The moment the gavel changes hands, they are witnesses

Thursday evening I went to the Fisher Theater in Detroit to see the show Maybe Happy Ending. It won Tony Awards for Best Musical and five other categories out of ten nominations in 2025. It’s creators are South Korean and American. It’s first production was in Seoul. The story is about two HelperBots, robots that look human (and played by humans), who do domestic chores for their owners. These bots, Oliver and Claire, live in the company’s “retirement” community because they are obsolete. Oliver sings about how he loves his little room and is waiting for James, his owner, to come back and return him to service. He’s been waiting for a dozen years. Claire lives across the hall. She’s a later model but isn’t as durable and needs to use his charger because she can’t get repair parts for her own. They become friends and soon have a plan to go out and find James. Yes, the show shows robots with feelings, including eventually falling in love, and my friend and debate partner would strongly object to that. But go with it, the story makes a very good point about human emotions, including love, and solves a dilemma in a way only robots could. Which is why the happy ending is a maybe. This is pretty much a two character show. There are a few moments with other characters, such as James and his son, but they aren’t on stage for very long. And some of the characters appear only in video flashbacks, so while there are seven actors listed in the cast only four take bows at the end. I enjoyed the show. The music is pleasant, though the songs aren’t memorable. The set is memorable with screens pulling up and to the sides to reveal the active part of the stage and outline it with a border of light. We’ve seen some efforts to disrupt the midterm elections. So far the efforts have been rejected by a court or remain tied up there. But the nasty guy and his Republican minions will still keep trying. Daily Kos community member xaxnar quoted Dean Blundell of his own Substack discussing a calendar of seven steps the nasty guy plans to take to disrupt and steal the election. Blundell does not link to the source of his information (it may be leaked and not on a website). Blundell did post a graphic attributed to Brian and Ed Krassenstein, which xaxnar also included (though I won’t). The seven steps: Nov. 3 – Start declaring fraud while votes are still being counted. Immediately created doubt. Nov. 4-6 – Hold press conferences to push the allegations and highlight any voting anomalies. Make it look like a nationwide problem. Nov. 7-12 – Direct Department of Justice to investigate, subpoena voter records, threaten lawsuits to slow down the certification. Nov. 13-20 – Pressure states to not certify results, demand investigations to delay certification in close races. Nov. 21-Dec. 5 – Escalate legal battles, file lawsuits, claim voting machines were hacked, keep disputes in the news. Dec. 6-20 – Push Congress not to seat certain elected members, pressure other members to support the objections, block the new members from being seated. Up to Jan. 3 – Keep all this in the news, dispute the legitimacy of the new Congress, undermine public trust in the opposition. Blundell explained why the nasty guy is doing this:

Because losing the House is not a political problem for Trump. It is a legal one. A Democratic House means subpoena power. It means the Epstein files in their entirety, not the redacted scraps. It means the oligarchs who bought the crypto coin, the pardons, the Qatari jet, and the cabinet of cable hosts all get hauled under oath. It means the ICE contracts, the Pentagon slush, the family’s billions. Every person who has spent two years protecting him understands that the moment the gavel changes hands, they are witnesses. He is not fighting for a majority. He is fighting for his own skin and the skins of everyone standing behind him, and a man fighting for his skin will burn the house down and call it a renovation.

One way to fight this is to make the margins too big to deny. Another is to be ready for each step as it begins by having countermeasures ready to go. Kos of Kos discussed a report on Fox News that some Republicans are contemplating using a maneuver to challenge the oath of members of the Democratic Socialists of America. This oath is to uphold the Constitution and is taken by every member. The claim is that the DSA platform calls for scrapping the current US Constitution. That means they can’t swear an oath to uphold it. But the Constitution itself has articles explaining how to amend it, even calling for a convention to propose amendments. So, yeah, calling for scrapping the current one is perfectly constitutional. Thankfully, Speaker Mike Johnson said refusing to seat any Democrats is a “nonsense narrative” and the Supreme Court has previously ruled that the House can’t refuse to seat members who meet the requirements of being 25, a citizen for 7 years, and a resident of the state that elected them. Republicans are very good at performative outrage. It gets them on Fox News. Kos community member Hopeforthefuture says there might be an effort to unseat Johnson before the end of the year. A reason for that could be because of arcane rules. The only carryover from one House session to the next is the Clerk. One task is to accept the state election certification and list the new House membership. A very routine process.

However, the Clerk can, in theory, deliberately omit names from the list. For example, every new representative from the state of California. Clerks are normally elected by the full House and no normal Clerk would ever do this. However, when the House is not in session, the Speaker has the authority to dismiss the Clerk and appoint an acting Clerk. If the Speaker is Mike Johnson, there’s certainly a chance he would dismiss the current Clerk during the Christmas recess and appoint some corrupt, craven toady who would. I think this is exactly why the DOJ presented California with the illegal and impossible demand to disenfranchise 20,000 voters. They knew how California’s leaders would react, and they knew they could use that as a pretext for not seating California’s newly elected representatives.

Replacing Johnson with someone loyal to the Constitution could stop that effort. Am I chasing conspiracies? We’ll see. I’d be happy if this was wrong. Kos of Kos discussed a Gallup survey about which values Americans thought the country needed most. All Americans: Honesty (34%), responsibility (32%), integrity (31%), equality (29%), and fairness (26%). Democrats: Equality (44%), fairness (34%), honesty (32%), integrity (29%), and kindness (25%). Republicans: Patriotism (46%), responsibility (41%), honesty (38%), integrity (33%), respect (28%). Democrats put patriotism at 6%, independents at 15%. Kos questions Republicans about their honesty. They elected the nasty guy twice and an Economist/YouGov poll in September found of registered voters 53% described him as corrupt, 51% as dangerous, and 46% as cruel. And of Republicans 10% described him as corrupt, 49% as honest, and 41% as cruel. That doesn’t sound like they value honesty.

In a late September YouGov poll, just 26% of Republicans said Trump had “set a high moral standard.” That’s such a low bar for the president of the United States to meet, yet his own supporters couldn’t give it to him. So what happens when Republicans claim to value honesty, integrity, and responsibility, yet won’t hold their own president to those standards? What happens when their political loyalties matter more than the principles they insist America needs?

They won’t admit the nasty guy is a mistake. But what about the next guy? Such as the vice nasty. Or any of the Republicans currently in office. At least Republicans believe values exist and they say honesty and integrity are important. But they aren’t living by those values. They don’t influence what they’ll sacrifice for or condemn. They aren’t committed to the values they claim are important. Emily Singer of Kos reported last Monday that news outlet Puck reported that Sen. Marsha Blackburn is running to be governor of Tennessee. If she gets the job Pete Hegseth wants her to appoint him to fill her vacancy in the Senate. His reasons for his request (which he has not confirmed): It will help him launch a bid to be president. It also would avoid being impeached and removed, or perhaps fired, from his job at the Pentagon. The House is already working on articles of impeachment to be voted on after the midterms. Being impeached would stain his chance to run for president. If impeachment and trial happen it puts Republicans in a bind, whether to vote to keep the guy who goaded the nasty guy into war with Iran that is damaging the global economy. For that reason Blackburn could decide there are much better people to appoint to the Senate. Lisa Needham of Kos discussed the state of those articles of impeachment in the House. Kos discussed Obama on the campaign trail, rallying for Democrats in tight races. In Cleveland he packed a 10,000 seat venue for Amy Acton, running for governor. Kos included clips supplied by Aaron Rupar and HQNews. Some of Obama’s lines:

Remember draining the swamp? The only thing they drained was the reflecting pool after a no bid contract, and they messed it up. When I was president, all these Republicans are all deficits, deficits, debt, debt. You got to do something about it. And now—$40 trillion—Crickets. Somehow deficits only matter when a Democratic president is in office. Trump should be on HGTV. He's building a ballroom, paved over the Rose Garden, put a helicopter pad on the South Lawn, and what's up with the gold? He’s got the White House looking like Saddam Hussein opened up a Cheesecake Factory!

Sheesh, that last one. Stirred up a storm. I’ve eaten at a Cheesecake Factory once and was with Sister and Niece. Sister said her food was bland and returning was not worth it. I agreed. Kos wrote that a CF restaurant is indeed gaudy and over-the-top. It looks like “several ancient civilizations collided with a Las Vegas casino.” Which for CF is the point. It’s glorious excess is its charm (according to Kos). But the White House should have dignity. Ah, conservatives hyperventilated over the Cheesecake Factory and how elitist Obama must be. Kos provided several examples. Nate Silver called these people “performative humorless scolds.” The contrast between Obama and the nasty guy is a good reason for Republicans to “spend their weekend pretending to be offended by a Cheesecake Factory joke than talking about what Obama actually said.” Kos continued the discussion in a second post:

During the Obama years, conservatives could manufacture outrage and largely control the ensuing narrative. These days, liberals have the platforms and reach to turn that outrage right back on them, making the performative freakout itself the object of ridicule.

Such as this tweet from John Couger Colleencamp:

The right: “The left can’t take a joke!” Obama: makes a joke The right: starts a brand new culture war over…The Cheesecake Factory

And a tweet by Stephen Moran showing the nasty guy in a gilded room squirting ketchup on a steak while...

Saddam Hussein: I like what you’ve done with the place! Liberace: Me too!

A tweet from The Viscount:

The entire right wing media apparatus taking up pistols at 40 paces to defend the honor of the Cheesecake Factory is exactly how I want to close out the election cycle. Thank you all for this.

And in a third post Kos shows Obama’s reaction to the uproar, given in Atlanta while helping Sen. Jon Ossoff and Keisha Lance Bottoms, running for governor. Kos included a full transcript of his remarks. Here’s part of it:

I accused this administration, based on the facts, that they were engaging in unprecedented levels of corruption. They didn’t say anything about that. The president wasn’t even mad about the Saddam Hussein comparison. That part didn’t bother him! But he was very upset about the Cheesecake Factory comments. He took great umbrage. He said I didn’t understand the work of the artisans in the White House. And they mobilized—this was, I mean it’s all crazy, but this is the really crazy part—they mobilized a whole-of-government response to that joke. Not to inflation, but to that joke! ... To everybody out there, including the press, I want you to understand this. This is what I mean when I say these are not serious people. They don’t have solutions to actual problems. So they’d rather have the media and you talking about the Cheesecake Factory. That’s the game they’ve been playing for the last two years.

White people’s beliefs have value

Before the election the nasty guy frequently said he knew nothing about Project 2025. Emily Singer of Daily Kos reported he has “nominated at least seven people who either directly contributed to the document or who promoted it” with more people on the short list for other positions. Howard Lutnick, the nasty guy’s co-chair of his transition, had said Project 2025 is too “radioactive” for any of its people to be nominated for the cabinet. Lutnick is now the nominee for the Department of Commerce. The nominees from Project 2025: + Russ Vought wrote the chapter on how the president can amass more power by purging federal employees who are insufficiently loyal. His also a Christian nationalist. He is nominated for the director of the Office of Management and Budget. + Brendan Carr, currently an FCC commissioner, wrote the chapter on the FCC. He is nominated to be the FCC chair. + Tom Homan is listed as a contributor to Project 2025. He was a part of the inhumane family separation policy in the nasty guy’s first term. He’s nominated to be the border czar. I don’t think that’s currently a job title. + John Ratcliffe was director of national intelligence in the first term. He is a Project 2025 contributor. He’s nominated to head the CIA. The nasty guy praised him for “telling the truth” about Hunter Biden’s laptop. + Pete Hoekstra is currently the chair of the Republican Party in Michigan. He took over after the previous chair, a MAGA person who made a mess of things. So he’s seen as the calm establishment guy. Yet, he is listed as a Project 2025 contributor. He’s nominated to be ambassador to Canada. + Karoline Leavitt was a campaign spokesperson and is nominated for White House press secretary. She appeared in a Project 2025 training video to discuss how a loyalist should navigate working for the federal government. + James Braid worked as deputy chief of staff for JD Vance’s Senate office. He starred in Project 2025 videos on how to get its agenda through Congress. He’ll be the liaison to Congress to get the agenda passed. Not counted in the nominees and new hires is Vance, who is only one step away from Project 2025. The head of the project wrote a book and Vance wrote the foreword. So what’s this about the nasty guy knowing nothing about Project 2025? A week ago an Associated Press article posted on Kos reported that the nasty guy named several nominees for financial, health, and national security positions. I’m interested in only one of them, the guy nominated for Treasury Secretary. He’s Scott Bessent. He’s of interest because he’s gay, with a husband and children. The AP article also says he is closely aligned with Wall Street. Because of that he’s seen as a “safe” pick. He is also an advocate for deficit reduction and he has said that means slashing government programs while in favor of extending tax cuts for the rich. This guy has made a big change. He had donated to Al Gore’s presidential run and worked for George Soros, a big supporter of Democrats. At some point he switched to supporting and advising the nasty guy. In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin included a quote I found worth mentioning. It is by Mark Hertling of The Bulwark:

The inculcation of personal values, or the understanding of organizational values and values-based decision making, are not as prevalent as they may need to be. I’ve taught values-based leadership and decision-making to healthcare professionals and MBA students. When I begin teaching each class, I ask, “What are your personal values, and do they align with your organization’s stated values?” Every time, I’m met with mostly blank stares. The same seems to be true in government. A few years ago, I was discussing some issue or another with a member of Congress. I asked him why he held a particular position on the issue, and he responded, “Because I support American values.” When I asked which specific value that policy was connected to, he couldn’t name one.

In the comments exlrrp posted a meme:

Nasty guy: Elon you can’t sit there! Elon: It’s my presidency. I bought it!

Much further down is a Twonks cartoon with the caption “Freak out your new neighbors” and shows packing boxes labeled with such things as bowling balls, bagpipes, tap shoes, fireworks, crossbows, and crocodile food. Back in the middle of October Michael Harriot wrote a thread about “Race as an Economic Construct.” We’ve heard that race is a social construct and he wrote most social constructs are economic constructs. Most non-white school districts are underfunded. Some say it’s partly due to schools being funded by property taxes and a home in a black neighborhood is worth $48K less than the same home in a white neighborhood. So those schools there get less money. The big question: Why haven’t we fixed this? We as a society have agreed that black children are less valuable. It’s the only explanation. Through our history if there’s a problem we wanted to solve we did it. We’re not even trying to fix this one. Now think in terms of effort and return on effort. One would work a bit extra for a big boost in pay. But what if that increase went to your child and not you? What if it went to a child you didn’t know? Would you still work extra if the increase went to a black child? Harriot turned to belief economics. White people’s beliefs have value. The nasty guy made white people believe immigration was a big problem, when unauthorized immigration is down. Same with the economy, same with crime. White people think crime is getting worse when it is dropping. But white fixes to crime harm black people. Politicians and media focus on white people’s beliefs and not black people’s reality.

My values

Someone else’s blog post or comment (likely somewhere on Shakesville) suggested an exercise by asking what are your values? If an oppressive gov’t or institution asked (perhaps demanded) you to do something, do you know where that crosses one of your values? A related question: How strong are your values and would you refuse to deny them?

A hypothetical example from the East German Stasi of the Cold War years. An official says to you, “We have this evidence showing you are a threat to the state. That normally means time in prison. We’re willing to overlook your offense if you provide us with regular reports about your neighbors, such as when they come and go, who visits them, what they tell you about their activities.” What choice do yo make?

The purpose of this exercise is to explore your own values so that if you are presented with this choice you are able to come up with an answer and know why it is a good one for you.

Yes, this may seem gloomy and dire. Even so, I think it is important. I suggest you try the exercise, though you don’t need to share your list with me. So here are my critical values.

* I am opposed to ranking, to the pervasive idea that because of a person’s skin color, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, or wealth one is supposed to be ranked higher or lower than another. This ranking implies privilege. Those who are of higher rank work to maintain their position by oppressing others. This is especially true when they are told they should have higher rank, yet the privileges don’t automatically come. A great deal of modern politics and gov’t policy is built to support ranking. I oppose it.

* I work to strengthen mental health. I am not a mental health worker, so my work isn’t about such things as diagnosing and treating depression and other mental illnesses. Rather this value is about wholeness, seeing the whole person. So this is a guide to evaluate my actions and those of others. Does an action improve mental health, or does the action make mental health worse?

My most prominent example is the typical Christian church’s treatment of LGBT people. Declaring a gay person to be incapable of entering heaven damages mental health. Forcing a gay person into reparative therapy that attempts the impossible task of denying their identity damages mental health.

This example is personal. For about 25 years after I realized I am gay I rarely heard my local church mention sexual orientation. The few times it was mentioned the words had a bit of condemnation. I figured, that’s OK, I can deal with it not being discussed. I can stay under the radar.

Then I went to my first Reconciling Ministries Convocation. What had been hidden was now celebrated. I was finally seen in my entirety. The experience was overwhelming. My mental healing began. I hadn’t realized during those 25 years of silence my mental health was being damaged.

* I work to build community. We are in this world together. We are stronger together (thanks Hillary!). We are responsible for one another. We are our brother’s and sister’s keeper. This is the opposite of ranking, the opposite of declaring someone as one of those people. Again, this value is about evaluating actions and policies of myself and others. Some examples:

A public library is about community, as is a public transportation system and a public school system, as are National Parks. These are things we all share, that benefit us all even if we don’t use them directly.

A policy to ban refugees damages community. A policy to intentionally underfund schools or force them to close (as is being done in Michigan) damages community. Policies that benefit the rich while impoverishing the poor damage community. Policies that make sure poor people can’t move to a sufficient and stable income damage community.

A few years ago a director of an agency helping military veterans came to my church and gave a presentation. Help a veteran recover from the trauma of war? Great! Help them get food, clothing, and housing? Wonderful! Help them get a job? Fantastic! Change the laws to prefer hiring veterans over others?

No.

The first three are about healing the mental damage caused by sending them off to war and about integrating the veteran back into the community (I’ll leave aside for now that war is about ranking between countries and is about breaking community). The last is about ranking, about saying a veteran is more important than other people. (This ranking was more annoying when women and LGBT people were barred from most (or all) jobs in the military. It was a sneaky way of saying preferences in employment should be given to men over women and LGBT people.)

I’m pretty sure all of my values come from these three. Naturally, these values spill into all areas of my life. A love of music and the arts in general is a way of boosting mental health, both mine and of the society as a whole. Performing in a bell choir is all about community – I must rely on my colleagues to make the music complete. Delving into family history (of which I’m doing a lot as I clean out my father’s house, set aside old letters and journals, scan his huge collection of slides and photographs, and share family stories) is boosting mental health. This is both in coming to terms with what has happened to my family over the last two years and building up an understanding of who I am and where I and my ancestors came from.

On to the last part of the exercise. How strong are these values? They’re pretty strong.

At times their strength may not be apparent because I may not loudly challenge your values that oppose mine. That is because I don’t want to vanquish my challenger, I want to be reconciled, to reestablish community. Arguing over values has a good chance of damaging community had harming your mental health and mine.

The strength of these values play out in one more important way. As I work against the actions and policies of the nasty guy and his GOP cronies – which are all about enforcing a system of ranking and splintering the community – my actions must always be non-violent, to respect my adversary as I try to avoid damaging their mental health and my own, and invite them into community.