Category Archives: Politics

Why Let Others Decide? 

Posted on by
1

The latest effort to let other people decide what’s best for the rest of us is at large in the Missouri Capitol.

It is bill designed to take away some more of our voting rights. I say “some more” because of two obvious incidents from our past, within the last thirty years or so, in which we as voters gave away our right to vote.

First was term limits.  In 1992, voters statewide decided you and I could not vote to retain our state representative or our state senator, no matter how well they had represented us, beyond a certain number of years. We, as a people, forfeited our right to vote for a third term for a senator we trusted or our right to vote for a fifth term of a representative who had responsibly served us.

(Hypocritically, in the same election, voters elected many incumbents to terms beyond the limits they also approved).

Later, voters statewide decided to ban any city from imposing an earnings tax other than the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City—and voters there would have to approve continuation of those taxes every five years.  No other cities were seriously considering such a tax at the time, but that decision precluded any city from asking voters to think about one.  Again, othrers have decided you and I can never have a chance to vote on this issue in our towns.

Now a movement is afoot to make it harder to change our constitution. And this one is even more dangerous because it could declare a majority vote doesn’t count.

The Senate already has passed this bill that says the constitution would not be amended, even if the proposal carries by a majority statewide, unless it has a majority in more than half of the state’s congressional districts.  That means it must be approved by voters in five of our eight congressional districts we now have and will fail even if the statewide results show majority approval.

If you vote on the prevailing side, your vote is worthless if the issue gets a statewide majority but gets a a majority in only four of our congressional districts.

So much for one-person, one-vote. My vote and your vote might not carry the same weight as the vote of someone in a more reluctant congressional district.  Our votes will not be equal.  We might win the majority but the majority will not rule.

If it is such a good idea, why are elections for legislators run on the same principle?  Why shouldn’t someone have to carry a majority of the precincts in their district, not just get the most votes overall, to get elected?

The proposed constitutional change is a Republican idea and Republicans don’t want voters in the Democratic congressional districts in our metro areas and, probably, the more liberal district that includes Columbia, to post majorities that more than offset votes in conservative areas of Missouri.

Can anyone name any other election law that says voters in some places don’t count even if they are in the overall majority?

Doesn’t sound very “American.”

Fortunately, this idea will require a simple majority to defeat it when it does on the statewide ballot, assuming voters realize that they are once again being asked to give away a right to decide issues on the basis of all votes being equal.

Our constitution already has too many things in it that should be state laws subject to updating as needed as our society changes.  Many of those things have been put in the constitution because the legislature refused to enact them as statutes.  We might have a chance to make that same mistake with a sports wagering proposition because the legislature annually fails to pass a more responsible sports wagering law.

There are ways to make it harder to turn legislative failures into constitutional amendments that reduce the opportunities our elected representatives and senators have to enact public policy.  This proposal is not an appropriate way to do that.

The bill is Senate Joint Resolution 74. It will soon be on the House floor for debate.  We will serve ourselves well if we tell our Representatives that our vote should be equal to the votes of others on proposed constitutional changes.

Sauces for geese and ganders should be equal.  So should votes for legislators and for constitutional amendments.

Languages

Posted on by
Reply

I am proud to say that I passed three out of four semesters of college French courses.

That means I am, or once was, somewhat fluent in TWO more languages than our most recent former president uses.

The latest nonsense to cascade in a disorderly tumble from his lips adds an additional damnation to immigrants who, he has claimed, “are coming from jails, and they’re coming from prisons, and they’re coming from mental institutions, and they’re coming from insane asylums, and they’re terrorists.”

Of course, he never offers any proof of such things.  Now, during that same visit to an area near Eagle Pass, Texas on the southern border, he is piling on:

“Nobody can explain to me how allowing millions of people from places unknown, from countries unknown, who don’t speak languages. We have languages coming into our country. We have nobody that even speaks those languages. They’re truly foreign languages. Nobody speaks them, and they’re pouring into our country, and they’re bringing with them tremendous problems, including medical problems, as you know.”  He has asserted in a previous rant that when one migrant showed u, “We don’t even have one translator who could understand this language.”

Various media outlets, including the once-chummy FOX News Channel,  jumped all over that disjointed estrangement from reality, one of the fact-checkers being CNN’s Daniel Dale who found the comment about a translator, “nonsense,” and said it had been “conjured out of thin air.”

The former president says people such as Dale shouldn’t taken him so seriously. He told Sean Hannity recently, “You take a look at when I use Barack Hussein Obama and I interject him into where it’s supposed to be Biden, and I do it purposely for comedic reasons and for sarcasm.”

Whew!   That’s a relief.  I hope all of his MAGA friends realize he’s just pulling their legs and don’t bother repeating his fun-loving remarks as serious messages.

About those languages that nobody speaks:

Analyst Philip Bump with The Washington Post wrote last week that the former president’s remarks were “remarkable” and proved again that “there is no limit on the fearmongering Donald Trump will deploy when it comes to the U.S.-Mexican border.”

Bump points out that there’s a CIA database that includes the spoken languages of more than 220 places.  Here’s an interesting statistic he cites from that database:  Canada, which has two official languages (English and French) “has a higher percentage of English speakers than the United States has of people who speak only the language.”  He says only about seven percent of our population speaks something other than English or Spanish.

Bu contrast, about 30% of Canadians speak French. About 16% of Canadians use both languages.  Four percent speak Chinese. Three percent speak Spanish with an equal amount speaking Punjabi. Arabic, Tagalog, and Italian are spoken by two percent each.

The truth, he says, is that “fewer people speak less frequently-spoken languages. Therefore, those people are less likely to arrive at the U.S.-Mexican border. If they did so, though, there seem to be good odds that someone within the federal government (much less the broader population would be able to understand what they’re saying.”

On top of that, the State Department has translators in some 140 languages or combinations of languages. “The CIA, meanwhile, has an incentive program to encourage people who speak particular languages to work with them. If you speak Baluchi (spoken in Oman) or Ewe (Togo and Ghana) or Lingala (both Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo), ping your local CIA recruiter. There’s cash in it for you.”

As far as immigrants being criminals or more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans—as the ex-President claimed in his Texas speech, Terry Collins wrote this week in USA Today that research indicates immigrants “actually commit fewer crimes than people born in the U. S.”

Trump and his supporters are quick to capitalize on a serious crime committed by an undocumented immigrant, such as the high-profile murder in Georgia.

But Collins points to the work of immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh with the Cato Institute, a self-described “Libertarian think tank,” who says, ‘The findings show pretty consistently undocumented and illegal immigrants have a lower conviction rate and are less likely to be convicted of homicide and other crimes overall compared to native-born Americans in Texas.”

“They’re coming from jails and they’re coming from prisons and they’re coming from mental institutions and they’re coming from insane asylums and they’re terrorists,” Trump said in Eagle Pass.

He clearly has never heard of Nowrasteh, whose studies of undocumented immigrants from 2012-2022 show undocumented immigrants have a homicide rate fourteen percent under that of native-born citizens and a 41% lower total conviction rate. Legal immigrants have a 62% lower homicide rate

He told Collins, “I don’t think that Trump’s statements accurately convey the reality of immigration.”

The problem with all of this is that a lot of Americans are buying what the ex-president is selling.  The Pew Research Center, in a survey a few weeks ago, found that 57% of Americans think immigration leads to more crime.

Here’s some more research reported by Collins:

Stanford University Economics Professor Ran Abramitzky’s research shows the rates of crimes committed by immigrants in this country have been lower than those committed by native-born Americans. Incarceration rates have been dropping for the last six decades.  Nowrasteh says there’s a powerful reason for that: “Deportation is a hefty penalty, as being removed and sent back to their home country where they have fewer job and quality of life opportunities is enough to scare most immigrants.”

As far as criminals crossing the border in droves—-

The Border Patrol checks for criminal backgrounds before releasing them to enter this country, pending a hearing. The Patrol arrested more than 15,000 people with criminal records at the border last year, three-thousand more than in ’22.  So far this year, the number is more than 5,600.

Responsible people who know what they are talking about know that our border is not a sieve that leaks insane criminals who have been released from prisons throughout the world to come here and “poison” our country. It is not to our credit that we would listen to an irresponsible monolingual figure who hopes we drink HIS poison instead.

BONUS:  SCOTUS SAYS TRUMP CAN STAY; MISSOURI PRECEDENT

Posted on by
Reply

We interrupt today’s regular entry to bring you this perspective on the big news of the morning, so far:

The United States Supreme Court today unanimously ruled that Colorado cannot keep Donald Trump off its presidential primary ballot. All nine judges wrote separate opinions explaining why states cannot determine who will run in national elections based on Section three of the Fourteenth Amendment, which Colorado and some other states had cited to kick Trump off the ballot for taking part in an insurrection.

The Supreme Court says the authority to enforce that section that bars those involved in insurrections from holding office rests with Congress, not the states.

Would Congress do that?  Some of those disappointed in today’s ruling say a Congress that works the way a Congress is supposed to work would be far more likely to do it than today’s dysfunctional bunch.

Today’s ruling has a Missouri precedent, sort of.

In the early 1990s, when Missouri and 22 other states made the mistake of enacting term limits on members of their legislatures, an effort also was made to limit the amount of time members of Congress could serve. The Arkansas Supreme Court threw out the law in that state and U. S. Term Limits took the case to the Supremes, where justices voted 5-4 in 1995 that the requirements for service in the United States House and the United States Senate are established in the U. S. Constitution which trumps state laws or state constitutions.

RIPPLES  

Posted on by
Reply

A Michigan jury recently convicted the mother of a 15-year old school shooter of involuntary manslaughter.

The issue was whether Jennifer Crumbley had any responsibility for her son’s murder of four students in 2021.  She was accused of gross negligence because she failed to tell school officials the family had guns, including a 9 mm handgun that son Ethan used on a shooting range the weekend before the attack. The charges said she had a duty under Michigan law to keep Ethan from harming others, of failing to secure a gun and ammunition, and failing to get her some mental health help.

The morning of the shooting, Ethan’s parents were summoned to the school after staff members had seen a violent drawing of a gun, bullet, and a wounded man along with “desparate phrases” on his math assignment.  The parents did not take him home and not long afterwards, the boy pulled a gun out of his backpack and shot ten fellow students and a teacher. For students were killed. The gun was he same 9mm pistol his father had bought with him and that he had practiced with on the shooting range.  She said she had seen no signs of mental problems with her son and that it was her husband’s job, not hers, to keep track of the gun. Father James Crumbley goes on trial later in March.

Ethan, now 17, is in prison for life. His journal complains, “I have zero help for my mental problems.”

This is a landmark legal case.  The Crumbleys are the first parents in this country to be held criminally liable for the killings their children commit.  We’ll be watching to see what ripples might flow from Michigan to other states when other mass shootings happen.  The shooter might not always be the only one held responsible. And what changes in laws might that threat bring about?

We wonder what kind of ripples will be caused by by the Michigan approach of filing negligence against parents for the crimes of their children.  We wonder if any of OUR state’s prosecutors would go after Missouri parents when such an incident happens here.

The Centers for Disease Control, etc., say Missouri is ninth in gun deaths and is ranked by Everytown for Gun Safety 38th in gun law strength

The legislature has gone to extremes at times “defending” Second Amendment rights. Case in point: A 2021 law banning the state from enforcing any federal laws the state thinks infringe on those rights. The U. S. Supreme Court threw out that law as unconstitutional last fall.

A few state lawmakers spoke out against the states laissez-fare attitude about gun violence.  But others have sidestepped any serious thought about it, admitting only—in effect, “Yes, it’s a problem.”  Or sidestepping the other way by saying, “It’s not a gun problem; it’s a mental health problem” and then puttiing little or no emphasis on dealing with that mental health problem.

But Missouri prosecutors might learn from the Michigan experience—filing negligence charges against those who should have known better than to let a friend, a relative, or a child have access to a gun and bullets if that person is known to be troubled.

It’s a small thing.  But it might be a way to bring about some justice in a high-murder state with seemingly little interest from the political powers-that-be to do anything meaningful about it.

 

THE TIME HAS COME

Posted on by
Reply

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.”

That part of the Lewis Carroll (creator of Alice in Wonderland) poem, “The Walrus and the Carpenter” came to mind a few days ago.  It’s an absurd poem and maybe that’s why we thought of it when the issue of golden tennis shoes became part of our absurdist political discussion a few days ago.

We have to find a word that is more fitting to these times than “unprecedented.”  Trump World has pulverized that word. It has become a sail possum word.

The sail possum theory is this (I usually apply the theory to over-covered news stories)—

Imagine on a hot August day you see an opossum in the road.  It appears to be dead and over a period of days traffic makes sure it is as cars and trucks run over the poor creature until all that is left is a pavement-baked and flattened piece of skin with some fur still attached so that someone can peel the remnants up off the pavement and sail it frisbee-like into the median.

That’s a sail possum.

“Unprecedented” has become a sail possum word because it has been applied to so many outrageous statements and actions of Trump World that repeatedly validates the phrase, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

Case in point:

The time has come to talk of shoes.

Not in our wildest nightmares could we ever have conceived of the idea that the presumptive presidential nominee of one of our two major political parties would be hawking golden high-top tennis shoes to raise money to pay his legal bills.

And who will make them?  This bears close watch.  Allamerica.org put out a news release last December 11 that reported:

  • 99% of all shoes sold in the United States are imported.
  • 7 billion pairs of shoes were imported to the US in 2022 – an all-time record.
  • 25 million pairs of shoes were manufactured in the US in 2022 – the US imports 108x more shoes than it produces.
  • China is the top footwear importer to the US, exporting 1.6 billion pairs of shoes to the US in 2022. Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, and India comprise the rest of the top five US importers – all unchanged from 2021.
  • Over 81% of Americans want to buy shoes made in the USA vs. imported ones.
  • Over 58% of Americans cite high prices and difficulty finding footwear made in the USA as their primary obstacles to buying.

The sneaker industry found the announcement peculiar, to say the least, but very typical of someone whose inconsistencies matter not to him.  Shosy Ciment, writing for Footwear News, refers to his announcement s “an ironic move for the politician who, during his presidency, introduced the burdensome Section 301 tariffs on China that have had a direct negative impact on the footwear industry in the U.S., which largely relies on imports from China.”  She comments, “These tariffs have constributed to soaring footwear prices in the U.S. and have hurt American businesses and working class consumers.”

The Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America calculates footwear prices went up 4.6 percent from 2021 to 2022, and an other two-tenths of a percent in ’23.

The President and CEO of the FDRA, Matt Priest, told Ciment, “[Trump] had a direct hand in driving up costs for consumers and sneakerheads alike that added an additional upwards of $20 billion in costs to those shoes.” Matt Priest, president and chief executive officer of FDRA, told FN in an interview.

President and CEO Steve Lamar of the American Aapparel and Footware Association said, “Americans also love affordable and authentic fashion, and that is why we continue to urge for a commonsense approach to tariffs – not the reckless tariff increases proposed by former President Trump should he be re-elected, or the reckless tariff increases former President Trump imposed when he was last in office.”

Affordability is a big issue, says the Allamerica.org survey. That doesn’t seem to count with the golden sneakers. Here’s a screenshot from ebay.com taken on February 20:

Note:  TWO  pair already had been sold at the absurd price of $45,000..

Forget about Air Jordans. Get your order in now for these Hot Air Trump Pumps.

Will the golden sneakers sold to pay legal bills help make America great again or will they help pay low-salaried shoemakers in China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, and India?  And will they be made cheaply enough to maximize the profits—-and it’s going to take a LOT of profits to pay lawyers and to pay the damage assessments in fraud and defamation suits.

The longer we think about it, can we envision the reputed thousands who attend his rallies being the kind of folks who would wear red, white, and gold tennis shoes?

(To be honest, the red ones and the white ones kind of look pretty nice except for the logos on them.)

Will he wear ever wear them?  They’d really look great with his black suit, white shirt, and red tie, don’t you think?

It would help him identify with the common folks more, don’t you think? We sure don’t see may neckties and black suits in the audience at the rallies.

Some think these pricey slippers will make him increasingly acceptable to a particular demographic segment. FOX News contributor Raymond Arroyo opined the sneakers are “connecting with Black America because they love sneakers. This is a big deal, certainly in the inner city. So when you have Trump roll out his sneaker line, they’re like, ‘Wait a minute, this is cool.’ He’s reaching them on a level that defies and is above politics.”

Some folks find that kind of talk to be racist, among them MSNBC contributor Michael Steele, the first African-American to lead the Republican National committee,  who responded on MSNBC: “Seriously?  Why didn’t I think of this when I ran the RNC?  Let’s see.  Black folks love sneakers—and we can paint them gold.  This can’t miss! Trust me. It’s a big miss. And they ugly as Hell….Are they really this cynical over there at FOX?”

He seems to see Arroyo’s comments as political reductio ad absurdum, “reduction to absurdity.”

Wouldn’t Melania look stunningly fashionable in a pair as she shows her support for her spouse in his unprecedented financially difficult time although she likely wouldn’t be caught dead in the gold ones.

As for the red or white ones, in truth we probably will see them on her feet only when “pigs have wings.”

Oh, one other thing—there are no refunds and so far, there have been no delivery dates, which brings to mind more Latin—

Caveat Emptor, big time.

 

NO VICTIM, NO LOSS

Posted on by
Reply

Author Ally Carter has this perspective:

“Denying the undeniable just makes you sound like a fool as well as a liar.”

Who might she be talking about if she had said that recently?

A high-rolling braggart lies about the value of his property so he can get better loan terms for the acquisition of other properties.  He makes all of his payments, bless his heart.

But a judge says he is a major fraudster and nails him with a big penalty and tells him not to do any more of his shady business in the state for three years.

And the judge gets hammered by apologists for the liar who say making timely payments on fraudulently–obtained loans excuses the lies that were told to get those loans at favorable rates.  Some say it’s the banks’ own fault if they were harmed because they didn’t check the records to see if they had been lied to.

To set the record straight:

It all began with the lies.  Whatever resulted, including the loss of additional fund through required higher payments began with lies. It is inescapable that the liar is responsible for whatever is the unfavorable result for the lenders.

Lies have victims.  And if those lies result in lost income because they resulted in lower-than-usual interest rates on loans, there is a loss.

Timely payments are not a factor; Congenital lying is a factor.

Fraud is fraud no matter how consistently a fraudulently-obtained loan is paid off.

There was a victim, or there were victims.

They lost because a customer lied to them.

The liar’s denial of it, whining about it, blaming someone else for it is just deepening the lie.

It all started with lies.  A lot of lies.

The liar profited from his lies.

There were losses.

There were victims.

And there must be consequences lest we say lies are acceptable.

Liars succeed when people lack the courage or the involvement to call them to task.  This time a judge who carefully looked at the long track record of deceit decided  to set a price on the lying,.

We wonder if, in his private moments, the liar admits to himself that he is and has been a liar. Surely he must know that. Perhaps that is why his only defense is to keep lying.

But slowly, slowly, it is harder for those with a shred of honesty about them to keep defending the liar.

How many more times will the integrity of the legal system have to rule before the followers of the liar realize they have reached a tipping point?

How long before they realize THEY are the biggest victims?  How long before they realize what they have lost?

 

The Fix Was Only Partly In 

Posted on by
Reply

It was all planned, wasn’t it?  Except it all fell apart.

The MAGA people in their tinfoil hats had predicted the Super Bowl would be rigged so the Chiefs would win—in fact, the playoffs—if not the whole season—had been rigged by he NFL so the Chiefs would win and then Travis Kelce and girlfriend Taylor Swift would announce their endorsement of President Biden during the halftime show.

We must have missed that announcement.  We were chowing down at a friend’s “Souper Bowl” party while Usher’s spectacular halftime show was under way. It’s probably all coach Andy Reid’s fault that he would not let Kelce leave the locker room while the Chiefs rehearsed the NFL and the Democratic National Committee’s plans for the Chiefs to win.

How clever of the Chiefs and the 49ers to heighten the drama by taking the game into overtime. But that was part of the plan, wasn’t it?  More commercials at $7 million for each thirty seconds.  And how much of that will secretly wind up in the Biden campaign account (that wasn’t part of any conspiracy theory that we heard before the game but it came to mind in the aftermath)?

And when Kelce and Swift met on the field afterwards, they appeared to get lost in their own hugging and kissing that they forgot about making the endorsement. Up to then, things were pretty good and then they forgot their lines and messed it all up.

Maybe it was because they engaged in alternate activity because they were afraid they would say something that would prove claims that she is some kind of a Pentagon asset, although the tin hat folks have not specifically defined what that asset might be. If she ever slips and introduces herself as “Swift, Taylor Swift,” we’ll all know.  So far she hasn’t let it slip, but in the exciement of the Super Bowl she might have done it, so that’s why the Pentagon probably ordere Kelce to plaster his lips to hers because it’s hard to give away high-security secrets when your lips are linked with someone else’s lips.

President Biden commented on X, “Just like we drew it up,” again showing his decline in mental acuity by forgetting they were supposed to endorse him or that the scheme was to be top secret.

Noted liberal mainstream media talking head Joe Scarbrough the next morning disguised the failure of Kelce and Swift to perform by focusing instead on “all the MAGA, ultra-MAGA freaks” and Biden’s comment being “him mocking the snowflakes.”

Biden, showing that he is more contemporary than many give him credit for being, used TikTok to stream a video showing him answering questions about the Super Bowl. He refused to acknowledge that the fix was in by refusing to pick a winner.

“I’d get in trouble if I told you,” he told an interviewer who succested there had been “deviously plotting” for the Chiefs to make the playoffs and then taking the Super Bowl.

Sorry, Joe B.  You can run but you can’t hide.  All right-thinking—or is it ultra-right thinking?—people know the truth.  Kelce and Swift dropped the ball.

One more thing:

President Biden declined to do a pre-game interview, something called “a traditional sit-down” by one news agcncy although it hasn’t been a “tradition” very long. And guess who volunteered to replace him?

Ah, it’s not that hard a question. Our ex-president “praised” the incumbent’s decision, diplomatically noting, “A great decision, he can’t put two sentences together. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO REPLACE HIM – would be “RATINGS GOLD!”

He seemed to have a different attitude when HE skipped the pre-game interview in 2018.

As far as Ms. Swift is concerned, our former president thinks she would be a traitor if she endorsed the current president.  He figures she owes him, big time because he signed the Music Modernization Act “for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists,” he put it on Truth(?) Social.

“I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists. Joe Biden didn’t do anything for Taylor, and never will. There’s no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden, the worst and most corrupt President in the History of our Country, and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money.”

“Was responsible for?”

He had nothing to do with the bill, officially called the “Orrin G. Hatch-Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act,” which had gotten unanimous passing votes in both the Senate and the House. It is, to oversimplify things, a major update in copyright laws to deal with use of music on streaming services.

HE “made her so much money?” Last time we looked, that sure wasn’t Donald Trump dancing and singing  under the spotlights in various venues around the world.  It appears she is capable of making “so much money” on her own.

So he’s upset that this ungrateful superstar might think she has a much better person to endorse. Four years ago she ripped the then-president for “stoking the fires of white supremacy and racism your entire presidency.”

As a side note, has anyone compared the sizes of the audiences for her performances with the sizes of audience for HIS performances?

The former President about eight years ago professed to be a regular reader of Rolling Stone who likes Elton John, Paul McCartney, Jon Bon Jovi. He “new Michael Jackson very well…I knew him better than almost anybody.”  Pavarotti was a “very dear friend.”  Not on his lis are the numerous artists who have asked him to stop using their music at his campaign rallies including The Rolling Stones. His favorite song? Peggy Lee’s “Is that all there is?” The lyrics are about a person disillusioned with life events.

But it’s not all bad with the former president. “I like her boyfriend, Travis, even though he may be a Liberal, and probably can’t stand me!” he said on his page.

Sorry, Donnie, that’s probably not enough to get you a seat in the Chiefs’ luxury box so Taylor can hug you in celebration of one of Travis’ great plays. And I don’t think Travis would want to hug you, either, despite your grudging admiration of him.

In keeping with the spirit of Tinfoil Hat Sports, Inc., we offer this conspiracy theory for the 2024-25 football season;

The NFL will restructure its schedule so the Super Bowl and inauguration day fall on the same day.  The inauguration will be moved from the Capitol to the halftime show in New Orleans. The Chiefs will survive a tough, but rigged, schedule and will be down by at least ten points at the half and Andy Reid will forget about taking the team to the locker room so Travis and Taylor can perform a poem they have written and set to music for the occasion before their choice for President takes his oath of office. The Vince Lombardi Trophy will be awarded to the Chiefs by the President at the end of his speech although the game is only half over, However it will continue as arranged to make sure all of the commercials are run and to formalize the pre-arranged result. There will not be an overtime because the inaugural ball will begin in a hail of confetti after the Chiefs pull out another close victory that beats the spread.

And eight Clydesdales will circle the stadium pulling a Bidenweiser beer wagon.

Bet the farm.  It’s already been arranged. You read it here first.

-0-

The advice  

Posted on by
Reply

It seems so pure.  But its truth, spoken 250 years ago, is an ideal too seldom sought and even less seldom in today’s politics, achieved.

The great British statesman Edmund Burke spoke to the electors of Bristol on November 3, 1774 of the responsibilities of those in elective positions who represent a people. In his remarks, he dismisses those who say only that they represent the will of the voters of their district. But he also is dismissive of those who become renegades within the system who focus only one their wishes and interests.

The language is more Shakesearean than contemporary political rhetoric, of course.  But the message is clear and one part of this speech is especially meaningful. C0onsider it advice to those who serve us:

I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that “the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;” and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,–these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.

You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.

Substitute “legislature” or “congress” for “parliament,” and it seems from here that this advice is timeless and needs to be understood and heeded by those we send to represent us. But we also should acknowledge that we have a responsibilies, too, as Burke pointed out. There is no escaping our responsibility to send the best people to represent our best interests.

And if they fail us, it is our responsibility to replace them with those won’t.  That, of course, requires us to pay attention to what they do and requires them to report to us with “a respectful frankness.”  The times demand more of us than we have been giving. If we are to expect for from them we must expect more from ourselves.

(Photo credit: American Enterprise Institute)

Rape Theology

Posted on by
Reply

The Missouri Senate went after the legislature’s favorite annual punching bag the other day—Planned Parenthood.  It argued about a bill that would keep the organization from collecting Medicaid reimbursements for dispensing family planning and other women’s health services including cancer screenings.

Planned Parenthood hasn’t provided abortions for a couple of years in Missouri.  But that’s not enough for the PP-haters who don’t want the folks working for the organization to even say the word. And suggesting someone who has thought through the issue and still wants an abortion to places in other states, well, that is calamitous.

One Senator wants to make it a crime for a woman to seek an abortion—although she’d have to leave the state to have it.  He also would have rapists castrated or shot.

Apparently the Senator is not familiar with Article 1, section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution that gives Congress exclusive power over trade among the states. It also limits state powers to limit interstate commerce. And abortions ARE interstate commerce. But ignoring the U. S. Constitution has not been a problem in the legislature on the hot issue du jour for some time.

Another Senator says rapists should get the death penalty and suggested forcing the victim to carry the fetus to term created by the rapist who should be executed “may even be the greatest healing agent you need in which to recover from such an atrocity.”

Still another suggested that rape might be “mentally taxing…(but) it doesn’t justify an abortion.”

Missouri Independent reports she continued, “God does not make mistakes. And for some reason he allows that to happen. Bad things happen. I’m not gonna be able to support the amendment because I am very pro-life.”

I have often remarked that nothing screws up faith more than religion, or as one of my favorite cartoonists expressed it a few years ago:

To describe rape as “mentally taxing” is completely inappropriate.  So is the idea that executing the rapist would be a great healing agent. An African-American member of the senate attributed her existence to the rape of her great-grandmother, a slave, who by her white master.  The event was “mentally taxing” enough that the victim killed herself.

Several years ago, a similar argument against putting rape and incest exemptions into the abortion was pushed by a woman state representative who argued that it is God’s will that  something beautiful (the birth of a child) could result from something so bad as rape or incest.

I wrote in the old Missourinet Blog that, that kind of reasoning argues against rape being a crime. If God intended something beautiful, a baby, to result from something so ugly as a rape or incest, then God must have intended for the rape and incest to happen—especially since God is perfect.  And if that’s the case, rape should be considered an Act of God, not a crime.  After all, God does not make mistakes.

This is why we have, presumably, a separation of church and state.  Religious Dogma should not replace a law of humanity.  But it does and there are many who want to erase that separating line entirely. To do so would thus make one religion more free than others. And that would mess up the idea that this is a nation that practices religious freedom.

My theocracy is better than your theocracy. My God is better than your God. That’s what it all boils down to.

The major flaw in the “God does not make mistakes” argument is that God created people who make mistakes because God gave people free will.

So we live in an imperfect world and reconciling the imperfections in a way that makes living more humane is a never-ending argument. Killing others in the name of God has only produced never-ending wars.

Killing the rapist raises questions about the entire right to life philosophy. Would it be a “healing agent” to kill the rapist of a pregnant ten-year old girl who will likely not understand why she is left to bear what some consider God’s Gift? And if the product of a rape is a gift from God, how can killing the bearer of that gift be considered correct policy?

It is not our intention here to argue whether there should be abortions. But there are two innocent lives involved, not one.  And to try to make rape a theological issue is a political Gordian knot.

If we accept that God is perfect then we must accept that it was God’s will that we mortals are imperfect. And as imperfect creatures we make imperfect decisions. The challenge is in determining the fairness of the way we deal with those imperfections.

Maybe some issues are beyond the law and ongoing gyrations trying to make them fit within a law that carries equal rights and compassion for everyone the law touches is beyond human capabilities.  In those instances, the decision should rest with the individual, their doctor, and God.

Turn to faith, not religion, for the ultimate guidance.

Replace The National Bird?

Posted on by
Reply

The hard right wing of the Republican Party keeps proving there is no limit to their lunacy.  It is so pronounced that we are surprised they haven’t advocated replacing the Bald Eagle with the Loon as our national bird. Maybe they’re too busy cooking up conspiracies to get to that.

Out with the elephant as the party symbol. In with the Loon.

I have decided these people need a sense-of-humor transplant for starters.  Have you ever seen any of them indicate any sign of sincere happiness about anything?  But if they got the transplant, who would be the first ones they would laugh about?  The mirror holds the answer.

There seems to be no end to their absurdity, to wit:

Not content to maintain that the 2020 election was rigged, they now are all a-twitter (or maybe all a-X) about how the NFL has rigged the playoffs and the upcoming Super Bowl so the Chiefs will win and Taylor Swift and boyfriend Travis Kelce will announce they endorse Joe Biden for re-election.

I kid you not.

Dominick Mastrangelo and Sarakshi Rai wrote for The Hill last week that Swift, a person of the year for Time magazine and the dominant figure in the entertainment world led some artificial intelligence-composed fake images “broke the internet,” has become an obsession with the nutcase caucus of the GOP.

Swift endorsed Joe Biden four years ago and has been “somewhat active” politically otherwise. “Swift’s incredible popularity is also bringing to the forefront various ugly sides of 21st century American life, from explicit AI-generated deepfakes of the superstar that briefly closed down Taylor Swift searches this week on X to unfounded conspiracy theories,” they wrote,.

Vivek Ramaswamy, a paragon of reasonableness, wrote the morning after the Chiefs beat the Ravens for the AFC championship, “I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl next month. And I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple this fall. Just some wild speculation over here, let’s see how it ages over the next 8 months.” None other than Elon Musk responded, “Exactly.”

Other inmates running the far right asylum chimed in. Jack Lombard, an activist who lost a bid for the House two years ago, went on social media to proclaim that he has “never been more convinced that the Super Bowl is rigged.”

Somebody named Mike Crispi who is described as the host of a Rumble video on Musk’s social media site says the NFL has “totally” rigged the Super Bowl, “all to spread DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA.”  And, he says, halftime entertainer Usher is going to have to share the spotlight with Swift, who “comes out at the halftime show and ‘endorses’ Joe Biden with Kelce at midfield.”

“The NFL is totally RIGGED for the Kansas City Chiefs, Taylor Swift, Mr. Pfizer (Travis Kelce),” Crispi said “All to spread DEMOCRAT PROPAGANDA. Calling it now: KC wins, goes to Super Bowl, Swift comes out at the halftime show and ‘endorses’ Joe Biden with Kelce at midfield.”

This isn’t something that just became obvious to the loon flock. The writers for The Hill record that Jesse Watters, a FOX News host, said a few weeks ago that this conspiracy isn’t just focused on the Super Bowl.  The Pentagon’s psycholical operations unit has tought about turning Swift into “an asset.”

A lot of people think she already is, and a good one, but in an entirely more complimentary way. “It’s real,” Watters is quoted as saying. “The Pentagon psy-op unit pitched NATO on turning Taylor Swift into an asset for combatting misinformation online.” Somehow a report by Politico that a presenter at a NATO cyber conference referred to Swift as a powerful influencer has turned her into a tool for the psy-op unit.

Over on the pro-Trump Newsmax channel, talking head Greg Kelly warned that public admiration of Ms. Swift could bring the wrath of God down upon her followers because it’s idolatry. “If you look it up in the Bible, it’s a sin,” he proclaimed, without mentioning any concerns about what has been called the Trump Cult.

And what would the loon caucus be without George Soros to drag into any discussion?  Alison Steinberg, a host on another pro-Trump channel (One America News) complained with not a scintilla of evidence that she is “owned by Soros.”

FOX News recently noted that her short flight in her personal jet from New Jersey to Baltimore to watch the AFC championship game produced three tons of CO2 emissions. The story was a personal attack on her, however, rather than an explanation of why the burning of that fossil fuel contributed an infinitesimable amount to climate change. Ignored in the enthusiasm to attack someone who might influence voters away from the network’s favorite ex-president was any mention that said ex-president is an ardent protector of coal mining that continues to produce the fuel that has powered the Industrial Age from the beginning and is a major contributor to mankind’s contribution to our changing climate.

Rolling Stone magazine has reported that the former president is still smarting because she was named Time magazine’s person of the year instead of him. Citing a person close to the former president and another source, it says, “Trump has also privately claimed that he is ‘more popular’ than Swift and that he has more committed fans than she does.”

None other than Trump lawyer Alina Habba, whose defense of the former president resulted in an $83 millon judgment against him, has asked on social media, “Who thinks this country needs a lot more women like Alina Habba and a lot less like Taylor Swift?”

Boy, is THAT ever a hard question to answer…………

The fact that Taylor Swift IS a significant influencer and that her influence has grown since 2020 has put some fear into the hearts of people who cannot grasp that things happen that are not the result of a conspiracy against them and their leader(s).  And there are grounds for their fears.

A Newsweek poll done by Redfield and Wilton strategies of 15-hundred respondents showed 18% of them were “more likely,” or “significantly more likely” to vote for someone Swift endorses.

And that is precisely what the MAGA crowd  wants to discourage. FOX personality, Brian Kilmede, has given some advice that Swift can sweep aside without a thought: endorsing Biden would be “the single dumbest thing a mega superstar could ever do.”

We can think of several dumber things.  Instantly.  Because a lot of mega, or MAGA, superstars have done a lot of dumb things. As far as we know, Taylor Swift never recommended people drink bleach to ward off COVID or other made other similar squirrelly recommendations, for example.

“Why would  you tell half the country that you don’t agree with them in this highly polariezed time? You stay out of it…it would be the craziest thing you could ever do. And Biden isn’t worth it,” he said.

Jeanine Pirro, another FOX personality chimed in that Swift should not “get involved in politics” because she might “alienate her fans.”

How odd that these critics worry about the costs she might incur from exercising her freedom of speech while their own idol complains his freedom of speech is being limited because his message is the exact opposite of hers.

Former CNN talker Chris Cuomo, now doing a similar show on Nexstar’s News Nation, calls these ravings a “mashup of madness” and confesses, “I don’t know what they’re talking about. I don’t know what they’re playing at. It’s completely divorced from reality. No one with a working brain can believe this energy that they’re putting into this. She hasn’t even endorsed anybody. Who cares who she endorses.”

The Biden campaign, Chris. It has indicated the obvious, that he’s open to the idea. She endorsed him in 2020 and her endorsement likely will carry even more weight now. think of how many more people would show up for a Taylor Swift political rally than show up for a Donald Trump political rally.

We have never met Ms. Swift and doubt we ever will. But she sounds far smarter than those who are incubating the latest crop of loon eggs. She is highly capable of making her own decisions without counsel from Kilmede and others who conveniently overlook the log in their own eyes*, thank you—and that is precisely what this bunch is afraid she will do.

Taylor Swift scares the bejeesus out of this crowd because she is admirable for the way she encourages others through her music to be better and to do better. They hate her because she is intelligent and sincerely enthusiastic about things like football and one player—-who seems to be a nice guy away from the ferocity of the game—in particular.  And she speaks her mind— intelligently. I bet you could get a cogent answer if you asked her about the Civil War.

While on the other side, we hear only the tremulous sound of the loon.

(*Matthew 7:3-5: Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.)

(Photo credit: National Audubon Society)