Sending children to do the adults' job

By now, everyone has become aware of the farce that Republicans are making of the national legislature. In truth, if you've been conscious since 1994, you can't have missed it. This is what happens when you take a philosophy based on a joke- Ronald Reagan's famous line: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." -and turn it into an ideology that is a joke, in a much more deprecating fashion. This is what happens when that ideology becomes an end unto itself, in which you elect people not to govern, but to destroy the means of government. This is what happens when you send children to do the job of adults.

The Republican party is a hollow shell at this point. The fabled "party of Lincoln" no longer exists as any kind of functioning political apparatus. Most political parties want to run the government in a manner befitting their outlook on the world. The GOP is incapable of governing because they have no outlook that makes sense. Their motivating philosophy is some combination of the farcical Libertarian concept that society would be better without laws (or, at least without laws that affect wealthy White people) and whatever idiotic whim currently drives their conspiracy-obsessed base; be it a disdain for science, immigration, education, women, LGBTQ+ people, the environment, or any and all combinations thereof. Most political parties have a plan for how to run the public apparatus so that, at the very least, it serves some group of people and some purpose other than putting themselves in front of a camera to receive the adulation of the fools who keep voting for them. Instead, the GOP is currently built upon the idea that sending the least-qualified people to the largest and most complex institution in the world that affects the life of every living being on the planet is the correct path to an end which is unknown even to themselves. In short, they have no plan and they have no ideas, but that seems to be the reason for some people to keep electing them. The party has gone from Reaganism as a religion to the ultimate expression of George W. Bush's campaign that you should vote for him because he'd be a great guy to have a beer with. He wasn't capable of doing the job, either, but he at least surrounded himself with apparatchiks and Cold Warriors who would, much to the chagrin of the rest of the civilized world. The current Republican party isn't even that competent.

Instead, they've gone from trying to pretend that they have a reasonable agenda to loudly proclaiming that they don't have one because they know that anything resembling one is anathema to their Trumpanzee base. Any agenda that would satisfy that base would be rejected by the majority of reasonable people in this country (and the world.) So they stand around and recruit shysters like George Santos whose entire existence is built on lies (and, at least in Brazil, other crimes.) That doesn't make him inordinately distinct from people like Kevin McCarthy, whose only purpose for the past decade has also been to lie to people to make it seem like he's capable of governing, when he really isn't, just like the rest of his party. If he were to gain the post of Speaker of the House, he knows that the only agenda that will satisfy the Fox-crazed idiots will be one that will be utterly discarded by the Senate and ultimately vetoed by Joe Biden. As the original trigger man of the Republican transformation, Barry Goldwater, once said: "Politics and governing demand compromise." But you can't compromise if you have no functional ideas or a governing philosophy. The only philosophy that Republicans now carry is that government is broken and so their only role is to continue to prove that it's broken by not governing. It's as if a display of incompetence is a measure of competence in the eyes of their supporters.

There is no more obvious example of this than their current standard-bearer, Donald J. Trump. His career is built upon scams (Trump University, Trump Steaks, etc.) and an image of success completely belied by reality. But to his supporters, it doesn't matter because he's rich. That end justifies the means, even when said means were largely about screwing people just like themselves. Those people were "suckers" who didn't make the right choices, just like anyone who currently votes for a Republican who doesn't stand to directly benefit. That would typically be the 1%, but since the GOP is incapable of  governing, even that's not a sure thing anymore. No, it's more like the pair of lawyers so unnerved by the idea of Black people being near their house that their only response was to wave guns at them. Or the father whose first and most urgent response to the news that his son had killed five people (with guns like the two lawyers were waving) was that he'd been in a gay bar and, therefore, might be gay. Or Steve Scalise, the current front-runner to replace McCarthy, who has described himself as "David Duke without the baggage." Duke, you may recall, was an outspoken supporter of Trump's campaign, since they're both racist buffoons and, thus, would probably enjoy having a beer together. Or at least a Diet Coke.

There's no way to "both sides" this. There's no way to postulate that this could easily be the Democrats imploding in the same fashion because the Democrats haven't spent the last 30+ years trying to destroy the very institution that they're ostensibly managing. The Democrats, for all their faults (and there are many), are at least a functioning political party with an agenda to do something constructive for large segments of society, even if many of them would like to do more for that fabled 1% that pays them to be in office in the first place (and pays them even more when they get out.) The two "sides" aren't even in the same universe, since the Democrats function in one where science is accepted, history is realistic, and government is a tool to be utilized, not tossed away as if it was too complicated to be understood. Just like a child. The Republicans are the party of ignorant children that remains a relevant force because of the large number of ignorant children in the US that walk around masquerading as functioning adults and because of the careful manipulation of the system (aka gerrymandering) that prevents a more reasonable and acceptable government from being put in place by the majority of the population. There's no greater example of this than the November election in Michigan, where the new districting system may have removed Republicans from power for decades to come, unless the locals choose to begin recruiting people who have an interest in actually governing, rather than screeching at whatever new thing they don't understand like a Kari Lake.

Democracy is difficult. Democracy requires communication. Democracy requires intelligence. And debate. And consideration. And so many other things that Republicans and their supporters either lack or are unwilling to engage in. Even worse, most of them act like suggesting any of that is a personal affront. That's why I've long said that the only real solution to the current problem is civil war and it seems like most Republicans will only be satisfied with that outcome. The first choice of the person who is unwilling to think is often violence. The inability to govern is the sign of a group that is unwilling to think. Instead, they'd rather just throw a tantrum...

Just pay attention

My friend, Michael, posted recently about having read through Rick Perlstein's series of books about the transformation of American political culture from the latter half of the 20th century onward. The main thesis that Michael drew from those pages is that the Republican perspective is based almost entirely on lies that have more recently manifested in complete departures from reality like QAnon, but have never been based on anything close to reality from the very beginning. My kneejerk reaction to anyone bringing this up is that it's been that way since Barry Goldwater, who realized that the GOP needed a lever to deal with an increasingly urbanized public and a more forward-thinking youth segment of the body politic.

If you read a GOP platform from the 50s, anyone can recognize that it would get utterly shredded on Fox News as the most radical form of communism (Creation of massive federal programs (SBA, Interstate system, Dept. of Health and Welfare), affirming the right for labor to organize, free vaccines(!)) There's the usual routine about tax cuts, but Tucker Carlson would go into conniptions if half the stuff mentioned in that document were to be suggested by a Republican (or anyone) on his show today. In that way, the differences between Democrats and Republicans at the time were more about emphases, which can still be true today. But with the issue of race becoming front and center in the early 60s, Goldwater realized that the way to recruit Southern Democrats was to keep feeding them the same line that they'd gotten since Reconstruction: "It's not the rich, White guys who own all the land that are keeping you poor. It's the even poorer Black guys!", but cranked to 11. That lie became the GOP identity. It didn't work in 1964 against Johnson because he was still carrying the sympathy vote for Kennedy, but it was something to build into and that mindset has gradually infected every policy decision and platform that the GOP has produced ever since. While the Democrats have continued to try to be the "inclusive" party (which always somehow includes very wealthy corporations, typically at the expense of actual people) and fervently moderated their message in the name of doing the right thing and continuing to serve the 1% that dumps money into their campaigns, the GOP has just gotten more and more hardcore and had to continue to invent lies to sustain that narrowing focus. 

You could speculate that the Dems departing from "let's please no one most of the time" and going full bore into their more fervent supporters might have put "moderates" (e.g. people mildly interested in change unless it affects their wallets or might scare the children) on a precipice: Support the Nazis or go along with actual change. But that's speculation because it's hard to know how people will react to those choices until they're actually presented with them. The GOP lies don't just work on actual GOP voters. You can see their effect every time the New York Times prints a story about someone's burrito going up 50 cents and tacitly blames it on whichever Democrat is currently in the White House. Don't think that corporations aren't fully aware of that cultural mindset. Setting up circumstances to blame the "might think about change people" keeps them in line, garners profits, and potentially puts the "won't ever think about change" people in a better position, which is all to the utter benefit of the ownership class. People, including reporters, tend to follow programming, even if a moment's consideration will reveal that it's bullshit and you might consider actually speaking up when your coworkers continue to spread that bullshit, instead of rolling your eyes and walking away silently. Speaking up takes effort and a willingness to pay attention, which is not something people are generally inclined to do. This is the same situation that existed with the original Nazis, when people went along to get along, even if a lot of them were perfectly aware of what was happening to their neighbors. They'd been culturally trained- by the media, by their education, by many of their other neighbors -to think in a way that allowed the fascists to take power.

This is what's happening today. It's not too suspicious a thought to consider that the NYT continues to insist that the only real Americans are people in a small-town diner with opinions that favor either things remaining as they are or even reverting to what they were because the Times is one of those massive corporations that benefits from that perspective. At the very least, it generates clicks from many whom would never admit to reading the Times, as well as the regular readers motivated by outrage. That's money and the pursuit of it, not news. It's basically the plot of Broadcast News, where Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks were objecting to the presentation of their work as "infotainment", used to distract and pacify the public, rather than inform and motivate them. Every time the Times and other entities in the collective media present a story about regular people filling in for what should be a basic public service, the deception that circumstances are what they are because that's the way the world irrevocably works, rather than what the ownership class wants, is perpetuated. That, too, is a central lie to the Republican modus operandi. Witness the regular belligerence of both parties on the world stage and the government's "lethal aid" euphemism and its quick adoption by the media. That is yet another foundational lie perpetuated by the GOP ("Someone, somewhere, is out to get us!") and willingly absorbed by "the news" and, frequently, the Democrats, as well.

But all of this stuff has been present for decades. None of it is a new development. The transition of the Republican party from one obsessed with tax cuts to one determined to kill people (COVID) and return women to being second-class citizens (Texas abortion law) and exclude people based on their skin tone (voting suppression laws) is just a more overt form of the fascism that they've been promoting for decades. We're in the home stretch here and the party unable to govern and represent a majority of the public in a democracy is now unwilling to do so and their sometime opposition on the other side of the aisle is still partially made up of those whose loyalties are divided between keeping quiet and making money or speaking out for the people who need it most. All of this has been written on the wall for a very long time. All it takes to stop it are people willing to pay attention and say something. I was telling Tricia the other day that that's probably going to be the inscription on my tombstone: "Pay attention." That's all it takes to see what's happening in the world. Stop accepting the lies. Point them out. It's either that or more guns in the streets than we already have, as that will be the only way to stop them from completing their goal.

In the end, it's only about winning

There's a popular thought among those of us who aren't anti-vaxxers, Trumpanzees, or general resistors to the concept of reason and compassion, if not all of the above. That thought is that those people, from those who simply refuse to wear masks at Home Depot to those who attacked the Capitol building a year ago, are simply confused or misled or ignorant and, consequently, aren't really responsible for their actions. This is not the case. These people are liars because the lying contributes to the causes that they promote. They're not confused by a charismatic(?) demagogue or by what they read on Facebook. They're doing this with full intent, playing along with the lies being promoted by sources like Fox News because it serves their self-interest and self-image to do so. It's really the only explanation for how an idiot like Donald Trump could become as successful as he has: he's really good at lying and convincing others to accept those lies.

Take Ted Cruz, for example. On his podcast last Friday, Cruz stated that if the GOP retakes the House in November, they'll impeach Joe Biden "whether it's justified or not." That's not someone acting against corruption or serving the interests of government and the public weal. That's someone who's committed to lying because it serves the interests of his office, his party, and the voters that put him there. There was a great story by Zoe Tillman of Buzzfeed last summer about Anna Morgan-Lloyd; one of the first people to be sentenced for crimes committed in the attack on the Capitol. She cried at the sentencing hearing that she'd been there just to show support for Trump and was ashamed that it had turned into something so violent. The judge accepted her claims and gave her probation. The very next day, she was on Fox News claiming that there had been no vandalism ($1.5 million in damages) and that the "protestors" were "very polite" (140 Capitol police injured, 1 killed, 17 still dealing with long-term injuries, 4 have since committed suicide.) The judge, Royce Lamberth, was reportedly furious that he'd been lied to. But that's what these people do because that's what their approach to policy is all about: winning. Lying to people and getting away with it is a form of winning. You've put one over on those poor suckers. Victory!

It's the same thing when it comes to health policy and immigration and the economy and police and racism and every other thing where there is verifiable, scientific evidence that what they support is contradictory to what benefits society-at-large and often even themselves. Letting the scientists be "right" is letting someone else win and when your entire worldview is about not letting someone else win, you take any measures necessary to make sure it doesn't happen. The entire attack on the Capitol is about that very issue. No one was there just to support the orange buffoon. They were there to support the lies that they know are lies. They know he lies to them. That's fine. He's on their "side", so supporting the lies benefits their sense of worth/victory/entitlement/whathaveyou. Tucker Carlson, lead liar of Fox News, regularly rotates between descriptions of January 6th, 2021 as a) not an insurrection, b) an insurrection that was a "false flag" by antifa, and c) that the insurrectionists on the ground were justified in their actions. The fact that those three statements contradict each other is of no concern to him or to his viewers. Again, they're all in on the joke. They know they're lying, but those lies serve their interests which, in his case, is mostly to get money and approbation from those who know that he's lying.

I said in the immediate aftermath of last January that those participating in invading the Capitol building should have been shot as soon as they set foot inside the doors, because it's what I'd expect if I'd invaded a government building with the intent of overthrowing said government. But it was also because I knew, like anyone reasonable knows, that these people were lying and had arrived there with malicious intent. They wanted to win, even if it wasn't justified, as Cruz states. These people aren't deserving of sympathy. They certainly have no sympathy for you and me. This is about winning and they'll do anything to make sure that they win. That's what civil war is usually based on and the events of last January were just the opening salvo; the Beer Hall Putsch, as it were. Continuing to sympathize with the people who are willing to lie, commit crimes, and whom want to kill you is a sure way to watch the vague semblance of democracy that we currently enjoy disappear into the ether. All of your "fellow Americans" this and "come together and unite" that is just going to make you the fool and them the winners because they'll just appeal to your better nature and then laugh at you when you walk out of the room, just like judge Lamberth, and then lock the door behind you.

If people want to continue to lie and suggest that I'm trying to "outlaw conservatism" or some such absurdity, I have one response for you: You're basically right. Because if your version of "conservatism" is based on lying, rejecting science, racism, the unbridled accumulation of wealth, and everything else about the modern right-wing ideology that is destructive to society, then it should be outlawed. It should be condemned in the same way that Nazism and other forms of fascism have eventually been condemned (almost always after extreme violence) because that's what it is: fascism. The original fascists built their case on lies, too (made the trains run on time, etc.) This phenomenon is no different. As I noted last year, America has a long history of people who flock to that kind of idea. It's an element of human nature to lie and to do so in order to win. But it's time to call out the people doing so, for the sake of the majority.

The mirror, darkly

People usually ask me around the appropriate times: "What do you want for Christmas?" or "What do you want for your birthday?" My typical response is something like: "Bloody revolution." Most that know me also know my political outlook, which is one that decidedly contrasts much of America's and certainly the outlook that has come to embody America. Whereas most believe in and promote the idea of big business, everything for profit, what's good for GM is good for America, etc., I'm a Marxist. What that means is that I favor people over profits, whether it comes to labor law, environmental law, or any other rules of society. So, when I talk about "bloody revolution", my image is of a popular revolt based on a higher principle, rather than on petty prejudices and a demagogue. So, when it came to the events today around and inside the Capitol building, my primary reaction was a mix of disgust and humor. The humorous part was that all of these fools were following the commands of an idiotic con man whose true nature has been blatantly apparent for 40 years. The disgust was based on watching all of the institutions that are held so sacred by most Americans being brought to their proverbial knees by a bunch of ignorant QAnon believers and a large number of racist cops; many of whom are also supporters of that idiotic con man. (How can someone that stupid deceive so many people? Animal cunning isn't bounded by intelligence. It's an instinct that's well-served by people who want to be deceived in the first place. But I digress.)

First off, let's get one thing straight: Anyone invading the Capitol today should have been shot. Full stop. That's what any nation does when an insurrection is attacking its primary legislative body. If I were leading my much-fantasized bloody revolution, I'd certainly expect to be shot if I was in the halls of Congress or the White House. That's what happens when you're trying to violently overthrow a government. People tend to shoot you or at least shoot back when you shoot at them. These people should have been treated as the domestic terrorists that they are and been shot. The first few to go down would have scattered the rest to the four winds. This is how this normally works. But, instead, what we saw were repeated instances of police retreating from unarmed invaders, taking selfies with said invaders, and even letting them in the door in the first place. This was after the date of January 6 was singled out by both President Trump and anyone who casually followed this thing called the Internet for weeks. Everyone knew this was coming, so there can be no argument that the Capitol Police or the myriad of security forces in and around DC were surprised by what happened. The fact that they stopped to share photos with these insurrectionists demonstrates what the reality was: These cops supported this insurrection. The foxes were, indeed, guarding the henhouse.

This brings into stark contrast what happened over the summer, when actual protests occurred across the nation in response to the death of George Floyd. In those instances, since the protests were made up of non-White people and were in support of non-White people and protesting against their usual treatment at the hands of authority (Protect and serve!), those participating in those events were attacked by police as if they were the enemy... because we are, to their thinking. We threaten the institutions because we point out that those institutions are either flawed or malicious. That's never a good idea in a state that's beholden to a very few. Indeed, the starkest example of the difference in response to the two events were what Washington looked like then:

 And what it looked like today:

This speaks to not only orders given from on high, given the weeks of lead-in to this event, but also attitudes among the police themselves. After all, these "protesters" weren't Black! We're all in this together as fellow Americans, right?! This was cooperated with. Messages were sent from above that this behavior was acceptable in the corridors of power. (15 whole arrests today! Woo!)

And that's where the disgust really ramps up. Right away, you get the plaintive mewlings of government officials with the "This isn't who we are." line. This isn't America!, they say. This doesn't represent our grand, idealized vision of the city on the hill that, as one CNN reporter put it tonight, is the "anchor of democracy throughout the world." I nearly spit my water across the room because, you see, this is America. It totally is. This nation is seen as the "anchor of democracy" in many corners of the world only if your interpretation of "anchor" is something that weighs you down until you drown. This image- of self-entitled White people given free reign by cops to attack the legislature in the hopes of intimidating it to hand power to a would-be dictator -is absolutely America; especially when contrasted with what happened over the summer and what has happened to Black people in this nation for 400 years at the hands of authority, both locally in the form of cops and nationally in the form of Congress. This is so on brand for America it's almost as funny as it is disgusting. The "This isn't who we are" line is a dodge. It's an evasion that allows people to not confront this truth and pretend that real problems don't exist until everyone can move on to the next episode of The Mandalorian and forget that bad things even happened. It usually helps that the people using that line are the ones for whom those problems don't really exist (i.e. White, often wealthy) because they're never directly affected by them.

But that's another thing to keep in mind: This problem is far bigger than The Idiot, Donald J. Trump. This is the Republican party in a nutshell (with their often all-too-willing accomplices, the Democrats.) Trump may be the beacon in these insurrectionists' lives. He may be the one that keeps whipping them into a frenzy with lies that they love to hear and fantasies that can't possibly make sense. But it's vermin like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Matt Gaetz, Mitch McConnell, and Josh Hawley that have made this possible, among many, many others. They enabled this creature and looked the other way every time he committed crime after crime just like today, usually only after announcing that he was going to commit whatever crime that took place. (Someone tell me: Is Susan Collins concerned again? Or has she learned her lesson...?) This is the modern GOP and no one should ever forget what this party is: fanatical hucksters, dependent on ignorance, and completely devoid of any policy ideas that will improve life for anyone but the tiny sliver of the wealthy of which they are a part. This is a party so dependent on the Reagan religion, the tenets of which that have been so resoundingly disproved or rejected over the past 40 years that they can't reasonably be brought forward as actually popular ideas, that it can't promote anything but ignorance and fear; mostly of The Other (the non-Whites, the foreigners, the immigrants, the "socialists", etc.) Trump is the outward manifestation of this trend and they have covered his tracks at every opportunity; so much so that Cruz and Hawley have played to his base tonight on the Senate floor as prospective candidates for 2024. This is the Republican party and no one should ever forget what they've created.

The humor of today was also brought about by entities like the National Association of Manufacturers, suddenly realizing that widespread public violence might be bad for their profit margins, finally suggesting that Trump is unfit for office, two weeks from his removal after four years of perfidy. Or Twitter and Facebook, finally responding to the unending stream of lies that he spews forth that led directly to the national legislature being evacuated from its building by cutting him off their platforms; the same platforms that were used to organize this little revolt and which did nothing but promote his bullshit for years as a concession to "free speech", but really because they made money from it. As always in American politics, it's about the money. It's always about the money. Even the corporate media finally had to concede that perhaps "protesters" and "demonstration" weren't quite sufficient euphemisms for insurrectionists attempting a coup. CNN even labeled them "anarchists" at first. Remember anarchy? That thing you do when you're trying to keep the current government in power? Yeah. That. But all of this is reflective of the normalization of fascism. History is replete with examples of events like this, both within America (the Wilmington Massacre of 1898 (also racially-motivated)) and without (Mussolini's March on Rome in 1922.) Fascism is a solidification of corporate and political power and most major media sources are corporations, so they feed off this. Organizations like the New York Times remain eager to avoid buzzwords that might make anyone think that something is wrong with the American democratic edifice like, say, when the President is a liar or when people attempting to intimidate the legislature are staging a coup. That's why the term "anarchist" is thrown around. Anarchy represents change, so it's used to represent chaos, the lack of order (Law and order!), the undermining of authority, the breaking down of institutions.

So, don't kid yourself when you think that America is "better than this." It never has been, because things like this usually lead to profits for the people that own America (exactly what the NAM was concerned about.) It's also a shining example of what the US has done, repeatedly, in other nations around the world, also at the behest of those owners (the term "banana republic", which many are applying to the US these days, came about because of the activities of United Fruit, the US Marines, and the CIA.) This is America. One of our two major political parties has simply begun saying the quiet part out loud; usually embodied in the form of The Idiot, but now also in his devoted followers who have been elected to the highest legislative body in the land. But his departure will not change anything but the façade. While every effort should be made to both arrest all of the participants of today's debacle (including the outgoing president) and expel all of the Congresspeople promoting sedition (It actually should be done, legally, per the 14th amendment.), there will still be much more work to be done. They and the people they serve will still own everything and will still work to maintain that situation. The only thing to potentially look forward to is the actual bloody revolution that might serve the interests of someone other than a minority of racist morons. I await that day with great anticipation.

The Newspaper of Farce

The Tom Cotton Affair with the New York Times (and, oh, how appropriate is that phrasing...) has become an absurdist fantasy. Arkansas senator Tom Cotton wrote an op-ed for the Times that encouraged the use of military force against all protesters in the nation as a way to "restore order." It sounded typical of a screed written for The American Conservative, railing against "chic salons" for encouraging civic participation, rather than meekly accepting the right of police to kill Black people with impunity. But the response to it was overwhelmingly negative, given that it was encouraging military intervention against American citizens (which is illegal in several different ways) during a mass protest against police brutality. The Times' response was that they were just going about their business of "presenting opinions; even those we disagree with." Many other journalists, as is the typically kneejerk response, leapt to their defense with pearl clutching about "free speech" and the "freedom of ideas." But it's not that simple.

"Free speech" means one thing and one thing only: the government can't prosecute you for what you say or write. Full stop. Do not pass Go. That's it. That's the only thing that clause of the First Amendment means. As I've often said to people over the years, there's no part of the Amendment that means people can't shun you for acting like an asshole, if you insist on acting like one. No one is forced to listen to your wackjob opinions; US Senator or no. But then we come to the "freedom of ideas" part and how it's argued as being more ethical/principled/whathaveyou to have distasteful opinions presented so that they can be refuted by those same principled people. And that's the far more complex issue, since that isn't the Times' real intent and hasn't been for a very long time.

First off, publishing Cotton's piece can actually be addressed by legal precedent about free speech issues. In the same way that you're not allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, promoting the idea that violence should be used against the population because they're exercising those same First Amendment rights doesn't seem to be the wisest contribution to public safety. There is a certain amount of professional responsibility incumbent upon journalists and newspapers and, unless one wants to be perceived as a trash propaganda organization like Fox News or OANN, a little editorial discretion might've been employed here to protect the public, including a not inconsiderable number of Times readers, one would think. In short, Cotton was promoting violence and the Times gave him one of the largest platforms in the world from which to do so.

Secondly, there is a certain obligation for any serious publication to recognize the validity of the opinions they're displaying, as it were. The Times' publisher, A. G. Sulzberger, claimed that he was fine with publishing opinions that he didn't agree with. Does that mean I could write up a screed on Holocaust denial and expect that the Times would publish it? How about just cutting to the chase for American racists and write up something on returning Black people to slavery so we don't have to worry about police brutality or the associated protests? I'm betting he doesn't agree with those opinions, either, but I'm betting that any writer, senator or no, who brought those opinions to the Times would be rejected out of hand. And there's the rub.

See, the Times has long been known as the Newspaper of Record. It's essentially the voice for "the way things are" in America. If news makes it to the Times, then it carries the authority of the largest paper in the nation's largest city. It is what is to be believed; even trusted. But the Times has fully embraced that mantle, such that their main mission over the past 25 years has largely been to be the voice of the establishment, no matter whom that establishment happens to be. As an example, the NYT was one of the most vocal cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq, despite that invasion being based on ludicrous evidence or the lack thereof. It was Maureen Dowd who delivered the story that DoD operatives on site had gestured to a man who they say provided the evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", but whom she wasn't allowed to speak to or even know the name of. But, since it was printed in the Times, it gained the imprimatur of truth because that's what the Times wanted. The current government under George W. Bush wanted the invasion so the Times wanted the invasion. It's the equivalent of Pravda; just with better writing.

That tendency has carried over into the madhouse that is the administration of the Idiot. Despite the man's habit of lying virtually every time he opens his mouth, the Times will never call him on those lies. They're "inaccuracies" or they "lack evidence" or his statements are "confused." There's no confusing the intent of the Times, though. They're the establishment. The current establishment is represented by the Idiot. Therefore, what he says must be reported as if it carries veracity. The institution that is the president of the United States can't be mocked or reviled. That would mean other institutions might be mocked or reviled! Like... the New York Times. Too late...

The paper has decided that, in order to provide some semblance of dignity to what the Idiot and his sycophants (like Cotton) say, they have to apply the "both sides" approach to everything they print. That's why "some experts say" that hydroxychloroquine might be effective against COVID-19, as the president has stated. No valid study or actual expert has said this. It's also why "Antifa might make up elements of the protests." No evidence of this suspicion has been confirmed, especially given that there is no organization known as "Antifa." It's also why Cotton's fascist fantasies were given space by the Newspaper of Record. It's a valid, conservative opinion, after all! But it's not a valid opinion to suggest violating the law in the name of shooting American citizens in the streets. It's a criminal one. But the Times wants to present it as valid so they can continue to print opinions from the conservative wing of American politics that has lost all moral authority to govern in any way, shape, or form. But since the Idiot is the establishment, faithful hound dog NYT tries to make authoritarian wet dreams sound credible.

But then we come to the coup de grace: According to an internal meeting at the Times, held to try to defuse the staff revolt against the Cotton piece, not only did James Bennet, opinion editor at the paper, not read the piece before he gave the go-ahead to publish it (that's kind of the basic function of an editor...), but it turns out that it wasn't Cotton who pitched the piece to the Times:

From New York Times town hall: op-ed team pitched the piece TO Tom Cotton. Not the other way around.

— quarantine toddler task force (@PatrickCoffee) June 5, 2020

So, not only does the Times give credence to ridiculous statements like Cotton's. It solicits them. This more than anything else shows the paper for what they are. They're promoting fascism. They're promoting authoritarianism. Why? Well, because those things are usually a positive result for very wealthy entities like the paper, its publisher, and its editors. If they could just get those pesky people off the streets, then they could all go back to shopping at Columbus Circle and not have to think about Black people at all! And, of course, it means that, just like Dowd, they'll still be invited to all the best parties in DC. They'll still have access. They'll still be inside, where the wealthy kids play.

Meanwhile, everyone else, on the outside, who've been relying on the Times as an impartial source of information... Well, you'll have to look elsewhere. The Newspaper of Record has become a farce.

Piercing the American religion

A friend asked a question on the board last night: "Psychologically, what makes 'us' hate protesters so much? What causes people to be more viscerally upset by people marching and yelling and waving signs or taking a knee or even doing property damage than they are by straight-up murder?" Putting aside the obvious racist implications for a moment, by response was this:

The simplest answer is this: Pointing out that something is wrong with America makes people uncomfortable because patriotism is the national religion of this country and it essentially lacks foundation. When you question someone's religion, if they're a committed believer, then they rely on their faith in the tenets of that religion. They believe in an idealized set of principles that are embodied by faith in a higher power or mysteries that can neither be easily explained or easily disproved. Neither you nor they can prove that their god does not exist. Similarly, neither you nor they can prove that said god exists. Their faith is based upon the idea that there is a higher purpose for themselves and for everyone.

Patriotism, OTOH, is based on ideas that are rooted in reality. It just may not be the reality that everyone wants to face. Mo Wagner, former University of Michigan and current LA Lakers basketball player, was tweeting yesterday about how when he first came to the US, everyone greeted him with: "Welcome to America, the greatest country in the world!" Everyone. It happened so often that it went from surprising to funny to kind of weird. There is a mindset that exists among Americans that the US is the pinnacle achievement in socio-political history; that since this is the "land of the free" and the "birthplace of democracy" and the "land of opportunity" to which so many wish to come, everything about it must be good and proper.

But the truth is that the US is all of those things for really only a very few people. For everyone else, it can be those things, but often is markedly different, in both degree and substance. When people point that out, many people react viscerally, as if you've questioned their personal character. Colin Kapernick was attacked for kneeling during the national anthem when he attempted to call attention to racism and police brutality. But for many, he wasn't pointing out racism. He was defiling the anthem! He was disrespecting the flag and the troops! He was despoiling our football, that most American of games! But what he was really doing was pointing out that it's only the "land of the free" for part of the population and people really don't want to hear a contrary opinion to what they've been taught since they were young and have had continually reinforced on a daily basis from news and entertainment media, every time a politician opens his or her mouth, and from every flag-waving sports entity that insists on playing the national anthem before every game.

Hell, they make young children recite a pledge of allegiance to a piece of cloth at the start of every school day. What greater sign of religion is there than everyone mumbling the national psalm together? It ends with "... with liberty and justice for all." But any casual experience in many American communities will tell you that the "liberty" part is often based on your skin tone and there sure as shit ain't no justice for anyone who doesn't have the money to buy it. But if you question the national religion, you're "unAmerican." You've stepped outside the illusion and are implicitly mocking anyone left within it. Many people object to that because, unlike actual religions, their belief isn't rooted in an idea about a higher power. It's rooted in the concept that America is the best thing ever and can't be questioned in the first place. Any evidence to the contrary must be based on the people being wrong; not the place. That's a lack of foundation. There is no faith there; just an insistence that a mirage is real.

Donald Trump is the walking manifestation of that insistence. His contradictory message- that America is the greatest nation on Earth and yet needs to be "made great again" -is the perfect embodiment of a population that knows the core is rotten but insists on shining the apple. It's like sports fans insisting that their team is the greatest ever, while fans of all the other teams chuckle behind their hands. Samuel Johnson said that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" because he knew that vermin like the current president and Senate Republicans would continue to flog it as their lone defense against the perfidy of their actions. He also knew that much of the public would respond because, just as with organized religion, most people need something to believe in. Not everyone can be comfortable living in a Hobbesian world. But, at the very least, people should be willing to argue the point without sheltering in a bunker of distractions from the reality that faces us.