Category Archives: Commentary

Bonanza Weekend with the Friendly Bird People

1 Reply

On Saturday, a sunny pleasant spring day, we ventured down the road a short way to the Dyke Marsh Wildlife Preserve that runs beside the Potomac River for about a mile. The trail is fine gravel and dirt, a level walk that ends at a short boardwalk overlooking the Potomac. There are some picturesque views of boats at anchor but usually not much wildlife beyond the Red-winged Blackbird habitat at the far end of the trail.

However, on recent trips there we have seen gaggles of photographers with the birders’ favorite tool – the tripod mounted very long lens mounted on a full-frame camera body. These cost many thousands of dollars but the serious birders at Huntley Meadows and elsewhere must have them.

The long-lens folks were out in force on this visit to Dyke Marsh because the owls were there. Perched high in the trees on the short road leading to the river, they are very hard to see even when you know what you’re looking for. But, as my wife says, once you see one, you can’t unsee it.

We joined the gaggle and finally got a few shots on my low-range Nikon, the cropped results of which are set out below. This is the Barred Owl:

We knew from a prior trip that about a third of the way down the Dyke Marsh trail, there was a cluster of trees beside the river in which an owl mother and baby had been resident but invisible to us on a prior trip. We walked there next and, sure enough, another gaggle of birders with long lenses was already staked out. As usual, birders are very helpful and friendly, so they immediately set about helping us spot the owls so perfectly camouflaged by the dense leaves in the upper branches. Those shots are below. This is the Great Horned Owl:

After a good time in awe of these magnificent birds, we started back down the trail to the car. But what to our wondering eyes appears but a lone photographer with his long tripod-mounted lens, pointed up to the non-river side of the trail into a tall tree in which was lodged a cluster of dark sticks. An eagle’s nest, we are told, with two or three large eaglets almost ready to fledge.

We are transfixed by this as I try to take some shots that I hope can be cropped and brightened into something worth having.

Then, without warning, it happens:  mom appears out of nowhere with food for the eaglets. Here is the nest and the arrival of mom, the time between her appearance in our view and arrival on the nest being only a few seconds.

Apologies for the quality problems but my camera lens is just not up for this kind of photography.

We finished the walk in something of a daze. The owls were great. The eagles almost too much.

Sunday dawned cool and overcast but in the afternoon we ventured out to a familiar spot: the National Wildlife Refuge at Mason Neck State Park, on Belmont Bay of the Occoquan River. We walked the Bay View Trail, a relatively flat mile-long walk through the woods bounded by bogs with many frogs clicking and singing their mating calls. Eventually the trail opens to the Bay and passes along it.

As with Dyke Marsh, we usually don’t see much wildlife on this trail, but this turned out to be a two-snake day that made all the difference. Photos follow:

The moral, if there is one, is I suppose that one should not prejudged the day but just go and see whatever turns up. Some days, not much, just a walk in the woods, and others a bonanza of amazing sights that lift the spirits and nourish the soul.

Michael Cohen is a Better Man than Donald Trump

1 Reply

Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s former attorney, did something very important that Trump has never done and will never do. He admitted to lying to the government along with other crimes and accepted his punishment. He served prison time and was disbarred. I write this not to admire Michael Cohen. He fell under the sway of Donald Trump, committed crimes and got what he deserved.

Donald Trump has told many thousands of lies, documented by the Washington Post fact checkers and many others, continues to lie about the 2020 election, the January 6 insurrection, the stolen secret government files he sequestered at Mar-a-Lago and refused to return, and has lied the multitude of other crimes he has committed.

Trump still walks free, and the media are in a frenzy over the fact that Trump is about to be arraigned in New York City for a host of criminal charges. Finally. And unlike Cohen, Trump continues to lie and rage at the District Attorney and everyone else who thinks he should be held accountable for his crimes.

I’m not going to spend more time on this. I just wanted to note for the record that Michael Cohen, who is being vilified by Trump and his defense counsel, not to mention the other sycophants who don’t care what Trump does., is a better man than Donald Trump. Not a perfect man, obviously. But better than Donald Trump by light years.

StubHub – Total Fail

Leave a reply

Apparently the breakdown of American business order has now spread to the secondary market for tickets to events. I have bee trying for two weeks to get StubHub to list two orchestra seats for the Ballet Flamenco Sara Baras: Alma show at the Kennedy Center tonight. I called at least give times, was repeatedly assured the request to list the event (prerequisite to selling tickets) has been “escalated,” only to find on the next call that there was no record that the escalation had occurred. Finally, I did get an escalation ID number but when I called about that, StubHub said they could only send another message to yet another group who were supposed to respond to escalations. They never did. The event was never listed and the tickets were not sold.

The event was Sold Out, so it’s very unfortunate not only for me in having wasted the money on tickets we could not use, but unfortunate that someone else who might have wanted to attend could not do so because StubHub never gave them a chance to buy the tickets.

Total failure of performance by StubHub.

Fascism in Florida – Come & Get Me

Leave a reply

Subtitle: Your papers, please.

Subtitle: “We must believe in the power and the strength of our words. Our words can change the world.” – Malala Yousafzai

*******************

Florida Senator Jason Brodeur has introduced legislation (2023 SB 1316) to, among other things, require bloggers who are compensated in any way for articles “about” certain state officials (including the governor) to register with the state and file regular reports.

Brodeur is a Republican (I know, I had you at “Florida Senator”). Brodeur’s background can be read here: https://www.flsenate.gov/senators/s10/?Tab=Personal  He is not stupid, in the sense that he has earned a Master’s in Public Health from Dartmouth College. That can’t be easy. But, of course, we’ve learned that intelligence and high educational achievement do not necessarily produce rational or coherent politicians. See, e.g., Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz.

Brodeur is a very busy guy – he has nine committee assignments. But he’s not too busy to propose a law that must have been copped from a first-year law school exam question: “draft a law that violates the First Amendment in at least ten ways.”

Brodeur’s brainchild legislation applies to bloggers who receive “anything of value” for posting blog pieces “about” Florida political leaders. “Blogger” means “any person as defined in s. 1.01(3) that submits a blog post to a blog which is subsequently published.”  If the “anything of value” is not currency, then the term means the fair market value of the item or service received. The triggering action includes that the blogger has received or “will receive” compensation and thus requires registration even if the blogger has only been promised something of value, whether or not it is actually received later.

I have questions. First, what is “anything” in “anything of value?” Are “likes” posted in response to the blog post “anything of value?”  How about readers’ reposts on other blogs? What if someone just sends me money as a “reward” for my bold reporting of the truth about Florida politicians? So many questions.

I could not find “s.1.01(3)” that the bill says contains the definition of “blogger.” Search and Advanced Search of Florida statutes turned up no documents. Search of the proposed bill for the definition – same, nada. But you can get there by additive analysis of the key operative language.

Missing, however, is any geographic limitation, leaving the question whether the bill’s authors intend it to apply to bloggers everywhere. I can’t wait. I’m going to send this post to the bill’s author and ask if I’m in violation. Come for me. Please. Pulleeesee come for me. I’ll be visiting Florida in a few weeks, so if you guys hurry, you can make me a violator while I ‘m there. While there, I plan to publish another blog post entitled, Governor DeathSantis – Herald for the Second Dark Age. I can reasonably guarantee that Hiz Honor, the Govnah isn’t going to like it.

Back to the merits. The Brodeur bill requires bloggers whose post is “about” an “elected state officer” or “mentions an elected state officer” to register with the state within five (5) days after the posting. An “elected state officer” includes the “Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, a Cabinet officer, or any member of the Legislature.” Once registered, the blogger must file monthly reports, unless the blogger does not have “a blog post” on a blog during a given month. Presumably, “a blog post” refers to only those that “mention” an “elected state officer” in some way, but this is unclear.

No time limit for the reports can be found in the bill so presumably the filing requirement continues in perpetuity unless the blogger stops blogging about “elected state officers.” That, of course, is the point, isn’t it? To use the power of the state to suppress criticism of elected politicians.

But wait, there is more. The bill states exactly what must be reported:

  • The individual or entity that compensated the blogger for the blog post.
  • The amount of compensation, rounded to the nearest $10 increment, received from the individual or entity, regardless of how the compensation is structured.
  • If the compensation is for a series of blog posts or for a defined period, the blogger must disclose the total amount to be received upon the first blog post being published. Thereafter, the monthly report must disclose the actual date(s) of additional compensation received for the series of posts.
  • The date of publication of each post.
  • The website and website address where the blog post can be found.

Late reports are subject to fines of $25 per day late subject to a maximum of $2,500 per report. Fines are paid into trust funds created by Florida law to fund the administration of lobbyist registrations, including salaries and other expenses and to pay expenses incurred by, for example, the state legislature in “providing services to lobbyists.” The state legislature provides “services to lobbyists?” What?

Thus, the underlying concept of this legislation is that blog posts “about,” say, a legislator are by legislative fiat, lobbying and are to be treated as such for purpose of fining late-filed reports. This is so even if the blog post is in no way related to attempts to influence legislation. A blog post “about” a state legislator might be an exposé of asserted corruption by the legislator, but if the blogger doesn’t file the report on time, her fines are to be paid into the legislative fund for managing lobbying registrations and the cost of services for lobbyists.

Brodeur was quoted in an interview claiming that people who write about the legislature are indistinguishable from lobbyists who talk to legislators. What? Do lobbyists in Florida openly criticize the legislators whose favor they’re seeking? Not likely. People who write critically about legislators (for present purposes, “bloggers”) are in no way similar to lobbyists who try to curry favor with legislators to get (or prevent) legislation.

Even Newt Gingrich has labeled this legislation “insane” and an “embarrassment.” Yes, it’s true. Even the Newtster thinks this legislation is nuts. He urged its withdrawal. https://bit.ly/3ZPeXYc Not likely. Your papers, please.

I will not waste more time on this nonsense. The notion that a state government can compel a compensated person (“anything of value”) who writes “about” the Governor or a legislator of the state to register and file reports is so blatantly a violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that detailed analysis is unnecessary. Recall that Florida is among the leading states banning books about various aspects of American history that politicians don’t want anyone to read. If the Republicans in Florida have their way, the state will have justly earned renaming to Gilead.

Stay tuned for publication of Governor DeathSantis – Herald for the Second Dark Age. I will never register nor pay a dime in fines to Florida so ….

The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind

Leave a reply

Those of you close to my generation will recognize that phrase as part of the refrain from Bob Dylan’s famous song that became a 1960s anthem against oppression and war. The song was made broadly famous by Peter, Paul & Mary, singing it here in 1966: https://bit.ly/3J6WK2w Joan Baez, among others, sang it in 1967: https://bit.ly/3SHSEB8

The lyrics to that song came immediately to mind when I read the report that the Department of Justice has, at long last, rejected Trump’s claims to be above the law. DOJ filed a brief arguing that Donald Trump’s claims of “absolute immunity” from civil suits must be limited at least regarding the January 6 abomination he sent to descrate the Capitol  https://bit.ly/3moh3jm

You know the story: Trump summoned the mob to DC and incited them to attack the Capitol to stop the final certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. True, he mentioned in passing that they should be peaceful, but that was classic Trump. Say one thing, then the opposite again and again. He also said, for example, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” His message was received loud and clear as evidenced by what the mob did. One of the many remarkable videos was produced by the New York Times, showing exactly what happened: Day of Ragehttps://nyti.ms/3mlhISw Many of those later arrested have testified under oath that they understood Trump had invited them to Washington and urged them to do just what they did.

Those revelations can come as no surprise to anyone with a fully functioning mind. Recall that Trump famously said, “I have Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” It’s on tape. He said it. He believed it. Still does. Often wrong, but never in doubt.

As recounted in the USAToday story, a group of House Democrats filed two civil suits and two Capitol police officers filed the third one. USAToday reports that Trump’s lawyers have argued to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that, “The underlying question here is simple: is a president immune from civil liability when he or she gives a speech on a matter of public concern? … The answer is undoubtedly, yes.”

The Department of Justice rejected that position: “The district court also correctly rejected President Trump’s categorical assertion ‘that whenever and wherever a President speaks on a matter of public concern he is immune from civil suit.’”

Let’s briefly examine the “absolute immunity” claim. Let’s pretend you’re in law school. You adopt Trump’s position that he was addressing the election results, a “matter of public concern” and thus just “doing the job of the president.” He should, you contend, be immune from vexatious and meddlesome civil suits [law students love to talk like that] that could interfere with his ability to carry out his many constitutional responsibilities.

Having adopted the role of professor of law, I hook my thumbs in my vest [law profs love vested suits, or did back in the day], frown, pace a bit, spin, and face you: “That sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Don’t we have to protect the nation’s chief executive and chief law enforcement officer from being hauled into court every time he says something that someone doesn’t like? Isn’t it true that someone always objects to virtually everything the president, any president, says?”

You smirk at having been recognized as oh-so-clever as to receive that rare law school commodity: praise from a professor. You are sure the other students are burning with envy at your achievement and recognition.

Then I, thumbs out of the vest now, lean forward closer to you, and you start to get a queasy feeling. I glare into your eyes and ask, “but suppose the president’s January 6 speech included this statement:

…and if you meet resistance from police at the Capitol, just knock them down, beat the hell out of them. Anybody gets in your way, kill them. I don’t care, but get the job done. Safe our country! Save meeee!

President still immune? Suppose Trump further said, “Mike Pence, the vice president I mistakenly chose to elevate from well-earned obscurity, failed to do his job. He needs to be set straight. Punished if he won’t do what needs to be done. If he refuses to comply, I say, Hang Mike Pence! Repeat after me, Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!”

You spend the rest of class looking at your shoes, wondering why you didn’t just get a job.

You think back to Trump’s penchant for lying and making outrageous claims, then, when called out for it, saying, “oh, that? I was just joking.” On January 6, his followers knew he wasn’t joking. They understood exactly why he summoned them and what he wanted them to do.

The claim of “absolute immunity” is utterly implausible in a country with a democratic republican Constitution that sets up a three-part balance of power structure in which each of the three main branches acts as a check on the other two. It makes for complex problems and many troublesome questions, to be sure. Democracy is “messy,” according to a popular formulation. But one thing is clear: no man is above the law.  A president who incites violence in an effort to interfere with constitutionally mandated processes designed for the peaceful transfer of power must be held accountable by those directly harmed by his conduct.

Now, to return to our law school conceit for a bit longer, some will argue that the proper method for holding the president accountable is impeachment and nothing more. Impeachment certainly would work … if it worked. But Trump was impeached twice and not convicted because the Republican members of Congress refused to hear all the evidence, refused even to hear witnesses, and announced they would support him even before the “trial” occurred. Republicans thus made that constitutional process a sham.

It follows that the inherently political process of impeachment is not sufficient to hold a president accountable for inciting violence that harms not only the democratic system but individual citizens as well. Therefore, there must be another remedy.

To paraphrase Trump, if you don’t hold a president accountable for inciting insurrection, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Now to conclude today’s lesson, let’s look at the broader implications of the position taken by the Justice Department. Despite what I’ve said above, I have little hope that the courts are going to agree with the Department of Justice. I am especially doubtful that the 6-Justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court, where the case is inevitably headed, is going to hold the president accountable as DOJ has proposed.

However, many observers, the writer included, have repeatedly expressed frustration that the Attorney General was going to let Trump skate despite his many crimes. While this set of civil cases is a far cry from a criminal indictment, the position taken by Justice signals that even its relatively conservative approach to “presidential law” has its limits. It may also signify that the Special Counsel appointed to independently investigate Trump’s many crimes has more juice behind his mandate than first appeared. Hope that it is so because our survival as a democratic republic depends on it. The answer, my friends, is blowin’ in the wind.

 [Pedagogical Note: in law school, the professor rarely jumped from one proposition you thought was right to the death blow to your sense of self-worth. Instead, they usually proceeded in small steps, slowly sucking the life out of what you thought was the intellectually plausible content of your thoughts, then delivering the coup de grace at the end. I have collapsed the dialogue in the interest of time and space. It was always worse.]

PayPal Updated

Leave a reply

I recently reported on this blog an issue involving  the use of PayPal to perpetrate sophisticated scams.  https://bit.ly/3Eldbp6

Since that post, two things have occurred. An article in the UK’s Telegraph reported that PayPal was joining other large tech companies and firing 2,000 staff. https://bit.ly/3IE0A33 Second, I checked my PayPal account again and discovered that the bogus charge and fake American Express security phone line are still listed in my account. This is so many weeks after I reported the problem and was assured that PayPal was hard at work fixing it.

I must wonder how many other phony transactions are showing up on PayPal accounts with bogus phone numbers to call to cancel the transactions. Why is it still possible for foreign actors to post false information in individual PayPal accounts and have them remain for weeks or longer?

I can only repeat my warning to everyone with a PayPal account. Beware.

What Pence’s Subpoena Resistance Means

Leave a reply

Special Counsel Jack Smith has subpoenaed former Vice President Mike Pence to testify before a Grand Jury investigating attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Pence has stated he will not testify, citing the Speech & Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1). https://politi.co/3xw9GZs

That Clause states:

They [Members of Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Pence claims that because his involvement in the coup was limited to presiding over the Congress’s final tally of electoral votes and certification of Joe Biden’s victory, he was acting in a “legislative capacity” and thus cannot be questioned.

On its face there are a multitude of problems with Pence’s position. First is that he has insisted, correctly, that his acts on January 6 were purely ministerial and that he lacked any discretion under the Constitution and laws to evaluate the validity of state vote counts or other acts leading to the election certification. His job was to open envelopes and announce their contents. This alone raises fundamental doubts about the “legislative nature” of what was intended to be protected by the Speech & Debate Clause.

Second, even if his January 6 actions were covered to some extent by the Clause, he cannot justify total refusal to be questioned about other matters arising out of the January 6 coup attempt and subsequent insurrectionist activities by Trump and others of which Pence may have knowledge. His immunity claim sweeps too broadly. In fact, it seems unlikely Special Counsel is much interested in Pence’s non-discretionary acts on January 6. Rather, the investigation more likely seeks his knowledge about actions by Donald Trump and others supporting his coup/insurrection attempt to overturn the election. As far as I am aware, Mike Pence conducted no legislative activities about any of that, other than his non-discretionary overseeing of the final electoral count tally.

Thus, Pence cannot plausibly argue that “because I performed one legislative act that day, I am immune from disclosing any information I may have about other matters related to the insurrection that day.”

To my knowledge, no one has suggested that Pence’s conduct on January 6 was questionable constitutionally or otherwise. Except Donald Trump, of course, who want berserk when Pence refused to go along with the false attack on the election.

Politico reports that Pence “feels it really goes to the heart of some separation of powers issues. He feels duty-bound to maintain that protection, even if it means litigating it.” Maybe, but it’s more than coincidental that, as Politico also notes, Pence’s resistance ”will allow him to avoid being seen as cooperating with a probe that is politically damaging to Trump, who remains the leading figure in the Republican Party.”

I do not understand how “Trump’s months-long crusade to pressure his vice president to derail Biden’s win — which is central to Smith’s investigation — focused entirely on Pence’s [ministerial] duties as Senate president, which legal scholars say lends credence to Pence’s case.” Josh Chafetz, a Georgetown University constitutional law professor, supports the argument that Pence may be on to something by observing that “a lot of the action here took place in terms of arguments about how he should rule from the chair.”

But the “action” around this issue was generated by Trump, not by Pence, who consistently resisted the argument that he had any more authority/responsibility on January 6 than opening envelopes and announcing their contents. Such “acts,” even if judged “legislative,” were not likely what the framers had in mind in protecting the legislators from encroachment by the other two branches.

Roy Brownell, former counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has suggested that “Pence … could characterize his pre-Jan. 6 conversations with Trump and others as research into how he might rule on matters related to the Electoral College.” True, Pence could try that, but the courts are not bound by claims like that. Pence was researching anything and if he had been, it would certainly not have been by asking Donald Trump whose credentials as an expert on the Constitution are less than zero.

In any event, the question here is not whether some specific aspects of Pence’s conversations were privileged – he is refusing to testify at all, arguing that there is nothing the Special Counsel could legitimately ask him about his knowledge of Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government. That, I suggest, is facially preposterous and inconsistent with extensive case law on the limitations of privilege assertions in all contexts.

As reported elsewhere by Politico,

A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the South Carolina Republican’s [Senator Lindsey Graham] claim that he is constitutionally immune from such questioning. Though Graham may not be questioned about any conversations he had in support of his legislative activity, the panel ruled, prosecutors may question him about his “coordination” with the Trump campaign to arrange his calls with Georgia officials, as well as efforts to pressure those officials amid their ongoing audit of Georgia’s presidential election results.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene on Graham’s behalf.

We should also have regard for the literalist interpretation of the Constitution favored by “conservatives” and “originalists.” The Speech & Debate Clause refers expressly to “Senators and Representatives.” The Vice President is neither of those. The fact that he has limited, ministerial duties to perform in the legislative branch every four years does not make him one. He is there as the Vice President, conducting ministerial, non-discretionary acts involving no legislative work.

United Press International reports that Pence said at a campaign rally:

I’m going to fight the Biden DOJ’s subpoena for me to appear before the grand jury because I believe it’s unconstitutional, and it’s unprecedented. No vice president has ever been subject to a subpoena to testify about the president with whom they served. [https://bit.ly/3lC9Co9]

Unprecedented it may be, but no president has ever tried to overthrow the government and reinstall himself despite having lost the election. Arguing the lack of precedent just doesn’t work here.

At the end of the day, what Pence’s position comes down to is this: he is desperate to appease Trump’s loyalist political base and in fact supported Trump’s attempt to overturn the election while cleverly, but rightly, refusing to actively participate in the coup attempt. Pence wants it both ways – no responsibility for the insurrection but avoiding the appearance of attacking Trump, while simultaneously undermining Trump. He hopes Trump’s loyalists will overlook his refusal to play along on January 6 if he appears to defend Trump while not actually defending him.

Pence thinks Trump’s loyalists are a bunch of cultish dopes who will, when push time comes, choose him as Trump’s successor.

Pence is only slightly less a traitor than Trump. Special Counsel Smith is not going to fall for this nonsense and should vigorously contest Pence’s claim to immunity from subpoena by the Grand Jury.

It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane … It’s ????

Leave a reply

In its continuing quest to out-stupid Fox News, CNN has published a rambling collection of actual and implied attacks on the U.S. government regarding the shooting down of four “things” by U.S. fighter jets under the direction of our Commander in Chief, the President of the United States. https://cnn.it/3lw7wGi

One “thing” has been identified as a Chinese surveillance balloon. The other three remain UFOs. OMG!!!! UFOs! In American airspace. Say it ain’t so, Joe.

The CNN headline says the “trio of new intrusions leaves America’s leaders grasping for explanations.” Grasping. Well, maybe. Or maybe, just maybe, the people we entrust with our safety against foreign forces of darkness and evil have decided it’s smarter to not be talking too much until they know more, by, for example, retrieving and examining the wreckage of these “alien” craft.

But we can clear up a few points right off the bat. If these three UFOs are genuine alien craft, do we really believe it would be so simple a matter as to send up a few fighters to blow them out of the sky? If it is that simple, and they are aliens visiting Earth for surveillance, is this a version of intergalactic “rope-a-dope” in which they let us shoot down these useless devices to “see what we’ve got” while we punch ourselves out” and then they swoop in and take over the planet? Has Marjorie Taylor Greene talked to QAnon and gotten the inside skinny on this, fed it to CNN and, well, go there if you like.

CNN says,

A deepening national security mystery is threatening a political storm after US fighter jets scrambled three days in a row to shoot down a trio of unidentified aerial objects high over the North American continent….the thin details trickling out of the Pentagon and Capitol Hill about are making an already highly unusual international episode even more bizarre and confusing.

Naturally, Republicans are using the situation, CNN calls it “an information vacuum,” to attack President Biden. CNN notes the “intrigue” ,,, unfolding against a tense global situation” which, if given a moment of sober thought, might explain why the administration is reticent to just start throwing around explanations and accusations in an evolving and potentially dangerous situation. Even putative Democrats like Jon Tester of Montana (yes, there) could not contain himself:

The military needs to have a plan to not only determine what’s out there, but (to) determine the dangers that go with it.

Fantastic. Why do we assume our military, the largest and most expensive in the world by far, does not have a plan? Because they aren’t revealing it to the entire world? Is there a coherent military person or other serious thinker who thinks it’s a good idea for the military, faced with a possible threat, to race out with details of its defensive plans so that the party(ies) behind the threat will learn the plan? Anyone think that’s a good idea? Anyone?

Orson Welles, where are you when we need you?

Well, we have CNN:

It’s not normal for Americans to settle down for the Super Bowl with their president firing off orders to blast unknown objects out of the North American sky.

Yes, we certainly don’t want Americans’ Super Bowl experience to be infringed by the War of the Worlds. CNN, always ready to help us understand current events, and undeterred by the possibility of unnerving Super Bowl fans, raises the specter of questions that remain unanswered but loom over us like a brooding omnipresence potentially ready at any moment to destroy the United States or indeed the entire world:

  • “Are the latest incidents linked in any way to Beijing’s espionage program described by the administration after the shooting down of the Chinese balloon and other reported crossings of other balloons over US territory? Any indication of successive Chinese breaches of US airspace would mark a serious twist in US-China relations already tested by a belligerent Beijing at what may be the start of a 21st century Cold War.
  • … are the latest strange objects flying over North America linked to some other hostile power or group, corporate or private entity? Are they even connected to one another or are they simply the result of coincidences at a time of heightened awareness and tensions?
  • If the latter situation is the case, is NORAD now picking up more objects that are potentially hostile given a state of heightened alert after the Chinese balloon crisis? If the objects are suspicious is there a sudden spike in such flights or did such objects fly across the continent with impunity in the past? Given the already increased threat to civilian aircraft – for instance from more low flying drones – is this a new problem that that should concern the aviation industry?
  • Finally, what is the political impact of this string of incidents. Biden was criticized by Republicansfor citing the possibility of injury to civilians or damage to buildings on the ground for waiting so long to shoot down the Chinese balloon earlier this month.”

Can you imagine the Republicans’ hysterical reaction if Biden had ordered an immediate take-down and Americans on the ground were hit by debris? And, what if the debris were alien in nature – a virus worse than COVID? Worse than the common cold? OMG!!! Alien debris. Run for your lives!

CNN then reveals that “The political blame game is heating up.” Well, that’s a shock. Can you imagine that Republicans would pass the opportunity to attack the President when matters of national security were at stake? You can’t because they never would.

Republicans, however, don’t really know what they want. GOP Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio (of course) objected on the one hand that the President “didn’t act quickly enough before” while simultaneously claiming the administration was “somewhat trigger-happy.” Then, to round out the complaints, CNN notes that China has claimed the U.S. had been flying “high-altitude balloons into its airspace more than 10 times since January 2022,” a charge the White House denied. [If it were true, do we seriously believe the U.S. would have admitted it?}

Finally, CNN joins the chorus by noting that Biden “has yet to speak to Americans in person about the trio of incidents over the weekend.” And it repeats, in case you forgot it, that Biden is under attack for waiting to shoot down the Chinese balloon while also noting that “New speculation and criticism could be premature as officials work to fully understand the sequence of events and more about the objects.”

On the other hand, CNN notes that It’s possible that “in a unique, fast-moving situation, the government may not know much more than it is saying.” But … “the piecemeal emergence of details is adding to the confusion.” On the other hand, on the other hand….

CNN wraps up with the Republican clincher:

Republican Rep. Matt Rosendale of Montana [again] appeared to make a direct link,,, between the Chinese balloon and the latest objects, even if there is no confirmation so far that they are connected.

It doesn’t give me much safe feelings knowing that these devices are smaller,” he said. “I am very concerned with the cumulative data that is being collected. … I need some answers, and the American people need answers.”

I can’t begin to tell you how concerned I am about the anxiety and lack of “safe feelings” being experienced by Republicans because mean old Joe Biden won’t tell them everything they want to know (if he did, they’d attack him for revealing too much).

“Such speculation may be premature, CNN acknowledges, “But fierce political debate over the balloon has clearly changed Biden’s tolerance threshold for unknown aerial objects. It’s now a case of shoot first, investigate later.”

Do you have a coherent idea what that means? In the context of the presence in U.S. airspace of unknown “flying objects,” it is particularly ridiculous. Do we really want the U.S. government to speculate about this situation? Would Republicans rather the U.S. investigate first or shoot first? Doesn’t seem like you can have it both ways.

As for me, we’re making plans to move to Area 51. If this really is aliens, that seems like the safest place to be.

Final Thoughts (Maybe) About the Republican “Performance” in the SOTU

1 Reply

The New York Times published an interesting piece about the Republicans’ unprecedented outbursts during President Biden’s State of the Union address: Heckling of Biden Reflects a New, Coarser Normal for House G.O.P., https://nyti.ms/3Xq479c While it bore similarities to my own comments in The Barbarians Are Inside the Gate, it was a bit too abstract for my taste and replete with “both sides” implications, a now all-too-common trait of main stream media.

But what struck me most were the comments that gleefully recalled the moment when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up Trump’s speech following one of his SOU addresses to Congress. In essence, those comments claimed that the obscene heckling of President Biden was justified by Pelosi’s previous conduct. What’s good for the goose, and all that. Hypocrisy, they say. You can’t have it both ways, they say.

I confess I didn’t read all the 666 comments the Times allowed before closing comments (a curious number, I note in passing – assess as you will), but of those I did read, not one noted the obvious difference between Pelosi’s demonstration of hostility to the then pretend president and the yelling and disruption that occurred during Biden’s speech.

I refer to the obvious fact that when Pelosi tore up Trump’s speech, Trump’s speech was over. He was finished talking. Should Pelosi have waited until Trump departed or until she was in the hall outside or called a press conference later to show her contempt? Maybe. But there is a fundamental difference between her post-speech demonstration and the multiple interruptions and crass behavior during the speech by members of the Republican Party. Her action did not disrupt Trump’s remarks, no matter how distasteful they were to her. The Republicans, on the other hand, did everything they could to disrupt and disorient the President. And they failed.

My final (maybe) observation: the writers at the New York Times, Washington Post and other newspapers that still claim to some degree of objectivity in matters political should stop calling these Republican Party louts “conservatives.” There is nothing “conservative” about most of them. They don’t just want less government; they want no government.

Just two days ago, Ted Cruz, officially the U.S. Senator from Texas, tweeted: “Abolish the IRS.” https://bit.ly/3Ih6PtCCruz is not the only Republican to advocate that. You may also recall that many other leading Republicans have advocated abolishing the Department of Education and other federal agencies, including Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Secretary of Education. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced a bill in early 2021 with co-sponsors including (unsurprisingly) Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) and Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), to do that very thing.

To be clear, I for one believe the United States Tax Code is a monstrosity. One fine day, I plan to write about it in some detail. But the idea that we can in one swoop “simplify the Code” and then eliminate the IRS while still effectively collecting enough revenue to pay for the U.S. Miliary, among many other federal services that help assure this country’s safety and prosperity, is blatantly stupid.

The National Taxpayer Advocate did a Microsoft Word count of the tax statutes and implementing IRS regulations in 2012 and came up with roughly 4 million words. At roughly 450 words per page, that works out to around 9,000 pages. The National Taxpayer Advocate also noted that the tax code changed 4,680 times from 2001 to 2012, an average of once per day.  https://bit.ly/3DYxWa8

That was ten years ago. Most likely the Code is substantially larger today. Much of it is designed, by Republican and Democratic administrations alike, to foster or discourage various forms of economic and other behavior. Changing it to a simpler system whose focus is mainly, if not solely, to fund the government is highly desirable in my view but it’s not something that can be done overnight in a sudden “simplification.” Advocates for that approach are not “conservatives. They are either anarchists or … well, this is a family blog, so I won’t go further.

Suffice to say, the complexities of the Code and its pervasive influence on the conduct of American businesses is such as only a prolonged and careful reexamination has any chance of success. But the Code’s very complexity and influence has spawned entire industries of tax lawyers, tax-specialist accountants, software companies and tax preparers, all of whom have a vested interest in keeping the complexity. And then there are the giant corporations that benefit from manipulating their operations and accounting to pay less tax than the might in another system.

To return to the main point, the Republican Party has become the Party of Grievance. Their appeal to the good old days, when white people ran everything and most things were thought to be cheaper and readily available at all times, those days are gone. Permanently. The Republican Party is the Party of the Past, a past that never really was and that was unsustainable. You may be able to turn back the clock, but you cannot undo time. It moves forward whether your clock, or your mind, keeps up or not. To believe in the past that the Republican Party is selling is to believe in a mirage, a false idol that leads you to your destruction.

The Republicans can yell and scream until the dogs come home. They have nothing constructive to offer the American people or the country. Joe Biden was too gracious, too composed and, in boxing them in on Medicare and Social Security, too clever for the screamers. They won’t learn anything from it. They’re out there every day justifying what they did because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings. Grievance and more grievance – the Republican Party’s true platform.