They can tell you what to do, you can't tell them what to do

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos reported on the fierce fighting in the city of Severodonetsk, Ukraine. This city is on one side of a river and on the other side is Lysychansk up on the bluff. Last Thursday Russia had taken 80% of Severodonetsk. Then Ukraine counterattacked and by Sunday had control of 70% of the city. The reversal was so quick some watchers wondered if Ukraine had set things up as a trap. Perhaps it was. Ukrainian soldiers in Lysychansk have a good view into the city across the river and could easily direct artillery fire onto the Russians. In a later reports Sumner reported that after Russia pulled in more troops the hold on the city is about 50% each. And Lysychansk is getting pounded by Russia in hopes of taking out their artillery. Beyond that not much is happening. One side takes a village here, the other takes a village there. The January 6 Commission will broadcast the first of its presentations tomorrow evening. They will show what they learned about what happened leading up to and on that day. Advanced word is there is quite a bit of evidence about how well the attack was planned an executed, plus evidence of the attempt to overturn the election. It was all well coordinated. I probably won’t watch, though I’ll read summaries. Brandi Buchman of Kos created a long guide to the players in this coup attempt. I won’t list all the names (there are a lot of them), just the categories: Major players, allies and friends, Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (the militias), minor players, the nasty guy’s family, lawmakers, attorneys and legal advisors, alternate electors, rally organizers, and others in the White House, administration, and campaign. Quite a list! Sawyer Hackett, a senior communication strategist for Bold Progressive, tweeted:

Fox News ran 1,098 primetime segments on Benghazi from the day of the attack until the committee hearings, which they carried live for more than 7 hours. Today they announced they won’t cover the hearings on the January 6th insurrection.

Joyce Alene of MSNBC added:

Strongest acknowledgment yet that Trump attempted a coup. If you're afraid to let base see the evidence for themselves, that suggests it's very strong.

Ethan Gray, a former Republican and now a consistent Democrat tweeted about Republican messaging:

Here is the Republican message on everything of importance: 1. They can tell people what to do. 2. You cannot tell them what to do. This often gets mistaken for hypocrisy, there’s an additional layer of complexity to this (later in the thread), but this is the basic formula. You've watched the Republican Party champion the idea of "freedom" while you have also watched the same party openly assault various freedoms, like the freedom to vote, freedom to choose, freedom to marry who you want and so on. If this has been a source of confusion, then your assessments of what Republicans mean by “freedom” were likely too generous. Here’s what they mean: 1. The freedom to tell people what to do. 2. Freedom from being told what to do. When Republicans talk about valuing “freedom”, they’re speaking of it in the sense that only people like them should ultimately possess it.

For example controlling COVID with mask mandates is telling them what to do. They don’t like that that even though they are supposedly “pro life.” But in the case of abortion being “pro life” is an opportunity to tell others what to do with their bodies. They want small government because a large government will tell people (them) what to do. Unless it is an opportunity for them to tell others what to do and in those areas government can be large. They are focused on the border because it is a chance to tell others what to do, namely to get out and stay out. They oppose taxes, even if their voters would not have to pay more and would benefit from increased services, because the government is telling some people (them) what to do. If you tell Republicans to do something for the sake of the planet your telling them what to do (besides, they don’t share the planet with us). And Democrats should never be the ones telling people what to do. Even worse is telling them what to do combined with telling them to consider how their actions affect others. They believe Republicans are the “right” humans and everyone else is “wrong” and the wrong can’t tell the right what to do. The media is entrenched in this idea and can’t see beyond it. The “right” people are “normal” and their agenda is normal. That means it is normal to frame the Democrats as stopping a normal agenda. Even with democracy at stake the media can’t tell Republicans it is their problem to solve. This fits very well with my understanding of supremacy and the social hierarchy. Those high in the hierarchy, as Republicans declare it is their right to be, can order, control, and oppress those below them. It makes their own lives look better. But those lower in the hierarchy are not allowed to tell those higher what to do, or even criticize them. I’m glad Gray could say it so clearly. I had mentioned that the Supreme Court has created a hostile working environment for its clerks. Nina Totenberg, the NPR reporter assigned to the court, explains a bit more. The court’s term is supposed to end in about three weeks, but a large number of decisions haven’t appeared yet. Totenberg believes they may not be able to.

"I don't know how on earth the court is going to finish up its work this term," said a source close to the justices. The clerks, he explained, are sort of "the court's diplomatic corps." Especially at this time of year, they talk to each other, with the approval of their bosses, to find out how far the envelope can be pushed in this case or that one — or conversely, how can we soften language to get five justices on board. But at the moment, he noted, the clerks are terrified that their whole professional lives could be blown up, so they aren't able to do that. In short, it's a very perilous time for the Supreme Court.

Even so, the conservative contingent keeps trying to plow ahead. Joan McCarter of Kos reported that the Supremes could use a couple little cases involving voting rights to finish off the Voting Rights Act. One is over a race where the two candidates differ by 75 votes and there are 257 mail in ballots that don’t quite comply with the law – the outer envelope is supposed to have a signature and a date and these don’t have the date. Federal law says if such omission doesn’t prevent determining if the voter is qualified to vote it should not prevent the vote from being counted. This prevents candidates from looking for little excuses to disqualify a ballot. And Justice Alito, using the shadow docket if possible, may lead the charge to disqualify ballots over minor paperwork errors. The other, which may be on the docket for the next term, is about how much state courts can throw out restrictive laws affecting federal elections that were passed by state legislatures. Beyond that brief description I got lost in what this was all about. I’ll note the conservative members of the court practically invited North Carolina to submit such a case soon. That gives us an idea of the intent. Fred Schultz posted an 8 second video if a child with a book of stickers and a couple patient dogs.