Pragmatic politics focused on the public interest for those uncomfortable with America's two-party system and its way of doing politics. Considering the interface of politics with psychology, cognitive biology, social behavior, morality and history.
Etiquette
DP Etiquette
First rule: Don't be a jackass. Most people are good.
Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, people have sought information to quell fear. Over the last five months, the advice given by “experts” has fluctuated wildly, despite having been given with seemingly well-informed confidence.
By now, I think we all realize that it’s all baloney, bunk, BS. No one really knows, “Is it safe for kids to go back to school?” “Can people contract COVID-19 twice?” “Will a vaccine be ready by the end of the year?” “Will this pandemic ever end?” But when the public demands answers, experts must deliver.
In the military community, baloney is not generally tolerated. We respect clear communication, pinpoint accuracy and straight talk. However, months of widespread pontificating about the pandemic has shown that BSing actually requires skill and chutzpah.
Anyone who has ever been to a golf course has undoubtedly been in the midst of a talented BSer. Or two. Or twenty-seven.
Ex: “Now, unless you want to chili dip that thing into the frog hair and risk army-putting another triple bogey, you oughta milk the grip and let the big dog eat,” Chaz quips between swigs of Bloody Mary, leaning heavily on his Cobra driver after duffing two balls into the pond.
The Golf BSer may not be good at the sport, but his commitment to the craft of baloney-slinging is undeniable. Imagine the hours spent perusing Golf Digest in the proctologist’s waiting room to memorize golf terminology? The thousands spent on trendy golf equipment and over-priced, insignia-embroidered, moisture-wicking golf apparel to overcompensate for his lack of skills? The sunburns he endures while secretly tanning in his backyard wearing his golf glove, so he can sport a characteristic golfer’s pale left hand? Now that’s dedication.
Of course, lawyers, politicians, car salesmen, stockbrokers and their ilk are branded, sometimes unfairly, as BSers, because they are paid to have all the answers whether they do or not.
Ex: “You see, George, your mutual funds tanked last quarter due to the unprecedented negative rumors of predicted speculations, so I’d be inclined to take the long view here,” a financial advisor might hedge to keep his client confused enough to continue forking over his life savings.
But this questionable style of communication is not reserved for fast-talking professions alone. Even the well-intentioned must sometimes BS. Unable to say, “I don’t know” to her incessantly curious first grade students, my mother mastered the skill of bluffing as a first grade teacher, making stuff up on the fly to answer questions like, “Why is the ocean blue?” and “Why does Mrs. Fletcher have a mustache?”
Graduate students must also maintain their reputation for knowing everything there is to know about everything. Take a stroll through any campus quad across this nation, and you will see them with their longish hair, graded term papers in hand, leaning against ivy covered walls, arguing over whether or not the international relations theory of holistic constructivism is a useful tool in analyzing the efficacy of post-war US foreign policy.
And all those people in Starbucks deserve some recognition here, too, from the employee with the nose piercing who steams the non-fat milk for your double espresso macchiato, to the metrosexual with the European scarf who ordered a chai tea, to the yoga-pant wearing mom in her SUV yelling into the drive-thru window. Essentially, anyone who has uttered the word “Vente” or referred to something with 20 grams of sugar as “skinny” is a card-carrying BSer, whether she likes it or not.
Surprisingly enough, even parents are masterful BSers. Think about it – what does Dad say when his six-year-old daughter looks adoringly into his eyes and asks, “Daddy, where do babies come from?” And what baloney must Mom come up with to explain what happened to Gus the Guppy who was last seen napping on the bottom of the tank?
Let’s face it – we are a nation of baloney-slingers, and it’s about time we wake up and smell the Grande iced latte. Let’s finally give BSing the respect it deserves!
And if you believed that, I’ve got some really nice swampland in Florida to sell you.
US supreme court upholds state limits on ballot counting based
on no rational basis or evidence
“This is a spiritual battle we are in. This is good versus evil. We have to do everything we can to win.” -- Radical right GOP activist Bill Walton speaking at a Council for National Policy meeting in August 2020; Walton is CNP’s executive committee president
“Be not afraid of the accusations that you’re a voter suppressor, you’re a racist and so forth.” -- Radical right GOP activist J. Christian Adams speaking to GOP elites at the CNP strategy meeting in 2020
For reasons completely unclear to me, the radical right is actually starting to publicly state why it wants an authoritarian regime with minimal or no input from voters. This is as frightening as anything I can recall from the president, the GOP or wealthy supporters since January 2017.
It is not just a matter of raw, blind lust for power by the president, GOP elites and major wealthy supporters. It is also a matter of the rise of a radical ideology that has been weaponized by closed minded, self-righteous morality and the unquestionable certainty that such morality and mindset leads to.
Voter suppression - the election is illegitimate if Trump wins
The Rachael Maddow broadcast last night included a segment on the status of voting. Based on that and reporting elsewhere, several points jumped right out. First, 29 states require that mail-in ballots be received by Nov. 3 at the time the polls close. Other states set various times after Nov. 3 for a ballot to be received and counted. Thus, every single ballot that arrives on Nov. 4 or later will not be counted.
Second, the Trump administration has intentionally subverted US postal service, and because of that, as of yesterday it is too late to send in ballots by mail. One state posted a notice to voters warning them not to send their ballots by mail because they would not be received in time to count.
Third, various conservative GOP states have limited the time and/or means for voters to vote early. In Texas, without explanation or warning, the republican governor ordered the number of ballot drop sites to be limited to one per county, a ludicrous act clearly intended to suppress as many votes as possible. As discussed here, a 2013 conservative supreme court decision gutted enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in conservative states with a record of voter suppression. Since then, the affected states closed 1,688 polling places, making it harder for African Americans to vote.
In an MSNBC segment by Chris Hayes yesterday, he highlighted a very recent supreme court decision authored by the radical right justice Brett Kavanaugh that upheld state power to not count ballots that cannot all be counted by Nov. 3. Compounding that severe and unjustifiable limit on ballot counting, is a law in some states that ban preparation of mail-in ballots for counting before Nov. 3. Mail-in ballot counting requires several steps including time consuming removing of the ballots from their envelopes and checking to verify voter signatures. This is happening in the key battleground states of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
Kavanaugh's nonsense justification for such state laws is a transparent voter suppression effort. In his opinion, he explained it like this: “States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election.” Kavanaugh cited no evidence that of any widespread impropriety in any state counting ballots after election day that indicates any rational basis for any chaos or suspicions. The Kavanaugh ‘rationale’ is nonsense built on crackpot conspiracy theory vapor, not any tangible evidence.
That same Hayes segment also pointed out this is a complete reversal of Kavanaugh's position on counting ballots after election day. A commentator observed that “before Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the position he took in that opinion, lawyer Brett Kavanaugh stood in court and argued that votes could be added to the tally as late as Thanksgiving.” That even applied to ballots that had no postmark at all and could thus have been sent after the time limits for main-in ballots. Lawyer Kavanaugh was arguing for republican Bush and against Gore in the 2000 election. Now justice Kavanaugh argues for Trump and against Biden in the 2020 election. The supreme court has fallen to the radical right and its ideology.
Conclusion: Based on the evidence so far on how some GOP-controlled states are moving to suppress votes, it is reasonable to believe that (i) millions of votes, maybe 10-15 million, will be suppressed by combined GOP suppression efforts in democratic and minority areas of GOP-controlled states, and (ii) evidence of this (the number of uncounted ballots) will also be suppressed, denied or destroyed. From that, one can reasonably conclude that (i) if the president is re-elected, he will be an illegitimate president once again, and (ii) the GOP leadership and wealthy supporters are now full-blown anti-democratic and authoritarian.
America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy --
democracy is mob rule
This is what explains the overt GOP push to suppress as many votes as they can. This is the ideology that underlies and justifies massive voter suppression. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) stated that the US is not a democracy and the word democracy does not appear in the US constitution.
“‘We’re not a democracy,’wrote Mr. Lee, 49, who is in isolation after testing positive for the coronavirus last week.
‘The word ‘democracy’ appears nowhere in the Constitution, perhaps because our form of government is not a democracy. That is a good thing. It’s a constitutional republic. To me it matters. It should matter to anyone who worries about the excessive accumulation of power in the hands of the few. Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that. .... Government is the official use of coercive force — nothing more and nothing less. The Constitution protects us by limiting the use of government force.’
There it is. Right out in the open. America is not a democracy, and according to Mr. Lee, democrats are ‘too dangerous to rule’. In view of that, one can see why the radical right views voting by democrats and minorities as dangerous, unconstitutional mob rule.
What Lee is completely oblivious to is the fact that while he complains about widespread voting, which distributes at least a little power to voters, he claims to fear concentrated power. At present, the GOP fighting tooth and claw to concentrate power in the radical right minority, while disempowering the majority by disenfranchisement. In essence, the radical right openly accuses the left of authoritarianism, while it is clearly authoritarian.
I have argued as clearly and directly as I can that the radical right is authoritarian and profoundly anti-government, anti-democracy and anti-civil liberties. Mr. Lee’s comments now complete the picture and the ideological pieces fall into place. As I have argued before, this anti-government effort has been going on at least since the 1954 supreme court Brown v. Board of Education decision that ordered public school desegregation. That decision enraged the radical right and arguably created it as a cohesive political movement that is now in power in the US.
A last point merits comment. Mr. Lee's comments, “Democracy isn’t the objective; liberty, peace, and prosperity are. We want the human condition to flourish. Rank democracy can thwart that”, seem to contradict my assertion that the radical right wants liberty. How can the radicals want liberty, but oppose civil liberties, e.g., voting rights, school desegregation, public schools, discrimination protections, etc., at the same time? The conflict is resolved by understanding that Lee’s conception of liberty means freedom of people to operate in unregulated, free markets. That does not include any right to vote or enjoy the protection of civil liberties. Autocrats and/or an imperial president will have the concentrated, unopposable power to insure the radical right’s vision of what liberty, peace, and prosperity are, whether citizens want it or accept it or not.
The stakes in this election are even higher than I understood as of yesterday morning. By last night, new evidence and analysis led to a more complete level of comprehension of the radical right. That is just what sometimes happens when one is pragmatic, rationalist and Bayesian when it comes to evidence and reasoning.
Questions:
What is the real authoritarian political force here, the radical right GOP and its ideology or the democratic party and its ideologies?
Who has been inclusive, the RINO-hunted-to-extinction GOP or the huge tent democratic party?
Does unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism, with its sole moral value of profit above all else, insure protection of civil liberties and the rule of law better than regulation and independent law enforcement and courts?
What is harder to corrupt and capture, state governments with a state voice or a much larger central government with competing state voices?
Ontario Sen. Lynn Beyak — who has been suspended twice from the Senate over her comments about the Indigenous residential school system — donated to the Republican National Committee in May despite a U.S. election law forbidding campaign contributions by foreign nationals.
According to Federal Elections Commission records, Beyak donated $300 to U.S. President Donald Trump's party while reporting a home in Dryden, N.Y. as her home residence and supplying a postal code from that area.
Beyak lives in Dryden, Ont., in the province's northwest.
Under the U.S. Federal Election Campaign Act and commission regulations, foreigners are prohibited from making any contributions in connection with any federal, state or local elections in the United States.
The law also prohibits any contribution or donation to any committee or organization of any national, state, district or local political party.
Those who knowingly and willfully engage in these activities may face an FEC enforcement action, criminal prosecution, or both, according to the commission.
While barred from making donations, foreign nationals can volunteer for a U.S. candidate or political committee as long as they're not being compensated by anyone.
Sen. Lynn Beyak donated $300 to the Republican National Committee in May 2020, according to a Federal Election Commission donation report. A staffer for Beyak told VICE News the donation was made in error. (Federal Election Commission)
In making her contribution, Beyak listed her occupation as "retired," although, at the time, she was still a member of the Red Chamber.
In a statement to that news outlet, Beyak's office confirmed that the senator did make a contribution but said the money was sent in "error."
VICE reports that after it made inquiries about the donation, Beyak's office said the money would be paid back; a staffer said that the money was "being returned in its entirety, simply because it was erroneous."
Beyak's office did not immediately respond to CBC's request for comment and clarification on whether Beyak, a former real estate agent, holds dual Canada-U.S. citizenship.
In February 2020, Beyak was suspended by her colleagues for the remainder of the parliamentary session after she failed to complete the anti-racism training she was directed to undergo the last time she was temporarily kicked out of the upper house for posting racist letters to her taxpayer-funded website.
The letters in question were sent to Beyak after CBC News reported on comments she made about the residential school system in March 2017.
Beyak praised the "well-intentioned" instructors at these schools and chastised the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for not "focusing on the good" coming out of these institutions.
Beyak's suspension ended when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament.
Beyak is again collecting her full salary — $157,600 a year — and has access to Senate resources.
The Senate ethics committee report recommending a vote on reinstating her to the chamber — after she completed her anti-racism education and issued a formal statement of apology — died on the order paper over the summer.
Beyak, who was appointed by former prime minister Stephen Harper, was kicked out of the Conservative caucus in January 2018.
She subsequently backed People's Party Leader Maxime Bernier in the last election campaign.
The New York Times interviewed some eligible citizens who will not vote in 2020. The main reasons boil down to (i) distrust in both parties and politics, and (ii) a wish to avoid the anger and nasty tone of it all. The latter group have succumbed to the intentional goal of the radical right to get as many potential voters to not vote as they can by any means possible. By making politics unpleasant, the radical right has probably driven millions of voters out of politics entirely. That constitutes a huge political win for the right because most of these people would probably vote democratic if they weren't so alienated. The NYT writes:
"But Ms. Fedrick, who works two jobs, at a hotel and at a department store, does not trust either of the two main political parties, because nothing in her 31 years of life has led her to believe that she could. She says they abandon voters like “a bad mom or dad who promises to come and see you, and I’m sitting outside with my bags packed and they never show up.”
That is why Ms. Fedrick does not regret her decision in 2016 to skip the voting booth. In fact, she plans to repeat it this year — something that she and a friend have started to hide from people they know.
“We said we’re just going to lie, like, ‘Oh yeah, I voted,’” she said. “I don’t feel like getting crucified for what I think.”
An analysis of Census Bureau survey data from the 2016 election shows a deep class divide: Americans who did not vote were more likely to be poor, less likely to have a college degree, and more likely to be a single parent than the people who voted. They were also less likely to be in the labor force.
But with razor-thin margins in a number of states last time, nonvoters have taken on outsize importance: Even a small victory in converting some of them may tip the scales.
They [non-voters] expressed a profound distrust of politics and doubted their vote would have an effect. They felt a sense of foreboding about the country and saw politics as one of the main forces doing the threatening. Many were not particularly partisan, and said they shrank from people who were.
“I try to avoid it because it gets angry and nasty,” said Susan Miller, 42, a waitress at Compton’s Pancake House in Stroudsburg, who said she had voted once in her life, for Barack Obama in 2008.
Like many people interviewed for this article, Ms. Miller was scrambling to pay rent and buy groceries. Monroe County’s unemployment rate stood at around 13 percent in August, as the coronavirus pandemic bit into the county’s tourism industry. Her tips have fallen by half and she is now working for Instacart to make up the difference. Two close relatives have died of Covid-19. “Politics? It’s the least of my worries. I’m just trying to make it through,” she said.
Marriage mattered, too: Just 45 percent of single women who had children and were eligible to vote cast ballots compared with 70 percent of married mothers.
Jennifer Martin, 46, a single mother waiting in line in her car at the Pleasant Valley Ecumenical Network food pantry in Sciota, Pa., said the last time she voted she was in her 20s. Politics, she said, has little relevance to her life. The two political parties seemed about the same. “I work at a day care where they pay their workers nothing,” she said. “That’s why I have to come to places like this to feed my family.” Might the election change things? “I’m not interested in it,” she said.
Ms. Sanchez is part of a demographic that also had low turnout in 2016: American-born Hispanics. She said that in 2008 she swallowed her cynicism and cast the first vote in her life, for Mr. Obama. “I had to just close my eyes and say, ‘If this is fake, I don’t care. I want to be part of this.’” But she did not vote for him again. Politicians are noisy, but ultimately of no use. “They rent space in my brain and they frustrate me, but in the end, they do what they want anyway,” she said."
That speaks for itself. These people have lost trust, hope and/or just want to avoid the anger and nastiness. Some fear even voicing their opinions because they do not want to lose friendships. They just want to live their lives as they have been. Sure, most of them appear to want their lives to be better, but they no longer believe that will happen.
