Racism 101

I couldn’t bring myself to watch the horror show of outraged GOP members on the Senate Judiciary Committee making fiery sound bites for MAGA nation by attacking a supremely qualified future Supreme Court justice (Manchin and Sinema permitting). I knew the Democrats would be unable to make these bigots shut up, improvisationally challenged corporate institutionalists that many of them are. Chris Hayes and his team assembled a nice, hideous little collage of angry white senators attacking the nominee about her race, a passion play that no doubt played bigly with their Trump-addicted fan base.

Clarence “Black Klansman” Thomas called questions about his ongoing sexual harassment of Anita Hill during his confirmation “a high tech lynching.” Now these Trumpists are going old school, making open racism (particularly against women of color) great again, no need for tech of any height: so you’re Black so you support CRT instead of Originalism, the Christian way; what about violent crimes committed by your people, rape and murder, and RAPE and RAPE; and what about this children’s book accusing babies of being racist, babies for Christ’s sake? [1] You fucking wrote it, didn’t you? Didn’t you, you fucking liar?

The clip, starting with Tennessee genius Marsha Blackburn (“tell us honestly about your hidden agenda to incorporate Critical Race Theory into our abortion jurisprudence”) runs just over a minute, and as you listen, try to picture any of these provocative, idiotic “questions” asked of one of the carefully vetted right-wing judicial activist ideologues appointed, filibuster-free, by Putin’s favorite totally exonerated American president.

[1]

Lyin’, Toadyin’ Ted, in prime form, like when he said to the dignified Attorney General “give me a break, Garland… You admitted that giving a Nazi salute is protected expression under the First Amendment and you’re making a big deal about a little Nazi salute, oh, my God, the guy did a Nazi salute! What’s America coming to, MAGA nation, when you can’t even give a goddamn Nazi salute to some know-it-all fucking metrosexual quinoa eating smart guy at a school board meeting?”

This turd literally has no idea what decency is, or good citizenship, or the American ideal.

Transparency, anyone?

The truth is important, for its own sake and to advance intelligent decision making. It is impossible for the governed to give informed consent about anything if important information is hidden.   Those who don’t know all the facts can’t decide anything knowingly, can’t meaningfully consent to anything. 

Would it have hurt a presidential candidate if the voters knew he paid off a porn actress and a Playboy model to keep quiet about having sex with him while he was married to his third wife?   We’ll never know, but keeping that damaging information secret certainly didn’t hurt him in the polls.  The only person who paid any price for the crime of using campaign funds to buy the silence of hired adulterous sex companions was the henchman who did some time in jail carrying out his Evangelical Christian-endorsed master’s wishes for absolute secrecy.   

The best policy for those who would hide shameful or otherwise damaging things, it appears, is simply not to be transparent.  It doesn’t take a dictator to realize this.   Here’s an example from the recently elected DA of NY County, Alvin Bragg.   He decided he didn’t want to risk being the first to criminally prosecute Donald Trump, it was too dangerous for him, or for whatever his reasons are.  He kept everything nice and opaque as he brazened his way through quietly dropping the case.

His predecessor, a fairly cowardly (or just compromised) man named Cyrus Vance, Jr. hired two experienced, specialized lead prosecutors to try Donald Trump for his regular, fraudulent, wildly changing valuations of his properties.  Vance convened a criminal grand jury, put the crack legal team in place to collect the evidenve and then announced he would not run for reelection as Manhattan DA.  His successor, Alvin Bragg, appeared to be dragging his feet on the criminal prosecution of Trump’s business empire. The grand jury hadn’t heard testimony for weeks, there was rumbling as the gathering case suddenly stood still.  Then the two top Trump prosecutors resigned.   

Bragg immediately announced that his criminal probe was going forward, that the two lead prosecutors who’d resigned would be immediately replaced by a lawyer who had defended many powerful white collar defendants in Trump’s position.  In response to requests for the resignation letters, he claimed he could not release them because they contained information that might compromise the prosecution of Trump.   A ridiculous claim, since no experienced prosecutor would include compromising info in a resignation letter.   Bragg refused to release the letters, but he appeared to be letting the grand jury’s term expire, quietly running out the game clock, ending the prosecution before an indictment could be filed.  In this case, appearance was soon confirmed as reality.

Eventually things come out.  Sometimes it is decades later, but in this case, only a few weeks.   The NY Times published Mark Pomerantz’s resignation letter yesterday.  It reads, in part:

As you know from our recent conversations and presentations, I believe that Donald Trump is guilty of numerous felony violations of the Penal Law in connection with the preparation and use of his annual Statements of Financial Condition. His financial statements were false, and he has a long history of fabricating information relating to his personal finances and lying about his assets to banks, the national media, counterparties, and many others, including the American people. The team that has been investigating Mr. Trump harbors no doubt about whether he committed crimes — he did. . .

. . .You have reached the decision not to go forward with the grand jury presentation and not to seek criminal charges at the present time. The investigation has been suspended indefinitely. Of course, that is your decision to make. I do not question your authority to make it, and I accept that you have made it sincerely. However, a decision made in good faith may nevertheless be wrong. I believe that your decision not to prosecute Donald Trump now, and on the existing record, is misguided and completely contrary to the public interest. I therefore cannot continue in my current position. . .

. . . To the extent you have raised issues as to the legal and factual sufficiency of our case and the likelihood that a prosecution would succeed, I and others have advised you that we have evidence sufficient to establish Mr. Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we believe that the prosecution would prevail if charges were brought and the matter were tried to an impartial jury. No case is perfect. Whatever the risks of bringing the case may be, I am convinced that a failure to prosecute will pose much greater risks in terms of public confidence in the fair administration of justice. As I have suggested to you, respect for the rule of law, and the need to reinforce the bedrock proposition that “no man is above the law,” require that this prosecution be brought even if a conviction is not certain.

source

Jesus, no wonder Bragg tried to keep the letter secret.  It questioned his good faith belief that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute (while refusing to call further witnesses for even more grand jury evidence) and makes a pretty good argument for that questioning.   Bragg openly saying he had decided it was too risky (for his career) to prosecute Trump, and fail, would not have flown, virtually no American politician would have done that.  So, you do next best thing — tell a few lies, keep everything nice and opaque and count on the two second attention span of overwhelmed consumer/citizens who will soon turn their shattered attention to the next titillating outrage.  It happens every few seconds in our frantic 24/7 news cycle.  No worries.  I’m just sorry I wasted my vote on this lying sack o’ non-transparency.

Calling things what they are, Mr. Orwell. Holodomor, anyone?

I need to read George Orwell.   In terms of debilitating lies, regularly told via mass media to advance a false narrative, we are living in grimly Orwellian times.  What we call something makes all the difference, as all American Needle Nazis, health care professionals advocating mass vaccination during a deadly worldwide plague, know very well.  This kind of re-framing and renaming happens everywhere right now, in every space, during virtually every argument over anything.  What we call what we are fighting about is often the difference between prevailing and failing.

There are countless examples of this kind of force fed bullshit in our political culture — End Mask Mandate Tyranny (surprisingly never brought to state legislatures as the Freedom to Infect Act), Stop the Steal (only fraud found — a few cases of overzealous Trump voters), Voting Integrity Laws (to ensure only voters with the right kind of integrity have their votes counted), Right to Life (fetuses only, bitches), Death Tax (paid by entitled living heirs of the super rich), Death Panels (without these nobody would ever have to die!), Climate Change Skepticism (you just keep bringing more proof, we have FAITH!) and on down the list.   This kind of crap is increasingly common in a world where an obvious lie can be shrugged off as “alternative fact,”  if you believe it, faith-based person, it’s irrefutably true for YOU and everyone in your tribe.   

A big part of this kind of Orwellian lie is insisting on the opposite of what a powerful group is actually doing.  The pompous idiots who wrote Trump’s hastily prepared 1776 Report, a junior high school level American history term paper “refuting” the 1619 Project’s version of a slave-based economy during much of US history, focused on white, Christian values (First Amendment be damned to hell), began by stating the cardinal principle of our democracy — that here all are equal under the law.    This was insisted on, with a straight face, after Trump’s third attorney general had engaged in all kinds of obstruction of justice on behalf of the president and his inner circle jerks, after the president had pardoned a rogue’s gallery of select criminals, including one arrested by Trump’s own DOJ (DeJoy’s postal service, actually)  for ripping off Trump’s own loyal, credulous base with a fake Build the Wall scam.  After the president himself proved that obstructing justice, for the wealthy and connected, may be done with impunity if you have enough lawyers to tie everything up in court for years and a spineless enough opposition party.

Of course, since almost everyone in my family was ‘euthanized’ under Nazi supervision (though none of them made it to the camps), I always think of the famous sign worked in the wrought iron gates of Auschwitz, the famous “work camp” for slave laborers — Arbeit Macht Frei, Work Liberates.  The Nazis were pioneers in Language Rules, strict Sprachregelung, what you can and cannot say in Nazi Germany.   They had some good ones.   You had the bulk of the Jews in the category of Transport Juden, otherwise innocent Jews taken by train to the “work” camps, their papers marked Sonderbehandlung (special handling), and Schutzhaft Juden, (Jews in protective custody) criminal Jews who had a much higher status than the ordinary “workers” and tended to survive, even thrive, in places like Auschwitz. Nazi logic speaks for itself... to Nazis.

Think of it, though, how you name something is crucial for success or failure.  Every marketer, brander, advertiser, lobbyist, public relations consultant knows branding and proper messaging makes all the difference. Which banner would you rather fight under during a deadly pandemic “Freedom to Infect” or “Freedom from Overreaching Government Tyranny”?  A fucking no-brainer.    Putin, after invading Ukraine in an intended Shock and Awe blitzkrieg, immediately made a law criminalizing anyone who referred to the move as an “invasion”, “war”, “blitzkrieg”, “hostilities”, or, actually, anything but a humanitarian, fully necessary peacekeeping mission.    See?  That was easy, wasn’t it?

Speaking of Russians keeping the peace in Ukraine, ever heard of the Holomodor?   Not many here have, though everyone in Ukraine is well aware of this mass atrocity:

The Holodomor, also known as the Terror-Famine or the Great Famine, was a famine in Soviet Ukraine from 1932 to 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians. The term Holodomor emphasises the famine’s man-made nature and alleged intentional aspects such as rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs and restriction of population movement.

Wikipedia

Holodomor, man-made famine that convulsed the Soviet republic of Ukraine from 1932 to 1933, peaking in the late spring of 1933. It was part of a broader Soviet famine (1931–34) that also caused mass starvation in the grain-growing regions of Soviet Russia and Kazakhstan. The Ukrainian famine, however, was made deadlier by a series of political decrees and decisions that were aimed mostly or only at Ukraine. In acknowledgement of its scale, the famine of 1932–33 is often called the Holodomor, a term derived from the Ukrainian words for hunger (holod) and extermination (mor).    https://www.britannica.com/event/Holodomor

The body count of those who died (or more accurately, who were killed by Stalin) during the year of the Holodomor was a shade under four million.   Four million murdered Ukrainians, in a fraction of the time it took the New York Times’s Mr. Hitler to get rid of six million pesky Transport Juden.   Like many other atrocities (though few have been on this scale) it has largely been forgotten in history by all but the offspring of the victims.   Don’t we all know how that goes?

Putinism and Trumpism (sitting in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g)

I heard a great podcast yesterday from someone I’ve never heard of, she calls herself the Politics Girl.  She makes all the connections between Manafort, Trump and Putin and outlines Putin’s long-term psy-ops plan, a deliberate and clever information war to sow discord and violent division to destabilize “the West” dating back a decade or more. 

Manafort, of course, worked for a years to the get corrupt pro-Russian, anti-Nato Putinist Viktor Yanukovych, elected president of Ukraine. In 2004 then-Prime Minister Yanukovych lost a second run-off election for president after the first runoff was marked by massive fraud on his behalf. [1] In the new runoff election demanded by the “Orange Revolution”, and ordered by the Ukrainian court, Yanukovych lost 52% to 44% to a candidate who had been poisoned with a high tech toxin during the campaign (and lived) [2]. Paul Manafort arrived too late to swing the 2004 election to Putin’s man, but after six years of grooming the the savvy political dirty trickster helped Yanukovych win the presidency in 2010, only to see him ousted for corruption by a popular uprising, the “Orange Revolution”.  Putin, who had annexed Crimea earlier in 2014 was furious at the setback, and kicked up his radical psy ops/disinformation war against democracy.

Soon after Yanukovych’s ouster Manafort, of course, still in contact with pro-Putin oligarchs in Russia and Ukraine, was managing Trump’s campaign for free. Manafort was in a Trump Tower conference room for that “dirt on Hillary, I love it!” meeting with Don. Jr., Jared Kushner and the Russian lawyer and also, according to Marco Rubio’s Senate Committee, had many communications with and gave sensitive polling data (about key states that would be narrowly won by Trump) to a GRU agent named Konstantin Kilimnik.   The Politics Girl describes Putin’s long psychological war, and his skillful use of social media, including innovative work with bot farms to convince Americans that millions followed Trump early on. Putin did much to effectively sow discord in the US and other western democracies (he did similar yeoman-like work on Brexit). She sadly concludes he did a great job convincing that volatile 39% of our countrymen that lies are truth, that the true enemy of good Americans are anti-fascists and anti-racists, that Putin good, Ukraine bad, that only Trump can save them, etc.   I need to transcribe several sections of that longish talk, there is some great stuff in there, very well-said.

Here’s a slice, from about ten minutes in, explaining why so many on the right are suddenly fans of Putin’s, and support mob violence to oust dangerous radical far-left Communist Joe Biden, after laying out the predicate stuff beautifully:

The whole segment is here.

[1] from Wikipedia

Between the two rounds of the election, dramatic increases in turnout were recorded in Yanukovych-supporting regions, while Yushchenko-supporting regions recorded the same turnout or lower than recorded in the first round. This effect was most marked in eastern Ukraine and especially in Yanukovych’s stronghold of Donetsk Oblast, where a turnout of 98.5% was reportedly claimed—more than 40% up from the first round.[2][3] In some districts, turnout was recorded to be more than 100% than the previous ballot, with one district reported by observers to have recorded a 127% turnout.[2][3] According to election observers and post-election investigations, pro-Yanukovych activists traveled around the country and voted many times as absentees.[2][3] Some groups dependent on government assistance, such as students, hospital patients and prisoners, were told to vote for the government candidate.[7]

[2] Despite his poisoning Yushchenko survived and won the election by a wide margin:

Manafort arrived in Ukraine in the wake of the Orange Revolution, a popular uprising that had blocked the pro-Russian Yanukovych from taking power in 2004. One of the leaders of that revolt, an economist named Viktor Yushchenko, fell suddenly ill as his movement for European integration was gaining momentum that fall; doctors determined that he had been poisoned with dioxin, a substance that turned his telegenic face into a mask of green and yellow scars.

https://time.com/5003623/paul-manafort-mueller-indictment-ukraine-russia/

Call and response — keep it simple

Glenn Kirschner breaks it down very simply these days. Three dates, three incriminating statements, a plan, coordinated actions taken in furtherance of the plan, all the elements of conspiracy to disrupt an official proceeding and other felonies.

Trump recruits a private army, activates them for a future date and launches them January 6th to attack Congress and stop the proceedings, to prevent the constitutional transfer of power. On January 6 Trump’s mob stopped all business in the Capitol after violently assaulting police and breaching the building.

September 29th 2020, Trump shows up at debate with Biden infectious with covid-19, lying about his test results (he’ll be helicoptered to a hospital for emergency covid treatment a few days later) spewing toward a hated opponent in the most vulnerable demographic for death by covid, looks into the camera and grimly says “Proud Boys stand back and stand by.” The Proud Boys shout back at him with gusto for his shout out to them.

December 18, 2020 he activates his most violently inclined followers to assemble on January 6th to fight election fraud. He ends a tweet repeatedly touting knowingly false stolen elections claims with a personal invitation Be there, will be wild.” They again shout back at him approvingly.

On January 6, 2021 when all these guys show up for a wild time, he launches them toward the Capitol, warning them “we fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Is more proof required to show the desperate defeated candidate’s criminal intent to solicit and unleash a private army to commit this federal crime? More proof needed of a deliberate, premeditated, coordinated action plan and many acts done to carry it out? Merrick? Are we all missing something here?

Another giant of the Senate

A reminder of this great American statesman and defender of democracy, from today’s Washington Post:

Even before Jan. 6 itself, Graham had evaluated and rejected Trump’s claims about fraud. A scene in the Bob Woodward and Robert Costa book “Peril” depicts aide Lee Holmes discussing with Graham purported evidence of fraud passed along by the White House in a series of memos.

“Holmes found the sloppiness, the overbearing tone of certainty, and the inconsistencies disqualifying. The three memos added up to nothing. …”
“Holmes reported to Graham that the data in the memos were a concoction, with a bullying tone and eighth grade writing.”


“Graham looked over the memos. ‘Third grade,’ he said.

Holmes said part of the claim was based on an affidavit.

“Graham said, ‘I can get an affidavit tomorrow saying the world is flat.’ “

You sure enough can, Lindsey, thousands of ’em.