NOW we know the real reason the Democrats lost so badly.................

 Though the following story is dated it gives us some insight on how EVIL the GOVERNMENT is............

Here’s why Trump’s allies are talking about a squirrel right now

Peanut the squirrel was famous on social media before New York authorities euthanized him. Now, many Trump allies want his death to be infamous.

The final few nauseating days before a deadlocked election are critical. They mark the moment when many undecided voters finally put the proverbial licked finger in the wind to assess the vibes—if not necessarily all the policy positions—and break one way or the other. Anyone doing so at the moment, however, may be surprised to discover that the atmosphere on one side has gotten a little, well, nutty. That’s right: Donald Trump’s campaign, and its biggest supporters, are going all in on . . . Peanut the squirrel.

For the many understandably uninitiated, Peanut the squirrel was a social media-famous pet who is unfortunately no longer with us. A man named Mark Longo took him in seven years ago, after the animal’s mother was hit by a car in New York City, and he’s kept Peanut ever since in an animal sanctuary in the hamlet of Pine City, near the Pennsylvania border. In the years since, Peanut has amassed followings in the many thousands on Instagram and TikTok, where he could often be found eating adorably, or wearing jaunty little squirrel ensembles.

On October 30, New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) took the squirrel, along with a raccoon named Fred, apparently acting on complaints that they were being kept illegally, possibly posing a health hazard. (According to state law, New Yorkers are required to be licensed in order to care for such critters.) During the ensuing chaos of the DEC coming to check on the animals, Peanut reportedly bit someone assisting in the investigation. Both he and Fred were subsequently euthanized, in order to test the pair for rabies.

While it certainly tracks that a grieving pet owner might channel his emotions into an external villain, it seems like quite a stretch for anyone in a position of power and influence to attempt the same thing on a mass scale, for the entire electorate.

Try telling that to the world’s richest man, however.

Elon Musk’s pinned tweet at the time of this writing warns his 203 million followers on X that, “If they will raid a house for a squirrel, they’re sure as shit going to come after you.” It’s a message that should concern roughly zero people who are not currently housing squirrels without a proper license, and yet it is one of at least 20 similar messages Musk has posted since Friday.

The full-tilt sensationalizing isn’t restricted to Musk, of course. Far from it. According to the New York Post, JD Vance says Donald Trump is “fired up” over Peanut, while Fox News has both fanned the flames and later posted about the squirrel setting off a “social media firestorm.” Meanwhile, the official X account of the House’ of the ‘s Judiciary Committee, on the Republican side, posted “Justice for Peanut” on Saturday evening—as though this were both an appropriate message to broadcast, and one that everyone reading would intuitively understand.

https://www.fastcompany.com/91222451/heres-why-trump-allies-are-talking-about-peanut-the-squirrel-right-now

Germaine's Quest update: Bluesky, pragmatic rationalism and the communication problem

I have a real problem. Today I saw an article that said that lots of Trump opponents are leaving X for Bluesky. I immediately researched and found that Bluesky, which is still puny compared to X and Facebook, allows anonymity. I see that as an opportunity. I signed up under the moniker Germaine2 because Germaine was taken. 

That's me on Bluesky, no posts yet

Not sure what to do next, but I'll figure it out

What I wanted to do was start a channel, or whatever it is called there, focused on rational politics based on pragmatic pragmatism. That led me to Perplexity and a long series of questions about how to do that, what to emphasize and whether pragmatic rationalism even makes a lick of sense. What I got back was a huge mess of complexity, but mostly encouraging.

To help me, the input data I fed to Perplexity was my incredibly long, August 2015 post on self-criticisms of pragmatic rationality and my responses thereto: Objective politics: Criticisms and responses - https://dispol.blogspot.com/2015/08/objective-politics-criticisms-and.html

The answer I got back from Perplexity was that in essence what I wanted to do to describe pragmatic rationalism is a fool's errand because (unless I misunderstand, which I might) Bluesky posts have a 300 word limit: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/how-can-a-new-person-on-bluesk-V8b9vMAsQYihRUMm5zBTDw

The Q&A following my initial Q to Perplexity is massive. Probably longer than my 2015 self-criticism and answer blog post. But, being a persistent cuss, I don't care that what I want to do will necessarily be imperfect. I want to do it in defense of secular democracy, civility, civil liberties, the rule of law and transparent, honest, competent government.

I'll re-engage with this problem tomorrow. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong side of the tree, but maybe not. 

Regardless, I am looking for new ways to defend America from impending tyranny and kleptocracy, Maybe this is one.

And there is your update for the day.

New legal reasoning: The duality of it -- guns are safety devices too

Federal Trump trial court judge Stephen McGlynn (SD Illinois) offers a new and improved rationale for getting rid of an Illinois gun safety law regarding the semi-automatic AR-15 assault rifle, the weapon of choice for mass murderers at schools, public gatherings and whatnot. Judge McGlynn writes in his superbly-reasoned 168 page cannon blast:

Why are there small lifeboats on gigantic steel ocean liners? Why do we spend thousands equipping our vehicles with airbags? Why do we wear seatbelts and place our infants in safety seats? Why do we build storm shelters under our homes? Why do we install ground-fault interrupter outlets by sinks and bathtubs? Why do we get painful inoculations? Why do we voluntarily undergo sickening chemotherapy?

And why do we protect ourselves with firearms?

Too often, the perils we face are forced upon us by other people. By people who are negligent, reckless, insane, impaired, or evil. Sometimes it is the proverbial lone wolf; sometimes, it is the whole wolf pack. Truly, life comes at you quickly.

And who comes to our aid in times of peril? Sometimes, it is the police or first responders; other times it is healthcare professionals; and sometimes it is family, friends, or neighbors. Sometimes, it is no one.

Above The Law comments on this splotch of brilliant, tour de force legal gobbledygook:

This is how he began a 168-page opinion. He sat down and thought, “I’m going to come up with some brilliant analogies!” and then decided to OPEN the opinion with this. Which, in some ways, you’ve got to appreciate because 168 pages is a lot and it’s nice that he broadcast that this wouldn’t amount to a work of serious legal thought right off the top.

Why are there small lifeboats in gigantic steel ocean liners? Because sometimes they sink. But — and I can’t stress this part enough — when the cruise ship isn’t sinking, no one uses lifeboats to assassinate kindergartners.

Hm, it is true that no one uses lifeboats to assassinate kindergartners. They have a point there. But the judge is also right, the AR-15 is a fine safety device for use in imminent lethal threat emergencies when there is no help around, as we have all personally experienced many times. He sees the duality here, guns can be used as safety devices as well as mass murder devices.

That is blistering, over-the-horizon vision!

Hm, I must live a sheltered life. I've never been seriously threatened with a lethal weapon. Just what does being in an imminent lethal threat emergency feel like? Probably very scary.

You know what else is very scary? Judge McGlynn being nominated to the USSC after Sonia Sotomayor has to be replaced because her frail health conks out, just like Ruth Bader Ginsberg did.

Performance updates

The bad news is coming fast and furious. It's like drinking out of a fire hose.

All I can do is touch on some of the dictatorship nastiness to come.

Trump draft executive order would set up board to oust generals en masse: Report

(my prediction that DJT would at least try to get the US military to flip from allegiance to the Constitution to allegiance to the dictator seems to be true)

President-elect’s son also appears to mock Volodymyr Zelensky amid speculation Ukraine could lose war funding

Trump prepares to withdraw from Paris climate agreement, NYT reports (another prediction seems to be comfortably on track)

Trump taps former New York congressman Lee Zeldin as EPA chief -- Zeldin lacks an extensive background in environmental policy and will be tasked with rolling back regulations. “It is an honor to join President Trump’s Cabinet as EPA Administrator,” Zeldin posted on X on Monday. “We will restore US energy dominance, revitalize our auto industry to bring back American jobs, and make the US the global leader of AI. We will do so while protecting access to clean air and water.” (yup, I'm still on track)

Republicans Win Control of House, Cementing a G.O.P. Trifecta Under Trump -- The party protected vulnerable incumbents and picked off Democrats in competitive districts, handing the president-elect a unified Congress to enact his agenda. (still good)

House Ethics Panel Was Set to Vote to Release Report Critical of Matt Gaetz -- Now, with Mr. Gaetz’s departure from Congress, the committee no longer has jurisdiction to investigate him. It was not immediately clear whether it would still release its findings. Tom Rust, the chief counsel and staff director for the panel, declined to comment. ///// Gaetz resigned days before ethics investigation report was expected -- The former congressman stepped down after Trump named him as his pick for attorney genera (yup, the rule of law and ethics are nicely crumbling into dust as predicted)

For legal disputes, Elon Musk’s X picked a venue far from Texas HQ -- By changing his company’s terms of service, Elon Musk has ensured that lawsuits against X will be heard in courthouses that are a hub for conservative judges (what was that prediction? .... oh yeah: Worker and consumer protections will significantly decrease as power flows to corporations -- still on track)

Putin Gives Trump Massive Middle Finger, Days After Warning on Ukraine -- The Russian leader is making it clear that Donald Trump has zero power to stop Russia’s deadly war on Ukraine (the prediction was that there will be mass slaughter in the Ukraine (and Gaza), but I didn't expect it to come like this, I expected DJT and Putin to secretly agree to gut the Ukraine and force a "peace treaty" on it -- this may just be political theater to hide that plan)

Trump floats seeking third term in joke to House Republicans -- “I suspect I won’t be running again, unless you do something,” Trump said, according to pool reports and audio shared with The Hill. “Unless you say, ‘He’s so good, we have to just figure it out.’” (he's not joking)

 

Updated and revised predictions

Welp ladies & germs, with DJT's selection of sex pervert Matt Gaetz as attorney general, I hereby officially claim that most of my 11/6/24 predictions of things to come by 11/1/26 will be mostly true. That is despite the wuss squeaks of "concern" from some powerless, gutless Republican politicians in congress and maybe elsewhere. Trump really is going to burn the whole damned thing down. I have seen enough. I was right.

Looking forward

We can reasonably estimate the trade DJT made that led to his Gaetz pick. Actually I argue that we really know. Gaetz gets off the hook in return for Trump being impervious to prosecution for any and all crimes, which Gaetz will say are official acts for which a sitting president is immune. That is now the definitive end of the rule of law and the beginning of the rule of the thug.

Q: I need a citation to Trump saying that he respected Eric Holder for protecting Obama from prosecution.

A: President Donald Trump expressed his respect for former Attorney General Eric Holder's protection of President Barack Obama in an interview with The New York Times published on December 28, 2017. Trump stated, "I don't want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder protected President Obama. Totally protected him," and added, "When you look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect for that, I'll be honest."

This comment was made in the context of Trump's frustration with his own Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, who had recused himself from the Russia investigation. Trump contrasted Sessions' actions with Holder's, suggesting that he admired Holder's loyalty to Obama.

You know, for those who still claim our democracy will stand, I think you are wrong. But on the happy side, I hope you are right. 

When the public backlash comes, it it probably be too little and too late. The next chapter of America is now, more likely than not, predicated on a major social backlash. I just hope the backlash does not take the form of a civil war. 

More predictions

Predictions added to my 11/6/24 batch:

1. Federal data collection functions will be (i) stopped entirely, or (ii) almost completely kept from the public, and spun into lies when the data is inconvenient. (That was a Ronald Reagan tactic -- I think he invented it)

2. The degree of neutering and silencing of the mainstream will be almost complete because the capitalist billionaires and capitalist corporations who own news media will be cowed into towing the line in Trump's deeply corrupt authoritarian sphere.

3. Universities and colleges will be forced by threat of withholding federal funding into silence about teaching real history, global warming science and whatever else rubs radical right authoritarianism the wrong way.

4. The independence of the Federal Reserve will be neutered and weaponized.

5. Consolidation of federal executive, legislative and judicial power with radical right authoritarianism sufficient to establish single-party rule in the US. 

6. MAGA opponents will be attacked, e.g., by forcing the IRS to investigate political opposition, and by DJT's claim he will use his power to shut them down.

7. Whatever else I am unable to conjure right now. (Update 11/14/24: I forgot, the CFPB and NLRB will be mostly neutered so that consumer and worker protections can be eroded without much or any government pushback) 

Shall we chat?

Q: Is Germie off his nut or uncomfortably maybe mostly right? 

How authoritarian radical right Federalist Society elites see themselves

A great place to look at the rise of radical right American authoritarianism is Yale. That is where the shockingly powerful Federalist Society (FS) was founded and spreads its radical right authoritarian ideology from. A Yale Daily News article makes it clear that members of the FS see themselves as patriotic conservatives or libertarians, not radical right authoritarians:

How the Federalist Society shaped America’s judiciary

The Federalist Society, a conservative organization founded at Yale Law School, built a pipeline between law schools and top judgeships and influenced the selection of the past three Supreme Court justices

When former President Donald Trump began the review process for nominating a Supreme Court justice in 2017, Leonard Leo — the former vice president and current co-chairman of the Federalist Society — worked with the Trump administration and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee to propose potential candidates.

Under Leo’s guidance in 2018, Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh ’87 LAW ’90, who has been connected with the Federalist Society for at least 24 years. In 2017 and 2020, Leo’s creation of a list of potential Supreme Court nominees for Trump helped to advise the appointment of two other Federalist Society affiliates, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.

By 2024, six of the nine Supreme Court justices considered themselves members or affiliates of the Federalist Society — the culmination of a longstanding pipeline connecting members of Federalist Society chapters at America’s top law schools to high-level judgeships and political offices.

The Federalist Society, a debating organization that hosts political events and acts as a network for conservative and libertarian students and professionals, was founded at Yale Law School in 1982 by three Yale alumni: Steven Calabresi ’80 LAW ’83, David McIntosh ’80 and Lee Liberman Otis ’79. Today, the Society is represented at all 204 ABA-accredited law schools in the country, has established communities of affiliated lawyers in 60 cities and has over 70,000 members.

The Federalist Society has since defined itself as a “group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order,” according to its website. According to its three founders, the Federalist Society’s original goal was to provide a space on law school campuses for debating ideas across the political spectrum.

With six of the nine current Supreme Court justices serving as members or affiliates of the Federalist Society — Clarence Thomas LAW ’74, Samuel Alito LAW ’75, John Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch — the group’s impact on the national judiciary is notably more significant than its founders anticipated.  

In the past, the Federalist Society was committed to the three elements of modern legal conservatism: textualism in statutory interpretation, originalism in constitutional interpretation and judicial restraint. .... However, [politically liberal, Harvard law professor Noah Feldman] sees this shared interpretation as being at risk. He cited examples of how justices associated with the society, like Alito and Gorsuch, have begun to deviate from textualism, contrary to the society’s stated goals.  

According to Feldman, should Trump win the 2024 election, Trump’s close ties to the Federalist Society’s network would ensure that any judge appointments within the next four years are members of the tight-knit society.

Two judges — Thomas, 72, and Alito, 74 — are approaching the age of retirement, and politicians expect a Supreme Court vacancy to open during the upcoming 60th presidency. 

Alongside the presidential election, 305 appellate court seats are on the ballot in 2024, including 69 state supreme court seats this November. 32 of the candidates running for state supreme court positions are affiliated with the Federalist Society.  (emphases added)

The power of the FS is undeniable. But what evidence is there that radical right authoritarianism is dominant over conservatism and libertarianism? In my opinion there is a plenty of evidence to support that opinion. So much so that it arguably amounts to a fact, not mere opinion. And of course, there are some Federalist Society members who really are old-fashioned conservatives or libertarians, but they are now on the fringes.

The open question now is whether Trump will keep taking FS picks, some of whom were ranked as unqualified by the American Bar Association, or will he ignore the FS off and pick judges purely on the basis of loyalty to him and their corruptibility.

Regardless, under DJT we can reasonably expect the federal judiciary to be significantly more radical right authoritarian and noticeably more corrupt than it already is. The rule if law, such as it is now, will be significantly or largely converted to the rule of Trump. Arguably, that has already happened with the two 2024 USSC decisions to (i) immunize Trump against crimes committed while in office, and (ii) legalize bribery of federal politicians and judges. 

Heck, DJT could appoint another USSC judge if Sonia Sotomayor, in her poor health, pulls a Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and has to be replaced. That would give Republican authoritarian judges an overwhelming 7-2 majority.