted to not release the report. Hunter concluded:

Each of these commissions rests on the assumption that regardless of party differences, some base level of integrity is necessary for the nation to function at all—whether that be policing against illegal campaign activity or keeping watch against intentional voter suppression efforts. Those assumptions are no longer true; one of the two parties now sees itself as benefiting from the relaxation of both norms. So here we are, again.

A few days ago I reported on Michael Caputo of the CDC Public Affairs going into a rant about a resistance unit within the CDC working to undermine the nasty guy. Hunter reports Caputo has now taken a 60 day leave of absence to focus on his health. In the past week the nasty guy talked about wanting students of America to get a “patriotic education.” Jeff Sharlet, who has studied American Evangelical Fundamentalism tweeted a long thread to explain what that means. Here’s a part of it:

"Patriotic education" is Stephen Miller's fascism + Mike Pence's fundamentalism. Some years ago, I took a course in "patriotic education" for my book THE FAMILY. I spent a season reading its textbooks & talking to its teachers. ... 1st time I heard Orwell quoted at a patriotic education rally was from William Federer, author of America's God & Country, which then had sold 1/2 mil copies--cherry picked, distorted, & fabricated quotes for students "proving" U.S. founded as Christian nation. "Patriotic educators" teach that Jefferson's wall of separation between church & state is misunderstood. It was meant as a "one-way wall," Federer claimed, to protect church from state, not the other way around. "Patriotic education" is a fundamentalist concept. Just as fundamentalist religion supposes that divine truths are literal & determined by (white male) authority, so fundamentalist history discards the ongoing work of knowing the past. "Patriotic education" proposes, as did the White House conference, that the Constitution is divine, "god-breathed," as some say, & thus impervious to expanding ideas of rights. That's the religion behind Clarence Thomas' constitutional "originalism." It's false. ... When I began reading the Christian nationalist school curriculum over a decade ago, it was already being taught to more than 10% of U.S. kids. That number has grown, a lot. It's big enough now to make a bid for control of least some public schools. The modern Christian Right--without which there would be no Trumpism--began not in national politics but on school boards. Those elections matters. The Right knows that. Those dismissing "patriotic education" as 2020 tactic are themselves ignoring history.

Masks are effective as soon as they’re put on

More from my accumulated browser tabs: The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is warning us that a vaccine is still many months away. However, CDC director Robert Redfield said there is already a solution to allow the nation to return to normality – masks. Mark Sumner of Daily Kos listened to Redfield and reviewed the advantages of masks. * Masks – if worn properly – offer more protection than a vaccine, which might be only 50% effective. * A vaccine is still (maybe 6-9) months away. Masks are available now. * Masks are significantly cheaper than a vaccine, cheap enough they’re not a burden to the poor. * A vaccine takes a while – weeks – to become effective. Masks are effective as soon as they’re put on. * Masks have no risks of adverse reactions. * A federal mask mandate could reduce the spread of the disease to a manageable few hundred new cases a day across the country (the latest check of Michigan data shows it alone has a few hundred new cases a day). Sumner offered another – Americans don’t trust any vaccine the nasty guy might recommend. Alas, there are people, thankfully a much smaller number, who don’t trust masks. Justin Warren tweeted a thread to people who say, “They should be ashamed!” Here’s his key point:

But it feels to me like too many people think shame *is* a consequence, when it isn't. Not really. Shame is due to fear of consequences. If there aren't actually consequences, then the fear is unfounded, and if you realize that, the deterrent is gone.

A study by RAND showed a massive income shift. An excerpt from their report:

A full-time worker whose taxable income is at the median – with half the population making more and half making less – now pulls in about $50,000 a year. Yet had the fruits of the nation’s economic output been shared over the past 45 years as broadly ad they were from the end of World War II until the early 1970s, that worker would instead be making $92,000 to $102,000.

Christopher Mims tweeted in response:

The median worker should be making as much as $102,000 annually—if some $2.5 trillion wasn’t being “reverse distributed” every year away from the working class.

Meteor Blades of Kos quoted Brett Wilkins of Common Dreams who wrote about the study. Much of what Blades quoted is similar to that above. It is the title Wilkins’ article that caught my attention:

'$2.5 Trillion Theft': Study Shows Richest 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From Bottom 90% in Recent Decades

Joan McCarter of Kos reported that Judge Stanley Bastion of the US District Court of eastern Washington has ruled that the damage Louis DeStroy has done to the Postal Service is a politically motivated attack and public harm has already taken place. His order blocked the changes DeStroy has made. I now wonder if DeStroy might simply ignore the judge’s ruling. What are the consequences if he does? Mark Sumner reported William Barr, the head of the department that no longer has anything to do with justice, has declared himself to be king of the department. He declared he has authority to investigate anyone he pleases and dismiss any case he pleases. In particular, he will dismiss cases against someone with power (presumably someone wielding GOP power). His minions should focus efforts on determining (making up) the “political agenda” of black protesters. Hey, Bill, the “political agenda” is rather simple: Don’t shoot. Sumner also reported Barr is instructing federal prosecutors that charges of vandalism and curfew violation against protesters aren’t strong enough. Prosecutors should be going for sedition. It’s definition is conveniently vague, including “to take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States.” Meaning it could be applied to anyone in Portland, Oregon who set foot on federal property. The penalty for sedition is 20 years. Sumner wrote:

But simply unpacking the sedition charge against people whose weapons were spray paint or tossing back a canister of tear gas may accomplish everything Barr, and Trump, want. Like other actions taken by the DOJ, it shows that this White House is willing to go hugely overboard in prosecution, and it allows Trump to advertise the charges as if they’ve caught some of those phantom antifa militants.

Something soothing to end today. Watch the two minuet video and scroll through the responses.

To tip the decision in their favor

There are a lot of online remembrances of Ruth Bader Ginsburg today after her death yesterday. I haven’t even read all of the ones that have come through my regular sources. Of those I have seen or heard the best is the one by Nina Totenberg on NPR. It’s 8 minutes, though there should be a transcript soon. Also widely discussed is the process of nominating and confirming her replacement on the Supreme Court. Again, there are lots of voices out there and I have read little even in my regular sources. Though here’s one from Leah McElrath. She cited a tweet from Kelsey Carolan, a tweet with Moscow Mitch’s statement that the nominee will get a vote, and another quoting a Dear Colleague letter from him, then tweeted:

McConnell’s wording sounds like he is planning to rush a vote on the Senate floor and bypass any confirmation hearings. Forgoing even a performance of respect for regular order is a pattern of behavior on his part. They are also likely looking to SCOTUS to decide the election.

Note that well – they anticipate the election will be decided by the Supreme Court, as it was in 2000. They intend to have their person on the bench ready to tip the decision in their favor. Though without RGB they already have a 5-3 advantage. Shortly after Ginsburg died money started flowing to ActBlue, an online tool for raising money for progressive candidates. Between 9 pm last night as about 2 pm this afternoon the amount donated was $56 million. The message is clear: Democrats are to do everything they can to prevent another conservative justice from being seated. It isn’t just the 45 days until the election where this might happen. It’s the lame duck session as well. Moscow Mitch’s refusal to hold hearings for Merrick Garland and his eagerness to fill this vacancy has a lot more Democrats saying when Democrats hold power it is time to expand the number of seats on the court.

Red Orchestra

A while back I was intrigued by the book title Red Orchestra by Anne Nelson, published in 2009. The description talked about Nazis and resistance. A symphony orchestra managing to do some resistance sounded like something I would enjoy. So I put it on my Christmas list a year ago and got it as a gift. I just finished reading it. Alas, no violins and cellos in sight (though one character occasionally pulled out an accordion). It is the real story of a resistance cell in Berlin during the Nazi era. They never considered naming themselves. Once officials found them they gave them the name Rote Kapelle. From the little German I know, and from what Google Translate confirms, that should translate to “Red Chapel.” The author didn’t make this translation error, it came from various official documents. The cell’s center was Greta and Adam Kuckhoff, Arvid and Mildred Harnack (she was from Wisconsin), John (born in Detroit) and Sophie Sieg, and Harro and Libertas Schulze-Boysen. Most had affiliations with the Communist or Social Democrat parties. Harro was notable for refusing all political labels. They were united in their rejection of what the Nazis stood for and were doing and wanted to do something about it. Several held notable positions within the Party, which gave them access to classified information, which they wanted to be used to bring the downfall of the Nazis. A big problem was who to give it to. America didn’t have an intelligence service at the start of the 1930s. Britain and France weren’t much interested – who are these people and how do we know we can trust what they give us? That left the Soviets. Which meant after the war those still alive were accused of being Soviet spies. The Jews in Berlin in the latter half of the 19th century were well integrated into society. They were German as much or more as they were Jewish. Starting in the 1880s Czarist Russia attacked the Jew there. Many fled to Berlin, which promoted itself as being welcoming (well, much more welcoming than other places in Europe – many non-Jewish Berliners declared anti-Semitism to be barbaric, though it still existed). After WWI more Jewish refugees flooded in from the newly recreated Poland and from Russia. These refugee Jews tended to stick to East European dress and religious custom. They didn’t consider themselves German and didn’t look German. That caused friction between the German Jews and the newcomers. Society in general felt overrun. In the late 1920s the German Communist and Social Democrats together could have kept the Nazis out of power. But in 1928 Stalin brought the Communist International under his control. This international body decreed that local Communist groups be under their control. Another resolution, rammed through by Stalin, declared that socialist parties were their most dangerous enemies. Unable to form a coalition these two parties could not block Hitler’s rise. Most of what the group could do was distribute flyers trying to contradict Nazi propaganda and present what was really happening out in the world. I don’t think they could tell whether they had much success in changing opinions. If Hitler had been satisfied with pulling in German speaking Austria and the Sudetenland, a German speaking part of Czechoslovakia, he might have stayed in power much longer. His attack on Poland changed world opinion. Many in the Rote Kapelle circle recognized this was a step too far and would lead to Hitler’s eventual downfall. In 1941 Germany began to implement plans to invade the Soviets. The Rote Kapelle group had access to the plans and tried various ways of warning the Soviets. Other resistance groups did too. But this all came down to Stalin, who refused to believe his pal Hitler, who had signed a non-aggression pact a few years earlier, would renege on the pact. So the Soviets were unprepared when Hitler invaded. The swift victories made the Nazis more popular with the citizens. One reason why the Nazis were so swift in their invasion of Russia was because of Stalin’s purges. He got rid (usually through execution) of anyone that didn’t express total devotion to him. That meant, for example, he got rid of fourteen of the top sixteen army commanders. Stalin’s purges killed 9-10 million people. His military was a shambles because he had killed off the leadership and their knowledge. Of course, Hitler did his own purging. In just May 1939 there were 1,639 people executed for political offenses. After the Polish and Soviet campaigns a few in the group began another phase of resistance – documenting and saving the atrocities German soldiers committed against the citizens of Poland and Russia. Along with that they began to document what we now call PTSD in the soldiers. They wanted a record for after. Their Soviet contact was in Brussels. He and those with him made a couple big blunders for a professional intelligence organization. One error was to broadcast for too many hours in a row from one place. Another was to tell Soviet agents to meet a couple people in the group giving actual names and addresses. Yeah, the radio signal was encrypted, which meant the Nazis didn’t move against the group until a year later when they had decrypted the messages. When one or two of the group went missing the rest got busy destroying evidence, including the catalog of atrocities. Most of the group were “tried” by bloodthirsty judge Manfred Roeder and executed. Part of the trials included being smeared, their actions declared to be because of some sort of sexual degeneracy. Nope, they said, we did it because we hate Nazism. That enraged Hitler. Greta Kuckhoff was one of the few who survived. We in the West tend to think the Nuremberg Trials as bringing justice to those Nazis who perpetrated atrocities and crimes against humanity. The number actually brought to justice was rather small. One who escaped justice was Manfred Roeder. Part of what he did was accuse Greta of being a Soviet agent. The Americans overseeing the Trials were more concerned about communists than they were about Nazis and kept delaying his trial while Greta was investigated. Greta lived in what became East Germany, trading one dictator for another. For a while she was the darling of the leadership and given prominent posts. After they tired of her she wanted to set the record straight by publishing her story of Rote Kapelle. Because of her association with the Soviets West German publishers wouldn’t touch it. An East German publisher agreed to publish. But then it was a long battle, page by page, because the publisher wanted the story to glorify the Communist cause. Greta won some battles and lost many others. Those reading her story now have to guess which words are Greta’s and which are from the publisher. At a time when we seem to be heading towards fascism, reading about the brutality of the Nazis towards even the slightest opposition was occasionally difficult. Even so, it seemed necessary to understand and prepare for our own future.

Stop running elections on the cheap

My friend and debate partner sent an article from the website Electoral Vote. The article is How to Fix a Broken Democracy and lists several things Democrats could enact if they add control the White House and Senate. For many of these I’ll let the article describe them.

* End the filibuster. There are movies about senators using the filibuster to keep some bad law from passing. But this is a relic of Jim Crow where it was mostly used – and now widely used by the GOP – to prevent good laws from passing.

* Pass a new voting rights bill. The House already did so, HR-4.

* Allow same day voter registration nationally.

* Make voting easier. Dems did this one too – HR-1.

* Stop running elections on the cheap.

* Pay people to vote. $100 to each of 200 million voters is only $20 billion, not much at all.

* De-gerrymander the Senate. Hard to do without a Constitutional amendment. But we could get a closer balance by admitting DC as a state, Puerto Rico too, and maybe even ask California to divide itself in half.

* Pass National Popular Vote Interstate Compact where Electoral College votes go to the national winner, not the state winner.

* End gerrymandering in states. Also in HR-1.

* Public financing for candidates to eliminate influence from rich people.

* Prevent judges from sabotaging reforms. While the Constitution defines the Supremes (though not numbers of seats), Congress defines the lower courts. It could do such things as create special courts to handle voting issues.

Of course, no GOP is going to vote for any of this. They don’t want to fix democracy. But with the filibuster gone (and the Senate in Dem hands) the rest is possible.

The question is are THEY worse off than they were 4 years ago?

I spent a couple evenings writing about an episode of Gastlit Nation and I accumulated a lot of browser tabs. So some that are still interesting:

Greg Dworkin, writing his pundit roundup for Daily Kos, included several quotes of interest. The first is by John Stoehr of Religion Dispatches. Stoehr wrote of the disconnect between rural residents and reporters of the New York Times. Some excerpts:

When rural Arizonans talk about “law enforcement” over a plate of eggs and bacon, what they mean is punishing the weak. When they talk about their “liberty,” what they mean is their dominance. When they talk about their “traditional values,” what they mean is their control. A Times reporter can’t possibly know any of that. 

…  

What [the reporter] should be reporting is that some Americans are willing to say anything to justify any action—violence, insurrection, even treason—to defeat their perceived enemies. Elite reporters, and some non-elite reporters who are following suit, keep talking about conspiracy theories as if they were a “collective delusion.” They are no such thing. The authoritarians who espouse them don’t care if QAnon is true. They don’t care that it’s false. Conspiracy theories are a convenience, a means of rationalizing what they already want to do, which is precisely what elite reporters can’t know and do not report.

Sarah Posner of NYT is contradicting that her colleagues are clueless and echoing what Stoehr wrote. She includes quotes from Warren Throckmorton, an evangelical who is a psychology professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania. Evangelicals are drawn to posts that are similar to QAnon

because they reinforce their belief that Mr. Trump is under attack. “It’s a way of trying to justify their support for the president,” he said. “Anything that makes Donald Trump look honest or compassionate or good, they’ll spread, without checking out where it comes from, who posted it, who the source is.”

Dworkin included a tweet from Brandon Friedman with a quote from the nasty guy:

The people I like the best are the people that are less successful because it makes you feel so powerful. I always say it. Never go out with a successful person.

That is supremacy – always comparing himself against others in a way he knows will make him look better.

 

Walter Shaub, a former director of the Office of Government Ethics tweeted:

I don't think people voted for Trump hoping he'd make their lives better. I think they hoped he'd make other folks' lives worse. His failures don't matter to them. The question isn't are you better off than you were 4 years ago? It's are THEY worse off than they were 4 years ago?

Jason Stanley added:

This is what Tim Snyder calls sado-populism. It’s at the very basis of far right authoritarianism.

Andy Horowitz responded:

And it lies at the heart of most white conservatives’ calls for limited government for most of American history: it is more important that government not help Black people, this logic goes, than that it does help white people.

This is also an aspect of supremacy – a person making himself look better by making the lives of others worse. Authoritarianism takes that to the extreme. I had come to the same sort of conclusion. I’m glad to see others are already there.

 

The Washington Post tweeted an opinion column with this tag line, “I fear Biden would merely be the facade for an administration controlled by hard-left ideologues.” I didn’t follow the link to find who wrote it. Jamelle Bouie, a NYT columnist tweeted:

i know this is a troll column but i feel compelled to say it is the dumbest thing i read today

And Adam Serwer summarized it:

Look, I understand that Trump is an authoritarian who wants a one party state. But if Biden wins, liberals might pass legislation, and it’s worth never having another free election again if I can prevent that from happening.

 

About that “controlled by hard-left ideologues” thing … Leah McElrath tweeted pictures from Bend the Arc: Jewish Action showing Bernie Sanders as a puppet master behind Joe Biden. We can easily forget that Sanders is Jewish.

Presenting Jewish people as puppet masters is a long-standing anti-Semitic trope. (The same trope is also being employed whenever you hear allegations that George Soros is behind events.)

McElrath added:

On Rosh Hashanah call, Trump tells American Jews “We love your country.” He means Israel. The idea of Jewish Americans having dual loyalty is a foundational anti Semitic trope. You can be sure his white nationalist supporters heard this dog whistle.

 

I’m not sure what chain of links got me to a Twitter thread by A.R. Moxon from last May. It’s still accurate, though one should multiply the death count by 2.3. The American Independent had tweeted a video of the nasty guy saying:

It's a very small percentage, a very, very small percentage … a tiny percentage.

Moxon explained:

The points he’s making are: 

1) most people aren’t even affected 

2) most affected don’t die 

He’s saying “look, it’s a percentage game, and you’ll probably beat it.” 

You see? 

If unchecked, the projection is several million dead. 

Trump’s saying “yeah but it’s a big country.” 

Not merely unconcern for those who have died; rather deliberate unconcern for those who will die if we simply decide we're going to let them die rather than doing the work and paying the cost. 

Not just a case for acceptable loss, but a case to make any amount of loss acceptable. 

It's a level of unconcern for human life so deep and vast and total that most people refuse to comprehend it for what it is. 

A leader capable of it is capable of killing millions. A population obeying such a leader makes such death inevitable. 

That's what we're fighting.

Leah McElrath, speaking of the nasty guy tweeted:

His attacks the media are analogous to narcissistic abusers’ efforts to isolate their victims. 

As those of us who have lived through these dynamics interpersonally know, the sad reality is there is no easy end to this situation. 

Malignant narcissists attempt to annihilate those with whom their relationships end. 

Trump will target our nation for annihilation if he loses.

Mark Sumner of Kos commented on a decision by Scientific American. The nasty guy – and the GOP in general – are so anti-science that this science magazine has, for the first time in its 175 year history, endorsed a candidate for president.

Of course they endorsed Biden.

1845 was back in the Polk administration.