Wednesday, November 17, 2021

Chuck Todd Has His Finger On The Pulse Of The Nation

From his studio in Rockefeller Center in New York City. The nation's nerve center, donchaknow?

So, lemme see:  Trump didn't accomplish anything legislatively in 4 years except Paul Ryan's tax cut for the rich (after which Ryan retired, his entire political career having achieved its goal).  His approval ratings were underwater for 4 years.  The GOP Senate purposefully killed anything the Dem House sent over for 2 years.  Trump purposely killed as many as he could railing against masks and shutdowns and any measure that would curb covid, and he continued to do so in a fit of pique after he lost.

And yet Trump wasn't a lame duck until late November of 2020?  And he's viable now?

How does this work, again?  The narrative must be served at all costs. and the narrative that "Dems are in disarray" cannot be discarded because Republicans don't govern, but at least they punish their party members who don't toe the party line?  And that's better because...well, why, exactly?

And if (a HUGE "IF") Todd is right, and the American voter must have his "G" spot stroked constantly or he just stays home in a huff, then we deserve Trump redux, and the GOP in charge.  Because all they do is stoke their base.  They do absolutely nothing else.  If that's the government we want, we're gonna have it.

Even Chuck Todd doesn't believe that; but it's the logical conclusion to his analysis.

Lord spare me from idiot pundits.

Tuesday, November 16, 2021

Book Tour

This explains Chris Christie on CNN, MSNBC, talking to the New York Times, what have you. And a reminder: fewer and fewer people are watching cable. Audience decline there is massive. So it's more and more clear to me Christie is talking to journalists who watch and report on what cable news says. Sort of like the same journalists who tell me what Steve Bannon just said on his podcast. I'm sure Bannon has a larger audience than this blog does (paint drying on YouTube has a larger audience than this blog has), but twice nothing is still nothing.

Besides, I'm old enough to remember when Christie was the darling of broadcast media, and a sure thing to be the GOP nominee because New Jersey is close to NYC (mostly), and he gave good TeeVee.
Yeah, there was that. He was about as popular in the GOP primaries as prickly heat. Turned out news producers loved him for their news talk shows, but nobody else did. What's changed? Oh, gee, why didn't we all think of that? The Lincoln Project has been pushing that idea for 2 years now. It's not clear they've effected any electoral outcome, although they claim they stopped the sky from falling on numerous occassions. Mostly I think of the Lincoln Project as the GOP version of James Carville: not nearly so important or influential in their heyday as they think they were; and certainly not nearly so important or influential now.

Sorta like Chris Christie.
CNN has 168 hours a week to fill. Haven’t you noticed?

Today In Utter Insanity

And just so we're clear: It's also pretty funny that the government its own self wouldn't know about this without Powell calling Ezra Cohen to tell him about it.  A gunfight?  In Germany?  With U.S. soldiers and the Director of the CIA directly involved?  And the German ambassador doesn't ask Washington "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, what the hell man?"  Did none of these clowns understand how government works? (I understand Powell is a former AUSA.  How is it possible she's this dumb?)

Meanwhile, in 30+ states: Which means the government gets the lottery choice of who hears the appeal (no filing in the 5th Circuit as safe harbor!). It also means 30+ state AG's are gonna be surprised as hell at what their underlings have been up to.*

And since I brought up Christie earlier, this isn't as insane as the others, but Christie is insisting he and Trump are "good friends."
Then how, pray tell, is he so clueless?


*No, it's absolutely NOT going to happen.  Fraud in election law doesn't work the way it does in contract law; and it almost never works that way in contract law (i.e., reset the game and put everybody back at square one).  3-+ state AG's aren't getting involved in this.  It's all been moot since January 6th.

Upon reflection, another reason it won't happen.  Paxton tried this stunt in 2020.  The Supremes tossed it for lack of standing in December of that year.  A lawsuit can't just be "WE DON'T LIKE THE ELECTION RESULTS!", it has to actually name an adverse party who did the fraud.  Paxton tried to sue Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.  Texas didn't have standing to do that.  How, then, do 30+ states get standing, and whom do they sue?  The other 20?  The Supreme Court?  The Congress?  The electoral college?

The whole idea is rampant with absurdities.

Steve Bannon Is Having His Best Life Ever?

Go to the article, listen to the rant from his podcast. Bannon is about as inspirational as a sponge. And his lawyer?  This is his idea of an "equal protection" defense:

"I want to say this, I think for my duty of the court, I ordinarily don't comment on pending cases. In this case, the attorney general decided to put out a press release saying this case reflects the principles of equal justice under the law. it absolutely does not," he continued. " I'm sure you're aware that since 2008, four people have been cited for contempt by the house; not one of them was ever prosecuted criminally, and that goes across the board in different administrations. Eric Holder, Lois Lerner, Harriet Miers, Josh Bolton. The idea this is a crime is absolutely outrageous."

That's not a legal defense. Short answer:  change the facts, change the outcome. And the insurrection at the Capitol really does change the facts.  But is Schoen going for jury nullfication of the statute?

"Are you going to request a trial by jury or -- are you going to request a trial by jury or a judge?" Keilar asked.

"I don't know. I don't know that yet," Schoen replied with a pained smile.

What's even less clear is why Schoen went to the press in the first place.  This seems to be his defense for his client, whom he says he's just met, hasn't really counseled, and who hasn't told him much about Bannon's involvement in the matters the committee wants information about:

"Here's the problem," he explained after they talked over each other. "Here's the problem. This comes up regularly when privilege is at issue in depositions. Here, Mr. Bannon -- there could be questions asked that have to do with privileged areas and not privileged areas. If he showed up and started answering questions, privilege could be violated. All he asked was if he were to show up, could a representative of the purported privilege holder be present to invoke privilege on a question by question basis. He was told the committee rules do not permit that, and so he wasn't allowed to do that. So you can't just show up and then take a chance that privilege things could come up but the privilege holder can't be there and that's simply unfair."

The problem with that argument is that Trump hasn't invoked executive privilege as to Bannon (Schoen implies Trump invoked double super secret executive privilege, but the invocation has to come from Trump, not Bannon, so doing it in secret is the same as not doing it at all).  Second problem:  can Trump invoke executive privilege?  That's not for Bannon to say.  He can't sue the committee claiming he's protecting Trump's executive privilege; the privilege is only for Trump to assert.  Bannon can sing like a bird unless Trump objects in court with an action for declaratory judgment blocking Bannon from testifying.

In short:  Bannon doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.  Trump may have one; but he hasn't asserted it.  Privilege can only be asserted by the holder of the privilege, as Trump did by suing the National Archives.

If this is the best thing that's ever happened to Steve Bannon, he's had a very sad life.

 

Speaking Of Libraries

The 239-page graphic novel depicts Kobabe’s journey of gender identity and sexual orientation. Kobabe, who is nonbinary, said it was written to help others who are struggling with gender identity to feel less alone. The book also explores questions around pronouns and hormone-blocking therapies.

“I can absolutely understand the desire of a parent to protect their child from sensitive material. I’m sympathetic to people who have the best interest of young people at heart,” Kobabe, the 32-year-old author based in California, said in an interview with The Texas Tribune. “I also want to have the best interest of young people at heart. There are queer youth at every high school — and those students, that’s [who] I’m thinking about, is the queer student who is getting left behind.”

May didn’t read the book, but what she saw — a few pages of explicit illustrations depicting oral sex — was disturbing to her. It took less than a day for May and other parents to get the book removed from the district. May tweeted that same day that after school officials had been notified, the book was removed from a student’s hands.

This moves me to recall the conversations we had in my sophomore year of high school.  We were all reading The Godfather, and we all knew what was meant by "p. 29" (or whatever page it was in the paperback edition we all had).  The rest of the sex was buried late in the novel, mostly involving the same woman, and some truly bizarre pulp fiction notions of "surgery."  Coppola left A LOT of the weird out of that book.  Even Tarentino never filmed the truly weird of most pulp fiction.  I still think pulp fiction is why a whole generation thinks they were "worldly" and "wise," when honestly they don't know shit (like Fleming's famous "paint the skin but leave a patch at the base of the spine, or death occurs."  Utter pulp fiction nonsense that I'm sure some grew up accepting as gospel.*)

As usual, I digress.

My point here is not to defend pulp fiction or say we should buy every teenage boy a copy of Puzo's novel, or that such matters inevitably find their way to young minds (they do, they do.  The same parents appalled that their children are getting these books in the library are NOT checking their kids browser histories.).  It's that we are a visual species, and what's seen in a drawing is MUCH WORSE! than what is said in words.

Remember The Rainbow Club (I think that was the title)?  A story about teen girls passing an initiation by putting on brightly colored lipstick and sucking one cock, serially, so that the lipstick left their color on the cock?  People were appalled that this reflected a real-life activity.  It didn't.  It also wasn't a graphic novel.  Imagine how much worse that would be.  (Or just imagine somebody turning that book into a film.)

We respond more viscerally to images than to words.  Censorship in public school libraries will always be with us.  You aren't going to find L'Histoire d'O in a public school library (I found it in the UT library, which is technically a public school, but....), and for good reason.  Well, I mean:  it's French!

You get the idea.   These matters need to be discussed, and mostly that's going on at the local school district level, where it should go on.  But in my school district a small group tried to force the firing of the principal because this book (or another, I was never clear what book it was) was found in her school's library.  They were laughed away, even by the new Board member who was elected to represent the newly empowered crazy people in the district (I still blame covid primarily for that).  The whole subject of books on library shelves has now all but disappeared in this district.  Elsewhere?  Well, Abbott is trying to flog it.  Krause, who started this, has gone quiet.

By the way, here is an article about three of the 850 books on that infamous list Krause is now so quiet about.

One is a picture book based on the two male penguins in the New York Zoo who raised an egg together (remember stories about gay penguins?  The book came out in 2005.  You might not remember it well.) . Yeah, same sex penguin couple. How dare they?

The second is a self-help book for dealing with bullies.  Apparently it's suspect because it talks about bullies picking on gays, lesbians, trans, or people with disabilities.  Yeah, don't want to make bullies feel uncomfortable, huh?

The third is a YA novel:

The book details their struggles as they come of age and traverse the close relationships in their life, particularly Ari’s relationship with his parents: his father, who’s a Vietnam War veteran, and his mother, who is a teacher and often empathetic toward Ari as he grapples with young adulthood. In the book, Sáenz delves into the dynamics of familial relationships and romantic relationships as Ari and Dante’s feelings for one another deepen.

Throughout the book, readers see Ari try to deal with the intricacies of being a teenage boy along with his anger at his parents — who refuse to talk about his brother, Bernardo, who went to prison when Ari was 4 years old — and at himself, as he struggles to admit he has feelings for Dante, who’s opened up to Ari about his attraction to boys.

In addition to exploring sexuality and masculinity, the book touches on race, ethnicity and what it means to be Mexican American.

The book contains some profanity, violence and nudity along with mentions of teenage drinking, sex and the trials of puberty, but there are no intimately explicit scenes.

At its core, the book is about love, family and learning to communicate one’s most vulnerable feelings. Benjamin Alire Sáenz, the book’s author, said it’s also about “belonging and accepting” and posing the question, “Why do we exile people?”

So I guess the problem is gays (reading about it will make you one; or at least tolerant of them?), race, ethnicity (two things that make white people uncomfortable, I guess) and the question "Why do we exile people?"  Well, because they make white people uncomfortable, right?  And even asking that question makes white people uncomfortable. So...

Yeah, I don't think this controversy is gonna last long.

*of course there are the Hollywood westerns, based largely on the "dime novels" that preceded pulp fiction.  Utter bullshit too, about "quick draw shoot outs" in city streets, and all the crap we think is American history west of the Mississippi.  American fiction has a LOT to answer for.

"But be doers of the word...."


In fulfillment of God's own purpose God gave us birth by the word of truth, so that we would become a kind of first fruits of God's creatures.

You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for you anger does not produce God's righteousness.  Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls.  But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves.  For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like.  But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perservere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act--they will be blessed in their doing.

James 1: 18-25

I offer this, not as judgment on others, but as counter-point.  There are lots of people listening to the words of Christianity.  There aren't so many doing what those words say.  They are like those who look at themselves in a mirror.  Which is ever so much easier than looking at others.  Doers who act are blessed in their doing.  And doers who judge are not doing what the word says.  The anger of judgement never produces God's righteousness.  And that is the righteousness a Christian should seek.

Don’t Mess With Librarians

They will fuck you up. And more from that infamous school board in Virginia: I don't think the takeover of school boards is going quite as smoothly as Steve Bannon expected. I also expect we're going to see more of this, not less.

Let these students, teachers, parents, and librarians be an example to us all, to fight for what we have lest it be taken from us by our indifference and inattention.

In Texas We Use 'Em For Speed Bumps


Gone but never forgotten.

The “Threat” Is Always The Guy Who’s Dead

Did we learn nothing from Trayvon Martin's death?

Bad guys with guns are also the dead guys with guns. That’s how you know they’re bad guys. Have all those movies taught us nothing?
I’m confused about the perception the prosecution is losing this case.

Smallest Dog Barks Loudest

Is this a joke?

"I'm telling you right now, this is going to be the misdemeanor from hell for Merrick Garland, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden," he said.

Bannon then slammed Biden for calling for his prosecution after he refused to comply with the House Select Committee's subpoena last month, and he warned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was making a big mistake by crossing him.

"Nancy Pelosi has taken on Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, she should ask Hillary Clinton how that turned out," he said.

What defense does he imagine he's going to present?  Or is he planning to sneak out of the country without a passport?

Bannon is scheduled to be formally arraigned on Thursday. In the meantime, he was asked to surrender his passport so as to prevent him from trying to flee the country and he will be required to check in weekly with a pretrial services officer.

Is he going to harangue the officer every week? How does he imagine anybody he mentioned gives a wet snap what happens to him?  And his lawyer's defense?  Already last week's fish wrap.  He's gonna have to do better to even get noticed again.

Lawyer As Kind Of A Racist Dick

Just to put this in context: Tout le Twitter was all upset (is? still? Have we moved on yet to a new outrage du jour?) at this judge, and a new one almost surely exploded today when he dropped the misdemeanor weapons charge.  But that was with the agreement of the prosecution because the law labeled "illegal" guns with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, which didn't apply to the gun in question, and the law was vague anyway (bad law), etc., etc., etc.  Still, this remains true: But that doesn't mean lawyer as racist dick is not newsworthy.  And, I would add, lawyer as dick trying to put pastors in a box where it's only one per customer and they must have a personal relationship with the individuals in question in order to appear beside them in public.

"How many pastors does the Arbery family have?" Gough said. "We had the Rev. Al Sharpton here earlier last week, and I'm not keeping track and I think the court has indicated that the court doesn't intend to ask anyone to keep track of who is in the gallery, but I don't know who Rev. Jackson is pastoring here."

A racist dick AND  an ecclesiastical dick.  Kinda reminds me of the time I showed up at a funeral home in a small East Texas town (the deceased was a church member being buried in the place where he grew up) and the funeral director literally sneered when I took my robe bag out of the car (I was wearing a collar, which he didn't like, either.  Baptists wear ties.)  "Oh, you're one of those kind," he said, or something like it.  He was not best pleased.

Dicks come in all shapes and professions.  I've become especially sensitive to the ones who think pastors have a niche they should quietly stay in.  The Rev. Sharpton and the Rev. Jackson have their reasons for being in that courtroom.  I would be honored just to stand in solidarity with them.

Monday, November 15, 2021

OTOH, Bannon Is Scared Shitless

He's telling his podcast audience (all 5 of them who aren't reporters) that this is the beginning of "taking down" the Biden "regime." But his defense is, "I didn't know no better, I was misled, I'm just a poor unfortunate who don't know nothin' 'bout law 'n' governmentin'!" Which means too he's seen the handwriting on the wall about Trump's executive privilege defense, and it's not going to protect him or Trump.

And, most importantly, he doesn't want to go to jail.

But has he now come to Jesus and is he ready to cleanse himself of this contempt by answering all the Committee's questions?  Because I can't see that defense leading to a Get Out Of Testifying Free card.


Digby thinks this is all part of Bannon's ingenious master plan to control America:

As I said, from his perspective, being indicted for defying Congress is the best thing that ever happened to him. It's made him relevant again.

I think a stopped watch is right twice a day, but that doesn't make it relevant to anything. Bannon is using up the last five minutes of his fifteen minutes of fame.  I mean the guy looks like a street sleeper.  In his mind he may be Lenin; in reality, he's someone most people have barely heard of and don't give a damn about, and seeing him on the news looking like junkie Santa Claus:


...is quite honestly not going to rally people to his cause, or make them curious to look up his podcast.

Lyndon LaRouche had a more loyal following, and never got as close to power as Bannon did in Trump's first year in office.  And Bannon hasn't been any closer than that since.


As authors Bob Woodward and Robert Costa recount in their book "Peril":

"Bannon told Trump to focus on January 6. That was the moment for a reckoning.

"'People are going to go 'What the [expletive] is going on here?' Bannon believed. 'We're going to bury Biden on January 6th, [expletive] bury him.'

"If Republicans could cast enough of a shadow on Biden's victory on January 6, Bannon said, it would be hard for Biden to govern. Millions of Americans would consider him illegitimate. They would ignore him. They would dismiss him and wait for Trump to run again.
Well, that explains why the committee wants to talk to him.  I have to say the media is offering a helping hand.  They can't re-use "Democrats in disarray" anymore, but Biden's drop in approval is noted over and over again.  Did you hear every day how Trump's approval never rose above 50% in four years?  Or how Trump never got a major piece of legislation through Congress after Paul Ryan's tax cut?  Biden hasn't finished his first year and already he can't be re-elected (according to conventional wisdom) but Trump accomplished nothing and ran the country into the ground, and he's a shoo-in to win in 2024, because: Virginia. Which has tossed out the governor of the new party in the White House as regular as sunrise.  Yeah, objective journalism, right?  Odd thing is, voters don't really pay attention to pundits, or polls.

Bannon was also a key player in the Willard War Room.

The participants in those meetings—Rudy Giuliani, Roger Stone, and John Eastman were among the others present—reportedly “discussed plans to stop or delay the January 6th counting of the election results and persuade Members of Congress to block the electoral count.”

And lest any of this was too subtle, Bannon told his podcast listeners on January 5, “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It's gonna be moving. It's gonna be quick. And all I can say is strap in, the War Room, a posse. You have made this happen and tomorrow it's game day.”
Like I say, the Committee has reasons to talk to Bannon.  Other than the fact he's stone nuts and talks like a supervillain from a bad comic book:

We're taking action and that action is we're taking over school boards, we're taking over the Republican Party through the precinct committee strategy. We're taking over all the elections. Suck on this. Ninety-five percent of the billets in Virginia were occupied of election officials and poll watchers and that is a principal reason that we secured the election of Youngkin. OK?

And they know it, and that's all it is -- getting all these, you know, anti-democratic --no, they're there to have a free and fair count. And we're going to continue that and we're going to get to the bottom of three November and we're going to decertify the electors. OK? And you're going to have a constitutional crisis. But you know what? We're a big and tough country, and we can handle that, we'll be able to handle that.
You and what army of lawyers, Bannon?  The one you now say mislead you about responding to a subpoena? 🤡
Uh-huh. So you're defense is the one the trial court in D.C. has already rejected from Trump?  The same one the D.C. Circuit is likely to reject in December?

Good luck with that.

"But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."

That would be this guy. Who is retired from the military. As opposed to Curtis LeMay, who hoped to start (and win) a nuclear war with Russia in 1954, while he was still in the military. And only didn’t use them when he had the power to in 1957 because he never got the scintilla of an excuse he needed (being in command of SAC, he could do it easier than Jack D. Ripper, and send out more planes. As in, all of them.).

Or maybe I should say Gen. Buck Turgidson. During the Cuban Missile crisis LeMay tried to goad Kennedy into bombing Cuba. He hoped to provoke Russia into war, one he was sure would be nuclear and winnable because our losses would be sustainable. We’d get our hair mussed, that’s all.

“Dr. Strangelove” wasn’t that far removed from reality. In fact, Gen. Turgidson looks kind of sensible next to LeMay.  And he was a fictional character; LeMay was in real life.

Suddenly Michael Flynn doesn’t scare me that much. I mean, all he would do is commit enough crimes to put him in jail until he died of old age. Why does nobody remember the role of the courts last December?

Does Steve Bannon Have A Mouse In His Pocket?

Aside from his delusions of grandeur.

He looks like he could have....

From Everlasting To Everlasting

I don’t mean to sound cynical, but I suppose I am. Regardless, the last five years have presented nothing new, not in the history of Christianity nor in American history. “Holiness” is not a fixed object with definite dimensions and characteristics. It’s not a stone. It’s an idea and, as such, as much in the eye of the beholder as beauty, and as much subject to definition. Its employment has always been a matter of how it benefits the employer.

Nothing, in other words, has changed. We are not living in interesting times, or unusual times, or in (at all!) unprecedented times. This is as normal as it ever is. All that ever changes is who’s in the barrel. Most of the time it’s not people like “us.” And most of the time it’s people using the structures, the institutions of society, for just this purpose. Their own purpose. And it’s all too easy to call it “justice” or “holiness” or what-have-you. The problem is the same as it ever is: none of us are talking about the same thing. Almost all of us are talking about what’s best for ourselves. That’s not what justice or holiness is. But that seldom matters.

It’s not at all surprising this is at John Hagee’s church. The only surprise is that Hagee is still around. “Righteousness”? Righteousness is always the last dismissal of Christian humility. When it’s about an attribute of God it is right and good. When it is an attribute of us, it is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Mr. French and Mr. Hagee have never agreed on what “holiness” is. That hasn’t changed in the last five years.

The American Dream Is Over

I think they eat whole wheat saltines in communist countries, where it’s all they have. And the State requires they like it!

And Club Crackers? Only “woke” people eat those! It’s how you identify ‘em!

Sunday, November 14, 2021

Is Paul Gosar Still Alive?

Or was he killed by Islamic terrorists for his anime attack on AOC and President Biden? And this was tweeted out posthumously by his ghost?

Because otherwise....*


*ever notice how these guys talk a good line when they think no one but those who agree are listening?  And how they crawfish when they find we were all listening?  I wanna know what brave stand Michael Flynn is gonna take on "one government, one religion"?  I mean something that doesn't make him seem even more delusional.  Gosar is not addressing the substance here; he's trying to change the subject.

And while we're subject adjacent (i.e., people acting like Trump, who will find out it only works if you are POTUS and have the DOJ in your pocket):
That dee-lay tactic is not going to have the effect everyone thinks it will. In no small part because Trump no longer appoints the Attorney General.

Sunday Afternoon Thoughts

When we think about revelation in the context of inter-faith dialogue an immediate problem seems to present itself. Surely, claims to revelation are claims that here, and here exclusively is the act of God and elsewhere a whole series of human attempts to reach God.  Here is God being active, the God of the Scriptures the God of the creeds. The God who makes decisions and commits God's Self to courses of action in the world.  And there is the world of religious striving.  For which, if you wanted to be unkind, God sits with His arms crossed, waiting for something to happen.  What I want to do in these reflections this evening is to work out with you why that is not a helpful or a truthful paradigm if we look at what we mean both by revelation and divine action. And there is one point that might be made right at the start of this reflection about revelation and divine action.

The paradox is this.  To speak of a God who reveals God is certainly to speak of divine action, to speak of divine freedom.  And, thus, what God does is both determinate and free. The God who acts out of freedom is also the God who cannot be contained in what God says or delivers.  And there's the paradox.

If we're serious in talking about divine revelation, we are surely talking about the revelation of what cannot be completely and definitively possessed.  The tightrope between those two poles of paradox has been walked with varying degrees of elegance by theologians, philosophers and contemplatives for quite a few thousand years.  But it doesn't do to forget that tension is built-in as soon as we begin to associate revelation with the act of God. 

The first thing to say is that this is the best explanation of something Walter Brueggemann constantly talks about and which I admit I hadn't much consider, the Freedom of God and its surpassing of our expectations of what God will do and has done.  I have a far better idea of what he means by that now than I did before I listened to Rowan Williams, for which I am very grateful.   I also understand now that it is impossible for any humanly understood revelation to be entirely satisfactory because it is a revelation of something far larger than human understanding can encompass.  Just as I believe the material universe can never be anything like totally understood by even all of human beings considered as a mythical whole. 

Rowan Williams and then Thought Criminal.  It raised an issue for me, that revelation is also interpretation.  That is, what did the revelation mean?  And even before that, was it a revelation?  Case in point (and I'm using the KJV because I'm too lazy to transcribe the Scholar's Version I prefer):

Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again. 29The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him. 30Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes. --John 12:28-30

So, was it a revelation?  Or not?  And if it was, what did it mean?

All matters of what God said/did are matters of midrash.  Therein lies the real paradox, the paradox behind  Rowan Williams' paradox and Walter Brueggemann's insight that the Freedom of God surpasses our expetations.  Or what Graham Green called "the appalling strangeness of the mercy of God."

We have to first determine, then, was it an act of God?  And was it a revelation?  That tension the Rev. Williams speaks of "is built-in as soon as we begin to associate revelation with the act of God."  But the tension is there ab initio; or perhaps it is a different tension, another paradox.  What I here as the voice of an angel you might hear only as thunder.  And I say the voice spoke to Jesus, and Jesus says the voice was meant for you and me.

Tensions abound; as they should.  "The peace of God, it is no peace, but strife sown in the sod."  And it takes a village; or more accurately, a community.  These things are not decided by one person; nor by one community.

There in lie further paradoxes.

And in the context of inter-faith dialogue, the frame is to recognize communities within the larger community of humanity. Which, too, is a teaching of religion; and a revelation.

Saturday, November 13, 2021

Nothing Sharper Than A Rubber Ball

Should ever be in this man’s possession. In fact I’m wondering if he insists on non-fluoridated water. With no green M&M’s.

And then he just gets worse: I can say without equivocation that my God is not Flynn’s God. And I presume we are both professing Christianity.

Professional Notes

I know of teachers (en masse, not individuals) who are looking to retire early or just quit because school board politics or CRT crazy people or book burners. General bad times for schools, which have already been through the wringer. Along with nurses, teachers were on the front lines during Covid lockdowns, but the nurses got all the sympathetic coverage.

Needless to say, this is not going to improve public education for the foreseeable future. Which in some areas will effect property values, which is what it will take to actually make normal people pay attention (sadly). But by then the damage is done. Offering bounties for charging teachers with violating state laws like this will just make them quit faster. The American paradox of denigrating teachers while relying on quality schools to build our communities won’t change anytime soon. And speaking of paradox: 
Shouldn’t journalists “journey”? I mean other than popping up in diners every time there’s a national election (or more likely only every four years). How many average voters go to diners anyway?

AGAIN:  Blogger won't let me comment, so I'm posting a response here to a comment below.  Ain't it a bitch?

The governor of NH was on MTP prattling on about governors being closer to the people and having to answer more directly to the people than "politiicians" in D.C. (the old song and dance) and I kept thinking:  yeah, and you signed a law that screws over every teachers in New Hampshire.  How many of them have the money and time to face a lawsuit* that could get that bill thrown out because of the First Amendment (which it so clearly violates)?  And all such victories are pyhrric, because the teacher who wins that case loses a career.

Yeah, asshole, you're "close to the people."  Wait'll the schools of NH are so dumbed down nobody can teach anything.  The people will be close to you with torches and pitchforks.

It seems to be coming to much of the country; NH just seems to be in the vanguard of making it happen even faster.

A lawsuit that will come not because the teacher is "guilty," but because the definition of CRT is so indeterminate and vague you can't really take away someone's livelihood for it.  It's, pardon the comparison, a New England witch hunt, where you're free to describe all manner of behavior as that which the new law outlaws.  Except the law doesn't work like that, except you're a teacher, you don't have the coin to hire a lawyer or go without pay even if the ACLU represents you; and, as I say, you'll never work again.  And frankly, teaching ain't worth it under those conditions.

Good times are comin'; but they're sure comin' slow.

Friday, November 12, 2021

It's Not Like She Said "Zee Plan"

Or asked for "frites aux liberte" at lunch.

(Adventures in Silly Scandals.)

Objective Knowledge Is Not Necessarily Objective Nor Knowledge

Rudolf Carnap (via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy):

This did not mean a rejection of the humanistic tradition, or of dimensions to values other than the scientific and engineering-oriented. Carnap took entirely for granted (so deeply that he hardly ever bothered to make it explicit) that literature, art, and music shaped people’s values and were closely connected with them. But these were for individuals to negotiate. Since his experience of the First World War, he had realized that the German intelligentsia’s political indifference, its overindulgence in humanistic individual values, had been partly to blame for the war. He had resolved, therefore, to attend more to the framework that all humans shared, and that formed the basis for their social and political cohabitation. Objective knowledge was, to him as to the Enlightenment, at the core of this shared framework. Practical (especially political) decisions should be informed ones, arrived at in the light of the best possible knowledge about the available choices and their consequences.

Sorry, I'm mostly making notes for later consideration.  I followed the Jacob Levy tweet about Kant (well, sorta about Kant) that was here and found that tweet above, which I followed to find the author of said tweet is a philosophy professor and student of Carnap (who didn't think much of Kant on the question of whether mathematics is how science is expressed; Carnap held it was how science is structured.  Trust me, it's a distinction with a difference, but a reminder to me why I prefer the "Continental" philosophers to the Anglo-American ones.  Carnap was clearly German, you will say.  Yes, he was part of the "Vienna Circle" which nobody bothers to mention in writing about Carnap that Wittgenstein blew up from the inside, and Godel finished off with his logic (Carnap was also a logician; Godel was just the superior logician, IMHO).  The Vienna Circle was fundamentally about logical positivism, which came largely from Russell and Whitehead, so the Anglo-American connection.  Stanford Encyclo. tells me a reappreciation of Carnap has begun since 2017, but so much of this sounds like WWI redux to me.  What's described in that paragraph above could, with slight changes of reference, be applied to Eliot, or Hemingway, or Fitzgerald, or any of the "Lost Generation."  And that's what intrigues me.

Carnap has a strong anti-metaphysical bent (and a strong anti-Heidegerian one, which against separates him from the Continental philosophers, who today almost all owe an acknowledged debt to Heidegger), according to Bright's twitter feed (I have no better authority than that, which information I offer only as full disclosure, not as argument).

The highlighted portion of the quote above, for example (getting back to my thesis), could apply to Hemingway, especially my favorite of his stories, "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place." Or all of Eliot's major works through "Ash Wednesday" (Prufrock, Waste Land, Hollow Men, if you're wondering; and all of them afterward, but with a different goal in mind). The italicized sentence after the bolded sentence is pretty much the po-mo enterprise in one sentence.  Objective knowledge was, per the writers and poets (and artists; Picasso's "Guernica" is the classic example, but Dada, Surrealism, etc.) blasted to bits in WWI (Yeats' "blood dimmed tide"), because that's where it had gotten everyone.  Eliot learned to rejoice having to construct something upon which to rejoice, a reconstruction he accomplished largely with the High Church of the Church of England.  Auden, who grew up in that church, remained a Christian (Eliot "converted", in a sense) and actually made more sense of Christianity in the modern world than Eliot ever did (who was constantly looking backwards on the subject.  "Murder in the Cathedral," anyone?  Auden never wrote anything so entombed in history.).  The last sentence in the quote, the underlined one, sounds good in theory, but in practice "the best possible knowledge" is pretty much determined by what knowledge you think best:  yours?  Mine?  A black American male's?  A woman's? A gay?  A lesbian?  Poor?  Rich?  You get the picture.  Aside from the fact that sentence sounds awfully close to "the greatest good for the greatest number."  And then we've arrived at Omelas. Or, as Wallace Shawn pointed out, following pretty much the same reasoning (because all reasoning starts with what we think is good, and that's always what is good for us first):

The perfectly decent person who follows a certain chain of reasoning, ever so slightly and subtly incorrect, becomes a perfect monster at the end of the chain.

And every chain of reasoning is "ever so slightly and subtly incorrect."  Alleging it is "objective" doesn't cure that defect, any more than trying to make it mathematical (the error of the logical positivists, as Godel and Wittgenstein established). And how does establishing mathematics as the structure of science, and science as the standard for all we can know about external reality, and eliminating metaphysics, help us with that?  In Tolstoy's deathless question:  "How should we then live?"

Everybody's looking for the answer to that question, and taking only the one that suits them first. 

Because Popehat And I Are Of Like Mind On These Topics

All of them? The law is not conducted in reality the way it is on TeeVee. Or for TeeVee, for that matter. TeeVee constructs a narrative (be it "news" or a "courtroom drama"). Reality creates it's own narrative. It's called "reality." And it's not a TeeVee show. Deal with it. Exactly. I'm glad it was done by a grand jury, and that an arrest warrant has been issued. A '60's activist lawyer could still scream "POLITICAL!" But with as much reduced credibility as the criminal justice system can provide. And we don't need any more of this: "A slothlike pace" is the anti-MAGA equivalent of "LOCK HER UP!"  Except we're saying it about "bad guys," so it's okay.

No, it's not.  (Yes, the system has it's problems.  But those aren't solved by "reforming it" so it acts like DoorDash whenever you want the "bad guy" locked up yesterday.)

All things come to those who wait.

Blogger is STILL not letting me comment, so I'm pulling rank and posting this response to the comment below:

All presentations of the legal system outside actually sitting in a courtroom are delusions.

And most of those are delusions, too, since no two judges are exactly alike.  And most non-lawyers don't know what's going on, or why it's going on.  I saw an article this morning that said the Judge might have more influence in the Rittenhouse case in the jury charge than anywhere else.  Every trial lawyers knows that.  Non-lawyers never understand it, because "trials" in fiction never include the tedious negotiations over the charge, or even show the jury actually being charged and given specific questions to answer (in fiction the jury is only asked to decide who's guilty.  It never works that way in a courtroom; but if you don't understand how THAT works, it all seems even more delusional.)  I think in the Rumpole stories the judge just "sums up" the case, usually against Rumpole's client.  The jury charge at least gives the defense lawyer a chance to get a word in.

"Delays" are part of the system because the system is crowded.  It's crowded because everything in America is a crime, a burden that falls mostly on the poor. The rich have lawyers who keep them out of criminal court.  I have absolutely no idea what to do about that.

"All Have Sinned And Fallen Short Of The Glory Of God"

"Woke" Is a Four-Letter Word

What did you think it was about? People afraid their schools were teaching complex legal theory that is far above grade level for non-college students? I mean, I appreciate Legum's efforts; but fear of CRT boils down to white fear of a brown planet. When it isn't just a catch-all phrase for education and its discontents (a discontent largely brewing, IMHO, because Covid upset so many apple carts. People really don't like that kind of fundamental change. It moved their cheese (to use the old catchphrase from the last century), and people don't like it when you move their cheese. For example: This is pretty much "I'm mad as hell, and it's critical race theory!"  In my childhood the anxiety was "New Math," but our parents accepted we had to learn it even if they didn't understand it (we had a space race to win!).  Now that anxiety is CRT, because...sure, why not? Mostly because they don't know how to talk about them; or what they want to talk about is so explicitly racist even they dare not speak its name. I'm gonna go with both and a little bit of neither for that one. So it's not ALL about teaching structural racism in America; but we have a long way to go in this country to reach the point where we can look at our national original sin and know it for what it is. There's a reason we all revere a few sentences Dr. King said, take them out of context, and ignore what he spent his life fighting for. Nobody wanted to shoot him because he had a lovely dream. But our lovely white people's dream? Nobody wants to wake up from that, either.* 

*"Nobody"=white people of a certain mindset. Generalizations are a bad thing, kids. Stay away from 'em.

Ecce Weasel

In court documents, Ryan Kercher, the attorney representing the state, argued that neither the attorney general nor the state education agency were enforcing the executive order so they couldn’t be sued.

But Disability Rights Texas attorneys said the three were enforcing the order and provided the court with a letter that the TEA sent to the attorney general’s office. In it, the education agency listed school districts that appeared to be operating in violation of the governor's order. The plaintiffs also noted how Paxton sued several school districts over requiring masks and sent “threatening” letters to districts telling them that they were violating the order. 

This isn’t the first time state attorneys argued that Paxton and Abbott didn’t actually enforce the law. In an August lawsuit against the state over the mask order, Paxton made the same argument and indicated that it was up to local county prosecutors to enforce the order.

The issue of enforcement is a civil one, not a criminal one, so the Texas AG is perfectly within its authority to enforce the governor's order.  That they don't try to probably indicates a lack of resources in the AG's office, and an unwillingness to directly piss off parents by forcing their schools to hire lawyers to defend policies that keep their children safe.  Paxton's facing re-election, after all.

I mean....

The case was filed and heard while Texas schools had more coronavirus cases in the first two months of the school year than they did in the entire 2020-21 school year. 

Parents tend to notice things like that.  So Paxton wants local DA's to enforce it, who of course are elected officials elected by the parents who send their kids to the schools the DA would be suing, not only challenging the parent's rights to keep their kids safe, but costing the schools money in lawyer's fees.

Small wonder such suits haven't sprung up like mushrooms after rain.  Paxton wants the credit; Paxton doesn't want the blame. 

I'm Going Back To Bed

OMG!!!! TRUMP IS A NARCISSISTIC SOCIOPATH!!! WHO KNEW!!!?????!!!!

Working down from the top:

--HE SAID IT OUT LOUD!  AGAIN!!!

--No, it's the latest audio; that's pretty much all it is.  No one is surprised by this.

--Pretty sure he's defended them before.  What else is new?

--Pretty much the nub:  Trump is more explicit here than before.  But that's about it.

--Everything old is new again.

--One more on a long list of "unprecedented"  Another brick in the wall.  Another stone on the pile.  But there is no camel.  There is no straw that will break the non-existent camel's non-existent back.

My outrage meter pegged so hard so long ago I threw it away.

Mike Lindell Is Neither Rich Enough Nor Distracting Enough To Be Considered "Eccentric"

He's just very, very sad.

(He also seems to have dropped any notion of several state's attorneys general filing suit to reinstate Trump as POTUS.  I don't think even Ken Paxton would sign on that nonsense (but never say never!).  So he's going ahead without a case before the Supremes the week of Thanksgiving.  And frankly, who's gonna pay attention to this crap when he streams it on his website?)

The Sky Is Burning! The Sky Is Burning! 🔥

Two people in Spotsylvania, Virginia (go ahead, find it on a map; I’ll wait) and now the world’s on fire and it’s the sacking of Alexandria all over again.

The best part is putting Greg Abbott’s picture on this. Not that many Abbott voters read WaPo, but he can’t buy publicity like this. Nor does he deserve the attention, except that Abbott has made more empty threats than the two clowns in rural Virginia.

The American Library Association held its annual Banned Books Week the last week of September. Did anyone even notice? But two people in a town in Virginia make stupid statements and a Governor desperately defends himself against his further-to-the right opponents, and suddenly civilization itself is threatened?

According to the ALA, the number of books actually being challenged has run between over 500 to over 300 since the beginning of the century.  It 448 reported challenges in 2000 (including Of Mice And Men, Harry Potter, and The Catcher In The Rye), 547 in 2004 (a high water mark until 2019).  The numbers don't fall below 400 challenges until 2010.  It jumped up again in 2012 to 464, and up to 566 in 2019.  Only 273 books were challenged in 2020, probably mostly due to schools being closed and parents worrying about other things.  The most challenged books are almost perennials, including Of Mice and Men and To Kill A Mockingbird, as well as Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.  Why hasn't there been a "movement" building throughout this century to ban books?  Or maybe the right question is:  when hasn't there been one?

I don't think any of those titles made Matt Krause's "suspicious" list.  Then again, his list only went back as far as 1969.  And it's hard to say whether he actually "challenged" those books or whether he just issued a list for the sake of publicizing his political career.  Because so far he hasn't made any demands on any school district to comply with his request, and his committee hasn't met to discuss the matter, that I know of.  Pretty sure if it had the Democrats on the committee would have used the occassion for public statements of their own.

So while it bothers me that people challenge books (although the most challenged texts, with the exception of Harry Potter, may not belong in an elementary school library.  There is such a thing as "age appropriate".), it doesn't shock and amaze me and indicate yet another assault on the democratic republic.

And frankly, a lot of the brouhaha recently is about graphic novels, which are wildly popular.  Something about pictures really sets us off, seeing (!) as we're a sight-oriented species.  I can pull "romance novels" off the bookshelve of any bookstore that include numerous sex scenes nobody bats an eye at (it's the main reason people buy those disposable novels).  Put the very same scene on a TV screen and people would scream about the pornography.  Now do the same thing with a graphic novel, even one about adolescent issues and characters (no, I'm not saying such stuff verges on child porn).  You see (!!) the problem.

What we see upsets us far more than what we read.  And the rise of graphic novels is stirring concerns because they are visual, and because they are new.  The stuff in those "romance novels" (and no, I don't mean the "bodice rippers" alone) I mentioned were the realm of pulp fiction and soft-core porn once upon a time.  Now nobody notices, except when it's absent.  The same may be true of graphic novels one day.

After all, John Ashcroft draped the naked statue of justice (a nude female figure) so he wouldn't have to stand with a naked lady over his shoulder for press conferences.  And in the Renaissance nude women were allowed in art because they were "goddesses."  Then again, Le Dejeuner sur l'herbe shocked everyone because the ladies were naked.  Would probably bother us again today, wouldn't it?

Everything old is new again.

Does Grenell Have A Mouse In His Pocket?

Even funnier, since Grenell is neither an "envoy" nor an "ambassador." And to put a bit of news on it:

“Today, my Envoy Ambassador Ric Grenell visited the Kosovo-Serbia border to highlight this important agreement,” Trump wrote via his Save America PAC, revealing that he has an Envoy Ambassador, in what some may see as a naked play to stay relevant in the current political climate.

Well, that and to raise money, else why release it through his PAC?  Click the Weigel image (or any of them, probably) and you'll see a 'Donate' button at the bottom of Trump's message. Everybody remember that until he announces his candidacy, Trump is free to use that PAC money as he pleases?  Probably after that, too; I'm no election law expert.  Trump has learned a new grift, and he's using it for all he's worth.  Grenell went to the border; did he meet with government officials?  Did Trump release this announcement to say he now has a "shadow government"?  He only had the shadow of a government for four years, according to all the books that have come out.

Quit believing what Trump says is true and can be trusted.  He speaks just to antagonize and shake the rubes down for more money.   Grenell, meanwhile, is not playing ball.  All he did was call a press conference while on the border of Serbia and Kosovo:

“I come because we are frustrated,” Grenell said to reporters making it clear that he came to the region as a “private citizen.”

Oops.  Wonder if he's a Platinum Tier member, even?

I Give Up

I've completely lost the line between parody and reality on this subject.

If this is still parody (and I suspect it is), I don't think this new venture has a snowball's chance in hell.  It's repuation as a joke is cemented in.

Or it's not parody, and they truly don't have a snowball's chance in hell, regardless of the internet.

Interesting Thread On the Fifth Circuit Ruling On Biden's Vaccine Mandate

Always best to listen to the people who know what they're talking about. 

The implication of this is that DOJ gets this reassigned to another appellate court, and the victory in the 5th Circuit is a pyrrhic one. As it should be, just because that court acted so peremptorily, if for no other reason (like: THEY'RE WRONG!!!!!).
As I said, always better to go with the experts.