One vote GOP majority impeaches Biden cabinet official

Today the House voted 214-213, on party lines, to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, vindicating their humiliating recent failure to impeach him.It is the first time in history that a sitting American cabinet member has been impeached.The tiny GOP House majority was in an admittedly tight spot on the issue of immigration, the party having demanded legislation on border control by tying it to Ukraine, Gaza, Israel and Taiwan aid, getting it from the Senate after months of negotiation, and refusing to bring it to the floor for a vote, on orders of their boss, an impulsive man with a very busy court schedule.

Prior to the vote the NY Times ran a related article, using uncharacteristically direct language to describe the political party that is a big tent for every kind of American hater and bigot (along with the millions of very fine people who are neither haters nor bigots).The very un-Times like headline and lede reads: On Capitol Hill, Republicans Use Bigoted Attacks Against Political Foes; House and Senate Republicans have denigrated fellow lawmakers, Biden administration officials and witnesses in racist ways, both in casual comments and in official settings. The article offered a sampling of bigoted spoutings by the GOP, all in the course of a week.Here’s the bit about Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas:

Around the same time, House Republicans released their report on impeachment charges against Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the Cuban-born homeland security secretary who is the first Latino to lead his department. Using unusually loaded language for a committee report, the panel described its action as “deporting Secretary Mayorkas from his position.”

In private, the language was uglier. During a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, Representative Mark E. Green, Republican of Tennessee and the panel’s chairman, referred to Mr. Mayorkas as a “reptile with no balls” because of his refusal to resign from his post, according to Politico. A White House official condemned the statement, noting that Mr. Mayorkas is Jewish and that the comment echoed an antisemitic trope.

source

A reptile with no balls. What are you going to do with a creature like that?

Two points of view on “existential migrant crisis”

Like the initial charge by then candidate Trump that Mexican rapists are flooding the southern border, the terrifying caravan of migrants before the 2020 election (a hoard that never arrived, or were ever in transit, or spoken of again after the election), and the migrant terror whipped up by the GOP that demanded no aid to Ukraine, Gaza, Israel or Taiwan unless strict border measures were signed into law (bipartisan measures hammered out over months and torpedoed by Trump and his cherub-faced lapdog Speaker at the last minute) the migrant threat is overblown, if not fabricated. Here are two short opposing points of view on the problem.

Commies, at the Department of Homeland Security, who answer only to Mayorkas, no less.  Actual commies.

Gray Lady, pouring it on!

Top three stories in today’s online New York Times:

Why would Biden’s protective White House aides worry that even his small mistakes would be exploited and endlessly repeated in a right wing and corporate media echo chamber?  Do you read your own headlines, Grey Lady?

I guess the partisan Robert Hur did his job as well as NY Times star reporter Judith Miller did her job back in 2001 for Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and all the other administration talking heads who cited the NY Times for the quote they fed to her “don’t let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud”  to insinuate that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of having nuclear weapons, to justify the illegal invasion of iraq after 9/11.

As for Judith Miller, her Wikipedia entry begins:

Judith Miller (born January 2, 1948)[1] is an American journalist and commentator who covered Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program both before and after the 2003 invasion, which was later discovered to have been based on inaccurate information from the intelligence community.[2][3] She worked in The New York Times‘ Washington bureau before joining Fox News in 2008.

It makes perfect sense that she wound up at Fox, but the larger question is — what the fuck New York Times?

Jen Rubin says it better than I do:

Goddamn it, Grey Lady!

Can you spot the New York Timesisms here?

The New York Times continues:

The Biden campaign has built its strategy around telling voters that the November election is a choice between the president, whatever doubts the public has about his age, and an opponent in Mr. Trump, 77, whom they paint as a threat to democracy and personal freedoms.

Fair is fair, it is the centerpiece of Biden campaign strategy to paint Trump as a threat to democracy and personal freedoms. It is a two billion dollar  campaign strategy to portray Trump, an ordinary political candidate for president with an unremarkable history, mounting a typical reelection campaign, as some kind of existential threat. Calling him a threat as part of an attack ad campaign, like they all do.

Fair is fair, the Trump appointee who Merrick Garland appointed special counsel to investigate Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents, made comments well beyond the scope of his brief — which was to determine if Biden had or had not committed a crime related to taking government documents.Hur (no relation to Ben) determined that Biden could not be prosecuted and then opined, gratuitously as this blahg you are reading now, that Biden is perhaps in too feeble a mental state to have even been able to form any kind of plan to commit the crimes.No jury would convict such a feeble, doddering, sad, amiable but pitiable old man who barely knew what was going on, added Hur in his final report. You know how the DOJ always like to include a little gossipy stuff in their official reports, spill a  little tea, like cattily opining about people’s fitness for their elected position and the political reasons to doubt their abilities.

NY Times, taking the ball and running with it, along with the rest of corporate media.

Or as Biden ad libbed the other day at that news conference where he was angry at special counsel Trump appointee Hur being out of line and working in the interests of a political opponent:

FOX reporter:Are you having problems with your memory?

Biden:I must be, I’m taking a question from you.

Isn’t that right, Grey Lady?

A method to their psychopathy

Heather Cox Richardson describes some of the more insane things Trump has demanded his party do in recent months and then cuts to the chase, in her inimitable way, with this summary:

“Trump is reinforcing a narrative where the only acceptable outcome is his victory, thus preemptively delegitimizing any electoral defeat,” Evansville attorney and former Indiana Republican delegate Joshua Claybourn told Wren. “It sets the stage for yet another crisis of legitimacy in the November general election.”

Mike Murphy, a former Republican member of the Indiana House of Representatives, offered Wren a different theory about Trump’s actions: “The bottom line is he’s completely unhinged. He is literally off his rocker.”

But there is a method behind the madness. Trump’s actions are not those designed to win an election by getting a majority of the votes. They are the tools someone who cannot win a majority uses to seize power. 

read the rest

MAGA 1861-style

Fascinating, disturbing but not surprising bit of American history I’d never heard about, from an op-ed in yesterday’s NY Times by Akhil Reed Amar (link to full piece here)

Mr. Trump’s lawyers legitimately ask what counts as a disqualifying insurrection. Section 3, they note, was clearly aimed at oath-breakers who had backed insurrections akin to the Civil War. In that calamitous insurrection, more than half a million people died. The Jan. 6 Capitol riot, they argue, pales in comparison.

But Section 3’s authors actually had not one but two recent insurrections in mind. Before the bloody insurrection that began when cannons roared at Fort Sumter in April 1861, there was the first insurrection of the 1860s, led by cabinet members of outgoing President James Buchanan, including John B. Floyd, the war secretary, and Philip Francis Thomas, the treasury secretary, among many others. A shadowy network of affiliates and co-conspirators aimed in several and nefarious ways — including mayhem, military subversion and even murder, if need be — to prevent the lawful counting of President-elect Abraham Lincoln’s electoral votes and to thwart his lawful inauguration in early March 1861.

From one angle, the first insurrection was even worse than the giant insurrection that followed. It aimed not merely to shrink the union, but to undo a legitimate presidential election for all Americans.

On Feb. 13, 1861 — the closest equivalent of Jan. 6, 2021 — Congress met to certify Lincoln’s victory. Malicious anti-Lincoln men congregated near the Capitol. But thanks to Gen. Winfield Scott’s steely defense, the Capitol held.

In some ways, the insurrection of 2021 was worse than the first insurrection of 1861. The Capitol did not fall in 1861, but it was breached in 2021.

source

Lincoln won the Electoral College in the election of 1860, although he was not on the ballot in any of the eleven states that seceded and formed the Confederacy (to get on the ballot a certain number of signatures was needed, people collecting signatures for Lincoln were run out of town or lynched).I’d never heard, until today, about the MAGA-like machinations of sitting government officials, their henchmen and a mob to try to keep Lincoln out of office, two months before full scale Civil War broke out.The second time Lincoln won, of course, during the Civil War, he was shot in the head at close range, days after Lee surrendered to Grant, by an enraged Confederate shouting “sic semper tyrannis!” thus may it always be with tyrants.

History comes up with very similar ugly scenarios over and over, like disgusting burps from a meal that was right on the edge of food poisoning.The traitor who led the Confederate army in a war that killed more Americans than any other was honored years later with his likeness on a US postage stamp.The president of the Confederacy was tried criminally, for treason, but the trial was too divisive and political and the new DOJ, I guess, finally just threw up its hands on prosecuting him.Old Jefferson Davis walked away with a wry smile, no harm, no foul.Here’s a piece about that shameful failure of justice, first long delayed, then shadily negotiated, then denied.

During World War II pro-Nazi gangs in America and pro-Nazi members of Congress, literally calling themselves America First, who propagandized for, aided and gave comfort to actual German Nazis who had declared war on the United States, an enemy the US was then fighting… uh, no convictions, because there were passionate, angry people on both sides, particularly the violent, pro-Nazi side.Rachel Maddow did a brilliant audio series on this shit show, called Ultra, highly recommended.Steven Spielberg immediately bought the screen rights for this suspenseful film noir tragedy.

No trial for the antidemocratic masterminds, Bannon, Eastman, Giuliani, Kerik, Flynn and their ilk, who sat in the War Room at the Willard Hotel coordinating the “Green Bay Sweep” the plan by MAGA congressmen and senators to block the certification of Biden’s election and swap in fake electors, including incitement of a violent riot, based on incendiary lies believed by millions, to discard the ballots of millions of Black people and voters in Anarchist Jurisdictions and keep their leader in power? The stink of it all is sickeningly familiar.

Like the ongoing racist, misogynist attacks against the Black, female Fulton County DA who is now under fire, in our craven corporate bottom-line media, for calling the attacks against her racist.Her private life, her sex life, is fair game for these scumbag defendants, and the media takes it seriously, rattles on about some undefined appearance of impropriety and maybe she should walk away.

As I was taught early on in law school, if you have the facts, pound the facts, if you have the law, pound the law, if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.These table-pounding fucks are trying to stir up enough of a foul stench that the court system itself walks away, as has happened before in our storied, often erased history.

The need for validation vs. the need for good feedback

People with an insecure sense of self are outer-directed, they live their lives for the validation of the people around them.Since they felt belittled and neglected when they were too young to do anything but suffer, they take pains to look physically perfect, according to the fashion of the day, they seek praise, status, social position, awards from their peers.All these are part of a lifelong attempt to make themselves feel better, more valuable and worthier of love, than others.They live in a hierarchical world where some people are simply much more important than others, by virtue of working to earn their self-worth in an objectively quantifiable way.

They live in a win/lose competitive world where winners win and are admired by those around them for having the will and talent not to be losers. As far as I can see, that world is the destructive illusion of superficial idiots, but I have always been super-opinionated about things like the justness of rigid social hierarchies and those who conform to social systems without any real questions about their validity.I keep thinking of the billions of people this worldview consigns to inferior, permanent, inter-generational loser status simply as the way things are.

I have always felt a need for the useful feedback I almost never got as a child. What is different about my need for a response and the need for outer validation I’ve sketched above? In both cases we are looking for assurances about the good effect our words and actions have on others. Everyone likes a sincere compliment, it’s always gratifying to be spoken well of by others. In the case of validation-seeking, the thing sought is praise and admiration. That is different, to my mind, than seeking an intelligent critique of your work, sometimes your deeds.

A person writes to convey thoughts, ideas and feelings to others.Writing is an extension of the desire to have a good, mutual conversation, one of the great pleasures of being human, as far as I can see. There is really no better way to gauge how well a piece of writing achieves the goals you intend than by getting good notes from a reader.This feedback allows us to understand what is still unclear to others in our work, or objectionable, or feeble, or unconvincing, and to address ambiguity, sloppiness, or assuming the comprehensibility of complex things we have not sufficiently laid out the context for understanding.With those comments in mind we can fix those things and come closer to our aim. Comments we can mull over keep the conversation moving forward, which is integral to why we communicate in the first place.Silence by way of response is a real conversation stopper, to state the obvious.

Validation-seeking people tend to stay very busy, they are socially active, work hard, program their leisure time down to the minute, consult the clock for when it’s time to end the party and get eight hours of sleep to be up and at ’em full force the next morning.Their every waking effort goes toward earning the self-acceptance and self-admiration they can’t feel except as reflected back to them by others.Sitting quietly by themselves, unless they are exercising their abdominal muscles, burning calories or something useful like that, is unthinkably difficult for them.It is as if they literally can’t see themselves unless they are engaged with others who appreciate them.

Of course, I probably only feel this way because I’ve always spent most of my hours alone.One could make a decent argument that I like nothing better than the company of my own constantly rippling thoughts and ideas.I learned early to soothe myself this way when I felt ignored – learning to play music, drawing, writing, cooking.I am always happy to spend time with other people, or talk to them at length – and I need these contacts as much as anyone does, maybe more – but I also accept myself the way I am and have as much compassion for myself as I do toward anyone else I care about.

Am I a great guitar player or any kind of virtuoso?No, but I am the greatest guitar player I can be at the moment.It means a great deal to me to play every note as cleanly, purposefully and soulfully as I can, to learn new ways to play the same melody, new positions on the neck for chords and little tricks, to become a more fluent improviser.Most people don’t think of any of these things, like the many different ways to play the same note, which I think is a shame.

To those who focus almost entirely on what the outer world says about us, you are either a professional musician getting paid and recognized for your work or an amateur with a slightly obsessive hobby which is nice, but a bit vain, because what does it really say about a person if they waste hours a day playing Beatles tunes?

It would be marginally better to the validation-focused, perhaps, to play sophisticated, challenging jazz tunes, or the best of classical guitar, if they would even notice that difference in material. They’re often not even able to hear any of it very clearly because it is just – they don’t even know what the hell compels someone to do it. Beatles, jazz standards or classical — best, to me, is playing what you love best and can make sound the most beautiful, but, fuck, enough about me.