It might be better to do away with the court altogether

The event Beyond Van Gogh will be in Detroit for another ten days. I saw it today in my second attempt. My first attempt to see the event was at the end of August, six weeks ago. In preparation I checked the parking around the TCF Center where the event is held. The center’s website says they have four parking areas. The biggest is the roof. Because of the sun and heat in August I wanted something under a roof, such as under the center. The second was blocked by a closed road. The third was for monthly passes only. The fourth had traffic cones across the entrance. So I went to a nearby parking structure. It said credit card only, but it wouldn’t read my card. I tried a second card and it wouldn’t read that one either. The attendant said it’s not your card, it’s the machine. Sorry, you can’t park here today. He directed me to another structure around the corner. That one allowed me to pay cash. I walked the length of the TCF Center (and it’s a big place) to get to the exhibit. Once I got there I was told the exhibit was closed because of computer failure. A server had stopped working at 7:30 that morning. All booking is done online so the woman explaining it all told us how to reschedule or ask for a refund. I complained that I had to pay for parking. She suggested I ask the parking guys for a refund. Of course, they didn’t agree. I wrote an email saying I wanted to reschedule. I also complained about their terrible contingency plans – they could have told me well before I left home – and asked for a refund for parking and miles driven. They refused the refund. I next thought of going in mid September. I’m glad I didn’t switch my ticket to then because that was the week my car was in the shop for a new alternator. And this event doesn’t give refunds if you don’t show up. Earlier this week I switched my ticket to today. The weather was cool and overcast, so parking on the roof was fine (though $5 more). And I went down the elevator to the event. I’ve been calling it an event because it isn’t a show in the usual sense. The first room has a series of panels about Vincent Van Gogh’s life and career, including several jobs he tried before becoming a painter. Much of the text was from letters he wrote to his brother Theo. The panels used his paintings as background. There was a second room of swirling color I was told was on a five minute loop. It didn’t look to be from his artwork, so I didn’t stay long. The third and final room was large with images projected on the walls, pillars, and floor while music played (I recognized the tune “Starry, Starry, Night” though it didn’t play when the Starry Night painting was displayed).This was on a loop about 35 minutes and was essentially the event. There weren’t many places to sit, though not many people. I claimed one end of a bench and watched from that position. Of course, the images were taken from his paintings. But it didn’t cycle through static images. Many were animated in some way. A portrait’s eyes would blink and the head move a bit. If the image included plants we would watch the plants grow. A scene would be sketched, then filled in with color. One scene would dissolve into another. In a scene with lots of flowers swirling petals would float over the scene. We were told we could take pictures (though no flash) so I had my camera ready and took about a dozen pictures. In this case I think it appropriate to see some of the other people in the room to offer a sense of scale. I think those projection screens were 25 feet high.

This last one is of Starry Night. Before the painting was projected those swirls were animated.

The exit was, of course, through a gift shop. I didn’t buy. While downtown I took an opportunity to walk along the Detroit Riverwalk for my exercise for the day. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos reported it looks like Moscow Mitch blinked – a little bit – in his position on raising the debt ceiling limit. He had said if a bill to raise the debt ceiling limit isn’t done as a budget reconciliation bill (Democrat only) he and the rest of the Republican senators will veto it through the filibuster. Two things may have changed his mind. First, the number of Republicans getting squeamish about a possible global financial disaster. Second, Sens. Manchin and Sinema saying they are willing to repeal the filibuster for these types of bills. The reason why this is a tiny concession is because Mitch will agree to a debt raising bill that will last only three months. It keeps Democrats from passing a bill that would remove the debt ceiling as a political weapon. And it keeps the filibuster. Even so, Democrats are bragging that Mitch “caved” as Elizabeth Warren put it. McCarter also wrote that a survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania asked people if the Supreme Court started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with, what should be done? 34% chose “it might be better to do away with the court altogether.” This gives strong permission for Biden and Congress to expand the court. McCarter wrote:

What Elie Mystal says: "Court expansion is the preferred constitutional solution to a Court that oversteps its mandate or thumbs its nose at the will of the people." Court expansion dilutes the power of the new Federalist Society majority, appointed not for their judicial experience or integrity, but for their willingness to participate in advancing a fascist vision for the U.S. What Mystal also says: "As the Court prepares to merrily set everything on fire this term, Democrats are looking at the constitutional fire extinguisher and thinking, It says we can only break the glass in case of an emergency, and we're not sure burning our constituents' rights at the stake qualifies." They've got to get over that, just like they have to get over thinking getting rid of the filibuster is a radical idea (which, by the way, they'll have to do to expand the court and save everything, anyway). With more than one-third of the country thinking the court is worthy of dissolution, using this option to save the institution (and the country!) is a no-brainer.

David Neiwert of Kos wrote about the effect of numerous stories of terrorism in the news over the last several months.

Many may seem minor or of limited interest and often are only covered locally and regionally. Yet cumulatively, these stories have a profoundly toxic effect, manifesting one of the subtler ways that the conspiracism/disinformation industry undermines democracy and our social stability. ... Yet this drumbeat has its own kind of terroristic effect. Most terrorists act out violently as a way of undermining the larger social and political order, a means of persuading the public that civil authorities are incapable of keeping them safe and providing security. It’s powerfully effective for right-wing extremists because creating an atmosphere ripe with fear is a proven way of inducing authoritarianism among the general public as a psychological response. As these lesser incidents accumulate—especially when they begin happening with greater frequency—they have the same effect on public sensibilities.

A Twitter account named Film the Police LA posted a video of an anti-vaxx protester ranting that of course we don’t see homeless people sick with COVID in the streets. A homeless person said it’s because he’s vaccinated. Aga responded:

And it's so sad that no energy goes from them to actually help the homeless but they are happy to use the homeless to advance their agenda.

To which Furry McMemes replied:

That's why they don't want to help the homeless, because there goes their scapegoat, there goes the one thing that makes them feel better about their miserable lives.

I wrote about this several days ago, here’s a take from Leah McElrath:

I’m currently struggling with coming to terms with the fact that the following idea might be a myth: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” The question I keep coming up against is: if it *is* a myth, does that change how we should act? WDYT?

That last is: What do you think? Some of the replies ... first from Colleen Wilson:

It probably is a myth. We should still act as though we believe it. It’s not a description, or a prophecy. It’s a challenge.

Or aspirational rather than descriptive. Vanessa Sax:

That arc is purported to be a mechanism of fate, but we must remember that the moral arc toward justice is driven exclusively by the will of those who refuse to let it be otherwise.

Moti Rieber:

I don’t think it’s a myth, but the way we’ve always heard it that it would bend basically by itself, almost as a form of evolution. Now I think it only bends if we bend it.

Susan:

I think it’s true. The problem we have is understanding what “long” means. For me four years is a long time. For justice to prevail it might take a very long time.

Wendy Bell:

It is not that it bends. It’s that it is being bent by someone. I find it helpful to focus less on the arc itself than on those who are trying to bend it.

Michael Harriot tweeted an image of a sign that (hopefully) doesn’t actually exist:

Attention Customers and Employees: We are required by law to inform you that we discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, or “gut instinct.”

Harriot added:

What if we let employers, banks, courts etc discriminate as much as they want, as long as they publicly disclose it? This way, whites get their privilege, Blacks can “opt out”+go elsewhere & no one has to fix systemic racism! What? It’s literally the argument for school choice.

Those with some historical perspective know that the “go elsewhere” part is to somewhere much inferior.