He said and demonstrated exactly who he is. Believe him.

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos asks the question: Moscow Mitch has repeatedly said and demonstrated exactly who he is. Will Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema believe him this time? The latest evidence of who Mitch is came on Monday when he was on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. This is one of Mitch’s favorite confessionals. Hewitt asked if the GOP gains the Senate majority in 2022 and there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court in 2024 would Mitch approve Biden’s nominee? Mitch already did that to Obama, blocking Merrick Garland from the Supremes. Mitch answered Hewitt, “I think it’s highly unlikely.” Meaning, according to McCarter, definitely not. Hewitt backed the scenario up to 2023. Mitch responded, “Well, we'd have to wait and see what happens.” McCarter said that’s another hard no. “So, yes, if McConnell regains the majority next year, Biden will not be allowed a Supreme Court appointment.” McCarter listed several other things that show who Mitch is. Declaring his purpose is to thwart 100% of Biden’s agenda. Denying Garland so Gorsuch got on the Supremes. Approving Kavanaugh though he’s unqualified. Rushing through Barrett, though she’s unqualified. Is this not court packing? Mitch has no qualms of twisting and tossing Senate rules when that benefits him. Why don’t some Democrats believe Mitch when he has so thoroughly shown who he is and how evil that is? Why aren’t Democrats similarly ruthless? In another post McCarter reported that Biden has given Manchin and Sinema the task of getting ten GOP votes for the infrastructure bill. In the meantime some Democrats, Bernie Sanders is one, who have started working to pass the infrastructure plan through reconciliation where there is no filibuster. Adam Jentleson, who wrote a book about the filibuster, tweeted a thread. First he quoted Sahil Kapur:

The way to understand Mitch McConnell’s actions on blocking Garland in ‘16, to reversing that standard for Barrett in ‘20, to suggesting he’d block Biden in ‘23/‘24: He is betting that Democrats won’t do anything to retaliate when they have power. So far that bet is paying off.

Jentleson added:

For McConnell, the cherry on top is getting to watch Democrats convince ourselves that we're bring super smart and savvy for not wielding our power aggressively.

Autarkh replied, quoting a New York Times opinion:

Actual savvy: "We learned decades ago from economists & game theorists: Once cooperation breaks down, the only play to restore it is tit-for-tat. It’s the only way both sides can learn that neither side wins unless they cooperate."

Jentleson responded:

Yes, this. In another thread I called it Vizzini logic, which might be too nerdy or niche for most. In any event, what Democrats mistake for savvy is often a delusion that they can have it both ways.

Scott Coley, writing for Faith, Philosophy, and Politics, discussed racism and patriarchy as two strands of the same authoritarian theology. He wrote among evangelicals there is overlap between those who embrace patriarchy and those who support slavery and segregation.

The overlap isn’t coincidental: all of these commitments flow from an authoritarian outlook that organizes people into a divinely ordained hierarchy, based largely on innate physical characteristics, and conceives of morality as a matter of obedience to one’s natural superiors. They all hold that God has designed some people to exercise authority, and God has designed others to practice submission to authority. Moral order is achieved when we inhabit our God-ordained place in the hierarchy; and apart from that hierarchy, there is no morality. According to this paradigm, there’s no inconsistency in holding a church gathering that violates public health mandates, and then invoking Romans 13 to admonish those who protest U.S. immigration policy or the rate at which our government kills and imprisons African Americans. The men who embrace this conception of morality don’t even seem to understand the tension: by all appearances, they believe that Romans 13 is addressed to those for whom God has ordained submission—the disenfranchised and dispossessed—not those in authority, like themselves. In their view, laws and public policies that crystalize inequity are evidence of God’s design rather than a consequence of human depravity: systemic inequality is an expression of moral truth rather than a transgression against it. ... Once we’ve embraced the authoritarian’s premise that God has designed some people for dominion and others for submission, the line between gender-based subjugation and race-based subjugation is morally arbitrary. ... Whether it’s organized by race or gender, authoritarian theologians baptize their preferred social hierarchy in biblical proof-texts that they alone have the authority to interpret and deem sufficiently clear to bind the conscience of all believers.

Here is the text of Romans 13, verses 1-2, then verse 8, from the New Living Translation. Verses 1-2 is what is referenced above. Verse 8 is for contrast.

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. ... Owe nothing to anyone—except for your obligation to love one another. If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law.

Coley’s writing so very much matches what I’ve been thinking over the last several years. That they have chosen this theology because it supports a social hierarchy. What I read in the Bible, especially the books on the life of Jesus, is loving someone means abolishing the hierarchy. A few days ago I posted that the nasty guy has claimed he’ll be reinstated in August. The failure of that happening could ignite a second government attack. Aldous Pennyfarthing of the Kos community adds a little detail on why that might happen. A poll done by Politico/Morning Consult asked how likely the nasty guy will be reinstated (no, they didn’t use those words). Of Republicans, 17% said “very likely” and 12% said “somewhat likely.” There’s a sizable contingent for an attack right there. Pennyfarthing spread the word on an important question that should be asked more frequently with the answer publicized more broadly. There have been a lot of laws passed by the GOP in several states banning transgender girls from participating in girl’s sports. These laws have sections on enforcement. Such as this, about the law in Idaho:

The law includes a provision that allows for anyone to file a claim questioning the sex of an athlete. The adjudication process could lead to sex testing that would allow for genital exams, genetic testing and hormone testing.

That led journalist Oliver Willis to quote a tweet that asks: Why are Republicans in multiple states obsessed with children’s genitals? We should talk about that obsession every time they talk about banning trans kids from doing something. Willis also noted recently a top nasty guy campaign official was imprisoned for pedophilia. Leading Republican Jim Jordan ignored abuse. That all points to a connection to their obsession. Sarah Kendzior tweeted:

The attack on "critical race theory" has little to do with theory and more a fear of: 1) historical accuracy 2) students recognizing a continuous line between atrocities of the US past and present 3) students recognizing parallels between atrocities in the US and other nations When students learn the full scope of history, good and the bad, and that, as Arendt said, most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil -- they may have greater expectations for the present. They may sense their place in history and make a choice.

Judd Legum, a writer for Popular Information, tweeted an introduction to an article on that site:

25 major companies that sponsor Pride parades, and turn their Twitter avatars into rainbows and present themselves as champions of LGBTQ rights have donated more than $10 million to anti-gay politicians in the last two years. We looked at the contributions from corporations that tout their commitment to LGBTQ rights to: Members of Congress with a ZERO rating from @HRC. Sponsors of anti-trans legislation in AR, TN, NC, TX, and FL. The results were not pretty. ... Comcast has been adorning its social media posts with rainbows. One tweet says: "Pride is the love we share. And with Xfinity, it’s Pride all year." But Comcast has donated more than $1.1 million to anti-LGBTQ politicians since 2019. Comcast donated more than $30,000 to the sponsors of anti-trans legislation introduced this year in Florida & Texas. That includes 2K to @VoteRandyFine who has targeted the trans community for years and is quoted in the media misgendering trans people.

The thread ends with a list of the 25 countries and the amount they donated to lawmakers with a zero rating from the Human Rights Campaign and the amount they donated to sponsors of anti-trans legislation. Slapping rainbows on everything is a thing, especially during pride month. But that doesn’t mean the corporation is gay friendly. Leah McElrath tweeted:

I’m witnessing a familiar, troubling dynamic in discussions of the #DeltaVariant of the COVID-19 virus and want to remind people that—when it comes to a pandemic—if you wait until there is evidence of a problem near where you live to implement precautions, it is already too late.

So get vaccinated (I’ve been protected for two months now) and keep wearing your mask indoors. McElrath quoted Cyrus Shahpar, the White House COVID Data Director:

Reminder: it takes 5-6 weeks to reach full immunity after you get your first dose of a two-dose vaccine (assuming you get second dose on time). The delta variant is rapidly spreading, will be the majority of US cases in that time frame. Important to start building protection now.