Answers to Senator Mike Lee’s 8 Stupid Questions

On August 10, U.S. Senator, and Trump sycophant, Mike Lee published an opinion piece on, where else, Fox News, entitled, Trump raid leaves me with 8 important questions as a Senate Judiciary Committee member.  I am here to help. For the record, note that Lee twice clerked for Justice Samuel Alito, who famously wrote the majority opinion imposing his religious views on the country while overturning Roe v Wade.

See also https://shiningseausa.com/2022/05/05/justice-alitos-masquerade/

After reminding us he was a federal prosecutor, Lee poses his eight questions.

  1. Did Attorney General Merrick Garland personally sign off on this action?

Answer: A modest effort by Lee would have told him the answer. It’s clear now that Garland did sign off, reflecting awareness on the part of DOJ that its investigation at Mar-a-Lago was singularly important.

  1. Why break into the safe at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home rather than seize it, take it into custody, and seek a warrant to open it?

Answer: It’s unclear why Lee cares about this, but most likely it’s just part of the “Trump as victim” narrative that Republican sycophants constantly promote to show their loyalty to Trump, as opposed, you know, to loyalty to the country they swore to protect and defend.  The warrant governing the entire search almost certainly permitted the FBI to “break into the safe” if that is in fact what they did. You would have thought that Trump, faced with the “raid,” would have just opened the safe. Maybe he did. Lee wasn’t there. Or Trump refused to open it, so he could add to his victimization ploy.

  1. Why execute a search warrant rather than seek the items through an informal process such as a subpoena?

Answer: Lee is either deliberately ignorant or just plain stupid. Trump would never have complied with a subpoena and Lee knows that. Pursuing a subpoena would just have delayed everything, alerted Trump to the target of the investigation, and likely resulted in destruction of or further secreting of the evidence. Trump refused to answer Special Counsel Mueller’s questions, has claimed that everything he did is forever protected by some form of privilege and in general declared himself immune from, and superior to, the law. If Lee has not learned any of this, his “opinion” is worth exactly nothing. He just going along to get along with the Republican narrative that the man who led the attempt to overthrow the government on January 6 did nothing wrong.

  1. If this is genuinely about presidential records, why would the former President — who was in charge of declassifying documents — be subject to prosecution for retaining custody of the same documents? It’s important to note that classification authority belongs to the president of the United States — NOT to bureaucrats at the National Archives.

Answer: Senator Lee knows a lot less about the classification of federal government documents than he would have you believe. For a short course introduction, see https://twitter.com/MarkHertling/status/1557911337468133377  If you want to look further into General Hertling’s military chops, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hertling

  1. If this is the product of the growing political weaponization of federal law enforcement agencies, shouldn’t all Americans be outraged by the Democrats’ plan to hire an additional 87,000 federal agents?

Answer: Clever but no cigar. By characterizing this as a hypothetical, Lee leaves himself room to say, “I never said there was growing weaponization, etc.” But, of course, a claim of weaponization is exactly the message he intended to deliver.

Why he thinks the increased staffing for the Internal Revenue Service (that’s the 87,000 new employees) is relevant here will remain a mystery to all rational people. But if anyone wants to know, read this: https://wapo.st/3SOxMHZ And if weaponization is the allegation, perhaps Sen. Lee should do a little reading about the Trump administration, especially the last year or so. Might start with Betrayal, The Final Act of the Trump Show, by Jonathan Karl. Or these:

The Fourth Reich — It’s Them or Us https://bit.ly/3QIoCLy

Donald Trump — A Gangster in the White House https://bit.ly/3Po4kpB

Trump’s Documents – Trump’s Crimes https://bit.ly/3zMWik4

  1. How is this aggressive action defensible in light of the FBI’s and DOJ’s treatment of Hillary Clinton, who was never subjected to such an invasive intrusion of privacy, even though she mishandled classified material and destroyed evidence?

Answer: Sen. Lee should see a doctor about his memory loss. I will not waste time with this old, very old, line of Republican deflection, except to note that Secretary Clinton did not attempt to stage a coup to prevent the lawful and peaceful transfer of power. Oh, and DOJ’s (FBI’s Comey, remember him?) treatment of Hillary Clinton was likely to ultimate cause of her loss to Trump in the 2016 election.

  1. Why should we assume that the federal bureaucracy isn’t targeting Republicans when the FBI and DOJhave taken no action regarding flagrant violations of the law by pro-abortion extremists threatening Supreme Court justices at their homes?

Answer: Prosecutorial decisions about political protests are more than a little different than investigation of known crimes involving national security. And, just for the record, AG Barr’s records of using DOJ for Trump’s personal and political benefits is undeniable. We can match the good senator deflection for deflection, but it’s pointless. Trump removed documents from the White House that he knew had the highest security classification. Why? Republicans like Lee don’t care about the national security of their country. They are only interested in being seen by Trump as 100% loyal to him, just in case, you know, he becomes president again.

8. Did FBI Director Christopher Wray intentionally wait to carry out the raid until after his oversight hearing with the Senate Judiciary Committee last week? I asked him whether he was concerned with warrantless “backdoor searches” under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He seemed unperturbed.

Answer: What if he did? Lee is a US Senator and can ask the FBI questions until he is blue (or is it red?) in the face.

Lee’s rant ends with his false hope that the FBI has been appropriately careful in handling the decision to raid Trump’s “home:”

If there’s something we don’t know, something that will clarify the reasons for the raid, then the FBI needs to articulate that justification soon as possible. If there isn’t, we’ve got problems at the FBI.

In this statement, Lee reveals his ignorance of how DOJ/FBI works OR, more likely, is just playing to the victimization/fears of the Trump base that somehow the federal government is out to get them. Senator Lee and most other people are not entitled to know every detail of criminal investigations, regardless of the target. Lee seems to forget, as he has forgotten his oath of office, that Trump is subject to the law the same as everyone else. The investigation of Trump is based on well-founded concerns of criminal behavior in a vast range precisely because, not instead of, his having been president. The reason is simple enough: if the president can commit crimes and not be called to account, the Constitution is meaningless and, as Benjamin Franklin feared, the republic is lost.

Prosecution of Donald Trump

People in media and elsewhere are falling all over themselves to influence the public’s understanding of Donald Trump’s guilt for multiple crimes while in office and thereafter. The nature of these “explanations” for the “difficulties” of convicting Trump have shifted somewhat. At first, there were the “defenses” suggested around whether Trump was legally responsible for inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol. You know, the First Amendment that he was just engaged in protected “political speech.” That argument has pretty much dissolved in the face of overwhelming evidence developed by the January 6 Select Committee and other sources noting, correctly, that speech that is part of a criminal conspiracy, for example, is not protected “freedom of speech.”

We now have Republicans with credentials suggesting there are major difficulties in the path of Attorney General Garland’s struggle whether to indict the former president. In a Sunday New York Times “Guest Essay,” entitled “Prosecute Trump? Put Yourself in Merrick Garland’s Shoes,” Jack Goldsmith argues that the AG has three difficult decisions to make.

Mr. Goldsmith’s credentials are imposing. He served in the George W. Bush administration as an assistant attorney general, office of legal counsel, and as special counsel to the general counsel (??) of the Department of Defense.  He is a Harvard law professor and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution (yes, that Hoover), and a co-author of “After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency.”

To his credit, Goldsmith admits up front that Trump’s claim of election fraud was false. He also admits that, faced with multiple failures to secure his objective, Trump “riled up a mob, directed it to the Capitol and refused for a time to take steps to stop the ensuing violence.”

To mitigate this problematic situation, Goldsmith says Garland must first decide who should decide whether to indict Trump. He argues that DOJ likely has a conflict of interest because Garland’s “boss,” President Biden, is a likely opponent of Trump in the 2024 election. Thus, if another condition is met (Garland believes appointment of a special prosecutor is “in the public interest”), the AG must appoint a special counsel (another Mueller) to investigate Trump and decide the indictment issue. He goes so far as to note that “some people” believe that a quasi-independent special counsel should be a Republican (and you thought my reference to Mueller was just historical; remember who we’re talking about here).

After more back-and-forth, and like a good law professor, Goldsmith concludes this issue with the observation that “Garland could legitimately conclude that the public interest demands that the Trump matter be guided by the politically accountable person whom the Senate confirmed in 2021 by a vote of 70-30.” I think that means Garland could decide that Garland should decide.

This is where things get really hinky. The second major decision, Goldsmith says with a straight face, is whether Garland,

has adequate evidence to indict Mr. Trump… The basic question here is whether, in the words of Justice Department guidelines, Mr. Trump’s acts constitute a federal offense and “the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.” [emphasis added]

These issues, Goldsmith says, “will be hard conclusions for Mr. Garland to reach.”

To that, I say, C’mon, man. Be serious.

Goldsmith’s argument is that the evidence developed by the January 6 Select Committee is too “one-sided” and that,

Garland must assess how any charges against Mr. Trump would fare in an adversarial criminal proceeding administered by an independent judge, where Mr. Trump’s lawyers will contest the government’s factual and legal contentions, tell his side of events, raise many defenses and appeal every important adverse legal decision to the Supreme Court.

Putting aside the position of the freshly corrupted Supreme Court (the Thomas scandal, questions about who paid Kavanagh’s debts, etc.), the rest of these issues, while certain to be raised, pose no serious threat to a well-crafted evidentiary case that overwhelmingly, just on what we now know, demonstrates Trump’s guilt on multiple federal counts. See, for example, the Brookings Institution’s report, Trump on Trial. See prior post, https://shiningseausa.com/2022/06/20/trump-crimes-report-marked-up/ And that does not include the nine remaining counts of obstruction of justice that Mueller uncovered but felt he was blocked by DOJ policy on indicting a sitting president.

Undeterred, Goldsmith suggests Trump has potential defenses in the argument that “he lacked criminal intent because he truly believed that massive voter fraud had taken place” and “his interpretations of the law, his pressure on Mr. Pence, his delay in responding to the Capitol breach and more — were exercises of his constitutional prerogatives as chief executive.” I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Goldsmith can call these arguments “legally powerful claims” all he wants, but the weight of reality is simply too great here. More on the “intent” issue in a bit.

Goldstein then says the third issue, in his reckoning the most difficult, is: “whether the national interest would be served by prosecuting Mr. Trump.”

He rightly says this is “a judgment call about the nature, and fate, of our democracy.”

A failure to indict Mr. Trump in these circumstances would imply that a president — who cannot be indicted while in office — is literally above the law, in defiance of the very notion of constitutional government. It would encourage lawlessness by future presidents, none more so than Mr. Trump should he win the next election. By contrast, the rule of law would be vindicated by a Trump conviction. And it might be enhanced by a full judicial airing of Mr. Trump’s possible crimes in office, even if it ultimately fails.

And yet Mr. Garland cannot be sanguine that a Trump prosecution would promote national reconciliation or enhance confidence in American justice. Indicting a past and possible future political adversary of the current president would be a cataclysmic event from which the nation would not soon recover. It would be seen by many as politicized retribution. The prosecution would take many years to conclude; would last through, and deeply impact, the next election; and would leave Mr. Trump’s ultimate fate to the next administration, which could be headed by Mr. Trump.

Along the way, the prosecution would further enflame our already-blazing partisan acrimony; consume the rest of Mr. Biden’s term; embolden, and possibly politically enhance, Mr. Trump; and threaten to set off tit-for-tat recriminations across presidential administrations. The prosecution thus might jeopardize Mr. Garland’s cherished aim to restore norms of Justice Department “independence and integrity” even if he prosecutes Mr. Trump in the service of those norms. And if the prosecution fails, many will conclude that the country and the rule of law suffered tremendous pain for naught.

Mr. Goldstein is a master of both-sides-ing. But the effort fails in my judgment because:

  • It is not the Attorney General’s job to promote national political reconciliation. His job is to prosecute serious violations of federal law. There are none more serious than the attempts to overthrow the government, subvert the election and declare Trump the winner even though he lost.
  • Confidence in the justice system, already threatened by partisanship and conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court, cannot be promoted by letting a public criminal walk free just because he was president.
  • Republicans have already made clear that, if they gain enough political power, they will pursue policies of retribution wholly independent of substantive merit. If Trump has a role in that, it should be from prison.
  • The people who will see Trump as a victim of politicized justice are the same people who deny Biden’s election victory. In the grand tabulations involved here, they are entitled to zero deference.
  • Justice Department norms of independence and integrity, undermined by Trump, can only be restored by indicting and trying Trump, not by pretending none of this happened.
  • If the Department of Justice won’t stand up for our democracy, we will, as Ben Franklin suggested, lose our republic.

I noted above that I would return to the issue of “intent” that many observers have claimed is the centerpiece of the legal defenses Trump would raise. See “Despite Growing Evidence, a Prosecution of Trump Would Face Challenges.” https://nyti.ms/3xKwrZ9 The authors of these ideas continue to suggest that Trump’s “intent,” his “corrupt state of mind, or not,” is a real issue and challenge for any prosecution.

Given what we already know, these concerns about Trump’s intentions border on preposterous. The repetition of them seems designed to prime the public mind to believe something that, like the Big Lie, is quite unbelievable because of, you know, the facts.

The New York Times piece recites Trump’s “arguments” based on a 12-page statement he issued last week, a statement the article described as,

· “rambling”

· “usual mix of outlandish claims, hyperbole and outright falsehoods”

· “unfounded”

· “obvious problems of credibility”

But also,

On nearly every page, Mr. Trump gave explanations for why he was convinced that the 2020 election had been stolen from him and why he was well within his rights to challenge the results by any means available. What happened at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump wrote, stemmed from an effort by Americans “to hold their elected officials accountable for the obvious signs of criminal activity throughout the election.”

If the Justice Department were to bring a case against him, prosecutors would face the challenge of showing that he knew — or should have known — that his position was based on assertions about widespread election fraud that were false or that his attempt to block the congressional certification of the outcome was illegal. [emphasis added]

As a potential defense, the tactic suggested by Mr. Trump’s statement is far from a guarantee against prosecution, and it presents obvious problems of credibility. Mr. Trump has a long history of saying whatever suits his purposes without regard for the truth. And some of the actions he took after the 2020 election, like pressing officials in Georgia to flip enough votes to swing the outcome in that state to his column, speak to a determined effort to hold on to power rather than to address some broader perceived vulnerability in the election system.

But his continued stream of falsehoods highlights some of the complexities of pursuing any criminal case against him, despite how well established the key facts are at this point.

What? The article emphasizes that Donald Trump is a dishonest and remorseless serial liar while simultaneously saying this complicates prosecution of him? This bizarre position is apparently based on the views of Daniel L. Zelenko, a white-collar defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor:

“The key is having contemporaneous evidence that he was saying that he knew the election was not stolen but tried to stay in power anyway,” said Mr. Zelenko, a co-chair of the white-collar defense practice at Crowell & Moring. “The problem with Trump is that you have to try and get inside his mind, and he has such a history of lying and pushing falsehoods that it makes it difficult to determine what he really believes.”

Another authority, Samuel W. Buell, a law professor at Duke University and former federal prosecutor, said:

any criminal case against Mr. Trump would have to start with establishing that he had been aware that what he was doing was improper. “You need to show that he knew what he was doing was wrongful and had no legal basis,” he said. “I’m not saying that he has to think: What I’m doing is a crime. It’s proving: I know I don’t have a legal argument, I know I’ve lost the election, but I’m going ahead with a known-to-be-false claim and a scheme that has no legal basis.”

If that is the standard, it has been met many times over. No rational juror could find otherwise based on the evidence presented during the January 6 hearings.

I recognize, of course, the article’s point that, “The House committee’s hearings are not a trial. The panel is free to be selective in what testimony it employs to build a case against Mr. Trump, and the former president has no allies on the committee who can question witnesses or provide information helpful to him.”

Consider for a moment who might be Trump’s “witnesses” to rebut the allegedly selective, but entirely consistent and multiply attested to, evidence presented by the January 6 Select Committee: Rudy Giuliani, Lin Wood, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Sidney Powell, and others similar. Most of them have either had their law licenses suspended, are subject to disciplinary proceedings or pleaded the Fifth Amendment 100 times when testifying to the January 6 Committee.

Against that “evidence,” would be the testimony of the former Attorney General (Barr), a Trump loyalist, and numerous other highly credentialed people who had investigated the fraud claims and advised Trump there was no evidence to support his claims. Also, Greg Jacob, VP Pence’s chief counsel. And many many others.

Unless we are going to follow a rule of law that says a person’s intent is measured entirely by whatever phantasmagorical imaginings they choose to adopt, which is not the law [unless they want to argue that Trump is insane, in which case, he gets committed 😎😃], Trump’s corrupt state of mind can readily be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The fact, if it is one, that he wanted to believe something else, something that was false, cannot be accepted as a defense any more than we would accept the excuse that the driver causing a fatal accident was blind drunk at the time. Every one of Trump’s responsible advisors told him, some many times, that there was no credible evidence of voter fraud that could change the result. He continued to declare that he won “by a landslide.”

It is beyond astonishing that credence is being given to the idea that because Trump was a serial liar, it may be harder to prove his guilt:

Expert advice is often enough to show a jury what a defendant knew, lawyers said. But that may be more difficult with Mr. Trump because he has such a long history of disregarding experts and his own aides, they said. Given the challenge of showing what Mr. Trump actually knew, there is one other way prosecutors could show he had a corrupt intent: proving what is often called “willful blindness.

Nonsense. The prosecution may choose to jump through all those hoops, but it should be more than sufficient to prove that Trump’s credible advisors told him his claims were false, but he persisted with the Big Lie anyway. A properly instructed jury could rationally and easily find Trump guilty on that basis. The suggestion that the prosecutors must somehow plumb the depths of Trump’s “mind” to determine and prove his subjective intent in fact is unnecessary and impossible. His behavior tells you what his mind was thinking. Trump has never cared about the truth and has always used his large resources and willing accomplices to avoid being held accountable. In this case his public conduct and the disclosed facts are more than sufficient to convict.

I recognize, however, there is the “what if we indict, try and lose” school of thought. The answer is, I suggest, straightforward. There are no guarantees when it comes to criminal prosecution. But we’re talking about the fate of the country here. This is no time for timidity. If DOJ’s leadership is too afraid of the possibility, however remote, of defeat, it should be replaced forthwith by people of more courage and determination.

I am at a loss as to why the media and many lawyers continue to treat Trump like a grammar school-aged toddler who still believes in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. I understand that there are people, more than we would care to think, who genuinely believe that the Earth is flat, that aliens walk among us, that Q is real and on and on. But those “beliefs” would not be effective defenses to, say, a charge of bank robbery: “Well, your Honor and members of the jury, it’s true I robbed the bank, but I did it only because an alien visited me and said his group needed the money to buy a spaceship for return to their home planet. Many people want the aliens to leave so I was justified. You must find me innocent.”

Enough with this nonsense. Indict him, try him, and convict him.

 

Trump Crimes Report — marked up

In a prior post, I promised to provide a marked-up copy of the Brookings Institution report on the crimes of Donald Trump and some of his enablers. https://bit.ly/3A6oIaT

Here it is. https://shiningseausa.files.wordpress.com/2022/06/trump-on-trial-marked.pdf

You may want to consult it as you watch the remainder of the televised hearings of the January 6 Select Committee. The next hearing is tomorrow, June 21, currently scheduled to be televised live at 1:00 EDT. Check the time for your local broadcast, as they sometimes change.

The Root of All Evil

A Biblical quotation worked its way into the popular vernacular a long time ago: the love of money is the root of all evil. The quote is often abbreviated to “money is the root of all evil.”  I have no idea whether the attribution to Apostle Paul is correct, but I also don’t care. I don’t believe either version of it is true.

The love of money, like the love of many other things, both physical and otherwise, can certainly lead to problematic outcomes. But the opposite of love can equally lead to problematic outcomes. There are just too many problematic outcomes to assign all the blame on love of money or just on money. When I think about this, I am reminded of the wonderful Robert Frost poem, Fire and Ice:

Some say the world will end in fire,

Some say in ice.

From what I’ve tasted of desire

I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,

I think I know enough of hate

To say that for destruction ice

Is also great

And would suffice.

In my view, ignorance is the real root of all evil. Donald Trump once said, “I love the poorly educated!” He knew something that had apparently escaped the notice of even experienced political analysts. It’s not that the “poorly educated” are unintelligent. Many of them are quite intelligent and can perform many tasks effectively. They can be successful in many lines of commerce and in life generally.

On the other hand, the “poorly educated” may be susceptible to believing misinformation/false information because they have not been exposed to the discipline of education and have not undertaken to study on their own. But they are not alone in that, so being poorly educated is neither explanation nor excuse, despite Trump’s claimed admiration for them. During the height of the pandemic, we saw nurses and doctors embrace conspiracy theories, promote quack remedies for COVID and resist vaccination. And many members of Congress who support insane conspiracy theories and engage in traitorous and illegal activities are highly educated.

The problem is more complicated than the simple explanation that the “poorly educated” mistakenly thought Trump as president would be good for them. In trying to understand this, I have read numerous books, articles, theories, and studies. Most recently I discovered Strangers in Their Own Land, by Arlie Russell Hochschild, professor emeritum of sociology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of many notable books. The book was a 2016 Finalist for the National Book Award. This work is based on her personal research conducted in post-Katrina, post-Deepwater Horizon coastal Louisiana. The date of publication, 2016, was just before Trump was elected president and all that ensued. The book nevertheless seems wholly predictive of everything that followed.

Hochschild defined her mission at the outset as an effort to explore feelings, the “emotion in politics.” Strangers at 15. Some of those feelings were disturbing – she notes that “reminders of the racial divide were everywhere.” Strangers at 20. She did not draw much on that fact of coastal Louisiana life but indirectly seemed to acknowledge its abiding and broad influence on political life there.

Strangers focuses on what Hochschild calls the Great Paradox, stated roughly as the massive disconnect between the economic and life interests of the local people and their devotion to the Tea Party which was in full flower in the period covered. The locals were adamantly opposed to regulation, especially federal regulation, that might help restore the opportunity to continue the livelihoods they had pursued for generations in fishing/hunting/farming the abundant natural resources of coastal Louisiana.

One of the Tea Party’s darlings was Bobby Jindal. As Hochschild notes at the end of the book, Louisiana was left a “shambles” after eight years of Tea Party-style leadership by Governor Jindal. Yet his support among locals never waned. They bought into the capitalism mythology completely. Such devotion also led to support for Republican congressman David Vitter who opposed all federal environmental intervention, voted to terminate the Environmental Protection Agency and more. Strangers at 48.

The author said she was struck by what political candidates avoided in their pitches to voters: “that the state ranks 49th out of 50 on an index of human development, that Louisiana is the second poorest state, that 44 percent of its budget comes from the federal government – the Great Paradox.” Strangers at 59. People with little to begin with worried more about what others were getting (“non-working, non-deserving people”) than about destruction of the environment or years lost to bad health conditions.  Somehow this was seen as a loss of “honor” and that was more important than more tangible issues. Strangers at 60-61.

They knew that Big Oil and Big Chemical had undeniably wrecked the local environment, but they adhered to the mythology that the companies also brought jobs and other economic benefits that could not be secured under any form of regulation. They concluded that the honorable thing was to muddle through, accepting their fate while continuing to assert their” principles.”

Hochschild notes three paths by which Tea Party believers arrived at their profound dislike for the federal government:

their religious faith (the government curtailed the church, they felt),

hatred of taxes (which they saw as too high and too progressive), and

the government’s impact on their loss of honor …. [Strangers at 35]

They bought into the belief that taxes went to lazy welfare cheats and “government workers in cushy jobs.” Id. They thought climate change was bogus science. They resented what they perceived to be bias against the “little guy,” meaning mainly the little white guy, and interference with the role of God in overseeing humanity. Strangers at 52. Those are easy myths for resentful people to embrace without having to make the effort to understand complex systems and ideas. Indeed, for many, the outcome was in the hands of their God and humans thus had little responsibility for outcomes.

In portents of things to come, Hochschild notes that at the Republican Women of Southwest Louisiana meeting,

I heard a great deal about freedom in the sense of freedom to – to talk on your cellphone as you drove a car, to pick up a drive-in daiquiri with straw on the side, to walk about with a loaded gun. But there was almost no talk about freedom from such things as gun violence, car accidents, or toxic pollution. [Strangers at 71]

The perplexing reality is that people living with more pollution are more likely to believe in less regulation and more likely to be Republicans. Strangers at 79. This mental orientation set them up for manipulation and exploitation.

The initial tip to the problem of the book’s analysis comes at the beginning. Hochschild observes that the reason for population shifts in the United States had changed: people moved less to find better jobs, housing or (she didn’t mention this) education but rather to align more closely with people of similar political views. The sharpening of political division is, she says, attributable to the ‘right moving right.’ Strangers at 6-7. She recounts the dire economic conditions afflicting the southern states, Louisiana being among the worst of the worst:

Given such an array of challenges, one might expect people to welcome federal help. In truth, a very large proportion of the yearly budgets of red states – in the case of Louisiana, 44 percent – do come from federal funds. $2,400 is given by the federal government per Louisianan per year.

But Mike S_____ doesn’t welcome that federal money and doubts the science of climate change. “I’ll worry about global warming in fifty years,” he says. Mike loves his state, and he loves the outdoor life. But instead of looking to government, like others in the Tea Party, he turns to the free market. [Strangers at 9]

He turns to the same “free market” exploited by Big Oil and others to wreak havoc on the state that Mike purported to love so much. Thus, again, the Great Paradox.

The other major theme in the book is the Deep Story, the myths by which social groups, or tribes, are developed and sustained. Strangers at 135. Here perhaps is the core principle at work. In coastal Louisiana the Tea Party promoted, and locals accepted, the idea that undeserving people were cutting into the line ahead of hard-working “true Americans.” While their perceptions of race are complex, older whites interviewed by Hochschild saw Blacks especially as a problematic class afflicted by special issues not shared by most white people.

Economic class distinctions tracked race and distinguished between “makers” and “takers,” with the latter being the “line-cutters” supported by the federal government, those people unfairly getting ahead of everyone else. This grievance was at the root of many white Louisianans’ attitudes unrelated to the reality of local social and economic standing. Strangers at Ch. 9, and at 157-159.

Despite noting the data showing that “the higher the exposure to environmental pollution the less worried the individual was about it” [Strangers at 253], Hochschild concludes that the continuation of the Great Paradox is not the result of ignorance. [Id.] But that view is remarkable because it’s not supported by most of the data cited in the book. One of dozens of examples is the belief that 40 percent of all U.S. workers are employed by the federal government. The actual figure at the time was 1.9 percent. Strangers at 161.

Such ignorance of economic reality was at the root of many local people’s vigorous resistance to all forms of regulation. Such interventions could have helped to restore the balance of nature and, along with it, the jobs and environment they claimed to cherish. Yet, by and large, they wanted none of it. Hochschild was aware of this because data in Appendix C to the book was often interspersed in the text to illustrate how the real facts refuted the central myths on which the resistance depended. Peoples’ explanations of their views were rife with classical political myths and massively wrong factual beliefs.

Locals that Hochschild interviewed appeared to believe that a woman’s role was to be completely subordinate to her husband. Strangers at 174. This attitude is consistent with the analysis of “what makes a Republican” in George Lakoff’s 1996 Moral Politics that, controversially, applies principles of cognitive science to politics. As summarized in Wikipedia:

Lakoff argues that the differences in opinions between liberals and conservatives follow from the fact that they subscribe with different strength to two different central metaphors about the relationship of the state to its citizens. Both, he claims, see governance through metaphors of the family.

Conspiratorial thinking was also rampant among Hochschild’s subjects. Few people believed science had made the case for global warming. Strangers at e.g., 183. They did not understand what the lives of the seriously poor were like, rejected much historical truth, adopted phantasmagorical solutions dependent upon the “free market” and adopted what has come to be known more recently as “replacement theory.” Strangers at Ch. 14.

In the end, it seemed to me that the author was profoundly fooled by the mannered façade she experienced in her research with the locals whose “good-hearted acceptance” of her, their “great personal warmth and famous Southern hospitality,” misled her to conclude that

in human terms, the [empathy] wall can easily come down. And issue by issue, there is possibility for practical cooperation. [Strangers at 233]

There is nothing in the buildup to the end of the book or in the data set out throughout it that would support such a conclusion. And, of course, the history under Trump’s presidency is the most profound refutation of the “we can all just get along” thesis. The author’s starry-eyed belief in future harmony and progress was, I believe, a grievous error by a researcher whose approach to her study was primarily based on just talking with locals, eating meals with them, and looking at the surrounding conditions that determine their lives and livelihoods.

The book confirms my suspicions in its treatment of the rise of Trump as a political power.

Three elements had come together. Since 1980, virtually all those I talked with felt on shaky economic ground, a fact that made them brace at the very idea of “redistribution.” The also felt culturally marginalized: their views about abortion, gay marriage, gender roles, race, guns, and the Confederate flag all were held up to ridicule in the national media as backward. And they felt part of a demographic decline; “there are fewer and fewer white Christians like us….”        [Strangers at 221]

Economically, culturally, demographically, politically, you are suddenly a stranger in your own land. The whole context of Louisiana – its companies, its government, its church and media – reinforces that deep story. [Strangersat 222]

Trump, consciously or otherwise, fed this sense of disaffection and loss.

His supporters have been in mourning for a lost way of life Many have become discouraged, others depressed. They yearn to feel pride but instead have felt shame. Their land no longer feels their own. Joined together with others like themselves, they now feel hopeful, joyous, elated … in a state of rapture… no longer strangers in their own land. [Strangers at 225]

Rapture indeed. This degree of magical thinking is beyond imagining: a Pew Research Center 2010 study reported that “41 percent of all Americans believe the Second Coming “probably” or “definitely” will happen by the year 2050.” Strangers at 125. Hochschild labels them “victims without a language of victimhood.” Strangers at 131, a missing element that Donald Trump readily supplied.

My overall conclusion about this book is that the people it discusses suffer from a central fatal flaw: they mistakenly believed that the land belonged to them in the sense that the whole of it was their natural right. Anything that challenged that idea was alien, undermining their sense of “our land.” This, I think, is about as un-American a concept as you will find. It ignores history, economic reality, and the nature of democracy. The root concept that “this land is ours then, now and always,” meaning us God-fearing white people who have an entitlement that others are unjustly trying to steal, fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the country, its origins, and its development.

This issue may be connected to education, but I suspect it’s much deeper than that. The possessory and superiority components of these cultural beliefs leave these people vulnerable to the “it’s ok to hate” message from a demagogue like Donald Trump who lacks any core value system of principles except greed. These people have less to fear from interlopers than from their own ignorance.

The problem, however, is that someone so ignorant is usually unaware of his ignorance and simply feels put upon by the forces of change. He just wants what he thought he had before, notwithstanding that the oil-based economy was a complete fraud on coastal Louisiana society, wrecking the environment while failing to deliver the economic benefits that locals were sure existed. It’s also often true that the ignorant are unwilling to learn; they lack empathy and see others’ gains mainly as their losses.

I don’t want to be told I’m a bad person if I don’t feel sorry for that [sick African child on TV with Christiane Amanpour]” Strangers at 128.

But even those who fancy ourselves as “not ignorant” are capable of delusional thinking. I have confessed multiple times to having fundamentally misunderstood the degree of disfunction in the country. I thought the election of Barack Obama was a sign that, overall, the country had changed. That was wrong.

The essential proof is that despite his record of lies, incompetence and corruption, Trump received 74 million votes in 2020. Joe Biden received many more, of course, but the thinnest of margins remains in both houses of Congress. People with short term concerns about things like inflation, and no or limited understanding of its causes, may drive the country back into an abyss from which democracy may not re-emerge. It can happen here. Only the voters can prevent it.

I heard recently from a reliable source that many young people, in their 20’s and 30’s, may not feel they are much affected by what is happening in politics. That absence of perceived impact often makes them indifferent to the outcome of critical issues. If that is true, we are in even more trouble than I imagined.

Republicans are highly motivated by their grievances and can be expected to turn out in large numbers in the 2022 mid-terms. If Democrats stay home, it’s game over. You have been warned.

The Faces

Yesterday the reckoning began. In marches, rallies, and gatherings across the country, tens of thousands of Americans came together to declare war. The target is the death-mongers who value guns over human life, guns over children, guns over the elderly, guns over everything. The unique problem of Americans and guns has reached the breaking point. Mass shootings are almost as routine as car accidents. Death by gun in schools, places of worship, grocery stores, shopping malls, the streets. Only in America.

Yesterday you could see in the faces and the signs. Sadness, fear, anger.

The rally in Washington, DC attracted an estimated 40,000 people. An extraordinary turnout considering the foul weather. Sadness – why don’t more Americans care about us? Fear – am I or one of my loved ones the next to die by gunfire? Anger – the killing must stop; we cannot continue to live like this. Why do so many Americans care more about their guns than they do about their children and their parents and grandparents?

The crowd was very large, spread over the north side of the Washington Monument grounds.

One of the speakers lost his mother to gunfire a short time ago. She had lived 86 years, only to be gunned down while shopping for groceries. The average age of the people slaughtered in Buffalo was 62. Shopping for groceries. Slaughtered by an 18-year-old racist with a history of violence and mental health issues, none of which prevented him from legally buying assault weapons and armor plating. He live-streamed his deadly assault which he had been planning for months. He shot four people outside the store, a security guard inside, then eight more inside (six of whom died). When police arrived, he surrendered without resistance.

The faces of the people listening to speeches like that were grim but determined. They have had enough of Republican thoughts-and-prayers, the rote response to the uniquely American tragedy facilitated by legal systems that allow people with the maturity level of children buy assault weapons intended to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

Aside from the power of the speeches there were two moments of “drama” that we observed. The first involved a jerk who arrived in the middle of the presentations with a large poster on poles that said “Guns-Bacon” on one side (no idea what it meant) and Gun Control with a slash mark on the other.

When he set up in the middle of the crowd listening to the speeches, his sign blocked the view of the jumbo screens. Only a few seconds passed before two women rushed up behind him to block his signs and within a minute a multitude joined them.

The jerk was surrounded and engulfed in anti-gun signs. His face was covered the entire time. After a while security arrived and escorted him off the grounds trailed by comments from the crowd that are a bit too raw for a family-oriented blog.

The other excitement occurred during a moment of silence called for by one of the late speakers. Someone in the crowd yelled either “I have a gun” or “I am God,” according to reports. This sparked a very short-lived panic that subsided within seconds. Pay no attention to any news reports otherwise. We were at the back of the crowd when this happened and witnessed the entire thing. Nothing there but stupidity. We believe the fool was arrested, as he should have been.

As indicated, many of the speeches were hard to hear, coming from people who had directly experienced the horror of losing family and friends to gun violence. Some were in the schools when they were attacked (David Hogg, for example, at Stoneman Douglas High School). They remind us that children in grammar school are being subjected to active shooter drills.

Can you imagine the affect that is having on those kids? When I attended grammar school in the 1950s, we did nuclear attack drills, practicing hiding under desks as if that could protect us from the annihilation of a nuclear strike. It seemed unreal and had little impact. But active shooter drills when mass shootings occur almost every day and the kids are aware. The children subjected to this may be scarred for life. It seems like another form of grooming, making them afraid all the time that their lives or those of their friends could be snuffed out by a total stranger for no reason at all.

While preparing this post, I read in the Washington Post https://wapo.st/3zyYihF  that,

A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators announced Sunday that it had reached a tentative agreement on legislation that would pair modest new gun restrictions with significant new mental health and school security investments — a deal that could put Congress on a path to enacting the most significant national response in decades to acts of mass gun violence.

A group of 20 senators — 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans — signed a statement announcing the framework deal. That indicated that the agreement could have enough GOP support to defeat a filibuster, the Senate supermajority rule that has impeded prior gun legislation.

I call B.S. on this. The bolded portions of the report explain why:

Under the tentative deal, a federal grant program would encourage states to establish “red flag” laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others, while federal criminal background checks for gun buyers under 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice records for the first time.

It does not include a provision … that would raise the minimum age for the purchase of at least some rifles from 18 to 21. Handguns are already subject to a federal 21-and-over age limit.

Other provisions could funnel billions of new federal dollars into mental health care and school security programs, funding new campus infrastructure and armed officers. Several senators last week said they expected one cornerstone of the deal would be … to establish a nationwide network of “community behavioral health clinics.”

Those are nice things to have but they fall grossly short of what is required to address gun violence in a meaningful way. We need to be careful we don’t embrace the first simplistic glossy object thrown at us to “show progress” when the real effect is to further deflect substantive progress because Republicans do not intend to give real ground on these issues and thereby disappoint their arms industry funders.

The real solution, promoted by several speakers at the March for Our Lives, is “VOTE THEM OUT.” Unless and until that happens, Republicans will continue obstructing real progress to stop or even seriously mitigate the wave of gun violence that makes the United States stand out among all nations as the most dangerous in so many ways. VOTE THEM OUT is the only real answer and the opportunity to start is coming soon in the mid-term elections.

If you agree that the time is past for meaningful action on gun violence prepare to VOTE THEM OUT. In addition to voting, work the polls, offer transportation and money and other help to elect Democrats up and down the ticket.

Don’t forget that a majority of Republicans around the country still believe Trump was unlawfully defeated and are working very hard to take over the electoral machinery in the states. The sole purpose is to prepare Republicans to invalidate elections they lose and simply install Republican candidates as winners. The only way to stop this is with overwhelming Democratic majorities. Make it so. Make it so.

Thoughts & Prayers

Bear with me.

One of the early lessons learned in law school related to the issue of causation and intent. We were introduced to this question through Scott v Shepard, an English decision from 1773. Yes, 1773. The decision known as the Famous Squib [firecracker]. Flying Squib, or Lighted Squib case was the subject of extended discussion and debate. Among its many lessons is the principle that intentionally doing an act with known or predictable consequences means that you intended those consequences, caused those consequences and are legally accountable for them.

Here, for your edification, is a published summary of the case:

Facts

The defendant threw a squib, which is a small, lit firework, into a busy marketplace with lots of people and stalls. In order to protect themselves and avoid damage, the squib was thrown on by two other people. When it landed near to the complainant, it exploded and caused injury to his face. He later lost the use of one of his eyes. The original thrower, the defendant, was charged with assault and trespass.

Issues

The defendant was found liable for trespass and he appealed this decision. The defendant argued that the injury to the complainant was not caused by his actions; it was not a direct act, as others threw the squib on. The issue in the appeal was whether the defendant throwing the squib caused the injury or whether other people broke this chain of causation and the injury was caused by novus actus interveniens.

Decision/Outcome

The court dismissed the appeal; the injury to the complainant was the direct and unlawful act of the defendant who originally threw and intended to throw the squib. The other people were not ‘free agents’ in this situation and threw on the squib for their own safety and this was justifiable. The throwing on was classed as a continuation of the defendant’s action, which was intended. Whatever followed this was part of the defendant’s original act. [https://bit.ly/3xfYZJL]

The class discussion of this case was a shock, an early admission to the inner sanctum of legal reasoning. This simple case introduced us to the complexity of the seemingly obvious, the intricacies of causation, intent and other themes that run through the law.

One principle we took away was this: if you take an action knowing the likely consequences, you will be presumed to have intended those consequences. It’s the same principle that underlies the limit on freedom of speech with which most rational people are familiar: you can’t shout “fire” in a darkened theater and disclaim responsibility for injuries resulting from the panic that ensues. It’s ultimately why you can’t drink yourself into a stupor, drive a car, have an accident, and deny responsibility for the results. The principle is fundamental.

So what? This. Republicans in Congress have consistently refused to consider any gun regulations, no matter how limited, claiming Second Amendment privileges. The result is the massacre of school children in Uvalde, TX and all the others that preceded it and that will inevitably follow it. The refusal to change the law, knowing what will result, means that the legislators who refuse to act must intend the resulting carnage. It means they are content with the hundreds and thousands of deaths and injuries that could be prevented or at least reduced. There are no excuses.

There was a hearing in the House on gun regulation a few days ago. The following is the entire testimony of Dr. Roy Guerrero. It is not easy to read but it is important. If you know someone who believes gun regulation is unnecessary, consider sending this to them:

“My name is Dr. Roy Guerrero. I am a board-certified pediatrician, and I was present at Uvalde Memorial Hospital the day of the massacre on May 24th, 2022, at Robb Elementary School. I was called here today as a witness. But I showed up because I am a doctor.

Because how many years ago I swore an oath — An oath to do no harm.

After witnessing first-hand the carnage in my hometown of Uvalde, to stay silent would have betrayed that oath. Inaction is harm. Passivity is harm. Delay is harm. So here I am.

Not to plead, not to beg or to convince you of anything. But to do my job. And hope that by doing so it inspires the members of this House to do theirs.

I have lived in Uvalde my whole life. In fact, I attended Robb Elementary School myself as a kid. As often is the case with us grownups, we remember a lot of the good and not so much of the bad. So, I don’t recall homework or spelling bees, I remember how much I loved going to school and what a joyful time it was. Back then we were able to run between classrooms with ease to visit our friends. And I remember the way the cafeteria smelled lunchtime on Hamburger Thursdays.

It was right around lunchtime on a Tuesday that a gunman entered the school through the main door without restriction, massacred 19 students and two teachers and changed the way every student at Robb and their families will remember that school, forever.

I doubt they’ll remember the smell of the cafeteria or the laughter ringing in the hallways. Instead, they’ll be haunted by the memory of screams and bloodshed, panic, and chaos. Police shouting, parents wailing. I know I will never forget what I saw that day.

For me, that day started like any typical Tuesday at our Pediatric clinic – moms calling for coughs, boogers, sports physicals – right before the summer rush. School was out in two days then summer camps would guarantee some grazes and ankle sprains. Injuries that could be patched up and fixed with a Mickey Mouse sticker as a reward.

Then at 12:30 business as usual stopped and with it my heart. A colleague from a San Antonio trauma center texted me a message: ‘Why are the pediatric surgeons and anesthesiologists on call for a mass shooting in Uvalde?’

I raced to the hospital to find parents outside yelling children’s names in desperation and sobbing as they begged for any news related to their child. Those mother’s cries I will never get out of my head.

As I entered the chaos of the ER, the first casualty I came across was Miah Cerrillo. She was sitting in the hallway. Her face was still, still clearly in shock, but her whole body was shaking from the adrenaline coursing through it. The white Lilo and Stitch shirt she wore was covered in blood and her shoulder was bleeding from a shrapnel injury.

Sweet Miah. I’ve known her my whole life. As a baby she survived major liver surgeries against all odds. And once again she’s here. As a survivor.

Inspiring us with her story today and her bravery.

When I saw Miah sitting there, I remembered having seen her parents outside. So, after quickly examining two other patients of mine in the hallway with minor injuries, I raced outside to let them know Miah was alive.

I wasn’t ready for their next urgent and desperate question: ‘Where’s Elena?’

Elena, is Miah’s 8-year-old sister who was also at Robb at the time of the shooting. I had heard from some nurses that there were “two dead children” who had been moved to the surgical area of the hospital. As I made my way there, I prayed that I wouldn’t find her.

I didn’t find Elena, but what I did find was something no prayer will ever relieve.

Two children, whose bodies had been so pulverized by the bullets fired at them, decapitated, whose flesh had been so ripped apart, that the only clue as to their identities was the blood-spattered cartoon clothes still clinging to them. Clinging for life and finding none.

I could only hope these two bodies were a tragic exception to the list of survivors.

But as I waited there with my fellow Uvalde doctors, nurses, first responders and hospital staff for other casualties we hoped to save, they never arrived. All that remained was the bodies of 17 more children and the two teachers who cared for them, who dedicated their careers to nurturing and respecting the awesome potential of every single one. Just as we doctors do.

I’ll tell you why I became a pediatrician. Because I knew that children were the best patients. They accept the situation as it’s explained to them. You don’t have to coax them into changing their lifestyles in order to get better or plead them to modify their behavior as you do with adults.

No matter how hard you try to help an adult, their path to healing is always determined by how willing they are to take action. Adults are stubborn. We’re resistant to change even when the change will make things better for ourselves. But especially when we think we’re immune to the fallout.

Why else would there have been such little progress made in Congress to stop gun violence? Innocent children all over the country today are dead because laws and policy allows people to buy weapons before they’re legally even old enough to buy a pack of beer. They are dead because restrictions have been allowed to lapse. They’re dead because there are no rules about where guns are kept. Because no one is paying attention to who is buying them.

The thing I can’t figure out is whether our politicians are failing us out of stubbornness, passivity, or both.

I said before that as grown-ups we have a convenient habit of remembering the good and forgetting the bad. Never more so than when it comes to our guns. Once the blood is rinsed away from the bodies of our loved ones and scrubbed off the floors or the schools and supermarkets and churches, the carnage from each scene is erased from our collective conscience and we return once again to nostalgia.

To the rose-tinted view of our second amendment as a perfect instrument of American life, no matter how many lives are lost.

I chose to be a pediatrician. I chose to take care of children. Keeping them safe from preventable diseases I can do. Keeping them safe from bacteria and brittle bones I can do. But making sure our children are safe from guns, that’s the job of our politicians and leaders.

In this case, you are the doctors, and our country is the patient. We are lying on the operating table, riddled with bullets like the children of Robb Elementary and so many other schools. We are bleeding out and you are not there.

My oath as a doctor means that I signed up to save lives. I do my job. And I guess it turns out that I am here to plead. To beg. To please, please do yours.”

– Dr. Roy Guerrero, Pediatrician, Uvalde, TX

Nothing left to say.

Trump Crimes Report

Apologies for the late arrival of this but it couldn’t be helped. I just wanted to call to everyone’s attention a new report released a few days ago from the Brookings Institution entitled, Trump on Trial: A Guide to the January 6 Hearings and the Question of Criminality. https://brook.gs/3Q91S7U

The Guide is like a study aid for the hearings that begin tonight at 8 pm on multiple channels (but, of course, not on Fox News) to present the findings thus far of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. I was working as fast as possible to highlight key passages, of which there are many. But time has run out, so I’m sharing the link to the original report. In a later post I will provide a method to receive the marked-up report for those interested.

Cowards

I just saw a statement posted on Facebook — a Republican aspirant for Congress who said that “instead of sending $40B to Ukraine maybe we should invest it in protecting American children at school.”

Nice sentiment. Total deflection. No proposals. Nothing.

I’ve seen many “suggestions.” Harden the schools with electronic surveillance and metal detectors. Post armed police at the doors. Have only one door. Build a moat around schools. Surround schools with barbed wire. Use bullet proof glass. Arm the teachers. Spend more on mental health but no red flag laws.

All share a common theme. No matter how many children and teachers are slaughtered in schools and no matter how many religious believers are murdered while studying and praying, we must not ever do anything, not the slightest thing, that might infringe on the “God-given” right to buy automatic weapons and unlimited ammunition because … because the Second Amendment to the US Constitution says … nothing of the kind.

But I’m not writing now to debate the meaning of the Second Amendment. Rather I want to say that the people who are so obsessed with their “God-given” right to buy automatic weapons are cowards. Chicken-livered cowards.

Why? Because they are afraid. They are afraid of their own government. Even the Republicans in the overwhelmingly Red States are afraid of their government. Probably more the federal than the state but the government. They live in fear that someday the government is going to come for them. They maintain this profound fear even though there is no evidence that the federal government has entertained such an idea. Ever. Nor can they rationally explain why the federal government would “come for them.” Or what “it” would do with them when it came for them.

These cowards know little history but they’re certain that the apocalypse is coming during their lifetimes. They are equally certain that when the First Marine Battalion, or such other military that is selected for the task, comes for them, they will be able to use their AR-15s and other weapons to defeat them. The same people who quake in fear at the thought of the federal government coming for them think they’re going to have the courage to stand up to the withering firepower of a division of Marines or U.S. Army.

These people cannot explain what motivation the government would have to undertake the slaughter and/or imprisonment of the civilian population. They apparently haven’t considered what foreign adversaries might do while the U.S. military was busy rounding up Americans in this massive country. Do they really think our adversaries will just stand back and watch, tsk tsking about the sad state of affairs in the United States?  Do they think those countries will not be concerned about the collapse of the largest economy in the world? Do they think at all? Or do they just cringe at night in fear, cleaning and oiling their weapons in preparation for the great conflict ahead? Stockpiling rations and water and fuel and the other things they’ll need to defend themselves.

Have they hardened their homes, or do they think their ranch-styles can stand up to a miliary assault? Are they all fully practiced in warfare by going out in the country in their camo gear and shooting at targets that don’t shoot back? What do they really think is going to happen when the federal government decides to “come for them?”

Republicans who resist any form of gun regulation are among those rarest of people who can keep two totally contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time. Normally trying to do this would create overwhelming cognitive dissonance, but apparently if you listen to the repetitive lying and dissembling on Fox News long enough, you can hold those self-contradictory ideas in your mind and believe both are true.

You go to work, pay taxes (they’re withheld from your pay) to fund the government that’s preparing to come for you. If you lose your job, you may get government assistance but that’s OK because … well, you need the money, and the government has systems in place to help you. Even as it secretly prepares to come for you. Still, you give them the money willingly. If you live in a place that is hit by, say, a hurricane, you will get help from the government, and you’ll take it. You will still be afraid. Not of the possibility of no help, but afraid that the government that’s helping you is going to come for you at some point and therefore you must have a stash of automatic weapons and ammo with which to defend yourself and family and property against … Army tanks, Air Force bombs, all of it. Maybe you should watch some old war movies so you can see what you’re going to be up against when they come for you.

Meanwhile, back at the local school, someone’s son – it’s always a male – will find your neighbor’s stash and assassinate school children. The shooter will usually die in the effort, but not before mass slaughter is accomplished. You’ll join the mourners with thoughts and prayers, but you will still be afraid, not of the neighbor’s sullen and obviously disturbed son, but afraid that the government is going to come for you.

And so, you continue to vote for politicians who tell you that the government in which they serve as elected leaders is so untrustworthy that any day now it’s going to come for you. So, rather than support reasonable protections against the neighbor’s son, who may well kill your own children, you will continue to resist any and all reasonable efforts to contain the cancer that afflicts the United States, alone among advanced nations. No matter how many children are massacred. All because you’re afraid.

Memes Again — Devoted to Guns

WARNING: many of the images here are disturbing to anyone who is not enamored of guns. DO NOT LOOK further if you think you may be emotionally damaged by these images. They tell a story but it is the saddest story I know. PLEASE be careful.

This first set of images was selected from the suddenly archived website of Daniel Defense, the company that made/sold the weapon used by the Uvalde, Texas school shooter.

The caption on this one read: “He is Risen.” Followed by a hands-in-prayer emoji:

Caption: Don’t miss the chance to spoil mom this Mother’s Day! Take 25% off all ladies’ tees and save on gifts that will have mom feeling like #1. Valid through May 9, 2022. Shop for mom today at danieldefensestore.com.
This one advocates using sound suppressors:

Finally, and most remarkable, with this caption: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it. 🙏”

The remaining images are from Twitter & Facebook posts.

You likely know that we lead the world in gun deaths. You also know that every effort to address the issues has been stymied by Republican politicians. You know what to do.

Acceptable Losses – How Many?

Acceptable Losses — a military euphemism for casualties or destruction inflicted by the enemy that are considered minor or tolerable.

That is where we are. Supported by the money from the National Rifle Association, the Republican Party has decided that the losses of hundreds of children at the hands of gun-wielding men with grievances is acceptable. It has happened again – this time in Texas. So far, 19 dead children and two dead teachers. So far.

This year – 27 school shootings. https://n.pr/3MPgqaS But it’s only May. Plenty of time to slaughter more kids. Thoughts and prayers. The NRA/Republican Party mantra – thoughts and prayers – but our guns, come and take ‘em. Just try. Nineteen dead children – acceptable losses.

The Gun Violence Archive, an independent data collection organization, has counted 212 mass shootings that have occurred so far this year…. It defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people were shot or killed, excluding the shooter.

Data on the mass shootings that have occurred so far this year can be found here.

The U.S. ended 2021 with 693 mass shootings, per the Gun Violence Archive. The year before saw 611. And 2019 had 417.

That’s the trend. A few weeks ago, another shooter killed ten people in a supermarket. The most “civilized/advanced country in the world,” we like to say, has more mass shootings, more children slaughtered by guns than any other country in the entire world.

How many would be enough? One hundred? A thousand? Think of it. A thousand dead children at the hands of angry men with guns. Would that be enough to move Republicans to moral action? How many? When do acceptable losses become unacceptable? Five thousand?

The ritualistic political reactions have, of course, already begun. Republican politicians holding press conferences, tweeting “thoughts and prayers.” I wonder what those “thoughts” actually are. And “prayers?  They comfort some people, I suppose. I wonder, though, if politicians’ prayers will comfort a parent or sibling devastated by yet another preventable massacre. It all seems just like ritual at this point.

Angry kid buys guns and slaughters helpless children in school. Police and others rush to the scene, usually killing the gunman. It’s always a gun man. But it’s always too late. The dead kids pile up and the Republican politicians head for the microphones to repeat the ritual. Thoughts and prayers. But no action.

I read now that Democratic political leaders are going to try yet again to negotiate some gun law improvements, anything at all that Republicans might accept. https://wapo.st/3NEE3CH But the past is almost certainly prologue. There is no reason at all to think Republican politicians will agree to anything meaningful. And if that’s true, the only point is to show the public, yet again, who the politicians are that resist all efforts to stop the massacres. Will it matter?

Consider that Republicans in Georgia have renominated Marjorie Taylor Greene to occupy a seat in the House of Representatives. The same one who embraced QAnon conspiracy theories and now said about the Texas massacre that the solution is to “embrace God.” Ritual. She really means, do nothing. Pray for help that will not come.

Consider that Republican voters in Georgia nominated Herschel Walker, a former football player, to occupy one of the 100 Senate seats. Walker seems to have trouble stringing two coherent sentences together. Republicans want him to represent them in the Senate, where he will be expected to think about and vote on complex budget and international policy issues, among many other subjects about which he has zero experience and likely even less knowledge.

Walker is running to displace the sitting Senator Raphael Warnock. Reverend Warnock grew up in public housing in Savannah. His mother grew up in Waycross where she spent summers picking tobacco and cotton. The Senator graduated from Morehouse College, earned a PhD, and was ordained in the ministry. For over 15 years, Senator Warnock has served as Senior Pastor at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the former pulpit of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He is an exceptional orator and the youngest pastor selected to serve in that leadership role at the historic church.

Consider that multiple leading Republican politicians are going to attend the National Rifle Association conference in Houston this weekend. There they will engage in the ritual obeisance to the God of Guns and Ammo that funnels campaign contributions to willing recipients completely ready to do vote for the NRA’s agenda: keep the guns and to Hell with the children.

Yes, the ritual will go on. And on. Until the American public finally says: ENOUGH! There is no reason to think we’re there now. I would, of course, love to be wrong about that, but the rational part of my mind says, don’t be a fool. Republican politicians across the country have continued to embrace Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election. Republican voters for the most part are fine with the fantasy. Is there any reason to think such people are going to care about a bunch of children they don’t know? Not very likely.

So, what to do? Complaining isn’t going to change anything. Only voting will. Along with many others, I have continued to note that “we” outnumber “them” by a substantial margin. Yet the future of the country literally depends on an issue on which the nation’s record is far from reassuring. It’s all about turnout. Will enough people who understand what is at stake actually vote in the next elections? Or will the Republicans regain control of one or both Houses of Congress and end, once and for all, any chance of protecting and advancing democracy in America? That is literally what is at stake. Because as sure as you are reading this, nothing is going to change until the supporters of violence against children are removed from office. Nothing.

Democrats could, of course, accomplish a lot by removing the filibuster. But they won’t. They’re apparently concerned about what would happen if Republicans get control of Congress. But if Republicans get control (more than they already have now), they will exercise their power mercilessly. It’s time to act while action is possible.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Democracy is under challenge around the globe. It will not save itself. Imagine what your life and the lives of your children and grandchildren will be like under a Republican managed government. Imagine.