Donald Trump Will Not Win

Insulting America isn't the way you do it, buddy.

I know what you’re thinking: Wasn’t I one of those people who thought Hillary couldn’t lose? Yup, I was. I seriously, sincerely couldn’t see how Donald Trump, that loathsome clown whose life was completely antithetical to the norms of common decency, that shady businessman without an ounce of knowledge about how government works, would EVER become America’s president.

Hahahahahahaha.

That was me. And probably you. And almost four years later we’re still shocked. I can’t go into how it happened. I don’t KNOW how it happened, and neither does anyone else. We’re all just guessing. But here we are, and Trump was, and is, far, far worse than we could ever have imagined. We imagined he would be as stubbornly stupid, as bombastic, as ridiculously full of himself as he turned out to be. What we didn’t count on was the Republican Party’s willing capitulation to a moron and a monster.

Trump, it turns out, was a dream come true for them. He didn’t CARE how they did it before. His job was to make the rich richer (including and especially him), and, by God, he did it.

His job, as he saw it — thanks to some friendly nudging from his pal, former KGB expert and president-for-life, Vladimir Putin — was to sow chaos and create division, and he did that.

His job (and he especially enjoyed this part ) was to bring the media to its knees in order to float above any criminal exposure or criticism — and the press rewarded him with some of the silliest whataboutism I’ve ever seen.

But along the way Trump has made some dreadful blunders. I mean, terrible. He’s a happy despot, momentarily, but he’s alienated every sane military, scientific, medical, social services, and educational expert in the country.

He has his fans and followers, and it’s true they’re louder and more obnoxious than the rest of us, but they’re not the majority. Every legitimate poll shows that far more Americans go against Trump's cockamamie decision than agree with them. Every one.

Pollsters are giving Joe Biden a bigger and bigger edge, and we’re a little more than a month from the election. (Okay. Remind me again about pollsters and Hillary Clinton and how that all went down, but (perfunctory cliché ahead) that was then and this is now.)

More than 200,000 COVID deaths, most of them completely avoidable but for Trump’s stubborn pretense that his giant brain is far superior to every scientist and epidemiologist in the land.

Kids in cages. They’re still crying, their parents are still crying, we’re still crying.

Attacks on women, minorities, the disabled, and the disenfranchised.

Name-calling and childish insults, laughable word-salad adlibs thrown in to speeches written by Stephen Miller, as if despots were still in vogue and this wasn’t America.

And now Trump, always so insanely inappropriate for the highest job in the land, has the chance to select a third Right Wing Supreme Court nominee and get her in place before the election.

And he's not done yet.

To the delight of his followers, and, let’s face it, the press, Trump is impishly pretending he might not leave office if Joe Biden should, by some slim off-chance, win. But he will leave, and we even know the date: January 20, 2021.

Donald Trump will not win this election. Joe Biden will.

Has Joe Biden made mistakes? Uh huh. Will he go on making mistakes? Uh huh. But, when it comes to mistakes, Joe is a piker compared to Donald. Trump holds the world’s record for the most hilarious, the most egregious mistakes ever made by a U.S president. Nobody comes even close. And if we’re lucky, nobody ever will again.

So I rest my case. Donald Trump should not, cannot, will not win this election. We’re going to make sure he doesn’t. Joe Biden will win in a landslide, the likes of which we’ve never seen. (Yes, I stole that from Donald.)

He will not steal our pride, our legacy, our heritage, our privileges, our rights.

He will not.

The Culture of Rape is over. Get The Hell Out of Our Way

I'll make this short and to the point: If you're a man and you've ever tried to undress a woman when she didn't want you to, if you've ever forced her legs apart, manhandled her, scared her into submission, tried to shame or coerce her into having sex with you--if you've ever used force to get your way?  You're either a rapist who succeeded or a rapist who failed.

The Department of Justice describes rape this way:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” 

We're now, thankfully, coming into an age where women can feel safe coming forward with their stories. For centuries, that hasn't been the case. In certain countries, even in modern times, rape is used as punishment or retribution. It's because rape is an abomination. The worst kind of violation. The thing every woman fears.

Rape is a violation, and so is attempted rape. If it has never happened to you, you can't even begin to understand the trauma it causes. You don't need to understand it. You only need to accept it.

If you caused it, own it. No matter how long it takes, no matter when it happened--own it. You did this. You.

We're talking about this now because we just came off of a Senate hearing where Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump's candidate for Supreme Court justice, was called on to respond to attempted rape accusations by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. The incident happened more than 30 years ago, when both of them were teenagers.  Kavanaugh, now a circuit court judge, says it didn't happen. Dr. Blasey Ford, a psychology professor, says it's seared into her brain and she'll never forget it.

The description of that assault is excruciating. Imagine sitting before millions of people having to tell that story, knowing before you even begin that viewers by the millions--including half the committee before you--all of them men--likely won't believe you.

Then remember that there are millions of other women who know that, too--that they won't be believed, that they'll be told to get over it--and will feel safer keeping their secrets to themselves. It'll haunt them forever but that's the price they'll pay not to have to be shamed again. And the worst of it? The person who did this to them will go free.  No guilt, no shame. It'll be as if it never happened.

There's a long-standing culture that says men should be able to satisfy their sexual needs. Women are there to do that. Sometimes they have to be "convinced". The male sex drive is strong, so when it gets out of hand we can't blame them. (The dark side of this is that when women are willing sex players they're considered whores and sluts. Boys and men have more respect for the females who fight them off than they do for the females who enjoy sex as much as they do.)

Cultures change and now this one must, too. If you're a man working to keep women in the place you've designated for them, we're coming after you. You will not be safe from us. Women are rising up, working to eradicate abuse and the ensuing shame. The blowback--as expected--is going to be fierce.

We're ready.

Now get the hell out of our way.


Cross-posted at Medium and Crooks & Liars

What If The Second Amendment Didn't Exist?

Once upon a time, long before The National Rifle Association stopped being a reasonable, responsible hunter's association and became the NRA, the Second Amendment was looked on, if at all, as a remnant of the olden days, when the writers of the Constitution saw fit to assuage the fears of the newly-formed states by assuring them they could form their own militias in case the federal government got too bossy, thinking they owned the place.

These days, even though nothing about it has changed, the Second Amendment is the one and only part of the Constitution actually seen as constitutional by the Right Wing.  (Causing nearly every politician, Republican or Democrat, right or left, to keep repeating the magic words, "Second Amendment", as if the Second Amendment says what the NRA says is says.)

I, and millions like me, say the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee rights to gun owners.  They, and millions like them, say it does.

After the Supreme Court gave in to the NRA's demands to ignore that part about the well-regulated militia and give gun owners the seeming right to own any kind of weapon known to man, former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, in an April, 2014 WaPo Op-Ed, proposed the addition of five words to the Second Amendment, clarifying what Stevens believes the original writers meant.  Stevens' revised Second Amendment would read like this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."

To which I say, forgive me, Sir, but. . .what militia, now?

I'm nowhere near Justice Stevens' level of intellect but if that amendment is simply there to address a non-existent militia, it isn't much of a reach to conclude there's no longer a need for a Second Amendment.  (The National Guard may be the closest we come to a state militia, but it's not made up of a motley band of citizens called up whenever the rascally Feds get out of line.  It's an essential branch of the military, an adjunct of the Federal government, enlisted as needed during national emergencies. )

We could resolve these arguments once and forever by repealing the Second Amendment.  Amendments aren't written in stone.  They can be amended and they can be repealed.  Our government repealed the Eighteenth Amendment in 1933, some 13 years after a few rabid anti-liquor folks thought it would be a good idea to do away with alcoholic beverages completely.  (As if!)

So what would life be like without a Second Amendment?  Who, besides the NRA and the gun manufacturers--the wave riders--would be affected negatively by the loss?  Would the arguments for and against regulations and background checks change in any way?  Would each state or municipality have to rethink their local gun laws? Would the Federal government see its chance and confiscate all guns?  Would we be less safe?  Would we be safer?

Once it was gone, who in their right mind would take it to mean their gun rights went with it?  I submit we could lose it tomorrow and it would never be missed.  Nothing would change.  So why is it such a big deal?

Anybody?


(Also seen at Crooks & Liars)

Today Five Members of the U.S. Supreme Court Moved Us Closer to a Theocracy

Today the Supreme Court ruled that private, family-owned businesses--in this case, Hobby Lobby--could opt out of paying for contraceptives if their objections to them are based on the owners' religious beliefs.

The case came to the attention of the Supremes when the Affordable Care Act included this mandate:

Birth control benefits:

Plans in the Health Insurance Marketplace must cover contraceptive methods and counseling for all women, as prescribed by a health care provider.
These plans must cover the services without charging a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible when they are provided by an in-network provider.

Covered contraceptive methods:

All Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are covered, including:

• Barrier methods (used during intercourse), like diaphragms and sponges
• Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
• Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
• Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®
• Sterilization procedures
• Patient education and counseling

Plans aren’t required to cover:

• Drugs to induce abortions
• Services related to a man’s reproductive capacity, like vasectomies

Hobby Lobby argues that they don't want to pay for any services that might cause the end of life.  They consider FDA-approved morning-after pills--like Plan B--abortion pills, even though the pills have to be used within 72 hours after intercourse.  Within three days.  They consider certain IUDs as obstacles in the path of fertilized eggs.  (Fertilized eggs are apparently babies in their eyes.)

If the owners of Hobby Lobby want to believe that life begins at conception, let them.  It's a free country.  They can believe anything they want to believe, religious or otherwise.  What they can't do--or shouldn't be able to do--is to push their religious beliefs on their employees.  One of the benefits of the newly minted Affordable Care Act was a mandate to provide free contraceptive care for women who need it.  Hobby Lobby balked and decided they shouldn't have to pay for something that might keep women from having babies. 

When the Right Wing came up with the loony notion that life begins at conception, they opened the doors to misusing religion to force women to give up the ability to forestall pregnancies. There is no legitimate religious basis for denying women the right to free contraception.  None at all.

Contraception isn't, by definition, abortion, except in the minds of those looking for any excuse to involve themselves in deciding for women when they should have children.   When contraception is the obvious and most humane solution to unwanted pregnancies, there is no humane reason not to make it available and free. 

So what I'm seeing from those five men on the Supreme Court is yet another example of ideology as law.  ("Corporations are people" being the most jaw-dropping and the most precedent-forming.  Hobby Lobby couldn't have won without it.)  They're treading on dangerous territory.  They're giving judicial approval to religious solutions for societal issues, and, as the judicial branch of a secular government, they're knowingly abusing their authority.

But worse, they're telling women that when it comes to reproductive protections, religious theory trumps their right not to be burdened by the worry of unintended pregnancies.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her dissent, said this:

Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.

Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

We are a country made up of diverse cultures and religions.  We welcome them, we encourage them, we give them the freedom to live within their own cultures and worship within their own religions.  At the same time, we expect the freedom not to have to follow along.

But this Supreme Court, in the name of free speech, just forced us to give in to specific religious beliefs.  There was a time when that would have been inconceivable. 

Lord knows, we were safer then.


(Cross-posted at dagblog and Alan Colmes' Liberaland)

Obamacare Ruled Not a Four-Letter-Word. Damn!

Today was the day Chief Justice Roberts creeped out the Republicans by doing the unthinkable:  He figured out a way to square the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with the constitution and gave it his okay (if not exactly his blessing).  Such a donnybrook!  The Dems couldn't believe it, but the Republicans couldn't believe it even more. 

I won't be explaining the whole thing here, not because I can't (I really can't), but because every person with a keyboard has already weighed in on what it all means.  But even though I didn't know exactly what was going on, I was on top of it all, even before the pundits on TV.  At the very moment the decision came down, the supersmart bunch at SCOTUSblog were live-blogging from inside the courtroom, sending out the minute-by-minute news as it happened, ticker-tape style, and I have to tell you, I got goosebumps!  Because there I was, in the loop, watching those guys on MSNBC having to wait until Pete Williams came outside to tell them what had gone on inside--which, ha!  I already knew!  (Click here for SCOTUSblog's simple explanation of what happened at the Supreme Court today.  It'll explain everything.  At least for today.)

Yes, it was quite a day  The decision came down around 10:15 AM or thereabouts, and within minutes the screws began to come loose.

Both Fox and CNN jumped the gun and told their viewers Obamacare had been declared unconstitutional.

Petitions to impeach Chief Justice Roberts appeared and people came out of nowhere to sign the things.  One petition got 124 signatures before it shut down, for reasons known only to the petitioners.  Another one was at 28 signatures by 9 PM (including the ubiquitous Seemore Butts of Geneva, Il.), hoping for 1000 names by whenever.

Matthew Davis, a former GOP spokesman in Michigan wrote an email right after the decision that moved swiftly through the blogosphere,   The Koch-fueled Mackinac Center published it on their CAPCON page (Michigan Capitol Confidential), along with some straight reporting that gave no indication of where they stand when it comes to (cough, gag, retch) Obamacare.

A Lansing-based civil rights attorney who has held positions with the Michigan Republican Party and Department of Corrections, questioned in a widely distributed email today whether armed rebellion was justified over the Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare.

Matthew Davis sent the email moments after the Supreme Court ruling to numerous new media outlets and limited government activists with the headline: “Is Armed Rebellion Now Justified?”
He stressed that he wasn't calling for armed rebellion but added his own personal note to the email, saying, “… here’s my response. And yes, I mean it.”

He said he was writing with an "eye toward asking at what point the Republic is in peril."
“There are times government has to do things to get what it wants and holds a gun to your head," Davis said. "I’m saying at some point, we have to ask the question when do we turn that gun around and say no and resist.

"Was the American Revolution justified?”

Davis said the key word was “justified,” adding that a peaceful resolution toward changing the law is the goal. He said rebellion often is the end result of people who get backed against a wall and wondered when that might occur when it comes to the Obamacare ruling.

Michael Savage offered up the reason Roberts voted the way he did:  It was his epilepsy medication.  Yeah.  That's the ticket.

In the Twitterverse,  a rash of tweets went viral, much to the consternation of the original tweeters who swear they never, ever, ever tweeted that if Obamacare wasn't overturned they were moving to Canada!

And that was just today.

FRIDAY FOLLIES: Huntsman's Debut Dud, New Bank Heist Health Care Plan, Pop-up Pianos, and Barbie killed Bratz

Rachel Maddow, dear-heart, I'm begging you--never, ever do beat poetry at the bongo drum AGAIN!  Gawd!  That was painful! I'm telling you, it was excruciating!  I love you truly but that was just gawdawful.  Really.

So if you were watching Rachel and you managed to get past the dimmed lights and the bongo and the terrible, horrible attempt at...whatever the hell that was, you might have seen what it was leading up to, which was a hilarious account of the disastrous roll-out day for newly announced GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman.  Oy, they shoulda stood in bed.  The lot of 'em.  Video here, but Rachel recaps it nicely like this:

“Getting the name of your candidate wrong, getting the state wrong where you launched your campaign in getting your address wrong, getting your phone number wrong, not getting the cameras pointed at the Statue of Liberty, and then the generator dies 12 minutes before the announcement, and then as soon as the whole thing is over and it time for whatever this guy’s name is to go to his next campaign event in New Hampshire, when it comes time to get all the press, all those dozens of press get them on board the plane to go with whatever his name is to go to New Hampshire for his first big campaign event. What happens? They try to accidentally board the press corps on to a plane that is not going to New Hampshire, but is instead going to Saudi Arabia.”

Okay, a lot of it wasn't Huntsman's fault (though that bizarre motorcycle ad might have been) and a lot of it was kind of nitpicky, but I laughed my head off as it went on and on...and on (the video is almost 19 minutes long!), and it's Friday, so there it is.

The first Barbie commercial.  Found this, the very first Barbie commercial at Paddy and Laffy's "The Political Carnival" and it took me back--not to my day but to my daughters'.  Oh, yes.  Fun but fraught with dangerous girl-to-woman signals, those Mad Men babes.  But Barbies were like peaches and cream compared to Bratz, the black-booted hussy dolls my granddaughter went nuts over.  (Their first commercial is here.) Interesting to note that Mattel won the battle over competition and forced Bratz out in order to keep Barbie strong.  I thought competition was a good thing for capitalists.  But then there is that whole values thing going on...

 This next story is funny and sad and poignant and ripe for movie-making if only George Carlin were still alive (or if Woody Allen hadn't done something similar in "Take the Money and Run").

 James Verone, age 59, robbed a Gastonia, NC bank using a demand note requesting only a dollar, apparently the lowest amount needed in order to get free housing and medical care in the local hoosegow.  Verone said he is hoping for a three-year sentence so he can ride it out until Social Security kicks in and he can go live at the beach.  He said he's never done a dishonest thing in his life before this. 

I could launch into a screed on the need for universal health care in this country and what the lack of same drives even the most honest men to do, but I'm picturing James Verone sitting on the floor of the bank holding a stolen dollar bill in his hand waiting for the police to arrive and take him away to safety.  A man at the end of his rope. With a plan. An absurd, ridiculous plan  And then I'm picturing millions of people at the end of their ropes, each demanding one dollar from banks all across the country and waiting for the police to come and take them away.  And from there I'm remembering honest black citizens breaking the law by sitting at all-white lunch counters or refusing to get to the back of the bus and I have to marvel at the purity of James Verone's plan.  He might well be this century's Rosa Parks.


A Moment Sublime:  Pop-up pianos in New York City (video).  Sing for Hope, a non-profit arts project, has set up 88 artist-decorated pianos in public places all over NYC and made them available to anyone who feels the need to tickle the ivories.  Artists include Izaac Mizrahi, Diane Von Furstenburg, Kate Spade, B.D. Wong, and others whose names New Yorkers will surely know.  They're asking people who have visited to come back to the website and tell their stories.  What a great project.  Wish I could be there to see some of them. (It runs through July 2.  Hope it doesn't rain...)

From newyorkology.com

Cartoon of the Week:

R.J Matson - St. Louis Post Dispatch

*
*

The SCOTUS Five: Just Asses

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."   --  Thomas Jefferson

 _________________________

Yesterday, five "justices" of the Supreme Court--the usual suspects: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy--overturned most of McCain-Feingold, wrinkled up large chunks of the constitution, and laid to rest any laughable remnant of a notion that this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  (Unless you're one of those who actually buys into that hokum that a corporation is really a person.  In which case, more about that later.)


Yesterday those five scamps saw another chance to give their corporate heroes the gift that keeps on giving--namely US on a platter--and made into law the right for "corporations, trade associations, unions and nonprofit groups"  to spend any amount they wish from any old source, in order to bash, lash, eviscerate, decapitate, or otherwise destroy, any political candidate who might seriously get in their way.  No holds barred anymore.  None.  Free at last, free at last. . .

 But, since this is America, the decision by those fair-minded (as opposed to "activist") gents, those black-robed pillars of our society, was all-inclusive:  Yes, "trade associations, unions and non-profit groups" get their chance, too.  NOW we're breathing easy.  But, wait. . . tsk. . .hmmm.   Since none of the above have treasuries anywhere near as vast as the corporations,  there might be some slight  disadvantage.  But never mind.  The law says they're included, and the law is the law.

So let's say the UAW empties its coffers in order to get a like-minded candidate elected, but GM really doesn't like the guy.  Every day for, say, six months, right up until Election Day, GM reaches into its pocket, pulls out a fist full of change, and goes after him.  A few days worth of GM's pocket change equals the UAW's treasury over their entire lifetime if they never spent another dime.  Who is going to win?  I don't know about you, but the suspense won't be killing me.

But back to the person-hood issue.  What kind of person is this "corporation"?  Is he/she young?  Old?  Male?  Female?  Black?  White?  Brown?  Yellow?  Red?  Single?  Married?  Gay?  Christian?  Jew?  Buddhist?  Muslim?  Rastafarian?  Other?  Does he/she have a criminal record?  Should he/she have a criminal record?  Is he/she even a full-time citizen of these United States, or are his/her interests elsewhere?  Why don't we know these things?

If a corporation can be a person, can a person be a corporation?  Can my liver and kidneys make up my board of directors or do I have to have a quorum?  Do I still have to pay taxes?  If I beg hard enough and lie good enough will my government give me somebody else's taxes?  Can I get a "Get Out of Jail Free" card?  Can I buy a Senator?

So many questions.  But this is serious.   It all started because an unpleasant little group of people called "Citizens United" made a nasty movie about Hillary Clinton.  I don't know all the details, and I don't care, but apparently things didn't work out on the distribution trail, so they took their gripes all the way to the top.   I don't know how this happened, either, but somehow a 20-year-old court decision in Michigan, my Michigan, Austin vs The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, got hot-footed, too.  Thrown out along with the bathwater.

All day yesterday and into today it's been a veritable firestorm, all the flak over that one ruling.  When John McCain heard of the court's decision to decimate the bill he co-wrote with Russ Feingold, he said, wanly,  “I am disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions.  However, it appears that key aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), including the ban on soft money contributions, remain intact.”

Russ Feingold took it harder:  "Ignoring important principles of judicial restraint and respect for precedent, the Court has given corporate money a breathtaking new role in federal campaigns. Just six years ago, the Court said that the prohibition on corporations and unions dipping into their treasuries to influence campaigns was ‘firmly embedded in our law.’  Yet this Court has just upended that prohibition, and a century's worth of campaign finance law designed to stem corruption in government.  The American people will pay dearly for this decision when, more than ever, their voices are drowned out by corporate spending in our federal elections."  


Last year, Feingold stuck his finger up in the air, felt which way the wind was blowing, and knew this was coming.  He spoke about it on the senate floor last October:  

"Before BCRA was passed, corporations were making huge soft money donations. They were also spending money on phony issue ads. That’s what Title II was aimed at. But what they were not doing was running election ads that expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate. That has been prohibited in this country for at least 60 years, though it is arguable that the Tillman Act in 1907 prohibited it forty years before that. So it is possible that the Court’s decision will not just take us back to a pre-McCain-Feingold era, but back to the era of the robber baron in the 19^th century. That result should frighten every citizen of this country. The Court seems poised to ignite a revolution in campaign financing with a stroke of its collective pen that no one contemplated even six months ago. "

I think that's pretty much what Jefferson was thinking.  But since the SCOTUS Five are not "activist" judges, it doesn't matter what anybody thinks.  The law is the law.  Until it isn't anymore.   But do not fret, O ye of little faith, the justices taketh away state's rights (Bush v. Gore), but giveth them back whenever the mood strikes.  The law is the law when they say it is.

Final thought:  Every one of those bastards are in this for the long haul.  That means an entire lifetime, if they so wish it.  They are NOT too big to fail.   If they decree it, we shall fold.

I don't know about you, but I'M not taking the blame.  (Not that that makes me feel any better.)


Ramona

(Cross-posted at Talking Points Memo and Alternet)