Background of the Capitol HIll insurrection

This article is particularly good at laying out the violent rhetoric and actions that preceded the insurrection and set the tone for it. This includes invasions of statehouses in Michigan, Oregon, and Kentucky. Also the incident when Trump supporters boxed in a Biden campaign bus in Texas. 

There was some disarray in the Capitol police in the run-up. They didn't stay informed on the trends and missed the signs to be better prepared. Timeline and issues. Did some members of Congress help rioters in the run-up? 

Groups were saying that they'd storm the Capitol (a particularly good article, also here). Alt-right groups are taking advantage of the opportunity to radicalize Trump supporters. The groups are in the military and law enforcement, and disinformation is rife. The scope of planning within the groups and between the groups isn't clear yet. The Proud Boys appear to have spearheaded some actions (excellent video), but the Oathkeepers and 3-percenters are well-represented too. More will be emerging as investigations continue. Here's NYT covering Proud Boys' chat prior to the riot. 

Also, what roles did Roger Stone and Alex Jones play? Here's Roger Stone raising money in the run-up. Here's an article by Rod Dreher on the religious groups prior to Jan. 6.

It was perhaps sheer luck that more people weren't killed. Most of the rioters were pro-police and not in favor of injuring police just to get to the members of Congress. The more radical groups perhaps didn't see enough support for more violent action and therefore didn't go that route. 

Tucker Carlson says it was just good Americans yearning to be heard by a callous, uncaring, overbearing government. Wow, talk about propaganda. 

A huge article about the work done by non-partisan groups to prevent a huge mess in the election and the aftermath. Election systems were strengthened, sometimes with donated money. Business groups didn't want chaos, but they saw it coming if they did nothing. 

A transcript of the speech given by Trump on Jan. 6. Search for 'fight' and search for 'peace' to get a sense of how much peaceful protest wasn't emphasized. 

Two articles about the belated response of the military to requests for help. Shorter, possibly clearer. Longer with a detailed timeline. There appeared to be almost an hour delay in getting the OK from top military to send in national guard units. The guards weren't able to go directly to help--they had to stop at armories to get the proper gear first. But at least they had partially mustered, or it would have taken even longer. 

Image: brandeis.edu

And more aftermath. 

A Republican Congressman (and Nazi youth look-alike) Madison Cawthorn has a moment of regret, but did it last? Minority leader McCarthy says that everyone bears responsibility. That's a convenient smearing/spreading of the blame. A pundit trying to minimize the importance of the riot. Mostly, things weren't that bad and democracy wasn't overturned, so it's not that bad. 

A watchdog of Parler found a 'patriot' calling for much more violence next time. Lets hunt these cowards down like the Traitors that each of them are, he writes. 

In Michigan, the head of the state senate goes along with the line from the true believers, and then apologizes, somewhat. This is such a standard  problem of standard cowardice. 

In Pennsylvania, there's a civil war between Trump supporters and those who support Toomey and a level of independence. We'll see in 2022 who is nominated to the open Senate seat and who wins. 

The Capitol Hill police force deals with group (and individual) PTSD. 

The nutty pillow guy is making 'documentaries' about the election theft. Here is a review: Absolute  Proof is as bad as you'd expect. 

Facebook has its own 'supreme court' and they were called on to rule and/or advise on the permanent suspension of Trump's account. Here's the pithy version of what they decided, including the phrase 'replete with falsehoods' about Trump's statement. Here is a more detailed version. 

'Daddy told us to come to DC.'

Trump supporters aren't that different from the Proud Boys or other right-wing fight groups. 

The saga of Ashli Babbitt, the woman who was shot while crossing a barricade in the Capitol.  

More about OathKeepers, Three Percenters,  and other militias. 

Trump tried to get the DOJ to overturn the election.

The New York Times made a somewhat short video (40 minutes) about the Jan. 6 riot, using pieced-together video of the events. 

For and against the Southern Poverty Law Center

What I remember of the Southern Poverty Law Center is that they had a large and scrupulously maintained database of US hate organizations and individuals, so they were always a good resource for reporters, and even for police and the FBI. Their database also made them invaluable to civil actions against hate groups, several of which were sued into bankruptcy.

I hadn't thought much about the SPLC until a conservative commenter with an anything-goes attitude toward argumentation claimed that the SPLC is itself a hate group. The basis for her dubious claim is that the shooter at the Family Research Council in DC used information from SPLC to target an anti-gay group.

I saw several other claims that SPLC is horrible, and decided to look into it. It appeared that most of the claims against SPLC were due its labeling of anti-gay groups as hate groups. The anti-gay groups and their conservative supporters bristled under the label, believing they were unfairly classed in with the KKK and neo-Nazis. Does this smack of claiming their kind of hate is 'a good kind of hate?'

I read what SPLC had to say about one of these anti-gay groups. The SPLC says that it doesn't label groups as hate groups simply for having labeling homosexuality as wrong or sinful. It had the criteria that the group spread lies, false reports or false research, advocate violence, etc. I noted that SPLC doesn't list the Catholic Church as a hate group, so a group can have religious objections to gays without getting the hated 'hate' label. Fair enough. I decided to contribute for the first time in my life. I felt good about it--that I was making up for lost time and supporting a good organization.

That was starting maybe a year ago, and I contributed 4-5 months ago. Now I'm seeing many more attacks on SPLC. Some of the latest:

• SPLC doesn't spend much on legal actions, but has a pile of money in offshore accounts.
• The latest BIG slam is that it mislabels groups and then corporate America cuts off the groups' lifeblood of donations. The Ruth Institute has been cut off in that way, and it has raised a huge amount of attention. (Great PR opportunity!!!!!) I've read 1, 2, 3 articles about the Ruth Institute, the first several weeks ago (no link now) so I was already with familiar with SPLC's rationale for listing it as a hate group. The leader of the Ruth Institute has a long history with anti-gay groups such as the National Organization for Marriage.

My theory is that SPLC is getting notice because of the Charlottesville incidents. Its database provides a lot of information about the white nationalists groups involved, and that makes it look like a strong, helpful, civil-minded organization. Now, if you're a conservative with a chip on your shoulder, you don't like SPLC getting any credit, so you want to attack their credibility. So trot out the old complaints and any current complaints you can find. Call them a far-left group or whatever. The weak-minded will repeat it. For me, I've looked into their explanation for the criteria for listing a hate group, and it's solid. If you support a conservative group labeled as such, maybe you should ask them to cut out the lies and hate, and clear the air on what they actually support. That's my recommendation. Belly-aching that someone is calling you names that you don't deserve doesn't cut it.

A mild message from the progenitor of the Ruth Institute

Image: usnews.com

Extras. SPLC has good reporting on many of the rallies where greater or lesser amounts of violence has broken out. That's helpful too. However, if they are indeed sitting on a pile of money, I may not contribute again. I'll give to other organizations, and give verbal support and clicks to SPLC.

SPLC reports: The rift between the militias and alt-right groups. Many militias want to be open to blacks, particularly military veterans. They share some views with alt-right groups, but not white supremacy. That's why militias will often provide neutral security and stand between alt-right groups and counterprotesters. They support free speech rights, but think a lot of the slogans are rubbish and therefore won't be into the shouting wars and other skirmishes. This is what I've gleaned from reading. Possibly it's wrong.

The killer of two on a Portland train claimed he was protecting free speech. I hope this is wrong and fails as a defense strategy. The killer was outnumbered by three men defending Muslims. Will he claim he feared for his life?

More reporting from in and around Portland. Campus allegations and counter-allegations, protests and counter-protests.

Antifa and the MSM

I don't remember what month I first heard of Antifa, which is a loosely organized anti-fascist organization. I do remember how I heard of it. It was mentioned by some right-wing commenters. They implied Antifa were leftists, so I looked up what Antifa was. I thought it was probably some imaginary conspiracy group, like the elitist pedophile ring Hillary runs.

It turns out that Antifa isn't a figment of a nutjob's imagination. It's real, and my usual news sources (Google News with occasionally visits to American Conservative, National Review, Fox News, and Breitbart) had failed me.

I'm not sure why the MSM had barely reported on Antifa until August. It's not that Antifa didn't make appearances. They were involved in the Berkeley riots, and I was certainly aware of those. They were also involved in property destruction on Inauguration Day, and various other demonstrations.

However, the MSM wasn't mentioning that Antifa was a group, and wasn't emphasizing how protesters were violent and coordinated in dress and action. Was the MSM giving cover to Antifa? We probably won't find out unless reporters and/or editors talk about either their lack of knowledge or their suppression of information.

I've been able to confirm the lack of coverage by the MSM through a Google search. From December 2016 to March 2017, the top mentions of Antifa USA are by (in order): Al-Jazeera,  The Guardian, the BBC, The Nation, and Hot Press. In contrast, the top mentions of Antifa USA today are by: USA Today, Facebook, Wikipedia, CNN, The Daily Wire, and The Atlantic. It's definitely a failure by the MSM that the media sources of right-wingers are faster on the information than the MSM is.

It's not that Antifa was totally unknown in the MSM. Here's an article from the New York Times dated 2/2/17 that reports on Antifa. Yet Antifa wasn't referenced in this WaPo article. I recall arguments about whether the violent protesters were students or not, whether they were outsiders who took an opportunity to vandalize. News organizations didn't seem to know... or perhaps a few reporters did, but the information didn't percolate up to the top editor and anchors.

Right wing media perhaps wanted to pretend the violence was by typical leftists, not a violent fringe. Left wing media perhaps wanted to pretend that it wasn't an organized group of violent anti-fascist protesters. Nor were there organized, violent groups who tried to close down Trump rallies. Those anti-Trumpers were individuals who were concerned about Trump's rhetoric, not an organized violent fringe.

Now Antifa is too well known. The MSM still isn't investigating its ties with BLM organizations. They don't delve too far into their communist views, or how they fight violently even when confronting non-violent opponents, or how they're happy to destroy corporate property. Conservative media is pretending Soros, Antifa, and BLM are all one and all violent. Who can you trust? No one.

By the way, this may be the closest thing to the Antifa motto:

You fight them by writing letters and making phone calls so you don’t have to fight them with fists. You fight them with fists so you don’t have to fight them with knives. You fight them with knives so you don’t have to fight them with guns. You fight them with guns so you don’t have to fight them with tanks.

They do seem to emphasize the fighting. Let's enjoy some violence for a noble cause... or close enough.

Image: redspark.nu

Extras. According to this video, a lot of Antifa are sociology majors who want to be heroes but don't know much about fighting. That fits with what I've seen. Antifa disrupt a peaceful rally in Berkeley.

Links, video, and interesting info about Charlottesville

Maybe I was somewhat obsessed about trying to uncover the truth about Charlottesville. Instead reading accounts, I wanted to watch video, preferably unedited, meaning unmanipulated. I wanted to see what I could for myself.

I've watched maybe 10 hours of video, and also read a few additional accounts. Here are some of the things I've learned.

Image: ktvn.com

Not quite so bad a person. A student from University of Nevada participated in the torch march, and some pictures of him went viral. Yes, he looks like an enthusiastic Nazi youth. What he says is more complicated than that. He believes in value of all cultures, so he's against segregation, elimination, and the idea of white supremacy. Yes, he marched with some people who felt that way, but he wasn't chanting any slogans he didn't agree with, so he was silent for 'blood and soil.' Somehow, though, he doesn't regret marching with a bunch of people who do believe those things. There was an unsuccessful petition to throw him out of the university, but they refused to on the basis of his right to free speech. Update 6/18/18. Here's an article from a journalism student who went undercover in the same organization as the student from Nevada. Like being a fly on the wall and observing.

Links to many accounts from the LA Times. Another article with many links, focusing on the alt-right view. Helpful map here.

Alt-right manifesto. This story hasn't gotten much play. Richard Spencer wrote the bullet-point list of concerns with the help of a half-dozen prominent colleagues. Race is the highest concern. Second is the 'Jewish question' which alt-righters often abbreviate to 'JQ.' Video of Richard Spencer talking like a Nazi. 

A neo-Confederate group musters before the rally. Then they march to the park, fighting with counter-protesters once along the way. Over 40 minutes of video. Hunter Wallace, who is taking the video, writes that "wave after wave attempt[ed] to charge the park." His video belies this, showing one attack. At 40:00, he and some other protesters easily walk past 'peaceniks' on the perimeter to enter another portion of the park, showing that at least one major part of the perimeter was peaceful. A written account by another protest leader, from California.

In contrast, video of skirmishes. This might have been the entrance corner where a lot of skirmishes occurred and hand-thrown missiles were regularly flying. Strangely, there were no barricades dividing protesters from counter-protesters in this section of the park.

Armed neutral parties. The work of dividing protesters and counter-protesters who loathed each other and wanted to fight fell to some militia groups, such as the Oath Keepers, 3 Percenters, and a workers' militia called the Redneck Revolt. Militias get involved as a buffer and to protect free speech, but disagree with many of the political positions and especially disdain the chanting and goading.

How did the permit happened. Of course Charlottesville didn't want the rally to take place. An earlier rally of 50 KKK and 1000 counter-protesters showed the potential dangers. However, a judge ruled otherwise. We may continue hearing about Charlottesville for several years as limits on rallies and the use of emergency declarations are litigated.

Image: vidmax.com

Extras. Guide to the symbols and the cast of characters. A 22-minute documentary on one of the organizers. Skip the middle if you're pressed for time. One alt-right leader decided to opt out because the rally was too racist. Finally, a nurse who is also a neo-Confederate and Jewish talks about the rally. She thinks Nazis are weird, but really hates the counter-protesters for being Marxists, and is not at all sorry about the death. How many were Marxists? Probably a bunch, but it would be helpful to know approximately. However, if you're throwing your lot with Nazis because you don't like Marxists, is that a good choice?

Link to the detailed report by a detailed report firm. Lots for great info, especially on the lead-in to the rally. 

Transcripts of Trump's equivocal remarks afterward--'violence from many sides' and shit like that. Aug. 12, Aug. 14. Aug. 22, blaming the media. Reactions to Trump's weasel words: NBC, WaPo, SPLC, PBS.

What the Charlottesville Nazis were saying

The Daily Stormer is no longer available by regular browser. However, pages on the internet get cached sometimes, and the Stormer was popular enough to get cached quite often over the weekend.

Go to cachedview.com, or following my links.

Let's see my selection of the lovely conversation at the Daily Stormer. (Note: I didn't grab the timestamps on everything.)

[Friday 8/11/17]
I’m getting reports of large groups arriving and having trouble with their AirBnB reservations.

Azzmador’s Texas crew is staying in a hotel in one of the surrounding towns.

REMEMBER: At the event, keep your weapons in your car if you brought one. Do not bring it to the event. We do not want a shootout.

Right Wing Motorcycle Squadratti are in #Charlottesville and out of control!! on #HandsomeThursday

If you click to enlarge that picture, you’ll notice that both the cameraman on the left and the guy in the light blue shirt appear to be kikes. VICE is a full-kike operation.

4:00 PM:

SWITCH TO PRIVATE CHANNELS ONLY FROM HERE ON OUT

5:19 PM:

The argument from the kike Mayor and his Negroid Black Panther sidekick is that they said there would only be 400 people and there are going to be a whole helluva lot more than that.

Word on the ground from Daily Stormer staff is that the permit to hold the rally in Lee Park has been officially issued! Looks like we won out!

This is last night! [Torchlit march on UVa] The time and place didn’t get posted here because it was a secret arrangement, I apologize to those that missed it.

20 PEOPLE STOOD AGAINST HUNDREDS OF FASCISTS!

THIS IS HAPPENING NOW!

NO ONE IS STANDING IN OUR WAY!

CHARLOTTESVILLE BELONGS TO US!

AMERICA BELONGS TO US!

People are being bussed in to the park now.

Antifa are on Twitter panicking, some saying they won’t even bother to attend given that their numbers will be so few.

The thing that is going to be in the most danger here is your car, so try to park in a lot that’s being observed, or just take a taxi or an Uber to the event (if you’re not riding on the bus).

[Saturday 8/12/17]
10:40 AM:

The chanting war begins.

“You’re fags, go home you have no testosterone” VS “No racists, no KKK, no fascists USA.”

11:00 AM:

Azzmador has unveiled his banner.

“Gas the kikes, race war now!”

12:11 PM

ANTIFA GETTING THEIR ASSES KICKED EVERYWHERE.

12:31 PM:

FUCK YOU FAGGOTS!

You heard that right. They're chanting "Fuck you faggots." 

GET TO MCINTIRE PARK NOW AND FIND AZZMADOR, CANTWELL OR SACCO VANDAL! STAY IN THE GROUP! DO NOT SEPARATE ONCE YOU ARE BEHIND ONE OF THESE THREE MEN! 

3:46 PM:

Trump comments were good. He didn’t attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us.

He said that we need to study why people are so angry, and implied that there was hate… on both sides!

So he implied the antifa are haters.

There was virtually no counter-signaling of us at all.

He said he loves us all.

Also refused to answer a question about White Nationalists supporting him.

No condemnation at all.

When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room.

Really, really good.

God bless him.

Same dickhead Virginia state cops who attacked our rally just crashed a fucking helicopter.

Police chief quadroon such a bitch. I have defended cops. Then they betray us and attack us in what amounted to an ambush.

There it is. Reporting straight from the the good people on the right who care so much about the statue of General Lee.

White supremacists show their nature at Charlottesville

Note: Many of my sources were from the Daily Stormer site. It has now been kicked off by its hosting ISP, and is having trouble finding a new host. It may have to switch to a Russian host. The Daily Stormer links may not be available again at all, or they may return. 

Being an American is not boring. It can be deeply embarrassing, even mortifying sometimes. It can be inspiring. It is not dull. There are so many moral aspects to being a thinking citizen in the US, and some of these aspects were on display this past weekend.

Many groups involved in white supremacy coordinated to sponsor a large rally in Charlottesville, VA, the location of a large state university. I hope I can find the list of the organizers, which I read somewhere in the many articles I read in the past 72 hours.

Maybe I'll start the list of sources where I started--a blog called Occidental Dissent. Some things I noticed: the reference to the confederate flag, how-to information on getting ready for rallies, including comments on how to arm yourself. The list of other alt-right blogs. The blogger is taking donations to fund his participation at rallies, and had collected $675 from 9 donors so far. Then there was the link to The Daily Stormer.

Operational Security is a chilling read. It's describes how to cover your tracks. Use a burner phone for all rally-related communications, and don't put anything personal on it. Don't use hate speech on the phone since it may be used against you and the movement. (The author doesn't follow his own advice since The Daily Stormer is full of hate speech.) If you get involved in 'something heavy,' like homicide, flee the country or flee your identity. Wow. This sounds like advice for people with peaceful intent, doesn't it?

The incidents - Torch march on the UVa campus

The white groups planned a march across the campus on Friday night. I don't know whether they didn't publicize their plan, but there wasn't much organized counter-protest. Again, it must of been chilling to witness hundreds of white supremacists carrying torches, marching, chanting, like being in Germany when the Nazis were gaining strength. There were many people who drawn out to witness, but few organized to resist or counter the message. The white groups  declared a huge victory. They jeered at the few protesters, surrounded them, eventually attacked them and ran them off. This was the huge victory that the groups boasted about.

Anti fascists are surrounded by hundreds of fascists at Jefferson statue. No police.

Incident - Scheduled rally 

The main rally was scheduled for Saturday noon at a park where a statue of Robert E. Lee is currently located, but may be removed due to its association with the Confederacy and history of racial bias. The city tried to revoke the permit for the rally, but a federal judge ruled that they must allow it.

However, the crowds turning out, both the white supremacists and the counter protesters, turned out in large numbers and were clearly poised for skirmishes. My speculation (there hasn't been clear reporting) was that the number of counter-protesters was very large partly in reaction to the torch-light rally the night before.

There were also very large numbers of people taking video, some with professional camera equipment. The videos show how many people were recording events. This is wonderful for history--that so many want to witness and capture the events.

Another thing I notice from the videos. Many of the white groups have similar clothing. Many are carrying shields and wearing helmets and other protective gear. They are dressed for confrontation. That kind of organization and preparation were less common among the counter protesters.

The state and local government, based on the conditions that were volatile and unsafe, cancelled the rally. I support this, but I imagine that the city and state will be sued. Already some of the white protest groups are whining that their free speech rights were restricted and the police didn't protect them as they should have. I have no sympathy for them because they were clearly preparing for violence.

Incident - Car ramming protesters, killing one 

A man who earlier in the day joined a white supremacist group called Vanguard America, drove his car at high speed into a large group of counter protesters. One of them died, many others were severely injured. He tried to escape at high speed from the scene, but was observed by many people out on the streets and was caught almost immediately.

The response from the Daily Stormer was particularly repugnant. Someone said the guy was anti-Trump (wrong). Then someone said he acted in self-defense because he was pelted with bricks (wrong). Another said no one of importance was hurt. Another that the driver was Jewish because his mother's surname is 'Bloom.' The fatality was called a fat, childless slut. That is just so lovely. These are people who are hateful and hurtful with no respect for truth or any principles other than tribalism.

There is so much more I could write about, and some of that will be in the extra section.

Image: mysanantonio.com

Extras. The live thread from the Daily Stormer is chilling--the triumphalism, the complaints that the police didn't protect them in their quest to provoke fights, their pretended innocence, their hate for so many others with the least bit of difference, their whining after a death that their free speech (a news conference that next day) wasn't protected from huge outraged crowds. The comment thread. A pretty good timeline.

The propaganda machine for the alt-right has been fairly successful. Too many think that the leftist counter protesters are the problem, including this soon-to-be-former GOP official. Unfortunately, our idiot president is also one of those who have drunk the Kool-Aid of right-wing propaganda. He spoke about the murder and mayhem with no conviction, and with weasel words about 'many sides' being wrong, as though it was expedient for him to gloss over the involvement of white supremacists. Trump deserves the flack he caught: this from the Weekly Standard, this much blunter, harsher, and painfully true piece from the Washington Post. The alt-right were happy with Trump's vagueness, and with his grudging slightly strong statement two days later.

One of the first on-the-ground accounts I read. Several others. How this may be pivotal for the white supremacy movement. At a white supremacy rally in Seattle one day later, a huge police presence prevented violence, not to say this was possible in Charlottesville.

Update 8/15/17. Trump has returned to saying that there were 'bad people' on many sides, or both sides. He seems to have a clearer sense now that there were neo-Nazis there. However, he seems to think the right-wing hate groups weren't a majority of the right-wing people there. (My sense is that a majority did identify as white rights supporters at best, and often KKK or neo-Nazi.) Trump seems to understand that there were good people among the counter protesters, but he focuses on the bad ones. The press seems not to acknowledge at all the violent groups among the counter protesters. In this, Trump is more accurate than the press. So Trump underplays the bad actors among the right, overplays the bad actors among the left, and seems not to know at all about the Nazi-like march on Friday night.

Update 8/16/17. It's important to see what The Daily Stormer was writing and showing about the Charlottesville rallies. I took a screen shot which provides information that isn't available now. Here is the screen shot: (Click to enlarge.)

Update 10/23/17. I've argued with someone who is claiming the driver became angry and/or disoriented from a bat blow to the back of his car. However, the full video shows the car speeding down the alley, almost hitting people, before the person with the bat swung. Slow the video down to see.

Update 4/22/18. Another rally, but this one was a bust. Only 25-30 neo-Nazi and neo-Confederates showed up. The town didn't want the rally, and many townspeople counter-protested. I remember arguing with a white supremacist sympathizer that the movement was severely hurt by Charlottesville. I feel vindicated.

Update 7/23/18. The organizer of last year's rally in Charlottesville is trying to organize an anniversary rally both there and in Washington DC. It's not going well due to fragmentation in the alt-right. Update 7/24/18. He failed in spectacular fashion. Must read.

Update 12/7/18. James Fields was convicted of first-degree murder. One piece of information that was new to me: he had sent friends a meme about running over protesters in the weeks prior to when he actually ran over protesters. The information was presented in court as evidence of his state of mind.

Catching up on even more links

Russian operations. This article states the case that there is some evidence, a bit of evidence, of collusion. So the claim that there's nothing, that this is all a witch hunt, that's not true. As for what Russia has been doing, and the worrisome things Trump has said regarding Russia, here's a round-up.

American political shooter. Here's some background on the man who shot at the Republicans from Congress as they practiced baseball. He fell for propaganda that Trump is destroying the country. Luckily, I haven't seen anyone proclaiming that the shooting was a good thing.

GOP talking points. It's been clear from the political threads I follow that there is a new set of talking points. Comey is a leaker and maybe the leaker. Mueller is no longer a good, honest, decent guy well-respected by both Dems and Repubs. Now he's a chum of the disgraced Comey, a partisan, and shouldn't be allowed to investigate anything. We didn't hear this a month ago when he was appointed, but now it's imperative to bash him. The funniest thing--you can read the talking points!

Image: daybydaycartoon.com

Hail, the witch is dead!

I'm not in a mood to be generous or compassionate to one of the least compassionate people I'd ever seen. I intensely disliked Scalia, and I still do. So I'm glad he's dead and his seat on the Supreme Court will be opening up. It's seems unlikely that someone worse will get to occupy that seat. The next justice probably won't compare loving same-sex relationships to murder.

I won't be forgetting any time soon that Scalia hated the idea of same-sex marriage. I love marriage (thanks to my sweetie and our nearly 40 years together), and I hope and pray other people can experience this happiness. Scalia doesn't mind a bit for such happiness to be denied to whole groups of people. What a bitch! Even people who support him can't make him sound like a nice person, a kind, caring person. He's a fire-breathing dragon, a wicked witch, a mean old man.

And now he's dead. Thank God death triumphs over all of us eventually.

Image: mic.com

Update 2/23/16. Scalia wasn't assassinated, in case you were a paranoid conspiracy nut.

Questioning whether Ted Cruz is an extremist

I've seen Ted Cruz labeled an extremist so many times, and that's generally my own impression, but I forgot to actually ask the question whether he is an extremist. Does Cruz actually hold extreme positions? His most well-known position was being against Obamacare, which is so common among Republicans that it can't be called extremist. So I wondered about extremist positions--whether he's advocated truly extreme positions such as deporting or locking up large numbers of people, establishing religious tests for civil rights, overthrowing the current government by insurrection, or some such.

I don't remember any policy position like that. But where did the impression of extremism come from then? It could be his rhetoric, such as calling Obama an apologist for Islamist terrorists. That's an extreme thing for an elected official to say out loud. It's more typical of political shock-jocks, not those who are supposed to be responsible, judicious, and fair.

Looking at Cruz's rhetoric, it's easy to find violations of the norms. He'll imply that Obama is a totalitarian, or that former senator Chuck Hagel was in the pay of North Korea. He'll advocate carpet bombing in the Mideast, as though carpet bombing didn't mean killing or wounding every living person in the effected area. It's the equivalent of say "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

His associations are scary. His father, Rev. Raphael Cruz, who frequently campaigns with Ted (making it hard for the son to distance himself) says such things as Obama is trying to destroy Christianity in the US. Other extreme associations include supporters of Uganda's death penalty for homosexuals.

Cruz's tactics aren't mainstream. When the GOP in Congress was voting in vain to repeal Obamacare, Cruz encouraged the 'defund Obamacare' strategy, though perhaps it was rhetoric and not meant to be seriously followed as a strategy. Nonetheless, it led to a government shutdown, and Cruz got much of the credit and/or blame.

I'm not sure I can point to other tactics that might be considered extreme, so I guess Cruz's extremism is primarily in his rhetoric and somewhat in his associations. But there's plenty of that. Just Google it.

Image: wrongforminnestoa.com

Extras. Quite the catalog on Ted Cruz at Right Wing Watch. Outlawing abortion without a constitutional amendment? Totally possible. Here are those 8 outrageous quotes. A fake Cruz quote, so don't trust memes.

The fall of the Confederate flag

I wish I could say that this was a victory for civility, but it's not. People like Nikki Haley, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell aren't dropping their support for the confederate flag because they suddenly realized its unfriendly overtones, or because they suddenly decided it's wrong to offend large numbers of people.

No, it was a cost analysis. It finally cost them too much in terms of general respect to continue supporting the flag or being non-committal about it. But I wonder how they made that calculation. Are there snap polling firms that will alert a politician to such changes in the political winds? Maybe there are. Some firms probably track hashtags, and the pol's PR czar will be watching anxiously. One large polling firm, Public Policy Polling had a poll, but the report didn't break down lack of support by state, so it's hard to tell whether there was useful information there.

Maybe anxious PR czars tracked the number of clicks on stories about the confederate flag flying high over the South Carolina capitol grounds, protected from lowering unless a supermajority of legislators saw fit to debate and vote on it. I certainly clicked on that story. I read the history of the flag in South Carolina, and how pols grumpily moved it off the State House because of a boycott.

What it really symbolized

I also checked the history of the flags' use, and how it was adopted in wake of the civil rights movement. It was a fuck-you to the federal government and to northerners and to blacks and to those who supported the principle that all men are created equal, not just all white men. Fuck all those people! Give them a big middle finger by flying an old confederate battle flag, one that is clearly different from the stars-and-stripes.

So its modern popularity started as a banner for segregationists/racists. Since then it has become many more things, including a fuck-you to all authority figures (a rebel banner), a southern pride symbol, a fuck-you to diversity and political correctness advocates, a redneck pride symbol, and so on.

Hung out to dry

Last week was a very bad week for the confederate flag. First the Supreme Court decided that Texas didn't have to issue vanity license plates with the symbol on them. Then a racist shot nine black people in a church in a southern state that still proudly flies the fuck-you-I-support-segregation flag. That's a PR disaster, I guess.

Still, I'm surprised at how quickly it turned. Has it really become unsafe or unpopular to be a crypto, under-the-radar, soft racist? Can they no longer hide behind southern tradition?

Yes, that's a big surprise. Yet it really seems to have turned. Already Walmart and Ebay have stopped selling goods with the symbol. That is lightning fast--faster than I ever would have expected. I'm astounded, and I hope someday to understand how and why it happened now.

One final thought. I wrote above that I don't think civility has broken out across the country or the South. I'm afraid it's a matter of giving up an outward symbol without changing any actions or any sentiments.

To quote Nathan Gunn, speaker of the House in Mississippi: "As a Christian, I believe our state’s flag has become a point of offense that needs to be removed." Translation: We got away with this hate for a long time, but the party's over.

Image: lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com

Extras. An explanation of the societal and business trends against the confederate flag. HotAir: It's the Dems' fault for "happily tolerating" the flag for years. Is it because social liberals have reached parity with social conservatives? Uh oh--more flags to change. Complete text of the racist shooter's manifesto.

Update 6/24/15. Here's an interesting report. Maybe the PR czars were following what business leaders were tweeting. Possible boycott was definitely in the air. And does Romney deserve kudos for being the first top GOP figure to call for the removal of the confederate flag? Looks that way to me.

Burn them out

I've been thinking lately that the fighting in the Middle East seems different in a vague way. A key here is the vagueness, If I can figure out more precisely what is different, I'll might have a new, important insight that I didn't have before. So let's try.

Al-Queda, ISIS, and Boko Harum seem amazingly cruel. They blow up mosques, they blow up markets, they gun down students, the latter two kidnap girls and boast about selling women as slaves. It's barbaric, and it's definitely not in the stream of 20th century Western European behavior.

So, does it seem strange just because it's cultural different? Maybe. I'm surrounded by a liberal-tinged expectation of civility, support for the unfortunate, fair competition rather than conquest, electoral democracy, freedom of speech and religion, and all that.

Perhaps the ISIS and Boko Harum practices seem strange because they are culturally different. However, that explanation doesn't really work well. Japan and China are cultural quite different without causing the distaste and fear that ISIS/Boko Harum do. Besides, Japan, China, Europe, South American, and the US manage to get along.

What's really horrifying about is how the extent of the rejection of modern, western civility. Even the Taliban, who dynamited a precious piece of history (a huge hillside carving of Buddha), didn't go this far in their rejection of modernity. They didn't try to bring back slavery.

I seriously wonder how this philosophy can appeal to many people, and whether it has much of a future. Certainly, modern life has its bad side. We live in crowded conditions, have cheap, unhealthy entertainments, cheap, unhealthy food, and lives with less meaning and purpose than we'd like. But it seems to me that slavery and beheadings aren't the antidote to modernity. Do some people really want to go back to the cruelty of the past? For some, it seems that the answer is 'Yes.'

ISIS in particular is using cruelty to provoke a response. It hopes to provoke a war between Christians and Muslims, and has lately been ramping up the killings and abductions of Christians. Evidently they would relish all-out war, but the western countries aren't going to give it to them.

It's a better strategy (for the West) to limit their involvement, and let the cruelty of these radicals lead to their isolation. Already Jordan and Egypt are taking a stronger stand against ISIS. If only Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates weren't so slow in denouncing ISIS and seriously fighting against them. Of course, that is part of the reason ISIS, Al Queda, and Boko Harum have grown--there is too much support for any Muslim fighters, and their cruelty has (up till now) been a selling point. I certainly hope that has finally tipped. Maybe the supporters, who used to cheer the occasional bombing in Israel or the West, are finally repulsed by the amount of blood. It's about time.

Image: barenakedislam.com

Extra. A fascinating description of the religious underpinnings of ISIS.

Short: Radicals sowing civil conflict

This idea makes lots of sense: radicals like to create conflict. They thrive at times of disruption, and they often aim to create extra disruption, not just take advantage of disruption already occurring.

It's strange then that I saw only one article that applied this idea to the islamist-inspired killing rampage at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. What's the real reason for that attack?

"Al Qaeda wants to mentally colonize French Muslims, but faces a wall of disinterest. But if it can get non-Muslim French to be beastly to ethnic Muslims on the grounds that they are Muslims, it can start creating a common political identity around grievance against discrimination."

Sow a bunch of hate and violence, and then feed off of the result. This might be a successful strategy for radical groups like Al-Queda and ISIS. So far, however, the French don't seem to be taking the bait, at least not in substantial numbers. The goal of turning the French violently against their Muslim population may not be achieved.

That's a good reflection on France, that they won't meet violence with revenge against those not involved. If only that idea would spread to the Middle East, then the sectarian bombings and wars might cease.

Coming together, not splitting apart

 Image: abcnews.go.com

Short: Congressional hijinks

Wow. I don't know enough about how to stymie legislation and debate. Unfortunately, our Congressional representatives do, and they've been very hard at work making sure that there isn't embarrassing open debate on issues of national importance. Exactly how do they do it? Read this and weep.

I know that our system is far from perfect, but I hadn't realized how much worse it's gotten. I also don't know if I'll see an improvement in my lifetime.

Perhaps two major improvements in one life is too much to expect. When I was young, I got to see the end of Jim Crow. Maybe, just maybe, I'll get to see the end of this hyperpartisanship too.

I wish ...

Image: cagle.com

Death to the most hated fool in America

We needn't cry over the demise of Fred Phelps, the inventor of picketing the funerals of those who have died most tragically. His Westboro Baptist Church has been running out of steam, and now rarely even threatens to disrupt public events.*

What can I say about Rev. Phelps, who used his cult zombies to haunt families that lost sons in roadside bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan? I worry that those obnoxious multi-color signs added extra pain to the nightmares of those fathers and mothers. His punishment on Earth wasn't enough for the pain he caused, but that's true for most tyrants, even tinpot ones like Phelps.

Phelps' church was never large, with under 100 families as members, and dwindling was people wised up. Supposedly the church accepted no outside money, but I doubt that. Someone had to pay for the buses and the gas and food and those ghastly signs, even if the faithful slept on the buses and the few workers among them turned over their paychecks. Too many in the US, and possibly internationally, supported his message, and might have given money too:

"... he was one of the very few men in our day and age with the decency to confront and condemn the indecent–that is to say, vile homosexual perverts." -- conservative commenter

The church spawned hate and lawsuits, and even laws. A 2006 law prohibited protests within 300 feet of the entrances to veteran's cemeteries.  That wasn't enough, so there was a second law. Unfortunately, the church frequently sued for their rights and won judgments that helped fund them. Phelps himself was a disbarred lawyer and his daughter argued some of their cases. We may have to suffer through another generation of their form of hate, as ineffective as it was.

Image: nydailynews.com

* Oops, they still protest, but now mostly around Kansas. That's a blessing for us in other parts of the country.

Extras. This obituary has Phelps reflecting after his death. (I won't give away the punchline.) Another victim was Mr. Rogers, whose sin was wanting neighborhoods that were way too friendly for a hater like Phelps. A previous most hated here.

Unsurprising headlines: Welfare fraud by ...

'Octomom' Charged With Welfare Fraud in California

I was among the many who were horrified at the irresponsibility of this woman. I hated the publicity and accolades she got for the unnatural choice to aim for a huge number of babies.

 Image: justjared.com

Most evil: Atheists vs. Christians

I saved an article in National Review for reading post-Christmas, when I would have lots of time to mull it over. The thesis of the article has slipped from my steel-trap mind while reading the 900+ comments, but it was something about the West being post-Christian.

The real fascinating issues are debated in the comments. On one side you have the self-proclaimed Christians claiming that humanist/atheists/liberals are the scourge of humanity, and Christianity brought us the best society in the world--the American constitutional nation. According to the Christians: [my selection]

1. It's Christian belief in the sacredness of the individual that brought about the Enlightenment and our constitution.
2. Humanists are not part of the Enlightenment.
3. Humanists wrongly believe that they can perfect mankind, and they perform all sorts of nastiness in their misguided attempts to do that. That nastiness includes genocide, bureaucracy, thought control, mass killings, and purges.
4. Christians might have done these things too, but not when they were acting as true Christians. [See below for my quick responses to these assertions.]

Those contentions got an atheist really angry, and he must have written over 200 comments on the thread. I'm not sure who started the argument over whether the murders by Stalin/Hitler/Mao go into "the Atheists caused it" column or "the Christians caused it" column, but that was the largest point of contention. The atheist, named Heathen philosopher, claimed communism is an outgrowth of Christianity, as was fascism, so the huge 20th century death toll would go on the Christian column. Of course the Christians blame the atheists/humanists.

Heathen philosopher  (I'll call him the Atheist) makes the better arguments generally. He argues that the Christians aren't as clean as they claim since they have a shitload of massacres clearly in their column. He also does a decent job of refuting the contention that atheists/humanists deserve the demerits for the Stalin/Hitler massacres, since these occurred in cultures that were steeped in Christianity. He points out that Stalin and Hitler just followed from earlier models that flourished in explicitly Christian times.

The Atheist also avoids the pitfalls of labeling everything Christian as evil, noting a few merits of Christianity and demerits of some atheists too. It's not hard to avoid the pitfall of wildly exaggerating the evil of your opponent, yet so many commenters make this mistake.

The Christians put themselves in a poor position by not acknowledging the violent history of Christian countries. They also claim that all the improvements in societies since the 18th century were due to the West being steeped in Christianity, when not explicitly Christian. So the Christian side both rejects the "steepage" argument and uses it when convenient.

Who can claim the Enlightenment?

The Atheist also raises the issue of classical Greek philosophy and its contribution to the Enlightenment and our constitution. I'm a strong advocate of the Greek philosophers, particularly the Socratic method, so I don't need much convincing. The Christians don't address this issue much, perhaps because it ruins their dichotomy of the Christian vs. atheist/humanist.

The Christians try to defeat the arguments of the Atheist by imputing the worst of humanism onto him. According to them, he's a humanist so he believes the central humanist tenets that man is the measure of all things and is perfectable, rather than being fallen by nature and needing the ministrations of a merciful God. The Atheist denies believing that man is perfectable, as well he should because all evidence runs strongly against that belief.

Unfortunately, this argument doesn't settle a question that is more important than "who's the worst?" That question is "who's responsible for the Enlightenment and the constitution?" My first stab at this would be to guess that it's classical Greek philosophy, but I have to wonder what role Christianity played. The Greek philosophy seemed to need to percolate through centuries of Christianity before it bubbled up as the Enlightenment.

Utility/Futility

There is a futility in the blame game that each side plays, especially if you're only doing a body count. The blame game doesn't include any honest analysis of why the death toll was so high and how to prevent the violence. It's really about trying to score points, especially on the Christians' side. Perhaps that's a large part of the reason why their arguments fail--they aren't searching for truth, they're looking for a superficial win on points.

The big loser in the arguments, besides fair and honest discussion, is the idea that we can perfect our societies. Theocracies have a terrible record--the more they try to purge, the higher the death count goes with no real progress made to the perfect earthly society. Communist and fascist countries have major death tolls also. We in the US can't sit too high on our laurels either since there was plenty of genocide in our Indian wars, slavery, and racial and ethnic discrimination and killing, which hopefully we aren't still practicing. The hope of a society to purge its way to improvement is demonstrated as bloody awful and misguided many times over in history. Perhaps we (I) should be remembering that was we try to fight Islamic terrorists.

Image: continental-philosophy.org

Here are some of the highlights of the discussion for those who are interested but less dogged than me in reading all the comments:

• Comments on whether the Enlightenment was good or not starting here.
• Non-christian and non-religious systems of morality.
• An unexpected in-depth discussion of Russian history starting here.
• Sophie, a commenter, starts by saying all collectivism is left-wing, but eventually drops that to agree with the Atheist that humans aren't perfect.
• Communists societies were atheist and evil, therefore atheism is evil. Not so fast.
• One of the worst exchanges. The Atheist talks about being in foster care/orphan/ward of the state, and God didn't help him. An idiot replies that this young boy hated God and that's why God didn't come. Ugh.
• A complaint that there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court without any acknowledgement of the reasons. (The reason is polarization. Dem presidents have chosen reliable sympathic ethnic judges that are Jewish or Catholic. GOP presidents have chosen Catholics as a proxy for being anti-abortion.)

My reply to these pro-Christian assertions at the beginning of the post are:

1. It's Christian belief in the sacredness of the individual that brought about the Enlightenment and our constitution. Plausible.
2. Humanists are not part of the Enlightenment. Wrong. Humanists seem to be at the forefront of the Enlightenment. 
3. Humanists wrongly believe that they can perfect mankind, and they perform all sorts of nastiness in their misguided attempts to do that. That nastiness includes genocide, bureaucracy, thought control, mass killings, and purges. This is a caricature of humanists by people with a grudge.
4. Christians might have done these things too [genocide, purges], but not when they were acting as true Christians. This is a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Bad behavior in the sand box

I've been reading National Review quite a bit more than usual since the government shutdown. They have constantly appealed for donations to their free-speech fund, or some such, that they're using to pay for their defense against charges of libel.

I finally clicked through to find out what this is about:

"Mann is upset — very, very upset — with this Mark Steyn Corner post, which had the temerity to call Mann’s hockey stick 'fraudulent...'

So why threaten to sue us? I rather suspect it is because the Steyn post was savagely witty and stung poor Michael."

One more click, and I'm finally reading the offending column:

"Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science...

Graham Spanier, the Penn State president forced to resign over Sandusky, was the same cove who investigated Mann. And, as with Sandusky and Paterno, the college declined to find one of its star names guilty of any wrongdoing."

That first sentence was a quote from elsewhere, but it was quoted approvingly. The second was penned by Mark Steyn. Somehow I don't think the word 'fraudulent' is the actual point of contention.

I've heard of Mark Steyn before but never read much. What I've seen recently shows that he loves to make comparisons to the most vile analogues he can find. Here he compares the gay pressure group involved in the Duck Dynasty fiasco to those who have driven Christians out the Middle East. And also to the Soviet commissar in charge of politicizing chess (what??), who was eventually executed.

After reading this column and being frustrated that National Review wasn't forthcoming about why they're in this trouble, I'm unable to feel upset that the National Review is being sued. Part of me is downright happy that such uncivil writing has repercussions.

Image titled "Mark Steyn and soul" -- Hits the mark

Image: sadlyno.com

Update 1/18/14. This comment prodded to find out what was happening now with Mark Steyn (gag) and the legal suit. It seems that Mark Steyn's work hasn't appeared in National Review for several weeks and his lawyers have dropped him. This writer blames one or both of these developments on a relatively mild post (for Steyn). Steyn slams the previous judge in the case but at least doesn't compare her to a group that committed a large number of murders. So sad that his fans are missing their regular doses of vitriol.

The Usurpers: Bill Clinton

I published a thesis that many conservatives just can't stand for a Democrat (or any Democrat to the left of George Wallace) to be elected to the presidency. This is a problem because the constitution isn't set up to bar Democrats, in fact far from it.

From my memory and observation of political history, this irrational hatred of Dem presidents started with Clinton. But why him? There isn't going to be a scientific answer, so you can agree or disagree with my speculation, and that's fine because there won't ever be proof either way.

 Coming up: Speculation

Here's what I think: Clinton was treated this way because he was seen as a traitor or a turncoat. He was born into lower-class Southern society. So far, it's good, but then he went to Yale (worrisome), and married a northern liberal (huge red flag). I don't think the draft-dodging and marijuana non-inhaling really mattered because both were  common among the campus conservatives too. So Hillary was the first problem.

Then was the reform of the military policy to hunt and discharge homosexuals (Don't Ask, Don't Tell). Clinton showed he was going to be gay-friendly. He was already seen as black-friendly. The health care reform commission showed more willingness to pursue a liberal agenda.

This was deeply dangerous to the GOP, because if he was successful in reforming our awful healthcare system, he could earn for the Democrats the loyalty of a lot of Americans for another generation, just as FDR had done with the New Deal and just as the Great Society had. The Republicans were overwhelmingly successful with their messaging, and Clinton was stopped flat. However, the GOP didn't let up after this victory, They kept on for the rest of his two terms as President and continued smearing Hillary (as a senator) after that.

Why did the attacks continue unabated? It wasn't because he was trying to enact a liberal agenda because there wasn't a let-up during or after welfare reform. It didn't let up when Bill was at the end of his second term. So why?

Speculation and Pop Psychoanalysis

The only reason I can think of is that certain groups think they should have electoral hegemony, they were frustrated in this desire, and their revenge was endless attacks.

Which groups might have developed this sense of ownership? Groups that have had many decades of unbroken power.Two groups fit this description: southern conservative whites and northern liberals, and perhaps add in western and mid-western conservatives.

So now we are basically caught in the crossfire between two entitled political groups: southern/western conservatives and northern liberals. They are both conditioned to getting what they want, they throw the hugest tantrums, pull non-stop dirty tricks, and may blow up the political system if they don't get what they want. The Dems have been tamed a little, by none other than the Clintons, but no one has tamed those entitled conservatives.

I hope for a repudiation to both groups, but that didn't happen in '06 or '08, or '10. It doesn't look likely to happen in '12. I hope this country isn't stuck in an either/or rut, where the choice is crappy conservatives or crappy liberals. I don't know when I'll give up hope for some sanity and moderation. Not yet, but it's getting closer. God help us all.

Graphic: freerepublic.com

Extras: Conservatives explain (or rationalize) why they hated Clinton. An idiosyncratic scorecard of presidents.